Koufax

+1. There is no season you should think of full on tank mode in November much less March. Play to win, build a foundation, but work on getting to the playoffs this year. This roster is more talented than you seem to think, and a good QB and WR plus some solid but not star additions at LB and OG and we are quickly a very good team. The key piece of that is obviously a good QB. I don't know that I go all Ditka on this draft, but anybody I think is a good chance of being a very good NFL QB I happily take at #8, and anybody I really like I seriously consider moving up to get if needed (although weighing the price, since in recent years most move ups are overpriced). As for who will be available next year, I remember all the Brady Quinn and Jimmy Claussen excitement once upon a time...

Troup and Williams join Whitner over Ngata and Maybin over Orakpo as four examples where this forum clearly outperformed our front office. Could we all pitch in and buy the team like the Green Bay Packers, but with actual fan voting on moves? I'm just kidding, but I think we would have outperformed the "professionals" over the last decade.

+1, and after this case closed. Excellent player and great guy to root for, stronger in pass blocking than run blocking, but in one of the most fungible positions in the NFL where the drop from excellent to solid isn't as severe as other places. Financial flexibility aside, I would have loved to have him back, but I'm happy he gets his huge payday on somebody else's nickel so we can run a team where we look for elite players at more important positions, and try to plug in solid value at other positions. Although there is a guard some people would eye at #8, I hope and expect we will pass on him and look for a solid blue collar replacement at a good price.

Levitre will be missed, and his replacement will be inferior, but I think at this price this is a good move. As to your comments about an extra million, I don't think that is the real financial picture. And as for RB numbers up or down, Levitre is more highly regarded as a pass protector than a road grader run blocker. Truly a dedicated and talented player, and I wish him nothing but the best, and I am happy he got his payday with the Titans, but I am also happy that our front office isn't inclined to spend $46m on one of the more fungible positions in the NFL. Addressing our needs at QB, WR, LB are more crucial, and taking a slight downgrade at OG in the process is a reasonable sacrifice to make.

This. The only place I am willing to "reach" based on "need" is moving up a single round or less on a QB when we think he is capable of being a franchise QB. I think for now Nassib at #8 without trading down from #8 or trading up from #40 is a reach and allocates too much of our finite resources to the amount of value. If that changes and he is a legitimate top 15 pick then I take him at #8. If he is a 40-50ish pick then we don't have to hope he is there at 40, but can happily trade up to the second half of the first round to get him at lest cost than our #8. If at #8 there isn't a QB who we would love to have at that point, what we need to do is get the best football player we can. I would love if that were a linebacker, and we should pass if it is a RB, but everywhere else I am fine getting the most talented and valuable football player we can. If there is a DT that is better than a LB, get him. If there is a CB that really is the best value, get him. You need to weight talent evaluations of quality at the position and the importance of the position, with QB obviously being the position where a good player makes more of a difference than guard, etc, but other than our need of a QB and our non-need of a RB, this is really just part of the BPA calculus rather than a deviation from BPA. What I don't think we can do is make it through the first two rounds without picking a QB unless we think that there is not a single QB from 8-40 who has franchise upside, and solid starter downside. Last year Weeden and Osweller were the only QB picked between #8 and the end of the 2nd. 2011 Gabbert, Ponder, Dalton, Kaepernick, 2010 Tebow and Claussen 2009 Freeman and White 2008 Flacco, Brohm, Henne 2007 Quinn, Kolb, Beck, Stanton 2006 Leinart, Cutler, Clemens, T-Jax There are a handful of guys we would like to have there, but more backups since 2004-2005 When Big Ben and Rodgers were taken in that range in back to back years, and Brees a few years before that. It is tough to see right now if this year has guys in that range available. It is easy to like a guy now, and there are several I find intriguing, but my hope is that Nix & co can identify a real talent available from 8 to 40 (including trade up or trade down in that range). Trading up to the top 7 is a possibility too, and I would be very open to it if the guys who will go there are projected to be a lot more likely to star than the later guys.

As always, I prefer the BPA weighted to positional importance. Not positional need of our current team, but positional importance. If there is a QB we really like and think can be our QB over the next 5+ years, then I have no problem picking him at #8. If you don't like a QB enough to trade your #8 for a #40 (what you are doing if you grab him in round 1 instead of round 2), than it is unlikely you really think he is likely to be the guy. I would love to see the draft shape up that we get a great WR or LB of QB as BPA at #8, and I also think it is fine to draft a QB at #40 if you think he is the guy, but his perceived value by the rest of the league, or development time means he will really be there and there is also someone you like more at #8 anyway. But as eball said, if there is a QB who they think is the guy, they should not pass on him at #8 hoping to catch him later. There is a poker game on maximizing value relative to the expected selections of others which includes passing on players for a round, and trading down or trading back into the first. That doesn't make any sense for us if there is a guy we think can wil be our QB and there is a chance he would be gone if we overplay our hand.

Compared with the OC where Marrone will have a larger hand in the cookie jar, I think it is much more important to have someone with experience, and a guy who had a top D in our division is definitely a plus. I'm leary about the 3-4 aspect, especially since the Giants' 4-3 is what beat Brady twice so I think it is a wiser scheme as well as our personnel matching better, but I'm open to it. What we have to be very careful of (Troup in the second!) is not getting inferior talent in the draft because we really need that position in our new scheme. Play with the guys we have, draft the best players, and fill in some gaps in free agency. By the way, in our first year of officially being a 4-3, we allowed 362Yds/G (22nd) and 27.2PPG (26th) Compare that to two years ago in the 3-4 without Mario and Dareus when it was 361Yds/G (24th) and 26.6PPG (28th) and I don't think our better fit scheme and two big name players really made things much different. I similarly don't think making the guys we have play a 3-4 would be a huge failure and expect a step forward on talent and coaching even if our personnel isn't a perfect fit and BJ Raji and Aldon Smith aren't miraculously added to our team.

Marrone is growing on me as I read more, and I'm happier than the retreads I have heard of and initially wanted (my starting pick was Lovie). As for Hacket, remember that Marrone is a former OC under an offensive head coach who was really in charge. I think Marrone will have a large hand on the offense, and in Hacket having someone where understanding and communication is excellent is a better fit than brining in a Mike Martz figure.

I hadn't seen him play much until last night, but obviously he had a really bad game against the best team he had played. I would be very disappointed with him at #8, and think we will have better talent available there than him, even if at another position. I am still if favor of a weighted BPA (meaning not just how good you are at your position, but how important it is to have an above-average player at that position) with only a slight factoring in on positional need, or else you end up drafting less total talent and spread out over the first five years of a player have less total talent on your roster. Needs change year to year while your draft picks hopefully stick around over that span. Nix reached on Troup positionally, but he has generally gone with the player he thought was best (and failed in talent evaluation rather than strategy). I hope and expect that to be our strategy under the new regime with Nix still the GM.

+1. Remember, Spiller got 74 rushes as a Rookie, 107 in his second year, and even this year still just 207. That's 388 in three years, while Alfred Morris got 325 this year as a rookie 6th rounder. People thought Spiller was a bust after two full seasons (I wasn't one of them). Hard to know, but I think that our roster is a lot more talented than when Nix got here. I'm happy to turn over the GM duties to a stud HC if needed, but I'm very open to Nix staying otherwise.

Troup over Gronk is an obvious one, a reach possibly forced by the switch to the 4-3, but taking the millionth case of taking anything other than the best player really hurting the long term strength of roster talent. I'm with you on Dalton/Kaepernick over Williams and a few others, but the later round ones are nitpicking and no team hits on them consistently. He also has a lot of good picks in there, and hasn't been here long enough to have a final verdict on some. I'm indifferent on him right now. I'm not really confident that his substitute will do a better job than he will and I value a little stability. I think he gets it conceptually, I think his overall talent judging is actually pretty good. I think he probably went with needs a couple of times, and he probably thought that Dalton/Kaepernick were not much better than Fitz over a few seasons, and while I disagreed at the time and clearly still do, it doesn't seem like an impossible evaluation of two QBs who every team in the NFL decided were not first round talent (while Ponder and Gabbert and Tebow were across other drafts).

After watching San Diego keep AJ and Norv against the popular sentiments, and then have a disastrous season follow before them both being fired tomorrow, I think firing too soon is much better than too late, and Chan has to go. Nix I can go either way on, but at the moment I prefer him to be retained to provide some continuity unless there is a great fit ready to step in (including a HC/GM total power situation).

I don't watch as much college football as many here, but I don't like Glennon's 57% completion and 14 picks. Jones is the guy I'm most interested in right now, but I think there are a lot of guys that are going to have a chance to be good and available at #8 or #40 for us, without any Andrew Luck we are sad to miss out on in this draft.

Depends on the HC, but I think Fitz starts the season and who we pick at #8 or #40 starts the season on the bench, and plays later in the season. I will be very disappointed if Gailey is here, and I will be very disappointed if we make it to our third pick without having already selected a QB, but I think we are unlikely to draft a day 1 QB, unlikely to go after a free agent better than Fitz and our pick, and unlikely to put Thigpen or Jackson ahead of Fitz to win games.

Aaron Williams over Dalton/Kaepernick is the only pick I am unhappy with as far as QB is concerned (although thinking about Mallett wouldn't have been out of line). I have a problem with some picks, but I'm happy with Buddy as a whole, and think that having some continuity over a housecleaning is okay.

I'm fine with Buddy staying unless we were going to get someone particular (Polian) or give full control to a GM/HC. As long as Chan is gone, and the Stache, the more we stay 4-3, and try to win now, without blowing things up, while getting our QB of the future if possible (even if he is a second rounder who sits a year).

This. Also a loss would have worsened our SoS because the Jets twice would be a more winning team, so I think we likely would not have had a chance at #6. My guess is that this was 1-2 spots looking at the numbers. I will take a win over the difference from 7 to 9 or so. Go Bills!

Oops on the fish. I still like 2-4 better than 1-5, and only being swept by one division opponent. And with Carolina winning and San Diego likely to win, and Arizona and Oakland to lose, the full range of 5-11 to 6-10 draft slots will go from #6 to #10. I just don't see us crying over where we fall in that range. Every draft has good players taken 10 and later and bad players taken in the top 6. Glad to have won, and now I hope we draft well wherever we end up.

I don't know, but I can tell you that losing it we could have picked no higher than #7 (#8 if Arizona wins before looking at tie breakers), and the list of great QBs drafted between #7 and where we end up picking is pretty short. Go ahead and pull them up for me, and I will compare them to the list of great QBs drafted from where we end up and after. No game is meaningless. Winning football games is really important both as the end goal, and in terms of building a winning culture. 8-8 and 4-12 both have you not drafting #1 and not going to the playoffs. If you prefer 5-11 to 8-8, good luck with that and building a winning franchise.

Because it keeps us from being the doormats, it keeps us from being 0-6 in the division, and it lets some of the guys coming back have a better winning experience and learn to win more than if they lost. Remember that the 35 guys coming back next year will matter a lot more to this team's next season than the three guys we will pick with our first three picks (I'm not even going to count draft position in rounds 4-7 where smart or lucky beats slot every year). Building a winning tradition and a focus on winning matters way more than the crap shoot pecking order between #6 and #13. Remember this is not costing us Andrew Luck. There is no Andrew Luck in this draft, and we were not going in the top 5 no matter what. I am pissed about the 10 times we showed up and couldn't seal the deal this year, not the six times we did. I really really wish we had found a way to be 7-9 instead of 6-10. And I would have like 8-8 even better. 9-7 and missing the playoffs would have been awesomely better too. Winning football games is very very valuable, even when we have our eyes in the draft.

Which great pick, and who do you want to draft with him? Not sure where we settle in the 6-13 range we started the day, but I'm fine with it, and am most interested in getting a great smart pick, than a specific guy available at #7 but no longer available at #11.

Not meaningless. It will help them more to win than to lose. Other than that I agree with you. Go Bills.

The worse we can be is #13 before looking at the SoS tie breakers. The best we can be is #6 without looking at SoS. I'm not sure how we fare in that, but I don't think we have a full 6 to 13 swing with a win. I'm certainly rooting for the other teams in that range to win, except for the Jets. But our win will help our future more than it will hurt.

Who are you taking #1? I just don't see the Andrew Luck available this year. Luck and Manning are players who I would lose for. Not sure who the third example is. You want to draft in the Ponder slot instead of the Freeman slot? I like better picks all over the place, but I like winning more. The draft is a crapshoot (where having better positions helps) and we are not historically very good at it. I hope we do awesome wherever we are drafting, and move up if needed. But right now I want to win, and am glad at least 53 people seem to be agreeing with me.

I agree... if the Jets were to somehow pull it out despite our best efforts, I would optimistically take the draft position with a smile. But I want a team that will play hard every snap regardless, and not pack it in so that their replacements can be drafted higher. I really wish we had won previously and were finding a way to 7-9 today. And if we could have won two other games and been playing for 8-8 I think that would be awesome too.