The question is would you rather try and be as competitive next year as possible OR build a team that in 3 years could challenge for a superbowl.

The team can go and try to draft all OL and defense and ignore the QB spot like some here want and possible win a couple games next year. The other option is draft positions of the greatest impact that take time to develop and sacrifice short term gains.

I believe the game is played to win superbowls and not to be medicore. We need help at every position and its clearly going to take more then a year to fix those problems. QB's often take a year to develop so let him learn on the bench while we fix the wholes around him. Matt Stafford for 2009

yeah we may need a quarterback, but how is he going to develop with a bad O-line? He wont. He just wont. You draft players to play, not sit.

Sorry but that's just not true at all. I'm all in favor of building from the lines out, but saying that QBs don't develop sitting on the bench is just flat out wrong. There are many, many QBs who spent the first year or two sitting who then came in to be successful. Carson Palmer, Philip Rivers to name a couple right off the bat. That's not to say it's the only way to do it, but to say that they don't develop any other way than playing is just not true.

I see some strange coincidences going on here comparing Stafford with Ryan from last year.

1. both are named Matt
2. they will be back-to-back #1 QBs taken overall
3. both will have faced Michigan State as their final college opponent

READ: "Playing behind a bad line wont develop the QB"

Ok fair enough. I think one of the problems with the discussion people are having here about QB vs. O-line is that many seem to be taking a position of either one or the other. It is possible to draft a QB and improve the O-line in the same year. It won't fix all the problems, but steps can be taken in the right direction. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I get the impression from a lot of what's being written that people think it's an either/or situation. In my opinion, a good GM can do both.

Yeah I agree. Theres a lot of options and scenarios to go by. I guess it all starts with a good GM. If we get a crappy GM we might as well forget all this discussion.

Exactly TDJ. I'm on the draft a LT first side of the issue but in a few places I have stated I won't be that upset if we go the Atlanta route and take Bradford #1 and then a LT with the second first. A good GM will be able to evaluate who is the best player to take at each spot. But if this is the way things work out for us, we will have improved both QB and LT.

I understand the need for QB and LT, but what good is that if the defense continues to just get stomped on? It solves nothing, even with a QB and LT they won't outscore many teams like they will have too.

At the top of the draft, you have to look at what positions the best players are available at. In this draft, it doesn't appear that there are any defensive players worthy of the top pick, so you go offense. Further down, of course you look at D. Again, talking about picking a QB/LT combo in the first doesn't mean that the D isn't addressed at all. Great players can be found in every round.

That's why I'd trade down probably. Try to get around 8-15 and get defense. I think next year will be the year to get a QB. If they can get consistancy on defense, the offense does sometimes play good enough to win even now.

Much easier said than done. Teams are very reluctant to trade up to the top spot because it costs so much to get there and then you have to pay top dollar to that new draft pick. Especially knowing that there may be a rookie salary cap coming soon, I could see where teams would not want to trade up this year.

Understood, but if there is someone out there willing to do it then I think they should go for it. If not then yeah take a LT or QB that is worthy of the top spot. I don't feel like either is our biggest need but if no one wants to trade up and there is no defensive players worthy of the first pick then that's obviously the best route to go.