Who's likely to take a QB ahead of us?

[dtgolder]

i think St Louis, Washington and Seattle would all pick a QB.....and don't rule out Cleveland with a new regime. Dont be surprised if Detroit trades up with St louis to protect themselves from losing Suh, allowing St louis to pick a QB at #2.

You know that's a good point--Detroit *MIGHT* try and move up one for Suh...probably an "expensive" move, but would certainly help St. Louis (and then again it might not be that expensive--they might do it for almost nothing too--just to avoid the costs of signing the #1 pick--maybe adding a #7 or so to the pick)....

 

Hmmmmm.....

[tonyjustbcuz]

Looking at this thread and this site leaves me wondering who might select a QB ahead of us?

 

So we have a projected draft order of:

 

1 St. Louis 1-14

2 Detroit 2-13

3 Kansas City 3-12

4 Tampa Bay 3-12

5 Washington 4-11

6 Cleveland 4-11

7 Seattle 5-10

8 Buffalo 5-10

 

Assuming this stands, and no trades...and St. Louis drafts Suh...then looking at depth charts we have:

 

Detroit - Stafford on board, so unlikely to take a QB with their first pick

Kansas City - Matt Cassel, Croyle, & Gutierrez: Cassel still young, and likely staying...hasn't done too poorly this year (and not enough to justify drafting a QB #1 with all their other needs)

Tampa Bay - Freeman, Johnson & Carpenter: Possibly a new QB taken here? But Freeman just taken in 2009 (with TB 1st pick--#17) so unlikely to give up on him and take ANOTHER QB #1...

Washington - Campbell, Collins & Bartel: Campbell doing ok, and young (drafted in 2005)...not sure they're ready to give up on him?

Cleveland - Anderson, Ratliff: Brady Quinn on IR so maybe they're still good with him? Anderson is awful, but do they draft a QB and (essentially) give up on Quinn? (Might be tempting to take a QB, but if they do would they avoid Clausen as an ND QB, given the lack of productivity of Quinn?)

Seattle - Hasselbeck, Wallace & Teel: Hasselbeck is having a good year, but is old...would they draft a QB or have more pressing needs? Might not be able to pass up one of the top tier QBs....

 

So I'm certainly not an expert (and am looking for opinions) but I see Cleveland and Seattle as the prime possibilities...and Cleveland may avoid Clausen.

 

Given the number of good QBs (Bradford, McCoy, Clausen, Locker, etc.) it seems that we're likely to get a good shot and a few of them...and maybe only 1 of them off the board by the time the Bills pick?

 

Would love to hear from some folks that know more about each team's needs that are picking above the Bills--who is (and who is not) likely to take a QB? (And which teams have more pressing needs at other positions?)

 

Really good post...enjoyed it!

[tonyjustbcuz]

I see St Louis, Washington and Seattle all looking for a QB with their #1 IMO

 

If the Bills select a QB without upgrading the left tackle position in the off season or draft, then you can expect him to start strong and regress just like every other QB the Bills have ruined.

 

I'm more concerned with who the Bills hire as GM or president rather then the draft, because if this is the same front office staff doing the drafting, you can expect more Maybins. Players that "might" be good in 2-3 years.

 

 

I agree with this post more than the others! I was so upset last draft we had! I had my charts and mini-war room ...lol...sad but true...and was all ready to take Bryan Orakapo DE !! I couldn't believe they took an undersized Aaron Maybin! Then they had 3 opportunities to take Everette Brown DE who was projected as a solid DE...We could have got him in the 4th round even though most projections had him gone in the 1st or 2nd round! I just never agree with the personnel moves these guys make. This is why I agree with you about the changes having to start at the top rather than to hire a coach first and then consider a GM! The longer Russ & Ralph take to hire a GM or President the less time the new football boss will have to evaluate the Bills talent and available college talent in the 2010 draft. It will also effect what coaches are left to hire as the other teams hire their coach. TIME TO GET CRACKIN GUY'S...C'MON !!!

[Bufcomments]

Teams that need a QB will take them, the best will be off the board by the time the Bills pick.

 

I would be very happy if the Bills choose the best OL or LB on the board. I doubt that Okung will be on the board when the Bills pick. If he is he is a no-brainer.

 

Bruce Campbell(OT) might be there . If the Top 2 QB's are gone and Campbell and Okung are off the board I think the Bills do 2 things, get MCClain at MLB and move Poz to OLB or move down and get some more draft picks.

 

It really depends what Cleveland decides to do. If the new GM/coach wants his guy they take Bradford. If not the Bills might luck out and get Bradford.

[Fingon]

Don't rule out trading up for a QB. Any new regime will likely want their own QB under center, and we have extra picks from the Peters and Youboty trades. There is also a distinct possibility that the new GM will trade aging veterans (Schobel, Stroud, McGee, etc..) to stockpile picks.

[Bufcomments]

Don't rule out trading up for a QB. Any new regime will likely want their own QB under center, and we have extra picks from the Peters and Youboty trades. There is also a distinct possibility that the new GM will trade aging veterans (Schobel, Stroud, McGee, etc..) to stockpile picks.

If you are going to trade up, trade up and get Okung who will be a starter for the next 8 yrs easy. You could live with Fitz and somebody like Troy Smith next year if you can land a LT and focus on the run game.

[thebandit27]

St. Louis, Washington, and Seattle are all likely candidates to select a QB.

 

Bulger is banged up and on the decline, ditto for Hasselbeck, who's been well below average this season, and despite Jason Campbell's mid-season resurgence, you can bet a new GM will want his own QB to groom, even if Campbell stays (which he's likely to, given that--absent a new CBA--he'll be a RESTRICTED free agent only and can be retained with a relatively-low tender offer ~$2M).

 

That said, I'd caution those that opine that Suh will be selected #1 overall. Keep in mind that much of the decision for the #1 overall pick rests on the high amount of guaranteed $$ that the team in question must invest in said pick. Given that fact, history shows that the #1 overall pick will always be from one of the 3 highest paid positions in the game: QB, OT, and DE. In fact, there hasn't been a position other than those 3 selected #1 overall since 1996 (Keyshawn Johnson)...

 

1997 - Pace (OT)

1998 - Manning (QB)

1999 - Couch (QB)

2000 - Brown (DE)

2001 - Vick (QB)

2002 - Carr (QB)

2003 - Palmer (QB)

2004 - Manning (QB)

2005 - Smith (QB)

2006 - Williams (DE)

2007 - Russell (QB)

2008 - Long (OT)

2009 - Stafford (QB)

 

The main reason that this is true is because picking any other position at #1 would completely eschew the pay scale for that player's position (i.e. no GM or owner would want to be the guy responsible for paying an unproven running back or defensive tackle upwards of $40M in guaranteed money, especially with a revenue and salary cap-driven labor dispute on the horizon).

 

That said, the only way that Suh goes #1 overall would be if a team intends to move him to defensive end. I supposed that could happen, but it's unlikey unless said team plans to transition to the 3-4 next season. Since the 2 teams in contention for the #1 pick just brought in new coaches last off-season, and both prefer to run the 4-3, I doubt that will happen. Indeed, the most likely scenario would be a QB or OT at #1, with Suh selected at #2 (the difference in guaranteed money at #2 is staggering--last year's #2 pick, OT Jason Smith of Baylor, received almost $10M less in guaranteed money than #1 pick Matthew Stafford).

 

So, in summary, it's more likely you'll see either Sam Bradford, Jimmy Claussen, or Russell Okung selected at #1. Any way you slice it, however, with 3 teams that pick ahead of Buffalo likely to be in the market for new QBs, it's very likely that Buffalo is on the outside looking in when it comes to picking one of the top-tier passers come April.

 

Just my 1 cent.

[Fingon]

If you are going to trade up, trade up and get Okung who will be a starter for the next 8 yrs easy. You could live with Fitz and somebody like Troy Smith next year if you can land a LT and focus on the run game.

Winning teams aren't built around the running game anymore. We need a franchise QB.

[dave mcbride]

Looking at this thread and this site leaves me wondering who might select a QB ahead of us?

 

So we have a projected draft order of:

 

1 St. Louis 1-14

2 Detroit 2-13

3 Kansas City 3-12

4 Tampa Bay 3-12

5 Washington 4-11

6 Cleveland 4-11

7 Seattle 5-10

8 Buffalo 5-10

 

Assuming this stands, and no trades...and St. Louis drafts Suh...then looking at depth charts we have:

 

Detroit - Stafford on board, so unlikely to take a QB with their first pick

Kansas City - Matt Cassel, Croyle, & Gutierrez: Cassel still young, and likely staying...hasn't done too poorly this year (and not enough to justify drafting a QB #1 with all their other needs)

Tampa Bay - Freeman, Johnson & Carpenter: Possibly a new QB taken here? But Freeman just taken in 2009 (with TB 1st pick--#17) so unlikely to give up on him and take ANOTHER QB #1...

Washington - Campbell, Collins & Bartel: Campbell doing ok, and young (drafted in 2005)...not sure they're ready to give up on him?

Cleveland - Anderson, Ratliff: Brady Quinn on IR so maybe they're still good with him? Anderson is awful, but do they draft a QB and (essentially) give up on Quinn? (Might be tempting to take a QB, but if they do would they avoid Clausen as an ND QB, given the lack of productivity of Quinn?)

Seattle - Hasselbeck, Wallace & Teel: Hasselbeck is having a good year, but is old...would they draft a QB or have more pressing needs? Might not be able to pass up one of the top tier QBs....

 

So I'm certainly not an expert (and am looking for opinions) but I see Cleveland and Seattle as the prime possibilities...and Cleveland may avoid Clausen.

 

Given the number of good QBs (Bradford, McCoy, Clausen, Locker, etc.) it seems that we're likely to get a good shot and a few of them...and maybe only 1 of them off the board by the time the Bills pick?

 

Would love to hear from some folks that know more about each team's needs that are picking above the Bills--who is (and who is not) likely to take a QB? (And which teams have more pressing needs at other positions?)

St. Louis, Cleveland, Seattle, and Washington all need QBs as much as the Bills do. Both Clausen and Bradford will be gone by 8. People think the top QBs will drop every year, but they hardly ever do.

[papazoid]

St. Louis, Washington, and Seattle are all likely candidates to select a QB.

 

Bulger is banged up and on the decline, ditto for Hasselbeck, who's been well below average this season, and despite Jason Campbell's mid-season resurgence, you can bet a new GM will want his own QB to groom, even if Campbell stays (which he's likely to, given that--absent a new CBA--he'll be a RESTRICTED free agent only and can be retained with a relatively-low tender offer ~$2M).

 

That said, I'd caution those that opine that Suh will be selected #1 overall. Keep in mind that much of the decision for the #1 overall pick rests on the high amount of guaranteed $$ that the team in question must invest in said pick. Given that fact, history shows that the #1 overall pick will always be from one of the 3 highest paid positions in the game: QB, OT, and DE. In fact, there hasn't been a position other than those 3 selected #1 overall since 1996 (Keyshawn Johnson)...

 

1997 - Pace (OT)

1998 - Manning (QB)

1999 - Couch (QB)

2000 - Brown (DE)

2001 - Vick (QB)

2002 - Carr (QB)

2003 - Palmer (QB)

2004 - Manning (QB)

2005 - Smith (QB)

2006 - Williams (DE)

2007 - Russell (QB)

2008 - Long (OT)

2009 - Stafford (QB)

 

The main reason that this is true is because picking any other position at #1 would completely eschew the pay scale for that player's position (i.e. no GM or owner would want to be the guy responsible for paying an unproven running back or defensive tackle upwards of $40M in guaranteed money, especially with a revenue and salary cap-driven labor dispute on the horizon).

 

That said, the only way that Suh goes #1 overall would be if a team intends to move him to defensive end. I supposed that could happen, but it's unlikey unless said team plans to transition to the 3-4 next season. Since the 2 teams in contention for the #1 pick just brought in new coaches last off-season, and both prefer to run the 4-3, I doubt that will happen. Indeed, the most likely scenario would be a QB or OT at #1, with Suh selected at #2 (the difference in guaranteed money at #2 is staggering--last year's #2 pick, OT Jason Smith of Baylor, received almost $10M less in guaranteed money than #1 pick Matthew Stafford).

 

So, in summary, it's more likely you'll see either Sam Bradford, Jimmy Claussen, or Russell Okung selected at #1. Any way you slice it, however, with 3 teams that pick ahead of Buffalo likely to be in the market for new QBs, it's very likely that Buffalo is on the outside looking in when it comes to picking one of the top-tier passers come April.

 

Just my 1 cent.

 

 

 

SUH is far and away the best player in this draft......he has the least amount of risk. ALL those QB's are crap shoots. while you make an excellant point that drafting a DT that high messes with salary cap issues (current DT franchise tag is only $6 mil.... DE's, LT's & QB's all over $10 mil) he is the PROTO TYPE Defensive end in a 3-4 and already has proven he can play DT in a 4-3 ( led his team in tackles, which is unheard of for DT's).....the point being, he can play anywhere on the line and is worth the cost of a #1 overall pick. If i was the bills i would willingly give my #1 (8th overall) and my second and third round picks to get this guy. this guy is going to be a difference maker !!

[Thurman#1]

Don't rule out trading up for a QB. Any new regime will likely want their own QB under center, and we have extra picks from the Peters and Youboty trades. There is also a distinct possibility that the new GM will trade aging veterans (Schobel, Stroud, McGee, etc..) to stockpile picks.

 

 

The Peters pick is a sixth-rounder. The Youboty trade is theoretical but unlikely to get much higher than a sixth. That will not move us up in the first round.

[thebandit27]

SUH is far and away the best player in this draft......he has the least amount of risk. ALL those QB's are crap shoots. while you make an excellant point that drafting a DT that high messes with salary cap issues (current DT franchise tag is only $6 mil.... DE's, LT's & QB's all over $10 mil) he is the PROTO TYPE Defensive end in a 3-4 and already has proven he can play DT in a 4-3 ( led his team in tackles, which is unheard of for DT's).....the point being, he can play anywhere on the line and is worth the cost of a #1 overall pick. If i was the bills i would willingly give my #1 (8th overall) and my second and third round picks to get this guy. this guy is going to be a difference maker !!

 

I don't disagree regarding the quality of the player...Suh is definitely the best football player in the draft. As I stated, it's more of an economics issue, of which you appear to be well aware. If a team like Cleveland or Kansas City, both of which employ the 3-4, were picking #1, I'd say it's a no-brainer that Suh goes #1. However, it would be a tricky situation for the teams at the top (Detroit or St. Louis) to pick Suh, simply because they'd need to do so while giving the impression (truthfully or not) that he'd be moving outside to DE. Otherwise, imagine what happens when a guy like Richard Seymour, Shaun Rogers, Ty Warren, Kris Jenkins, Haloti Ngata, John Henderson, Darnell Dockett, Tommie Harris, etc. sees the contract that Suh gets...instant holdout. If I'm one of those guys, I'm looking at the $40M+ guaranteed and telling my agent that he needs to get the GM on the phone immediately and demand a new, $100M contract with $45M guaranteed, and thus the pay structure of a previously moderate-salaried position gets totally blown up (again, I know you understand the causality of it, but the example makes it hit closer to home when you start considering how many established DTs would be justified in holding out).

 

This same thing happened last April with Detroit. Could you imagine what would've happened to the LB pay scale in the NFL if Detroit would have drafted Aaron Curry #1 overall? How does a team go about convincing a guy like Patrick Willis not to holdout when Aaron Curry is making 3x as much as him without ever playing a snap?

 

All that said, I would love to have Suh on my team. If (and when) the day comes that the league imposes a rookie salary structure, all of this crappola will be a moot point, and teams can go about simply drafting the best player available at the top (just like it used to be up until the salary cap started dictating things in the late 90's, exactly 4 years after the salary cap was instituted...another cause-and-affect scenario), because he's clearly deserving of being the #1 pick.

 

Just my 1 cent.

[papazoid]

I don't disagree regarding the quality of the player...Suh is definitely the best football player in the draft. As I stated, it's more of an economics issue, of which you appear to be well aware. If a team like Cleveland or Kansas City, both of which employ the 3-4, were picking #1, I'd say it's a no-brainer that Suh goes #1. However, it would be a tricky situation for the teams at the top (Detroit or St. Louis) to pick Suh, simply because they'd need to do so while giving the impression (truthfully or not) that he'd be moving outside to DE. Otherwise, imagine what happens when a guy like Richard Seymour, Shaun Rogers, Ty Warren, Kris Jenkins, Haloti Ngata, John Henderson, Darnell Dockett, Tommie Harris, etc. sees the contract that Suh gets...instant holdout. If I'm one of those guys, I'm looking at the $40M+ guaranteed and telling my agent that he needs to get the GM on the phone immediately and demand a new, $100M contract with $45M guaranteed, and thus the pay structure of a previously moderate-salaried position gets totally blown up (again, I know you understand the causality of it, but the example makes it hit closer to home when you start considering how many established DTs would be justified in holding out).

 

This same thing happened last April with Detroit. Could you imagine what would've happened to the LB pay scale in the NFL if Detroit would have drafted Aaron Curry #1 overall? How does a team go about convincing a guy like Patrick Willis not to holdout when Aaron Curry is making 3x as much as him without ever playing a snap?

 

All that said, I would love to have Suh on my team. If (and when) the day comes that the league imposes a rookie salary structure, all of this crappola will be a moot point, and teams can go about simply drafting the best player available at the top (just like it used to be up until the salary cap started dictating things in the late 90's, exactly 4 years after the salary cap was instituted...another cause-and-affect scenario), because he's clearly deserving of being the #1 pick.

 

Just my 1 cent.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

 

i believe the NFLPA (players assoc) should fight to change an aspect of the Franchise tag value. That Offensive lineman are lumped together by all positions (Tackles, guards and centers) thereby benefiting guards and centers. Where as Defensive lineman have seperate categories for Ends and Tackles, which as you can see hurts the Tackles. i happen to place alot of value on DT's. In building a team i think in order of importance, i would go QB, LT, DT & DT..... that is where i put my money.

[Fingon]

The Peters pick is a sixth-rounder. The Youboty trade is theoretical but unlikely to get much higher than a sixth. That will not move us up in the first round.

No, but it will take a little bit of the sting out of trading up. High salary demands by players have made the top picks less valuable, and it would not cost us that much to move up if we wanted to.

[playman]

If you are going to trade up, trade up and get Okung who will be a starter for the next 8 yrs easy. You could live with Fitz and somebody like Troy Smith next year if you can land a LT and focus on the run game.

 

or you go for pike later. sure he had a terrible game vs pitt, but on that last drive hes shown what hes capable of. and that weather with him wont be an issue.

 

id love a trade up to get okung.

[billieve420]

I would take an chance and draft Tony Pike from Cincy if he is available in the 2nd round when we pick. Not being a 1st round pick there is not as much pressure for him to come in right away and start. I would sit him the entire year and sign/trade for a veteran to fill in for the short term until the o-line is fixed. Trent is done here so i would trade him in the offseason as he is in the completely wrong system and is more of a west coast QB.

 

No young QB is going to be able to develop and grow behind the worst o-line in the league. We have seen too many QBs get thrown into the fire before they are ready resulting in their careers going down the drain. If we do decide to draft another QB next year I hope we don't make the same mistake again like we have done in the past.

[dtgolder]

Despite some speculation in the thread that Suh isn't the best thing since buttered toast, I find it impossible to believe that he'll drop further than #2...(Detroit would JUMP on him if he were available, and may even swap picks with St. Louis to get him).

 

Yes, the Rams need a QB, but they will be under immense pressure to take Suh--as many have commented, no QB is a sure thing (and many top choice QBs have been busts). Suh is much more of a likely payoff pick...and not taking him could be a career-killing move.

 

No--the only way that St. Louis doesn't take Suh is if they swap picks with Detroit (or someone else) and then they can justify not taking him...(and a trade there is a real possibility--Suh is a special player, and there are teams that may be willing to trade up to #1 to get him).

 

Having said all that--it doesn't change my impression that as it sits there will be only 1 (or maybe 2 if St. Louis trades out of #1) QBs off the board by the time the Bills pick...which means we SHOULD get a reasonable shot at Bradford or Clausen....

[Bring Back Kelly]

Don't rule out trading up for a QB. Any new regime will likely want their own QB under center, and we have extra picks from the Peters and Youboty trades. There is also a distinct possibility that the new GM will trade aging veterans (Schobel, Stroud, McGee, etc..) to stockpile picks.

Are you kidding me? When have The Bills ever traded up a First Round Draft board. We have traded into the first round, but thats all we have done. Never have we moved up into the top ten from outside of 10. If we have Modrock We will not be doing that. If we have a new scouting dept. and new regime, they will not take such a risky move, especially for a QB. I do not see a trading partner anyways. Maybe Tampa, but it is highly unlikely. In my opinion, I see The Bills going after Tavaris Jackson, David Carr, Jason Campbell or Vick. Everyone at One Bills Drive is always preaching about experience from a QB, so I cant see them hanging their hopes on a Rookie QB. Groom Brohm, He has tremendous potential. Bring in the right guy to show him the ropes. I bet we will get Carr.

[MikeSpeed]

I would take an chance and draft Tony Pike from Cincy if he is available in the 2nd round when we pick. Not being a 1st round pick there is not as much pressure for him to come in right away and start. I would sit him the entire year and sign/trade for a veteran to fill in for the short term until the o-line is fixed. Trent is done here so i would trade him in the offseason as he is in the completely wrong system and is more of a west coast QB.

 

No young QB is going to be able to develop and grow behind the worst o-line in the league. We have seen too many QBs get thrown into the fire before they are ready resulting in their careers going down the drain. If we do decide to draft another QB next year I hope we don't make the same mistake again like we have done in the past.

I agree. I've always been of the opinion that a first round pick, especially in the top 10, should be starting on day one. (Maybin is killing me ) It makes no sense to draft a QB in the first round just to set him on the bench for 2-3 years. Having a rookie start behind this line... his confidence would be shot by game 3.

[buffaloaggie]

Winning teams aren't built around the running game anymore. We need a franchise QB.

Our franchise QB wouldn't last long without a Left OT to protect him. Didn't our top two QB's get hurt this year? Without a line to protect him, our QB will just be fodder for a D line.

 

When it comes down to it, we need a lot. I really like McClain, but an OT would be OK too.