tennesseeboy Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Hell..I'm assuming he or stafford will in fact be available at nine and I still wouldn't take either one. We have to fix the offensive line first and foremost.
rocwocka 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. DITTO!
Orton's Arm 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? To me, only one factor plays into the decision about whether to trade up for Clausen: whether he's good enough to be a franchise QB. Whether the Bills do or don't have other needs--even on the offensive line, or at NT--doesn't play into it at all. Let me put it to another way: once a team acquires a young, franchise QB, under what circumstances would it be willing to part with him? If you had a young Peyton Manning on your team and a lousy line, would you trade Manning away for a couple offensive linemen? Would you trade him away for a nose tackle; or even a nose tackle plus a LT? If it were me, then under almost no conceivable set of circumstances would I trade that franchise QB away. Over the long term, an opportunity to acquire a franchise QB is a lot more valuable than any other single player acquisition opportunity this team may encounter. I'm not familiar enough with Clausen to know whether he's that franchise-level QB we need. But if he is, we spend whatever draft picks we need to spend to get him. Once he's on board, he should spend his rookie year on the bench. Especially if some incompetent like Bell is still manning the LT position. Rebuilding is a multi-year process. Getting our franchise QB in place would, alone, be enough of an achievement for one year.
KD in CA Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 For Clausenanyone? No. Trading up is a horrible idea that costs way too much.
bobobonators Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Trading up is a horrible idea that costs way too much. I wouldn't trade up for either QB (Bradford). There's only one player I would consider trading up for, and that would be Suh..but only if he fell to about 5 or 6...which won't happen.
JStranger76 Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 If a certain chain of events unfolds, I repeat, if a certain chain of events unfold like: Somehow a LT like Jamal Brown or Marcus McNeil are allowed to hit free agency an we land one of em'......followed by Sam Bradford being available at KC's pick #5, I would offer a 2nd rounder in NEXT years draft, I repeat once again, NEXT years draft to switch spots with the Chiefs and if they agree, make the move to get Bradford. That is pretty much the only scenario I would do a trade up in. If that or a very similar situation does not play out, then no, I stay right where we are or entertain a good trade down offer.
bobobonators Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 If a certain chain of events unfolds, I repeat, if a certain chain of events unfold like: Somehow a LT like Jamal Brown or Marcus McNeil are allowed to hit free agency an we land one of em'......followed by Sam Bradford being available at KC's pick #5, I would offer a 2nd rounder in NEXT years draft, I repeat once again, NEXT years draft to switch spots with the Chiefs and if they agree, make the move to get Bradford. That is pretty much the only scenario I would do a trade up in. If that or a very similar situation does not play out, then no, I stay right where we are or entertain a good trade down offer. Def. agree.
BYGD1 Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Trade UP for Clausen HELL NO, trade down for more picks
Bring Back Kelly Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 As of right now, you have 3 teams in front of us that very well could take a QB. St Louis, Washington & Seattle. You also have only one team at pick 3 – Tampa – that could trade down with you to guarantee getting one of the top two QB's (Clausen, Bradford) Detroit will not pick a QB so Tampa is your one shot to trade up. Washington picks at 4 and Seattle picks at 6 The Bills could Trade up to KC's pick at 5, but If St Louis and Washington take the qb's than your out of luck. Now here are the weird senerios: KC picking a QB. Dont see it happening, but Cassell really sucked last year. You never know. Cleveland picking a QB. Holmgren is in house now. He is a disciple of the West Coast system. Clausen came from a west coast pro style system. Why have the QB controversy anymore with Brady and Anderson. They both sucked. He could put his stamp on the organization with that pick. The Raiders: So far Jemarcus Russell has been a bust. Al Davis has screwed this thing up before, He could bail on Russell and get a QB. The only spot I can see the Bills trading up to is with Tampa, but There are lots of teams with more money who could trade up too. What about the Broncos, Jags, Cards, & Vikings Man I cant wait for the draft. It always seems so far away.
thewildrabbit 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.Good Idea It seems every time this franchise drafts for a certain need they end up getting burned over and over. The current highest priority would be to fix the O line and draft to build the 3-4 defense. If you think about how any QB will need to be trained into whatever offense the new HC and OC implement. There will be a learning curve for any QB, except for someone already familiar with Chan Gaileys offense. If you look at the FA pool it is very week, so that's out. If you draft a rookie you can expect at least a 2-3 year learning curve, "IF" the Bills fix the O line asap. So for my money I'd rather see the Bills build the lines and then get a QB
Wing Man Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Trading up for Bradford, sure. I'm not even sure I'd select Clausen if he fell to 9. There is a deep quarry of QBs in this draft. We could draft in round 3 or 4 and find decent material that would not be a "project." More likely, Nix and Gailey will trade down to get more picks. We have a lot of holes to fill in our new defensive structure, as has been mentioned here on the board, and they are probably right to bring in as many new players to replace the old players who have done little to inspire confidence this last decade.
BillsFan68 Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 With much hesitation, I would have to say 'Yes'. But not because I think he is a "franchise' quarterback. I think he will be a good QB, solid starter. I say trade up for the following reason: If the team actually progresses this year, as expected, then that means our draft position will drop as well. The end result will mean we will not be in drafting range of a solid QB. I personally believe this is the reason the 80s Broncos and Dolphins struggled to put a top team on the field. Elway and Marino always won enough games for their team so that they always drafted mid to late round. Not meaning to be insulting, but I think there's an influence within us, as fans, of being amateur GMs (ala Madden Football)(I am too). I think, in the real world, it' harder to be trading up/trading down. For the most part, you can't just wheel and deal. It costs too much and has too much risk. So many college players are busts (and not just in Buffalo). JMHO
oak tree 12 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. all you guys who think the bills are going to invest a top 10 pick in any of these QB's in this draft are out of your minds. mark my words nix will not take a QB @ 9!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Astrobot Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 That would be sweet. But what about the Rams? Do we know for sure that they are going with Suh? Suh or flip-flop with the Bucs is what I'm hearing.
bkc Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 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. Things would be some much different today . That said I would not trade up fro Cluassen
Orton's Arm Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Good Idea It seems every time this franchise drafts for a certain need they end up getting burned over and over. The current highest priority would be to fix the O line and draft to build the 3-4 defense. If you think about how any QB will need to be trained into whatever offense the new HC and OC implement. There will be a learning curve for any QB, except for someone already familiar with Chan Gaileys offense. If you look at the FA pool it is very week, so that's out. If you draft a rookie you can expect at least a 2-3 year learning curve, "IF" the Bills fix the O line asap. So for my money I'd rather see the Bills build the lines and then get a QB I agree with your premise--that it will likely take a rookie QB two to three years to develop. But to me, that's one more reason why it makes sense to get the quarterback sooner rather than later. (Assuming the right guy is there.) The goal is not to get good right away!! The Bills don't have the talent to be an immediate Super Bowl threat. The goal is to be as good as possible starting in two to three years, with as much young, good talent on board as possible. The Bills' window of doing something dangerous in the playoffs will open after those two to three years (if they're well-run between now and then). The only thing that matters between now and then is getting the players we'll need in two to three years' time.
Drew026 Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Absolutely not. Claussen has peaked. I'll take my chances on some guy in the mid-to later rounds, with Brohm starting this year and if things don't workout, then target a real NFL prospect like Mallet in the next draft. I cannot see Buddy Nix taking a Domer in the first round, I don't think he'd allow it much less trade up for him.
Thoner7 Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 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 was so angry the Steelers nabbed big ben. he was my draft crush that year. When we traded up for JP "who" Losman I was so furious. WHY WOULDNT YOU TRADE UP FOR BEN! I would trade up depending on how far we have to do it. IMO, there is McCoy(DT), Suh, Okung, Bradford, and Bulaga, I wouldnt consider trading up for him unless that list is very very thin - meaning one of the other guys wouldnt fall to us. If they are all long gone then yes, we need to get value at a need position, so make the trade. I predict he goes #1 overall though. I wouldnt give that much up.
Recommended Posts