Billsrhody

Not to harp but I really dont understand how you can use this argument.. you can say the same thing about almost every other position. QB: For every Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf RB: For every Adrian Peterson, Cadillac Williams WR: For every Calvin Johnson, Mike Williams TE: For every Vernon Davis, Kellen Winslow OT: For every Jake Long, you know who OG: Dont feel like doing the research C: Same thing DT: Ndamukong Suh, Glenn Dorsey DE: Mario Williams, Vernon Gholston LB: You covered that CB: Darrel Revis, Pacman Jones S: Eric Berry, Laron Landry K: Sebastian Janikowski, the exception to the rule? P: Shane Lechler, ditto? Lets stop using the argument that "he could be a mediocre player". Its no more of a risk than any other position except for maybe G, C, K, P.

Well I disagree with you here. If Brady was on the Bills last year I think they would have been a 10 win team. He can make all the throws and all the pre snap reads. He knows where he is going to throw the ball before the play begins half the time. I think having a QB like that makes a world of difference.

I just think its hard to predict a WRs success in general. It seems like there have been soo many "sure thing" wideouts that dont pan out. Mike Williams, Charles Rogers, Roy Williams (thank you lions), Ted Ginn Jr, Braylon Edwards, Michael Crabtree... just to name some off the top of my head.

I hear what you're saying. Terry Bradshaw played in nearly the exact same time frame and is considered one of the great QBs in the history of the NFL. He only threw 212 TDs and 210 INTs. So I guess that adds some perspective to it. Back to my original point though.. in this era, good qb's will turn a bad team into a good team.

But if our options at those other positions are subpar, wouldn't you rather take a near "sure thing" at LB? I just think drafting WR Floyd, LT Reiff, Martin or CB Kirkpatrick comes with a whole lot more risk.

Point taken. That was before my time and I guess it was just a different era and a different game. It's still a little hard to believe that a QB who won 35 games over the course of a 15 year career can be considered good. He averaged less than 3 wins a year! Is it fair to say that if he was a QB with that track record in this day and age, he wouldn't last more than half a season?

Agreed. What I was trying to say is that the Broncos will be miles better this year. Also, I'm using the term "good" very loosely. In this case I'm referring to those "elite" players when I'm talking about good QBs.

It seems like a lot of posters think it would be a mistake for Buffalo to draft Kuechly at #10. There's a good article on Espn right now about the linebacker so see if this changes your mind? Kuechly Are you convinced?

On Cousins: "He's a meticulous preparation freak." I like the sound of that!

Well an OLB in a 43 is essentially an ILB in a 34. So you can include Mayo and Willis. Add to that list Brian Cushing, Lawrence Timmons, John Beason (I'm sure there are more past 2008) and you have a solid list of the best young linebackers in the league. Of course there are going to be some busts... but you can say that about any position in the first round.

You can say the same exact thing for every position drafted in the first round.. that argument is meaningless.

I dont know how Kuechly fits in this equation but I really think he should be the pick. He'll be a good player for us for the next 10 years.

Well what makes him a good Quarterback? Here's a quote from wikipedia, "His record as a starter was 35–101–3 (26.3%), the worst in NFL history among QBs with at least 100 starts.[12] He retired having never played on a team that notched a winning record or made the playoffs." So he didnt win... he didnt have good stats (125 TDS, 173 INTS). I'm not old enough to have watched him play, but it doesn't seem like we can classify him as a good QB.

Also... have you looked at Archie Manning's Stats? He wasn't a good quarterback. Anyways, teams can be good without a good quarterback. I'm just saying that a good quarterback will make a bad team good. Just watch what happens to the Broncos this year.

Peyton Manning is injured for a year and the colts change from a 12 win team to a 1 win team. The Patriots would be bad without Tom Brady. Drew Brees went to the Saints and turned them into a title contender. Ben Roethlisberger got drafted by the Steelers and won 2 superbowls. (defense was good before he was there) Eli Manning did the same with the Giants. (strahan was there before him) Those are just a few recent examples..

I hope you're right

This may be true, but it does not change the fact that he has not been successful to this point in the NFL. You cant use the "bad team" excuse for an entire career. Good Quarterbacks will turn a bad team into a good team.

I get being a huge Fitz fan.. I like the guy and all. But I dont get how so many posters view Fitz as a top 10-15 QB. What are you using to back up your arguments? 8 games does not make a season!

Who are those 10?

I think its important to realize that these rankings are for the upcoming 2012 season.. it seems like a lot of people are complaining that there are rookies on this list because they didn't play in the NFL last year. Obviously if you're projecting 2012 you have to put these guys on the list and I think its fair that Luck and RGIII are ahead of Fitz. If anyone thinks Fitz deserves to be higher, why dont you post your new rankings and show us where he ends up? I'll start... 1. Brady 2. Rogers 3. Brees 4. P Manning 5. E Manning 6. Roethlisberger 7. Newton 8. Stafford 9. Rivers 10. Cutler 11. Ryan 12. Romo 13. Vick 14. Flacco 15. Schaub 16. Luck 17. RGIII 18. Dalton 19. Freeman 20. Bradford 21. Locker 22. Fitzpatrick 23. Palmer 24. Smith 25. Ponder 26. Sanchez 27. Cassel 28. Flynn 29. Moore 30. Skelton 31. McCoy 32. Henne To be clear.. this is a list for the 2012 season for the QBs I would want on my team going forward into the future.

First of all, yes I do realize whats in the article.. and thats why I said it was disheartening that I couldnt justify moving him up on that list more than 1 or 2 places. Can you honestly say you wouldnt rather have Bradford, Locker, RGIII or Luck over Fitz? The columnist is taking potential into account and I think thats a fair thing to do. If Stafford and Romo are in your top 5, who do you take out? Brady Manning Manning Brees Rogers Can you honest say that Tony Romo belongs ahead of any of those guys?? That makes me seriously question any credibility in your argument. If anything this article is pointing out the current value of a player to his team. I would trade Fitz straight up for every guy on that list above him except for Sanchez and Palmer. I'd love to you see your list of QB rankings where Fitz falls 15.

I hope you guys are right... Fitz has thrown INTs for his whole career and thats why he is rated so poorly

You would rather have the Raiders, Rams or Bears WR corps over ours? I think its a bit of a stretch to say that Fitz would be a top QB if his WRs were better.. Good quarterbacks make receivers better (see Brady, Brees, Manning)

So you would want him over the 13 guys directly ahead of him?

According to NFL.com... Rankings 24) Ryan Fitzpatrick, Buffalo Bills: Look at his stats and you see a late-career bloomer. Look at his stats after his first 16 NFL games and you see why he's rounding out the bottom third. Defensive coordinators know how to slow him down. But he did go to Harvard, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as he attempts to make his own adjustments this offseason. Here's my first tip: Don't grow the beard. Its always a little disheartening to see this quarterback ranking and realize that as much as we like him, Fitz does fall in the bottom third of the league as far as QBs go. I look at that list and I cant even justify moving him up that list by more than maybe 1 or 2.