nfoligno

Hey, I have at least confessed as much. I have said that I was among those who always bashed for reaches. I used to believe in drafting the best player available. I have changed my position, and have explained my reasons. There are still times I would scream about a reach. However, some of those "reaches" have proven me wrong. Further, I question how great of a reach some of these players are. For example, I would agree Baker and even Cherilous would absolutely be reaches. I simply disagree Otah would be a reach, and argue Albert would be only a minor reach, and a reach I could justify. One. I said his stock dropped after the combine, but also argued I believe that after his pro day, and before the day of the draft, his stock will be back up. Two. To further that point, in looking at many mocks, I have seen him once again on the rise. Numerous mocks even have him gone before our pick. Three. Even if he is simply a RT, if he is believed to be a stud RT, is 14 really too high? "monstrous reach". Most every mock I have seen has him going no later than 23 to Pitt, which numerous having him gone by then. Is that truly monstrous? He is considered a stud OG w/ the potential to slide outside and play LT, where he finished his college career. Sounds pretty dang good to me. We can play him inside this year, then move him to LT next year. I am not sure the argument is so simple. In Peppers, you talk about expectations, but I thought we were talking about who is simply best. Freeney is the better pass rusher, no question, but Freeney is not good against the run, and it is his side that is often attacked. Pepper is a better all around DE IMHO, as he is very strong against the run and pass. As for Reed, I think that is a legit comparison. I agree DL is more valuable than S, but on the other hand, Reed has one a league defensive MVP award, and that speaks VERY highly to his value. While I agree DE is more scheme specific, I also would argue OT does depend on scheme as well. There are different blocking schemes used by different teams. A big, powerful OT may fit a power blocking scheme, yet not fit as well in a drop step scheme that relies more on athleticism. The opposite is also true. I would still argue he was a reach, but simply one that our staff felt was worth it due to scheme and other factors. End points are these. One, while drafting best available always sounds nice, when you have particular needs as great as ours, and those needs fit perfect w/ the draft, it doesn't make sense to me to pass on those positions. Further, I simply argue that if a team grades a player very high, it makes sense to simply draft him, rather than pass because others view his value a tiny bit lower, or to trade down and risk not getting him. If we draft Otah or Albert, and either become pro bowlers, I simply doubt anyone down the road will talk about how they were reaches.

Yup. Baker will be gone by the time we pick. There are simply too many teams looking to draft OT this year. Even if he makes it out of the 1st, I simply do not see him getting to us as someone in the top 10 that passed on OT in the 1st will take him. This is a year where you have 6 or 7 top end OL prospects, and after that, you start to find the guys who are more raw or in need of greater development. That would be fine if we had a pair of veterans currently, and were looking to draft a guy to develop for a year or so, but we need an immediate starter, and we are not going to find one later in the draft.

Agreed on Adams. IMHO, he was one of our most consistent players on the DL. He isn't flashy or a big playmaker, but simply a solid inside presence. I felt he often took on double teams on run downs, and was simply solid in the middle. You mention Dusty and Harris starting. Harris is obvious, but I think Dusty has to earn the job, and I would allow Adams an absolute chance to win it also. Last offseason, Dusty won the job but then went down w/ injury. Adams though was new to the team and I remember reading how he was having trouble making the adjustment to the new scheme, but now a year later, I wonder how the competition will go. W/ regard to Walker, I do not think we will even look at him prior to the draft. If we leave the draft w/o a new DT, then who knows. But w/ that said, I would wager we will draft another DT. Only once has Angelo not drafed DL, and that year w/ only had 6 picks, and no 3rd rounder. This year we have 8 picks (more if we get comp pick(s), and two 3rds. I do not see us drafting DE after extending Brown and getting back our red shirt Bazuin. So I think the odds are high we will draft a DT at some point. So when you add a rookie to the mix, which already has Idonije and Toeina, I simply doubt we will be looking at any DTs in FA.

I agree Hall is over-rated, but at the same time, I would also argue there are no longer shut down CBs in the league. Champ gets beat in todays NFL, where the rules are set up such that a WR can basically manhandle a CB, but if the corner puts his pinky on the WR, a flag is thrown. I think Hall is a top 5 CB in this league, but at the same time, simply do not believe the value of CBs is what it used to be. I would take ours over Hall, but that is because of (a) attitude ( money © scheme. If it is a question of who is better, I don't even think its close. Hall is a far superior CB to either of ours. You talk about Hall getting burned, but imagine if our zone coverage DBs had to cover the league's elite in man. As others have said, CJ would cost us our 1st, so that would end the OT v Mendenhall debate right there. Further, I would rather have Boldin. CJ is great, but I think Boldin is just as good (though a different game) and FAR less attitude. I mentioned this before, but I wonder what it would take to move into the back of the 1st round. Trade up! I agree Flacco doesn't get to us in the 2nd. In fact, I think someone is going to try and jump into the end of the 1st to get in front of Miami, Atlanta, etc. Why not us? At this point, I think we are done in FA. We have seen Bryant Johnson and Hackett both sign cheap deals, and we were no where near. Since the OL started getting "paid", we seemed to not only back off, but back out. At this point, I think we are planning to sit tight in FA and look to the draft. Whatever we do not fill in the draft, we may look to post-draft FA after that, but I simply do not expect us to be active against in FA until then. It sounds like we are now looking to use our time and money in negotiating w/ our own players. Even you, I think, should be able to see a shred of logic in this. While it is nice to add FAs, plug holes, and lessen your draft day needs, at the same time, it also limits your options. Imagine the draft somehow worked out such that Claddy (the #2 OT who some think could go as high as #5 and could be an elite LT) falls to us, while Mendenhall is gone before we pick. Maybe YOU still would not take an OT, but my point is that at this point in FA, maybe it makes more sense to leave your options open.

To be honest, not too long ago, I didn't value the trenches as much as I should have. I recall well making the argument in 2001, when we had Blache's created DL that didn't pass rush, how a solid CB duo could make a mediocre DL look great. After some time, I realize how wrong that is. No matter how good a pair of CBs may be, they can not hold their men forever. On the reverse, if your pass rush is good enough, even average CBs can cover very good WRs for a couple seconds. Ditto on the opposite side. Rarely do you have a great RB behind a mediocre OL, on the other hand, look at Minny. Is Chester Taylor really such a great RB? Everyone talks about AP, but how good did Chester Taylor look behind that OL. Or consider Denver. Mike Anderson was a 1,000 yard rusher. That was when I first started to think trenches first and formost, but then I saw more and more how RBs truly did begin to dive in production right at around 30. On the other hand, you look around the league and find so many 30+ year old OL that are still productive. That was particularly when I saw the value in building a great OL v just worrying about a great RB. A great RB is short term, while a great OL can be much longer for you. I don't know. If this draft was not so solid in OT, I may well have been screaming for Mendenhal, but too I simply think this draft is too solid at OL to pass.

Turner may not be a fair comparison to Faneca, but how about Bell. Was Bell a starter? Yes. But come on. You have 5 starting OL on every team and only one RB. Turner was considered a big time FA. The way it used to be, LT was the only big money making position. Soon, Centers started getting paid. Then RTs. Now OGs are getting sick money as well. RBs? I think RBs pay has gone downhill as their careers are simply so much shorter. RBs are considered over the hill and on the downside of their career by 30. OL are not. I think that is a big part of the reason why RBs are not getting paid as much in FA now. Thus, I think RBs are better bargains in FA than OL. Further, I simply believe that finding a RB after the 1st is less difficult than finding a LT.

I agree RB is a good value this year. No argument there. But so is OT. Let me ask you this. What is harder to find. OT or RB. Both are difficult for the bears, but look around the league. I think you will find more solid or better RBs that were not 1st round picks than you will OT. You say we can upgrade the OL next year, but what makes you so confident? According to most sources, this is one of the best OT groups seen in a LONG time. As many as 6 OTs are considered a 1st round grade, maybe 7 if you count Albert, who many feel can be an OT as well. Next year? I simply believe it is harder to find OT, especially LT, than it is RB. More than anything, I think it comes down to how an individual values OL. You have some like Terra, who I believe feels great RBs can make an OL. I am in the other camp. I think a great OL can make a RB far more than the other way around. I would use as an analogy, CB v DL on defense. I believe that, no matter how good of a duo you have at CB, if your DL isn't capable of getting to the QB, those CBs will look very average. NYGs would be the counter point to that. Put together a great DL, and an average pair of CBs will look outstanding. That is how I feel about the OL/RB. Few RBs make look great behind an average or below average OL, while a good/great OL will make an average RB look all-pro. I simply believe you can upgrade the RB position easier, both in the draft and FA, than you can OT. Further, I would argue that RBs in FA are cheaper too. Look at what the top OL got this year, some of whom were not even "that" great, compared to what the top RB (Turner) got.

I sort of liked the car analogy, I think it was Jones', also using a car, but referring to the OL as the tires. Getting a RB this year would be like buying a porshe, but w/ nothing but spare tires. No matter how well the engine revs, a voltwagon beetle will blow past you w/ those weak-A spare tires.

Edge James had about 1,200 yards and 7 TDs behind a pretty weak OL. His YPC was at 3.8, but w/ that OL, I would say he did pretty well. Of coarse, w/ WRs like AZ had, it is understandable. Better example might be McGahee. He had 1,200 yards on 7 TDs also, but did it w/ a 4.1 ypc avg., and w/o any other legit weapons on offense. OL was considered average to below average last year. Ditto at QB and WR. He ended up injured, but Gore had 1,100 yards and a 4.2 ypc average beyind a bad OL and on a bad offense in general. It can be done. There are some backs that can have decent numbers behind weak OLs. These IMHO are the exception, and also, you usually find quicker RBs like Gore, who can make something out of nothing.

Agreed that he should be able to make that one cut if a hole opens up, for example, inside the LT when the play was designed to go inside the LG. I disagree that happened as often though as you make out, and further disagree vision was such an issue. The biggest issue I had w/ Benson was, earlier in the season, he seemed hesitant after getting the ball. That was a death toll for him. That split second allowed for penetration, and when he met his first defender, he did not have a head of steam, and was too easily brought down. However, I felt that as the season went on, he showed more and more decisive running. He was harder to bring down as he took the ball and burst toward the LOS. Problem was, there was still penetration, and he often had to fight just to get to the LOS. I am not saying Benson is great. At the same time, i do not believe he is nearly as bad as what fans have made out.

Sure, QBs and other players fall, but I simply do not think Ryan falls to us, and that appears to be the common belief as well. Quinn fell last year, but was also the #2 QB. Ryan is the #1 QB, so that means no team takes a QB before us, which I simply question. Could it happen? Sure. But how great the need is at QB for those teams makes it unlikely IMHO. I would add that, besides the teams you mentioned, KC is far from set or solid at QB, and could look at Ryan if he falls to them. NYJs have been rumored interested in Ryan, or QB in general. Pennington is on the way out, and there are questions whether Clemens is a franchise QB. Buffalo could be interested as well. Loseman is on the way out, and while they have Edwards, if Ryan is considered that much better.... Point is, it isn't just 2 or 3 teams. Miami and Atlanta get the most talk, but that is also largely because Ryan is not expected to fall past Atlanta, who is in dire need of a QB. If he does fall past Atlanta, KC and NY could be intersted, and few expect him to get past Baltimore. Like I said, anything can happen, but I think this is simply considered so unlikely, that is why it has not generated discussion. Similar to how no one is talking about Jake Long. Could he fall? Anything can happen, but the liklihood is so slim that it doesn't warrant discussion.

Never said we have done well. Far from it. My point was simply to take out the word "never" as he have hit on a couple. As for Columbo, he has become a solid RT in the league. What more should you expect from a late 1st round pick? Yea, he was a bust for the bears, but even I (the eternal Angelo basher) avoid bashing him for Columbo too much as injury killed his career w/ us, as opposed to talent.

Old? I have a pair of kiddies about the same age as yours. So who you calling old? Crotchety? Okay, I can take that I used to be totally against the idea of reaching. I would say that if a player was graded out 5 or 8 spots later than when you drafted him, you should have traded down. But today, I think you simply take that player. If you can fortell the future and know for a fact no team between your pick and your traded down pick would take the player you want, fine. But that is not reality. If Otah or Albert represent a player we grade high, and really want to add to our offense, I would argue we are better off simply taking that player, rather than risk trading down and missing out on the opportunity. I have said this before, and go back to Cade McNown v Culpepper. I still believe today that Hatley traded down believing he could get Pepper for a better value. When you look at the teams between our original pick, and traded pick, it was not believed any intended on drafting QB. But Minny defied expectations and took Culpepper, and we were stuck w/ McNown. If we trade down this year think Albert will be there, we may end up losing out on him, and stuck taking a player we didn't really want, or w/ a significantly lower grade, all because we wanted better value.

Sorry, but I do not see it that way. It was just a couple weeks ago Otah was considered a solid value at 14. His stock has dropped some, but not more than 10 spots, and as I said, I think his stock will go back up again after his workout. Point is, I simply do not view Otah as much of a reach, if at all. As for Albert, he would be closer to being considered a reach, but if you look at mocks, most have him going to Pitt, if not sooner. Pitt draft 8 or 9 spots after us. So is Albert a reach? Maybe a little, but I simply do not agree it is a big reach. As for Freeney, is he the most accomplished from that draft? Peppers, McKinnie and especially Ed Reed may argue, but that point aside, the question is regarding reach. That year, we picked at 29, and many felt Freeny might be there. If not, I recall most believing one of the teams in the early to mid 20s might take him. NO ONE thought he would go as high as 11, and when Indy took him, he was called a huge reach. Dungy had to explain the pick in response to all the reach criticism. You say Polian coveted him and that Freeny was a perfect fit for his system, but that is a justification for reaching, not an argument against Freeney being a reach. What if Angelo looks at Albert and see's a perfect fit for our system that will be a pro bowler? Is that not the same justification? And Abert at 14 is less of a reach than Freeney at 11. Again, it is hard to consider Freeney a reach today due to his accomplishments, but when he was drafted, he was considered a huge reach, and that is my point. If you reach for a player, and that player becomes great, no one remembers him being a reach. I might point to Tillman as an example. When we drafted him, many felt he was a reach, but today, who talks about that? I have an issue when you draft a 2nd round pick in the 1st, or when you reach for big time for a player. I do not have as great of an issue when you make a slight reach, and even less so when it is not likely you can trade down and still get the player. For example, it is my believe that in 2006, we traded down looking at a group of LBs who we felt a late 1st was too high, and wanted to get better value by taking one in the early 2nd. Problem is, we traded down behind a group of other teams w/ LB as a high need, and watched 3 or 4 LBs go off the board, taking away our LB prospects. So, in a situation like that, it is my argument that we would be better served to simply take the player we wanted, even if he was a slight reach, rather than trade down hoping to get him at a better value, and then lose him all together. Another example would be the year we drafted Cade McNown. Many still believe Culpepper was who we wanted. We felt we could trade down and get him for a better value, but then Minny unexpectedly drafts him, and we end up w/ Cade. That is why, while I understand trading down and getting a player for better value, sometimes if you like a player and want a player, you may be better off simply drafting that player. Reaching for a player a little, who you want and feel is a stud, is better than trying to get him for a better value, and in turn losing him to another team.

At the same time, we also sort of stick our necks out. If tampering is something done as rampant as most reports indicate, I simply have to wonder if we are so clean that we can afford to really complain. If we ever tamper, how does it look when we are the team that went after another for the same.

Good points for discussion. Was the OL the entire problem? HELL NO! I would argue that, besides the individuals on the OL, you can look at: - OL coach who may not have employed a blocking style that best suited our individual players. Our blocking style better fits athletic OL, not older guys who are better power blockers than drop step. - Turner - When your offense is so predictable, it makes it too easy for the defense, and that much harder for the players. - Benson - Did he miss some holes, or maybe hessitate some? Sure. - WRs - Our WRs were not good getting seperation off the LOS, and thus the QBs are forced to hold the ball longer. Add in poor route running and dropped passes, and all other problems are magnified. - QB - No question the QB has to take some blame here as well. Far too often a lack of decision making and field awareness hurt. Too often we would see a wide open WR, but the QB would not. Or by the time the QB did, the DB was already back in position. The QBs lack of ability to pickup the blitz was also crucial, not to mention overall pocket awareness. While I agree the issue was not 100% the OL, I would still argue it is among our biggest issues. We have a LT playing RT. We do not have a LG or RT. Frankly, I always felt our RG was average at best, but on last years OL, he looked good due to how bad the rest looked. Kreutz is still good, but has not looked as elite as he once was. If we had a QB in place, I might see the point of a WR, but w/o a QB, I think a WR would be a waste. A RB? W/o first fixing the OL, what is the point. I personally believe a good OL can make an average RB look damn good, but I do not believe the opposite to be true. A good RB is not going to look good behind a bad or mediocre OL. Finally, I want to address you point about Benson. There is little argument he doesn't cut like TJ. I remember a great run by TJ which started left where there was no hole, and he cut it all the way to the far outside right. Result was an 8 yard TD run. That was a run Benson is not likely to break off. At the same time, can you really attack a RB for not trying runs that are not part of his game. To me, that would be like attacking Dunn for not being a power runner or Bettis for not breaking more outside runs. TJ and Benson were not the same style runners, and to attack Benson for not running the same style as TJ is a mistake. Benson is a single cut RB. You say you want him to run like TJ, but you would be screaming at him for getting dropped 3 yards behind the LOS if he tried. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If we passed on Johnson and Hackett, who were signed to cheap deals, I am not sure we should expect us to be players in Jackson.

Say we don't do well, but leave out the never. I think most would argue Harris was a great pick. Urlacher? And while Columbo was not a good pick for us, I am not sure he was that awful of a pick as he is now a starter for a good team. When a player doesn't have prior injury history, it is hard to really bash the GM when the player suffers injuries.

I do not think you meant to mention Williams twice. And Clady is assumed gone. I don't see us moving up for Williams, but Clady is a possibility, though only slight. I think it comes down to how our scouts and personnel guys grade out these OTs. If they grade Clady out as a top 10 pick, and the rest as 15-20 range, and Clady drops to Buffalo, then yes, I can see the logic. We all love stock piling picks, but but is an extra 3rd round pick even remotely close to equal the value of getting a guy the staff believes is a stud LT? I was for trading down yesterday. I am against it today. Ask me again how I feel tomorrow. The problem I have w/ trading down is how many teams behind us may well be looking at OL as well. Det (15), AZ (16), Hou (18), Phi (19), TB (20), Pitt (23). While you can argue whether or not you think they will/would, there have been enough mocks and talks of each looking at OL, and some are consider to have OL at the top of their priority list. In most scenarios where fans want us to trade down, it is because Clady and Williams are off the board. That means you have Otah, Albert and maybe Cherilous. If we liked all three equally, then maybe a move down makes some sense, but I would wager we have one or two higher, and thus question the logic in trading down and risking whether we get our guy or not. That is why I am now thinking we sit still at 14, and simply take the best OL available. I do not think any would consider Otah a reach. Albert might be considered a slight reach, but a very slight one. Cherilous would be considered a greater reach, yet I still go back to this. If we view that player as a pro bowl OL, so freaking what. Take him, and later on when he is starting in the pro bowl, lets see who says, "well, he may be a pro bowler, but we reached for him in the draft."

For me, a reach for Albert or Otah would not be the end of the world. Also, come draft day, I wonder how much either are considered a reach. Not long ago, Otah was considered a solid value w/ our pick, but fell some after the combine. If he has a solid showing in his workout, his stock could go right back up. As for Albert, I have seen many mocks w/ Pitt taking him at #23. As much as anyone, his stock is hot and on the rise. By this time next month, he could easily be considered a value w/ our pick. Frankly, and I have gone back to this before, but sometimes I am not that against minor reaches. Indy reached big time on Freeney, and yet who today thinks of Freeney as a reach, or cares? Albert looks like a freaking stud OG, and so many have said he has potential at LT. So we play him at LG, and maybe in a year slide him outside to LT. But if he becomes a stud for us, who cares if we took him 4, 6 or 8 spots higher than some felt his value was. As for Otah, I am not even sure he is a reach.

One. never said sticking to our guns on Briggs was a bad thing. In fact, I was among those who always said we should hold off on re-signing him for big bucks, only only sign him if he dropped to our price. Two. "having the league owners band around us?" Why do you think this is going to happen. Nice thought, but I think we are going to be more alone than not. Rules or not, the reality is most every team talks to players and agents when they should not and about things they shouldn't. Tampering is closer than not to a way of life in the NFL. And while I hate Rosenarce too, at the same time, acting like we have a personnel vendetta against him makes no sense. One, it is far more an issue w/ the team than w/ the agent when you have tampering. Two, no matter how much we hate him, if we hope to sign other players of ours that have him as an agent, starting a war like this w/ him really doesn't make much sense.

I just read that RB Jonathan Stewart had surgery on his toe, and will be for the next 4-6 months. He has been considered a mid 1st round pick, and there have even been some mocks w/ us taking him. His agent says he should be ready for the start of training camp, but that is only if his rehab goes according to plan. So the questions are, (1) how far will he fall. He can't workout for teams, and his injury (at least) takes him out of mini-camps and puts into question his being ready to start training camp. (2) If he fell to us in the 2nd, would he be considered a steal, or too great of a risk?

I would have been fine drafting RB and WR if we did more in FA to upgrade the OL. If we grabbed Faneca and maybe Bell, that would have dramatically upgraded our OL. While I might even then still like the idea of OT, I would be far more open to drafting a RB. Yea, I know your feelings on RBs in the draft, but if we first upgraded the OL, I think we could then afford to look at skill position players. But we did nothing in FA on the OL, and while FA is not over, I see little out there today that would constitute an upgrade. I do not care what RB or WR or QB we draft. If we do not upgrade the OL, I do not think it will matter. I am now to the point that, if Clady and Williams are off the board, I would rather reach for Otah or Albert. Either may be considered a slight reach, but if they develop into the players many believe they can become, who cares? I still remember some years ago when Indy drafted Freeney. I remember a time when I wanted him w/ our late 1st round pick, and was told he would be a reach there. His stock rose, and he was then considered a solid pick for us, if he fell, but then Indy takes in close to 20 spots in front of us. Everyone was shocked. Dungy simply said, regardless what others thought of him, Indy viewed him as a stud pass rusher that would be not there in the next round, and Indy didn't want to risk the chance of trading down an missing him. Today, who remembers that Freeney was a reach, much less a huge reach?

You know what sucks too? Lets say we pass on Mendenhal and take Williams to upgrade the OL. Say Mendy is drafted by AZ. Well, in AZ they have QB questions, but I would take either of their two. They have the best WR tandem in the NFL (or one of top 2/3). They have been working to upgrade their OL, and has a coaching staff which has a background on the OL. Point is, if he goes to AZ, there is a good chance he can shine. Does that mean he would shine just the same in Chicago though. Especially after watching our activity/inactivity in FA, I simply do not think any RB is going to come in and light it up. But if Mendy goes to AZ and does well, many will say, "I told you so" regardless. I like much of what I have seen w/ Mendy, but also believe our offense is so weak right now that he would be wasted. What happens when he comes to Chicago and averages about 3 ypc? What happens to a players confidence when they look like a bust after the first year? Further, if we do not draft OT this year, in a year rich w/ OT, who is to say we will have a stout OL in 2009? That is my biggest issue in drafting Mendy. Until the OL is fixed, we will not see an upgrade in the run game, regardless who is toting to rock. And further, if we do not upgrade the OL in a draft considered more rich at OT than in recent memory, who is to say we will have as good of an opportunity to upgrade the OL after this year. How long might it be before we can put a good OL in front of Mendy? By the time we do, we may also have to replace Tait and Kreutz. More and more, I believe OL has to be our top pick. Clady would be awesome, but likely out of reach. Williams would be a damn good pick, and probably our best option to upgrade two positions (LT and RT w/ Tait moving over). After that, I REALLY like Albert, whether he plays OG or OT. Cherilius looks like he could be a stud OT, but is more likely a pure RT. While neither he, nor Albert, would allow us to move Tait, they would at the same time provide a significant boost to our OL play.

Tait was actually quite expensive. Much of his deal was front loaded, but there was still plenty left and overall, it was among our biggest handed out ever. We no longer have LT2's cap threat, but I recall looking at what our OL hits the cap for this year, and Tait is still pretty darn expensive. Yes, we added FAs to upgrade the OL before, but I think it also worth noting just how short lived those players were. You can get old OL like Brown and Miller w/o spending an arm and leg, but they are very short term fixes. The only long term OL we have that we are not trying to upgrade is Kreutz, who happens to also be the only one we drafted. You can say we should add younger OL in FA, and I have no problem w/ that, but that is going to cost, and cost big going off the recent deals handed out. I was all for adding Faneca, but that ship has sailed. So has many other OL upgrades I was looking at in FA. Whether we like that or not, it is what we have to work w/. At the point, I am not sure we can still expect to upgrade our OL through FA, and as others have said, w/o upgrading the OL, it likely doesn't matter what skill position player you draft, as they will look like garbage. I am not saying we are set at RB, QB or WR. But if you do not have an OL that can block, and Mendenhal is hit behind the LOS every time, he will quickly look like a bust. If this draft were not considered so solid at OT, I might be fine w/ taking a RB or a position player, but this draft is considered excellent at OT. Grab Clady or Williams to play LT, move Tait to RT, and you have significantly upgraded the OL. In doing this, yes, even Benson might look good.