bobobonators

Because we have the 9th pick in the draft. You really want to draft the 3rd or 4th best OT (not player) with the ninth pick in the draft? That's not reaching, that's called setting your franchise back 5 years. If you really want Cambpell, you trade down. If you can't trade down, then you simply draft another player. At the end of the day, Campbell is probably not much better than Fox from Miami who was team captain of the Canes and started 3 years at LT and helped turn that program around. There's plenty of OTs in this draft without having to reach for one with our top 10 selection

I would vomit in my mouth if we drafted Cambell at 9. The only pick that is somewhat respectable is Wooten..but not even that really.

I completely agree man. Only one thing though, I would qualify your "whatever it takes"...if they wanted our 1st round pick for McNabb, I don't think I'd pull the trigger dude. Swapping first rounders yes. A second and maybe another pick this season or next season, yes. I'd pretty much give up anything other than our first rounder straight up.

I'd HAPPILY give up our 2nd round pick and maybe a 3rd or 4th round pick teh following year for McNabb. Also, as another poster noted, I'd happily swap 1st round picks with the Eagles for McNabb.

swapping first rounders with the Eagles would be equivalent to trading down with them and getting a 2nd back in return. I'd easily give up the Eagles 2nd rounder for McNabb.

The OP said to SWAP first round picks, not flat out give up our 1st rounder for McNabb unlike so many on this thread keep on yapping about. I like the idea and would be all for it. This is a win now league and McNabb alone would give us 2-3 more wins instantly w/o any other moves. He has at least 3 more productive seasons, imo. With the Eagles pick in the 1st you could still draft an OT or a NT like Dan Williams. I like it theman.

Fair enough. To be honest, I thought twice about making the MAC comment. It's not fair, really. I'm not sure how much consideration I'd give it if I was analyzing a player. Probably keep it in the back of my mind though, that's all.

Clausen does have grit/fire though..which, if channeled properly, can defintely be an asset at the next level.

unbelievable decision making? did you watch him play? Heck, even McShay notes in his analysis how many times Clausen just heaved the ball up in the air aimlessly..ala JP. I really wouldn't have THAT big of a problem with Clausen...I'll just take Bradford over him. Smarter, bigger, more accurate, and from everything i've read (though I obviously know neither), has much better character.

yes, i know. i'm saying it's just a consideration, that's all. Level of competition in ACC >> MAC. hard to argue against that.

Clearly, they're not. However he also gets extremely high grades on football intelligence, leadership, and work ethic. (unlike some question marks other QBs in this draft have (cough, Clausen, cough). In other words, he's the comlete package. Of course he still may flop, but lets be honest, all we can really go off of are college numbers.

just a consideration, that's all. definitely worth keepin an eye on though on draft day. i'd much rather take dan over Pike, for example

No doubt impressive regardless of where one plays...but he plays in the MAC.

Wait, let me just restate that last post one more time: Career 67.6% Comp. Perc.; 8,403 yards; 88td; 16int; 175.6 rating. Let it sink in.

Bradford: Career 67.6% Comp. Perc.; 8,403 yards; 88td; 16int; 175.6 rating; in 31 games. GODLY.

that's a solid article F UNC. Problem with Brohm however may be more mental than anything else..which is hard to measure quantitatively. Brohm said himself he was "in over his head" while in GB..we'll see.

McShay had Bradford (as a sophmore last year) rated as the number 1 QB prospect if he declared - over Stafford, and WELL OVER Sanchez. Not that that really means anything now..but just noting it.

I couldn't disagree more. What 99% of the OT people keep forgetting is taht just b/c we draft a QB at 9 doesn't mean he has to start from day 1. Quite frankly, he would be better off on the sidelines for at LEAST 3/4 of the season, if not the entire season so he can get comfortable with the pro system. Your house statement is cute, but really, it doesn't apply every time to the NFL. Just b/c we go with an OT at 9 doesn't mean our problems on the OL are solved..and the same with picking a QB at 9. However, i'd much rather take a chance on a QB at nine and miss as opposed to taking a chance on an OT at 9 and missing the mark. Also, who's to say how bad our O-line really is when you have the likes of Edwards, Fitz, JP, and Brohm starting for you? Is the O-line really that bad, or is it the QB as well, or a combination of both? Look at Green Bay and how many sacks they give up, yet Rodgers still manages to put up insane numbers. Should he be benched until a "solid foundation" is formed? nonsense. Point is, we could spend the next 10 years trying to find an O-line that actually gels while we keep throwing the likes of Edwards and Fitzy out there who would still get sacked 30 times a year playing behind the Colts offensive line. You take the franchise QB fellas. We're not building a house, we're building a football team. And a winning football team requires a god-damned productive QB.

That was exactly my point. Thanks for addressing it Bandit.

hampton would be a huge signing, and I'd take him over wilfork.

I wouldn't mind giving Brohm a shot quite frankly b/c we'll have little alternative..but lets be honest, for you to say that strictly on collegiate careers alone, Bradford (or even Clausen) don't have any more talent than Brohm coming out of college is INSANE. What exactly do you base that statement on? Surely not numbers and surely not scouting reports. The QB situation will fix itself?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

A bit of a project? Every rookie (especially QBs) are a bit of a project. Slight frame? Sam Bradford: 6'4 223. Tom Brady: 6'4 225. Eli Manning: 6'4 225. (all as per espn.com). Spread system? McShay acts like the spread system doesn't exist in the NFL. The spread really hurts Tom Brady and the Pats when they run it 80% of the time on offense. Strictly playing the spread at Purdue really hurt Brees in the NFL as well. I can see how someone may be concerned with his shoulder injury, but if doctors give him a clean bill of health going into the draft then he's by far the best QB in this class. His numbers in college were simply staggering: Passing Stats YEAR TEAM CMP ATT PCT YDS AVG TD LNG INT RAT 2007 OKLA 237 341 69.5 3121 9.2 36 65 8 176.52 2008 OKLA 328 483 67.9 4720 9.8 50 77 8 180.84 2009 OKLA 39 69 56.5 562 8.1 2 64 0 134.51 Also, McShay and Co. had Bradford being picked at number 1 overall about a year ago if he declared. I'll take that project anyday now. BUT, the word on the street is that Bradford will go #1 overall (who knows though). http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2010/...wn_and_sti.html

love the effort in the post but two major problems: 1. We aren't going to sign all of those FA. We'd be lucky to get one. 2. McNabb is going to cost anyone more than a 4th round pick.

I honestly just don't understand your point about Peters. yes, we never found a replacement for him (granted, it's only been a year). Yes, that sucks. Ok. But what's your point? We technically haven't found a replacement for Jim Kelly either, and that's been much longer! And that's MY point. All i'm saying is that QB > LT any day of the week. If our coaches have Bradford or Clausen rated high (which i'm sure they would)..i believe it would be CRIMINAL to pass on them simply b/c we don't have a "stud" LT in place. Now, if neither QB is there when we draft, then it's all fair game. If you want to go get Bulaga or Okung if he's there at 9..then fine...though i'd rather trade down at that point...but I wouldn't be angry. But if you're telling me that you would draft Bulaga over Clausen or Bradford then I seriously disagree with you.