Cash

Bingo! I'm very upset about the move, because it means the end of my draft attendance.

"Over 23 starters"? So... 24?

Al will pick Bruce Campbell. I've got money on it. My concern is that I expect 2 major things to differ from your projection. First, after the Corey Williams trade, I think the Lions will go with Okung. Second, I don't see Shanahan passing on Clausen no matter who's there. He traded up to get Jay Cutler when he still had Jake Plummer playing well. Right now, he's got Jason Campbell playing mediocre, and he's only got Campbell for 1 year, anyway.

I don't know where you get your info, but everyone I knew thought the Vikings were one player away, as long as it was a QB. That was a loaded team helmed by crappy QBs (prior to Favre) for several years. They were making the playoffs in spite of dreadful play from their QBs.

Ugh. If that's true, it's like the Bills are trying to be as unwatchable as possible. What, the offense was so great last year that we can afford to sign no significant free agents (no, Cornell Green is not significant), and also go defense at the top of the draft?

Yeah, if they let some fan run the show, they'd probably miss the playoffs for like 10 straight years and turn into a laughingstock. Good thing we've got the pros in the front office, so that won't happen.

I think they are, but I don't know if they realize it or not. If they were conceding 2010 on purpose, they'd probably have ditched guys like Kelsay & Whitner already. Also, they'd probably be bringing in free agents in their 20s, not their 30s.

Realistically, if you draft a guy in the 3rd, you're looking at a guy who will be a bad backup, but who (you hope) can develop into a good backup, or if you get lucky, a good starter. Matt Schaub is sort of the archetypal "hit" in the 3rd round. Sat on the bench behind a franchise guy for a few years, showed some promise in reserve action, traded to a QB-needy team where he became the starter, took a couple of years as starter to figure it out. Keep in mind that Schaub's one of the great *successes* of the 3rd round. Most 3rd-round QBs don't do that well. In other words, I don't think a 3rd-rounder should do much of anything to affect our prioritization of the QB position. If one were available in the first round in 2011, grab him without hesitation. If one became available in trade at a reasonable price, grab him without hesitation. I'm not confident that the Bills agree with me, because I've lost all confidence in that organization's football-related judgment. Ten years without the playoffs is not a coincidence, it's a sign of gross incompetence. They'll need to earn back my confidence, and only winning will do that.

Here's my problem with Skelton: He measured in at around 6-5, 240 at the combine, and everyone agrees he's got a rocket arm. So why isn't he projected anywhere near the first round? When a guy has all the measurables but still isn't projected high, that worries me. NFL scouts aren't stupid. I have no problem taking a flyer on a late-round guy, there's always a chance he'll pan out, but it's crazy to pass up more feasible options because we think we've got a franchise guy available in the 5th round.

Then why do they keep coming back to watch a loser every year?

My main thought is that using #9 on a NT would be an abject fiasco when we have neither a QB nor an O-line. Yes nose tackles are hard to find, but they're easier to find than QBs or LTs. In today's NFL, 1st priority is to have a QB. (Fail.) 2nd priority is to protect that QB. (Fail.) Defense comes next.

Uh, McNabb went #2 overall. Tim Couch went #1 to the Browns, Akili Smith #3 to the Bungles, Cade McNown #8 to the Bears, and Daunte Culpepper 10 or 11 to the Vikings. Two out of five. Labeling Palmer a bust? That's pretty harsh. Dude's made multiple Pro Bowls. Correct. Probably correct, although a lot can change between now and late April. Nope, you go to the #2 priority, which is LT. If there's no LT's with a first-round grade, then you go to priority #3, which is probably BPA at that point. Can we retire this strawman please? Nobody thinks that drafting a guy in the first round magically makes him a first-round talent. We'd all throw up if Colt McCoy is the pick at #9, don't worry. Then don't mention it. The facts are that QBs from the 3rd round or later bust well over 90% of the time. 2nd-rounders bust about 75% of the time, and even 1st-rounders bust over 60% of the time. If Bradford or Clausen falls to us, there's no guarantee it solves our QB problem. It's just the best bet. The problem here is that we all remember every first-round bust and every late-round/undrafted success. But we never hear of the vast, vast, vast majority of late-round/undrafted failures. So we underrate first-rounders and overrate late-rounders. Another thing to keep in mind is that even when a first-rounder busts, he doesn't always pull a Ryan Leaf or Akili Smith. Byron Leftwich was a serviceable starter for a few years before he was bitten by a radioactive fat guy and turned into Byron Sandwich. Alex Smith was actually a decent starter for the 49ers last year (although his case is a MAJOR exception - usually he'd have been cut before last year). Jason Campbell is a mediocre QB. Disappointing for a first-rounder, but still just good enough not to kill his team. Even the Dragon Twins, JP and Sexy Rexy, each had one fairly competent year as a full-time starter. That's actually false. Seriously, go through every "highly performing" QB in the league. You can define "highly performing" however you want, and you can still count Kurt Warner. First-rounders will probably make up over half of them (11 of 19 under my definition, e.g.). And that's first round against the combined might of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and legions of undrafted free agents. The first round just has a much higher success rate. That's why it's wise to jump on a first-round QB when you get the chance, because there aren't many of them. Now this I agree with 100%, and I think that's a good note to go out on.

So what's the plan here? Give our horrible QBs the best possible receiving corps and hope it somehow works out? Does anyone think Austin Collie or Pierre Garcon would have done ANYTHING on a team with a crappy QB? We have 2 young WRs with promise, neither of whom has gotten a lot of time on the field. Time for them to sink or swim. Next year, we'll have a better idea of exactly what our needs are at WR. In any case, the QB comes first. Unless you can get a true game-breaker like TO 5 years ago (as opposed to the TO we got, who was still good, but nothing really special), your WRs aren't *that* big of an issue. Focus on getting a QB and keeping him upright, then worry about getting him someone to throw to.

Very solid post, and I think your prediction has a lot of merit. Throw in the fact that Gailey (FYI, I accidentally typed "Failey" at first) is as uninspiring a hire as possible, which means that the FO needs to do something to keep season ticket sales up, and it's even more likely. My worry is that the "big move" will be drafting Tebow at #9 overall. I might very well throw up if that happens. But Gailey likes mobile QBs and isn't afraid to run the spread full-time (see 2008 Chiefs), and Tebow would certainly sell tons of tickets, get people (other than me) excited, and make the Bills nationally relevant for a short time. In other words, same as the TO signing, but costing us a good player at #9 instead of Tebow.

Which UFAs? Garcia? Meh. I'll be interested once he's 10 years younger. I can't think of anyone else. As for RFAs, I assume you're talking about Orton and Campbell. First off, either may well be tendered at the 2nd-round level or higher (it would actually be cheaper for WAS to tender Campbell at a 1st-rounder, because he was drafted in the 1st), which is way too much to give up for a journeyman type. Okay, Orton is Trent Edwards if Trent could actually play, but who cares? What's our realistic upside with Orton or Campbell at QB? 9-7? Maybe 10-6 or 11-5 with a stacked defense? Well, our D isn't going to be stacked any time soon, especially with a scheme change that creates new holes on D. If one of these journeyman guys would give us an extra 3 wins, we're talking about the difference between 5-11 and 8-8. Who cares?

It sounds like Stroud will be manning the nose, which is fine by me. I'd like to see Schobel traded as well. This should help guarantee us a terrible record next year, and a good chance at getting one of the top QBs in next year's draft. I don't anticipate either one in this year's draft falling to #9, so let's focus on getting a LT at #9, build up the line, develop our young receivers, and hopefully grab someone like Mallett or Locker with our top 5 pick next year. I'm not being sarcastic, either. Face it, folks: the absolute upside of this team is something like 8-8 next year. Better to understand that without a QB, there will be no quick fixes, and focus on building a good team for 2011 (or 2012, if the impending lockout cancels the 2011 season). Defense can be fixed quicker than offense, so our team's focus should be on acquiring and developing offensive players right now. Once we've got a QB and a line to protect him, then we can turn the primary focus back to the D (getting a nose tackle, etc.).

Yeah, the fact that a D with Bruce Smith, Cornelius Bennett, Shane Conlan, and Darryl Talley was only kinda successful is proof as to just how much Jeff Wright killed us back then. Which wasn't his fault - he never should've played NT in a 3-4. He was a classic undertackle all the way.

So Gailey goes from being fired as an offensive coordinator to hired as our HC. What's-his-nose goes from RBs coach on a bad running team to OC (not really fair, since it's sort of a token title, per Gailey's intro press conference). But since Gailey will have virtually no hand in the D, his DC is very important. Dude has 1 year of DC experience, and goes from Miami's inside linebackers coach to our DC. Anyone else notice that the Bills seem to be all about massive promotions when hiring coaches? I don't think that's a good sign.

Tough enough to play through a toe injury for 10 games this year. Eventually required surgery: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft10/news/story?id=4799490 "Clausen was injured Sept. 19 when his foot was pinned backward by Michigan State linebacker Eric Gordon. He was diagnosed with turf toe, and although he played the last 10 games of the season in pain, the quarterback finished second in the nation in passing efficiency with 28 touchdowns, only four interceptions and a 68.0 completion percentage. Clausen hoped the injury was behind him when he resumed throwing and lifting weights in late December. But after tossing a deep pass to former Illinois receiver Arrelious Benn, he felt more pain. His agent, Gary Wichard, suggested he undergo an MRI, and the results revealed the two torn ligaments in his right big toe -- on the foot he plants with when he throws. An injury to the plant foot is more likely to hurt a QB's on-field ability than a non-plant-foot injury, but it didn't seem to affect Clausen that much. I like the fact that he can play through pain and still be effective. I HATED him when he came to ND out of high school (and I disliked ND in general under Weis), and I still think Clausen's a total d-bag, but I'd be thrilled if the Bills drafted him. Phillip Rivers might be the biggest d-bag in the NFL, but it doesn't stop him from being a great QB. Nobody's a guarantee, but Clausen has all the tools and experience necessary to succeed in the NFL. And having watched a decent number of his games last year, I'm convinced that he's the real deal.

In Gailey's introductory press conference, both he and Nix went out of their way to say that the only way to get people on board is by winning games. I choose to take them at their word. When they start winning games, I'll be on board.

I understand where you're coming from, but here's my problem with your argument: QB is the most important position in football, and it's also one of our worst positions. We NEED to get a real QB. Unfortunately, there just are no "sure things" available at QB. The only 2 I can think of in NFL history were Drew Brees via FA (only available because Rivers was ready to start) and Joe Montana via trade (only available because Steve Young was ready to start AND Montana was pretty old). Montana barely counts, because KC knew they'd only have him for a year or two. McClain's probably about as sure a thing as there is at #9, but LBs just aren't that important to a team's success. How much of an impact did Curry have on Seattle's D last year? Chicago's D was pretty bad this year despite the presence of a healthy Brian Urlacher. AJ Hawk's a nice player, but he's hardly the key to that defense. Patrick Willis has been awesome in his first 2 years, but come playoff time, he's been sitting at home with the rest of the 49ers. Even impact linebackers don't make that much impact in the W-L column. I feel like you have to look at positional value. Step 1 is to get a QB, step 2 is to protect that QB. Step 3 depends on your defensive scheme, but it involves getting a good front 7. That's why I'd rather take either QB if he's available, or more realistically, I'd rather take the 3rd OT at #9 than the first LB.

Even a really crappy NFL QB like Trent is simply amazing compared to a normal human being.

QB is the higher priority, but I think O-line is going to come first. Because I doubt we'll have much opportunity to get a QB this year. There's 2 potential ones in the draft, but we'd probably need to trade up to get either one. There's a slim chance we could get McNabb, but even in that unlikely event, he can't be counted on for more than a couple years. Meanwhile, at #9, we'll probably have our pick of the #2 or #3 OT in the draft. Between that, the development of our young guys from last year, and maybe another pickup (presumably at RT), I'd guess that we'll have a solid o-line before we have a QB. Keep in mind also that it may take multiple tries to get a QB. First-rounders flame out at about 60%. Second-rounders at about 75%. Everything after that at about 95%. This is not an argument against drafting a QB high, it's an argument *for* it. Yes, it's risky, but it's a much lower risk than pinning your hopes on finding another Tom Brady or Kurt Warner.

When you go 10 years without making the playoffs, you deserve a tarnished image.

I'm generally against switching to the 3-4 for a couple reasons. First, the good defenses are the talented ones, regardless of scheme. Switching a scheme doesn't make up for a lack of talent. Second, so many teams have switched to the 3-4 that it's becoming VERY hard to find quality NTs and 3-4 DEs. Why do you think Tyson Jackson went so high in the draft last year? At this point, the bargains are disenfranchised 4-3 players like Aaron Kampman, Derrick Johnson, or Glenn Dorsey. Having said that, however, I don't have anything fundamentally against the 3-4 as a defense. If the Bills really want to switch to it, they might as well do it this year. The team is going nowhere next year no matter what, and that won't change until they find a QB. Overhauling the D will boost next year's draft position, and by the time the Bills get a QB, there's a good chance they've also rebuilt the D into a competent 3-4.