Orton's Arm

Faulty logic, in combination with the tacit assumption that others' opinions need not be taken seriously, generally results in highly irritating posts. Your recent posts in this thread have fallen into exactly this trap. Below are some examples of that faulty logic. "My suggestion of lining up 4 DLs and 7 DBs is meant to draw attention to the absurd idea put forth here and elsewhere that LBs are not a position of "value" anymore. See how ridiculous that is?" You are offering us a false choice. Choice 1: a non-pass rushing LB could easily be worthy of 10th overall. Choice 2: the LB position should be eliminated completely. The obvious absurdity of choice 2 does not (as you suppose) demonstrate the validity of choice 1. "Tell me which is more valuable, a QB picked at 10 who busts or a free agent G who becomes a perennial ALL Pro? Don't know about you, but I want the playmaker on my team first and foremost. Again, regardless of position." A Pro Bowl punter is more valuable than Ryan Leaf. That fact does not (as you seem to suppose) demonstrate that the position a player plays should be ignored on draft day. "But NOBODY can predict future results and I'm sorry, but anyone who seeks to lecture about value through a crystal ball BEFORE the fact is just making things up." In order to decide which players to draft, you have to predict future results. If you're choosing between Player A and Player B, and if you pick Player A, then, like it or not, you just made a prediction. These predictions are sometimes wrong. Making educated (and sometimes inaccurate) predictions is not analogous to "just making things up." > "Duh" is the perfect response to an article that insults the intelligence of longtime football > fans that actually know a thing or two about the game to begin with. Perhaps if the NY Times' > analysis did something to inform me of anything I didn't already know, I'd be more gracious > in my response their study. Again, the New York Times' regression analysis quantified the difference between the importance of the passing game and the running game. You could not possibly have quantified that difference on your own, unless you'd gathered a ton of data in order to perform a multiple linear regression analysis of your own. Had you done this kind of analysis before the New York Times had, then their analysis would have shown you nothing new. If you did do this kind of analysis, then show me the post (from a few years ago) in which you shared your results with the rest of us. If you didn't do this kind of analysis--which you didn't--then stop saying that their regression analysis didn't tell you anything you didn't already know. Because it did. Besides, you're certainly not acting like someone who knew all along that the passing game is four times as important as the running game. How many times have you heard a football commentator say, "to win in football, you need to run and stop the run"? The New York Times' regression analysis disproved that. If you'd already known that the passing game was more important than the running game, you should be happy that someone at the New York Times did the work to prove you right and others wrong. Instead you're acting like a spoiled child. Not only that, but the lesson from their regression analysis doesn't seem to have sunk in. You're advocating potentially taking a LB at 10th overall, even though his contribution to the team would be mostly in the form of improved run defense. Improved zone coverage from a member of your linebacker corps isn't going to help you that much on passing downs. Certainly not enough to justify the use of a first or second round pick.

I disagree with pretty much everything in your post. I am not "making mountains out of molehills." "Value" is not synthetic metric designed to feed anyone's pre-draft frenzy. You should care about the position a player plays, because it matters. A quarterback who plays at a Pro Bowl level is worth more than a Pro Bowl level LT, who in turn is worth more than a Pro Bowl OG. The appropriate response to the New York Times' regression analysis is not "duh." Without that analysis, we would intuitively grasp that passing is more important than running, but we wouldn't know that a 1 SD improvement in passing offense is four times better than a 1 SD improvement in rushing offense. Your suggestion of the defense lining up with 4 DLs and 7 DBs is a straw man argument, and contributes nothing to this discussion.

The aforementioned regression analysis stated that an improvement in yards allowed per pass was three times as important as an equal improvement in yards allowed per running play. An improvement in the percentage of passes intercepted was as important as an equal improvement in yards allowed per rush. This is what the article meant when it stated that pass defense was four times as important as run defense. (And pass offense four times as important as rushing offense; with yards per pass attempt being three times as important as yards per rush attempt, and interception percentage of equal importance to yards per rush.) "[Kuechley will] be drafted because of his perceived potential to make football plays within the designed defensive scheme(s) of the team that drafts him." The same could be said of every defensive player who will be drafted. The real question is where each player deserves to be drafted, based on the value he brings. In answering a question like that, it is absolutely essential that a high value pick not be squandered on anything other than a player who will bring significant value to the team. Wannestedt typically favors smaller, faster linebackers who are also good hitters. Bryan Scott is sort of like the kind of linebacker Wannestedt likes. In fact, Bryan Scott is a lot like Wannestedt's preferred kind of linebacker! You can get linebackers like that in rounds 3 - 7--which is also something Wannestedt typically favors. Will Kuechley be a better linebacker than Bryan Scott? Assuming he's not a bust, then yes, he will be. Taking Kuechley 10th overall would mean moderately better run defense, and somewhat better zone coverage from the Bills' linebacker corps, than we would have had with Bryan Scott in his place. But those things will not be enough better to justify burning the 10th overall pick of the draft! It's impossible to field a roster of 22 top-10 picks. Whenever you have a high pick, it should be used where it will do the most good! That means the Bills should choose the BPA from among the following positions: QB, LT, CB, WR. A successful player at any of those positions will have a much greater effect on pass offense or pass defense than Kuechley will have on pass defense. In the unlikely event no QB, LT, CB, or WR is worthy of 10th overall, the Bills should look at DEs and even DTs. What they should not do at 10th overall is take an OG, LB, S, RT, or RB!

According to a regression done by the New York Times, pass defense is four times more important than run defense. (That is, a 1 SD improvement in pass defense will result in four times as many additional wins as a 1 SD improvement in run defense. 75% of "pass defense" consists of yards allowed per pass attempt; 25% consists of interception percentage.) For the above reasons, I focused more heavily on Kuechley's potential contribution to pass defense than to run defense. I suspect that the vast majority of the tackling you described will come on run defense. I have no objection to the Bills having a good tackler/run stopper at MLB. I just don't want them taking a guy like that 10th overall. I agree that it would be foolish for a defensive coordinator to put a LB--even a LB known for his pass coverage--one-on-one against someone like Gronkowski. Putting your LBs in zone coverage makes more sense, as you pointed out. I just don't like the idea of taking a LB 10th overall because of his zone coverage. I think the Bills can and should get more use out of such a high draft pick than that!

You hit the nail on the head. Clay Matthews is a pass rushing LB in a 3-4. For the Bills, Kuechley would be a LB in the 4-3. Wannestedt doesn't like to blitz his linebackers, so Kuechley wouldn't be blitzing much no matter which linebacker position he played. In a 3-4, linebackers tend to rush the passer a lot more often. If Wannestedt wants four guys to rush the passer, he'll rush four down linemen. If someone running a 3-4 wants to rush four guys, he'll rush his three down linemen plus (usually) one linebacker. In Green Bay's 3-4, that linebacker is often Clay Matthews. If drafted by the Bills, Kuechley will be given few chances to rush the passer. That means that in order to justify his 10th overall selection on pass defense, he'll need to be able to cover pass catching TEs one-on-one. I know that Kuechley is better than most other linebackers at pass coverage, but somehow I don't see that translating into his single-handedly shutting down Gronkowski.

In the 1870s and 1880s, a number of Americans became very involved in "football." American football of the 1800s was not like it is today. There was no forward passing, for example. The sport they played back then had more in common with rugby than with modern era football. Young American men had spent the early 1860s fighting each other in the Civil War. Football provided a way for them to keep fighting each other, and with much less risk of getting killed than was associated with the Civil War. But for some, "less likely to kill you than fighting in the Civil War" was not quite safe enough. In the early 1900s, the NCAA drastically modified football's rules. Forward passing was allowed, the shape of the ball was changed, etc. Old school football people were not happy about this! Despite these changes, the game continued to serve its core purpose: it provided a non-lethal substitute for war. All the virtues of a warrior are rewarded on a football field: toughness, decisiveness, strength of will, strategy and tactics, a strong bond between teammates/fellow soldiers. The question then becomes: what core features does football need to retain so that it can continue to serve as a non-lethal substitute for war? Is it possible to retain these core features while greatly reducing the incidence of head trauma and concussions?

I agree that center is a more important position than OG. A good center is probably more valuable than an equally good safety. The knock on Wood is that he's been hit with the injury bug. If in the future he stays mostly injury-free, and if he continues playing at his current level, I'd rate him as more valuable than Byrd. But if he continues missing games at the rate he's missed in the past, he'll be less valuable than Byrd.

From the article: ******* “One thing we did determine is that by moving the kickoff to the 35 yard-line it reduced the number of returns, but reduced the number of concussions by 40 percent,” Mara said. “So I don’t think you’ll see that rule change. The kickoff is by far the most dangerous play that we have in our game. The hits are pretty violent and they come from all different directions. There are guys running full speed, that’s the problem. That’s why we put the rule in. It shortens the field a little bit and it cuts down the number of returns.” Some coaches – particularly those who employ the league’s best return specialists – as well as several returners voiced their displeasure after the spot of the kickoffs was moved up. They are not as vocal now. “There was no support for moving the kickoff back to the 30 yard-line,” Mara said. “I think everybody was convinced by the statistics." *******

If Tannehill actually does become a franchise QB, then the Dolphins will look like geniuses. It's almost impossible to overstate the value of a franchise QB. Look at how the Colts did with Manning versus how they did once he went down with that injury! That being said, I haven't watched any college football this past year, so I don't claim to know how Tannehill will look as a pro. Gil Brandt rated him as one of the ten best available prospects. Maybe he's right, or maybe Tannehill is just another bust waiting to happen. But as Astrobot pointed out, the nice thing about the Dolphins trading up to 3rd overall for Tannehill is that it makes it that much easier for the Bills to move up for Kalil. I'd love to see that happen! (Except at the expense of picks from next year's draft. As far as I'm concerned, those picks shouldn't be part of the trade up discussion.)

I voted C+. Any time you take an interior lineman with a first or second round pick, it's generally considered a low risk, low reward proposition. Interior OL spots are considered much easier to fill than, say, the LT spot or a #1 WR or a CB. If two of their four first picks were used on interior offensive linemen, another was used on Byrd. Byrd has quietly become a quality player, at a position which is considered harder to fill than OG. (But easier to fill than CB.) Byrd was the best pick of that draft. The Bills failed to acquire a quality player at a difficult-to-fill position, like pass rusher, LT, or CB. The reason they failed to accomplish this is because they used their very valuable top-12 pick on . . . Drafts should be graded on a curve. The Bills went into that draft with a top-12 pick, another pick later in the first round, and two second round picks. Given that fact, they should have been expected to accomplish more than a team whose first pick isn't until the late 20s or early 30s.

How did reaching for Whitner, McCargo, and Lynch work out for Marv? The Bills must avoid the Scylla of reaching for need. They must also steer away from the Charybdis of using the 10th overall pick on a low value position, such as 4-3 LB, OG, or RB. At 10th overall, the pick should be a LT, WR, CB, or possibly a QB in the unlikely event Tannehill is still available. Surely, a player at one of those positions must be worthy of 10th overall!

You've asked a good question, and have obviously put some time into coming up with that list! I don't like the idea of drafting a player for one year, especially not if I'm a GM of an expansion team. A one year draft puts me in a short-term mindset when I should be thinking about the long haul. A better way of taking age out of the equation is to assume that every player on the above list, as well as Ray Lewis, has been given a youth pill to reduce his biological age to 22. Unfortunately, right after this happened, the manufacturer of those youth pills was blown up in a terrorist attack, with their complete inventory, knowledge base, and group of scientists lost in the explosion. As a GM, my goal would be to win the Super Bowl. Nine out of the last ten Super Bowls have been won by teams with franchise QBs. There are about eight teams in the league with franchise QBs. If 10% of Super Bowl wins go to teams without franchise QBs, and if those wins are shared among the 24 teams that don't have franchise QBs, then a team without a franchise QB should expect to win a Super Bowl once every 240 years. I'd like to do better than that, especially with the destruction of the youth pill manufacturer. The problem then becomes: if I take a non-franchise QB on the above list, I'll have to replace him before I can win a Super Bowl. Let's say I take Joe Flacco, for example. He's a step or two above Fitzpatrick, but a step below a franchise QB. A guy like him can take a team pretty far--perhaps to the divisional round of the playoffs, or even to a conference championship. But for him to wrest a Lombardi trophy away from a team with a franchise QB, this guy's supporting cast will have to be significantly better than the franchise QB's supporting cast. If you're going up against a team like the Giants (franchise QB + strong supporting cast), that's going to be a hard goal to achieve! On the other hand, let's say I had a roster like the Bills'. Except that Fitzpatrick and Shepherd have just retired, leaving the Bills with holes at QB and MLB. In a situation like that, adding Flacco to fill the QB spot would generate more additional wins than would adding Ray Lewis to fill the hole at MLB. Another way of looking at the situation is to suppose that I'm going to trade away the QB or MLB I draft after a few years. How good would a QB have to be to have a higher trade value than a young Ray Lewis? Cutler netted two first round picks, plus Kyle Orton. I don't think a team would give up as much as that for Lewis, but I could be wrong. Under this trade scenario, I'd probably still be looking somewhere in the Cutler to Flacco range as my cutoff point.

Evans can only run one route. All he needs to be successful is a quarterback who can throw the long bomb. Losman was good enough to do that, and how much worse than Losman could Gabbert possibly be? Anything positive you could say about Losman--such as his arm strength--you can also say about Gabbert. I'm not saying Evans isn't done. Just that if he is done, it's because he can no longer do the things he did back in 2006.

I like the fact that you're giving serious thought to draft strategy. Yours has been one of the better threads I've seen, and a good starting point for shaking people loose from established patterns of thought. One way your original post could be improved upon is to take into account the data found in an NFL draft value chart. The numbers in this chart are not set in stone. In this year's draft, for example, the first two picks have extreme value, because they're associated with players thought to be franchise QBs. There's a big drop-off in value from 2nd overall to 3rd overall. Other drafts will not necessarily be like that. But while the draft chart isn't always going to be perfect, it's a good starting point. Also, there's normally more year-to-year variation in the value of the first few picks of a given draft than there is in its main body. Trades between teams--especially for picks in the second or third round--tend to have roughly balanced point values. If, for instance, a GM wants the 16th pick of the 2nd round (420 points) he knows he's probably going to have to give up about 420 points' worth of his own picks. The 16th pick of the 3rd round is worth only 190 points, which makes it somewhat expensive to trade up.

I think there's considerable overlap between your view and mine, but also some points of difference. I'm looking for the Bills to use the 10th overall pick on a guy who can make a significant contribution. The level of a guy's contribution depends in part on the position he plays, and in part on how good he is at the position. If it's a choice between, say, a mediocre LT who shouldn't have been drafted before the third round, and a Pro Bowl OG, then you pick the OG. But quite frankly, I wouldn't be very happy with either player at 10th overall. One way of measuring a player's effectiveness is the extent to which he contributes to the numbers game. Guys like Bruce Smith and Larry Fitzgerald can be effective even while being double-teamed. Any time the opposing team has to use two of its players to deal with one of yours, it adds +1 to your team's numbers game. Another way for a player to help with the numbers game is to cancel out an opposing player who would otherwise have required a double team. Deion Sanders could single cover Jerry Rice, Tony Boselli could block Bruce Smith one-on-one. At 10th overall, the Bills need a player who will contribute to the numbers game, either via the first method or the second. I don't see how an OG is supposed to do that. Nor do I see how Kuechley is supposed to do that, unless someone is going to argue that he can single cover a pass catching TE who would otherwise have required double coverage. I understand Kuechley does have good coverage skills--at least for a linebacker--but that doesn't necessarily mean he's good enough to be put one-on-one against a good pass catching TE. I agree with you that what the Bills should not do is to pick some position of need, and then reach for a player based on that need. That strategy has been tried in the past, and has resulted in Whitner, McCargo, Lynch, and other busts. The other mistake they should avoid is to pick a RB, LB, OG, or some other player not likely to add +1 to the numbers game. Avoiding players like that still gives them considerable flexibility at 10th overall. Enough flexibility that they should be able to avoid significantly reaching for a player. I'd be happy with a LT, WR, CB, or QB at 10th overall, as long as the player was graded highly enough to justify his lofty draft position.

The fact that there are Hall of Fame players at tier 4 positions doesn't (and shouldn't) prove that those positions aren't really tier 4. If one wants to argue that Ray Lewis has shown LB isn't really tier 4, then you have to compare him against Hall of Fame players at higher tier positions. If you were a GM building a football team, and if you had a choice between acquiring a young Ray Lewis on the one hand, or a young Joe Montana on the other, I'd assume you'd take Montana. And I'd assume you'd see a significant difference in the two players' value. (If you think the two players would have the same value to your team, you're wrong.) This shows that LB isn't a tier 1 position, because a Hall of Fame QB has more value than a Hall of Fame LB. Then let's look at tier 2. There you have a choice between Ray Lewis on the one hand or Bruce Smith on the other. If your goal is a better defensive pass rush, you have to think about the guy who can get double digit sacks for the year despite being constantly double-teamed. If your goal is better pass coverage, you might want to start with a Hall of Fame CB like Deion Sanders, rather than with a LB. Either way, Ray Lewis doesn't bring the same value to your team that a Hall of Fame tier 2 player would bring. Comparing Ray Lewis to a Hall of Fame tier 3 player--like Larry Fitzgerald--is going to be a little more controversial than the first two comparisons should be. But even here, I'd point out that Larry Fitzgerald can and will have monster games even while using up two opposing players. The defense has to stop this guy, because he'll keep ripping out gouges of yards until they do. I'd argue that a Larry Fitzgerald is more valuable to a team than a Ray Lewis; though I'll admit that the difference is less pronounced than the difference between Ray Lewis and Bruuuuuuuce. All of which is a rather roundabout way of saying that linebacker is a tier 4 position. A standard-issue LB doesn't rush the passer all that often, and won't be as good at covering TEs as a standard-issue SS would be.

Good question. Generally speaking, even if a player is very, very good at his position, I don't like to upgrade that position's tier. The one exception I'll make to that is running back, because a pass catching running back like Marshall Faulk is almost like a hybrid RB/WR. He escapes the running back tier by taking on more and different roles than are traditionally associated with a RB. Ray Lewis wasn't used to do a ton of pass rushing, as for example Lawrence Taylor had been. So his tier can't be upgraded on the basis of him being a hybrid LB/DE. I don't recall him doing a ton of one-on-one coverage against pass catching TEs, so his tier can't be upgraded on the basis of him being a hybrid LB/SS. I think, when all is said and done, that he's an example of a Hall of Fame player who played a tier 4 position. There's no reason why tier 4 positions shouldn't produce their fair share of Hall of Fame players.

If I'm picking a guy 10th overall, I want one of the following. a) a franchise QB. b) a guy who directly contributes to the numbers game. By "the numbers game" I mean "a case when one player uses up two opposing players." A WR who consistently draws double coverage is a good example of this. So too is a DT who is productive despite being double teamed. If there's a DE who normally requires a double team, and if you have a LT who can block him one on one, then your LT contributes to the numbers game. Similarly, an elite CB can contribute to the numbers game by single covering WRs who normally require double coverage. It's not clear to me how an OG is supposed to contribute to the numbers game, which is why I don't want one with the 10th overall pick. Similarly, unless Kuechley is supposed to single cover TEs who would otherwise have required double coverage, I don't see how he's going to contribute to the numbers game either. At 10th overall, I'd tend to focus my attention on players reasonably likely to contribute to the numbers game, while steering away from those who probably won't.

This was a tough choice for me. If you have a franchise QB, there are only two things the defense can do to stop him. 1) Take away his time to throw. 2) Take away targets for him to throw to. A LT addresses the first of those things, and a WR the second. Unfortunately, the Bills don't, in fact, have a franchise QB, which is why I would have voted for a QB in a heartbeat if that position had been on the list. Since it wasn't, I had to choose between the LT and the WR. (Either of which will do a lot more for your passing offense than a 4-3 LB will do for your pass defense.) At first I was tempted to come down on the side of a LT. But then I started thinking about upside. Let's say that you have a Matt Light at LT, and upgrade him to an Orlando Pace. Matt Light is good enough to handle pass rushers one-on-one, so it's not like this upgrade is going to free up a TE who would otherwise have been kept in to block. Orlando Pace will absolutely neutralize whichever DE he's assigned to block. But neutralizing that one guy will turn into added pass protection only to the extent that your other four linemen can also block for very long periods of time. Odds are that on most plays, Matt Light won't be your weak link. So it's not like upgrading from Light to Pace will add all that much to the time the QB has in the pocket. If you measure an offensive line's effectiveness by the amount of time a QB has in the pocket, there's a limit to how much an elite LT like Pace can contribute. If (for example) Pace can block his man for 20 seconds, but everyone else on the line can only block for 5 seconds, the QB will only have 5 seconds to throw. The same logic does not apply to elite WRs, such as Larry Fitzgerald. You can force the defense to double cover him, and even then still have him run wild. Matt Light + Larry Fitzgerald would make a very strong combination. Light will prevent the LT spot from becoming the OL's weak link; and Fitzgerald will destroy opposing secondaries! The combination of Orlando Pace + Anquan Boldin, on the other hand, seems like it would be less productive, and would result in fewer passing yards. If the OP had promised us an above average player, I probably would have taken the LT. But since he promised us an elite player, I opted for the receiver.

Unless Leaf gets back to his roots, then sooner or later some punk with a gun will blow him away.

You've made a good point, and have expressed it well. I agree that if a LT doesn't have a grade which would justify 10th overall--or at least a grade which comes reasonably close--then the Bills shouldn't take a LT 10th overall. That doesn't mean they should take a LB at 10th overall instead, unless they're convinced the LB will be significantly better at pass coverage than Whitner. In a scenario like this, the Bills should start looking at the available WRs and CBs, to see if any of them are worthy of going 10th overall. I'd also like to thank Reed83 for his compliment.

I disagree: his line of thinking is the opposite of what had gotten the Bills into trouble during the TD and Levy eras! Some positions are more important than others. Tier 1: QB Tier 2: LT, RDE, CB Tier 3: RT, C, WR, DT Tier 3.5: S, pass catching TE Tier 4: RB, non-pass rushing LB, OG A RB can bump his way up to tier 3 if he becomes a good receiver out of the backfield, like Thurman Thomas or Marshall Faulk. But a guy like Travis Henry or Marshawn Lynch is definitely tier 4! Good GMs tend to be biased in favor of higher tier positions, especially early in the draft. They realize that a franchise QB is far more valuable than a non-pass-rushing LB, and that a franchise LT is worth a lot more than a franchise OG. The above-described tier system is largely about long term value. Long term value was not necessarily the primary focus of Marv and TD. Their willingness to spend a king's ransom on upgrading the running back position--and to thereby obtain a "quick impact"--is an excellent example of their short term thinking. But over the long run, a successful tier 1 or tier 2 player will still be a lot more valuable than a successful tier 4 player. Someone who takes the long view will tend to give more weight to the tier system than someone who does not. With Marv, and also with TD, the emphasis on draft day was generally on the quick fix. Marv's 2006 draft was an excellent example of this. He went into the draft determined to come away with a DT and an SS with his first two picks; on the theory that those two players could improve the defense right away. He ignored better players at more valuable positions in order to be able to achieve that. The 8th overall pick could have been used on Cutler; a QB who was later traded away for two first round picks + Kyle Orton. That's two more first round picks, and one more Kyle Orton, than the Bills received for Whitner's departure. The McCargo pick could, and should, have been used on Mangold; who many now feel is the best center in the league. You might argue that a LB who can cover good pass catching TEs is at least a tier 3.5, if not a tier 3. However, putting just about any LB one-on-one against a good pass catching TE is generally considered a mismatch. If you're Tom Brady, and if before the snap you see Kuechley one-on-one against Gronkowski, do you think, Ooh wow. No way that guy is getting open! I'd better throw to someone else instead! In general, TEs like Gronkowski should be covered by safeties! It was Whitner's inability to effectively cover safeties which made him unworthy of a first or second round pick. If we're talking 10th overall for Kuechley, I need to be convinced he'll be significantly better at covering TEs than Whitner had been.

Agreed. From the article: ******* The knock on Kuechly at the time was that he was a tweener -- too slow to play safety in college and too small to be an immediate starter at linebacker -- but he still impressed people as a football player. ******* If he's too slow to be a college safety, how is he supposed to cover NFL TEs one-on-one? I'll grant that he's a good tackler, has great instincts, a good competitor, and a good football player. I'd like to see him in a Bills uniform. But 10th overall is much too high a price to pay for what he can provide on passing downs. When deciding what to do with the 10th overall pick, you need to think with your head, not with your heart. However much I may like the guy and the attitude and competitiveness he brings, I just don't see how he could possibly provide 10th overall value to the Buffalo Bills.

I agree that drafting a LT, alone, won't turn the Bills into a serious Super Bowl contender. I also agree that acquiring a franchise LT would be a major step toward becoming the kind of team the Bills need to be. Pass protection is a weapon. If you give Brady five seconds of protection, he will do a lot more damage to the defense than if you give that same five seconds to, say, Tyler Thigpen. Often, teams that draft franchise LTs early in the draft lack good QBs. It's the combination of a good QB + good pass protection which does damage to the defense. Not just the good pass protection alone. If a team has a franchise QB, there are only two things a defense can do to stop him. 1. Take away his time to throw. 2. Take away his targets. With a franchise LT, the first of those two things becomes a lot tougher. On the other hand, adding an elite receiver makes the second a lot more difficult, which is why I'd be happy either with an elite LT or an elite WR with the Bills' first round pick. You could point out that the Bills do not, in fact, have a franchise QB. And you'd be right. Unfortunately, I don't think this draft represents a good opportunity for them to rectify that problem. If they can't get a franchise QB, then they need to do the next-best thing; which is to put the other pieces in place. That way when they finally do get that franchise QB, they'll be ready!

Excellent metaphor. Like you said, the Bills always seem to have too many needs. But most years, they have about 7 - 10 draft picks. You'd think that between all those draft picks, a few UDFAs, and some free agent signings, that it wouldn't take them very many years at all to address their need for large numbers of players. The reason the Bills need large numbers of players today is because the effort to acquire large numbers of players from a few years ago didn't work. I certainly don't object to the Bills having large numbers of draft picks, with each pick representing a roll of the dice that could, if successful, go your way. But the reality is that most of those picks will turn out to be paint for the crumbling old house. That's why it's good strategy to trade away one or two of those die rolls for a player you know will be an integral part of an excellent foundation for many years to come! Franchise LTs don't exactly grow on trees.