PDaDdy

Mount Cody!!!! Round 2. Let the guy pack a lunch and camp out in the middle of the d-line. LOL. No running between the hash marks!!! We need offensive lineman BADLY. Let me say that again ....we need offensive line BADLY. In the real world in this draft. I only need to look as far as the Jets to see what an awesome offensive line can do.

I wouldn't say mortgaging the future but I would say taking out a home improvement loan. What trading for a McNabb WOULD do is show to the fans and more importantly FREE AGENTS that the Bills are committed to winning and turning things around quickly. Because we don't have certain things in place and don't make big moves like this we lose out in the free agent market. Ever wonder why when you see big name difference makers out there on the market that half of them end up going to the AFC East? It's disgusting isn't it? These teams have no fear getting big name help to make their team better.

This guy has been mentioned enough that I have to be concerned. What are his off field issues? I don't follow college ball too much.

FIXED!!!!

I thought it was a clever way to get the point across. Obviously you know my stance since I am proposing that we catch up with the times. To be honest you have educated me to something I was unaware of. If Ralph made Harris the first black QB to start in the league in 1969 kudos to him. UNFORTUNATELY, here we are 41 years later and there has been no 2nd in Buffalo.......

OF OUR COURSE!!!! DUHHH!!! How could I have forgotten. I am excited to see Hardy and or Johnson get an opportunity to get some big minutes playing for us but Boldin for a 3rd or 4th....we totally missed out on that one. I guess we are just lucky that he didn't go to the Pats.

Schobel is pulling a Brett Favre. Plain and simple. I expect that he will also, like Favre, avoid at least any voluntary off season work outs or ultimately get traded. I'm sure he'll get a pass though from all of the Buffalo fans. Nobody will question his desire, his heart, his work ethic or B word that he is holding the team ransom and screwing with their trade and draft plans. Guys like "that" don't get saddled with that BS....now LTs and RBs ....that is a different story.

We haven't missed out on anyone other than Julius Peppers. Opinions are divided on this depending on if you believe in the "QB savior" route is the only way to make it to a super bowl. Also you have to ask the question of "what is a difference maker?" Someone who would make a difference for us is my answer. That being said I think that Troy Smith or Micheal Vick could be difference makers for us. Better than what we have. I have to start preparing myself so I don't want to kill people but our current QBs give us VERY little hope for 2010. None of them have big arms. Our guys are QBs that have been given a chance and failed multiple times or were labeled a bust and thrown off the team. Troy Smtih has never been given a chance but was named the starter for the Ravens before coming down with a rare form of tonsillitis and getting stuck behind Flacco. B word all you want about the man he was but Micheal Vick was successful as a starting QB in Atlanta. Either of these guys would put more butts in the seats than the current chumps we have and give fans something to get excited about. ***Special note to Ralphie....FYI NFL franchises have been drafting and starting minority QBs for at least 15 years. We should explore some of the "dark horse" candidates instead of immediately scratching them off the list!!!!!!

nfl.com has the Colts OL ranked as the #1 line in the entire NFL. The Colts chose to pass the ball which negatively impacted their rushing numbers. They looked pretty good in the super bowl averaging over 5+ yds a carry against a great New Orleans defense. They can run the ball when they want to. I would take a pass blocking LT that doesn't give up sacks over a turnstile road grader that can run block but gets his QB killed any day.

Who do you have in mind to draft better than Peters to play LT? I would love it if we got THAT guy. 3 probowl appearances his 2nd, 3nd and 4th years playing LT. HOT DAMN ....I can't wait!!!!! What's THAT guys name again?

They are BS negotiating tactics that 1 Bills Drive used and some fans bought it. Peters went on to get a probowl nomination every year since. Just another pittiful example of the Bills letting talent go with no one to replace them. Pat Williams, Antowaine Winfield, London Fletcher, etc ....etc.

I don't like Trent as our QB in the least but he absolutely suffered from those problems

Again this stat isn't to be looked at in a vacuum. ANY stat that is currently kept can't be looked at in a vacuum, including sacks, completion percentage, TD, INTs, etc etc. I don't hear you advocating that we get rid of all stats and just let the coaches make qualitative assessments. You're one of those bury their head in the sand guys when it comes to stats because you don't have the ability to determine what it is they show you and what it is they don't. If your asking what the point is of the stat I highly suggest you actually read what it is that was written. You say "If he's getting decked quickly after the snap of the ball, he's not well protected." Well...how do you measure that? When one guy says team X has a great offensive line that keeps their QB on his feet and some other guy says their line sucks and it is the QB that makes the line look better, how do you determine who is correct? As you yourself have said in a word way that was not very precise is exactly what I have suggested. If the QB is getting decked quickly after the snap, low ATT, the line stinks. The only difference between our statements is that I am suggesting putting an actual number with it making it quantitative instead of qualitative. You can argue qualitative opinions all day which are worthless. Quantitative assessments however can't be. Three is less than Four....nothing to argue. This stat won't ever be able to make this that clear cut but it certainly will help to make it clearer. If someone says that The colts line is not very good and that Peyton Manning makes their offensive line look better than it is but you can show that on average he takes 5 seconds to throw the ball you can safely say that the line is doing their job and doing it well. Before you have an aneurysm I am not saying that he has that long to throw on average. It is an example for discussion.

I agree stats aren't very useful without context but that is exactly what I provided above. The ATT stat is not to be looked at in a vacuum and I made no such suggestion or claim. Please don't assume other wise. In fact the whole point of thinking up the stat was to help make "sacks" themselves more useful. Sacks don't tell the whole story if a QB had enough time or if he had plenty of time and he just held on too long. Tell me honestly would you have us throw out completion percentage? Sacks? INTs? Points scored? They are just measurable numbers after all and can't be looked at in a vacuum. Instead of trying to be a doubting Thomas perhaps you could see that this stat when coupled with others actually helps to give a clearer picture of what is really happening which is exactly what I did above.

Then we would have had to admit that getting rid of Peters was a bad idea. Instead they pulled the wool over the eyes of some of the more foolish Bills fans that thought that Bell could replace a 2 time probowler.

ATT is extremely easy to quantify. Look at the clock at the snap of the ball...look at the clock when the ball leaves the QB's hand. So much IS on the QB but all of those responsibilities how no bearing on invalidating ATT as a stat. ATT is what it is and is measurable. Sacks are what they are and they are measurable. If the QBs ATT is high and the sack total is high it means the OL is giving the QB time but the QB is unable to handle all of the things that are "on them" in the sufficient time allotted.

Ah yes another stats mean nothing guy. Thanks for your contribution!...LOL. those are all indeed factors though. Let's explore them. 1) WR doesn't make blitz read....Still the QBs job to get the ball out....if he doesn't this will be reflected in incompletions or sacks. Since we are only concerned with ATT and sacks if this results in a sack vs an incomplete....QBs fault. 2) Regardless of open WR or not QB has to do something with the ball. Throw it away outside the tackles, sail it over the head of a WR and out of bounds, throw it at the feet of a RB. If the QB takes a sack he held onto the ball too long. If that happens quickly, low ATT, his line sucks...if he gets sacked after several seconds, high ATT, it;s the QBs fault for not getting rid of it. 3) RB misses his blocking assignment. You have an actual very relevant point here. Perhaps the statement should be the QBs protection was good which can include RBs and TEs. This would account for RBs and TEs in pass protection 1 and 2 aren't factors but 3 is and I should change the interpretation of the ATT and sack stats to make it QB vs Pass protection and who is responsible for the teams success as it applies to sacks and pass protection.

you make good points. Offensive scheme can have an effect like the West Coast offense. Generally it is predicated on quicker passing which keeps down the ATT. If the OL is doing their job the team should have a low sack number. If they are not the QB even though playing in the west coast will have a high sack number. High sacks + low ATT = bad OL. QB willingness to pull the trigger or not pull the trigger for that matter is all figured in when used with sacks as I have suggested. This is really just a stat to measure is it the OL or the QB that is responsible for success as far as sacks are concerned. I'm curious as far as willingness to throw with the examples of Cutler vs Edwards, how would this invalidate the statistic? Regardless of how long they either are willing to throw there is a maximum time cut off. Perhaps Edwards might wait all day if he had the time ....but he doesn't... the OL will break down at some point. To make your example even more concrete I offer this. If Cutler gets rid of the ball faster, has a lower ATT and also lower sacks because he gets rid of the ball in time...then we have the first scenario. QB gets the ball out fast. If Edwards holds on to the ball driving up the ATT and has more sacks then we have scenario 4 where the QB holds on to the ball too long. This is NOT how I viewed last year to play out but going with your hypothetical situation it still fits into my model I feel.

Possibly but people still try to attribute sacks to individual OLinemen. Nobody really knows what the protection call was an who was responsible for the guy that eventually got to the QB. Hell we don't even really know if it is the OLineman's fault of the QB for holding on to the ball to long but we try to track it anyway and claim that his guy or that guy even though they made the probowl still sucks.

Not useless at all. If your line can't protect you can't throw patterns that take a long time. That tells us something. If a team has a high ATT that means that the QB has time to throw those patterns. This would speak to the line being very good at protection slightly skewed for mobile and huge hard to take down QBs that can stay on their feet a little longer. In other words the ATT on a 60yd in the air bomb would indicate that the OL was good enough to give the QB that time. The ATT on a 2 yard slat basically indicates that the QB got rid of the ball quickly which wouldn't necessarily say anything bad or good about the OL. Generally I think you can see that it would stand to reason that a high ATT means that the line is buying their QB all of that time and affording him great pass protection. Depending on the sack total as in the 4 scenarios I laid out the QB may be holding on to the ball too long causing high sacks OR the QB is getting rid of the ball appropriately causing a low sack count.

Right on my man. If you're not one of the whiney "I hate Peters" crowd you will see that he was just one of many talented players that we let go over the years and made new holes for ourselves. Good teams keep their talent and develop more. Bad teams lose their talent and constantly try to fill the holes that they made for themselves. Couple that with an inability to accurately identify new talent in the draft or free agency and you have a recipe for disaster plain and simple.

Something I have been pondering this year due to the holy war regarding the importance of QB vs OL. I of course have my opinion as well but I think the sane conclusion is that a QB can't be effective if his line can't keep him on his feet or open holes in the run game. This lead me to what I feel is really needed in these discussions. A stat that I wish could be found. Average Time to Throw (ATT)!!!!! This to me would be a great GREAT stat to truly gauge whether it is the QB or the OL that is responsible for the sack numbers and a teams offensive success. ATT low and sacks low = QB is getting rid of the ball quickly possibly making his line look better ATT high and sacks low = OL doing a great job of protecting affording their QB lots of time ATT low and sacks high = OL it terrible and they are getting their QB killed ATT high and sacks high = QB is holding on to the ball too long

I like McNabb but did you see him this past year? I'm not saying I watched every minute but seems like the game plan, especially when Westbrook was hurt, was to wait all day for Deshaun Jackson to get open deep. As many like to say on this board QBs more than O-line determine sack total. Care to change your stance on that Thurman#1? What is really needed in these discussions is a stat that I wish could be found. Average Time to Throw (ATT)!!!!! This to me would be a great GREAT stat to truly gauge whether it is the QB or the OL that is responsible for the sack numbers and a teams offensive success. ATT low and sacks low = QB is getting rid of the ball quickly possibly making his line look better ATT high and sacks low = OL doing a great job of protecting affording their QB lots of time ATT low and sacks high = OL it terrible and they are getting their QB killed ATT high and sacks high = QB is holding on to the ball too long

What is so difficult for you to understand about that statement? Seriously I don't get it!!! It couldn't be more plain. If a QB is drafted in the top 10 picks in a draft he will play his rookie year. This is no way we draft a QB that high, pay them that much guaranteed money and then let them sit on the bench to develop. Are you kidding me? This sets them apart from QBs drafted later in the first round that aren't paid as much money and usually end up on better teams. They can sit behind a competent existing QB and be "developed". Why in the world would you get a promising rookie QB and throw him to the wolfs behind the absolute crap we have for an o-line right now? I'm talking about the real world. I'm talking about the Bills in the 2010 draft. I'm talking about us drafting a QB at the #9 position which is a top 10 pick. Anything else is BS speculation and hypothetical crap. The QB is the most important position on the team. We know this. Are you arguing the obvious like we don't know? For the Bills, right now, this year, this draft, fixing our o-line is more important than anything. We need to make sure that we have pass protection and actual run blocking in place before we invest in such a valuable commodity at QB!!!! Truly I hope you understand that. If we had an offensive line that was even average I would say let's get that QB. We don't so we can't!!!! If you can't understands that I can't help you.

With all of the problems and holes we have you are worried about a WR????.....lol.....priceless. We could have the best WR in the league but who would we get to throw them the ball? Who would we get to keep the thrower on their feet and conscious?