Fan in Chicago Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 The lines, people. Gotta work the lines. 1. OT (perhaps trade down for Marcus McNeill, if his back checks out) 2. DT (gotta find an "over tackle" to go with Triplett) 3. DE (Chicago may have matched us on the signing of what's-his-face, but we're still looking to replace the white, high-motor LDEs we have) 3. OG 4. OG 5. DT 5. WR or QB 6. DT 7. OT 7. CB 652866[/snapback] Line help is critical, but we also need to keep one eye on the future - possible loss of Clements next year, Troy Vincent getting old(er), Spikes not 100%. So if there are good players at these positions earlier in the draft, we should go for them.
RuntheDamnBall Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 The lines, people. Gotta work the lines. 1. OT (perhaps trade down for Marcus McNeill, if his back checks out) 2. DT (gotta find an "over tackle" to go with Triplett) 3. DE (Chicago may have matched us on the signing of what's-his-face, but we're still looking to replace the white, high-motor LDEs we have) 3. OG 4. OG 5. DT 5. WR or QB 6. DT 7. OT 7. CB 652866[/snapback] You do, but this thing won't be built in a day and in the meantime you need playmakers to build on. If Huff makes our secondary scary-good instead of a slight liability, you do it. Vincent, Huff, McGee and Clements would terrorize defenses. You're talking four guys with corner smarts and ability hawking the ball. The more I think about it, the more sold I am on Huff if we don't get a trade down. If Marv and co. see something differently and find the next Levi Jones or Dwight Freeney or something (a so-called reach that works), I'm fine with it.
BUFFALOTONE Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 My thinking is that Huff is the pick, just so Vincent can bring him along and maybe even a answer to Nate if he doesnt sign long term. But I have to tell you the more I hear about Hawk the more I like this guy.
Recommended Posts