Trade ben now!!!!

[slashsteel]

I will only counter with this...

Ben has always been known for his "big-play" mentality. That being said, he knows he holds on to the ball too long sometimes, and so does everyone in the world. On Sunday, he changed how the world thinks of him...

true

I counter with the O-lines have been substandard at best, and his WRs minus Ward and Plax have never been a steady as they go group. But perhaps that might be changing...............

 

[Steelr4evr]

I think of all of the QB's we had after Bradshaw until we drafted Ben.A bunch of close,but no cigar guys or scrubs. I'd say franchise future HOF multiple record breaking super bowl winning ones don't grow on trees. This team will decline GREATLY when he goes NO MATTER what. Those are the odds. Keep a good line and get all you can out of the man. We're still searching for One For The Thumb since 81 if not for the guy.

 

[Wingman]

I just checked and might have miscounted but over all there are about 12 quarterbacks over age 32 that have won the super bowl, out of about 48 games. Some of the names that have done that are Staubach, Star, Dawson, Unitas, Plunket, Montana, and Elway. Some of those guys have done so more than once so they make up a bigger portion of the 12. Bradshaw is not on the list because he was done before 32 winning his fourth by 31. Some of these guys were the benefactors of the pre-free agency years where it was possible to keep players for their entire career and not have to lose a core of players.

So for you stat guys that are predicting the future here is a stat to think about, about 25 % of the time the winning quarter back is over 32 years old about 75% of the time the quarterback is under 32 years old. Based on the above info alone the odds of Ben getting more championships at this time are about 3 to 1 against. Now you pays your money and takes your chances. At the end of this season we will be at a cross roads do we keep Ben and the contract that goes with him, do we try and work out a trade and sign him to a trade deal do we let him go and rebuild? There are lots of things to look at in predicting the future of the team, just for the franchise guys don't grow on tress crowd would we have been better if we kept Bradshaw longer than we did.

The question is not do you like Ben or not but how long do you think he can play at a high level realizing that an injury to his arm could end his season and we would then have our glorious number two or three to lead us to victory, something like that could also end his career, and we could be paying dead money and lots of it for a long time. That would mean no qb and no money to get one if we found one!

For me the thing that would determine if I keep Ben or not would be what his performance looks like the rest of this season. Are we getting the guy that tosses 500 yards in what may have been the best game I think I have seen the Steelers play in maybe 20 years or more, or are we looking at the guy that leads his offense to 10 points and another loss.

 

[insaniti]

The "he could injure his arm" argument is dumb. He could have injured his arm at any point in his career. ANY QB at any age can injure their arm. Ben isn't going anywhere, there is no crossroads. There is no decision to be made, it has already been made. Ben will sign his extension during the offseason, he will retire a Steeler.

 

[t-man]

I just checked and might have miscounted but over all there are about 12 quarterbacks over age 32 that have won the super bowl, out of about 48 games. Some of the names that have done that are Staubach, Star, Dawson, Unitas, Plunket, Montana, and Elway. Some of those guys have done so more than once so they make up a bigger portion of the 12. Bradshaw is not on the list because he was done before 32 winning his fourth by 31. Some of these guys were the benefactors of the pre-free agency years where it was possible to keep players for their entire career and not have to lose a core of players.

So for you stat guys that are predicting the future here is a stat to think about, about 25 % of the time the winning quarter back is over 32 years old about 75% of the time the quarterback is under 32 years old. Based on the above info alone the odds of Ben getting more championships at this time are about 3 to 1 against. Now you pays your money and takes your chances. At the end of this season we will be at a cross roads do we keep Ben and the contract that goes with him, do we try and work out a trade and sign him to a trade deal do we let him go and rebuild? There are lots of things to look at in predicting the future of the team, just for the franchise guys don't grow on tress crowd would we have been better if we kept Bradshaw longer than we did.

The question is not do you like Ben or not but how long do you think he can play at a high level realizing that an injury to his arm could end his season and we would then have our glorious number two or three to lead us to victory, something like that could also end his career, and we could be paying dead money and lots of it for a long time. That would mean no qb and no money to get one if we found one!

For me the thing that would determine if I keep Ben or not would be what his performance looks like the rest of this season. Are we getting the guy that tosses 500 yards in what may have been the best game I think I have seen the Steelers play in maybe 20 years or more, or are we looking at the guy that leads his offense to 10 points and another loss.

And to all that I say-

Kordell Stweart
Kent Graham
Bubby Brister
Mark Mallone
Tommy Maddox
Mike Tomczak
Cliff Stout
Neil O'Donnell

I don't give a **** WHAT we need to do, we need to hang on to Ben till he can't do it anymore, then and only then do we let him go. It's hard enough to get to the big game when you HAVE a guy like Ben, we had some pretty damn solid teams playing along with some of those quarterbacks, but once the playoffs hit, your quarterback WILL be exposed. I lived though ALL those ******* names, and you can toss your 75% stats, your this and your that, I've been there hoping a scrub could get us to the big game, it just doesn't happen much in this league.

Joe

 

[DBS1970]

And to all that I say-

Kordell Stweart
Kent Graham
Bubby Brister
Mark Mallone
Tommy Maddox
Mike Tomczak
Cliff Stout
Neil O'Donnell

I don't give a **** WHAT we need to do, we need to hang on to Ben till he can't do it anymore, then and only then do we let him go. It's hard enough to get to the big game when you HAVE a guy like Ben, we had some pretty damn solid teams playing along with some of those quarterbacks, but once the playoffs hit, your quarterback WILL be exposed. I lived though ALL those ******* names, and you can toss your 75% stats, your this and your that, I've been there hoping a scrub could get us to the big game, it just doesn't happen much in this league.

Joe

Yep.

We cant talk about how the league has skewed things towards offense and totally unbalanced the game towards passing the ball and then in the next breath complain that our franchise QB needs to be traded. You need a good QB to be a good team in the NFL today.

 

[Vader]

What you are missing is the amount of gaping holes this team has on its defense, especially in the secondary. They have some good young talent on offense, but without rebuilding this defense, practically from scratch, the Steelers aren't going to win a championship, or even be able to compete. Can you imagine what Peyton Manning would do this team in a potential playoff matchup?

And Ben is not going to play "at least" 5 more years. Well, he might be playing and collecting a paycheck at that point, but you certainly won't be seeing anything like last Sunday from Ben in the year 2019. I don't know how the Steelers would spend in free agency, but what I do know is I don't want them handing out another monster contract to a quarterback who's already been sacked over 400 times.

The Steelers build through the draft. They won't change. They would draft the EXACT same way with Kordell as the QB paying him peanuts. Are you going to cut Jones, Thomas, Heyward, Allen, McCullers, Tuitt, Shazier and Timmons? NOPE. So the idea of "re-building" is just a myth. YOUR starting defense would have those players on it with the exception of maybe Allen. The Steelers need a few more players but they aren't re-building to the extent that you think.

Of course you don't know what they would spend in FA because that defeats your entire argument. They NEVER spend a lot in FA and wouldn't if Ben quit the team tomorrow. Ben has nothing to do with this issue. There isn't ONE player that paying Ben has kept off this team. They didn't even want Lewis. Hood didn't fit the system. Wallace maybe but he wanted top dollar and they wouldn't pay it even if they had it. The Steelers don't work that way. So who exactly has been kept off the team because of his salary?

 

[topseed]

Ben is not a HOFer based solely on his Super Bowls. But coupling his usually impressive postseason resume with great regular season play - and it has been great - makes him a HOFer.

Everyone talking about yardage/TD totals are missing the point. (So are those who claim the old-timers like Bradshaw, Namath, Griese, etc. are vastly overrated based on numbers. The difference between that era and today is as massive as the difference between 1910 baseball numbers and today's.) As far as numbers go, Ben has posted elite marks in the important categories - the ones that (a) correlate best to winning and (b) best narrow down to the QB's performance. These are YPA, YPC, and passer rating. Ben has been among the elites - better than many of his contemporaries - in this categories.

Not that the count stats don't matter. Peyton and Bradyhave carved out their spots in NFL lore with their wildly inflated numbers; I'm not trying to take that away from them. But there's a reason they inevitably fold in the postseason. I dare any of you to tell me with a straight face that they're surprised neither of those guys have had successful postseasons this decade.

Ben was a primary catalyst for three Super Bowl runs. He won two, excelling in one of them - his performance v. the Cardinals, with THAT gameplan and THAT offensive line, was masterful. This is a guy who's spent the majority of his career in a high-risk system with no o-line and no room for ultra-sanitized quarterbacking. Let's not forget that Tom Brady has been to five Super Bowls and only played great in two of them - and that was in a scheme TAILOR-MADE for a QB to succeed and not make mistakes. (Praising Brady for his high-completion and low-INT numbers is like praising Ichiro for his hitting numbers. Of course they never made stupid mistakes; they were game-planned into ultra-low-risk roles.)

Ben has been an elite QB for pretty much his entire career. He's a HOFer, end of story.

I'd say Ben is on the borderline for the HOF at this point.

Maybe he'll somehow manage to lift the Steelers to another title (despite a secondary with the worst depth I have ever seen), and there will be no question about it. Then I can eat my crow and happily accept my status as a moronic idiot who doesn't know **** about football.

 

[topseed]

I just checked and might have miscounted but over all there are about 12 quarterbacks over age 32 that have won the super bowl, out of about 48 games. Some of the names that have done that are Staubach, Star, Dawson, Unitas, Plunket, Montana, and Elway. Some of those guys have done so more than once so they make up a bigger portion of the 12. Bradshaw is not on the list because he was done before 32 winning his fourth by 31. Some of these guys were the benefactors of the pre-free agency years where it was possible to keep players for their entire career and not have to lose a core of players.

So for you stat guys that are predicting the future here is a stat to think about, about 25 % of the time the winning quarter back is over 32 years old about 75% of the time the quarterback is under 32 years old. Based on the above info alone the odds of Ben getting more championships at this time are about 3 to 1 against. Now you pays your money and takes your chances. At the end of this season we will be at a cross roads do we keep Ben and the contract that goes with him, do we try and work out a trade and sign him to a trade deal do we let him go and rebuild? There are lots of things to look at in predicting the future of the team, just for the franchise guys don't grow on tress crowd would we have been better if we kept Bradshaw longer than we did.

The question is not do you like Ben or not but how long do you think he can play at a high level realizing that an injury to his arm could end his season and we would then have our glorious number two or three to lead us to victory, something like that could also end his career, and we could be paying dead money and lots of it for a long time. That would mean no qb and no money to get one if we found one!

For me the thing that would determine if I keep Ben or not would be what his performance looks like the rest of this season. Are we getting the guy that tosses 500 yards in what may have been the best game I think I have seen the Steelers play in maybe 20 years or more, or are we looking at the guy that leads his offense to 10 points and another loss.

I wonder how many Super Bowl winning teams had 4 defensive starters past the age of 32.

 

[topseed]

The Steelers build through the draft. They won't change. They would draft the EXACT same way with Kordell as the QB paying him peanuts. Are you going to cut Jones, Thomas, Heyward, Allen, McCullers, Tuitt, Shazier and Timmons? NOPE. So the idea of "re-building" is just a myth. YOUR starting defense would have those players on it with the exception of maybe Allen. The Steelers need a few more players but they aren't re-building to the extent that you think.

Of course you don't know what they would spend in FA because that defeats your entire argument. They NEVER spend a lot in FA and wouldn't if Ben quit the team tomorrow. Ben has nothing to do with this issue. There isn't ONE player that paying Ben has kept off this team. They didn't even want Lewis. Hood didn't fit the system. Wallace maybe but he wanted top dollar and they wouldn't pay it even if they had it. The Steelers don't work that way. So who exactly has been kept off the team because of his salary?

Let me correct you: The Steelers used to build well through the draft. That hasn't been the case lately. They used to have depth at almost every position. Ben's last contract was fine because he was entering the prime of his career, and there was enough talent to work the cap, and still be able to compete for a championship. This year, they were forced to sign Keisel and Harrison off the street. Worilds was never that good to begin with, but they had to use the transition tag because there is nothing behind him. Taylor and Polamalu are aging veterans with nobody waiting in the wings to replace them. Of course I'd keep a couple good young players under reasonable contracts like Shazier, Tuitt, and McCullers. I'd keep Heyward. I'd be forced to keep Timmons because of his monster contract and dead money implications. He's still serviceable, though. Allen and Thomas? Gone. Jones? Not sure. Keisel, Harrison, Worilds, Polamalu, and Taylor? Gone. 7 starters. Yeah, I'd say there might be some turnover there.

Ben will be 33 next season, and entering the twilight of his great career, not the prime of it. His current contract has nothing to do with the effects of the next one.

You are basing your whole argument on what they've done in the past, under different circumstances. I'm talking about what's best for the future.

 

[Vader]

Let me correct you: The Steelers used to build well through the draft. That hasn't been the case lately. They used to have depth at almost every position. Ben's last contract was fine because he was entering the prime of his career, and there was enough talent to work the cap, and still be able to compete for a championship. This year, they were forced to sign Keisel and Harrison off the street. Worilds was never that good to begin with, but they had to use the transition tag because there is nothing behind him. Taylor and Polamalu are aging veterans with nobody waiting in the wings to replace them. Of course I'd keep a couple good young players under reasonable contracts like Shazier, Tuitt, and McCullers. I'd keep Heyward. I'd be forced to keep Timmons because of his monster contract and dead money implications. He's still serviceable, though. Allen and Thomas? Gone. Jones? Not sure. Keisel, Harrison, Worilds, Polamalu, and Taylor? Gone. 7 starters. Yeah, I'd say there might be some turnover there.

Ben will be 33 next season, and entering the twilight of his great career, not the prime of it. His current contract has nothing to do with the effects of the next one.

You are basing your whole argument on what they've done in the past, under different circumstances. I'm talking about what's best for the future.

No, I'm basing my argument off what they have always done and always will do. You are basing your entire argument on what you want them to do that they will never do. Again please name me the player you are worried about losing because they are paying Ben too much money? The draft is the ONLY way to build. No team can afford to build through FA. So your plan won't and can't work. The only way to win a SB in the next 10 years is to draft better and pray Ben stays healthy. They went over 20 years trying to find a QB. Now they have one. They better use him. They've had top defenses before during the 90's and 2000's and failed. With a real QB they went to 3 SB and won 2. If you think they are going to change the way they do business you are very mistaken.

 

[diver]

No, I'm basing my argument off what they have always done and always will do. You are basing your entire argument on what you want them to do that they will never do. Again please name me the player you are worried about losing because they are paying Ben too much money? The draft is the ONLY way to build. No team can afford to build through FA. So your plan won't and can't work. The only way to win a SB in the next 10 years is to draft better and pray Ben stays healthy. They went over 20 years trying to find a QB. Now they have one. They better use him. They've had top defenses before during the 90's and 2000's and failed. With a real QB they went to 3 SB and won 2. If you think they are going to change the way they do business you are very mistaken.

I agree with this. The Steelers so business that way, always have, probably always will.

Now, when I expressed that dilemma, I was never thinking FA. I was thinking draft picks. Like I said, many here have said this team is dearth of talent. If so, and the way they do things building through the draft, it may take a good while until they compete again. One would think Ben would get them draft picks to speed up the process, if they use them properly.

To be honest, part of the reason I brought this up is because I think people who habitually ***** about the lack of talent and then say to keep Ben come hell or high water are talking out of both sides of their mouth. It's kinda like poor people who ***** about being poor but keep voting Democrat. You have to change something up to change your circumstances, perhaps.

 

[Wingman]

I agree with this. The Steelers so business that way, always have, probably always will.

Now, when I expressed that dilemma, I was never thinking FA. I was thinking draft picks. Like I said, many here have said this team is dearth of talent. If so, and the way they do things building through the draft, it may take a good while until they compete again. One would think Ben would get them draft picks to speed up the process, if they use them properly.

To be honest, part of the reason I brought this up is because I think people who habitually ***** about the lack of talent and then say to keep Ben come hell or high water are talking out of both sides of their mouth. It's kinda like poor people who ***** about being poor but keep voting Democrat. You have to change something up to change your circumstances, perhaps.

I would add the Steelers did not always do business that way. Prior to the arrival of Chuck Noll they used to trade draft picks for aging veterans and they were the lovable loosers for decades. The process of building through the draft came with Chuck and it worked rather well.

As to keeping Ben because you can not find another I would add you have to find another sometime the only thing the trade Ben position does is start the process sooner rather than later. As to injuries that end seasons or careers they can happen at anytime. I do believe that the risk or odds of something happening go up with age of the player, might be why there are so few folks over 40 in the NFL. I think the thing that needs to be examined when the season ends is what can be gained verses what will be lost. If it looks like Ben has several years left likely at a high level sign him, if not and a good scenario for trade is offered that is likely going to provide the chance to replace him with a younger top quarter back take the trade.

 

[stillwright]

i think the whole concept of trading Ben is funny...they will either sign him long term or let him play out his contract...one or the other folks....

 

[Litos]

let's talk numbers, actual Ben's cap hit? around 19 millions according to spotrac. A Manning kind of deal would be 96 Millions for 5 years with 56 guaranteed, that's 19,2 millions average, very close to Ben's actual cap hit and with the cap going significantly up you could say that keeping Ben at his actual hit wouldn't choke the team's chances to have a decent roster around him.

Now please let me say that I'm not proposing or supporting the idea of giving Ben a shitload of money, but something in that ballpark with less guaranteed money, say 45 millions? Which will be heavily paid in the first three years so if after that he gets old an broken his cap hit would be minimal, then why not keep a franchise kind of QB for one last tenure?

Let's be honest, right now having Ben for 17 millions or less would be an absurd kind of bargain

 

[Wingman]

let's talk numbers, actual Ben's cap hit? around 19 millions according to spotrac. A Manning kind of deal would be 96 Millions for 5 years with 56 guaranteed, that's 19,2 millions average, very close to Ben's actual cap hit and with the cap going significantly up you could say that keeping Ben at his actual hit wouldn't choke the team's chances to have a decent roster around him.

Now please let me say that I'm not proposing or supporting the idea of giving Ben a shitload of money, but something in that ballpark with less guaranteed money, say 45 millions? Which will be heavily paid in the first three years so if after that he gets old an broken his cap hit would be minimal, then why not keep a franchise kind of QB for one last tenure?

Let's be honest, right now having Ben for 17 millions or less would be an absurd kind of bargain

That is definitely one of the things to consider, and if it works a great deal. The other thing to look at is what happens if his arm is done in the first year? The team has access to things we don't to determine the likely hood of his body wearing out before the contract is up. At this point I would not rule out any of the options available to me from the teams stand point but examine them on their respective values after the season. This does not mean I will be unhappy if they keep Ben, I will be happy to see him play out his career here. I would also understand if they traded him to a team that was trying to make a run at a championship and got 2 or 3 first round picks for him or something close to that particularly if the team in question was picking in the top 3 or 5 this year.

 

[steelbush]

OK, I went ahead and did it. I see you conveniently left names like Flacco and Russell Wilson off the list. Are they "HOF" material? And if you go back a few years further, inconveniently, you'll find names like Rypien, Hostetler, and Doug Williams. When are those Canton ceremonies coming, chief? Also, Eli might share a wonderful last name, but lumping him in there with the rest of those HOFers is a bit of stretch, don't you think?

Brady and Peyton Manning, universally considered among the top ten quarterbacks of all-time, have managed to win the big game twice between them in the last ten years, once in the last nine. Doesn't really support your argument, either. Wait, how many championships did Jim Kelly win for the Bills? None you say? Great point.

You know what wins most Super Bowls? Great defenses with solid quarterback play. And here's a news flash for you (and I won't even stoop to calling you a moronic idiot who doesn't know **** about football): Ben's days as a franchise quarterback will be long gone before the Steelers have a great defense again. Without a major defensive overhaul, you can shove your franchise quarterback straight up your ******* for the next two years while his next contract destroys what's left of this team for the following ten years or so.

Your prove your ignorance on the subject right off the bat...do you know how many teams would give $100 million contracts to Joe Flacco and Russell Wilson right now? ALOT. Are they hall of fame QB's Flacco, no, Wilson, obviously way too early to decide that. I never said the QB had to be a hall of fame QB. I said the league has proven over time you need a franchise QB to win in this league. You dont have to win super bowls but its been shown without a franchise QB you probably wont and you wont win consistently.

Your points about Peyton Manning, Brady, and Jim Kelly shows just how stupid you really are. Brady and Manning have dominated their conferences for the better part of a decade, have made multiple super bowls, yet that isn't good enough?? Do the Patriots, Broncos, Colts etc make super bowls without these QB's? Your ignoramus logic would be, well **** were making the playoffs every year and getting to the super bowl sometimes or at least the AFC Championship game, but we really should trade our franchise QB because we need to solidify our defense and maybe find a "solid" QB to do the rest. As far as Jim Kelly, if you don't think he was a franchise QB, you are a moron. You will probably never see a QB lead his team to 4 straight super bowls again. The fact that he never won doesn't mean ****....again, how has the franchise done since he left?

Thanks for playing....

 

[slashsteel]

I am not so sure the Steelers D is that far off.

I am thinking one true cover corner, and one consistent pass rusher

to go with Shaz, Jones, and one huge NT continuing to develop.

If the young talent on D continues to develop the D could stable out, and IMP is only missing a few pieces to get them back to solid.

 

[Vader]

I agree with this. The Steelers so business that way, always have, probably always will.

Now, when I expressed that dilemma, I was never thinking FA. I was thinking draft picks. Like I said, many here have said this team is dearth of talent. If so, and the way they do things building through the draft, it may take a good while until they compete again. One would think Ben would get them draft picks to speed up the process, if they use them properly.

To be honest, part of the reason I brought this up is because I think people who habitually ***** about the lack of talent and then say to keep Ben come hell or high water are talking out of both sides of their mouth. It's kinda like poor people who ***** about being poor but keep voting Democrat. You have to change something up to change your circumstances, perhaps.

The huge issue with trading Ben for draft picks is that the same people drafting the past 8 years are now drafting these additional picks. Also there is an assumption built in that a good/great QB can be had easily. Which is totally false. QB is the most difficult position in the entire sporting world to find. Yes, you can occasionally win with a nobody QB but only ONCE. Dilfer has ONE ring playing with one of the best defenses in modern history. Doug Williams has ONE ring playing with a great defense and one of the best OL to ever touch a football field. Trading Ben means that you have to hit on a great players at almost every position and they find a QB that won't mess it up. You have to have dominant units all over the team.

So to me the talk of trading Ben is ridiculous because I know it means 20 years or more of wandering in the wilderness. It means 20+ years of Kordell, Can't Graham, Tomczak, Tee Martin, Jim Miller, and Tommy Maddox type QBs.

 

[insaniti]

Also, trading Ben pretty much takes the threat of Antonio Brown away. Might as well trade him as well.

 

[BLITZ]

just reading the title of this thread makes me think the board has been taken over by little kids

 

[obxsteeler]

Took over 30 yrs. to find our first SB winning QB and 20 yrs to find our second. You trade Ben guys willing to wait?

 

[Wingman]

Took over 30 yrs. to find our first SB winning QB and 20 yrs to find our second. You trade Ben guys willing to wait?

We did not trade one away while he still had any value the last time, do you think that might have had something to do with the wait? We will need to find his replacement soon as he will retire, he will also begin to decline before the end is reached. Our great qb has posted one and done and then back to back 8 and 8 seasons, not exactly getting us to the promised land. I can see both sides to the debate and would suggest that both options be kept open. Granted there are problems with drafts of late and no guarantee of finding the next great player, but I can say the odds are greater of not finding him if you do not look.

I will add this to consider, the Steelers have found 2 players that put up great numbers at the position of qb and in fact have won 6 super bowls with them. Possibly they might be able to find a third, many of the folks that chose Ben are still here so if the early draft pick is possible maybe they find another. If not maybe all we need to do is wait for a couple of one win seasons with Landry as the qb to get one there is value in both plans.

 

[GMC]

We did not trade one away while he still had any value the last time, do you think that might have had something to do with the wait? We will need to find his replacement soon as he will retire, he will also begin to decline before the end is reached. Our great qb has posted one and done and then back to back 8 and 8 seasons, not exactly getting us to the promised land. I can see both sides to the debate and would suggest that both options be kept open. Granted there are problems with drafts of late and no guarantee of finding the next great player, but I can say the odds are greater of not finding him if you do not look.

Why would you want to trade away a franchise QB when he "still has value"? That's kind of like dumping your life savings on a lottery ticket. What's more valuable to a NFL team than a franchise QB that is still playing at a high level?

 

[hardcore12]

just reading the title of this thread makes me think the board has been taken over by little kids

What in the world are you people smoking ? Trade BEN????? Holyshit its not even worth a response.

Those that world consider getting rid of BEN when the man has at least 6 solid years left should be shot...

I know I know lets trade him and bring in RG3 or draft geno smith. Maybe we can draft Tim couch or Ryan whats his name the chargers had ... Hey maybe we hit Brady Quinn in round one...
If we are lucky and someone gives us two number ones for BEN we could draft Brady Quinn and jermain Stephens ... That way we get that LT QB combo.

Good lord guys. Grow a freaking Brain