JKool

Ok, here is my recap. I'll look foward to thoughts.

1. Jammal Brown. Nice pick; we took him from the grasp of CAR and we got the guy at RT we need. We needed an OT, we got arguably the best available.
2. Mayberry. No one was sold on him at RT, but we all know he's a mauler at RG. Now, he's a RG again.

1&2: The FO addressed what was a serious issue last season, the OL. The OL is where every offensive play starts, it is the key to keeping the O off the field, it is the means for our pro-bowl caliber back to get into the defensive secondary and kill someone. Damn fine!

3. Josh Bullocks. WTF? Many people were screaming that we need a safety. My own view is that with Bellamy slowing down, Dwight wouldn't be able to roam free and make plays. I never thought we'd take a Safety at #40, but, hey, this kid's speed, if he can make the field, turns Dwight Smith into the full on danger he can be.
4. Dwight Smith. One of our best FA pick ups in awhile. Rangy, proven, ballhawk. Bolsters our secondary like nobody's business.
5. Retain Bellamy. He's the leader of our D. We didn't let him get away. It isn't clear to me that anyone wanted him, but, yeah, nice either way.
6. Mike McKenzie. This is the CB we've been fishing for... well, forever. McKenzie is arguably the best CB to where Black and Gold in the last, well, as long as I can remember.

3-6: Damn. Our secondary is gonna be pretty good if Bullocks pans out. Speed and playmaking on the inside. Tough solid coverage at one corner, and a solid group to play the other corner. Sure we're still one CB away maybe, but I like Brown, Craft, and Thomas.

7. Alfred Fincher. I think he's coming here to play SLB. He's tough, sheds blocks, great character. This wasn't a reach. It isn't spectacular, but we needed a LB and we got one. I say, he's as good or better than Allen by week 4.

7: We need some run stuffers damnit! WTF is the FO thinking? We need help against the run for crying out loud. Sure, I'm sold on the Fincher pick, but that isn't going to turn our run D around overnight.

8. We draft some no name WR with pick 4. He's missed two seasons with injuries. That was stupid.

8: We don't know what else to do! Quick pick a WR? 'Nuff said.

9. Adrian McPherson. We need a future QB! We need someone to challenge AB! The FO will never challenge AB, we'll never get a quality backup in here, we have never done the right thing ever in a million years and we never will.

9: Eat your words nay sayers. A bit of crow might taste nice with that.

10. Not trading Howard. Good. Lots of people want to keep him. If he resturctures his contract, we can (though we'll lose our franchise tag for the length of his contract). I want to trade him, but to be honest, I want to trade him for a vetran LB or DT. We don't need any more rookies at LB. We don't need a DT who will turn out to be a bust.

10: I think NOT trading Howard today was genius. This way, we can try and get a PROVEN VETRAN player at LB or DT. Once teams hit camp and see that their "stud" 1st or 2nd round pick isn't all that, they'll be beating down our door! I'll take a vetran player and some picks next year, thank you very much.

11. For all you who think that Howard's value goes down now that the draft is over, think again. An option's value is less in the presence of other options. Teams thought they'd get a guy in the draft who would be the answer to their prayers, thus, why deal for Howard. Now that there is no other option (and their prayers aren't answered - or soon that stud DE they just took will show up to camp fat and out of shape) our boy is going to start looking pretty darned good. Get us a LB or DT, do it.

[Edited on 24/4/2005 by JKool]

papz

Glad to see you being so positive. Agree with Howard 110%. And so what if he\'s stuck with us, he\'s a probowl caliber player... I mean if we couldn\'t get good value for him then it was a great move not moving him. We can worry about it before the season if not the end of next year.

DIRTYSAINTZ

Good Post I agree with you on everything except the Safty that we picked for #40.. He\'s a hitter and a baller.. If and I say if he can come up and play to an NFL level Dwight Smith can play Corner and having him and Mckenzie at the two corners we would have a raw secondary.. I do still think we need a DT to stop the blocks from reaching the LB\'s.

JKool

Thanks Dirty.

I have bought some of the hype on Bullocks, but I just don\'t understand a Safety in the 2nd? We need to stop the run. My best guess, as you may have guessed, is that we\'re going to try Howard for Simon or a LB, and Safety would then be our second biggest need (after LB or DT).

I dunno. I\'m still scratching my head.

DIRTYSAINTZ

Agree with you KOOL..

I just think the guys a baller thou.. we shall see. I think we should get rid of Howard like you said for a Proven LB.. I think Watson is solid but I want a hitter.. I still dont understand why we did not get Hartwell.. Its horrible that he went to the Falcons... makes me sick.. :mad2:

JKool

I think the knock on Hartwell was that he was too slow to play MLB in a 4-3. I don\'t see how he wouldn\'t have been an upgrade over the Ruff/Watson pair though. It is a bit of a head scratcher.

It is also possible that his price tag would have been too much for us (with Howard and all).

Let\'s trade Howard to the Giants for Pierce!

LordOfEntropy

Uh... I only skimmed this post, so please correct me if I\'m wrong (as I\'m sure someone will). But I\'m not quite as happy with the draft as some here appear to be.

Isn\'t Bullocks a great -free- safety? As in not a strong safety? As in we already -have- a good free safety in Dwight Smith?

I\'d only buy this pick if they\'re planning on moving Bullocks over to SS. But can anyone confirm that that is the plan? If that\'s the case, then I won\'t be as pissed.

But assuming it\'s -not- the plan, let\'s see... Ernest Shazor (SS) hasn\'t been selected yet. In fact, -no- SS has gone before the 4th round.

Assuming Bullocks - cannot - play SS, then Smith and Bullocks wouldn\'t be on the field together. Right? That is, unless of course Smith moves over to CB (which the FO says won\'t happen).

Which means \"big hearted, but old, slow, and rarely forces turnovers\" Bellamy will be on the field with Dwight Smith next year, while Josh Bullocks gets to ride the bench. And does anyone else remember Bellamy getting juked out of his shoes last season?

Great linebackers were passed over in the 2nd, and we could\'ve gotten good strong safeties in the 4th.

Instead we chose to take a free safety in the 2nd.

Would someone please explain to me again why I am supposed to be happy about this?

can anyone help me id this tune? it goes thwap thwap boom tch boom tch boom tch.

Qui a laissez sortir les chiens!

JKool

LOE, you did skim, but I\'ll address the point you are making.

Our Safety system was originally designed to be more of a Left-Right system than a Free-Strong system. It had to be changed to accommodate the fact that Bellamy was way slow compared to T-buck (after Sammy left - when both of our Safeties were way slow). The Bullocks-Smith pair could go back to a Right-Left system, which will give us more options for mixed and zone coverages.

In fact, it is my view that Dwight will be much more effective with a speedy partner instead of a strong partner. Of course, the Right-Left system requires a good coverage MLB and WLB - oh well.

If you read what I wrote, you\'ll see that I\'m not a fan of the Bullocks pick. I just think it has an upside that hadn\'t been noted. Also, I wasn\'t arguing for \"happiness\" with our draft at all.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

Danno

You know Coach Largent? He said the same thing. He\'s extremely happy with the Bullocks pick and he throw complimnets around like man-hole covers.
He commented on the whole L-R versus SS-FS system we like to run and said this guy fits well.
I\'m not sold it was the best pick in round 2, but it was a better pick than I originally thought.

Apparently we\'ll go back to the same safety system we had when Knight was here (pre-Tebuckey), only with twice the speed at both positions.

JKool

Danno, do you have a link to the Largent comments? I\'d be very interested in reading that.

I don\'t know him, but I have good guesses as to how a secondary might work.