Mickey Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Back in 2004, we had the 13th pick and the Steelers had the 11th. However, the Jags were picking at #9 and took WR Reggie Williams. The Steelers took Big Ben and we took Lee Evans. We traded back in to the bottom of the first round to take JP. I thought then and still think that we could have traded up with the Jags and stole Ben from the Steelers. The Jags would only have dropped from 9 to 13 and there were a lot of WR's still on the board at the time including Reggie Williams, Lee Evans, Michael Clayton and Michael Jenkins. As it was, Lee Evans made it to 13 and with us at 9 taking a QB, Reggie Williams probably would have lasted to 13 too so the Jags would probably have gotten Williams anyway despite the trade down and if they didn't, the consolation would have been Lee Evans. Now, I don't know about you but I would have had no problem at all with a trade up for Big Ben. We ended up trading up anyway and splurging on JP. I think we may face the same situation this year. We have compelling needs elsewhere, especially at OT but we may very well have a chance to trade up if we want to try and nab Jimmy Clausen. Would you do it? I am going to guess that the collective wisdom is going to be "no way" given how often people pitch the idea of a trade down. I think that idea is always attractive to us wannabee GM's because it just seems to be such a clever trick. Normally I would probably agree but not here. I am sick and tired of standing pat when draft after draft, due to our medicore records, we are just a few picks away from franchise players. Not this time. I have no problem at all trading up to get Clausen and taking my chances in finding an OT later on or in FA. Yeah, I know, a great QB on his back can't do much but a crappy QB can't do much with a good line. Take Clausen and then start building around him. That's my plan.
FluffHead Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 I love Clausen as well, but it is my opinion that he is going to be available at number 9 if we want him. I think Washington goes Bradford or Okung. The wildcard is the Seahawks...They could go QB, but I think they'll go OT or defense. I don't see CLE or OAK taking a QB, and we're next.
auburnbillsbacker Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 The bills tried but the Jags asked for the world. The Lions got a second round pick for moving back one spot (6-7), so the Jaguars figured they were due a lot of picks. It would have made a lot of sense for them to move down, even if they only received a 2nd or a 3rd. Williams would have been available at 13. It would have saved the bills. To bad GMs think are so stubborn.
WannabeGM Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 I think we have enough holes in our roster, that giving up picks to move up is unwarranted. I think that if he is there at #9 we should. I think he has the tools to succeed in Buffalo.
Bob in STL Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Back in 2004, we had the 13th pick and the Steelers had the 11th. However, the Jags were picking at #9 and took WR Reggie Williams. The Steelers took Big Ben and we took Lee Evans. We traded back in to the bottom of the first round to take JP. I thought then and still think that we could have traded up with the Jags and stole Ben from the Steelers. The Jags would only have dropped from 9 to 13 and there were a lot of WR's still on the board at the time including Reggie Williams, Lee Evans, Michael Clayton and Michael Jenkins. As it was, Lee Evans made it to 13 and with us at 9 taking a QB, Reggie Williams probably would have lasted to 13 too so the Jags would probably have gotten Williams anyway despite the trade down and if they didn't, the consolation would have been Lee Evans. Now, I don't know about you but I would have had no problem at all with a trade up for Big Ben. We ended up trading up anyway and splurging on JP. I think we may face the same situation this year. We have compelling needs elsewhere, especially at OT but we may very well have a chance to trade up if we want to try and nab Jimmy Clausen. Would you do it? I am going to guess that the collective wisdom is going to be "no way" given how often people pitch the idea of a trade down. I think that idea is always attractive to us wannabee GM's because it just seems to be such a clever trick. Normally I would probably agree but not here. I am sick and tired of standing pat when draft after draft, due to our medicore records, we are just a few picks away from franchise players. Not this time. I have no problem at all trading up to get Clausen and taking my chances in finding an OT later on or in FA. Yeah, I know, a great QB on his back can't do much but a crappy QB can't do much with a good line. Take Clausen and then start building around him. That's my plan. To me Clausen does not have the look of a Manning or Elway. I say no more trading up and no more chasing players because of needs. Why not sit tight and draft the best player at #9 and at 41. We have so many needs that chances are high that this player will fill one. If not, then trade down and get more picks.
JOHNNYFAIRPLAY Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 To me Clausen does not have the look of a Manning or Elway. I say no more trading up and no more chasing players because of needs. Why not sit tight and draft the best player at #9 and at 41. We have so many needs that chances are high that this player will fill one. If not, then trade down and get more picks. Agreed. Clausen actually sucks. You will see. And why chase players anymore? Unless you see a real uniqueness I say draft where youre slated and mold.
Mickey Posted February 16, 2010 Author Posted February 16, 2010 I love Clausen as well, but it is my opinion that he is going to be available at number 9 if we want him. I think Washington goes Bradford or Okung. The wildcard is the Seahawks...They could go QB, but I think they'll go OT or defense. I don't see CLE or OAK taking a QB, and we're next. That would be sweet. But what about the Rams? Do we know for sure that they are going with Suh?
Mickey Posted February 16, 2010 Author Posted February 16, 2010 The bills tried but the Jags asked for the world. The Lions got a second round pick for moving back one spot (6-7), so the Jaguars figured they were due a lot of picks. It would have made a lot of sense for them to move down, even if they only received a 2nd or a 3rd. Williams would have been available at 13. It would have saved the bills. To bad GMs think are so stubborn. We do have the benefit of hindsight but even so, I have a hard time thinking our people thought JP was close enough to Ben so that it was six of one...etc. Hard to tell, they trade back in the first to get him so maybe they did see him as just as good a prospect as Ben.
Bring Back Kelly Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 You first have to know a few things before making that decision. 1) Do we resign Richie Incognito? 2) Will Eric Wood be able to play at a high level next season? I can not see making that decision before knowing who is on board yet. thats a very grey area getting a QB to play without a line. plus the money it would take to sign him. If we trade up to Tampa's spot, We would have to look at what that spot has payed off over the last couple of years. and what it would take to get him signed. Our line is a mess right now. Do you think Clausen will want to play on a bad line? He might if the money is right. Is Demetrious Bell starting material. I still don't think so. He may be a good fill in guy, but I don't think he is there yet. I know a lot of people hate Incognito, but I thought he did a great job. We have to know who is on board first before going after the QB. Another glaring need is the prototype Nose Tacke. We just switched to a 3-4, That is a huge position. You need the right guy to fill it. Where do you get that guy?
Mickey Posted February 16, 2010 Author Posted February 16, 2010 I think we have enough holes in our roster, that giving up picks to move up is unwarranted. I think that if he is there at #9 we should. I think he has the tools to succeed in Buffalo. Yeah but that notion is really just the old "draft for need" theory. I agree, we have needs, lots of them but I think Clausen is a combo of need and best available. There are certainly plenty of arguments out there that in the first round, you always go best available, never need.
Mickey Posted February 16, 2010 Author Posted February 16, 2010 To me Clausen does not have the look of a Manning or Elway. I say no more trading up and no more chasing players because of needs. Why not sit tight and draft the best player at #9 and at 41. We have so many needs that chances are high that this player will fill one. If not, then trade down and get more picks. Because a solid QB is essential, almost no one is winning without one. The drafts we have had over the last 5-6 years were drafts where we stood pat with our first pick and didn't trade up just as you recommend. That didn't work out so well.
Hey Hey Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 I love Clausen as well, but it is my opinion that he is going to be available at number 9 if we want him. I think Washington goes Bradford or Okung. The wildcard is the Seahawks...They could go QB, but I think they'll go OT or defense. I don't see CLE or OAK taking a QB, and we're next. I doubt he's there at 9. Were going to have to make a move is Clausen is wearing a BILLS uniform this year. We cant give the farm away but we need to get him. We cant have these candy ass QB's anymore.
Mickey Posted February 16, 2010 Author Posted February 16, 2010 You first have to know a few things before making that decision. 1) Do we resign Richie Incognito? 2) Will Eric Wood be able to play at a high level next season? I can not see making that decision before knowing who is on board yet. thats a very grey area getting a QB to play without a line. plus the money it would take to sign him. If we trade up to Tampa's spot, We would have to look at what that spot has payed off over the last couple of years. and what it would take to get him signed. Our line is a mess right now. Do you think Clausen will want to play on a bad line? He might if the money is right. Is Demetrious Bell starting material. I still don't think so. He may be a good fill in guy, but I don't think he is there yet. I know a lot of people hate Incognito, but I thought he did a great job. We have to know who is on board first before going after the QB. Another glaring need is the prototype Nose Tacke. We just switched to a 3-4, That is a huge position. You need the right guy to fill it. Where do you get that guy? That would all be great but we aren't going to know about Wood until training camp next year. Come draft day, we are going to have to make the best decisions we can based on the information we have, not the info we would like to have. We just missed out on Big Ben and it has set this franchise back 6 years. If Clausen is a franchise QB and we came out of this draft with nothing but that, a quality franchise QB, it would be successful. This rebuilding effort is not going to be done in one offseason. I think quality OL are easier to find than franchise QB's so I think that if we have a chance to get one now (a big "if"), we should take it and not quibble over losing an extra pick or having to pay a high salary.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 I have a feeling that Nix is going to do everything in his power not to replicate the mistakes of the past GM's. I wouldn't be surprised if he traded down from #9 and was more into stockpiling mode re picks.
Bring Back Kelly Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 That would all be great but we aren't going to know about Wood until training camp next year. Come draft day, we are going to have to make the best decisions we can based on the information we have, not the info we would like to have. We just missed out on Big Ben and it has set this franchise back 6 years. If Clausen is a franchise QB and we came out of this draft with nothing but that, a quality franchise QB, it would be successful. This rebuilding effort is not going to be done in one offseason. I think quality OL are easier to find than franchise QB's so I think that if we have a chance to get one now (a big "if"), we should take it and not quibble over losing an extra pick or having to pay a high salary. I agree 100% but you have to be sold on the guy. There have been a ton of QB busts and those busts put a franchise back. We should have traded up to get Big Ben. I said it back than and I was hoping it would be him. then we traded up to get Losman. Hell I would have sat in the same position in the second round and grabbed Matt Schaub. We screwed the pooch on that draft. Is Clausen the guy? He ran a west coast offense. Don't know what ours will be yet, but I like his accuracy and his strength. You know who had great accuracy and great strength coming out of Tulane. JP Losman. Both these guys are cocky and had great college stats. But will Clausen be the next JP. It's tricky drafting a QB. Big Ben came from a small college. Nobody thought he would be as good as he has been. I thought he was worth a chance and he was. I think LeFevour is worth that chance too. You can get him later and cheaper. Just like Schaub He will be drafted later than he should be.
John from Riverside Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 I am against trading up from the 9 under any circumstances........either there is a player there that can help us or we trade down......because there are going to be players LATER in the first round that can help us It is my opinion that Baluga, Clausen, or Bradford are going to be there at 9
OkieBillsFan Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 I'd draft Clausen if he fell to the 4th round maybe
Albany,n.y. Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 If the Bills scouts, including Buddy, have a franchise QB rating on either Bradford or Clausen, including their opinion he can play in Buffalo's weather, my answer is they must trade up.
Peter Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Back in 2004, we had the 13th pick and the Steelers had the 11th. However, the Jags were picking at #9 and took WR Reggie Williams. The Steelers took Big Ben and we took Lee Evans. We traded back in to the bottom of the first round to take JP. I thought then and still think that we could have traded up with the Jags and stole Ben from the Steelers. The Jags would only have dropped from 9 to 13 and there were a lot of WR's still on the board at the time including Reggie Williams, Lee Evans, Michael Clayton and Michael Jenkins. As it was, Lee Evans made it to 13 and with us at 9 taking a QB, Reggie Williams probably would have lasted to 13 too so the Jags would probably have gotten Williams anyway despite the trade down and if they didn't, the consolation would have been Lee Evans. Now, I don't know about you but I would have had no problem at all with a trade up for Big Ben. We ended up trading up anyway and splurging on JP. I think we may face the same situation this year. We have compelling needs elsewhere, especially at OT but we may very well have a chance to trade up if we want to try and nab Jimmy Clausen. Would you do it? I am going to guess that the collective wisdom is going to be "no way" given how often people pitch the idea of a trade down. I think that idea is always attractive to us wannabee GM's because it just seems to be such a clever trick. Normally I would probably agree but not here. I am sick and tired of standing pat when draft after draft, due to our medicore records, we are just a few picks away from franchise players. Not this time. I have no problem at all trading up to get Clausen and taking my chances in finding an OT later on or in FA. Yeah, I know, a great QB on his back can't do much but a crappy QB can't do much with a good line. Take Clausen and then start building around him. That's my plan. I would have traded up for Big Ben. (At the time, there was a lot of talk that the Bills were very interested in drafting him). I would stay away from Clausen.
HurlyBurly51 Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Agreed. Clausen actually sucks. You will see. And why chase players anymore? Unless you see a real uniqueness I say draft where youre slated and mold. +1 I have a feeling that Nix is going to do everything in his power not to replicate the mistakes of the past GM's. I wouldn't be surprised if he traded down from #9 and was more into stockpiling mode re picks. Agreed. In addition to not giving up the farm to move up, he especially won't do it for one year wonders.
Recommended Posts