Mickey

Gaining a half a yard on first down will not keep the defense honest. I don't care who you have up front or in the backfield, if you don't have a credible threat in the air, you are in trouble. That is really the exact kind of offense Jauron was trying to make work here. Run, run, sack/inc/check down, punt. I don't think Gailey has any intention of running a conservative offense. Thank God. I agree with you that he has a good offensive mind. You don't need a particularly brilliant offensive mind to call trap plays all day. Now running a spread, or one they umpteen variations of the spread, now that takes a creative mind.

Exactly. Some don't seem to understand the difference between running just to say you ran and running well. In my view, almost no team in the league is so strong at doing one thing offensively that they can succeed being one dimensional. If all you can do is run, you are in trouble. Even a crappy defense is going to stop you if they don't have to worry about your passing game enough to play you honest. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Spiller pick signals more that we are opening up the offense rather than that we are going to a "smash mouth" run, run, run, punt, run, run, FG, run, run, run punt offense. Spiller would be perfect for a spread offense. I wouldn't want to have to cover him out of the backfield with LB or SS. That would be a recipe for disaster. They are talking about being exciting, about not being dull. They have a coach who is very familiar with the spread. They picked a RB with WR speed and hands who is a TD machine. They drafted a QB who played in a spread. They drafted a WR who thrived in a spread at UConn. Smash mouth? I wouldn't count on it.

I don't think there is any sort of grand strategy like this. The fact that they didn't take Clausen or some other QB earlier in the draft is more the result of the simple fact that you can only fill so many holes in one draft. We are switching to a 3-4 so there really was no choice but to invest in personnel capable of making a 3-4 work. A NT is vital in the 3-4 and before last week, we didn't have a single one on the roster so no surprise there. Our DE's consist of guys who suck or are retiring or are not suited for the 3-4. The 3-4 requires 4 LB's and you need some extras incase someone goes down. Arguably, we have only 2 LBs that would start anywhere else so it isn't exactly a shock that we spent some picks at DE/LB. We lost a starting WR and a slot man so it shouldn't be a surprise that we took a WR. At some point unfortunately, you run out of picks. We need a QB and some OL help and we did take some late rounders there, hoping to get lucky. I don't see some grand master plan at work here nor would I conclude that what they did says much of anything about what they think of our QB's. As for "molding" us in the image of the Ravens, I don't buy that either. The Ravens had one of the best defenses in the history of the league and they had a crappy QB. That combination has won one championship. Well rounded teams with good defenses and highly productive offenses have won a lot of championships. Cowboys with Aikman, the 49'ers with both Young and Montana, etc., etc. I don't think they are any happier than we are with having to go with Trent, Fitz and Brohm. I'll bet that Levi will get on the field sooner rather than later if he can show at least some competence despite being a 7th round rookie. Run first? Sure we are but so is just about every team in the league. I could just as easily conclude from this evidence that they are planning to run a spread, just what Levi Brown ran at Troy. Spiller would be an ideal back in a spread. Gailey has used the spread in the past. I think they could get a lot of mismatches with Spiller lining up in the backfield and then motioning up to the line in the slot or as a WR on the edge. I don't think they have some fiendishly clever scheme driving their decisions. Kind of simple really but I think in the long run they are making the right moves....unless Clausen ends up being the real deal when we passed on him, twice. Assuming they are right about him, they probably had a pretty good draft.

...and we got blown out 4 or 5 times and lost to Cleveland. I am optimistic about the but not about next year.

they can only fill so many holes in one draft. If u know of a way to get a playmaker, two starting OTs, a NT, two DE's and some 3-4 LBs and aWR and a QB all in one draft, we r all ears

This is a team with many, many holes. This is a team trying to reshape their defensive roster so that they can install a 3-4. There was only so much they could do. Like Buddy said, if you draft a guy that can't play just to fill a need, you have only compounded the problem. I didn't look at Spiller much because I was so sure it was going to be an OT or NT. But looking at him now, all I can say is WOW. This guy has Don Beebe like speed and is an academic all american. He will never do anything to embarass himself or this franchise. This guys is special, maybe the best player in this draft. They took the best player on the board and a guy every team in the league would welcome on their roster. So I am good with that. The rest were guys we absolutely needed. You can't play a 3-4 without a NT and we don't have a single one on our roster, not one. Troup was the best one on the board when we picked him. I don't think he would have been there in the 3rd. Given Kelsay's performance and Schobel retiring, maybe, we clearly need some help with the DL. The 3-4 requires lots of LB's so we got some good prospects. We even picked up a long shot QB prospect just to have a plan "C" waiting in the wings down the road. The OL is obviously a real issue but again, you only have so many picks. We are in a rebuilding process and that is going to take more than one or two drafts.

I hate to point this out but haven't the doomsayers pretty much been right for ten years running?

Another possibility is that you simply can't fill that many holes in one draft. We are likely losing our best DE to retirement so we needed a DE. Going to a 3-4 means we had to get a NT. And Spiller was just too good to pass up. I think they will do their best to find gold in the later rounds at QB and OT but realistically, those upgrades may have to wait a year.

You forgot Mike Kafka

Mike Kafka QB

Mike Kafka, round 4. Bank it.

The first clip is really a history of how he got to Clemson, it gives you a good idea of what kind of man he is. The rest just show him embarassing one defense after another. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxkNT9IxEu8...feature=related

The guy can't even throw a spiral and you've got him half way to sainthood right out of the box. Ease up on the melodrama.

No, we dodged the next Danny Wurffel.

Hopefully, this is counter espionage, hoping to influence the people ahead of us so that someone will still be available at 9 that maybe wouldn't if everyone were convinced we were going to waste it on Tebow. If it is not then there are two problems I have with this. First, why is it that everyone seems to know our plans? Why are our people leaking like fiends to the media? Second, Tebow? At #9? Aw, C'mon they can't be serious, can they?

I hope so too but that tid bit worries me when I reason throug it. To be sure you are going to get a QB at 9, you'd have to pick a guy you know isn't going to be taken with any of the first 8 picks, i.e., a guy no one in their right minds thinks is good enough to get picked that high. That is most definitely not a description of Jimmy Clausen. Sounds to me like Tebow. You can be certain he will still be there at 9 but not Clausen. Plenty of teams ahead of us could take him, most notably Seattle and Cleveland. If they really do that, you can add it to the list of Buffalo Blunders: 1. Wide Right 2. Homerun Throw Forward 3. No goal. 4. Tim Tebow at #9

I think it is actually more than likely that no one will want to trade up to #9. Every year the board is riddled with the notion that we should trade down and almost every year, it doesn't happen because there are always more who want to trade down than who want to trade up. Its fun to speculate but I don't get it when people lambaste the team for not trading down with no idea as to whether such a move was even remotely possible.

He is but it does not follow that our people are therefore brilliant. Given the results on and off the field, I'd have to conclude that even the supefyingly dumb Mel Kiper would have made better picks.

Suicide is a crime. Aiding and abetting one, a public service in some circumstances, is also a crime.

Cousineau was a good player, just not for us. When we traded him, I think we used one of the picks from the Browns to get Jim Kelly.

I think we would be all right if we just simply took the best guy on the board at 9 who is not a DB, not a TE and not a WR. A blue chip DT, QB, OL, LB, DE would all be OK with me. What they can't afford is a total whiff of a pick. No way to be certain but the odds tip a bit against you when you start drafting need instead of BPA.

Did you see him in the Senior Bowl?? His performance was one big grimace.

Because games aren't won in the locker room. They are won on the field, with players who have the skill, talent and work ethic to compete at the highest level. Tebow is a really, really nice fella. He will make some nice girl a wonderful husband someday. His mechanics suck. His best club in the bag is his ability to run the football and he will not be able to do that in the NFL. His story is better than his game. Why on earth would we want a guy with this much doubt about his pro potential when there are guys with much less doubt about their future? There are developmental guys out there with just as much of a chance to turn into something down the road as Tebow and they will be around much later in the draft. What does that mean, "...grow with Gailey"?? These aren't puppies. How is that a reason to take Tebow over someone else? If we took Clausen or McCoy or Pike or Kafka, wouldn't they be rookies who "...grow with Gailey" too?

I think you are failing to appreciate how hard it is to hold your ground when you have a couple of human mountains trying to move you out of the way. Size and weight are not all they need to do that job. Balance and leverage are just as important to these guys as any other player. It may not seem like quickness, laterally or otherwise, would be important for them but it is. It is just hard to appreciate that because they are moving pretty slow in comparison to WR's. etc. "Tying up two blockers" is an oversimplification of what these guys are doing. In any event, a good DT, whether its a NT in a 3-4 or some other defense, is hard to find. Seems every year the DT's go earlier than predicted which is just a reflection of the value of a good DT and how hard it is to find one.

You have to find good players, not just players good enough to start given your existing roster. Wood and Levitre played ok for rookies. But they don't grade on a curve in the NFL. They were 2/5's of an offensive line that couldn't move the ball in the air or on the ground. They need to take a big step forward this year and continue to get better or we will be looking to replace them soon enough.