nfoligno

Thanks, but I am not sure that makes the case for Rhodes any better. If he was nailed for "drugs", would that not be a red flag too? Also, if he has already received a 4 game suspension, that means another hit would be for a year, right?

One. Do you not think it a tad hyprotical to cut Benson for this, then turn around and sign Rhodes, who was suspended 4 games for drugs, whatever drugs they were. I am not clear on that. Point is, Rhodes was suspended 4 games for violation of NFL policy, and you sign him after cutting Benson for getting a pair of Class B misdemeanors? Two. You talk about not becoming Cincy and making a statement and all that, but again, to me it comes off as hyprocritical. Briggs smashes his car and runs away to avoid trouble, and we do nothing. So I guess the statement we teach is run from the cops and don't get caught, your cool. Okay, lets say Briggs, Tank and others are in the past, and we are turning over a new leaf. Um, how about that draft w/ a couple character red flags taken, including Harrison as high as the 3rd round. No, sorry. I just don't buy this one. Three. You say you dump him when the facts sort out, but the reality is, that will not happen until after camp. The "fact" do not really come out until trial, and that can take a while to happen. There will be reports, comments and hearings, but I think it unlikely the "facts" will come out before a trial, if ever. Honestly, I still do not see the argument that cutting him before camp makes sense. If you are looking to cut him for character, then I feel the team is holding themselves out as hypocrites. If you are cutting him for injury, then why would you not wait to see how healthy he is at camp. If you are cutting him for play, again, why would you not wait until camp. And the more I hear about Rhodes the more I feel there is a level of hypocricy. Rhodes has received a 4 game suspension, more than Benson has ever gotten, and another hit against Rhodes would be for a year. Further, I question whether Rhodes brings anything more than Benson. I really want more info to come out on this. While "facts" will be taken w/ a grain of salt, I would like to here what witnesses say. While I do not fully believe either side, I simply find the officer's version a bit hard to accept. His reasoning for using pepper spray seems more than odd. Also, did you hear what our WR coach (Drake) had to say. He made a comment about wanting to get all the facts, and then mentioned "I know how they are there" referring to the LCRA police organization. Drake is a former Texas coach, and may know about reputations here.

Madman, I have asked this before, but will again. What does cutting Benson gain? Often, very often, teams see a RB of theirs go down w/ injury during camp. W/ Benson on the roster, we have 4 and losing one to injury does not create an issue. If we cut Benson, and then lose a player to injury, we will be left scrambling to find a RB to add to the roster. Every year, fans are high on their draft picks, and this year is no exception. Hey, I am high on Forte too, but he has yet to sign a contract, much less go through a legit practice, much less pre-season game, much less regular game. I think you get the point. While most are assuming Forte is the next great RB, similar assumptions in the past have been proven false. Why not first see if Forte is the stud everyone believes before making a roster move. I am sure some will throw out Rhodes, as for some reason fans seem to be in love w/ this guy, but he was a joke w/ Oakland, when he wasn't suspended for roids, and wasn't that great for Indy his last year or two (SB being the exception). If he could not look good/great w/ an offense like Indy's, why do fans think he would look great in ours? I just do not see the argument for cutting/trading him now. It just seems like letting him go to camp and step up or step out seems the best option. If Forte steps up, Benson's odds of sticking are that much less. If Forte struggles or goes down w/ injury, we are better off w/ Benson that w/ most of the trash on the market. Further, what if Benson himself steps up? I have no issue w/ dumping Benson in/after camp if he doesn't come to camp in shape and "show up", but I simply do not understand the argument for dumping him today.

Regarding your points.... May not be popular, but I would argue he was our best blocking back last year. Now that might be like saying he was the tallest person in a room full of midgets, but still. Benson's biggest issue IMHO comes down to experience. He at times seemed to pickup the wrong man, though I would also argue there were times he would pick up one guy, while a 2nd got to the QB, but you can not block everyone. What I will say is this. I can not recall a time of Benson getting beat on a block. There were some times when he went to one side for the block, and a blitz came from the other direction. That may or may not fall on Benson's shoulders. But when Benson engaged a rusher, he stood him up very well. Agreed. Few times did I feel he simply missed a hole. Vision is always an easy thing to knock when a RB struggles, but if there is simply not a hole, how can the back be blamed for not seeing one. Agreed. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If Benson hesitates in the backfield waiting for a hole to open, the odds of him getting dropped in the backfield go up. So often I hear fans say the back should simply hit the LOS, and if there is no hole, at least avoid the negative runs. Sometimes you simply have to run up on the OL and try to push the pile to avoid a loss. Did he do this last year, or are we going off earlier in his career. I will be the first to say he was immature coming out, but seemed to have grown, and in fact, there were times last year the OL stood up for him, which I question how much they would do if he was throwing them under the bus. Kills me when this comes up. It isn't like he has turf toe and takes himself out. His injuries have required surgery. This really comes back to the SB, and the one article that said he took himself out. It was basically a rumor anti-Benson fans jumped on an ran w/, even though there has been little evidence to support this. Here again you have something reporters started, though I do not recall the staff ever agreeing w/ it. Our staff has had no problem calling out players who have been out of shape. I do not recall Angelo, Lovie, Turner, Rusty, or anyone w/ the team saying Benson was out of shape. Reporters felt he looked big at camp last year, but again, if true, the staff's history would give an expectation of their calling him out. As they did not, it makes me question the reports. For me, it still comes down to this. If we cut him, we are most likely going to have to sign another RB. You want to have more players entering camp then you intend to finish w/. If one of Forte, Wolfe, AP suffer an injury in camp, and yet are the only three RBs on the roster, you then are forced to sign another player. I simply do not see the point in cutting Benson. To me, it simply goes against logic to cut Benson now. Go to camp w/ an open competition. Everyone is high on Forte, yet he has proven absolutely nothing. Benson was a top 5 pick and we did not simply hand him the job over TJ. Why would we simply hand Forte the job w/o making him prove himself first. If Benson doesn't show up in camp, send him packing, but I just do not see the point in getting rid of him before camp.

I don't know about this. Briggs doesn't mention having a source inside the Lions front office, or even w/o specific mention, even say he "hears Detroit" was poised. It sounds more like opinion. Detroit had RB high on their board, and took Kevin Smith in the 3rd. Maybe they would have taken Forte, but I wonder if Briggs isn't assuming a bit much here. I bet many felt we were "poised" to take Brohm or Henne when they fell to us too.

One, there is obviously a difference. Here, drinking and boating are a huge no-no. Too many deaths have happened, and drinking and boating is up there w/ drinking and driving. At the same time, there is no evidence he was drinking. Also, sorry, but they sure didn't sound like they were treating him like a Texas hero. Maybe the cop is from GB.

Maybe his mother was the designated driver, and thus no need to go through all this crap.

Have you read this. This is a quote from the arresting officer, "I touched his body in an attempt to direct him and he presented himself in a very hostile way," Snyder wrote. "Benson is a very muscular person and easily capable of overpowering me," Snyder wrote in the affidavit. "As I had exhausted all attempts to gain control of Benson had been met with resistance and what I perceived as a threat, I administered pepper spray to regain control." So Benson presented himself in a hostile way? Huh? Read his comments. Sure sounds to be like a smaller cop got scared and over-reacted. Not saying Benson is innocent, but when I read the officers owns statements, its sounds a bit fishy. I have no doubt Benson was drinking and may well have been drunk. At the same time, it just seems "off".

Walt Harris. Was ever ever the player envisioned when drafted? No. At the same time, he was a pretty good CB, who actually looked solid when we finally had a pass rush. Like you said, just because a rookie doesn't live up to expectations, that does not mean you simply cut him. And I agree that fans are going a tad bit too far w/ Forte. As I recall, we traded TJ because of faith in an unproven Benson, and the believe AP was more than a backup. It seems to me getting rid of Benson would be the same mistake all over again. There is much to like about Forte, but I am sorry, Benson was a FAR more highly regarded RB. Point is, while Forte may be a stud, he could well be no better than Benson. Until they strap the pads on, we would be making a move (getting rid of Benson) based on a lack of knowledge, which is rarely wise.

Agreed. No way should Hester be starting. Your starters need to be consistent players the QB can rely on. Hester is no where near there. Last year, w/ a camp to learn, he didn't even know where to lineup. While I hope he can take big strides this year, I think it unrealistic to expect him to start. As mentioned, line him up in the slot. This gives him a greater opportunity to get off the LOS clean and get open. As much pure talent as he has, line him up against a starting CB at this point in his career, and I think he will only lose confidence. Line him up against weaker nickel DBs. Personally, here is the lineup I like. Lloyd/Bradley - Clark - Williams - Beekman/St. Clair - Kreutz - Garza - Tait - Olson - Booker Rex Benson/Forte To me, while fans are really optimistic about our WRs, I still think the strength lies in the TEs. By lining them both up, you have the potential of two blockers and/or two receivers. You can send Olsen down the seam, while Clark chip blocks and then runs a short (QB friendly) route. You have a solid option in Booker, and a receiver on the other side who can work downfield. I say Lloyd or Bradley as I do not know which is better, and will let camp work that out. And yes, I still add the potential for Benson to start. I want to see what he brings to camp, while at the same time want to see Forte actually take a handoff before I simply assume he is a stud. But the key is the two TEs. The lesser of the two is a more reliable receiver than our #2 WR, much less #3. IMHO, if we want to give the QBs a chance, we need to (a) block better and ( put our most dependable receivers on the field. IMHO, both points are served by playing two TE sets.

Why does everyone think Rhodes is worth a shit. He had a few good years w/ Indy, but his last two w/ Indy were crap. 3.0 and 3.4 ypc his last two years w/ Indy. This the offense w/ the great OL, among the best passing offenses which prevent Ds from stacking the line. Oh yea, and he was a backup. When Edge went to Az, did Indy think enough to keep him? Nope. He went to Oakland, and did what? Why again is Rhodes someone we want? Kind of cracks me up how Rex gets 5 years, and now a 6th. Benson gets 3 years, one as a starter. Last year, we had absolutely no OL. Hey, I don't know what we will get w/ Benson. Maybe Benson is Ron Dayne. Great college RB who simply did not translate in the NFL. But then again, maybe he is like TJ. You know, the TJ who took a while to get it going in the NFL. I don't know. What I will say is this. I see absolutely no value in dumping Benson, especially to pick up Rhodes. If Benson sucks in camp, then we will likely go w/ Forte, Wolfe, AP. But I would like to see Benson in camp. While I question how much better our OL will be, I think there is no question it will be better. Sorry, I just do not get it. Rex is given opportunity after opportunity. 5 years later, we still have yet to see the QB emerge, and yet we are giving him yet another chance. Benson has had one season as a starter. Just when he was starting to look good, he went down w/ injury, and now, fans say to hell w/ it. Dump him. Sorry, but if we give Rex a 6th season, I see no reason not to give Benson one more. To me, this is the make or break season for several players. Rex, Benson and Bradley among them. Step up, or step out.

You understand that when I say Albert will be the better OT, I am not talking right away. I have said from the get go that he would not be the most NFL ready, immediate starting LT. That is why I easily understood our taking Williams over him. But what a player is as a rookie and down the road are two different things. You say he was not even on the radar until after the combine, but that is not true. He was on the radar. He was considered a late 1st round pick, with some like Kiper and Mayock singing his praises from the start. Yes, it was after the combine and after talk of his moving to LT his draft value rose, but it isn't like he was an unknown prior to that. Call it a gut feeling. Call it whatever you want. But I simply believe that when all is said and done, Albert will turn out to be the best OL in this draft. Does that mean we made a mistake not taking him? No. I wanted him, but as I said, I absolutely understand taking Williams. We had an immediate need to move Tait to RT, and Williams gives us the best opportunity to do that now. As for Williams and strength, it isn't just about his reps. Every review considers him a finesse player. He does not play w/ power. That simply isn't his style. I believe his power is fine at LT because of his athleticism and use of leverage. The only thing I have questioned is whether he has the power to play elsewhere on the OL if he can't cut it at LT, which is far from unheard of in the NFL. I see him as a bit more of a boom or bust. Either he is a LT, or he may end up as a backup because he may not have the game to play RT or inside.

One, I am not going to lose sleep if we cut him either. That would likely mean he was a joke and deserved it, or others stepped up. Two, while he has been nothing the last two years, I still question how much is simply him and how much is Wash. If he went to Indy and sucked, that would be one thing, but Wash is simply one of those teams that too often players go into oblivion. I think he was a great pickup. Worst case, he is gone and we lose nothing. But I think there is considerable upside to him at the same time. I would love to simply take an optimistic stance when it comes to our other Wrs, but at I am sorry, I simply have a hard time expecting too much from them, at least to start the year. My hope is players like Bennett and Bradley can develop into good Wrs, but I just do not see it happening too soon in the season.

Whether people believe it or not, I love optimism. Problem is, while I like optimism, I can't help but to be a realist. The more you read about a player, the more you fall in love w/ their potential. That is always the case. If you go off what fans believe, Hass should already be looking for a spot to put his bust in the HOF. Now, as to your question. Are you asking how people would talk about our draft had we drafted Haine or Hill in the 5th? I think we would have been ridiculed for it to be honest. They were considered, from what I can tell, as 7th rounders or UDFAs, which is how we got them. If we took them in the 5th, I think we would have been ripped for reaching, not to mention comments would have been made about who we drafted ahead of them. I have talked about this before, but if you want my opinion of how we could have really jacked up our hype 1st - Williams - No problem here. 2nd - Forte - Staff felt it was a key need 2nd - Brohm - We give up our 4th (which is what the value chart would say) to move up from the early 3rd to get our QB 3rd - Caldwell - I like Bennett, but I think Caldwell would have been a well received WR too, and is similar in many ways. If that was our first 3 rounds, I think our draft grade and hype would have soared. It would have shown Angelo being truly committed to building the offense, both current and future, and not putting all his eggs in the same broken basket (orton/rex)

Nevermind. I forgot about Polite, but I think it should be mentioned that while I believe he was on our 53 man roster, he am not sure he was activated for a single game last year. So while we did have 5 spots on the 53 man roster for backs, we only had 4 active on game days.

Help my memory, or lack thereof, who was the 2nd FB? I thought Runnels and Bryan Johnson were both gone prior to the start of the season. I thought we had only 1 FB last year, then stashed one on the practice squad in case of need.

Regarding Booker, I think we see the 2001 model more than the 2002 or 2003. I am not talking pure stats, but how he was used. In 2001, we started Booker and Dez White, and I think we will have similar this year. Booker was not able to work deeper routes, and had to focus on shorter routes to quickly give the QB a target. Thus, he had 100 catches, but only 1070 yards for a 10.7 ypc avg. Reliable WR, but not a big impact weapon. In 2002, we began trying to get booker deeper. He wasn't a homerun hitter, obviously, but instead of 10-15 yard routes, he was running more 15-25 yard routes. That year, his yardage went over 1,200 and his ypc rose by 2. Point is, stats aside, I think Booker will be that underneath route WR who could well rack up a very high number of catches, but w/ a lower total yards and ypc.

Couple points. One, while it may be true you usually blitz from the outside, I think our situation is a bit different as we in many ways have an OLB playing MLB. Even in our system, the two positions responsibilities are basically swapped. Usually the MLB is key against the run, but that is the primary responsibility of Briggs. Also, the norm would be for the OLB to match up w/ RBs that go out in passing routes, but that role goes to Urlacher. So I think our system itself changes the roles of the LBs. Two. I have seen Briggs blitz plenty, but he is simply not very good at it. He has 5.5 sacks for his career. We may not blitz him a ton, but he blitzes far more often than his sack totals would imply. He is simply not very good as a pass rusher. Ditto for Hunter, who simply does not have the speed or quickness to pressure the QB, much less finish the job. Urlacher is our best pass rusher, w/o question. He had nearly as many sacks as a rookie (8) as Briggs and Hunter have combined for their careers (9). Urlacher has 37.5 sacks over 8 seasons, and is simply light years better in this area than our other two LBs. Regardless where a player plays, I think you want your better pass rushers rushing the passer. Three. I think the DT play last year really hurt Urlacher. Urlacher is best when the DTs are getting it done up front. Early on, we used a couple wide bodies to eat up blockers. W/ Lovie, the style is different, but not the desire result. The expectations is our DTs are quicker and force the offense to use 3 blockers to stop our 2 DTs, thus creating an opening for Urlacher. Last year, our DTs were simply not good enough to force those consistent double teams, thus it was easier to block Urlacher. If our DTs are healthy, that could change this year, and urlacher could again have a free path to the QB.

Where did you read that. It would really surprise me. He is a bit of a project, but w/ Olsen and Clark, we can afford a project TE. I was not happy w/ the pick myself, but see no reason he shouldn't make the team.

IMHO, Booker is an upgrade over Moose. Booker may not be any more explosive, but I think is a far more reliable WR for the QB. He has far better hands, runs great routes, and simply finds a way to get open. I think this is not only an upgrade, but a big one. Not one that equal more TDs, but one that should extend drives and give the QB a reliable option we have not had, well, since we traded Booker. While I do believe we upgraded w/ Booker, I also agree it is offset by the loss of Berrian. In my book, Berrian was not a consistent WR, but he was our most consistent field stretcher. We may have field stretchers on the team, but they are unproven and unlikely to be consistent threats. W/ that said, I do believe we upgraded the overall group at WR. Lloyd - I still believe this is an under-rated pickup. I compare Lloyd to Adams (DT). Adams was solid talent in a bad fit (he is a 4-3 DT who was in a 3-4 scheme). We added him, and IMHO, he was one of our more consistent linemen last year. In Lloyd, I see a similar outlook. He was a pretty good WR for SF, but was never a fit w/ Washington. He had 43 and 48 catches for SF, and was developing into a good looking WR, thus way Wash made the play for him. But then he went into a system he wasn't a good fit, and his production tanked. I think in Lloyd, we may not have a great WR, but an experienced WR that could prove more valuable than most expect. Bradley - I think he can fill a similar role to Berrian, though not w/ the overall numbers. I think Bradley still has to develop. He was very raw coming out of college, and has not had much chance to develop since joining the team due to injuries. If he can stay healthy, I think he can provide us w/ a deep threat, but at the same time, will not be a very consistent WR this year. Hester - Boom/bust player. He is not going to be anywhere near consistent, but when he makes the catch, it could go for big yards. I see Hester have low catch totals, but high yardage (relative) and even TD numbers. I can see hester having like 35 catches for 650 yards, which would be an 18.5 ypc avg., and maybe 6-8 scores. Not a player you can consistently rely on, but a homerun hitter who will make big plays when he does get the ball in his hands. Bennett - Slow start but strong finish. The only problem I see w/ Bennett is, he seems to be similar to Booker in style, and I wonder when he sees the field. I think the staff would rather go w/ more speed from the slot, which could hurt Bennett. He likely backs up Booker, so how much playing time he gets is a question for me. Davis - Frankly, I see Davis as pure depth in case of injury, and a special teams player. Unless Lloyd tanks, in which case Davis' experience will be needed, I just do not see him having much of a role. I believe we are deeper than last year. I think Booker brings a far greater consistent game over Moose. I do not feel we have an equal replacement to Berrian, but we are deeper, and the QB could have more options and may not have to zero in on one WR. Like you, I see the OL being better, but question how much. I think fans may be putting too much expectation on Williams this year. Few rookie LTs come out of the gate looking solid, much less great, which is what I fear fans expect. I see many struggled for Williams, and feel he is not helped by playing next to St. Clair, or Beekman, or whoever wins the job. Further, Williams is not viewed as a very good run blocker, which makes me question how much we improved for the run game. Finally, I am a believer than OLs take time to form chemistry, which I view as necessary for solid OL play. We will have three new faces at positions, compared to last years game one. I like the future of this OL, especially if we find an OG, but feel they will struggle this year. I think we are better than last year. I think Forte is at least better than AP. I think he pushes Benson more than AP, and believe Benson responds. Like w/ OL, I question how much better we are, but none-the-less, feel we are in fact better. Still sick about this. For me, defense is far more about Babich than players. Health is always an issue. IMHO, even w/ the injuries, we had more talent on the field than many teams who did far better than us. Injuries may be a reason we were not top 5, but I do not believe injuries explain why we were bottom 5. DL - Dusty was gone, and Harris played through some injuries, but take a look at our DEs, who were healthy, and I believe our DL should have been better than they were. Urlacher played through injury, but Briggs and Hunter on the outside are more than solid, and this unit should not have looked so weak. More injuries and affect in the secondary, but if the front 7 played better, I question the effect on the secondary. So while injuries no question played a part last year, I feel coaching was far more the reason we were bottom 5. Look at some of the defenses that gave up fewer yards than us last year. Cincy, NO, SF, Hou, Miami, Stl, Den, NYJ, AZ. Even w/ our injuries, I would argue we had more talent on the field than these teams, so why were we so much worse? While there may be more than one reason, I feel coaching tops the list. Babich is still the DC, so for me, defensive improvement starts w/ Babich improving.

Hass should be available for the practice squad I believe as he has not been on an NFL roster for enough starts to prevent the move. I am not sure how much Lloyd is on the bubble. Yes, his contract guarantees nothing, but at the same time, I believe the lack of experience we have at WR heading into 2008 not only puts him on the roster, but fairly high on the depth chart. If we jump Lloyd, do you realize how lacking in experience we are at WR? Yes, we have Booker, but w/o Lloyd, the rest of the WRs had a combined 23 catches last year. If we are trying to provide weapons for the QB, I question the logic of giving your QB a bunch of young WRs who need to develop and are unlikely to bring a consistent game to benefit the QB, and offense.

When you listen to all the draft guys, and read the prospect reports, and they tell you an OT doesn't have the athleticism to play OT in the NFL, and will have to move inside to OG, you listen and likely believe it, right? Well, the same/opposite is true w/ Albert. Every report I read projects him to OT. That is why he was drafting top 15, and also why he was considered at one time as high as #5. Not due to his potential to play OG, but due to his potential to play OT. So while the norm may be college OTs moving inside, and and OG moving to OT in the NFL may be the exception, it can happen, and the opinion here seems very consistent. Everyone seems to project him outside. I look at it like this. He has the skill and game to be not just an OT, not just a LT, but a dominant LT. He does not have the experience on that side, which is why he was avialable at 15. IMHO, if Albert played LT more in college, he very well could have been the pick over Long. But here is the kicker w/ Albert. If he can not play LT, he downside is considered pro bowl OG. So in Albert, you get a player who you believe is a lock pro bowl OG, w/ the potential of being a pro bowl LT. That is a win/win situation in my book. That also touched on my one concern w/ Williams. I am not knocking the pick, and very much like Williams, but if Williams does not cut it at LT, I am not sure where he then fits. He is a finesse LT who does not play w/ anything resembling a mean streak. I question whether he would be able to play inside our RT, thus Williams seems more boom/bust to me, which is a touch concerning considering Angelo success rate of drafting OL. Back to Long v Albert. You may view Albert as an OG, but are looking at him as a LT. The is no question both Long and Williams are more ready to start their rookie year at LT, but I believe Albert will eventually not only be playing there, but will be playing LT in Hawaii. Let me throw this question out to you also. While I view Long as a very good LT prospect, I do not think he will be a pro bowler. Just my opinion. He will be a damn good LT, but not pro bowl. For the sake of argument, go w/ this. And further, assume for a moment Albert is a perennial all-pro OG, like maybe Hutch or Ruben Brown (in his prime). Which is bigger? Most say LT, and I might agree, but I do not think it is cut and dry. An all-pro OG may in fact be equal in value to a solid LT.

That's great. I am simply not getting my hopes up. While there have been exceptions to the rule, the odds of a rookie FA not only making the team, but becoming a starting QB (much less franchise) is ridiculously small. Yes, everyone is talking about Romo, just as everyone started talking about Brady in the 6th, but while those two prove anything is possible, possible and likely still are two light years apart.

I take option C. Ride it out with Rex, Orton and a rookie FA QB. Option A - Quinn - First, I have an issue giving up a 1st and 3rd for Quinn because I fear our first next year will be a top 10 pick. Second, while I may do it regardless, I am not sure this would be enough. You have to remember that Cle used their 2nd round pick, and gave up their next years 1st to move up for Quinn. So they are out a 1st and 2nd. They do not want to trade him because (a) I do not think they are truly sold on Anderson and ( still feel Quinn can be their franchise QB. That means if you want Quinn, you have to blow them away, and offering less compensation that what they spent in the first place will not get it done. Option B - Throw in Culpepper, Simms, McCown, and whoever else you want to throw in. I take a pass. We have two veterans in Rex and Orton who the staff is going to give every opportunity this year. Any QB we bring in at this point will not get so much as a second glance by the staff unless both Orton and Rex are injured. If both suck during the year, Lovie will ride it up as this year is all about giving each one final opportunity before moving on. The only thing we should be talking about w/ the 3rd QB position is a young player you are looking to develop for the future. That is not Culpepper, and I pray it is not Simms. I think his old man today would be better than the boy. He has the physical tools, but not the mental capability to ever be a good, consistent NFL QB. So at this point, I go w/ the two UDFAs. Any QB we bring in should be w/ a look at 2009, not 2008.

Yes, but there are different issues here. I would argue adding undrafted rookie FAs is equal to the draft. You are going 100% of your college scouting reports. Picking up a player off another teams waivers, signing a veteran FA, or trading for a veteran. Those I think are totally different. Sure, you give Angelo credit for those moves, but if the question is how well Angelo does in the draft, I do not believe you can look at those areas.