Orton's Arm

During WWII, an American general in what would later become the U.S. Air Force said (not an exact quote), "I will not go so far as to say we can win the war with air superiority alone. But I will say that the war will not be won without it." I think a similar argument can be made about the trenches. If your offensive line fails to provide decent pass protection or run-blocking, your offense as a whole is likely to collapse. Similarly, if you can't get a decent pass rush from your front-4 (in a 4-3) or your front 3 + 1 (3-4), you're setting your defense up to have a lot of problems. But once your front lines are playing at least as well as those of the other team, the skill positions begin to matter considerably more than they otherwise would have. Consider the Ravens of 2000. It's safe to say that their lines were good to dominant on both sides of the ball. But their offense went five straight games without scoring a touchdown. They had a very good OL led by a Hall of Fame-level LT in Jon Ogden. Unfortunately for them, they also had Tony Banks at quarterback for the first few of those touchdown-less games. Even after Trent Dilfer provided an upgrade at QB, their QB situation still wasn't anything to write home about. If you have an offense with a good OL--which the Ravens did--and if you add good weapons, it's like building a high quality Ferrari. But then, if you put a Tony Banks in at quarterback, it's like handing the keys to that Ferrari to someone's grandmother. You're not going to win too many races with her in the driver's seat, no matter how good a job you did in building that Ferrari in the first place! The better your car, the better the driver it deserves to have. An offensive line which can give the QB five seconds to throw is a thing of beauty. Giving all that pass protection to a Tony Banks or a Trent Dilfer is a squandering of your offense's great potential. You are much better off giving those five seconds of pass protection to a Kurt Warner or an Aaron Rodgers. Trust me--a Kurt Warner with five seconds of pass protection will do much more damage to the defense than Tony Banks or Trent Dilfer would have! Also--while I agree your WRs are less important than your OL or your QB, they still do matter. If nothing else, you at least want WRs who are reasonably good at avoiding dropped passes. Not to mention a TE who's a good outlet receiver for a QB that's in trouble. Obviously you want a receiving corps that can do more than just that. But you at least need that.

I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say the OP's plans "circle around" getting Andrew Luck. Everything he's suggested could be justified even if Luck wasn't available in next year's draft. Look at the following sequence of decisions and underlying thought processes. 1) Decision: don't use the third overall pick on a QB in this draft. Thought process: there is not necessarily a QB worthy of the third overall pick. There's a lot to like about Gabbert, but he may lack the touch and accuracy you'd want from your franchise guy. Newton is, well, Newton. 2) Decision: trade down from third overall to acquire an additional pick in the first round of the 2012 draft. Thought process: there's a chance Von Miller may still be available even at the Bills' new, lower pick. If not, they'll probably be able to acquire some other really good football player. Even if there is a step down in the quality of player they'll be getting, it will be more than offset by the extra first round pick next draft. 3) Decision: offer both first round picks in the 2012 draft (plus a few other things) to the team with the #1 overall pick. Thought process: if the Bills are Lucky (pun intended) the team with the first overall pick will already have its QB of the future on the roster, and will be looking to trade down. With two picks relatively early in the first round, the Bills would be the perfect trading partner for that other team! If the Bills are un-Lucky, the team with the first overall pick won't have a QB, and won't be willing to part with the Luck pick at any price. But even if that happens, they could still use their two first rounders in 2012 on other good players. Possibly including a QB. By the time the first three picks of the 2011 draft are made, the Bills will know whether they've succeeded in achieving steps 1 and 2 of this plan. Even if they do, step 3 would still be a likely point of failure. To prepare against the possibility that Luck might not be available to the Bills in 2012, I'd have no objection at all to the Bills using their second round pick on a QB like Christian Ponder. (Though it's unlikely he'll still be available in the second round.) If the Bills succeed in grabbing Ponder + Luck, Ponder could remain in a backup role for several years. Ultimately he'd probably be traded away, much like the Falcons traded away career backup Matt Schaub. (And got good draft compensation for doing so!)

Very good post! I would certainly love to see the Bills acquire some other team's first round pick in next year's draft in exchange for trading down. I think it's a stretch to imagine a team like the Bengals giving up their first round pick in next year's draft to move up just one spot. It's not impossible the Bengals would agree to such a thing, but it is unlikely. The only way I see that happening is if the Bengals are a) absolutely in love with a QB at #3, and b) believe the Bills are in negotiations with other teams looking to trade up for that same QB. I would be perfectly willing to see the Bills move down multiple spots, with one of the other potential trade partners you mentioned, in order to acquire that additional first round pick! There are those who pointed out the uncertainties associated with acquiring someone else's first round pick in next year's draft. But those uncertainties could potentially work in the Bills' favor. For example, suppose there is a 10% chance of the 2012 draft failing to occur. (Thus making any picks the Bills might acquire in that draft worthless.) That 10% chance will reduce the value of picks in that draft by at least 10%. (And possibly more if general managers are risk adverse.) Reducing a draft pick's value should also reduce its price. At least in theory, the Bills should have to give up less to acquire a first round pick in the 2012 draft than would have been the case had there been labor certainty. Of course, whether they'll actually receive a price reduction all depends on the willingness of their would-be trade partner. I like the fact that you're thinking in terms of maximizing the Bills' chances of being able to get Luck. While there is no guarantee your plan would succeed, acquiring an additional pick in the first round of the 2012 draft is highly worthwhile in its own right. If that extra pick results in Andrew Luck, it could substantially elevate the level of this franchise for the next decade or more!

Great post! The fact this organization drafted 11 DBs, 9 RBs, and only 2 QBs in the first round speaks volumes. (And goes a long way toward explaining the Bills' general lack of success over the last 30+ years.) One minor tweak I'd suggest to your post is to list the position each listed player played. Some of the names on the list didn't really ring any bells, especially not for the guys drafted decades ago. Listing each player's position would have the added advantage of making it easy to scan the list and count (for example) the number of OTs or OL the Bills drafted during the period you examined. One thing I noticed was how slim the pickings became after the top-10 or top-12 rated picks. If John Fina truly was the 14th best first round pick in the last 44 drafts, that's pretty sad. I remember Marv saying that the Bills employed a player rating service to evaluate their own and other teams' players. According to that service, Fina was roughly the 20th or 22nd-best starting LT in the league while he was playing. (I don't recall his exact rank.) But looking a little further down your list, it's hard to find anyone who was definitively better. For example, you rated Willis McGahee the 18th-best first round pick; and I for one don't think he was any better of an acquisition than Fina had been. At least Fina stayed with the Bills for a long time, instead of being traded away for a couple of third rounders after just a few (decent, not great) years. In addition to focusing too many resources on the wrong positions, the Bills are also guilty of choosing the wrong players.

Wanting what's best for your franchise over the long-term (Andrew Luck) doesn't make you any less of a fan than someone who has a "win today, worry about draft position tomorrow" approach. According to the NFL draft value chart, the first overall pick is worth 3000 points, the 10th overall is worth 1300 points, and the 32nd overall pick is worth 590 points. If you don't think the players available at third overall are necessarily any better than the ones who'd be available ninth or eleventh overall, you can always seek to trade down. If the Bills, for example, were to trade from third overall (2200 points) down to 11th overall (1250 points), the other team would have to give up 950 points' worth of picks. The 15th pick in the second round is worth 430 points, so you're essentially looking at receiving two second round picks, plus change, for the trade-down. (Assuming you receive fair value.) Attaining some meaningless wins can also move you from third overall to eleventh overall; except then you don't get any extra picks! As for the whole culture of winning/culture of losing argument: one way to build a culture of winning is to add winners and get rid of losers. Having more or better draft picks helps you do that.

You are correct to be scared about this. I listened to a radio show the other week, which featured Vic Carucci as a guest. He said several things: 1) The Bills would like to draft Newton. However, he will almost certainly be taken first overall by Carolina. 2) If the Bills can't draft Newton, they will take Von Miller instead. 3) There will be a run on QBs in the mid- to late-first round. Several quarterbacks in the Ponder category--specifically including Ponder himself--will not make it to the second round. Don't take any of the three above statements as guarantees--they are merely Vic's sense of the direction the draft is likely to head. Of course, that sense is based on his conversations with NFL people.

I personally had suspected that they arrived at the 3.5 claim by including players who didn't make the final roster cut. I didn't want to come out and say it, however, because I didn't have anything to support that hunch. It turns out that the above hunch would have been mistaken anyway, and that the NFLPA arrived at its conclusion through some incredibly bad/deceptive math. In the future, remind me to never underestimate the NFLPA's ability to put a spin on anything.

No claim involving 3.5 can ever be bogus!! Except, it would seem, the claim put forward by the NFLPA. Thanks for providing the link which refutes their bogus claim. The part of the link I found most interesting was the following: Whichever person from the NFLPA put this together is either being deliberately disingenuous, or else does not even begin to understand the basics of math. According to the NFLPA's calculations, the average player on an NFL roster has 3.5 accrued seasons. For the NFLPA to support its claim that an NFL career lasts 3.5 years, they'd also have to prove that almost all players on NFL rosters are at the very ends of their careers. It seems far more likely that the average NFL player is about halfway through his career. This is for the same reason that the average American is about halfway through his or her lifetime. If, for example, the average American was about 40 years old, it would imply that life expectancy for Americans is somewhere in the ballpark of 80 years. Similarly, if the average NFL player currently in the league has 3.5 accrued seasons (as the NFLPA's numbers show), it implies that the average NFL career lasts about seven years. If an average NFL career lasts seven years, (which is also similar to the NFL's numbers), then a team like the Bills should expect to lose about 14% of its roster every year to league exit. That implies about 7 - 8 player retirements per year; or about 76 over a ten year period. If someone wanted to justify the claim that most careers end because of injury, he'd have to show that at least 38 Bills had experienced career-ending injuries over the last ten years. Obviously that can't be done. At least for the Bills, and presumably for the league as a whole, the overwhelming majority of players' careers end for reasons other than injury.

While the post quoted above was in response to Mr. WEO, I've decided to add my own two cents to this discussion. Neither you nor Mr. WEO has presented a link to any sort of statistical analysis about how most players' careers end. This is not said as a criticism of either of you: I am not even sure whether such an analysis has been conducted. As has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, the average career of an NFL player is 3.5 years long. There is some disagreement about whether that average includes players in training camp, or is limited to the smaller number of players who successfully made the final roster cut. A career length of 3.5 years means that a standard-issue NFL team should expect to lose about 29% of its roster every year to retirement/exiting the league. That can mean Brad Butler leaving the NFL to pursue a political career, JP Losman leaving the NFL to pursue opportunities with the Las Vegas Locomotives, or Mike Williams leaving the NFL to pursue eating. For the purposes of this analysis, it doesn't matter what a player does after leaving the NFL, so long as his exit is permanent. (Which, I suppose, Losman's and Williams' exits were not.) If the average of 3.5 years was based solely on players who made the final roster, then a team like the Bills should expect to lose about 15 players a year to retirement or otherwise exiting the league. If it's based on the roughly 80 (?) players brought to training camp, the Bills should expect to lose about 23 players per year to retirement/league exit. (Including a lot of guys who failed to make the final roster.) Over the course of a ten-year period, a team like the Bills should expect to lose about 150 or 230 players to retirement/league exit, again depending on how the average is computed. Numbers of that magnitude are large enough for a statistically meaningful sample, at least if you assume that Bills' players are neither significantly more or less likely than average to experience career-ending injuries. Over the most recent ten years, how many current members of the Bills experienced career-ending injuries? Takeo Spikes' career was never the same after his injury, but he nonetheless had a long career in the NFL. Kevin Everett experienced a career-ending injury at a young age. Bryce Paup was never the same after his injury, though that occurred before the ten-year period began. Angelo Crowell experienced a career-shortening injury while a Bill. The above paragraph represents Bills' players who, over the last ten years, saw the duration of their careers significantly impacted by injuries. I'll grant that I might be forgetting some guys here and there. (And I encourage people to add to my list if they can think of anyone.) But if someone wishes to make the argument that most NFL careers end because of injury, then you'd expect a team like the Bills to experience a minimum of 75 or 115 career-ending injuries to its players over a ten-year period. (Depending, again, on how that average is computed.) While I've probably forgotten a few players from the above list, I strongly doubt I've forgotten 75 of them! If the Bills' experience with injuries is at least somewhat similar to the NFL's as a whole--as seems highly likely--then it is absolutely absurd to claim that most players' careers are ended by injury. The numbers needed to support that assertion just aren't there.

Having read through this discussion, one thing I haven't heard is that he's an exceptionally accurate passer. Smart, a good athlete, a good leader, runs a complex offense, tough, etc. But not particularly accurate (at least not from what people are claiming). Someone mentioned dink and dunk. I can live with dink and dunk, as long as a) the QB is very accurate and consistently accurate, and b) as long as there are some intermediate and deep throws in the mix. A lot of what Joe Montana did with the 49ers could be described as dink and dunk. But it worked because of Montana's exceptional accuracy, and because the 49ers' offense could punish you with intermediate and deep throws if you over-committed to stopping the short passing game. Dink and dunk can be forgiven; a lack of accuracy cannot be. If the Bills want a tough quarterback, a good leader, a smart QB who processes information quickly, but who isn't particularly accurate, they don't need to draft anyone. They have that already in the form of Fitz. Does Gabbert have exceptional accuracy that (for whatever reason) isn't being mentioned in this discussion? Or is his accuracy so-so? If the former, it sounds like he has serious potential to justify being chosen third overall. But if the latter, the Bills should not consider taking him before round 2.

His biggest strengths seem to be his athleticism, his agility, and his pass blocking. But under the weaknesses section, your link stated he needs to get physically stronger. A description like that makes him sound an awful lot like our current LT. Of course, if he was a significantly improved version of Demetrius Bell, the Bills should at least consider trading down and taking him. I'm not saying this is their best available option--it's just one of several they should consider. On the other hand, you could make the argument that if Bell keeps improving, the Bills should not draft a LT at all.

This sounds plausible. Belichick is a long-term thinker. If any coach was willing to give the Bills a meaningless win to undermine their draft position, it would be this coach! Belichick was the New York Giants' defensive coordinator back when they beat us in the Super Bowl 20-19. After becoming New England's head coach, it didn't take him long to rip us off with the Bledsoe trade. (We got three years of Bledsoe--2.5 of them mediocre--while New England got our first round pick.) Even his decision to release Lawyer Milloy hurt the Bills, albeit indirectly. TD took half the money which could have and should have been used to re-sign Antoine Winfield and used it on Milloy instead. (The other half was used on Troy Vincent.) Over the long run, the Bills would have been much better off with Winfield than with Milloy + Vincent! On top of all this, Belichick has provided the Bills with two losses per season ever since the Lawyer Milloy bowl. Having deprived the Bills of a Super Bowl trophy, a first round draft pick, and (indirectly) of Antoine Winfield, it stands to reason that the next thing on this list might be Andrew Luck. Belichick has been the bane of the Bills' existence.

There were a number of arguments against the Bills taking Spiller. (And specifically against using such a high draft pick on him.) Having Spiller on the field meant that two other talented RBs (Lynch and Jackson) would have to sit on the bench for every play Spiller was on the field. The careers for RBs are typically short. The Bills' short-term prospects aren't very inspiring either with or without Spiller, so they should be focused on gearing up for the long run. According to a statistical analysis published in The New York Times, an improvement in your passing game creates four times as much benefit as an equal improvement in your running game. With running backs like Lynch and Jackson, the Bills' running game would do well on plays when the OL blocks well; and would do considerably less well on plays when it doesn't. Adding Spiller to the mix does not change that basic equation. For Spiller to justify his draft selection, he'd have to be a Thurman Thomas-like addition to the passing game as a receiver, as a blocker against blitzers, and Thurman-like on draw plays. Spiller's career also needs to have Thurman-like longevity. Thus far Spiller has shown no indication of being Thurman-like in the passing game, though it's possible that will change. Over the past 10 - 15 years, the Bills have considerably over-valued the RB and DB positions, while neglecting other, more crucial positions. While Nix cannot be blamed for the shortsightedness of TD or of Marv, the Spiller pick initially seems like more of the same. Spiller has also been touted as a punt and kick returner. In my opinion, that's the absolute last thing this team should be looking to add, especially with an early pick! If you don't have a returner, there's value in adding one. But if you have ten returners, the value of adding an eleventh is dubious at best. The message here is not that depth is bad, or that depth at RB is bad. If (for example) the Bills had 30 first round picks over the next two years, not even Bill from NYC would object to using one of those thirty first round picks on a running back. The problem is that the Bills have very few first round picks, which makes each of those picks precious. This is especially true of a top-ten pick. A first round pick needs to do more than create additional depth. A team like the Bills should have a core of very good/elite players--players without whom the team would be a shell of its usual self. To be considered successful, a first round pick should be part of this core. How do you know if a player is part of the core or not? Ask yourself whether, if he were to go down with an injury, it would significantly affect the game plan. If the answer to that question is "no," then, unless that player has a really good backup, he's not part of the core.

Look on the bright side: in part because of that miserable game, the Bills are now picking third overall. That makes draft day much nicer to look forward to! Now let's hope they use the third overall pick on a player who lives up to his draft status!

I'd categorize the Bills' most serious problems into three areas (in no particular order): QB: Fitz is an easy player to like, and he did a lot of things well. But his serious accuracy issues caused the offense to stall and sputter on numerous occasions. OL: the Bills had no RT this past season; and the line as a whole did not play top-tier football. As you pointed out, Fitz had to run for his life far too often. Defensive front-7: even before the transition to the 3-4, the front-7 was largely bereft of young talent. Only Kyle Williams and Poz represented long-term answers to their respective positions. Everyone else was either nearing retirement (Schobel), not very good, or both. Adding numerous starting-caliber players had been necessary even before the switch. Clearly, the Bills aren't just one draft away from fixing their problems in all three areas. (Let alone fixing their three main problems and their lesser problems.) I think that you and I are on the same page about how those needs should be addressed. If position 1 is the hardest-to-fill and the most game-changing when filled, position 2 is the next-hardest to fill, and so on, the Bills should look for a player at position 1 first, position 2 second, and so on. By this I mean that the Bills should look for a franchise QB first. If one isn't available at third overall, then they should look for a player at the next-hardest-to-fill position. (Such as RDE or LT.) If no available RDEs or LTs are worthy of going third overall, then they move down to the next-hardest-to-fill position. In my mind, the Bills should look at the next two or three drafts as though they're all one big draft. By that I mean that their goal should be to maximize their overall talent acquisition over the next several drafts--especially in the above-mentioned three areas. They should not rigidly say, "we have to get a player at position ____ this year, another player at position ____ next year," and so on. The idea that the Bills needed a SS and a DT right away was what led to the Whitner and McCargo selections. It's better to wait a year and get the right player, than to take someone right away and get the wrong guy.

This is a very excellent point. The Bills' defensive woes draw the most attention in large part because it vexes the fanbase to see us get physically dominated. (As against the run.) That's a perfectly legitimate thing to be concerned about. But just because the Bills' defensive problems create the strongest emotional reaction among many fans, does not therefore mean that they are necessarily the first thing we should try to solve in this draft. If there was a franchise QB waiting for us at #3, you take him. Period. I don't care if the Bills had an expansion defense with literally no players at all. If you don't have a franchise QB, and if there's a chance to draft one, you do it. Unfortunately, my sense is that there probably aren't any QBs in this draft worthy of going in the top-15. The Bills' best option may indeed be to address their defensive front-7.

I would love a draft like this! Cam Jordan would help solidify the front-7 of our 3-4; and 11th overall seems like about where he should be taken. Christian Ponder has a reasonably solid chance of being The Guy. If he works out, great. If not, a second round pick for a solid backup QB wouldn't be the end of the world. Adding a RT later in the second, and an ILB in the third, will help shore up other critical needs. The guys you envision in rounds 4 - 7 will help build depth at ILB, DB, and the OL. The Bills would become a significantly better, more complete team after a draft like this.

Below are some of my thoughts on this draft. Fairley - a few months ago, the conventional wisdom on this board was that Fairley wouldn't be around at third overall. Now he'll be there at 11th? I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that (at least among the general public) a player's draft day stock can seem to vary considerably. Locker - I personally would prefer Ponder at this pick, and I'm not really convinced Locker can be The Guy. I'd like to say I'd be comfortable leaving his evaluation in the hands of the experts. Unfortunately, the experts at One Bills Drive are also the experts who liked Mike Williams, J.P. Losman, Drew Bledsoe (as a long-term solution), etc. Kyle Rudolf - I'm not in love with the idea of taking a TE in the second. Partially because we already have Nelson at TE, and partially because I'd like to see a RT with that pick. On the other hand, I can see the logic in taking a superior player at a position of non-need or partial need to an inferior player at a position of need. An ILB in the 3rd, and another in the 4th. That's a lot of ILBs! I realize you need to add at least one starting-caliber ILB. Adding a second one for depth makes sense too, at least if you have the extra pick. Another TE in the fourth. How many second- or third-rate TEs does this team really need? On the other hand, I'm not claiming that I would be able to come up with some brilliant use for that fourth round pick. I see you've added a 3-4 DE and a NT, so using the pick to add yet more depth on the DL might not be necessary. You've added two ILBs and an OLB-34, so it's not clear whether yet another LB is truly necessary. Maybe . . . a defensive back? Or, better, a backup OT. In answer to your question as to why Houston would give up a bunch of picks for just one guy: sometimes an elite difference-maker can be worth more than a bunch of so-so players. (Especially when you can fill your team's roster with so-so free agents anyway, if that's what you want to do. And you can sign them for a reasonable price!) If Houston sees Peterson as an elite difference-maker, and if they don't feel a player of similar quality will be available at 11th overall, trading up could be a very viable option for them.

I would love it if the Bills traded down with Houston. Far better they do that than take Von Miller third overall!

I agree with this post. (Except that I'd consider taking Ponder in the second round, assuming he was still there.) There are a lot of things to like about Fitz. He's a good leader, gets rid of the ball in a hurry, etc. But he isn't an accurate passer, and that lack of accuracy and consistency will kill a lot of drives. Too many drives, in fact, for the Bills to win the Super Bowl with him at quarterback. Unless, of course, they have a defense that's like the Ravens of 2000. But like you said, it would take a good nine or ten new defensive starters to create a defense like that; and each new defensive starter would have to be at or near the Pro Bowl level. A lot of defenses are described as "dominating" without being in the same category as the Ravens of 2000. (Which is why I voted "no" on the poll, instead of "dominating defense.") If you put Fitz on the Ravens of 2000, they'd still win the Super Bowl. But if you put him on any lesser team, that team would almost certainly be eliminated in the playoffs.

I agree with the first several steps in your thought process. While Fitzpatrick is good enough to get you by, he's clearly not in the same category as Aaron Rodgers or the other elite QBs of the league. That's something that needs to change, especially if the Bills are serious about winning the Super Bowl. If there's a QB who's worth the third overall pick, you take him. That's a no-brainer. I see no possible room for dispute about that! The problem is that it's not clear that there is a QB who's worth the third overall pick. I certainly wouldn't pick Newton there, and I'm really not in love with the idea of Gabbert at 3rd overall either. If there isn't a QB worthy of going third overall, the Bills should either trade down, or choose a player at another position instead. I'll grant that neither option is nearly as productive as taking a franchise quarterback would have been. But if there isn't really a franchise QB there, the absolute worst thing you can do is convince yourself that there is one there. Seeing what you want to see (rather than what's really there) is a big part of what's gotten the Bills into draft day trouble in the past. I listened to a Vic Carucci show the other day. He was convinced that quarterbacks like Ponder will almost certainly be taken before the Bills' second round pick comes along. This means that trading back into the first round for such a quarterback is an option to be considered. Whether they move forward with such a plan depends on their evaluation of Ponder, of Gabbert, and on whether there are willing trade partners. Vic Carucci was also convinced that the Bills would take Cam Newton if available. However, he said that the Panthers will likely take Newton first overall. If that's the case, he said we should expect to see the Bills take Von Miller third overall. I'm not pleased about that idea either. (If the Bills got him between 6th and 10th, it would be more palatable.)

A good post. I fully agree that DeMaurice Smith is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The less involvement he has with the process, the better.

I disagree. If one person lives in a nice home, and another lives in a cardboard box, the correct solution does not involve burning the house and having both people live in cardboard boxes. Similarly, if the U.S. is a nicer place than the Third World, the correct solution does not involve allowing the U.S. to be colonized by and absorbed into the Third World. That "solution" does next to nothing to help the Third World, while doing a great deal of harm to this nation. The Third World has a number of problems: overpopulation, corrupt governments, etc. Throwing away everything uniquely good about the U.S. does not represent a serious attempt to provide a long-term solution to any of those problems. Instead, it's just a knee-jerk reaction by people who feel guilty about having more material wealth than those who live in the Third World. I don't object to some portion of the U.S.'s wealth going to serve a good cause. But "good cause" shouldn't just mean donating money to something which seems like it might be charitable. It should entail a serious effort to solve the underlying problems the Third World has, thereby creating a sustainable increase in its standard of living. In order to make that kind of concerted effort, the U.S. must retain the strength it currently has; which means it must not itself be absorbed into the Third World or dragged down by the same problems which have proved so destructive to Third World nations.

I largely agree with this post. I think that an ideal draft strategy wouldn't be pure BPA or pure need-based, but would combine the two. First, you should envision the team you want to have in four or five years time. Then you look at the team you have; and compare the shortcomings of the current team with the envisioned team. That comparison should give you a picture of the kind of players you need to add over the next several years. When the draft arrives, you should look for players who your picture of what you're looking for. This isn't to suggest that you should simply ignore players who don't fit into your list of needs. For example, if the best player at a position you intend to upgrade is an 80, and the best player at a non-upgrade position is a 100, you could make a strong case for taking the 100. (Unless he's a RB or something.)

+1