Mickey

We dumped Willis because he misses crucial blitz pick ups and on the other side of the coin, is an average running back at best. Add in a possible hold out and a long, messy negotiation and what do you have? Would all that be worth if for 3.1 yards per carry? I think the odds of us taking Marshawn Lynch just edged upwards. He is the exact kind of back that Fairchild's system needs.

Leonard is one of those sentimental picks people are drawn to because the player is a "lunch box" guy, etc. I'd pass on this guy. There are too many FB's out there who don't need practice blocking.

I don't buy into the notion that you can afford to have a Corner who is slower than molasses just because you play a cover 2. What happens when we go man to man as, in certain defenses and in certain situations, we definitely will be? Speed isn't as big a factor in our scheme but it isn't a non-factor. There will be times where we will be blitzing a safety or two, what will Hughes do then? I see no reason, given that there are guys out there who have the speed, to spend a pick on a corner who is too slow to cover even a TE or RB man to man. Let some other team figure out how to use a CB with no speed to cover the fastest players in the game. Pass on Hughes.

Winfield never missed a tackle nor made other critical mistakes. Every so often, Nate would make the huge mistake. A few years ago, he was a big part of why we lost the opener to J'Ville on the last play. That same year, he fumbled a punt against he Steelers in a game we had to have to make the playoffs. I'd go with Winfield. We have had lots of great athletes here. Jerry Butler for one. OJ. Bruce Smith. For a lineman, McKenzie was a great athlete as well. You have to put Lofton on that list. Corneilius Bennett. Nate is a good athlete but I never saw him as some sort of unnatural freak.

Marv has explained a few times here and there what he means by "character" and he isn't talking about their boy scout record. Marv had plenty of players whose "football character" he admired but whose basic character was not so good. Bruce Smith's trouble with alcohol and at least one drug suspension as I recall come to mind. Didn't Marv draft Moulds? Moulds was considered an off the field problem player when we took him but no one ever doubted his conduct on the field. Marv wants guys who are committed to winning, not just making big bucks. Reed, Kelly, Smith, Thurman and even Moulds for that matter, took winning and losing far more seriously than contract negotiations. Those guys seriously would have rather died than lose a single game. When they played, they gave it all and on every play. They all had chips on their shoulders and would kill you before they would let you knock it off. That's what Marv means by "character."

That would be nice but DT's usually go earlier than expected, especially in the last 5 years or so. The popularity of the cover 2, the importance of the DT's in that scheme and the rareness of DT's that can both penetrate and hold the fort means that those guys do not last long on draft day. I think the odds are better that both Branch and Amobi are gone before #12 than that they would both be available.

I agree with the need for a DT that can rush and stop the run. However, the staff apparently thinks that is what they have in McCargo. Further, if we trade Willis, the holes at MLB, RB and CB are going to be more pressing compared to the situation on the defensive line. They clearly have high hopes for McCargo, think highly of Tripplett and see good things in the future for Kyle Williams. For my part, I have no idea if McCargo is going to be the player we need him to be so I am just going to trust the coaches on that one. He is too young and his first season too short for us to really know what we have there.

IF Willis is gone, they will have to do something. I think that would put them in a position where they would be looking to get the best combination of draftees they can in the first three rounds at ILB, RB and maybe CB. I don't think Marv is as worried about CB as we are. We didn't draft Ashton Y. to play special teams and K.Thomas was a pleasant surprise last year. On top of that, CB is a lot deeper in this draft than ILB. I think they will be weighing Patrick Willis and Lynch with the major factor being how much they like the guys they think will be there in the second at those two positions.

I don't judge credibility based on typing skills. I am not going to call into question his character based on dropped charges, especially ones dropped due to lack of evidence. That usually means that there was no crime, either that or Marshawn is a criminal master-mind who managed to pull off the perfect crime. I hope all these questions about Lynch continue and snowball right up to the draft. Maybe he will be there in the second. Kind of like all that talk about Thurman from those GM's and scouts who thought it was a good idea to pass on him on draft day.

Maybe so but a lot of the pay sites are written by the same types who have even grander aspirations, hoping to make a living off of this stuff. In any event, he asked for the best of the free stuff and Countdown has all the basics for free. Just about every prospect is listed with his known vitals. The rest of the stuff, mocks and the like, are worthless. Up until about a month ago most of the sites all had us going QB in the first because the "JP experiment was over". Okie dokie.

Good point but an upgrade at MLB would help against the run. I wouldn't rule out Marshawn Lynch. If Willis is traded, we are going to have some pretty big holes at RB, LB and CB. I think the draft is a lot deeper at CB than either RB or ILB and we do have Ashton Y. on deck ready to show if he can play. I don't think Marv sees CB as the major need we have to fill as so many of the draftniks do. That leaves RB and and inside LB. So maybe it comes down to Lynch vs. Patrick Willis. It could come down to who they like at those positions in the 2d and 3d rounds. It could be a comparison along the lines of Willis in the 1st with Irons in the 2d vs. Lynch in the 1st and David Harris in the 2d. Gets even more complicated when you toss CB in to the mix. Then you have to start adding in guys like Eric Wright and Tanard Jackson in the third, Marcus McCauley or Aaron Ross in the 2d or, if the draftniks are right, Houston, Revis or Hall in the 1st.

NFL Draft Countdown

You do not improve a team by losing good players, Kelsay is a good player. Not great, but good. We have seen plenty of guys leave because we didn't want to *gasp* overpay for them and the team floundered as a result. Maybe this strategy will work.

This article describes Lynch's performance in an overtime win against Washington where he played on two sprained ankles. Despite being deflated after Wash tied it on a last gasp hail mary deflection, Lynch rallied his team and they got it done in OT. Tough, angry winner. As good a receiver as he is a back. Remind you of anyone? I trust in Marv and won't complain if he drafts defense or whatever but man, I would have no problem if he took this guy. Marshawn Lynch

RB Marshawn Lynch Cal

If you insist that judging him by one game is fair, why not judge him based on the critical role he played in the comeback game against Houston? Is having 8 catches for 136 yards and 3 touchdowns for the winning team in the best game in NFL history not enough?

In the past I might have agreed with you but that wasn't a problem for him this year. I don't remember many notable dropped passes by any of the WR's. I wish I could say the same about Robert Royal.

That was a great draft but the best pick in it was a no brainer. We had the first pick in the whole shebang and Smith was thought to be the best DE to ever come out of college at the time. What made that draft was Reed, clearly one of the best later round finds in the history of the team. In fact, I can't really think of a better one. Anyone?

Good analysis. I say now what I said then, we had to get a SS and a DT in that draft and Whitner was the best SS on the board when we took him and McCargo was the best DT on the board when we took him and further, there was a huge drop off after McCargo. All that speculation about how we could have traded a pig in a poke and receivd 7 first rounders in exchange if only Marv weren't senile was just that, s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n. In the end, I think we ended up laying the foundation for a solid secondary with a potential pro-bowler in the mix to boot. We still have a few cards in our hand we haven't really even seen yet in McCargo and Youboty. As if that weren't good enough, we also nabbed a few surprises in Ellison, Pennington and Williams. It was a good draft and depending on Youboty and McCargo, it could end up having been a great draft. Compare that to the doom and gloom about Marv's first draft that was pervasive on the board last spring. What a difference a year makes.

Peters wasn't drafted so I would include him in discussing the best/worst years for FA signings. Otherwise, in assessing the 2006 draft we would have to add in all the FA's that were signed such as A-Train and Kiwaukee, etc. Limiting it to just the people we drafted, I stand by my assessment that although a good draft, I think 2006 is a better one, especially at the one year out mark. Try to recall how you would have assessed the 2002 draft in 2003. The bottom line of our 2006 draft is that it produces starters Whitner, Simpson and Pennington with occasional starters in Ellison and Kyle Williams. McCargo as well was in the starting rotation when he was injured and I don't think it is fair to assess a pick made by the GM/scouting & coaching staff based on an injury like that. It wouldn't be out of the question for us to finish next year with Whitner, Simpson, Pennington, McCargo, Ellison and Williams starting or at least in the starting rotation. Compare that result with how roundly this draft was condemend last spring. From sow's ear to silk purse my friend. Let us doubt Marv no more.

Exactly, a lot depends on Youboty and McCargo. We also don't know if Pennington and Ellison are long term starters or just stop gap guys to cover us until we get real starters. Potentially though, you could have Whitner, McCargo, Simpson, Pennington, Ellison and Youboty all starting with Kyle Williams as a quality back-up. I doubt you will find many drafts where we found 6 starters and a top back-up in the whole history of the franchise. This from a draft labeled last April as an unmitigated debacle authored by an addle-brained octogenarian. To compare, in 2005 we took Parrish, Everett, Preston, Geisinger, King and Gates. Roscoe is a quality back up and Preston a short term starter likely to be replaced. Other than making the roster, Everett has done nothing to distinguish himself while King and Gates are no longer on the team. In 2004, we took Evans, Losman, Anderson, Euhus, McFarland and Smith. Anderson is awful and the last three are no longer on the team as far as I know. We got two good starters and a stop gap guy we can't wait to replace. This draft, though not as successful as our 2006 draft, was a pretty good one by most standards. In 2003, we took McGahee, Kelsay, Crowel, McGee, Aiken, Sobieski, Sape and Haggan. This was a good draft. Willis and McGee are starters, Kelsay is in the rotation and Crowell is now a starter. We also got decent special teamers in Aiken and Haggan. As good as it was, Kelsay has not been able to establish himslef as a starter and a lot of us are looking to dump Willis. A good draft none the less by any standards but the 2006 draft, depending on what happens with a few guys like McCargo and Youboty could end up being quite a bit better than even this draft. In 2002 we had 10 draft picks, picking 4th in each round no less and didn't find a single long term starter. We did get a few guys who ended up being okay back ups like Wire, Reed and Denney. Levy's top 4 picks in 2006, drafting much later than 4th in each round, were a better draft than all 10 of these picks. In fact, If I had to choose, I don't think I would trade Whitner for all ten. We have a long, long way to go to see how these picks work out but the potential is there for this to be one of the most memorable drafts we've had in a long time. I think it is even more remarkable given how much people crapped all over this draft last spring. Plenty of that criticism was homegrown.

The notion of drafting offensive lineman on day one should be evaluated by looking at all of the offensive lineman we have drafted in that range over the years, rather than limiting your sample size to Williams and Jennings. I think you'll find that it worked out pretty well for us over the years. Reggie McKenzie: 2nd rd. 1972 Joey D.: 1st rd. 1973 Ken Jones and Joe Devlin: 2nd rd. 1976 Jim Ritcher: 1st rd. 1980 Will Wolford: 1st rd. 1986 And also, John Fina and Reuben Brown. Those names include some of the very best offensive lineman we have ever had. Drafting OL in the first couple of rounds can work out pretty well. The problem wasn't that we took an offensive lineman withteh Mike Williams pick, the problem was that we took Mike Williams.

a little perspective might be called for here. If you take a look at drafts past, you will rarely find many where, three or four years later, more than two or three picks are still on the roster. Levy managed, by the end of the year to have four picks starting: Whitner, Pennington, Simpson and Williams. McCargo would have been getting starter like playing time if not for his injury. I would wager that there is a good chance that all five of these guys will still be on the roster four years from now and in fact, Youboty and Ellison could be as well. That isn't a "good draft", that is a legendary draft.

I think they like Kiwaukee Thomas enough to start him until Ashton is ready for prime time. This draft is deep at CB so I could see them taking a guy in rounds 2-4 to have in the wings should Thomas and Ashton prove to be not up for the job. They have Greer as well. No one would be crazy about starting him but in the short term we could get by. We need to stop the run first. It will be a lot easier for the secondary to defend the pass on second or third and long than on second and two or third and three which is what we dealt with for most of last year.

Okoye is just another 3 tech DT of which we already have two, McCargo and Tripplett. Willis would be fine but I don't think he is a difference maker which I'd like to see with the 12th pick.