Mark Sanchez at 13th?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

BHA, that could be. My memory could be failing me in terms of who it was. I'll trust you that it was Thomas.

My point remains unchanged, however. Whether it was Thomas or Kelly, we successfully ignored a guy we really liked. And we have not been "ignoring" Sanchez.

Zorn, Snyder, Cerrato, and Campbell flew out to wherever the heck Kelly was and Campbell threw him balls. The skins made no secret about the fact they wanted Kelly - they just had no intention of taking him in the 1st round. Going into the draft last year, I was pretty confident we'd do our best to draft Kelly and we did. It wasnt a surprise to anyone. Drafting Davis was a shocker, and drafting Kelly [i]after getting Thomas[/i/] was pretty surprising at that point, but the skins were just as outwardly vocal about their love for Kelly as they are with Sanchez now.

If we learned one thing from Cerrato last year its that his philosophy is to:

1) Trade down if possible
2) Take the BPA reguarldless of need (drafting TE Fred Davis and then drafting Kelly after alraedy landing Thomas).

This year, i beleive Cerrato wants to do the same: Trade down with the goal of selecting a certain player at a position of need he covets without reaching.

Last year, we traded down with the goal of selecting Merling with our 1st 2nd rounder and a Notre Dame DT with our 2nd, but Miami and Philly nabbed them right before us - leading to the Thomas and Davis picks. Cerrato specifically said that they only selected him because their primary target was gone, he was a receiver they thought theyd have no shot at drafting, but he was the highest rated player remaining on their board and he was still there - unbeleivably - at 34, so drafting him was a "no-brainer."

In 2009, Cerrato is probably interested in trading down in the 1st round, picking up a 2nd rounder, and drafting one of the 3 USC LBs or a 2nd tier OT with the lower 1st round pick and a guy like Brandon Albert with the 2nd round pick we acquired. But who knows, we could fail to get the player we target (like last year) and end up taking something else that doesnt necessarily fill a need.

If its up to Cerrato, i think we'll trade down with someone who wants to jump ahead of other teams take Josh Freeman at 13. Its almost certain that Sanchez will be taken by the 4th pick, and if that happens, teams wanting a QB will get ancy and trade up. Trust me, it will happen. Given that Snyder has showed no confidence in Campbell, teams will legitimately fear we may take Freeman if they dont trade with us. If not, they'll trade with us because they know we want to trade down and they want to jump head of another team who would take Freeman with their pick.

However, all of this could be moot, because its possible the decision isnt up to Cerrato and Snyder will make a trade up to nab Sanchez. We'll find out in about 78 hours.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

This year, i beleive Cerrato wants to do the same: Trade down with the goal of selecting a certain player at a position of need he covets without reaching.

Last year, we traded down with the goal of selecting Merling with our 1st 2nd rounder and a Notre Dame DT with our 2nd, but Miami and Philly nabbed them right before us - leading to the Thomas and Davis picks. Cerrato specifically said that they only selected him because their primary target was gone, he was a receiver they thought theyd have no shot at drafting, but he was the highest rated player remaining on their board and he was still there - unbeleivably - at 34, so drafting him was a "no-brainer."

In 2009, Cerrato is probably interested in trading down in the 1st round, picking up a 2nd rounder, and drafting one of the 3 USC LBs or a 2nd tier OT with the lower 1st round pick and a guy like Brandon Albert with the 2nd round pick we acquired. But who knows, we could fail to get the player we target (like last year) and end up taking something else that doesnt necessarily fill a need.

Hit the nail squarely on the head, I'll have what you're havin'