John from Riverside Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 On this I agree....we need a quality veteran OT with that 2nd pick if we are going to take Clausen.
apuszczalowski Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 either the #1 or #2 pick has to be used for on a Qb with the other on an OT. We have seen what theQB's can do with a "premier" LT. Last year was the first year they played without Pro Bowler Jason "Greatest LT ever" Peters and there was no difference in how they ended the season, so its not like just getting a premier LT is going to make this team a playoff contender next season If the Bills like what they see in Clausen, and its more then what they see in whatever LT's are available, they will take him. If not, they will take whomever they feel is the best player available and maybe wait til the second to get Tebow or McCoy in the 2nd (or trade up into the late 1st)
CountDorkula Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 With Donovan McNabb now a Redskin, it certainly increases the likely hood that Clausen will still be on the board when the Bills pick at number 9. Now supposing one or more of the four OTs that are projected to be picked in the top 10 is also available, what would you do if you were in Buddy Nixes shoes? For example, if the choice was between Bulaga and Clausen, who would you pick? No matter who the Bills chose at 9 people are going to rip them apart for not chosing another position. I do not care who they take at 9 (minus DB WR) as long as they can make an impact this year. In Buddy i trust, and will untill he proves me wrong!
tennesseeboy Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 U sure?...I think Detroit takes Okung...and Washington takes Bulaga...KC takes Williams...then Davis or Campbell go to Oakland...if this is the case...and we don't trade up and get one of the top three tackles...might as well trade out of the first round all together and start thinking about next years draft because this one will be a FAILURE...and Davis or Campbell even if they make it to us aren't worth it...so...again you don't land Okung, Bulaga, or Williams...the draft is a complete failure...if you don't trade up for Bulaga or Okung but luck out and snag Williams...it's an OK draft... Unless we bring in Gaither in a trade Exactly...I posted MONTHS ago that we should be moving to get Gaither from the Ravens, and if we got him for a second round pick, I'd be pleased. This crew hasn't shown the gumption to move on this front, so I imagine that ninny Shanahan may pick him up. You're scenario about picking the top three tackles is scary in that it makes so much sense. If that should happen I would hope we would trade down or even address some defensive issue with the number one pick. We'd have some really fine choices. Actually if all three of the tackles were gone, I could live with us taking Clausen.
Joaquin1119 Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 why people want clausen so damn bad? i really dont think he going to be a good QB in NFL i dont know..this year draft of QB's aint that great...I really think the bills should draft a LT at 9 if they still on the board..but its up to buddy and i trust our new front office to draft that person..
Meark Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 I'm torn.. nervous about yet another QB from California. Nothing against CA since I live here.. We just don't have the best track record.. Maybe the 4th time is time is the charm? I am still leaning toward Bulaga at #9.
OldTimer1960 Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 Guys, Nix has already said you can't do it all in one year. If Clauson is there, you HAVE to take him. And not take him for 2010, you take him for the future. Build through the best players...one at a time. No, you don't HAVE to take him. Clausen is definitely not an elite QB prospect. I'll grant that he is an OK to good QB prospect, but comparing him to Kelly coming out of school is off the mark (IMHO).
The Jokeman Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 Guys, Nix has already said you can't do it all in one year. If Clauson is there, you HAVE to take him. And not take him for 2010, you take him for the future. Build through the best players...one at a time. Clausen isn't necessarly the best player if he's there. As most rank WR Dez Bryant a better talent then Clausen and IF all the LTs are off the board odds are Bryant would be there. So then do you take the QB or the WR? I say the WR since to me Lee Evans isn't a true #1 WR and Bryant has the chance to be a great one. Then I say take a QB later in the draft. Yet to me if all the LTs are gone and we have to chose between Bryant, Clausen and X then I say trade down and hopefully X is there where we trade down to. As let's look at the 49ers who took Crabtree last year and looks like Alex Smith might have turned things around.
Thurman#1 Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 U sure?...I think Detroit takes Okung...and Washington takes Bulaga...KC takes Williams...then Davis or Campbell go to Oakland...if this is the case...and we don't trade up and get one of the top three tackles...might as well trade out of the first round all together and start thinking about next years draft because this one will be a FAILURE...and Davis or Campbell even if they make it to us aren't worth it...so...again you don't land Okung, Bulaga, or Williams...the draft is a complete failure...if you don't trade up for Bulaga or Okung but luck out and snag Williams...it's an OK draft... Unless we bring in Gaither in a trade The name is Clausen. James Clausen.
PDaDdy Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 A QB can make an offensive line look better than it is. The same can not be said in reverse. The Bills have not had an opportunity like this since Kelly was drafted in the mid 80s. Unless the guy has killed someone or beaten women and children then the Bills should draft Clausen and send the Redskins a gift basket for making the trade for the overrated McNabb. The reverse can ABSOLUTELY be said. We have seen good lines and ****ty QBs win championships. I don't think you can say the reverse of that. I have seen good QBs and above average lines win but not a below average line. People get so caught up in order of importance and forget that both need to be above average to go anywere. If you actually wan't to win games they both need to be great. If any team drafts a QB in the first ten picks in the draft, Claussen would be at #9, they will play their rookie year. There is only one exception that I am aware of in the last as many years as I can remember and that was Phillip Rivers who sat behind Drew Brees. Please don't give me the lets draft a QB at 9 and let him sit for a year or two while we try to build an OL. It doesn't happen in today's NFL. We don't want to "create" the next David Carr.
agardin Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 I'm torn.. nervous about yet another QB from California. Nothing against CA since I live here.. We just don't have the best track record.. Maybe the 4th time is time is the charm? I am still leaning toward Bulaga at #9. Claussen played in Indiana, not exactly a warm weather local. If they play their cards correctly it might be possible to pick both him and a LT later in the first round. After 9, there really aren't too many teams that are needy at QB now with all of the trades that have happened. You might be able to move down from 9 to the mid teens and pick your tackle (this is where the 4 rated tackle should go) and then use the picks you garned to move right back into the first round to grab Claussen. It would take some wheeling but it could be done. That way the Bills would have their tackle and QB. It does take a partner for the 9 spot but players that teams covet will also be there. That would make me extremely happy. Or screw it and trade for gaither and pick Claussen at 9 and go out for Margaritas
Thurman#1 Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 If Shanahan and Holmgren don't want Claussen, I don't know why the Bills would. He doesn't strike as a Buffalo kind of guy either. I have no problems with a trade for Campbell, OT/DT in Round 1 and Tebow in Round 2. Campbell is the starter and use Tebow as a halfback and short yardage/goal line QB. Taking McNabb doesn't mean they didn't like Clausen. It's two different situations. First, taking McNabb instead leaves them with a first-rounder, so they can fill both their big needs by picking up one of the top two LTs. Second, McNabb means they can be competitive this year, but for only three or four years. If you think you can be competitive now, you take McNabb. That's the difference. Clausen, like virtually all rookie QBs, will take a while to become seasoned. We're in a position where that doesn't hurt us, because there's no way we're competitive this year or probably even next ... too many holes.
Thurman#1 Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 Take an LT at #9 (if any of them are left), then trade back into the 20s to take Clausen, where he'll be sitting after the Bills pass on him with their first pick. You should write for Leno. You'd be an upgrade.
Coach Tuesday Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 You should write for Leno. You'd be an upgrade. Hey snarkman - tell me where I'm wrong, the only way Clausen doesn't slide is if the Seahawks take him at 13, and they just traded for a young QB. Oh, and your Bulger idea is equally hilarious.
Alphadawg7 Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 A QB can make an offensive line look better than it is. The same can not be said in reverse. The Bills have not had an opportunity like this since Kelly was drafted in the mid 80s. Unless the guy has killed someone or beaten women and children then the Bills should draft Clausen and send the Redskins a gift basket for making the trade for the overrated McNabb. Huh? Overrated? Lets see, he has only produced at a very high level despite throwing to scrubs, literally scrubs, for almost his entire career. The only legitimate WR he had was TO for a little over a season...oh, he also managed to take his team to the SB that year WITHOUT TO in the entire playoffs and throwing to clowns all post season. Jackson was the only other WR he had and he only got to play with him the last 2 seasons in which one was his rookie year and then this past year he had injury issues. McNabb is totally underrated...there is only 1 QB who has had equally bad talent at WR who had been able to accomplish more than him and thats Brady who won 3 SB's with mostly scrub WR's, but even his scrubs were still better than anything McNabb has ever had to work with. Most importantly, is the Eagles were never carried by the D only like say Balt when they won the SB. Every year the Eagles have been putting points up despite the hacks starting at WR. McNabb has had scrubs like Stallworth, Thrash, Brown, FedEx, Curtis, etc. who most wouldnt have even been a #2 on just about every other team but all were at some point his #1 WR going INTO the season.
John from Riverside Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 To me the bottom line is McNabb is no longer an option......take Clausen if he is available
apuszczalowski Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 The reverse can ABSOLUTELY be said. We have seen good lines and ****ty QBs win championships. I don't think you can say the reverse of that. I have seen good QBs and above average lines win but not a below average line. People get so caught up in order of importance and forget that both need to be above average to go anywere. If you actually wan't to win games they both need to be great. If any team drafts a QB in the first ten picks in the draft, Claussen would be at #9, they will play their rookie year. There is only one exception that I am aware of in the last as many years as I can remember and that was Phillip Rivers who sat behind Drew Brees. Please don't give me the lets draft a QB at 9 and let him sit for a year or two while we try to build an OL. It doesn't happen in today's NFL. We don't want to "create" the next David Carr. The Bills had a Pro Bowl LT, and when they dealt him away (and had a revolving door of street FA's making up the line for most of the season), they finished with teh same results, another mediocre season and a top 10 pick.
The Jokeman Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 The Bills had a Pro Bowl LT, and when they dealt him away (and had a revolving door of street FA's making up the line for most of the season), they finished with teh same results, another mediocre season and a top 10 pick. But did Trent Edwards look better in 2009 or 2010?
1billsfan Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 Huh? Overrated? Lets see, he has only produced at a very high level despite throwing to scrubs, literally scrubs, for almost his entire career. The only legitimate WR he had was TO for a little over a season...oh, he also managed to take his team to the SB that year WITHOUT TO in the entire playoffs and throwing to clowns all post season. Jackson was the only other WR he had and he only got to play with him the last 2 seasons in which one was his rookie year and then this past year he had injury issues. McNabb is totally underrated...there is only 1 QB who has had equally bad talent at WR who had been able to accomplish more than him and thats Brady who won 3 SB's with mostly scrub WR's, but even his scrubs were still better than anything McNabb has ever had to work with. Most importantly, is the Eagles were never carried by the D only like say Balt when they won the SB. Every year the Eagles have been putting points up despite the hacks starting at WR. McNabb has had scrubs like Stallworth, Thrash, Brown, FedEx, Curtis, etc. who most wouldnt have even been a #2 on just about every other team but all were at some point his #1 WR going INTO the season. Dude, his team just traded him to a division rival. Get the feeling that even THEY don't think all that much of him? Yet fans here like you still think he is this great qb. He was great in 2004, and he was a very good qb before that year. But since then he has been an above average qb that continues to get adoration as if he were still a top five guy. He's not. He's overrated and the Bills are much better for him not wanting to come here. I would much rather have the unknown rookie qb in Clausen, then the known close to a has been and who never won the big one even when he was good in McNabb.
Celtic_soulja Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 either the #1 or #2 pick has to be used for on a Qb with the other on an OT. We have seen what theQB's can do with a "premier" LT. Last year was the first year they played without Pro Bowler Jason "Greatest LT ever" Peters and there was no difference in how they ended the season, so its not like just getting a premier LT is going to make this team a playoff contender next season If the Bills like what they see in Clausen, and its more then what they see in whatever LT's are available, they will take him. If not, they will take whomever they feel is the best player available and maybe wait til the second to get Tebow or McCoy in the 2nd (or trade up into the late 1st) What LT allowed the most sacks in the NFL in 2008?...look it up...you'll find out why we moved that fat lazy spineless useless BUM
Recommended Posts