nfoligno

Jason, are you drunk on kool-aid. I didn't expect you to hit the bottle like that. Does this not get said EVERY year. Every year, there is talk about this young player and that young player. Last year, we were not talking about berrian taking the next step, Bradley, Hass, Rideau? Bradley - He has not proven he can stay healthy, and until he does, I don't think it benefits our health as bear fans to continue to count on him. I would also like to point out that when we drafted him, he was a raw player. He didn't play much in college, and was in need of loads of development. How much has he developed on IR? Hester - He was a WR in camp last year, and didn't even know where to line up. I will never forget Moose moving him around on the field. Funny as hell. Explosive potential, but I do not think we should count on him for much. He will be the type to catch a 75 yard TD one game, then go 4 w/o a catch. Davis - Come on. Depth chart guy. Bennett - IMHO, he may be starting by the end of the year. Booker - Will start day one, and mentor Bennett, who I think is similar to Booker. Lloyd - I think he starts the year, but loses his job to Bennett at some point. Monk - I think Monk will be yet another red shirt player we shelve until 2009.

By his logic, I suppose it would have been okay to move up from our 2nd round pick, into the 1st, and then draft Brohm. Because then the odds go up, right? If you do not gamble, how can you win. Is a QB in the 2nd a gamble. Sure. And the odds go down after that. That does NOT mean you just quit the table.

Nicely put. I will say that 20 years ago, I could not have drafted for jack. But today, thank you internet, the info available out there is incredible. Go take a look on NFL.com. Take a look at how detailed the scouting reports are. If you pay a bit, you can have access to so many more sites, many of which are run by former NFL scouts. Video is available on just about every player. Hell, let me point this out. Teams still use scouts, but every team also uses scouting servies. There are a couple scouting services that scout players, and offer their "book" for a price. You can I can get that as well. Let me finish this thought by referring to Joel Buchsbaum. He was w/ Pro Football Weekly. The guy was awesome. There was no opinion I valued more than his on prospects. He was basically just a football geek that lived in his room and reviewed players. Oh yea, and numerous teams tried to hire him, but he liked his secluded life, and stay on-line. Point is, you do not have to be a NFL GM to pick in the draft anymore. Wanna bet I could have done better than Wanny? I will admit there are player who have been "hits" I would not have taken, or players that have been busts that I would. At the same time, I look back over the years, and my hits seem to outweigh my misses. Regarding this draft, I like Forte. I would not have taken him as I would have taken Brohm in the 2nd. (Albert in the 1st). If Forte made it to the 3rd, than I may have taken him. May. But I can guarantee you I would have been taking a lot more OL after that.

Nice on the joint joke. I think plenty were calling Brohm a franchise QB. Would potential franchise QB be better? There was plenty of discussion prior to the draft of trading down in the 1st to take him later, or trading up from our 2nd round pick, as the expectation at the time was that Brohm would not make it to our pick. Brohm has some injury concerns. That is a big reason he was not a 1st round pick. But in the 2nd round? We used every round after this (nearly) to take a flier on a risk player. Why not in the 2nd.

I hope you realize what a crap argument that is. It is as old of an argument as you find, and still a joke. One. By that logic, I assume you NEVER question our coaching staff. You never feel Turner made a bad playcall, or that you would have called a better play. Hey, better yet, you never felt you could make some better playcalls than Jauron, Wanny, Shoop or even Shea. Hey, they are all professional coaches. Are you? Two. This is the draft. Hey, newsflash. Whether for the GM of a professional sports team or a fan sitting at home, the draft is a crap shoot. Despite all of Angelo's vast resources, he can still make mistakes. Imagine that. Do I think I could be the GM of a team. No. Wait. Let me think about that for a bit:) But I will say that w/ the internet, we arm chair guys are at least more informed these days. We can get scouting reports on players not much different from what NFL teams get. Sorry, but I just hate the argument that we are not the GM or the coach or whatever, so it must be asanine to question them. Whenever you are ready to join the arm chair QB club, let me know. You can have your very own remote.

1st - Albert - I have no problem w/ Williams, and Williams may actually be better for us this year. I simply believe that in years to come, Albert will be a pro bowl starter, and Williams will not. I think we drafted Blake Brockermeyer (who I actually felt was a damn good LT) over a player who has the potential to be a Walter Jones. 2nd - Brohm - You want to win, you need a QB. There have been exceptions to the rule, but they are exceptions. If you want to win and be a long term successful team, you need a franchise QB. We do not have one, and passed on one here. Worse, our rival took him. 3rd - Jamal Charles - Frankly, I like Forte better, but Brohm/Charles is a great combo IMHO. The difference between Forte and Charles is simply not close to enough to pass on a QB like Brohm. 3rd - Caldwell - Solid WR prospect w/ speed to get downfield, and YAC ability to make a short pass into a big gain. 4th - Collins - I do not trade down, and instead, draft Collins, who I was very high on. In Collins, you get a guy who can challenge inside for a starting job, but otherwise would be the #3 OT w/ big upside. Everyone agrees he left school a year too soon, and needs to develop him game more, but is a great prospect to grab and do this. Provides solid a solid backup OT, which we do not have, and may potentially replace Tait down the road. 5th - Schuening - OGs tend to slip in the draft, and I feel this way about Schuening. He was a top 5, if not top 3, graded OG that was there in the 5th. IMHO, he could have come in and strongly challenged for the starting job at LG. Instead, we took a major project CB. 5th - Barrett - Okay, I said this is what I would have actually done. Barrett did not end up getting drafted until the 7th, after at least one of our picks, so this would have been a reach. Soid in-the-box safety, but if knee is an issue, we red shirt him. 7th - Hillis - He was the lead blocker for McFadden and Jones. Could challenge McKie as a rookie. 7th - Schwartz - Taking projects now. College OT who may need to move inside w/ a lack of lateral mobility. 7th - Barton - That's right. Yet another OL. I am stockpiling OL at this point. I am filling our depth chart out, and loading up the practice squad w/ prospects. 7th - Monk - I loved this Angelo pick.

Um, Davis is not even that sort of a TE. He is a raw TE who was primarily used as a pass catcher, not a blocker. Behind the curve in that area.

One, the argument "if they were so good, why did they fall" is sort of weak as history has shown us plenty of QBs who did not go high and were successful. I have seen many who would still today trade for Brady Quinn, but hey, if he is so good. And by that rationale, would Brady have been drafted. As for the argument, which I read more and more, about how maybe this was just not a good QB class and all that. Hey, I don't know. But as King pointed out, we have not drafted a QB for the last three drafts. Were those all bad QB drafts?

Heading into the draft, I would have agreed we would not take a QB in the first. Further, I argued it was wrong to trade down in the 1st in order to draft Brohm or Henne, or whoever, later for better value. My argument was that if we do not upgrade the OL, how can we develop a QB. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. We got our LT, and guess what. The QBs began to fell. At that point, I see no reason why we could not have taken a QB. Still could add a RB in the 3rd (or trade up from the 3rd to get Forte). So I understand the rationale for not taking an early round QB prior to the draft. Hell, I argued the same. But circumstanced changed IMHO. The LT we wanted fell to us, and then the QB fell too. IMHO, all argument made prior t the draft against taking a QB early (Brohm in the 2nd) went by wayside once the draft unfolded.

Come on LT. How ignorant do you think King is. It isn't that they have forgotten orton. They simply do not think enough of him to believe he is enough reason to not draft a QB. Ditto on Rex. As for the training camp reps, again, come on. If we draft a rookie, will he get loaded up w/ reps? Maybe not. But do not think for a moment he wouldn't get more than a nice share. Consider this. Teams often bring in an extra QB or two for extra arms so as to not wear out the top tier QBs. More than enough throwing to go around. Would a rookie QB get many reps w/ the 1st or even 2nd string. No. So what. His development would still have begun. Final point. So you think we are only going to carry 2 QBs? Once again, come on LT. You know we are going to carry a 3rd QB.

That is a nice thought, but it is also hindsight. There was no reason, IMHO, to believe brohm would have fallen like that. So while looking at the draft board after the fact, we could have in fact done that, I don't think we could have done it on draft day. But however you want to spin it, trade down, trade up, Brohm first, Forte first, whatever. The point is, we could have had both.

Your right. How could I have been so wrong. What was I thinking? Who needs a QB. Baltimore won a SB w/o a good QB. They are the rule, not the exception, and we should continue to try and follow in their footsteps.

King takes the words out of my mouth. Look at some of the great teams, and even w/ established QBs on the roster, they regardless draft QBs in order to (a) develop them w/o pressure and ( provide an in-house backup. NE has one of the best QBs in the league, and yet they just spent a 3rd on a QB. Oh yea, and that veteran QB on their roster. They drafted him when they had a (considered at the time) established veteran in Bledsoe. GB has had Favre for ever. Regardless, they drafted numerous QBs over the years. They drafted Hasselbeck, who they were able to trade later for pick(s). They drafted Rogers, who has been Favre's backup for the last couple years, and will likely be his replacement this year. Even though they have Rogers, they went ahead and drafted not one, but two QBs. If Rogers does not pan out, they have a solid backup plan in place. If he does pan out, well, they have a far better dilimna than we have. Better two have two good QBs than none. Indy has a guy names Payton Manning, and yet a few years ago, they drafted Sorgi who is their primary backup. No clue if he is good or not, but (a) they have an in-house QB they have been able to develop and ( do not have to worry about going out every year looking for a backup in FA. Phily has McNabb, and yet took Kolb, who they can develop to take over when McNabb is done. Notice the trend? These are teams that win year in and year out. They have stud QBs on the roster, but they regardless draft QBs because they know the value of the position. They do not put all their eggs in one basket. We do not even have an egg in our basket, and blowoff the egg hunt yearly.

How about option 4. Take the LT. Take Forte. Then trade up from the 3rd and take Brohm. That would not have cost much, and then we would have had our LT, RB and QB prospects.

One, I would first argue that the 4th round is not exactly some late round pick to throw away, not to mention Harrison being a 3rd rounder. 6th and 7th rounders, fine. Few players drafted in those rounds make 53 man rosters anyway, so those are great rounds to reach out to big time developmental projects. The 3rd and 4th though, I disagree, and the 5th depends on the circumstances. Two, I would agree w/ your logic more if we were talking about taking projects or gambles at positions of need. Harrison may be closer to that, but in Harrison, I just do not understand the individual. Everything I read talks about a run stuffer. An inconsistent player on the field, who does NOT have a high motor. He sounds a lot like the sort of DTs we run off, and not much like the sort we look to add. As for Bowman, you see him as a starter? Who is he going to knock off? Vasher or Tillman? We just locked up Vasher and Tillman, each of which are still young, to long term deals. Further, we just drafted McBride who looked pretty dang solid last year, and have Graham too. To me, Bowman especially, is a pure luxury pick a team like us can not afford. We have much bigger needs than at CB. You can talk about best player available and all that, but the reality is, we took a long term project at a non-need when we still have starting positions unsettled, and other positions totally lacking any sort of depth. I too read he reads the QB well, but where he struggles is reading the receivers and anticipating/angeling routes. Thus he sounds to me like the same sort of S we already have, and the sort we have been trying to upgrade. He is a pure in-the-box safety, and I simply question whether he is an upgrade over what we already have. I do not hate this pick, so far as the individual player goes, but again, simply feel this was more of a luxury pick when we have other needs. If he were projected as a FS, I would be far more on board w/ this. If we were looking to cut Clark loose next year, why did we sign him to an extension, rather than simply let him play out his contract? Clark was not a FA. He had another year on his deal. If Davis steps up and we cut Clark next year, that sounds like poor management to me, as we would have signed Clark to an extension for no reason.

Ironic thing is, a left handed QB would again essentially make Tait our LT, protecting the blindside.

Angelo is a former defensive scout, and I think that background gets in the way. He was set to draft offense w/ the first three picks. I think that was pretty obvious. IMHO, we went into the draft looking to draft for need w/ the top 3 picks. I believe a QB should have been in there, but I believe Angelo is trying to give our QBs one more chance, and provide Rex w/ more weapons for that last chance. After the top 3 picks, I think Angelo goes to a best player available philosophy, and that is where he begins to trip over his background. If you have a defensive background, you are simply more likely to see more diamonds in the rough on defense than at offense. That doesn't mean the offensive diamonds are absent, it just means that (a) you can not see them and ( the defensive diamonds are glaring into your eyes too much to resist. IMHO, that is we why went DT, CB and S after our need picks. Further, do we know for sure whether Davis will be used as a TE or developed into a pass rushing DE, as he did play both his senior year. Angelo simply can see defensive diamonds in the rough and not the offensive ones. The problem there is, he is our GM and not head of defensive scouts, and thus needs to be able to see both sides.

Madman/CC, Thanks for that. I do not pretend to be Kiper Jr., or McShay. Nor do I think I could ever be a GM. Hell, I liked the David Terrell pick and hated the Briggs pick (not to mention Hester would have never been a bear). At the same time, this is not so much about specific players as it is about needs. I am sure our scouts love the potential and upside of our 2nd day picks. That may be true, but if they develop (and that is a big if) they are still likely only good depth. Meanwhile, we ignore the most position in the draft. You don't have to be a GM to question our lack of respect for the QB position.

I have actually given our draft a B minus, for what that is worth. Frankly, throwing out the "what could have been" aspect, I would give our top 3 picks an A minus grade. For me, the draft grade drops from there, and then if I factor who we could have gotten, it drops further. Still, at the end of the day, I do very much like our top 3 picks. I hate that we drafted a few other players due to ignoring needs, but individually, do like some of those players. For example, I would not have drafted Steltz, but I do like him. Ditto w/ the TE Davis. But in the years to come, while there will be some good players out of this draft, I fear it will be remembered as the year we passed on Brohm (or any QB for that matter).

I see that too. Personally, I am an Angelo basher, but I like much of the draft. At the same time, I question much of it also. OL - We drafted Williams, which should allow us to move Tait to RT, but I question whether our OL will be "significantly" better, at least in 2008. Tait was not great last year, but as good as Williams may be, I question how much is expected of him starting at LT as a rookie. Further, we did not upgrade our LG position, which does not help the rookie. W/ a rookie at LT, I think we really needed a better LG. I like the future Williams brings, but question how much our OL will be upgraded immediately. WR - I like the Bennett pick, and love the Monk pick (value). While I agree we improved our WR corps, (a) how much should we truly expect of these rookies this year and ( have we upgraded our WR corp over last year. I see Booker as an upgrade to Moose, but have we replaced, much less upgraded, over Berrian? DL - Harrison could be a good DT, but I see Ian Scott. He is an inconsistent run stuffer, and not a pass rusher. I am not sure he is an upgrade over Adams, and not sure we really upgraded here. Secondary - I do not see Bowman as an upgrade in the least. He is a developmental project, and if we filled our 53 man roster based purely on what the player brings (now), Bowman would most likely be our 5th or 6th CB. He is a long term project, nothing more. Steltz is quickly becoming a fan favorite pick, but he is an in-the-box safety. Is he really an upgrade, not to mention "significant" upgrade, over McGowan or Payne? He adds depth, but I am not sure I would say he improves our secondary. We did not upgrade our QB situation, present or future. We upgraded our OL, but could have done FAR more. Now we are forced to likely start St Clair inside, and we are extremely thin and can afford no injuries. Any ideas what those reasons could be? Even if you are not sold on Brohm or Henne, how can you have so many picks, and such a need, and not find a single player worth the risk. We took risks across the board. Why not at QB. Peter King hits it on the nail when he points out that in the last three years, we have not drafted a single QB. Pathetic.

You mock GB, but I much prefer their route. Even though they had Favre, they continued to draft young QBs who could (a) develop w/o great responsibility or pressure and ( serve as backups. They currrently have Rogers who, while unproven, most would take over Rex and/or Orton. Instead of putting all their hopes though in one QB, they draft Brohm. Then go one further at QB w/ Flynn. Of the three, their hope is one can develop into a solid or better starter. At least they have reason to hope. We continue to hope our trash smells better every year.

One. Flacco isn't a crap shoot? Baltimore loved Flacco, but I think the opinions have been very uniform that Brohm is far more NFL ready than Flacco, who is a small school project w/ huge upsdie. Two. One of the biggest knocks on Brohm is whether or not he can stay healthy, but injury issues didn't stop us from drafting many others. Three. you say most all the QBs in the draft are a crap shoot. And your point is? Look at our draft. It is loaded w/ crap shoots. Would it not have been better to roll the dice at the position that is a greater need than any other, rather than CB, TE, DE or LB? Instead of crap shoots at positions we are set w/, how about rolling the dice at QB.

Definitely have to say sub .500. I Pray this will be 2001 again, but I do not see it. Defense Yes, the injuries we suffered last year were huge, but should we "expect" to be healthy this year? Urlacher had back issues last year, and while he feels healthy now, he isn't getting hit. The word "chronic" is what scares me. And Mike Brown is our starting FS again, right? Injuries aside, I am still of the opinion scheme and coaching hurt this defense as much as anything. The scheme is the same, as is the coaching. We can hope Babich gets better, as last year was his first as a DC, but I am not so sure. Finally, I have look at the "issues" we are dealing w/ again. The question has been asked before how much our decline was due to contract squables and "me" attitudes after the Super Bowl. Well, it seems like we are seeing that again. Briggs got his new deal, but is skipping workouts. Yes, they are voluntary, but come on. After getting the coin, you need to show up and show your committment. Urlacher is upset and not feeling the love. Harris has said he wants a Freeney deal, and could be thinking about his payday more than his play. Offense I LOVE that we drafted Williams, and like that Tait will likely move back to RT, but how good should we expect the OL to be in 2008? Is Williams going to be Joe Thomas. Thomas is an exception. Few rookies come in and play great at LT their rookie year. It is going to take time. St. Clair is our best option at LG, and that is not a great thing. Kreutz play has been declining too. Further, I am of the opinion that OL needs to develop chemistry, and whether rookie or veteran, we are going to start the year w/ basically 3 out of 5 positions we different players than the start of 2007. They may be upgrades, may, but will also take time to develop a report together. So w/o a great OL, how much should we honestly expect of our run or passing game? I like Forte too, but if the OL isn't that good, will Forte be? Actually think our passing game could be a bit better, as I believe (a) while our OL may not be a great at run blocking this year, they should be improved in pass protection and ( I believe Booker can offer a consistent, reliable option which we have not had. We may not score much, but might stay on the field a bit longer. I would love to think we are a better team, but I question how much we really improved.

Overall, I thought it was a pretty good draft, looking at the individual players we got. At the same time, I can not help but feel this draft will go down as the draft that could have been. I feel we missed the bus on some players, and while there are later picks I like individually, I question the selections due to who we passed on. 1st - I like Williams. I like him a lot. At the same time, I can not help but feel Albert will be a far better player. Williams may indeed be the better, immediate, prospect, but down the road, I think we look back and wonder why we didn't take Albert 2nd - Forte - I like Forte. I think most do as well. This fills a need, and w/ a player most like. At the same time, I feel it was a massive mistake passing on Brohm. For years and years, we have suffered as the media continually posted the stat showing how many QBs we have started in the time Farve has started for GB. W/ a group of QBs on the roster that make us a league wide joke, we pass on what I believe will be a franchise QB. Worse, GB ends up getting him. So while I give Forte a solid grade, I just can not escape the feeling we missed out on Brohm. 3rd - Bennett - I love this pick. Not a burner, but runs crisp routes and can use his route running to get open downfield. I see him as a Booker like Wr, maybe more. Some say Hines Ward, and i have seen others compare him to Boldin. Point is, while not a burner, he knows how to get open and use the field, and could become a damn good WR for us. W/ that said, we could have gone Brohm/Jamal Charles w/ these two picks, which I feel would have been far greater than Forte/Bennett. 3rd - Harrison - I called it prior to the pick, at least to those I was watching the draft w/. I just knew Angelo would go DT here. He can't help himself. While many love this pick, I do not. The off-field issue isn't the biggest for me. It was a single issue, and he does not seem like a consistent problem player. At the same time, I hate when I read about a player w/ a questionable motor, and who brings inconsistent play to the field. Further, I just do not get the fit. He is considered a run stuffing DT. I thought we liked gap shooters. We sent Ian Scott packing, and I am not sure I see that much difference. While we were looking at a #3 DT, we still had big needs at OG. 4th - Steltz. Individually, I like Steltz. At the same time, I question our need for yet another in-the-box safety. Arch is not a factor, but we do have McGowan and Payne, who has yet to really get a shot. S was a need, but IMHO, the need was at FS, not SS. I simply do not believe we needed to be adding another in-the-box SS who struggles covering routes. Again, we ignore the OL, and instead draft a position I do not feel was a need. 5th - Bowman - Maybe my most hated pick. Talk about drafting at a non-need position. We have two young, solid, starting CBs who are signed long term. We drafted a CB last year (McBride) who started over a veteran when Vasher went down w/ injury, and looked damn good. Also have Graham in depth. Everyone talks about Bowman's potential and upside, but his injury history is not minor. Blew out his knee one year, and Patella tendon the next. Further, as he was a junior college transfer prior to that, and played little after the transfer due to injury, this is a major project player. So we drafted a big time project, w/ major injury history, at a position we were already solid. This is the sort of pick you do not mind when you are coming off a SB win, w/ few needs, and are in position for luxury pick/gambles. We still had big needs to address, and I just do not feel this was a good pick. People talk about his potential, but w/ Vasher and Tillman locked in, what is his potential. Nickel DB? And that is if he can stay healthy and develop. Huge gamble at a non-need position. Huge mistake, IMHO. 5th - Davis - First, is he a TE or DE. He played both as a senior. My 2nd most disliked pick. We just drafted Olsen in the 1st, and re-signed Clark. Could use a 3rd TE, but seriously. St. Clair is still our starting OG, and we have no depth on the OL, and yet we are drafting a #3 TE? 7th - Baldwin - Entering this draft, the three positions I would have said we were most stocked would have been CB, TE and DE. Well, we just drafted a CB and TE, so it only makes sense to now draft a DE, right? Brown and Wale starting, w/ a great #3 in Anderson. Bazuin was just drafted, and no clue how we find a way to get him on the field w/ the other three on the team. Baldwin may be a good player, but you can only have so many players at one position. How does Baldwin fit in? 7th - Adams - We finally draft an OG, and not a very good one. Big OG, but considered very unathletic. One review said it best. Big boy w/o athleticism, but will likely make the roster due to a lack of depth. Not exactly a glowing endorcement. 7th - LaRocque - When listing the need positions, I guess I forget LB, but Angelo didn't. To continue the trend, Angelo looks at what positions are non-needs, and drafts a prospect. 7th - Barton - Actually love this pick. Not very athletic, but a blue collar sort of worker who find a way to get the job done. 7th - Monk - Another pick I love. Hell, I love the name. Injuries in his senior year killed his stock, but he has plenty of upside at a major need position. PRIME candidate for Angelo's red shirt program. Spend a year on IR to further allow the knees the regain health and strength, while he learns and develops through practice and study. If I simply look pick by pick at the individual players, I actually like most all of them. Davis is a great example. I actually very much like Davis, and think he could develop into a nice TE, and was a good value. At the same time, I just have to question drafting a #3 TE over other need positions. People talk about taking the BPA, but you can only have so many players on the roster, or at various positions. You are not going to start 3 TEs (though that could be interesting) and taking a deep depth chart guy over positions where you still need a starter is highly questionable, IMHO. Here is the draft, IMHO, that could have been. This is not simply using hindsight, as these were the picks I was calling for when they were happening. 1st - Albert - I have no problem w/ Williams, and Williams may actually be better for us this year. I simply believe that in years to come, Albert will be a pro bowl starter, and Williams will not. I think we drafted Blake Brockermeyer (who I actually felt was a damn good LT) over a player who has the potential to be a Walter Jones. 2nd - Brohm - You want to win, you need a QB. There have been exceptions to the rule, but they are exceptions. If you want to win and be a long term successful team, you need a franchise QB. We do not have one, and passed on one here. Worse, our rival took him. 3rd - Jamal Charles - Frankly, I like Forte better, but Brohm/Charles is a great combo IMHO. The difference between Forte and Charles is simply not close to enough to pass on a QB like Brohm. 3rd - Caldwell - Solid WR prospect w/ speed to get downfield, and YAC ability to make a short pass into a big gain. 4th - Collins - I do not trade down, and instead, draft Collins, who I was very high on. In Collins, you get a guy who can challenge inside for a starting job, but otherwise would be the #3 OT w/ big upside. Everyone agrees he left school a year too soon, and needs to develop him game more, but is a great prospect to grab and do this. Provides solid a solid backup OT, which we do not have, and may potentially replace Tait down the road. 5th - Schuening - OGs tend to slip in the draft, and I feel this way about Schuening. He was a top 5, if not top 3, graded OG that was there in the 5th. IMHO, he could have come in and strongly challenged for the starting job at LG. Instead, we took a major project CB. 5th - Barrett - Okay, I said this is what I would have actually done. Barrett did not end up getting drafted until the 7th, after at least one of our picks, so this would have been a reach. Soid in-the-box safety, but if knee is an issue, we red shirt him. 7th - Hillis - He was the lead blocker for McFadden and Jones. Could challenge McKie as a rookie. 7th - Schwartz - Taking projects now. College OT who may need to move inside w/ a lack of lateral mobility. 7th - Barton - That's right. Yet another OL. I am stockpiling OL at this point. I am filling our depth chart out, and loading up the practice squad w/ prospects. 7th - Monk - I loved this Angelo pick. Hey, I am not trying to pretend I am such an expert that all these players are going to be NFL studs. At the same time, I feel this would have addressed needs far better and found more productive players for us.

Just curious, what law school?