Cash

No, no no... everyone knows that rookie QBs have to start every game their rookie year. And if they don't get good protection that first year, they are guaranteed to flame out. I'm pretty sure Detroit has already given up on Matt Stafford, and it's all because they didn't put him behind a good o-line this year. No, there's only 2 winning moves here: 1.) Go LT in the first round this year, RT in the first round next year, swing tackle in the first round in 2012, then draft a QB in 2013, and start winning big around 2015. Possibly as soon as 2014. 2.) Take a flyer on a mid-round QB every year, and given the <10% success rate on those guys, it should only take us 10 or 11 tries to find a Kyle Orton type. Super Bowl, here we come! Look, no one is saying draft a QB in the first just for the sake of doing so. For example, if (when? I'm legitimately scared) the Bills draft Tebow at #9, I'll throw up. There's 2 QBs in this draft that rational people/scouts generally have first-round grades on. I doubt either one will last to #9, but if either does, he MUST be the pick. You can't just say you'll wait until the o-line is good, then draft a QB in the first round. Supply is very limited. Most years, there's either 2 or 3 QBs drafted in the first round. Sometimes one lasts to the late teens or early twenties, sometimes they're all gone around the top 10. When you have a chance at one, you have to take that chance.

I love McNabb, but he's a little long in the tooth and in need of a contract to justify #9 overall. I was all for trading #11 for him last year (not that Philly would've done that deal), but that was last year.

I'd do that. Then you get the best left tackle available at #9, maybe grab another o-lineman in the 4th or 5th for depth, and spend the rest of the offseason fixing the defense.

Good point, but it raises a good hypothetical: If the Colts had been in serious need of a LT in 1998, should they have passed on Manning in favor of a LT? Given that the top 2 tackles drafted that year were Kyle Turley and Tra Thomas, the obvious answer is yes. But I think it's still equally obvious even if Jonathan Ogden had been in the draft that year. I'll take my chances with the Tony Ugohs of the world over the Elvis Grbacs of the world. I'm curious as to your opinion on the matter.

If Smith gets tendered at the lowest level, it would cost a 5th to sign him (assuming the Ravens don't match). I'd be fine with that. I wouldn't mind Campbell either, but the lowest tender means a #1 is the compensation. Yikes.

^^^^^I think it's two 6th and two 7th, actually.

I must have missed the part where once you draft a potential franchise QB, you're then required to ignore the O-line forever. Good LTs are hard to find, but much easier to find than good QBs. Never pass on a potential franchise QB unless you already have an actual franchise QB on your roster.

Depends on the player. But I'd be open to it.

We're a team hungry for a QB. If you don't have a QB, you never pass up a chance to get a franchise QB. We can spend the remaining 8 picks on O-line if you want, just don't pass up a potential franchise QB.

Wow, I was all set to post something about Whitner's chances of being cut, when your post reminded me that this is a Troy Smith thread. I think Smith is an intriguing guy to throw into the mix. Remember, he had won the starting job over Flacco in preseason last year, but then he got hurt, and Flacco was too good to bench. On a smaller scale, could be like a Trent Green/Kurt Warner '99 Rams situation. Much smaller scale. Smith is probably a lot better than anything we have on the roster now, but that doesn't mean much. The question is, how much would it cost to get him? If we're talking Brunell/Hasselbeck levels (something like a 3rd and a 5th), I think it's a decent gamble. No new contract until he proves it on the field, though. Worst case would be Rob Johnson Trade 2.0 - #9 overall pick AND a giant new contract before taking the field.

Okay, if you list seven guys in front of him, that would make Garrard the eighth choice, not the seventh. But three guys make it, which means the fourth choice is the first alternate. So Garrard was the fifth alternate, not the seventh. And yes, the Pro Bowl has gone from being a joke to being a farce. Wasn't this move supposed to make it more relevant, not less? I used to be the only person in the country who really enjoyed watching the Pro Bowl every year (and only partly ironically!), but I think those days are probably over. David Garrard had kind of a crappy year. Who wants to see him in the Pro Bowl? Also, it's kind of a different point, but what's up with Kyle Vandenbosch and his 3.5 sacks getting in over Schobel and his 10 sacks? Maybe it's just payback for when Schobel made it with like 2 sacks all year.

Orton, as mediocre as he is, would be an upgrade over what we've got now. I'd be okay with signing him, as long as it doesn't affect our draft board. I.e., if Clausen or Bradford somehow slips to #9, we draft him. Derrick Johnson has been mentioned a lot here, and I like it. If we stick with a 4-3, one of the advantages is that we can try to poach good 4-3 guys who've been marginalized by their teams switching to 3-4s. Johnson and Glenn Dorsey in KC (although Dorsey would have to be a trade) and Aaron Kampman in GB come to mind. Whether through FA or trade, these guys will have relatively low price tags because they haven't been productive in the 3-4.

I agree. Also, like in hockey, overtime should be played on ice.

I'd like a paternity test before answering this question.

Whoops, yeah, I forgot about that. But Kelsay actually looked like a real NFL player this year, which was a major change. And Kyle Williams and Spencer Johnson both looked the best I've seen them.

Great post overall. As to these comments about Jauron, it's hard to say how much of his press conference BS was just him falling on the sword for his players & coordinators (I still find it hard to believe that Jauron decided to call the Corey McIntyre 0 yard pass that resulted in Losman's fumble against the Jets). But it really seemed like Jauron felt like his team was doing everything right, but all of their failures were purely bad luck. McKelvin was trying to make a play, and got unlucky. We didn't think Nick Folk could hit a long field goal, so we purposely let the Cowboys get a quick out with no time outs. It's just bad luck that he made the field goal. We thought Lindell would hit a 47-yarder to win the Browns Monday Night game, and it was just bad luck that he missed (I actually tend to agree with him on this one -- I was fine with playing it safe b/c I thought Lindell would hit anything inside of 50 that night). We got shoved around by the Browns/Giants/Patriots in terrible weather -- just our rotten luck that we've built a tiny, finesse-based defense that can only succeed on a perfect track, and then the weather turns sour! As for Marv, it's mystifying how he could be this loyal in the face of facts. I guess it's about the same as his loyalty to Walt Corey, though. How many losing seasons would it take to convince him that the ship wasn't being righted? 10? 15? I mean, even ignoring the W-L record, it's not like the team was improving from year to year. Jauron's best year in terms of offensive and defensive ranks (by points scored) was his first -- JP's only competent year as a starter. Both units got much worse in 2007, rebounded a bit in 2008 (mostly thanks to the super-easy schedule), and degraded again in 2009. That is not progress. That is not improvement. I'd say that that's treading water, but that implies that you're still able to breath. Jauron's coaching tenure was more like expending a lot of energy to keep your head just a foot or two beneath the surface.

My favorite day of the NFL year is now split over two nights, one of which is a work night. Ugh. So much for my tradition of attending the draft. I'm not taking two days off of work so I can watch the Bills blow the draft again. And I think the NFL should have serious concerns about the Friday night day 2. Sure, it's only rounds 2 and 3, but in my experience, it's only the die-hards that care about anything but the first round. Thursday night will be as easy to fill as Saturday was, only now it'll be almost exclusively native New Yorkers, which probably suits the NFL just fine. But last year's day 2 was pretty empty even for the third round, and that was on a Sunday afternoon, not a Friday night when people have better things to do. We'll see how it goes, but I adamantly hate the whole thing.

I think the NFL would prefer you just stayed home and watched it on TV.

Maybe double-check on that one: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/ 2003: 2nd in yards allowed, 5th in points allowed 2004: 2nd in yards allowed, 8th in points allowed That's a little better than respectable. And I'd say it was respectable, but not really good, in 2 of Jauron's years: 2006: 18th in yards allowed, 10th in points allowed 2008: 14th in yards allowed, 14th in points allowed Switching from 4-3 to 3-4 or vice versa is only a good idea when your cupboard is bare defensively, or if most of your good players can play in any scheme. When Greggggo switched from to the 4-3, it took 2 years to build the D back up.

I'm thinking Curtis Modkins for OC. For DC and ST, I don't have any specific names, but I'm guessing that both will fit at least 2 of the following criteria: 1.) Over 55. 2.) Never held this job at the NFL level. 3.) Worked with Gailey in the past.

Buh? First, how can you possibly think that? Second, see if you can get anyone who's not a Bills fan to back you up on that.

I've been looking for websites that are taking bets on the NFL draft, because I'm confident that Clausen winds up going #1 overall. Even if he doesn't, I'd be shocked (and elated) if he dropped to #9.

He also wouldn't shut up about Robert Ayers, saying ad nauseum that he would be the best defender in the draft. Just because Mayock is the best (and I don't think it's a blowout over Kiper, although it is a blowout over McShay) doesn't mean that Mayock is always right.

If you're going to introduce your new coaching hire by saying he's the Xth coach in Bills' history, you think you might look up the actual number before the press conference, instead of asking someone off-camera what the number is during the press conference.

+1. Our D-line made a big turnaround in effectiveness against the pass, without any impact from new personnel. The key difference was the hiring of Sanders.