SuperKillerRobots

The mentor aspect might be what makes it worthwhile. McNabb is known to try to help African-American QBs and might look at this as an opportunity to take him under his wing. The Raiders might be able to work out a one year extension with him for mentoring purposes and then in a perfect world, have Russell ready by then. Of course it could also blow up in their face and just end up being a cash-grab for McNabb for a year until he can get to a team he really wants to play for. It would probably be a good deal for the Eagles as long as they could sign Asomugha to a long term deal.

That may be so, but I don't see the Skins passing on a the best LT in the draft (when they need one desperately) for our #9 and 3rd rounder. Even if Washington did that, I don't think that it would be worth it to us to give up a top 100 pick. That's a potential starter in a year or two we'd sacrifice, which is a lot for a team with this many needs.

I could live with this draft. Gets some talent at the LT, OLB, and NT positions that should be able to help eventually. I'm not looking to this draft for instant starters necessarily, so I think the goal is to get eventual starters at these positions. Hopefully at some point during the season, the LT can takeover, if not from the beginning. I think they have enough talent at OLB and along the line to allow the rookies there to platoon.

What I meant about him not having anything left in the tank was simply that we only got about a season and a half out of him at a decent level of play for our first round pick. I agree about the business aspect of it and that was a good move. I was actually trying to disagree with the original poster's contention that the Bledsoe trade was a "bonehead move", as he put it. The article stated that we shouldn't trade for McNabb because we are not only a QB away from being competitive, while when we traded for Bledsoe we were only a QB away. The original poster took exception to this point, while I agreed with it. I think if they could have gotten a full three years out of him we would have made the playoffs. The fact that we didn't get that much time out of him while giving up a first rounder makes it a poor deal for us. I'm not syaing Bledsoe fell apart because of anything he did necessarily (I actually liked him a lot while he was here), but there was a problem witht he offense that was never addressed while he was here that ultimately did him in. I think if they had replaced Peerless with the McGahee pick instead of taking him (maybe Dallas Clark, I didn't look at the players drafted afterwards, just guessing) Bledsoe probably would have lasted longer and done better.

I think the underlying reasons for the trade and the varied opinions on it is just that Peters has athletic ability and natural talents nearing on Bruce Smith to the point that he can play the game of football at a high level without much preparation against people who prepare like their lives depend on it. There is no debating this. The issue with him was that he did not always play hard on every play and was not a leader on the field or in his preparations. The question was do you want to pay a guy $10mm per year who can be dominant when he wants to, but will also take plays off. There was also an added factor of what a large contract with guaranteed money would do to his already questionable motivation. So the question becomes, do you pay a guy the money and accept the fact that there will be times when he can't be counted on or do you decide that's unacceptable and get rid of him? A valid question in this matter is if they had drafted Oher last year instead of Maybin (or Maybin becomes dominant in the next year or two) does this conversation happen? Probably not. If you're going to pay an LT $10mm per year, you'd like him to be in the top 5 in the league at least, if not better. I personally think at the best Peters is on the fringe of the top 5 in the league at LT right now. Going by that logic, it's hard to say whether he is worth it to the Eagles now or would have been worth it to the Bills. One thing that should be said is that Peters did seem to get dinged up a bit and you have to wonder if the lack of preparation in the offseason lead to that. So I think what I'm trying to get at here is it a question of how good Peters is or how bad the replacement was. I don't think you can tie the two together in a fair argument, outside of one illustrating how poorly the previous decision-makers did with their overall strategy. Peters is a good player and had we signed him, we wouldn't be talking about the LT position right now outside of debating whether he is playing up to his contract. What are those mental lapses/screw-ups worth to a team? Maybe on a team with strong leadership in place already the light won't be focused on him so much and he can earn his money and not have to lead by example and be the most accountable player out there. On the Bills, he would have had to take on those roles for that type of money and in my opinion he wouldn't have been successful doing that. Maybe it was more of a situation of us needing more than he could offer at the time, while Philly only needed him to play LT. As far as his play, you have to say he has the ability to be the best in football, but you also can't deny him taking plays off or not stepping up to the competition (or whatever you want to call it) and some of those times have been in big games for them. Is that a quality you want in a LT that you are paying top dollar?

It was a bad move in hindsight, but they had a defense, an RB, WRs, and looked to be only a QB away from being competitive. If Bledsoe still had something in the tank, we would have been pretty good for a few more years with those semi-dominant defenses.

I think in the past 10 years we have definitely drafted players, but who have we developed? There's not many. I think they need to still look to the draft as the primary addition of talent and then focusing on developing those players. Not trading for aging vets or signing guys that don't fit what they're trying to do just to add talent that doesn't fit. McNabb doesn't even want to come here, so I really think it would be a bad idea to sign him and then let him walk after his contract expires. I also think it would be a bad idea to get him here and then break the bank trying to keep a 34 year old QB that really doesn't want to be here other than for the ridiculous money we throw at him. They need to get young guys in here that will turn into starters for us down the road.

So you're saying we should just be signing players regardless of whether they have anything left in the tank? I don't get it in this instance. Though I do understand generally what you're saying, I don't think plugging holes like that makes sense in year one of a new regime. Last year I could have seen it when the coaches were fighting for their jobs, but this year is year one of a rebuild. You gotta get more young guys in there as well as seeing what the young guys on the roster can do. Maybe Shawn Nelson and someone else makes us not need him. Either way, is he going to be the difference between making the playoffs and not? Probably not.

I agree - I think he'll do pretty good, but not good enough to make it a top 10 defense unless there's a guy to play i obvious running situations.

I don't think it'll his primary responsibility to diagnose those plays anymore. They'll just turn him loose on the QB from different parts of the field. The problem with the cover 2 was that everyone had responsibility for the run game, whereas now there will be players plugging two gaps so other players can focus on rushing the QB. It;ll be more specialized.

I think the point is that our HC (rightly so) doesn't care about last year's statistics. I think he intends to put the players with the proper skills in the proper positions. Whitner, no matter how well Wilson was rated by anyone, anywhere, can play the run, play near the line, diagnose plays, get other players into the right positions, and ultimately provide the best versatility of any of the safeties. It's not about salary, it's about putting a player a position that he's suited for and playing to his strengths.

Amen brother

I don't think either of them are ideal as OLBs - Poz is too small and Mitchell isn't fast enough. Aside from the reasons they couldn't (I"m sure either would be able to pick it up in spot duty if necessary) I think the real point is they are bad fits outside and good fits inside. I could see them using Mitchell outside in obvious run situations though, especially since the pass rushing OLBs we have currently (and might get in the draft) will be kind of weak against the run (except Kelsey if he's still around of course).

Good call

I don't get this sentiment. Wilson was terrible against the run last year, while Whitner played very well - especially in the first few games of the year before he got hurt. Wilson was playing out of position at SS (he should be a FS and very clearly that's all he'll do in this defense, which wants a physical presence at SS), Scott was playing out of position at LB, and Donte was playing out of position at nickel corner. Gailey just wants everyone to line up where they are natural fits and Wilson isn't a better ballhawk than Byrd. You can't diminish a player's position on the team because you don't like where/when he was drafted vs what he is. He will never justify a top 10 pick, but that doesn't mean he isn't a good player or that we should get rid of him for a lesser player (yes, I'm calling Wilson and Scott lesser players). Just the fact that posters in this thread are bringing up his draft position in a thread that doesn't have anything to do with drafting or the year he was drafted shows how hung up people are on this issue. I don't think Gailey cares one bit about where he was drafted or what anyone thinks about his opinions of his players. That is probably a good thing.

I think he'll be a good player, but this holy roller crap is starting to get old. I wonder if he would actually lose respect of players for being such an uptight churchie.

Guy who was in training camp last year, got hurt, and put on IR. Was apparently playing well, but had a long shot of making the roster due to the inordinate number of DBs we had. Pretty much in the same boat this year.

I'm sure there's always a deal to be made, I'm more questioning if it would be worth it to the Bills. I would trade down to 20 if we got two more top 120 picks, but other than that, it would be tough to do. I would almost rather take him. I do think they should shot for an impact player in the first round. A QB, Spiller, pass rusher, etc. I don't like the idea of taking the 4th or 5th best tackle prospect or an NT. I think you can get equal value on those two positions in the second or even third round.

I do, I just don't think that teams will pay a lot to move up to grab an RB on draft day. RBs are a dime a dozen in the draft and even though he looks like a great pick, he could just as easily not. There are other players tat can be had in the second round that have similar skills that could be had. It might happen, but it's not like they're trading up for a QB. RBs just don't seem to have the premium placed on them by teams. Just my opinion based off years past.

Not saying I don't agree with your draft projection (I don't follow the drafting process that closely), but it would be the worst possible turnout for us. Without either of the QBs, three OTs gone, and Morgan gone, there would be little interest in trading into that spot from other teams. That might mean we would take Spiller.

Sounds like a pass rusher is going to be at the top of their draft list. Could it be that the defense is just a pass rusher and NT away from being top 15? I wouldn't be surprised. It's also refreshing to hear our new head coach, an offensive guy, talk like he knows whats going on on the other side of the ball. DJ always seemed like he knew absolutely nothing about offense and it showed on the field. It sure sounds like Gailey has a plan for that side of the ball as well. Hopefully he does and whatever they decide to run and how they run it will mesh well with the new offense. I think Bell is going to be the primary backup at both tackle spots this year if not a starter at some point. Gailey seems to be open to letting him fight it out and he seems to have done well in the practice setting so far in his career. I get the feeling that Gailey is confident in his ability to vary the play calling to the point that a marginal offensive line will get him by this year - especially with the promise in the middle. If he wants to play smash mouth football and has the two backs to do it, you'd think the tackles might not matter so much. Fans have been clamoring for more play action and that coupled with a good running game up the middle would sure decrease the need for top notch tackle play.

In the spirit of not letting the hometown writers off easy (from the article, second to last paragraph): "It was the latest in a string of incidents for Lynch, who was suspended the first four games last season for violating the league's personal conduct policy." Wasn't Lynch suspended for three games, not four? Come on Allen, you're better than that.

I wouldn't mind taking him at 9 (also wouldn't mind the smokescreen they want him in the event they are trying to trade the pick). I'd almost liken it to the Titans taking Chris Johnson. They looked like a flawed team that needed some other help besides RB when they took him. There's something to be said for the impact of a guy who can take it to the house on any play.

Big IF, but IF he is there in the 3rd round, I would think we take him in a second.

I can't see him getting traded unless its a stupid lop-sided deal for us. Why trade him only to draft another RB - we did that with Mcgahee and that was a net loss.