Hplarrm

Best case scenario is that Newton goes #1, either Miller or Dareus goes #2. and then Cincy or someone else gets so afraid we waste the #3 on Gabbeet they trade us extra picks to move down (actually Gabbert can go #1 and a run is created for QB so bidders trade up with us to guarantee one of the two QBs. It does not matter as both are at least 1 and more likely 2 year projects before they would contribute if we picked them. The Bills MUST trade down and get an extra first three round pick or 2 in order to be adequate this year. DL- We need stout DE who helps us control the DL in order to become adequate. OLB- We need a pass rushing LB to pressure in the 3-4 who is flexible enough to play the pass and collapse the pocket to become adequate. RT- We need a starting RT to become adequate OL- We are a young team so we need a swing guy to plug in when an OL player gets nicked or is not effective. We could use a TE who can both catch reasonably and block reasonably (he need not be a goto guy on either skill but he should not be a negative- my sense it will take a couple of years to train someone on the roster or train a rookie to play this role, In fact. I think we are more effective if we do not worry about a TE and instead have 3 WRs as our base O. As I do not think it is reasonable to count on a starter emerging from picks after the 3rd round, its is gonna be impossible to acquire the 4 players needed for adequacy from 3 picks. We MUST trade down or wait until 2012 for productivity.

Ny sense is that Gabbert is also a two year project. He actually came to folks attention relatively late in the process replacing Luck as the great white hope when Luck decided to stay in. In part this also due to Gabbert really only having two solid years as the starting QB unlike the best of the QBs who were identified in high school as a potential franchise QB and really have 3 or even four years of focus on their QB work. Gabbert also comes from a spread offense he ran efficiently and productively, but still I see a year of him sitting on the bench and learning NFL Ds and then another year of hims getting game time at mop-up time and learning the game from behind the center before we should expect much production that will help the team. Folks are going a little overboard if they have some expectation or even demand that he turn out to be another Dan Marino who can start immediately or want to pretend the Bills have a D like the Ravens which was a big part of allowing Flacco to start as a rookie. Ironically, I think Gabbert looks more likely as a franchise QB eventually than Newton, but in the short run (and the future is often now in the NFL)I think Newton will be more of an immediate contributor. I can easily see him being used as the QB in a Miami style Wildcat offense. If he lined up in the shotgun behind the center with the Bills running 3 or even 4 receivers in an empty backfield, the opponents will have to run a spread, nickel or dime D to respect the pass and Newton then has a relatively easy read as to what the safties do to decide to and pick a hole to run through.

Yes, my understanding of labor law (which is both limited by my not being a lawyer or paid to understand the CBA but that appears to be the general case with most of us TSW posters unless 1) you are a labor law lawyer and/or you are paid real money by someone for your expertise on these issues) is that while the NFL does have the right under the current situation to declare an impasse and impose their final offer, this would also open them up to some probably very bad situations which any sane person would avoid, such as: 1. Under the terms of the current agreement and labor law, once the players are locked out and the NFLPA decertifies itself as a bargaining agent (and be clear on a point which you seem to have stated incorrectly in earlier posts- decert does not mean that the NFLPA ceases to exist or to operate -the institution has a separate life and mission likely as a recognized by the IRS as an association which is a right protected in the Constitution and likely embodied in the IRS not for profit institution code section 501c3- I am not sure of the specific section but this is one way it might be done- the NFLPA has a separate institutional mission and role from the mere tactic of whether it gains certification as a bargaining agent). Upon decert and even clearer if the NFL imposes a labor settlement on the players then they have the right to sue in court as individuals. The players have already done this under Brady, et al. and quite frankly these individuals have more than a fighting chance of winning this suit. If they did, then the individual team owners would actually have to compete in a free market against other individual team owners. Ironically, the social contract which the NFL operates under actually gets the teams and players more money than a free market approach where at BEST the NFL would be like MLB where the individual owners with the most money would buy the best teams. This whole fight really strikes me as being about those who would offer up a free market approach (the NFLPA decertifiying itself as a bargaining agent leaving individual players and individual owners to negotiate individual personal services contracts) or those who advocate a system based on a social contract (the NFL). One of the reasons why the NFLPA has gained and enforced such an advantage embodied in the CBA that the owners themselves opted out of it despite the league achieving record profits underneath it is that it grates on the captains of industry who own the individual teams to have to send over a majority of the profits to the workers. The team owners prefer a more socialist approach where they get to play the role of the Kremlin or royalty in charge. The problem for the NFL in the American courts however is that our government and constitution has a strong bias toward individual rights and this is where the players are. 2. To me the really aggrieved party in all of this are the college athletes. The US Courts have allowed the NFL to operate in its more socialistic framework which is based on the NFL draft. Normally in US society, an individual goes to school, demonstrates what they have learned and can do, and then jump into the free market and sale their services to corporations and entities across this great land of ours. Lets say a kid learns to be a great computer guy, he then can try to sell his services to Micriosoft if he wants to live in the NW, to Hewlett-Packard if he wants to live in CA, or IBM if he wants to live in Armonk, NY. Maybe his parents are in one of those places, maybe his girlfriend lives in one of these towns. However, lets say his talent is Pro Football. Well, the NFL has designed things so that he not only can be told the one team he must sign with and where he must live without regard to his desire to be with his parents, girlfriend or whatever. Even worse, the NFL has a nice collusion going on with the colleges. Colleges actually pay to train and develop his youngsters at no cost to the NFL (with some of this welfare subsidy actually coming from taxpayers as we pay for college football mills like the U of Nebraska or to make Univ. at Buffalo Division I. The NFL and the colleges collude and price fix to ban any person to play in the NFL until his age group reaches 21. Why does the NFL need the NFLPA? Because our court system will not endorse at all the taking away of individuals rights to compete as individuals in a free market except that individuals do have a right to form a union and bargain collectively. If the NFL were to simply impose its will on the NFLPA such that the union actually loses its relevance to players, the NFL would be subject to lawsuits by individual players demanding the individual right to sell their contractual services to the highest bidder. Without the NFLPA the entire draft would be illegal and am abridgement of individual rights. The team owners need their partners the NFLPA. Actually given that their are a number of ready sources of capital out there (other individuals, TV corporations, municipalities, the players themselves now)there is a real question of whether the current owners are even necessary. The Green Bay Packers demonstrated in the last SB that municipal ownership can work. You may have some kind of woody for the current owners but for this fan, they have made their original investments back far times over. They deserved that money because they took a risk. However, I do not feel bad for them finanacially as they have been paid back many times over. The current NFL owners are merely redundant and a source of rising costs as best as I can see.

Agreed we have certainly let a number of high quality CBs we has paid a pretty draft penny for move on when they hit FA. However, looking at the individual cases surrounding each case, I have little problem with how the FO decided to operate. For example, 1. Winfield- a quality player who despite his INT failings was such a great tackler he could sometimes determine the game outcome with his play (we beat KC once pretty much due to the Bills covering TE Gonzales with a CB and the little guy really neutralized this huge power forward size TE denying him the TDs and big yard plays which had become a staple of the TG game- in another outing versus Jacksonville, Winfield nailed their TB with losses greater than five yards when Jax tried to run a game where their TE lined up off the OL and stepped back to get a quick pass then get upfield with a running start. Winfield so effectively doped out this strategy that he not only got into the opposing backfield on a quick opener, but he was so sure in tacking he tacked on a loss of yardage tackle. Bevertheless he left for FA: But: A. The Bills and he were doing negotiations a full year before his contract ended and they had set aside $4 million or so to pay him an immediate bonus under the CBA. However, both of TDs plans for saftey, Chad Cota and Ainsley Battle signed with the Bills but retired in pre-season camp, However, Belicheat totally messed up his negotiations with Lawyer Milloy and he suddenly hit the FA market. The Bills let this FA go only because a a deal they needed to cut (otherwise we would have to start Coy Wire at safety). They even expressed interest in Winfield when he hit FA, but in the end, the Vikes used an adjustment made to their cap due to an injury judgment which allowed them to pay $12 million in one time deal blowing away both the Bills and a Jets offer. Did you really want them to sign Winfield at the cost of starting Wire? B. Nate Clements was another we let walk. However, again, the Bills had the choice of tagging him to keep him off the market (even though it was feared this move would really piss off Clements if it were done and impact his play for us. Further, once he hit the marketplace he ended up signing the richest contract ever for a defender. Nate can make the highlight reel from time to time, there was no way he worth that kindof scratch and I am glad the Bills let him walk rather than pay his market value. C. Greer- Another case where the CB we left I do not think the Bills should have paid what the market demanded for Greer. If you do not believe we did a reasonable thing in letting him go then simply note that of the many fan complaints about the D, note that the problems for a horrid D they actually look at the DL and LB as the problem areas and see the DBs as a strengths of this team.

Actually I think you have it reversed. The owners are actually the biggest expense that the players have. Take the NFL and their 39.5% share of the total receipts out of the loop and the NFLPA could keep the owners share and we could still reduce ticket prices by 20%. (I know I know actually some of those total receipts go to maintain the game so it would not be a flat calculation in this fantasy). The point however is this. If I gave you a chance to watch NFLPA members strap on the gear and have at it or you could chose to have Snyder, Jerry Jones, and Mr. Ralph strap on the gear and play ball who would you buy season tickets to see. The team owners were an essential part of the game back in its founding days when folks like George Halas actually understood the game and even HC'ed his team to championships. Their guts were even essential elements when folks like Mr. Ralph risked a few tens of thousands (real money back in the day) and forced the NFL to let them into the game (and if you want to blame rising salaries for the costs of the game look no further than Mr. Ralph and his partners paying Joe Willie $400K a year). Do not feel bad for the NFL owners however, good sportsmen like the Rooneys and the Maras got paid back with the championships. Even folks like Mr. Ralph who were far more businessmen than sportsmen though they never won the SB they have made their original investments back hand over fist over jowl. However as yet another SB win for the Packers demonstrated, the owners are pretty far from essential today. There are tons of sources of capital out there from other individuals, to coporations to the public on shareholder deals like the Packers. The team owners are really an unnecessary today and though Dan Snyder does have some comedic value they really could be done without. Why do you and some others have such a woody for the owners?

It seems doubtful me that the Bills are thinking as you propose in any of your three options. Point 1: Gailey has little or history of employing a rookie QB to make his system productive. The past does not determine the future, but it is a pretty good indicator of what an HC is trying to do and given his past real world activities with Fieldler, Bulger, Kodell, and even Fitzy, the Gailey O and team do well with vet. Is he interested in getting a franchise QB if he can? You bet, as who wouldn't be, However, it appears a virtual certainty that Newton is gonna need at least a year of schooling for his pro squad to make it clear to him there is no I in team. Gabbert is likely even productive more slowly than Newton since he not only has to make the huge transition from college to the pros, but he only has had two years of experience running his collegiate offense. There are collegiate QBs that can step right in and play productively, However, their names are ones like Dan Marino and no one mistakes Gabbert for being Dan Marino right now or Joe Flacco and no one mistakes the Bills D for the Ray Lewis led crew which corrected a lot of the Flacco rookie errors and often delivered him the ball in scoring position. I hope Gabbert does eventually become a franchise QB, but my guess is he spends his first year as essentially the #3 disaster QB and it will be fortunate for the Bills and his development into a one-day franchise QB if he never sees a game from anyplace but the sidelines. In his second year, Gabbert might understand NFL Ds well enough and gain the confidence of his teammates where he can hold the #2 slot, but once again it takes a QB of Tom Brady skills with Bledsoe being a stand-up guy helping him to be the starter we want. No one thinks Gabbert is the new Tom Brady. Trading down is by far the best bet for us if we can pull it off.

I like your thinking that the key for the Bills is seeing Newton or Gabbert picked before choose (likely Newton of the two as he has significantly more immediate upside than Gabbert who MAY eventually be a franchise QB). These two are seen by most from what I have read as head and shoulders ahead of a good number of athletes like Mallet, Locker, Capernick, Ponder, etc who will go later in the 1st or other rounds. If in fact 6 or 7 teams are looking for a QB, then the option becomes trade with the Bills or risk Buffalo or some other team forcing you down the foodchain in terms of QB prospects. However, while I like the potential for a trade down, I do disagree with the thought that the Bills will be looking to the draft this year and probably next to find their franchise QB. Since you are a working journalist perhaps you may have the time to expound on: 1. What is Gailey's record of having successfully trained or even acquired a rookie QB to be his starter? 2. While past actions do not determine future actions, they are a pretty strong indicator of what a decision-maker is going to do. Isn't the Gailey MO one of actually getting vet QBs who often have failed or been busts their first go around and build them into his O approach to make them more successful than before? My sense is with players such as Fiedler, Bulger, Kordell and even Fitzy, Gailey has placed a high premium on past NFL experience which I think makes spending a high draft choice on a rookie QB pretty unlikely.

Actually, while hindsight is 20/20 so my advice is generally correct now, where I felt the Bills fell short of doing what was necessary to sign Wolford was that if the FO had played this correctly, they would not have had to use the tag as their fallback on Wolford (and thus would never have been subject to a poison pill). My recollection of the situation was that the Bills chose not to sign Wolford well before he hit the FA market because they were reluctant to establish a contract amount for him which other Bills OL players would have used to increase their salaries. As such they played tough with Wolford which not only gave another team a chance to do something like the poison pill but also pissed Wolford off so that he was willing to sign on with another team. If you think about this in the limited fashion you have chosen to justify your claim this is complete BS (at worst it is simply partial BS due to the 20/20 issues), but if you take a fuller view and see that the problem was Mr. Ralph and Littman consistently treating this as a business problem rather than a sportsman's opportunity, intelligent managers would have done what was necessary to keep our OL as intact as possible for as long as possible.

Que?

The Bills demonstrated they were not going to invest in protection when they failed to engage successfully in an effort to keep Wil Wolford here. Due to the case that Mr. Ralph decided to deal with the salary cap as a businessman rather than as a sportsman, there was no way the Bills were going to handle or ignore the cap except on Mr. Ralph's terms. This thread is anchored in the past as long as its primary purpose is to pay tribute to Kelly. However, it actually deals with both the future and the seat of our current problems to the extent it focuses on the poor football and personnel management policies of Mr. Ralph. The amazing point made clear by your original post is that even outsiders like you and I could tell in 96 that Jimbo after some great and glorious service which merited the HOF in my book was done as a player. Yet, an insider, Mr. Ralph who should have known better made a handshake deal with Jimbo only he could make that said he would reward Jimbo in his next contract which never happened. The Bills have continually suffered from bad football judgments either made by or kicked off by this handshake deal which saw the Bills make killer mistake after killer mistake after it kept messing up the QB situation often by overreaching in a stupid search for a new savior. This is the story today and may well be repeated if we use the #3 for Gabbert (or possibly Newton if he falls to #3.

Due to his speed (which is a true thing), his relatively young age when he was drafted (most of his draftmates were 21 or likely older due to redshirtting while his records indicate he was 20 max and a mere year makes a difference at that age), and the fact he took up the game relatively late in life (this provides the disadvantage he is less trained but the advantage there is more room for growth), he might make rapid progress. However, we likely would have seen some sign of it by now and we have not. The ONE place where the conventional wisdom may actually be right is that it takes 3 years to really judge a draftee, This is Maybin's third year so chances of adequacy are small. However, the Bills already made the mistake of drafting him under an already fired regime. Complaining about him is really reduce to mere whining and bleating at this point. I wish him well and hope he can make it but really doubt he can.

Mo probably not as I think Edwards training was from the renowned QBU at Stanford with the endorsement of Bill Walsh. Walsh was wrong in his thinking Edwards would be good to go immediately but I can understand what he tought. Part of Edwards failure to develop was likely due to his coming into an offensively challenged system under Jauron and his revolving door of OCs. The problem is that the feeling about Gabbert is even a slower start as he needs at least 1 if not 2 years of sitting on the bench and practice against the scrubs or running the scout team before he will be able to contribute as a pro. Gabbert has only two years of starts at QB in college and has promise but needs development and work. The problem for the Bills is that historically Gailey has prospered with vet QBs who actually failed in their first go round like Fiedler, Kordell, Bulger and even Fitzy (who did not fail exactly but was not enough of a success in his brief appearance that he was kept on). Please inform us if you know about a real example I do not, but Gailey does not have a record of turning rookies into winners I know about. Gabbert is not Edwards in that at least for his first year and probably for his first two he is likely to be less productive. If he gets rushed to start before he is ready as Bills QBs generally have been the past decade plus, getting drafted by the Bills and forced to start to soon with whining from WGR, Sully and a small but vocal part of the fan base could be a disaster for all.

This really is the key indication from what I see of the Bills and Gailey's history. Certainly a lot of posters who advocate Gabbert point to him being a Gailey "type" in terms of his arm strength, brightness, and mobility, but this analysis of what Gailey has worked well with in the past becomes a bit thin when one asks for examples of him being productive with this type of QB when the athlete is a rookie. Please give us the examples but my guess is the sound you hear is that of crickets chirping. The Gailey type strikes me as fundamentally as not simply a strong, armed, mobile, intellectually gifted athlete (actually a description of most highly rated NFL QBs (though no one would mistake Jim Kelly for being intellectually gifted though he had great football smarts), but also a vet who has failed elsewhere but the Gailey offense lends itself to a QB with not only the logistical talents listed, but he also has failed to impress in his initial QB effort. A "Gailey" QB generally has been one like a Fiedler, Bulger, Kordell or even a Fitzpatrick. Yes a football bright mobile guy who can throw the rock. However,I think most important has seen enough of the pro game to anticipate where the blitz is coming from and the tricks opposing pro DCs are using. My sense is that the past is almost certainly not dead lock certain to determine the future. Gailey might go off his previous MO to get a franchise QB even if he has shown a clear preference for even failed vets over rookies. However, though the past is not determinative it is a pretty good indicator. I do not see Gailey going off script for a QB unless he is a once in an eon talent as Luck seems to be. Gabbert looks good but credible assessors have Newton as being better and neither holds a candle to what Luck might be. No one with any intelligence mistakes Gabbert for a guaranteed first year starter (in fact given he only has two years of collegiate starter experience it strikes me as a good guess he will need two years on the Bills bench and practice before he contributes. As WGR, Sully and a few loud fan whiners will declare him a bust if the #3 does not start immediately, I see very bad things for us if we choose Gabbert with our #3. We are simply an OLB, a DE, and RT and a swing guy on the OL away from simple adequacy. As it is not a reasonable shot at all that anyone drafted after the third round will do a lot of starting (yes there is the occasional Kyle Williams but there seems to be more than the occasional McCargo or a host of Bills Rd. 2 failures). I think the numbers do not work for us even if we are lucky unless we trade the #3 for additional early draft picks.

What you said above is the key! Gabbert does look very good. However, like most rookie QBs, he will greatly profit from a year of sitting on the bench and learning the pro game. He also would profit a great deal from practicing with pro talent and running the scout team for a season. In addition, he only had two years of starts in college and another year and actually two of practice are almost certain to be necessary before we expect any om field production from him. Aye, there is the rub! The false conventional wisdom among many is that a 1st round draft pick must contribute to the team on the field his first year (in fact only slightly more than 50% of first round picks are first on the team's depth chart at their position a year after they are acquired based on a survey I did of a couple of drafts). Given the Bills playoff drought of over a decade, I have few doubts that media types like WGR and Sully and a small but vocal group of whining fans are going to start the drumbeat as quickly as they can that the first round choice of the Bills needs to be productive (or the false pro Bills description that this youngster can only learn by playing). While it is questionable that some of these recent past Bills QB could have ever learned to be good pros, it is pretty clear that the Bills habit over the past decade has been to rush folks like Trent Edwards, JP, Todd Collins, (and even RJ along though the big mistake we made was to sign him to a guaranteed deal without performing the needed due diligence to determine whether he was injury prone) when a slower development pace would have benefitted them. Along with a selection of Gabbert must be a pretty firm commitment that we are going to invest our fates to the hands of Fitzy for at least a year and probably two until Gabbert can reasonably be expected to contribute on the field. Do Gabbert advocates have such faith in Fitzy that they are willing to commit to him for a year or more likely two even though the selection of Gabbert means pushing down by a round the selection of the couple of players we need on D to make it adequate and the player and a half we need to add to the OL to make it adequate. As a reasonable HOPE of starting talent is not to be made after the third round, the physics of getting four starters from 3 picks is already bleak. Trading down the #3 in the hopes of adding two choices prior to the end of the third round is by far a much better hope than drafting Gabbert who almost certainly will need to sit for a year (if not two) before he should be reasonably expected to contribute on the field.

The problem is that with only two seasons of experience as a starter in college and then he would be asked to not only learn the pro game, but to do so with us being what I see as two starters short of adequacy on D (OLB and DE) and also a player and a half short of adequacy on the OL (RT and a swing guy who allows us to make a replacement without missing a bear- plus the OL will need a year of building chemistry before it is merely adequate). Its a longshot for any player not meriting a 3rd round or better choice to be starting talent. The primary way we build an adequate team through the draft is time or by trading down to get more 1st-3rd picks. Even worse begin to see in your post the drumbeat already starting for Gabbert to play and produce next year. Hr needs (at least) two years sitting on the bench and learning practice before he can likely be productive. If we do take Gabbert critical to his development will be Gailey showing the discipline and the rookies skill building skills to resist the whines of WGR, Sully and a small buy vocal part of the fan base not to start him at all next year. I doubt we will see that and just as the Bills have ruined a bunch of young QBs over the last 12 years, my guess is they add Gabbert to that collection if we draft him at #3.

Not necessarily a break up of the NFL as an outcome of a player anti-trust win, but also possible that a win means a break up of the NFL as we know it. The best outcome for the NFLPA is not to totally destroy the NFL but to bust the trust of the MFL team owners and allow for the formation of a new alternative league which increases competition. Competition improving product is really the good ol American way and its why the GOP historically under Teddy Roosevelt put such an emphasis on busting trusts. The previous NFLPA threat to decertify itself as a bargaining agent for the players with the NFL was such a brilliant move in the late 80s because it would have forced NFL team owners to actually compete with each other signing individual athletes to personal service contracts. Rather than compete in a true free market the NFL team owners ran kicking and screaming to agree to a CBA which in its final iteration granted the players not only partnership status with the owners but arguably the CBA made the players majority partners in this deal by assigning the vast majority of total revenues to the players. Rather than kill the NFL, players have profited the most when there is competition from an alternative league. Whether than competition is from an ultimately successful league like the AFL (which bidded up the salary of players from Namath on down) or failed leagues like the USFL (which bid up contracts like Jim Kelly's to a level Mr, Ralph at first would not pay) the players profit most when there is competition. Right now I think the players are set up to win this thing because in the end the courts will want a negotiated agreement and in any compromise the players likely win out.

The way I look at it the minimum needed to become adequate is 1 DL player 1 OLB 1 RT starter 1 swing guy on the OL which allows us to plug in a player when someone gets hurt or nicked 1 Back-up QB who might eventually challenge Fitzy for the job I would also make this trade which would never be offered in a hot half second as it gives us the POTENTIAL to fill many of our needs in one year rather than two.

What I find compelling is Gailey's past history with choosing QBs who he can be productive with. I recognize that the past does not absolutely determine the furture. However, one would be foolish not to recognize that past actions can be a pretty strong indicator of future decisions. The simple fact is that when one looks at what make-up the classic Gailey QB such as a Fiedler (who busted in his first go round as a Pro but Gailey ride him to the playoffs), Kordell (similar MO of past failure who proved to be a winner in the Gailey system, Fitzpatrick, Bulger, etc the classic Gailey choice has been a vet whom Gailey works with to increase his productivity. I have asked but no one has given me an example of him employing and developing a rookie into a winner. I also have grave doubts about whether Fitzy can ever become the franchise QB we want and need. The demise of Brohm makes it essential for us to get a #2 QB. However, given Gailey's past record of actions and also past success my guess is that the waiver wire once the game comes back is a more likely place for the Bills to go QB shopping than the draft. Perhaps if there was some once in an eon talent like a Luck available then we might see Gauiley make the QB choice. However, though Gabbert and Newton are pretty clearly the class of this year's rookies, no one mistakes them for being virtual certainties to be franchise QBs. In fact both pretty clearly will need a year of watching, learning and practicing before they are likely to be ready to step on the field as a QB who still will have a lot to learn.

As one who believes that a pock of either Gabbert or Newton would likely be a disaster for us, my hope is that what the Bills are doing from Nix talking about a record number of teams wanting to go QB in the first round and Mr. Ralph saying he wanted a QB is to create a potential run on the position which will benefit the Bills, Namely, lets say that NC takes either Gabbert or Newton. There appears to be a general agreement that these two are the class of the QB crop and that the others are a step down but potential 1st round talent. Now if you are below the Bills you are in a quandary. One of the 2 best QBs are gone and the Bills have made noises that they make take the other. If you really want one of the two best QBs you now must trade up to the #2 slot as some propose leaving Dareus as a "booby| prize of the best defender in the draft or maybe you trade with the Bills to get then to forgo this other QB in exchange for extra picks and flip-flopping firsts. I think either of these two outcomes and in particular the latter if we get a second high quality pick are great way for us to go. I think this team needs the addition of at least 4 quality players to be adequate this year. The quality of drafted players (the only real source for new additions in the current labor dispute) night extend down to the third round to get reasonable contributions only because we pick so early each round. Getting three contributing players from even our first three picks would be quite fortunate and getting four contributors from three choices simply cannot happen. We really need to trade down for another second to have any hopes of adequacy,

Maybe that is the mind game he is playing or setting up. He told the truth last year when he took an RB when they had two former starter RBs in house. So perhaps for sure he isn't lying when he talks up taking a QB when neither of the two best are likely to be productive QBs next year. Or so we think? The key to the entire NFL draft and trading generally is to learn to fake sincerity.

I just hope that whatever he says at this point is a lie. I think the important thing here is to fool the other teams. I could not care less than if what it takes for him to fool draft opponents causes him to lie to me.

Well is there a moderate ground we can agree upon that it is not delusional to not take a QB at #3? My personal sense is that taking a QB at #3 is actually one of the worse things we could do.

My apologies for not wording it correctly or simple enough for you to understand so I will try again. The post attempts to point out that doing something other than drafting a QB at #3 is not delusional. I point out that on the face of it almost half of the 12 playoff QBs (the measure chosen in the lead post) were in fact not even drafted by the team they QB'ed to the playoffs (already the delusional comment is extreme. The vast majority of QBs who led these teams to the playoffs stems from what the lead author classifies as delusional that rather than drafting a QB at #3, what makes a lot of sense is that you trade the pick away if you can and by trading down you pick up an extra second rounder (for example) and that still allows you to draft a QB (if you choose) later in the 1st round at the same position playoff capable QBs like Flacco, Sanchez, or Rodgers were taken. It simply is far from delusional to get your franchise QB through FA or trade, or simply by passing on taking Gabbert or Newton at #3 and trading down to get extra picks to take a later 1st rounder (I suspect Mallet will actually go late in the first) or a second rounder with your extra picks (I suspect Kapernick (sp?) will go in the 2nd. Rather than being deluded the intelligent thing for the Bills to do if it can find a trade partner is to trade down to answer the immediate question of being two players away from adequacy on D and a player and a half away from adequacy on the OL. To me without the above essential improvements (particularly if they draft Gabbert or Newton at #3 I suspect they will not be productive they will have such a load to carry and likely will not even survive unless drastic changes are made to the OL.

I agree! I think this is great as I doubt we have any interest in wasting our #3 on Newton or Gabbert as if we acquire either of these players with the #3 1. Quite frankly I doubt a rookie QB who is seeing NFL blitz packages for the first time over the centers back even survives behind out OL which is at least a player and a half (starting RT and a swing guy giving us flexibility with back-ups) plus a year of play to develop chemistry merely to become adequate. Fitzy is almost certain;y not the franchise QB we need, but the pluses he does bring are: A. Bright mind who has seen a lot the DC tricks (a rookie will learn by getting killed and the D book on the Bills will be to rush early and often on a #3 drafted QB. B. His vet football mind allows him not only to anticipate the blitz but also know which OL players are overmatched and the blitz likely come from that direction as our OL players get beaten. C. Good athleticism which allows him to escape when the pocket breaks down. Fitz is not a long term answer for us likely but a rookie better sit, watch. and learn his rookie year or he will get killed. 2. The conventional wisdom is that a first round pick should be a first year starter. About 50% of the time the cw is wrong (in fact Eric Moulds is a classic example of a player who did not produce at all his first two years but became a perrenial Pro Bowl candidate. Though Moulds was not the norm the QB position is one where the best often sit for a while and learn. However, the DF/RJ QB controversy may be what we end up with if Fitzy has the not abnormal problems and WGR, Sully and a small but vocal part of the fanbase starts whining we wasted the #3 on a non-contributor and simply short circuit intelligent development. 3. Even worse overall, not only are we gonna push draft acquisition of a needed OL talent back by a round if we waste the #3 on a QB, but we also push by a round of talent acquiring the two players we need to make our D adequate. The chances of Fitz running into trouble because we are losing and then the rookie QB fighting not only behind a line where he has to learn running for his life but he always behind as our D gets shredded like last year since we are not going to commit the #3 to a stud defender. I hope they are shopping the #2 and this means they want one of the QBs because if Gabbert and Newton go 1-2 it will be a happy day for this Bills fan!

They would do whatever they perceived would make Mr. Ralph happy. I doubt anyone who says otherwise. The question is what would make Mr. Ralph happiest. I think it would be a duel between his futile over-reaching at QB as he searched for the next Jim Kelly and his continual desire to get the cheapest deal possible. My guess is that he already feels pretty good about Fitzy's production on the cheap at QB so I doubt he goes Newton or Gabbert. My sense is that his hopes of getting a damaged goods stud in McGahee and in getting a shallow talented youngster in Maybin ruled the day. If Mr. Ralph is anything he is a businessman rather than a sportsman.