Bob McGinn on Vernon Davis

[Bretsky]

Why would you take Morgan over Reynolds? We needed a DE and had some pretty good LB's.

Because when you take the lesser player you look back and say "We could have had that probowl star but instead we have this guy"

Most scouts had a solid difference between those two; most scouts have very little difference between Ferguson and Hawk. Kudos for the comparison though.

[Partial]

are you sure you don't want to draft Davis and play him at guard since he's such a great athlete that can play a wealth of positions?

I kid because I care

[MJZiggy]

Why not if we're gonna have a cornerback playing WR?

[Bretsky]

Why not if we're gonna have a cornerback playing WR?

A healthy Woodson may have been our 2nd best WR at the end of last year

[RashanGary]

But who are scouts to argue with the pioneer who wanted to star Kitna over Palmer.

[Bretsky]

But who are scouts to argue with the pioneer who wanted to star Kitna over Palmer.

? I have no idea what this means.

[Partial]

But who are scouts to argue with the pioneer who wanted to star Kitna over Palmer.

are you referring to my icon? I am the #1 member of the Palmer fan club...

i think Kitna's money, too (in a trent dilfer sort of way) ((as money as trent dilfer can be))

[RashanGary]

Really Bretsky,

Find one draft source that has Ferguson listed below Hawk. If it's such a close call you're bound to find one or two who have Hawk listed higher.

[Partial]

It doesn't matter what they're rated. Why would you draft a guy at 5 to play out of position or on the bench?

That is RETARDED.

If they want to make the oline better at 5, they'd be better off adding an actual guard rather than converting a tackle to a guard.

Remember when they tried that last year? Didn't work out so well. What reason do you have to believe it would work better second time around?

Why not get an equally talented prospect at a greater position of need?

[Bretsky]

Really Bretsky,

Find one draft source that has Ferguson listed below Hawk. If it's such a close call you're bound to find one or two who have Hawk listed higher.

WHAT part of this was confusing

"I won't argue he's better, but difference is minimal"

[swede]

Really Bretsky,

Find one draft source that has Ferguson listed below Hawk. If it's such a close call you're bound to find one or two who have Hawk listed higher.

Well, remember that the one draft source that counts here is stored just under that furry white scalp belonging to TT.

He may piss us all off.

[Deputy Nutz]

At this point, Hawk would absolutely own Davis on the actual field of play. But let me tella, you go to the track, and have Davis run that forty, and he might get Hawk by a step, maybe two if he is lucky.

[RashanGary]

That would have been pretty stupid to draft Randy Moss when we just signed Freeman to a big deal and had a DE sitting right there.

Do you guys know why people study history? Because if you don't know what happened you are doomed to repeat it.

I don't remember the Packers ever drafting a star player and saying "Oh shoot, we shouldn't have picked this probowl star player. Can we just trade him for a 2nd round gaurd because it's almost the same thing." Conversly, I do remember quite a few times that we passed up a star at a position that was not needed only to look back and say "We should have grabbed the star player" Thompson has been quoted as saying this is a common trend and something he is not intending on repeating.

Hawk and Ferguson do not get almost the same grade. EVERY single scout quoted and draft service printed has Ferguson a solid notch above Hawk. Why would you take a lesser player when a guy better than him is on the board?

[Chubbyhubby]

I see the Pack with 2 choices when they pick at 5. If they go Defense then Hawk if Offense then Davis.

Davis could be 49ers pick at 6 if we don't nab him. I now have a feeling with Favre in the fold and we addressed D this off season that we will Pick up Davis cause he can be a WR option as well as TE. He is a big target for Brett down the middle in traffic.

This would solve our WR problem on offense, a big play threat down the middle which we lack,

[Partial]

because a player on the field does a hell of a lot more than a player on the bench.