Cash

So you don't need a Manning/Brees type if everything else is great? But I watched the Super Bowl last year, and I'm pretty sure that Manning and Brees were the starting QBs in that game. I'm also pretty sure that neither one played behind a particularly good LT. Bushrod got completely abused by Schobel when they played us this year, and while Schobel is pretty good, he's not exactly wreaking havoc with the opposing LT every week. And the Colts' LT in the Super Bowl, whose name escapes me at the moment, was only starting because Tony Ugoh flamed out so spectacularly. Those same playoffs that you're pointing to just show how much more important QB is than LT. Even with the best defense in the NFL, arguably the best O-line in the NFL (certainly right up there), and the best running game in the NFL, the Jets weren't able to make the Super Bowl, much less win it (not to mention they went 9-7 in the regular season, and that's including the two freebie wins against the Colts/Bengals backups). Why? Because Sanchez wasn't ready yet, and didn't deliver very good play from the QB position. Note that in both playoff games that the Jets won, Sanchez played very well. It's not a coincidence that Sanchez's play served as a good barometer for the success of the Jets.

Well done!

So let me get this straight: We trade McGahee for two 3rd-rounders and a 7, then pick Marshawn at #12 to replace him. Three years later, we trade Marshawn for ??? (maybe a 3rd-rounder? Maybe Peterson - a solid starter on the downside of his career) and draft CJ Spiller at #9 to replace him. And this is supposed to be a good thing? Where are all the people who scream about how we can't even consider taking a QB until we have 5 all-pros on the O-line? That argument's even STRONGER when applied to RBs. And Spiller is a "luxury" type player, the kind of guy who really succeeds when you've got a strong team with a good foundation, and a guy like Spiller (or Percy Harvin last year) can just come in and make a few big plays in a limited role. Does that sound like our team? Gah! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! People, RB is the quickest-developing position, and also the one with the shortest shelf life. QB is usually the slowest-developing, and can have one of the longest shelf lives. The O-line as a whole typically takes a year or two to perform at a high level, because of the level of cohesion and familiarity required amongst the 5 members. So it is absolute stupidity for a team like the Bills, who have neither a good QB nor a good O-line, nor a good defense, to take an undersized RB at #9 overall.

Competent play at the QB position. Nothing more, nothing less. Although more would be needed to move up from just "good." Keep in mind that it's generally pretty tough to get competent QB play without competent OL play, although it's been done on occasion.

How DARE he criticize our team that hasn't made the playoffs for 10 straight years! Doesn't he know that all of those years were flukes!?

Is this a second-order troll? If so, I'm very impressed.

You clearly have never seen Edwards play... admit it. If you liked the 4-yard checkdown on 4th and 22 or if you enjoyed the 3 first-quarter picks vs the Browns then you will love Edwards as a for sure starter. Just teasing you, but the point is that Campbell, as crappy to mediocre as he is, is nonetheless a significant upgrade over last year's starter.

I'd be fine with both. That way, Clausen wouldn't have to start until the line was ready.

Don't like it. Sure, you see his 40 time (3.04) and think he's a burner, but he's gotta sit still revving up for so long, he'll be tackled in the backfield like every other play. Maybe he can play WR, but for the backfield, I'll take someone with less total speed, but better acceleration. Maybe Pac-Man. Dude can perform 90 degree (or even 180 degree) turns at speed without slowing down at all. If we can teach him to turn at other angles besides those two, he could be a really nifty back. The only downside is a possible PED suspension. Those power pellets must have some banned substances in them.

Unfortunately for us, offensive-minded head coaches tend to focus on defense at the top of their drafts (and vice-versa). Whether explicit or implicit, the belief is that their knowledge/scheme/expertise will fix that side of the ball without needing talent, whereas they don't have that kind of confidence on the other side of the ball. If that's how it plays out in Buffalo, we're in for a long and unpleasant ride. Offenses in general take longer to fix/come together than defenses. Plus, the two most important (and not coincidentally, hardest to find) positions are both on offense. If you have neither a QB nor an LT (just like us!), it might take you several years to get quality players in place at both of those positions. Without a quality QB, you're guaranteed to go nowhere. Without a quality LT, there's a possibility of going somewhere (Mike Gandy = Super Bowl Starter), but it's mighty tough. So the sensible thing to do would be to focus on getting the offense ready to go, and while it gels, start fixing the defense. Hopefully, both of them come together at the same time and you win a Super Bowl. If, however, we wind up with a D-focused offseason, there's basically two likely scenarios: 1.) The focus on shoring up the overhauled defense worked! Now we're back up to the 7-8 win range, can't make the playoffs, and can't draft a franchise QB. Hopefully another McNabb will come available on the trade market while the D is still good. 2.) The moves on D failed. Now we're down to the 2-4 win range, and are continuing to start from scratch. The only saving grace is that it's extremely rare for a new regime to not bring in its own QB. Especially when the incumbents are so horrible. And if you bring in a QB, which means either Jason Campbell or a rookie at this point, you have to then worry about LT so you don't get your guy killed. After that's done, you can worry more about the D. Of course, there are two problems with the conventional wisdom here: A.) The Bills have demonstrated in recent years that they are anything but conventional. Unfortunately, it's pretty fair to lump us in with the Raiders these days, because both franchises make inexplicable moves that leave the casual fan scratching his head. And most of those moves fail, which is why neither team has made the playoffs any time recently. B.) Despite their "eccentricities" as a franchise, the Bills will probably adhere to the conventional wisdom this time, and the Nix/Gailey regime will bring in its own QB. But it will probably be Tim Tebow. Wow, that post wound up being very long and surprisingly cathartic. Let's hope I'm wrong. Go Bills!

Bruce Campbell.

Worst mock draft format ever. To find out who your team mock picked, just sit through a 15-second ad, then another 15 seconds of "with the XX pick in the NFL draft, the Wherever Whatevers select...", and then you'll know. And to find out who they "passed up", just do the same for every team in front of them! That's much better than just putting the name somewhere where you can read it.

Clausen strikes me as Philip Rivers 2.0. Doth abject d-bags that fans of every other team will totally hate, both float their deep balls, both really good.

Bingo! I'm very upset about the move, because it means the end of my draft attendance.

"Over 23 starters"? So... 24?

Al will pick Bruce Campbell. I've got money on it. My concern is that I expect 2 major things to differ from your projection. First, after the Corey Williams trade, I think the Lions will go with Okung. Second, I don't see Shanahan passing on Clausen no matter who's there. He traded up to get Jay Cutler when he still had Jake Plummer playing well. Right now, he's got Jason Campbell playing mediocre, and he's only got Campbell for 1 year, anyway.

I don't know where you get your info, but everyone I knew thought the Vikings were one player away, as long as it was a QB. That was a loaded team helmed by crappy QBs (prior to Favre) for several years. They were making the playoffs in spite of dreadful play from their QBs.

Ugh. If that's true, it's like the Bills are trying to be as unwatchable as possible. What, the offense was so great last year that we can afford to sign no significant free agents (no, Cornell Green is not significant), and also go defense at the top of the draft?

Yeah, if they let some fan run the show, they'd probably miss the playoffs for like 10 straight years and turn into a laughingstock. Good thing we've got the pros in the front office, so that won't happen.

I think they are, but I don't know if they realize it or not. If they were conceding 2010 on purpose, they'd probably have ditched guys like Kelsay & Whitner already. Also, they'd probably be bringing in free agents in their 20s, not their 30s.

Realistically, if you draft a guy in the 3rd, you're looking at a guy who will be a bad backup, but who (you hope) can develop into a good backup, or if you get lucky, a good starter. Matt Schaub is sort of the archetypal "hit" in the 3rd round. Sat on the bench behind a franchise guy for a few years, showed some promise in reserve action, traded to a QB-needy team where he became the starter, took a couple of years as starter to figure it out. Keep in mind that Schaub's one of the great *successes* of the 3rd round. Most 3rd-round QBs don't do that well. In other words, I don't think a 3rd-rounder should do much of anything to affect our prioritization of the QB position. If one were available in the first round in 2011, grab him without hesitation. If one became available in trade at a reasonable price, grab him without hesitation. I'm not confident that the Bills agree with me, because I've lost all confidence in that organization's football-related judgment. Ten years without the playoffs is not a coincidence, it's a sign of gross incompetence. They'll need to earn back my confidence, and only winning will do that.

Here's my problem with Skelton: He measured in at around 6-5, 240 at the combine, and everyone agrees he's got a rocket arm. So why isn't he projected anywhere near the first round? When a guy has all the measurables but still isn't projected high, that worries me. NFL scouts aren't stupid. I have no problem taking a flyer on a late-round guy, there's always a chance he'll pan out, but it's crazy to pass up more feasible options because we think we've got a franchise guy available in the 5th round.

Then why do they keep coming back to watch a loser every year?

My main thought is that using #9 on a NT would be an abject fiasco when we have neither a QB nor an O-line. Yes nose tackles are hard to find, but they're easier to find than QBs or LTs. In today's NFL, 1st priority is to have a QB. (Fail.) 2nd priority is to protect that QB. (Fail.) Defense comes next.

Uh, McNabb went #2 overall. Tim Couch went #1 to the Browns, Akili Smith #3 to the Bungles, Cade McNown #8 to the Bears, and Daunte Culpepper 10 or 11 to the Vikings. Two out of five. Labeling Palmer a bust? That's pretty harsh. Dude's made multiple Pro Bowls. Correct. Probably correct, although a lot can change between now and late April. Nope, you go to the #2 priority, which is LT. If there's no LT's with a first-round grade, then you go to priority #3, which is probably BPA at that point. Can we retire this strawman please? Nobody thinks that drafting a guy in the first round magically makes him a first-round talent. We'd all throw up if Colt McCoy is the pick at #9, don't worry. Then don't mention it. The facts are that QBs from the 3rd round or later bust well over 90% of the time. 2nd-rounders bust about 75% of the time, and even 1st-rounders bust over 60% of the time. If Bradford or Clausen falls to us, there's no guarantee it solves our QB problem. It's just the best bet. The problem here is that we all remember every first-round bust and every late-round/undrafted success. But we never hear of the vast, vast, vast majority of late-round/undrafted failures. So we underrate first-rounders and overrate late-rounders. Another thing to keep in mind is that even when a first-rounder busts, he doesn't always pull a Ryan Leaf or Akili Smith. Byron Leftwich was a serviceable starter for a few years before he was bitten by a radioactive fat guy and turned into Byron Sandwich. Alex Smith was actually a decent starter for the 49ers last year (although his case is a MAJOR exception - usually he'd have been cut before last year). Jason Campbell is a mediocre QB. Disappointing for a first-rounder, but still just good enough not to kill his team. Even the Dragon Twins, JP and Sexy Rexy, each had one fairly competent year as a full-time starter. That's actually false. Seriously, go through every "highly performing" QB in the league. You can define "highly performing" however you want, and you can still count Kurt Warner. First-rounders will probably make up over half of them (11 of 19 under my definition, e.g.). And that's first round against the combined might of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and legions of undrafted free agents. The first round just has a much higher success rate. That's why it's wise to jump on a first-round QB when you get the chance, because there aren't many of them. Now this I agree with 100%, and I think that's a good note to go out on.