For those who are dead set on LT in the 1st...

[Dying_-2-_Live]

What is HARDER to find... a franchise QB ( Bradford / Clausen ) or a serviceable tackle?

Its without a doubt a franchise QB. Everyone complains about losing Peters. HE WAS AN UNDRAFTED TIGHT END TRYING TO PLAY TACKLE. Who says we cant find someone who is able to provide enough time, in the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th rounds. Im telling you... Get an elite QB, and this team will be in the playoffs in no time.

Look at how well Sanchez did behind one of the "best" lines in the league. Sanchez under performed... and it killed them in the long run.

[SirMcGee]

What is easier to find... a franchise QB ( Bradford / Clausen ) or a serviceable tackle?

Its without a doubt a franchise QB. Everyone complains about losing Peters. HE WAS AN UNDRAFTED TIGHT END TRYING TO PLAY TACKLE. Who says we cant find someone who is able to provide enough time, in the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th rounds. Im telling you... Get an elite QB, and this team will be in the playoffs in no time.

Look at how well Sanchez did behind one of the "best" lines in the league. Sanchez under performed... and it killed them in the long run.

Just because a QB is available in the first top 10, doesn't automatically make him a "franchise QB." I don't consider Leaf, Akili Smith, Mark Sanchez, Matthew Stafford to be "franchise QB's" either. You can still get a "franchise" QB in the later rounds. I don't see one that stands out this year.

[ZAZusmc03]

Don't want anything to do with Clausen.

[TrEd FTW]

The problem with this is that, in many people's eyes, there certainly will not be an elite QB available at No. 9. Whether Buddy Nix feels Clausen is a franchise player, we'll see, but don't just use a first-rounder on a QB for the sake of doing it.

[Mr. Pink]

Tim Couch was a "franchise" QB too.

You list Jason Peters I can counter that with Kurt Warner.

[better days]

Just because a QB is available in the first top 10, doesn't automatically make him a "franchise QB." I don't consider Leaf, Akili Smith, Mark Sanchez, Matthew Stafford to be "franchise QB's" either. You can still get a "franchise" QB in the later rounds. I don't see one that stands out this year.

While I agree with what you are saying, I think the jury is still out on Sanchez & Stafford. They both may end up being franchise QB's. I think the Lions are going to be much improved this year, but they play in a very tough division.

[Philagape]

You take the best player on your board.

If, for example, Bulaga is a better LT than Clausen is a QB -- and a lot of people think that -- you take Bulaga.
The chances of finding good players in later rounds is not significantly different for different positions. Every position has high busts, every position has late finds.

[better days]

You take the best player on your board.

If, for example, Bulaga is a better LT than Clausen is a QB -- and a lot of people think that -- you take Bulaga.
The chances of finding good players in later rounds is not significantly different for different positions. Every position has high busts, every position has late finds.

I agree with you. But what about Spiller? He may be higher rated than both Bulaga & Clausen.

[DraftBoy]

These threads make no sense, its hard to find a franchise player at any position.

[better days]

These threads make no sense, its hard to find a franchise player at any position.

I think that is the point of this thread. Should a team pass on a player projected to be a pro bowl player at his position for years to draft a position of need? I think you take the best player.

[DraftBoy]

I think that is the point of this thread. Should a team pass on a player projected to be a pro bowl player at his position for years to draft a position of need? I think you take the best player.


Its a combination imo.

I called it a weighted need system. You have your needs obviously ranked and use that against your big board to see who you should take. For instance I have Dez Bryant as my #5 overall player on my BB. But do I think that Washington should take him after spending two previous high picks on Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas? No because I dont think its a huge need for them.

I think its a weighted system, mine trends more to BPA, but not completely.

[Philagape]

I agree with you. But what about Spiller? He may be higher rated than both Bulaga & Clausen.

That's why I said "your board" ... teams' boards may be different based on their needs.
But the Bills have so many needs that almost any position is in play.

I wouldn't object to Spiller because the Bills do need playmakers. If the Bills have Spiller higher on their board, yes, they should take him.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Tim Couch was a "franchise" QB too.

You list Jason Peters I can counter that with Kurt Warner.
I would have to think that the percentages of Great QB's drafted late is FAR smaller than the percentage of Great Tackles drafted late.......

[madness]

What is easier to find... a franchise QB ( Bradford / Clausen ) or a serviceable tackle?

Its without a doubt a franchise QB. Everyone complains about losing Peters. HE WAS AN UNDRAFTED TIGHT END TRYING TO PLAY TACKLE. Who says we cant find someone who is able to provide enough time, in the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th rounds. Im telling you... Get an elite QB, and this team will be in the playoffs in no time.

Look at how well Sanchez did behind one of the "best" lines in the league. Sanchez under performed... and it killed them in the long run.

Why would you think it would be easier to find a franchise QB? ;)

[Dying_-2-_Live]

Why would you think it would be easier to find a franchise QB? ;)

Whoops... typo sorry

[ddaryl]

Bradford has potential. His accuracy is deadly but he won't be there at #9

Clausen has the arm but really depended on his WR making some fantastic plays in ND.

I really don't believe Clausen is anywhere's close to a sure thing. he is hit or miss.

that being said do we want to draft a QB who may or may not be a franchise QB at #9 or do we want to take the best player we can at #9 who has a much higher percentage of being a long term success in the league ????

[Pinkerton Security]

What is HARDER to find... a franchise QB ( Bradford / Clausen ) or a serviceable tackle?

Its without a doubt a franchise QB. Everyone complains about losing Peters. HE WAS AN UNDRAFTED TIGHT END TRYING TO PLAY TACKLE. Who says we cant find someone who is able to provide enough time, in the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th rounds. Im telling you... Get an elite QB, and this team will be in the playoffs in no time.

Look at how well Sanchez did behind one of the "best" lines in the league. Sanchez under performed... and it killed them in the long run.
Sooo Sanchez, a "franchise qb" like the one you want us to draft, had a good running game, great D, and the best o-line in the league, and he still under-performed.

How does that make it necessary for us to draft a QB again? No need to reach for anyone, as others have said, take best guy there.

and imagine how badly he would have done with a worse OL, let alone one as bad as ours.

[YardRat]

I'd rather have a franchise LT and a serviceable QB.

[Raptor]

I want a OT in the first because of two reasons

1.I dont think either Bradford or Clausen will be there and there the only two in this draft worth the 9th

2.Its a numbers game. Theres a lot of teams out there that need OT's and there is likely going to be a very good run on them in the first. If we wait there may not be anyone worth picking for a long time in this draft unless we reach big time

[TacklingDummy]

I don't consider Leaf, Akili Smith, Mark Sanchez, Matthew Stafford to be "franchise QB's" either. You can still get a "franchise" QB in the later rounds. I don't see one that stands out this year.The majority of QB's who started a Super Bowl were drafted in the 1st round.

The teams that are good over a period of time usually have a 1st round QB. There is always the exception though.

[TacklingDummy]

I'd rather have a franchise LT and a serviceable QB.
I'd rather have a franchise QB and a serviceable LT.

[YardRat]

#1, the premise is skewed because a 'franchise' anything is harder to find than a 'serviceable' anything else, and #2 if the Jets are going to be held up as the ideal then you should ask yourself why did they draft D'Brick instead of Leinart and Cutler or Mangold before finally going with Clemens?

There's a reason why the Jets have "one of the "best" lines in the league" at this point in time.

[Don't Panic]

I just don't see Claussen as top 10 worthy. I leave it to Gailey and Nix to makew the final call, but I wouldn't do it.

I like DB's points. If you have a chance at Bradford over Okung, i say go for it. But if the choice is Bulaga or Claussen, I think Bulaga has to be the pick. It's all going to depend on how the first 8 pan out. There are legitimately 10 guys who could be the pick, and 6 of them aren't LTs or QBs.

[YardRat]

God dammit, I should neg you for simply setting up an opportunity for me to re-visit that draft one more time. To think we could have had Ngata and Mangold instead of Whitner and McCargo just pisses me off to no end :mad:

[X-Era]

1) New HC
2) New schemes

At 9 we may see several or all of the follwing available:

1) Jimmy Clausen
2) Dan Williams
3) Dez Bryant
4) Bulaga or Davis or Trent Williams
5) CJ Spiller
6) Rolando McClain

So, There lost of needs, and lots of good players there... No need to lock into any position, or anyone player IMO.

[TacklingDummy]

Doesn't matter what the Bills add, until they find a franchise QB they are not going anywhere. See the past 10 years for example.