nfoligno

Thinking about it a bit more, I would like to add this. If Angelo drafted a QB later in the draft, the rationale would have been he liked that QB better. By not drafting a QB at all, I think it creates a perception/question that he didn't view QB as a need. I realize full well his argument is our staff didn't like any of the QBs. This was not a great class, but to argue none were any good is, at least IMHO, a bit of a stretch. Thus, I think, despite Angelo's rationale, there is a legit perception Angelo simply did not want to add a rookie QB, choosing to simply put his faith on final year in Rex/Orton. That makes me sick, but how I see it. As for what to do now, I just do not know that we do much of anything. If the two UDFAs are crap, maybe. But most fans were prepared to draft a QB who would be unlikely to play this year, so I don't see a differce (in terms of 53 man roster) between keeping Woodson as our 3rd QB and one of the UDFAs. Everyone talks about getting his player or that player cut by TB or another team. My question is, why? What is the point. Say TB cuts Simms or McCown. What is the point of their being our #3 QB? This year is all about Rex and/or Orton. If we need to go to our 3rd QB, the season is likely done, so what is the point of a veteran 3rd QB at that point. The UDFAs are not the level I wanted, but I don't see why we would add a veteran, rather than simply let a rookie ride it out as our #3 QB this year.

Success? No. But I think most who have questions would then at feel an element of logic missing would have been filled in. I believe that if we had drafted Woodson in the 6th, the comments would have been that we passed on Brohm, Henne, and the others because we liked Woodson equal or better. They would talk about how we got a QB we graded close to Brohm, but got him in the 6th rather than Brohm in the 2nd. I am not saying Woodson is shit. I simply believe most expected us to take a Qb, and when we passed on Brohm/Henne, I believe most felt we must have felt one of the other QBs were nearly as good. When we passed on all the QB, then people just didn't know what the hell was going on.

I don't see that. No way do I see Hester as a starter. Starting the year, I think it will be Booker and Lloyd. I know how much many want Bennett to start, or Bradley, or Hester, but I just think that is unlikely. The lack of experience is simply too much to get past. Lloyd is an experienced WR who was pretty damn solid w/ SF before going to Wash. I am not saying he will be great for us, but I think he starts game one. I do think the the final depth will differ from the starting. To start the year. 1) Booker 2) Lloyd 3) Bradley 4) Bennett 5) Hester 6) Davis Hass is on the PS and Monk is on the IR. I know Hester at #5 will not be popular, but I think we will use him a lot more, but he will have a more specific set of plays. He will be more than a gimick player, but not an every down WR. Bennett starts low, but fear not, he will rise. Near the end of the season. 1) Booker 2) Bradley (if he isn't hurt yet again) 3) Bennett (I would like to start him, but not sure how well pairing him w/ Booker would work. 4) Lloyd 5) Hester (Still low, but when it comes to the Hester, depth chart really does not matter) 6) Davis

While I understand, and agree, at the same time I have to say that it still has to depend on what the other team(s) asked in trade. As I said before, thre is a point where aggressive moves become suicide. Ditka gave away two years worth of drafts in order to get Ricky. Suicide. I also blame that trade for our inability to get McNabb. As I recall, we did in fact show interest in moving up, but NO wanted a kings ransom. Ironically, we asked for the same ransom when NE and Jax wanted to move up for Enis, and ended up taking him ourselves. An example I think would help your point. Last year Cle moved up to get the QB they wanted (Quinn) giving up a future 1st in the process. Anderson sort of changed their plans, but I would rather have their problem of two QBs rather than none. Regarding Palmer. I am not sure there has been a QB I have been higher on since I started really following the draft. I so wanted to get him. Problem is, you can want all you want, but you need two to trade. Cincy had the top pick, and were locked in from nearly the get-go w/ Palmer. As I recall, they even signed him prior to the draft. It is difficult enough to trade up for a player, and another to get a team who has been sold on that player to give him up. I would have given a lot for him, but w/o knowing what it would have taken, I just am not sure how smart of a move it would have been. I am all for aggressive moves to get a franchise QB. I am for aggressive moves to get a franchise player in general. I remember a few years back saying it would be worth a two 1sts to get Walter Jones, and still believe that would have been true. Ditto at QB. That is what is so frustrating about this year. We had a QB, who I feel is going to be a franchise QB, fall into our laps, and we passed. Worse, then GB takes him. Now I have to hope I am totally wrong, knowing the crow I will have to eat, because if I am right, GB could be a power for the next decade.

An example I would throw out, while not apples to apples, I think does hit on the idea. Are there any college teams you are a fan of, or watch more than others. For me, it would be Texas. I am not a big fan, but watch most all their games. In doing so, I see more of the players, and often fall in love w/ then in the draft. As you said, it is a matter of going w/ the player you know. I believe Angelo's college is defense. When looking for the BPA, players from his school (defense) are simply seen in a better light than those not in his school. The good is, he has found some defensive gems after the early rounds. The bad is, we have created a team loaded on one side, and empty on the other. Regarding your two coaches, I am not even going to go there. I think you and I have had enough Crowton/Shoop discussions, and the board can use a well deserved break

Let me start by saying there may be fewer vocal Angelo bashers than I. At the same time, I am not sure you are being 100% fair. By and large, I agree w/ your comments on QB. Indy, NE, GB, Phily were all teams w/ top tier QBs, and that didn't prevent them from drafting another QB. How about SF getting Young when they still had Montanna. Denver getting Plummer when Elways was still around. Other teams drafted QBs when they had starters already set, and yet we avoided that w/ Rex, basically saying we didn't want to scare him w/ competition. our stated needs: qb and OL. yet again watched this boat sail. what of williams filling 2 needs by moving tait over to RT? what if williams can't cut it at LOT? what if tait or williams gets injured during the season? we now have our RT backup filling in our starting LG position. who fills in his spot if he has to move? we have not a single guard that this team considers better than a one armed dinosaur. if we do then we have the most inept coaching staff even in our pathetic history of offense. i would also like to ask, how good is st. clair compared to a real guard prospect? this is one reason we should have drafted guard at a high priority after the 1st round. to groom him to be our future starter. yet we could have 'possibly' gotten chilo rachel if we would have moved up in the 2nd with seattle or atlanta and sat on our hands. if not then why not john greco in the 2nd and move him inside as a guard? in the 3rd we pick at positions with no serious need and bypass zuttah, rinehart and cousins. in the 4th we again get someone we don't need and bypass mcglynn, murphy and hale. and finally the 5th we pass on schuening. First, I think in Williams, it is a 2-1. Sure, he may not make it at LT. But you can not draft players w/ that attitude. He was the best pure LT on the board who was believed capable of starting as a rookie. If you believe OL was a top need, then there is no reason to bash this pick. Second, I think it 100% pure hindsight 20/20 to say we should have moved up in the 2nd to get Rachel. Few others on this board touted Rachel, or back-to-back OL more than I (and Jason), but no one expected Rachel to go at the top of the 2nd. That was a reach, and as much as I would have loved to get him, there is simply no way you can blame Angelo for not getting him when another team reached. And Greco in the 2nd? Come on. Greco was a big reach at the top of the 3rd. I wanted and OG, and agree we could have/should have gotten one, but these are simply not good example IMHO. Third, while I absolutely agree OG was a need, I would like to point out that (a) it was not our only need and ( more than some other needs, the OG position tends to fall in the draft. I have an issue w/ QB, but that aside, RB and WR in the 2nd and 3rd were both needs and solid picks. Where I will agree w/ you is our later 3rd round pick. At that pick, I felt our best choice would have been McGlynn, Cousins, Rinehart (in that order, even though they went in the opposite order). By doing this, we would have added two OL, RB and WR in the first three rounds of the draft, and given the offense a huge boost. angelo fails year after year to find a guard which is the easiest position to fill in the draft. i have to ask what do we need more than qb or guards at this point? we even have a need for a backup RT so why not draft that prospect? Agree this is an issue, and a big one. A few months back Angelo said he prefers to add veteran OL because he believes OL is a position that takes time to develop, and likes to get the developed product. But OGs have become so expensive, it basically has forced teams to look to the draft, and I simply do not think Angelo is good here. again, we have picked RB's in the first 3 rounds for 3 of the past 4 years!!! this only amplifies angies huge mistake by taking wolf last season. i say our other problems at OL and QB are far more important to fill-in than any rb in this round. we could have gotten one later in the draft or in realites sake this IS the place for a free agent at this point in bensons career. it's not an immediate critical need. I disagree RB is not a need. I agree Wolfe was a mistake, but also believe accepting your mistakes is better than not, and he seemed this year to accept mistakes made at RB. When you combine Benson's injury w/ Wolfe's inability to be a starter, it did create a need at RB. Not a 1st round need, IMHO, but a high enough need that I see nothing wrong w/ Forte. IMHO, you would have likely been fine w/ taking Forte in the 2nd if we added Cousins or McGlynn in the 3rd, would you not. some say we need a receiver.... hmmmm, angie drafts yet ANOTHER #2 receiver. it's NOT a need at all. we have, not counting our draft picks, SEVEN receivers on our roster. booker, bradley, davis and hass are projected as #2 or #3 receivers. in other words we drafted again into our only strength at that position!!! where is our #1 guy? hester? are you kidding me? Who are you kidding. We have a bunch of bodies at OG. That doesn't mean we have anyone good at the position. I like Booker, but he is not a long term solution, but a temporary fix. Bradley has shown nothing but his ability to get injured. Davis is nice depth, but that is all. Hass? Come on. Fan favorite, but whether due to Hass or the coaches, I think it is obvious he is not in the plans. WR was w/o question a need. And like Forte in the 2nd, I have a feeling you would not be screaming about this pick if we took Cousins or McGlynn later in the 3rd. what about our 3rd round DT pick? we drafted another DT when we already have five and if you consider idoniji (which i do) we have SIX. is that our priority over OL? Short answer. No. I did call it though. I said, at least to those I watched the draft w/, we would take Harrison there and then. I expected us to go DT in the 3rd or 4th, and when I saw Harrison as Kiper's best available, I just felt Angelo couldn't resist. That is his way. I agree OL was a far greater need. I would even say a backup OT would have been a better pick than a DT. I do actually believe DT was a need, as Harris is entering his final year, Dusty has two years of nothing but injury, and none of the rest are proven either. But for me, w/o a DT, our defense is still loaded w/ talent, but on offense, far from it. in the 4th round we drafted another strong safety. we have THREE on the roster not even counting arch (free safety might be a need angie). I do not agree w/ this pick either. If a FS we loved were there, I could better see that, but I simply do not believe another in-the-box safety was a need. I like Steltz, and he may well end up a starter, but I question just how big of an upgrade he is to the in-the-box safeties we already have. I would have rather we gave Payne/McGowan a shot. Again, if this was a FS that fell, I would be more okay w/ this pick, but he isn't. Further, I would add that, as said before, I could better deal w/ this pick, even being Steltz, if we had drafted different in front. If we added an OG instead of a DT, I could better deal w/ grabbing a defensive player you liked here. in the 5th we drafted a CB while we have at least four on our roster. we don't need more depth at this position we need starters at other key positions. Here is my opinion. I believe Angelo basically locked in on OL, RB and WR w/ the first three picks. After that, he went BPA, and for Angelo, the BPA is always going to be a defensive player, thus the DT, SS and CB w/ the next three picks. This is a pick I hate as well. We are very solid and deep at CB, and yet St. Clair is still our starting LG. No way we should have been looking to draft a CB here. But at this area, Angelo is looking at upside and not need, and Bowman has tons of upside, though it comes w/ JUCO experience and major injury concerns. and finally we draft a TE in the 5th round. this is the most insane pick of the entire draft. we drafted round 1 last year a TE and we just signed our starting TE for this season. What in gods name do we need a 5th round TE for??? bulky blocking TE's are a dime a dozen!!! No argument, but see above comments. After the first three picks, I think Angelo was just looking at BPA, and he was tops on our board. If the top player was a K, he would have probably taken him. I disagree w/ this logic, but feel that is what Angelo does. other than our first pick it is a disaster for the future of this franchise. we keep drafting the SAME positions over and over every year and still leave the weak points the same. I disagree w/ the disaster statement. I do believe it is a massive mistake to have passed on Brohm, but the players we did take are likely going to contribute and or start, or at least most of them. Williams will likely start at LT. Forte will start by some point this year, if not out of the gate. Ditto for Bennett. Harrison I think will be playing in the rotation. Steltz could be starting this year too. So while I think we blew it by passing on a QB, if you look at the players we did add, they are likely starters/contributors (minus Bowman and Davis). So while what we did not get hurts, what we did get definitely should help. this year we drafted rounds 1-5 a RB, WR, DL, SS, CB and TE You missed OT. last year we draft rounds 1-5 a TE, DL, RB, SS, LB and CB (and another one in the 7th) You missed OG in the 4th last year. 2006 we draft rounds 1-5 CB/WR?, two DL, and LB You forgot DM, a CB/FS/SS? 2005 we draft rounds 1-5 RB, and two WR's You missed a 4th round QB (Orton) 2004 we draft rounds 1-5 three DL, WR, CB and LB You missed a 5th round QB (Krenzel) 2003 we draft rounds 1-5 three DL, CB, LB, SS, and two WR's You missed QB in the 1st. 2002 we draft rounds 1-5 CB, SS, DL, and LB You missed OT in the 1st and OG in the 3rd. so far angie has drafted TEN defensive linemen, three running backs, four SS, six WR's, six CB's, two TE's (in two years), two QB's, and five LB's all in the first 5 rounds. He has drafted 3 QBs in the first 5 rounds (Rex, Krenzel, Orton). compare that to four OL in rounds 1-5 over the last 6 years... 2008 - #1 OT williams; 2007 - #4 G/C beekman; 2002 - #1 OT columbo, #4 G metcalf. Agreed that is sad. Like I said earlier, Angelo said he likes to add veteran OL. I have no issue w/ veteran OL, but you should still be adding Ol through the draft, and simply allowing them to develop. other than the first pick, it doesn't matter as much how these draft picks turn out quality wise. what matters is we drafted the wrong type of players yet again with nothing on the horizon for filling our real needs. we are always 2 years behind the learning curve for the players we need most. Look, I hate we passed on QB and OG, but it is simply wrong to say it doesn't matter how the picks turn out. If we added a bunch of starters, then the draft is not a D. Far from it. I would also add that if the RB, WR, DT, SS start, then maybe it means the positions were not the strength you think, and were in fact greater needs than you want to believe. I started a thread which was titled something like, "what might have been". I believe that down the road, as good as our draft picks may turn out, we will look back on this draft as the year that might have been. I point to Brohm as the key in that, as well as Albert, who I still feel will be the best OL in the entire group, including Long. But even w/ that said, if the players we did draft turn into solid starters, then while it hurts to have missed on this player or that, it would still be considered a good draft.

Wow, and they call me pessimistic. While I question the direction, I am not to the point of believing we will never win a championship w/ a walkout. After Finks and the rest of the group which brought us a SB, we have gone downhill. No question. I think adding Mark Hatley was a step in the right direction, as he was the first legit personnel guy we had in a long time. But he was just a step. While I thought highly of Hatley, our power structure sucked, and that was soon to be addressed when Angelo was hired. Now I am not an Angelo fan, but will say that our hiring him represented another step in the right direction. I am not sure we will win a SB w/ the current group (Angelo/Lovie) but it is possible. We were in the SB two years ago. But for this team to have continued success, rather than a good year or two here and there, I think we will need a change, and starting at the GM level. I pray this draft proves me wrong, but I do not believe Angelo is a good GM in that he can only build 1/2 of a football team. That is fine if you are the head D or O scout, but not if you are the GM. Further, I do not believe Lovie is a good coach. But w/ that said, if we continue to suck, I think both will be gone and seek replacements. One positive spin I would throw out there is that, while it has been a slow process, w/ each change, we have seen improvement. Ted Phillips was an improvement over Mike McCaskey. Hatley/Jauron were improvements over Wanny. Angelo/Lovie were an improvement over Hatley/Jauron. Hopefully, our next GM/HC combo will be another improvement, and hopefully, the improvement that gets us over the top. I still pray the current combo gets it done, but my faith in the current combo is all but lost.

I don't want to argue to much here, as I agree w/ the overall sentiment. but.... - I agree we have not had personnel that was any good at evaluating QBs. Personally, I think a key issue is coaching. Who was the last truly good QB we have had. Jimmy Mac, right? Who was our HC? Ditka. An offensive guy (multiple meanings). Since Ditka, have we had a HC w/ an offense background? Nope. How much might that play into our lack of finding a QB? - W/ regard to value v going for it, can I take that to mean you feel we should have been looking to trade up in drafts? When we drafted Rex, you are upset we traded down to get better value. What QB do you think we should have traded w/ our pick instead. I will give you Cade though. I still to this day believe Hatley intended on drafting Pepper, and felt he would be there after the trade down, but then Minny shocked everyone by taking a QB, and we grabbed Cade saying he was our boy all along. - W/ that said, what other QB did we have an opportunity to draft at the top of a draft that we passed on? So is the issue you have that we have traded down for "value QBs" rather than trading up for franchise QB? This is an issue I understand, and somewhat agree w/. 1999 - We had the 7th pick. I so wanted McNabb, but he was set to go high. As I recall, Hatley did talk trade, but the asking price was simply insane. Back then, teams were still looking for the next Ricky Williams for two drafts sort of deal. We needed to jump for 7 to 2, and it simply was not doable. 2000 - We took Urlacher w/ all QBs still on the board. Pennington, the top rated passer, fell to 18. Sure glad we passed on him. 2001 - Only QB taken in the 1st was Vick. Didin't like him then, and now.... Good move not moving up for Vick. 2002 - We had the 29th pick in the draft, and there was no way we were moving up (thankfully) to the top of the draft for Carr or Harrington. 2003 - This was a year I might agree w/ you. We had the 4th pick, traded down for two 1sts, and got Rex w/ the later 1st. I never wanted Rex. I was VERY high on Palmer, and no, that is not just said in hindsight. But I do not kwow what Cincy would have wanted for the #1 spot. Could we have been aggressive in that move. Yes? But w/o knowing what Cincy might have asked for, at some point aggressive becomes stupid. 2004 - We had the 14th pick. We may have been able to jump a few spots to get Rothlisberger. Manning and Rivers were out of our reach at the top. But we just drafted Rex in the 1st the prior year. No way we were trading up for Big Ben. 2005 - Could have moved up for Alex Smith, but stood pat for Benson. Even knowing Benson, I am not sure that was the wrong choice. 2006 - We picked at the end of the 1st. I actually wanted to move up after Leinart and Cutler began to fall, but that was a pretty big jump, and no telling what it would have cost. 2007 - Do you believe we should have taken Flacco at 14? I don't. Brohm in the 2nd yes, but is that the sort of aggressive play you say we have avoided? I think we made a mistake, but I am not sure how often those "bold moves" would have been either doable, or a good idea.

Red shirt for 2008. I believe there are questions whether he is 100% yet or not. There are also questions about his route running, and commitment. I can see us putting him on IR, giving his knees a solid year to not only heal, but strengthen, while he works on the holes in his game.

There isn't? Maybe you are right, and I just have to assume it depends on individual teams boards. For example, Right after we picked, Carolina traded up a couple spots to get Albert. They could have had Otah, but saw enough difference to warrant the move up for Albert. Your right that it is all a crapshoot, but that is true of the entire draft. McFadden, Ryan, Dorsey, Long & Long are all crapshoots. Maybe those picks are better odds, but they are gambles just the same as the 14th pick or the 144th pick. For the record, I believe the OL you left off your list (Albert) will prove to be the best OL taken in this draft, and that includes Long.

Maybe it did work. Just for the hell of it, I'll throw it out there. What if we leaked the info because Williams was at the top of our board, ahead of Clady. There was a lot of talk that Denver could be looking at Williams over Clady. Maybe, we wanted Clady, and leaked the rumor so Denver would take Clady and Williams would fall to us. Just throwing it out there.

I agree our personel has been inept at the QB position. Can this even be argued. But over the years, I have to say, I am not sure "approach" is the key issue. Look at our last 11 drafts/years. We have tried nearly every approach. We have: Drafted a QB in the 1st - Cade & Rex Traded a 1st for a veteran - Mirer (ouch) Tried to find 2nd round developmental QB prospects - Morena, Krenzel, Orton Looked for backups for other teams behind solid starters - Quinn Signed veterans - Stewart, Chandler, Miller, Griese, Blake, Took a flier on well thought of young players - Hutch Ironically, about the only thing I have not seen us try is drafting a QB day one, after the 1st round (rounds 2 and 3). Not saying that would have mattered over the years, simply pointing out that we have tried many different approaches to getting a QB. I think we have sought a QB in many different ways. We have simply done a poor job (a) evaluating QB talent and ( developing that talent.

With that comment, I then have to ask how wise it is to draft a CB w/ such a history of injuries? I too would not be shocked if he gets the Angelo red shirt treatment. I also think Monk will finish up training camp getting red shirted to IR.

I was a huge fan of Grubbs too, as well as Blaylock and Ugoh. Playing in space is a knock on Schuening, but more so in terms of playing RT. He was an OG soph and junior seasons, but was asked to play RT his senior year, and struggled some there. Most of the talk of his issues playing in space arise from this, and are more a point to say he should not be viewed as an OT in college, rather than to say its an issue at OG. You say our OG needs to be able to pull and block downfield. For me, at this point I would be happy w/ an OG that can simply block the freaking man in front of him. Damn I wanted Faneca. I know he was expensive as crap, but imagine how much better our OL would look now w/ him. Further, imagine how much better the development of Williams would be playing next to Faneca. That is a concern for me too. While we are all high on Williams, rookies most always struggle on the left side. Whoever we start at LG is not going to help Williams, and alternately, Williams is not likely to help that OG. I am really hoping we move Garza over. I think we can better afford a bit of a dip at OG between Kreutz and Tait, as opposed to between Kreutz and a rookie LT.

Here is a question. I think pretty much always, your depth chart DBs play special teams. For a player w/ such a history of injuries, is that a good idea?

I question your review of Beekman. For the record, I liked him then, and still do now. The biggest knock on Beekman seemed to be strength. He was not considered strong enough, and our staff has repeatedly said the same. He had to get stronger in order to play OG in the NFL against FAR stronger DTs than he faced in college. Schuening does not seem to have the same knock. That doesn't mean he is w/o knocks, but I think many/most of his knocks applied to him at RT, but are dimissed at OG. Also, I question how much our OG needs to be athletic. Brown was not athletic. Maybe early in his career, but when we got him, nope. Metcalf, his backup. Nope. Frankly, while it is always talked about, we have not really seen many athletic OGs, at least not in a long time. So I am not sure how much athleticism we expect of our OGs.

One. It isn't that I am so high on Graham. I just feel Bowman, assuming he can stay healthy, will take time to develop. I do not see much of anything from him this year. After that? If he stays healthy, he could well be our nickel DB ahead of McBride and anyone else. He has talent more than any of our depth. I simply believe it will take longer to refine that talent, as I see it as very raw. Two. More CB injuries than QB. That may be true for most teams, but I am not sure if it is for ours. My theory. Sid Luckman, toward the end of his career, was driving down the street and hit a truch carrying mirrors. So many were broken that the normal 7 year rule was extended to 70, and also extended past him and to the position itself for the team. How else do you explain how an organization as old as ours could have a QB history as awful as ours.

Personally, I hope we do not have any interest in Simms. I disliked him in college, and saw most every game. Oklahoma had his number, and not much has changed. Oklahoma knew that when pressured, Simms folds. I have not seen anything change since his hit the NFL level. IMHO, if Simms had a different last name, he would not have even been a starter at Texas over Applewhite. But he had the name. He does have many of the intangibles you love in a QB, but simply does not have it above the shoulders. Right now, nothing would surprise me. I can see one of the two UDFA making the team as our #3 QB w/ the reasoning that we have two veterans at 1/2, so we can have a rookie at the 3rd spot. The other QB could be on the practice squad. As for grabbing one of TBs cast offs, it may not be so easy. If there is any interest from other teams, he (whoever it is) may not want to be the 3rd QB for a team that has already said it will have a two man competition. Regarding adding a QB specialst scout, it is a great idea numerous journalists have talked about, but also one NFL teams simply do not seem to go for, for whatever reason. While I would love it, I just do not see it. Can't explain why, but simply doesn't seem like something that is done.

One. McBride is a near exact opposite to Bowman. McBride was a 3 year starter at a Divsion I school. He was a far more experienced and polished prospect. He fell to the 7th because his upside was simply not considered great. Most viewed his potential as not much more than that of a nickel DB. At the same time, he was a more developed player who was more likely start be ready to contribute right away, rather than a prospect like Bowman. Two. When there is talk of rookies contributing, I am not sure I agree w/ the logic of assuming not one, but two injuries. If you assume two injuries at most any position, you can assume the rookie plays. If we drafted a rookie QB, I think most would not expect him to contribute this year, but if you start to assume multiple injuries, then you would argue that even a rookie QB would contribute. When I talk of rookie contribution, I am assuming he does so based on his ability, not simply because he is the only man left standing. Also, on this point, if we did suffer two injuries at CB, I can actually see us moving DM back to CB over Bowman. Three. Re Schuening v Beekman - I am not sure I agreed w/ either the comparison or your comments on Schuening. While not super athletic, I have not read he is flat out unathletic. He was not considered to have the footspeed to play on the edge, but his athleticism for playing inside is different. One of the top knocks on Beekman was strength, which proved true, per our staff, last year. Schuening does not seem to have a similar knock. He is a three year starter, and was considered a top 5 OG. Maybe he would not start, but I think his chances of starting would have been pretty solid, and FAR better than Bowman's chances of even playing nickel. Also, you assume as many as two injuries to get Bowman into a contributing role, yet do not seem to assume an injuries to OG, a position we have dealt w/ plenty of injuries as well. I do not understand why you think Scheuning was not a good fit. He was not "just any OG". He was considered a top 5 OG on most every board I saw. As for fit, I do not understand your logic. Heck, you seem to contradict yourself some when you say Beekman, an OG we drafted, was unathletic like Scheuning. While I disagree w/ that statement, if the two are similar and we drafted Beekman, why is Scheuning not a fit?

And I personally think you over-estimate how much Bowman is going to contribute this year. Bowman might have 1st round skills, but he has late round development. He was a JUCO college transfer a few years ago. Now I read fans talk day and night about lesser competition from a college that isn't from one of the major conferences, but a junior college is a step below that. He started 5 games at the end of 2005. He was w/ Nebraska for three seasons, though his entire 2006 season was wiped out due to injury. This last year, due to injuries, he played in only 11 games, and started only 4. So he has a total of 9 starts. I am not saying he doesn't have skills, but those skills are raw. Even when healthy, he spent most of his time as a nickel DB, and that was not exactly on a good defense. So I simply have a hard time seeing Bowman so quickly being ready to be a major contributor on defense. He is going to need time to develop. This year, I think he will be behind both McBride and Graham, and that is assuming he can stay healthy, which he has struggled to do. As for a pick I would have rather had, who I think very well could have started, the immediate answer for me would be Schuening. IMHO, he would have been our starting LG.

Williams is not a great run blocker. His strength is as a pass protector. He is more athletic than powerful. Oh, and by the way, he lacks a mean streak. I agree we are going to run the ball, but if we were making some huge push toward being a big time running offense, then I would have to really questions some picks. Our one OL pick (other than the 7th round) was an athletic, finesse pass protector. We ignored OG, where St. Clair will be starting. We did not add a FB, and lets be honest, McKie is no great run blocker. Sorry to tell you this, but while Forte may be a heck of a runner, we did not use the draft to set up some awesome run game.

I wasn't clear. Okay. But do you really want me to elaborate? Look, I am fine w/ some fliers. Taking a flier day two is part of the norm. But IMHO, we took several fliers. Also, while I say fliers, that is part of the problem. I have just as big of an issue w/ the TE pick. That is not a flier. He was considered a well regarded TE, and he doens't have massive flags except being in need of more development. But a 3rd TE? So it isn't "just" taking a flier on a CB. It isn't "just" drafting a #3 TE. It isn't "just" adding yet another in-the-box safety. It isn't "just" getting another DT w/ character issues. It is the cumulative effect of all these picks combined that ticked me off.

Get over it? Your how old?

I bet Houston would be team one. They were so locked in on OT they reached for Brown when the top 7 were gone. Atlanta could be team two. I think Cle made it popular for a lot of team to try and get their OT and QB. Atlant went the opposite route of Cle, but that is what they did too. After taking Ryan, they traded up to get Baker in the 1st (at 21). I think Atlanta may have planned all along on going QB/OT, and had hoped Williams might fall enough to be the guy they move up for.

Confused by your point. First you seem to act like it would have been wrong to take a QB in the draft, but then you throw out the above comment, which seems to contradict the rest of your post. I am on record (to say the least) in saying we blew it passing on Brohm. As for taking a later QB, I have no idea if any may be good. Nor do you, despite your guarantees. Like you said, no one knew Brady would be Brady. My issue is, when you look at our draft, there are numerous fliers (big injury risks or developmental projects) at non-need positions, and it sure seems like a QB would have been a better route. Does that mean if we took Woodson isntead of a #3 TE, it would have been or good pick, or that Woodson would become a great QB. No. But why is it not worth the risk? As for the get over it. What the hell. It is Tuesday. The draft ended less than 48 hours ago. How brief of a window do you allow for fans who are not thrilled w/ everything the team does, and wish to criticize. Or is there a window at all. Should we just be nice little sheep and enjoy each and every move Angelo makes?