Cash

Sign which free agent QB?

Yes they are, for all the reasons you mentioned. But QB is need #1, and it's not even close. Then LT is need #2, and that's not even close to #3, which is probably LB. If Mitchell can't come back healthy, LB becomes a higher priority, but QB and LT are the two most important positions in the NFL.

Seriously. We have 2 young WRs who'll be in their 3rd year (classic breakout year for WRs), and who both have legitimate prospects for success. Odds are, at least one pans out. Even if neither do, your 2nd WR isn't nearly as important as your first QB.

At 6-4, 275 lbs, he fits the mold of a 4-3 DE more than a 3-4 OLB. Not that 3-4 OLBs *can't* be that big, but Morgan's frame is basically the prototypical 4-3 end, left or right.

Among QBs drafted in the first 2 rounds, the 2 college stats that most correlate with NFL success are games started and completion percentage. LeFevour scores very highly in both. Doesn't guarantee success by any means, but if NFL scouts judge him worthy of a 2nd-round pick, then there's a great chance he'll succeed.

Same reason Jeff Wright couldn't. Too small, won't take up 2 blockers, can't hold up at point of attack. Williams is a good 4-3 DT, but definitely not a 3-4 NT.

So what's the plan then, wait for Manning or Brees to become available in trade? Go after Big Ben? All rookie QBs are projects, and all established QBs get signed to big contract extensions. The only QBs that are ever available are the ones who aren't proven yet, or the ones that look to be over the hill.

Smith is a restricted free agent. If the Ravens tender him at the lowest level, signing him would cost a 5th-rounder in compensation, assuming the Ravens didn't match. I think they'll tender him either there or at the next level, which would mean a 2nd-rounder as compensation. That's too rich for my blood, but I'd be fine with the 5th-rounder.

Neither McCargo, being a defensive lineman, nor Preston, being a fourth-round pick, is germane to this discussion of highly drafted offensive lineman. But you know what is germane? Based on that list of Bills greats, it seems like the 2nd round has worked out great for us in terms of o-linemen. Something to keep in mind for all you "MUST DRAFT O-LINE IN THE FIRST ROUND" folks. You can get good ones in other rounds. Frequently.

Love the Hansbrough comparison. Nails it.

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.