Peterson 1, then Marvin Austin in the 3rd.

[eViL jEsTeR]

If Peterson can be a shut down corner, and there is no obvious QB to take with this pick, we should use it to take a dominate player at his position.

Fairley isn't a top 10 DT amongst other NFL DT's but Peterson has a chance to be top 10 (if not top 5) amongst other CB's in the league.

I don't think Marvin Austin, if he's still around, would be a HUGE drop off in talent at the DT spot. Besides, we're still going to suck and get a top 10 pick next year and can get a QB and DT then with 2 top 45 picks next year.

OK. i've made up my mind. can someone please relay to Hurney what I've decided for him to do? Thanks.

[Jackofalltrades]

Fairley 1st, CB 3rd, RG 3rd.

[Lumps]

Agreed. I really like Peterson. He is very nice talent at a position that is hard to find true quality. I would like Peterson or Green before Fairley.

[Jackofalltrades]

Agreed. I really like Peterson. He is very nice talent at a position that is hard to find true quality. I would like Peterson or Green before Fairley.

Our D will revolve around the D line, we have a MUCH bigger need there now.

[CatMan72]

I like Peterson, but I think DT is a much bigger need right now.

[Mother Grabber]

If we can pick up a decent DT in free agency, this would be a good plan. Much of what happens at #1 will be effected by what moves are made before the draft, if any.

[Lumps]

Our D will revolve around the D line, we have a MUCH bigger need there now.

Not denying there is a need, but #1 pick overall and what we need is lower on my list than overall talent. I put Green and Peterson as the best available talent like most scouts do. Nevertheless, I think DT can be fixed in FA. I think Peterson is better long-term talent and with a young team that is important in my opinion. There is not really a bad choice between all three, and not that big of gap in talent; I wouldn't mind if we picked any of them. As for Cam Newton and his lovers, now that I just don't understand.

[Jackofalltrades]

If we can pick up a decent DT in free agency, this would be a good plan. Much of what happens at #1 will be effected by what moves are made before the draft, if any.

We need a starting CB, but we need 2 starting DT's.

The better the DL, the less the need at CB.

[bleys]

I would take Peterson 1st, DT through FA and see who is available in the 3rd..

although, there are quite a few options I could point out.. we'll see what our coaching staff and scouting department come up with..

I can raise an argument against each option, most make as much sense as any.. the only difference is no position of our need has more options available in FA than DT.. and you most likely get more production from the get-go..

[Lumps]

No point in arguing. This isn't like many drafts where there is a clear #1 overall choice. It is unique in that aspect, but not something that benefits us at #1 overall. Any of the three top players would immensely help us, but I think what people also don't take into consideration is the fact that they could immensely hurt as well. That is my only fear of Fairley. He has the skills but can he prove himself. No one will know until all is said and done. No one is a 'sure thing' but the idea is to get as close as possible.

[Mother Grabber]

The plan includes picking up a DT at #65. The OP isn't saying to take a CB over a DT, but rather that the CB drop off from #1 to #65 is much larger than the drop off in DT in that time.

[RSXNova]

Would anyone be happy with Fairly at 1 and Austin in the 3rd? That could shore the d-line quick.

[Jackofalltrades]

Would anyone be happy with Fairly at 1 and Austin in the 3rd? That could shore the d-line quick.

I'm not opposed to it, but I'd like a vet DT still, even if it's Ed Johnson again.

[Mr. Scot]

Something tells me that Rivera's arrival may have increased the chances of our keeping Richard Marshall.

You can debate on whether that's a good thing or not, but that's the feeling I get.