Kiper 1st mock

[billsfan89]

okung or davis. Clausen wouldn't be any better than TE or RF given our existing offensive line. I think Davis will fall to us. I would be absolutely stunned if Okung did, but would seriously consider trading up for him. Time to get this offensive line into a position that will work for us.

 

At pick 9 you rarely get a chance to get a top QB like Clausen. To me Clausen has franchise QB written all over him. I doubt he will be there at pick 9 but if you look at who is ahead of us the only team that might take Clausen ahead of us is Seattle.

 

Washington will likely take Bradford (If reports are to be believed), St.Louis will take Suh, Detroit and Cleveland both have young QB's in Stafford and Quinn. Oakland could also take him but they draft so far off the board so who knows about them. KC is likely going to stick with Matt Cassel for at least another year.

 

However if Seattle passes on Clausen and Oakland drafts off the board we might just have a shot at Clausen but it all depends on what Seattle decides to do.

[Bills Fan in MD]

In related news, Claussen is spending the day lobbying the NCAA to change their eligibility rules to allow underclassmen to withdraw their names from the NFL draft (as is the case for the NBA draft) . . .

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Chandler#81]

I don't know about his 1st and/or 2nd best receivers being lost to injury, but Golden Tate is 1st round material IMO. Whats' he? The 3rd best receiver @ ND?

 

Can't put my fiinger on it, but Clausen's a dweeb. We've had too many of them. All have failed.

 

Pass on him.

[Endless Ike]

I don't know about his 1st and/or 2nd best receivers being lost to injury, but Golden Tate is 1st round material IMO. Whats' he? The 3rd best receiver @ ND?

 

Can't put my fiinger on it, but Clausen's a dweeb. We've had too many of them. All have failed.

 

Pass on him.

 

He's a dweeb? Take it easy, Ogre

[Bills Fan in MD]

I don't know about his 1st and/or 2nd best receivers being lost to injury, but Golden Tate is 1st round material IMO. Whats' he? The 3rd best receiver @ ND?

 

Can't put my fiinger on it, but Clausen's a dweeb. We've had too many of them. All have failed.

 

Pass on him.

 

Can't put your finger on it? This may help.

 

http://www.collegegameballs.com/2007/09/21...ke-brady-quinn/

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

I think this is a strong possibility. Given Chan's strength at developing QB's this would make a lot of sense.

 

 

I am not trying to poke here, has Chan developed NFL QB's?

[Meark]

I am shocked anyone wants to draft a QB in the first round.. good god people.. we can't even keep a QB upright long enough to throw a pass more than 10 yards most of the time. Can we please address the OL in the first round? I am not a Trent Edwards fan, but how good could this guy have been with a solid line in front of him? The guy is gun shy from getting crushed every damn play. Games are won in the trenches.. The OL and DL are the most important components of a winning team. We haven't had a decent O line in over 10 years! I am ok with our D line.. but we also need LB's bad!

 

If it were up to me I would probably spend all of my draft picks on OL and LB's!! LOL

 

#1 LT

#2 LB

#3 RT

[Orton's Arm]

I am shocked anyone wants to draft a QB in the first round.. good god people.. we can't even keep a QB upright long enough to throw a pass more than 10 yards most of the time. Can we please address the OL in the first round? I am not a Trent Edwards fan, but how good could this guy have been with a solid line in front of him? The guy is gun shy from getting crushed every damn play. Games are won in the trenches.. The OL and DL are the most important components of a winning team. We haven't had a decent O line in over 10 years! I am ok with our D line.. but we also need LB's bad!

 

If it were up to me I would probably spend all of my draft picks on OL and LB's!! LOL

 

#1 LT

#2 LB

#3 RT

Think of the Ravens' offense of 2000. They had Jon Ogden at LT--one of the best OLs to ever play the game. They had an overall good to excellent OL! They had Jamal Lewis and his ridiculously high number of rushing yards.

 

Yet that offense went five straight games without scoring a touchdown.

 

A good offense isn't just about having a good OL, any more than it's just about having a good QB. You need both. The Bills have neither.

 

The hardest and most critical position to fill is QB. If there's a franchise QB waiting for us at #9, we should take him. If not, then we look to see if there's a LT worthy of the 9th overall pick. Choice #3 is either RT or DL. After that it might be time to start thinking about either a trade-down, a WR, a LB, or some other option. But not a DB or RB!! I mean that!

 

Obviously, if we go with a QB at #9, he's going to need better protection than we gave our QBs in 2009. That starts with a LT. We could either take one in the second round, or use our 2nd and 3rd round picks to trade back into the late first and grab one there.

[VanCity]

Jim Kelly's latest quote about quarterbacks says it all ...

 

"You don't need a big-name quarterback, you need a quarterback who could play, period," Kelly said. "It's doing your homework, sitting down with whomever it might be, and having it in your mind: `Will this guy fit in Buffalo, New York,' not somewhere in the NFL, but Buffalo."

 

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Gailey...tarting-QB.html

 

What does that actually say? That is about as vague as can be. Does it mean we need a cold weather guy? A big strong armed guy? A guy who realizes his O line isn't going to stop a DII defense? Kelly is great. All the respect in the world to him, but he isn't really saying much in that quote.

[Maefster88]

Jim Kelly's latest quote about quarterbacks says it all ...

 

"You don't need a big-name quarterback, you need a quarterback who could play, period," Kelly said. "It's doing your homework, sitting down with whomever it might be, and having it in your mind: `Will this guy fit in Buffalo, New York,' not somewhere in the NFL, but Buffalo."

 

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Gailey...tarting-QB.html

 

If the Bills followed this strategy in 1983, Kelly wouldn't even be the team mascot he has become today. (Still love ya Jimbo) But he is living proof, maybe even the best example humanly possible that the new Quarterback doesn't have to be a Buffalo guy so to speak.

[The Poojer]

while i do not pretend to know what kelly is really trying to say, i would like to think it means someone with a 'blue collar' attitude and i think kelly was exactly that....i think ben r. is also that type....i don't think tebow is, i think he is like peyton manning...very cerebral....don't know who out there does have that kind of mentality...my uneducated instincts would lead me to think lefevour(sp) is that kind of guy....

 

If the Bills followed this strategy in 1983, Kelly wouldn't even be the team mascot he has become today. (Still love ya Jimbo) But he is living proof, maybe even the best example humanly possible that the new Quarterback doesn't have to be a Buffalo guy so to speak.

[Guest three3]

clausen

[Meark]

Think of the Ravens' offense of 2000. They had Jon Ogden at LT--one of the best OLs to ever play the game. They had an overall good to excellent OL! They had Jamal Lewis and his ridiculously high number of rushing yards.

 

Yet that offense went five straight games without scoring a touchdown.

 

A good offense isn't just about having a good OL, any more than it's just about having a good QB. You need both. The Bills have neither.

 

The hardest and most critical position to fill is QB. If there's a franchise QB waiting for us at #9, we should take him. If not, then we look to see if there's a LT worthy of the 9th overall pick. Choice #3 is either RT or DL. After that it might be time to start thinking about either a trade-down, a WR, a LB, or some other option. But not a DB or RB!! I mean that!

 

Obviously, if we go with a QB at #9, he's going to need better protection than we gave our QBs in 2009. That starts with a LT. We could either take one in the second round, or use our 2nd and 3rd round picks to trade back into the late first and grab one there.

 

No offense intended, but the Ravens also won the Superbowl in 2001 with Trent Dilfer so you point seems a little moot!

[bartshan-83]

Alright, well I did also watch much if not every game the past 3 seasons. I will admit, I did not jot down any of the bad decisions he continually made. Soooooooo you got me there.

 

He's such a stud that:

 

1. The HC was canned for 1 awful season after the next....Stud didnt save him.

2. He got punched in the face, at his own school, by an ND fan.....Stud play didnt save him there.

3. ND is considered a joke in the college football world.....Stud play didnt save face for the program.

 

All the physical tools in the world dont mean anything without a brain to tell them what to do. I.E. Losman.

 

Im just saying I disagree with you here, who knows, he may get drafted and blow it out...Im just saying I think he stinks and dont want him anynear this city.

Fair enough...everyone has their opinion. But basing it on him not being able to save a bad coach's job, getting sucker punched and playing for a certain team makes about as much sense as not liking him for his spiked hair. And don't tell me you watched every game this past year.

 

Losman he aint. Brady Quinn he aint.

[billsfaningeneseo]

A good offense isn't just about having a good OL, any more than it's just about having a good QB. You need both. The Bills have neither.

 

The hardest and most critical position to fill is QB. If there's a franchise QB waiting for us at #9, we should take him. If not, then we look to see if there's a LT worthy of the 9th overall pick.

 

The problem with that outlook is that you will NEVER get everyone on this board to agree if X quarterback is the franchise QB we need. Some people are going to be pissed no matter who we take. I agree we need a QB, and I agree we need some help on the line (though I think we are relatively close there--probably a solid LT and some depth away).

[Tasmo]

The problem with that outlook is that you will NEVER get everyone on this board to agree if X quarterback is the franchise QB we need. Some people are going to be pissed no matter who we take. I agree we need a QB, and I agree we need some help on the line (though I think we are relatively close there--probably a solid LT and some depth away).

 

 

Yeah, its the chicken or the egg kind of problem. Line or QB? QB or line?

 

I think Nix knows a QB when he sees one and Gailey will know what to do with him to get him on track. Just hope the line can stay healthy and work together for a season to develop some chemistry regardless of who is who..

[bartshan-83]

Yeah, its the chicken or the egg kind of problem. Line or QB? QB or line?

I think Polian said it best (and I hope I'm not misquoting him...my memory gets clouded sometimes):

 

First you need a QB. Then you need someone to protect the QB. Then you need someone to rush the QB.

 

If you believe there is a franchise QB and franchise LT on the table, I think you always take the QB.

 

You grab your signal caller and then you build a wall around him. Aaron Rodgers was plastered like a fat kid in dodgeball this past year. Still threw for 4500 and 30 TDs. Pack went 11-5.

 

JMO...

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

No offense intended, but the Ravens also won the Superbowl in 2001 with Trent Dilfer so you point seems a little mute!

 

 

Actually, it was that very same 2000 in which they went on that TD drought, which helps your case.

 

What hurts it, however, is your use of "mute" when you meant "moot."

[justnzane]

Actually, it was that very same 2000 in which they went on that TD drought, which helps your case.

 

What hurts it, however, is your use of "mute" when you meant "moot."

 

C'mon, the Super Bowl itself was in 2001 as he likely meant. But I agree with his point that the Ravens won the SB despite QB because they had a great D and a pretty darn good OL with a hot rookie running back that eventually ran for 2000 in a season.

 

OTOH, probably the worst OL to make the Super Bowl the last 20 years was last years Cardinals, but were able to get around that because Warner was an established QB that has a quick release. Even so, they had 2 high picks used on that line. If Warner retires, I can easily predict that Cards will fall apart due to a young QB not having great protection.

[Meark]

Actually, it was that very same 2000 in which they went on that TD drought, which helps your case.

 

What hurts it, however, is your use of "mute" when you meant "moot."

 

Ah yes, moot.. I stand corrected.. and fixed!