No love for Drew Henson
NFL Draft Mailbag
March 7, 2004
Lou Pickney, DraftKing.com
Reader feedback is always welcomed here at DraftKing.com. Send your thoughts to me at LouPickney@gmail.com.
From: Joe Martin
Sent: Saturday, March 6, 2004 1:56 PM
To: Lou Pickney
Subject: March 6 mock draft
First of all, I want to say that I enjoy your website. It's interesting to see other people's guesses about what will happen in the NFL draft.
Second, I have to point out one obvious fact: there is NO WAY that the Texans will allow Drew Henson to enter this year's draft. Even if they can't get what they want in exchange for him, they will AT LEAST trade him for SOMETHING. The Texans have absolutely no incentive to allow Henson to become eligible for the draft; that would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. And even from Henson's perspective, it makes much more sense to work out a trade than enter the draft. If he's in the draft, he has no control over which team chooses him.
Lou: Unfortunately for the Houston Texans, they cannot outright prevent Henson from entering the draft. They can sign him to a contract, sure, but they have the limitations of the 2003 rookie salary cap to work around, which with Henson being a sixth round pick (and big money tied up with Andre Johnson) has created a complicated situation.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the financial limitations inherent to the situation, compounded with the potential of Henson being a possible first round pick, will keep both sides at an impasse. The only way it will work out is if Henson is willing to sacrifice millions of dollars in order to pick which team gets him. And I don't see that happening.
From: Tommy Fechter
Sent: Saturday, March 6, 2004 2:48 PM
To: Lou Pickney
Subject: Packers Pick
Why on earth would Green Bay spend a 1st round pick on Drew Henson? They haven't invited him to a workout, and even if they did want him they could get him by trading a 2005 2nd rounder to Houston!! Some of your other picks make sense, but Henson in the first round? Whatever your smoking, make sure you share!!
Lou: The reason Green Bay would spend a first rounder on Henson is to have a QB in line to replace the great Brett Favre when he decides to step down. Though, having given it considerable thought, I've penciled in the Packers to take Karlos Dansby. At least for now.
Getting Henson will be considerably tougher than just trading a second round pick to Houston. See the above comments for more on that, but Houston can't trade Henson's rights (unlike the NBA, you can't trade a player's rights in the NFL anymore -- no more Cornelius Bennett in 1987 with the Indianapolis Colts situations). Contract first, trade second. That's the rub.
I know that Packers fans have grown secure in the amazing durability and longevity shown by Favre, but the time to plan for the future is now. Maybe Henson isn't the guy for them (if my e-mail inbox is any indication, there will be some livid Packers fans if Green Bay takes him with the #25 pick of the first round). But the issue must be addressed in one manner or another.
Packers fans out there, let me hear from you -- what do you want to see the team do to address the QB situation?
From: Gary Graham
Sent: Saturday, March 6, 2004 3:44 PM
To: Lou Pickney
Subject: Mailbag Question
I would like you to address this question in your next mailbag column on your DraftKing.com webpage. The rumor mill is currently churning and they have Arizona swapping picks with San Diego in the first round, so that Dennis Green can draft Larry Fitzgerald with the #1 overall draft pick. If that happens, who do you see Oakland taking with the 2nd pick? I personally would love to see them take Eli Manning, but some mock drafts have them selecting Robert Gallery #2 overall. What is your take on this?
Lou: My take is that it's possible, but that it would be a major mistake for Al Davis and company to pass on Eli Manning. Robert Gallery is a great talent and will in all likelihood have an outstanding NFL career. And the Raiders could sure use a young, highly skilled offensive tackle.
However... the Raiders have many needs. They should be able to get a good WR with their second round pick (#45 overall -- the final part of the Gruden deal). Or perhaps that's where they'd target an offensive tackle. The Raiders don't have their original second rounder (which Houston acquired, and then gave up in the 2003 supplemental draft.)
With Rich Gannon still in place as the starting QB in Oakland, it's the perfect opportunity for Eli Manning to learn for a year (and not be thrown to the wolves immediately, like his brother Peyton was in Indianapolis in 1998).
The upside on Gallery over Manning is that he could start right away, and Oakland clearly could use some players that could contribute immediately. But with Manning, you're looking at a guy who has the potential to be "The Guy" for the Raiders for the next decade. Either way it's a good pickup -- both Manning and Gallery are excellent prospects. I'd personally go with Manning, and I think that Al Davis will, too, if given the chance.
As for the Cardinals trading up to #1 to get Larry Fitzgerald... call me crazy, but don't the Cardinals have more pressing needs than WR? Why does no one talk about the Cardinals possibly taking Robert Gallery? I still suspect that the Cards are going to take Ben Roethlisberger (or, could it be, Eli Manning?!?), groom him for a year or two and then move him into the starting QB spot.
From: Mark Kruise
Sent: Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:39 PM
To: Lou Pickney
first, let me commend you on your sight. i've written before(accusing you of being a pats fan for letting jones drop to them at the 21st, although it appears now that that is now a possibility according to these fickle draft rankings) i'm glad you've added a "mail bag", it gives we the readers a chance to question and comment on your mock, and gives you a chance to further explain your reasons other than a quick blurb. secondly, your knowledge of the teams and the prospects seems to be very indepth, congrats on that also. now to get to my points...first i see you've fallen into the steeler fan propaganda that we should and must draft a QB in the first. well, in the long term i agree, but i don't think cowher is looking long term. his contract is up in two years and his record the last few years isn't quite abismal, but the rooney family may decide to terminate it after another down year. this being said, i doubt cowher and co. is looking at next year as a perfect "grooming" year for a rookie QB. cowher needs to win next year, maybe not it all, but a very good showing will ensure that the rooney's keep him around for another year(maybe even an extension). that is why i believe they will do one or two of the scenerios. 1. they could trade plex(assuming there is a market for him, which i heard philly is one)for a first or a second(which WOULD allow them to draft the QB) and use their picks to upgrade the multiple holes they have. 2. they could use their first pick on RB jackson to upgrade their slumping running game. 3. trade down and hope to snag rivers later and also pick up one of the top tier CB's, then use their second on a RB(i'm for turner from N. illinios)
Lou: I've got back and forth on the Steelers and that #11 pick. At one point I projected them to take Jackson there, but I keep hearing talk that Phil Rivers' stock is on the rise, that he's right up there with Ben Roethlisberger, etc.
The risk in trading down to get Rivers is that he might not be there. Buffalo at #13 is a team that would potentially snag Rivers (yes, they have Drew Bledsoe, but there's lots of talk about the Bills wanting to land a young QB to groom for the future). Personally I like the idea of Pittsburgh taking Steven Jackson at #11 and then getting someone like J.P. Losman at #44.
As for trading Plaxico Burress, I think that would be a questionable move by the Steelers unless they could get a first rounder for him (and note that Terrell Owens only commanded a second rounder via trade). Philly wants a veteran receiver bad (T.O. was going to be their guy, but that didn't happen), so perhaps the Steelers could swap Burress for the Eagles' #28 pick. Of course the Steelers would then have to replace Burress, but so it goes.
I'm high on Michael Turner as well, and landing him at #44 would be a great pickup for the Steelers. A Rivers/Turner combo is not a bad thing...
