Been giving this a lot of thought....and I am a OL guy and

[thebandit27]

Nice come back retard. "Turn off your caps lock off". Your point is ridiculous and irrelevant. WHO CARES?!?!?!?! Rookie QBs drafted in the first 10 picks start. END OF STORY!!! You are a sad little man trying to win some pitiful moral victory saying rookie's play due to need not money. Thanks for trying to magnify a small component of my main point that top 10 rookie QBs do start in their first year and claim victory. Not going to try to let you shift the battle field.

 

Again....rookie top 10 pick QBs play... got that? ....Nothing to refute on THAT statement. Go ahead maybe you can win by trying to point out a spelling error or lack of proper punctuation. Something equally as meaningless.

 

You must be a riot to work with in the real world.

 

I went so far as to edit my post with the links to your reasoning as to why rookies play (money, which is what you said).

 

Pay attention dude, you are the one that said that rookies play because of money, I simply pointed out that no, indeed, they do not. They play when they're needed, and was very clear about it.

 

If that bothers you, then seek help. Calling me a retard and typing in all caps isn't going to make your point stronger. It wasn't a comeback, it was just some simple advice to keep you from sounding any more like a neanderthal than you already do.

[Mickey]

IF he falls to us at 9

 

There is just something about him I really like.......Sam Bradford is my guy.

 

Then we look at a guy like the OT from USC in the 2nd round.

 

I would have no problem with Bradford. I recall many years ago a college player who had awesome talent, great numbers and great intangibles but because of a serious injury that temporarily derailed him, teams shied away from him in the draft and he dropped all the way into the second round. Thus, we were able to pick Thurman Thomas. That was then and this is now but still, I'm just sayin'.

 

Bradford would have been a very high pick last year and other than the injury, he is basically the same player. If the docs clear him, we'd be lucky to have him. Like any QB in the draft, he is a crapshoot and frankly, I think Clausen is a better pick more on a hunch than anything else. But Bradford has intangibles that are every bit as off the charts as Tebow's plus he reads defenses, plus he has good mechanics, plus he has a stronger arm...etc, etc.

 

The one chance I think we might have for him to drop to 9 is if his workouts don't go well. He isn't going to throw at the combine so unless and until he throws at his pro day or at some other time before the draft to prove his shoulder is good to go, there will be doubts that could easily translate to a draft drop from which we might benefit.

 

What scenario do you see where we would have a shot at Bradford?

[PDaDdy]

You must be a riot to work with in the real world.

 

I went so far as to edit my post with the links to your reasoning as to why rookies play (money, which is what you said).

 

Pay attention dude, you are the one that said that rookies play because of money, I simply pointed out that no, indeed, they do not. They play when they're needed, and was very clear about it.

 

If that bothers you, then seek help. Calling me a retard and typing in all caps isn't going to make your point stronger. It wasn't a comeback, it was just some simple advice to keep you from sounding any more like a neanderthal than you already do.

 

I got the point you were trying to make for a moral victory. It's pretty much worthless and an attempt to change the battle field and argue a point that is so minuscule in comparison. THE point is the fact that regardless of reason rookie top 10 QBs play. I assume you will continue to ignore that part of my post which is 99% of my point because you can't dispute it.

 

Try to dispute that fact. Show some integrity! Let's all learn something and get to the real truths and facts instead of trying to pick out absurd points to try to win an argument. THE point is that the crowd that advocates getting a top 10 QB to sit for a year or 2 is unrealistic because it is a fantasy and it doesn't happen.

[K-9]

IF the fact that Kelly played in the USFL isn't lost on you and you realize the UNIQUE set of circumstances and events that surrounded Kelly you would realize that trying to use this case to prove your point is ridiculous. As another poster said....let's draft Bradford or Claussen and create a new league that he can play in for 3 years while we put together a line AND ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP SOME COHESION then we are talking. These ridiculous hypothetics are just silly and show how desperate some are and buy into the QB as the savior mentality. You need a good if not great one agreed. Not realizing that there is no way a #9 pick QB sits the bench for a couple years is just naive and wishful thinking.

 

Why do you always insist in reading more into my posts than is actually there? What point do you think I'm trying to prove? There is no point to prove here. You seem to be continuing your debate with others on the matter in your response to my post. My opinion on the matter is that the Bills have so many needs that they can probably take BPA AND fill a critical need at the same time. QB, OL, DL, LB. Whatever.

 

No QB is a savior. Every QB needs a strong surrounding cast, especially along the OLine, especially at LT, assuming a right-handed QB. Of course a QB picked at #9 would have to come in and play right away. Of course he wouldn't have had the benefit of playing pro football and learning to read defenses for a couple seasons like Kelly did. I was simply pointing out, like I have in the past on many occassions, that Kelly's USFL experience benefitted him greatly and that I question whether he would have turned into the QB he became if he WAS forced to start from day on in '83. That has NOTHING to do with selecting a QB this year at all. Anyone that would expect a rookie QB to come in and be as good as Kelly was in '86 is in for a big letdown.

 

But, all things being equal, if you have a chance to take what YOU and your FO perceive to be a franchise QB, you take him. It's that simple and every GM and coach knows that. I don't know WHAT the Bills' FO is thinking about this year's top QBs. If they have an OLmen rated higher, they'll take the OLman. I don't know if Bradford or Clausen are going to be any good at the next level, let alone saviors. Nobody does. Hell, Blackledge, Eason, and O'Brien were ALL taken before Kelly in '03 so go figure.

 

I'm glad you brought up cohesion. When Kelly arrived in '86, we only had three parts of what was to become that great line. Two of whom were playing in their first year in the NFL, one of which had never played pro ball at all. It would be four seasons before we had all the parts assembled and strong cohesion was built. But Kelly served notice immediately that he was a GREAT QB in '86, regardless of the lack of talent surrounding him.

 

Taking a franchise QB when you can isn't some new paradigm. Assembling a team is not a linear process to begin with. But if it were, if you were building a team from scratch, you would take a great QB first and foremost. That's directly from the book according to Polian. His order of positional importance is:

 

1.) QB

2.) LT

3.) DE

4.) RB

5.) WR

 

He's listed the reasons for this order but since I've posted it countless times the last dozen years or so there is no need to go into it again.

 

Let me ask a simple question: If you were starting a franchise and you had your choice between selecting the greatest QB of all time or the greatest OLman of all time, who would you choose? Please keep in mind that only one of those positions handles the ball on EVERY play and MUST make intelligent decisions with it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JStranger76]

Mickey, the only shot we have at Bradford is if he is unable to throw before the draft. Just like you said. That is probably the only scenario. I will happily just watch the game film and hope some other teams overthink the situation. Even if Bradford can only throw a little bit at the firsst minicamp, let the shoulder heal properly and the wait will be worth it.

[PDaDdy]

Why do you always insist in reading more into my posts than is actually there? What point do you think I'm trying to prove? There is no point to prove here. You seem to be continuing your debate with others on the matter in your response to my post. My opinion on the matter is that the Bills have so many needs that they can probably take BPA AND fill a critical need at the same time. QB, OL, DL, LB. Whatever.

 

No QB is a savior. Every QB needs a strong surrounding cast, especially along the OLine, especially at LT, assuming a right-handed QB. Of course a QB picked at #9 would have to come in and play right away. Of course he wouldn't have had the benefit of playing pro football and learning to read defenses for a couple seasons like Kelly did. I was simply pointing out, like I have in the past on many occassions, that Kelly's USFL experience benefitted him greatly and that I question whether he would have turned into the QB he became if he WAS forced to start from day on in '83. That has NOTHING to do with selecting a QB this year at all. Anyone that would expect a rookie QB to come in and be as good as Kelly was in '86 is in for a big letdown.

 

But, all things being equal, if you have a chance to take what YOU and your FO perceive to be a franchise QB, you take him. It's that simple and every GM and coach knows that. I don't know WHAT the Bills' FO is thinking about this year's top QBs. If they have an OLmen rated higher, they'll take the OLman. I don't know if Bradford or Clausen are going to be any good at the next level, let alone saviors. Nobody does. Hell, Blackledge, Eason, and O'Brien were ALL taken before Kelly in '03 so go figure.

 

I'm glad you brought up cohesion. When Kelly arrived in '86, we only had three parts of what was to become that great line. Two of whom were playing in their first year in the NFL, one of which had never played pro ball at all. It would be four seasons before we had all the parts assembled and strong cohesion was built. But Kelly served notice immediately that he was a GREAT QB in '86, regardless of the lack of talent surrounding him.

 

Taking a franchise QB when you can isn't some new paradigm. Assembling a team is not a linear process to begin with. But if it were, if you were building a team from scratch, you would take a great QB first and foremost. That's directly from the book according to Polian. His order of positional importance is:

 

1.) QB

2.) LT

3.) DE

4.) RB

5.) WR

 

He's listed the reasons for this order but since I've posted it countless times the last dozen years or so there is no need to go into it again.

 

Let me ask a simple question: If you were starting a franchise and you had your choice between selecting the greatest QB of all time or the greatest OLman of all time, who would you choose? Please keep in mind that only one of those positions handles the ball on EVERY play and MUST make intelligent decisions with it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

Because I have integrity I will answer your hypothetical completely fantasy question. If I were starting a team from scratch and my fantasy choices were take a guaranteed franchise QB vs a guaranteed franchise LT I take the QB.

 

MEANWHILE BACK IN REALITY.... The Bills will potentially have the choice between a rookie QB prospect who for whatever reasons would start in 2010 behind an abysmal line OR draft a solid LT prospect who WILL help the o-line in 2010. I say "WILL" because anyone we get will be much better than what we have at LT. It is a technicality but one that makes my claim nearly a can't miss vs rolling the dice on a promising QB prospect who we might hit big on.

 

In the real world that the Bills currently live in I highly suggest that they get the line sorted first. Again this isn't a good line, it isn't a average line, it isn't even good enough to be bad right now. This is an abysmal, terrible line. At some point the line can get so bad that it becomes the #1 priority. We are here folks. It's that bad.

 

So I will ask you a question. I think you have already stated your answer but would you want to draft Sam "the shoulder" Bradford to play in his rookie year behind whatever patchwork line we slap together if we don't spend our #9 pick on a LT OR would you want to get a solid LT to help bolster the line and make the running game AND the QB better? Me ...I consider QBs enough of a risk and important enough to make sure there is ABSOLUTELY no chance to screw up their development because we put them in front of the firing squad with no blind fold.

 

On the Kelly situation. You are honestly focusing on completely the wrong thing. The thing to focus on is that Kelly didn't start for the Bills until some of those pieces were in place in 1986. When did they make their first superbowl? Don't forget that Kelly complained a lot about his o-line his first few years too!!!! Don't forget that. That line was light years ahead of what we currently have. Jim wasn't a wet behind the ears rookie who could have had his confidence and career crushed behind one of the worst lines in history. He was 4 year veteran behind a line that was much better than what we have and got only better.

 

Let's not bring in a rookie pick at #9 and ruin him because we didn't protect him.

 

*Queue the draft the QB and let him sit a year or 2 fantasy statement*

 

*sheesh*

[John from Riverside]

I would have no problem with Bradford. I recall many years ago a college player who had awesome talent, great numbers and great intangibles but because of a serious injury that temporarily derailed him, teams shied away from him in the draft and he dropped all the way into the second round. Thus, we were able to pick Thurman Thomas. That was then and this is now but still, I'm just sayin'.

 

Bradford would have been a very high pick last year and other than the injury, he is basically the same player. If the docs clear him, we'd be lucky to have him. Like any QB in the draft, he is a crapshoot and frankly, I think Clausen is a better pick more on a hunch than anything else. But Bradford has intangibles that are every bit as off the charts as Tebow's plus he reads defenses, plus he has good mechanics, plus he has a stronger arm...etc, etc.

 

The one chance I think we might have for him to drop to 9 is if his workouts don't go well. He isn't going to throw at the combine so unless and until he throws at his pro day or at some other time before the draft to prove his shoulder is good to go, there will be doubts that could easily translate to a draft drop from which we might benefit.

 

What scenario do you see where we would have a shot at Bradford?

 

I dont have a specific scenario in mind.....just a few mild suprises that would cause Bradford to not go to a team he is currently projected to. For instance if a run on OT's started early.

[John from Riverside]

I got the point you were trying to make for a moral victory. It's pretty much worthless and an attempt to change the battle field and argue a point that is so minuscule in comparison. THE point is the fact that regardless of reason rookie top 10 QBs play. I assume you will continue to ignore that part of my post which is 99% of my point because you can't dispute it.

 

Try to dispute that fact. Show some integrity! Let's all learn something and get to the real truths and facts instead of trying to pick out absurd points to try to win an argument. THE point is that the crowd that advocates getting a top 10 QB to sit for a year or 2 is unrealistic because it is a fantasy and it doesn't happen.

 

I would just like to point out that you cannot seem to make your points without insulting the other posters....which of course is against TOS.

[PDaDdy]

QUOTE (PDaDdy @ Feb 23 2010, 11:55 AM) *

I got the point you were trying to make for a moral victory. It's pretty much worthless and an attempt to change the battle field and argue a point that is so minuscule in comparison. THE point is the fact that regardless of reason rookie top 10 QBs play. I assume you will continue to ignore that part of my post which is 99% of my point because you can't dispute it.

 

Try to dispute that fact. Show some integrity! Let's all learn something and get to the real truths and facts instead of trying to pick out absurd points to try to win an argument. THE point is that the crowd that advocates getting a top 10 QB to sit for a year or 2 is unrealistic because it is a fantasy and it doesn't happen.

 

I would just like to point out that you cannot seem to make your points without insulting the other posters....which of course is against TOS.

 

 

Great point but wrong post. I was actually not making personal insults on that post. I'm sure I come off as an a-hole in response to some posters but I give what I feel I get. Some people make the most ludicrous statements and cop attitude when they do it. The only time I ever do it is when people dispute actual recorded facts or statistics or try to inflate a very tiny portion of a point you are trying to make to prove that they have won some sort of argument. "Small" behavior from "small" people.

 

It may not seem like it but ultimately I really am trying to get at the truth of things. I have learned plenty from this forum from people whose main goal is to enlighten and educate vs the time wasters who are just interested in winning an argument.

 

My mistake is without question being too passionate about dispelling misinformation as I see it. Yes I said "as I see it" for a reason. Like I told some very close friends of mine...."There is a difference between wanting to know the right answer and wanting to be right"

 

I want to know the right answer. I don't derive any inflated sense of self esteem from it. I just want to know the right answer even if that means I am initially wrong. Winning an argument gains you nothing.

[Bill from NYC]

Apparently I love the high octane crack. If either of those guys falls to us it would be the unluckiest day in their lives. This isn't an issue where we have a competent or even poor line. Our line is terrible. If our line was at least average I would gladly say get a QB if one fell to us. The sad fact of the matter is our line is so bad that it has become our #1 priority. Now that Brad Butler has retired that shouldn't even be in question. It is really an embarrassment and a joke the current state of affairs with our front 5. Woods might not even be ready for the regular season next year. We are in bad bad bad shape.

 

Good luck, but for many years I tried to convince others of the importance of the OL, and was unable to do so. At this point, many posters are young and have never even seen an average OL. Others sit around with statistics that have little to nothing to do with the Bills because of the bolded above, and that fact that this team plays in harsh elements[/size], as do our opponents in terms of the jets and patriots.

Few are willing to face the fact that football is a different game in Orchard Park than it is in a dome. Passing is at times all but an afterthought due to rain, snow, and especially wind. And, when a team cannot run because of Demetrious Bell and company, they are forced to pass. Then, the qb is killed because of Demetrius Bell and company. This is what folks are clamoring for, AGAIN.

 

Ah......I shoulld be happy that only a few are calling for Eric Berry.

[C.Biscuit97]

Good luck, but for many years I tried to convince others of the importance of the OL, and was unable to do so. At this point, many posters are young and have never even seen an average OL. Others sit around with statistics that have little to nothing to do with the Bills because of the bolded above, and that fact that this team plays in harsh elements[/size], as do our opponents in terms of the jets and patriots.

Few are willing to face the fact that football is a different game in Orchard Park than it is in a dome. Passing is at times all but an afterthought due to rain, snow, and especially wind. And, when a team cannot run because of Demetrious Bell and company, they are forced to pass. Then, the qb is killed because of Demetrius Bell and company. This is what folks are clamoring for, AGAIN.

 

Ah......I shoulld be happy that only a few are calling for Eric Berry.

 

 

Draft Bulaga, Cody, and Lefevour in that order. You get a physical LT, a stud 2 down 3-4 NT, and a QB who can make plays ever in crappy weather. If he is a bust as a 3rd rounder, it is a lot better than drafting a bust QB at #9. Those kill franchises.

[John from Riverside]

Good luck, but for many years I tried to convince others of the importance of the OL, and was unable to do so. At this point, many posters are young and have never even seen an average OL. Others sit around with statistics that have little to nothing to do with the Bills because of the bolded above, and that fact that this team plays in harsh elements[/size], as do our opponents in terms of the jets and patriots.

Few are willing to face the fact that football is a different game in Orchard Park than it is in a dome. Passing is at times all but an afterthought due to rain, snow, and especially wind. And, when a team cannot run because of Demetrious Bell and company, they are forced to pass. Then, the qb is killed because of Demetrius Bell and company. This is what folks are clamoring for, AGAIN.

 

Ah......I shoulld be happy that only a few are calling for Eric Berry.

 

Bill,

 

What you are saying is true of course right up to last year in my opinion.....

 

I think that starting last year a concerted effort was made to upgrade the lines......now say what you want about the Maybin pick......it was an attempt to upgrade the pass rush on the D side of the ball

 

Then we went with Wood and Levitre which were two solid O line picks. Now....we deviated a bit when we took Byrd but I think that he was such a talent they just couldn't pass him up.

 

No one could have forseen the Wood injury and hopefully he comes back.....but the O line rebiuld started LAST year.

 

Those QB's will probably be gone anyway making all of this a moot point.

[Ramius]

Now let me get this straight, you are declaring the real world events which occurred for a decade an anomaly and events that have occurred for two years the tried and true norm.

 

Yeah right.

 

In fact what I think your recitation of the events tell us is yes this a QB league with QB being the critical position to obtain your franchise player (well duhh everyone knows how important the QB is in this league.

 

However, what your dozen years of events simply tells us is yes get a franchise QB, but that the draft is far from the only way to get a franchise QB or even that drafting a player #1 is far from the only way to get a 1st round QB.

 

I think the facts you lay out pretty clearly point one to look for someone else than drafting a QB with the #9.

 

No, he's declaring your bull **** statistical analysis as skewed by several anomalies. Which it is. I'd be the first one on here (well, second maybe) to trash Holcomb's arm for faulty statistical analysis, but in this case, his criticism of yours is dead on.

 

You are counting each super bowl won by brady and/or warner to count as a separate QB in attempting to once again prove your asinine "Aisle 8 QB" theory. In fact, they aren't. Brady and Warner are 2 of the biggest exceptions when it comes to finding QBs.

 

What a dozen years tells us is that aside from 2 anomalies (having an all-time great defense or hitting the once in a generation QB jackpot in the later rounds), super bowls are won by 1st round QBs. Furthermore, take a look at any season and which teams are in the playoffs. The teams that make the playoffs are largely QB'ed by players drafted early.

 

But lets make a bet. I'll take the consensus top QB in each draft, and you can take a 3 QBs from each draft, selected in rounds 5-7. We'll see who has the better QB first.

[PDaDdy]

Draft Bulaga, Cody, and Lefevour in that order. You get a physical LT, a stud 2 down 3-4 NT, and a QB who can make plays ever in crappy weather. If he is a bust as a 3rd rounder, it is a lot better than drafting a bust QB at #9. Those kill franchises.

 

 

MAN....no draft is perfect but I would be VERY VERY happy with that draft!!!!

 

Personally a starting caliber RT would be higher on my list for a 3rd round pick but there is a lot of support for LeFevour Fever. Maybe the guy could be something with some polishing. I was NOT in favor of getting Edwards in the 3rd when he was drafted but at least this guy has a big "nfl" arm and is way more mobile. These traits could serve him well in Buffalo especially when the passing game becomes an afterthought due to weather conditions. Because he isn't a top 10 pick QB, there is actually a chance that the guy might be able to sit his first year. Even if he did win the starting job in camp, which wouldn't be much of a stretch, the guy would at least have the benefit of one upgrade at the most important position on the o-line, LT.

 

If LeFevour was gone by our 3rd round pick I would be all for hopefully getting a steal at RT that could become a day 1 starter or win the position by mid season. This would make us better as a team much quicker with less risk.

[PDaDdy]

Bill,

 

What you are saying is true of course right up to last year in my opinion.....

 

I think that starting last year a concerted effort was made to upgrade the lines......now say what you want about the Maybin pick......it was an attempt to upgrade the pass rush on the D side of the ball

 

Then we went with Wood and Levitre which were two solid O line picks. Now....we deviated a bit when we took Byrd but I think that he was such a talent they just couldn't pass him up.

 

No one could have forseen the Wood injury and hopefully he comes back.....but the O line rebiuld started LAST year.

 

Those QB's will probably be gone anyway making all of this a moot point.

 

Let's not half ass it. Lets finish the job we started.

[C.Biscuit97]

MAN....no draft is perfect but I would be VERY VERY happy with that draft!!!!

 

Personally a starting caliber RT would be higher on my list for a 3rd round pick but there but there is a lot of support for LeFevour Fever. Maybe the guy could be something with some polishing. I was NOT in favor of getting Edwards in the 3rd when he was drafted but at least this guy has a big "nfl" arm and is way more mobile. These traits could serve him well in Buffalo especially when the passing game becomes an afterthought due to weather conditions. Because he isn't a top 10 pick QB, there is actually a chance that the guy might be able to sit his first year. Even if he did win the starting job in camp, which wouldn't be much of a stretch, the guy would at least have the benefit of one upgrade at the most important position on the o-line, LT.

 

If LeFevour was gone by our 3rd round pick I would be all for hopefully getting a steal at RT that could become a day 1 starter or win the position by mid season. This would make us better as a team much quicker with less risk.

 

I still have hopes the Meredith or Bell could step up their game and man the RT position. Additionally, a name to watch is Rodger Saffold of Indiana. We just hired his old OL coach and he could be their in the 4th and could be a real steal there. He basically shut down Brandon Graham of Michigan who will probably be a first rounder.

[Bill from NYC]

Draft Bulaga, Cody, and Lefevour in that order. You get a physical LT, a stud 2 down 3-4 NT, and a QB who can make plays ever in crappy weather. If he is a bust as a 3rd rounder, it is a lot better than drafting a bust QB at #9. Those kill franchises.

 

I could live with that, and hope they focused on lbs and more blockers in later rounds. And, as much as I want blocking, I wouldn't be at all sad to see McClain at #9, but I think he will be gone before we pick.

[Bill from NYC]

I still have hopes the Meredith or Bell could step up their game and man the RT position. Additionally, a name to watch is Rodger Saffold of Indiana. We just hired his old OL coach and he could be their in the 4th and could be a real steal there. He basically shut down Brandon Graham of Michigan who will probably be a first rounder.

 

Bell is WAY to small and weak to be a mauling RT. It just isn't possible imo.

[JohnC]

Good luck, but for many years I tried to convince others of the importance of the OL, and was unable to do so. At this point, many posters are young and have never even seen an average OL. Others sit around with statistics that have little to nothing to do with the Bills because of the bolded above, and that fact that this team plays in harsh elements[/size], as do our opponents in terms of the jets and patriots.

Few are willing to face the fact that football is a different game in Orchard Park than it is in a dome. Passing is at times all but an afterthought due to rain, snow, and especially wind. And, when a team cannot run because of Demetrious Bell and company, they are forced to pass. Then, the qb is killed because of Demetrius Bell and company. This is what folks are clamoring for, AGAIN.

 

Ah......I shoulld be happy that only a few are calling for Eric Berry.

 

There are a number of ways of putting together a respectable line. You can do it through the draft, free agency, trades and even through selecting players off of other teams' practice squads. You don't have to take any one route, you can have a mixture of approaches to assemble a quality line. It is a reflection of this franchise's ineptitude that over a long period of time they can't get it done.

 

Last year the front office drafted Woods and Levitre and brought in Hangartner (sic). That was an excellent start in rebuilding the line. However, when we traded Peters we had the opportunity to draft an OT, Ohrer, who would have been a good replacement and would have been cornerstone player in the piecing together of a potentially good young line. That missed opportunity would have allowed us now to address other critical needs, like the qb position, in this upcoming draft.

 

Buddy Nix has been around for a very long time. I'm sure he realizes that without the foundation of a good OL any young qb, or veteran qb for that matter, is going to struggle and be set back. David Carr is an example of not having a foundation in place which resulted in the qb's failed development.

[Pete]

Draft Bulaga, Cody, and Lefevour in that order. You get a physical LT, a stud 2 down 3-4 NT, and a QB who can make plays ever in crappy weather. If he is a bust as a 3rd rounder, it is a lot better than drafting a bust QB at #9. Those kill franchises.

I love it! I agree with Bill too- McClain is tempting if he is still on the board. If he is there you need to draft him IMO