PDaDdy

I saw what I saw. I saw WR dropping balls, Peyton misfiring and generally a great defensive effort by the Saints. Personally I wouldn't dump that on the o-line. But in any case you ignored the main point of my last post. This is just more useless academics. You've stated that your points have nothing to do with our real world. How about you step up and say something concrete that is relevant to the real world and the real choices the Bills may have to make? I'm guessing you'll ignore that request too as it might actually lead to some productive, relevant discussion. LOL

Yes you did answer my question that this has absolutely nothing to do with what the Bills strategy should be in the draft and getting a QB before fixing the offensive line. Polian did. You are correct. Far be it from me to question Polian but I didn't see an offensive line failure in that game. I saw a good running game, a passing game that seemed to be somewhat out of sync and a defense that failed them once their hobbled star Freeney got stiff during half time and was completely ineffectual. It's not like Polian is going to throw Peyton Mannning under the bus is it? This thread has been round and round and I finally realized all of this really means nothing as far as the real world decision we MAY have to make at #9 if Bradford or Claussen falls to us. We can argue academic points all day long and continue to go round and round. I realized it would be far more productive to discuss something real world which is what has generated all of this o-line vs QB talk. NOW people actually have to take a stand on something and make a relevant point instead of endless academic points which whether accurate or not doesn't help with our possible real world choice. Please continue to discuss meaningless academics all day....I have been trying to focus on what the Bills do at #9 if Bradford or Claussen falls to us as I don't think veteran experience Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Big Ben or Aaron Rogers will be an option for us there in the 2010 draft.

So 3 time superbowl winning QB Tom Brady playing in the scheme designed for him had less than half the sacks of a QB that hadn't started a game since high school? WOW, you don't say? I am truly amazed. Thank you for enlightening me. As I have stated I know a QB can have an effect on the number of sacks for a line. I have seen Brady stay clean for 3+ second a LOT of snaps. Is that because he got rid of the ball early or because his line afforded him that protection? You know the answer....come on say it!!! Anyhow AGAIN ...what does this have to do with the Bills if a QB falls to us at #9? If you can't relate it to the real world decision we might be presented with I really don't care what your point is.

So.....that all being said AND THE ONLY THING OF IMPORTANCE HERE IS.....What does the once in a generation Peyton Manning have to do with the Bills and what we should do at the QB position or the o-line? All of this academic stuff that is being put out there is interesting bird cage liner but how does it apply to what the Bills have to do? I think this has been answered so I will pretty much disregard all of this as "I" am speaking to what the Bills should do and using examples relevant to that point.

You are correct. The 2008 Steelers with Big Ben were an exception. But that's the thing about exceptions....they AREN'T the rule!

I would still take Cody. I would love him in the 3rd but in the 2nd is probably more likely. He is one of those guys. Didn't he dominate in college? Could be the looks like Jane plays like Tarzan type. That being said I actually like Cam Thomas better. If he is not I am 100% fine with Cody. I think I'm starting to get a Fevour. He is a 3rd round guy right now but the combine can radically alter a draft board. This guy needs to learn the pro game and how to make more than one read but MAN does he appear to have all the tools. Size, big arm, mobility, toughness. We might have to get this guy in the 2nd round.

Rabbit, Thurman is a waste of time. You can't educate a brick! In this same thread he claims that the 22 sacks that Manning took in his rookie year didn't tell the story of what went on and says that even with a low sack total of 22 Manning was beat up. He then turns around and uses sacks as the whole story regarding how poorly Roethlisberger and Rogers line performed. What a clod! Does he really think that people won't catch him talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time?

Use your head man, stop trying to focus on wining some moral victory and focus on learning something. The reasons I am limiting it to top 10 picks is because if we are presented with that choice it would be a top 10 pick QB. QBs drafted in those slots for that kind of money PLAY. THEY WILL START. There is no "keep the guy on the bench for a year or 2". It's a fantasy. We are all talking about what could be but at least lets try to keep it real. If we get a QB first, he will play and we would risk screwing the kid up like so many other teams. QBs drafted sometimes go to better teams and can sit the bench a while. Aaron Rogers was backing up Brett Farve. Show me the Brett Farve on our team and then there is the possibility that a QB pick at #9 won't play. OH, you can't? No surprise there. So I would ask the question again even though people don't have the integrity to answer the question we all know if we get a QB at #9 he starts this year. If you want to roll the dice on a potentially promising rookie QB AND THEN throw him behind whatever BS we would have to trot out there at o-line you are a braver and "stupider" man than I.

Gosh, you mean there are rare exceptions at QB that can succeed with a poor oline? Thanks for that insight. Now please rattle off the list of other QBs that have had similar success! ...OH...You can't? ...Thought so. Please stop using rare statistical anomalies like Mannning and Roethlesberger to try to set an example for what the Bills should do if Bradford falls to them. Bradford is neither Manning or the impossible to take down Big Ben. Say something of value like "I think Bradford is a franchise QB and like Peyton Manning he will make his line better or like Big Ben he will refuse to go down". Until you can say something of substance like that and take a stand stop wasting our time with your BS exceptions and rare QBs as examples the Bills should follow.

Hey, unless you are willing to go out on a limb and say that Bradford is the next Jim Kelly and a franchise QB your opinion is completely worthless! If you or the front office isn't willing to make that statement, draft a LT at #9, start fixing the line and keep your hypothetical winy "we need a savior at QB" crap to your self.

QUOTE (thewildrabbit @ Feb 23 2010, 03:48 PM) * Yet you managed to over look my question angel.gif "Anyone care to explain how the Ravens won that game with the winning QB completing only 4 passes in 10 attempts for a total of 34 yards?" Jeez, the Ravens managed to beat the Patriots in New England with a power running game and a QB who did almost nothing to help win, and everyone conveniently ignores the post. COME ON THURMAN...have some integrity man! What a weak response! The Ravens victory was a statistical anomaly? They got lucky? THEY KICKED ASS TO THE TUNE OF 34 - 7. They won in every phase of that game!

They still have to block the defenders. It is amazing to me how people diminish the importance of the o-line and think that magically the QB blocks for himself some how. No matter how well the QB does his job, o-linemen HAVE TO WIN THEIR INDIVIDUAL MATCHUPS or BE COACHED WELL ENOUGH AND PLAY A SCHEME WHERE THEY COLLECTIVELY GET THE JOB DONE. This sometimes produces the noname offensive line like I believe the superbowl winning giants employed somewhere around 1990. This is so obvious but people are swinging from, one of a kind, Peyton Manning's sack and buy into the savior philosophy SO much they think you could stick any 5 bums out in front of Peyton and he would still only get sacked 10 times a year.

A QB can help or hurt his lines sack numbers but the line is the major contributing factor. I'll put it another way. Ability to beat the blitz can cause opposing defenses to send fewer guys which should also reduce the sack number. If Manning had 1.5, 2 seconds to throw the ball and he was just getting rid of it to prevent sacks. I'll say that is to the QBs credit. NOW...if Manning has 3, 4 sec + to throw the ball, that is mostly his offensive. Be honest, when you watched the Colts games, what did you see? I saw a QB that could often beat the blitz when it came, to Manning's credit, and a QB that had a lot of time to throw when not blitzed...o-line doing it's job and doing it well.

WRONG. Drafting poorly and more importantly allowing good talent to leave the team is how teams end up like Buffalo.

ok REALLY need a 3rd option here. Both options by themselves as stated are dumb. The real answer is and always has been "draft for need without reaching or ignoring super star talent." Sometimes teams are in such bad shape in some places that their need is SO great that they need to pass on a potentially great LB to get a LT that they desperately need for example. Sometimes teams are so solid everywhere that they have little need and they can just afford to draft the best player on their board when it is their turn. Whether that be a RB, a Safety, a QB whatever. That's the golden rule recipe for success. It's not one or the other....IT'S BOTH!!!!

Well as long as you admit it has nothing to do with the choice the Bills may or may not have at #9 that's cool. The draft probably makes the most sense for the LT position as there isn't anyone of quality out there and good under contract LTs cost multiple picks and lot's of money if any team is stupid enough to trade them. Ask Jason Peters. The only way the Bills get great performance at bargain basement prices at LT is drafting a rookie that outperforms his contract. We need a QB badly but 2 things are universal truths which I have dared anyone to dispute: 1) A rookie QB pick at #9 WILL start his first year. Other than Phillip Rivers, who backed up an eventual superbowl winning QB in Brees, show me a top 10 pick QB who didn't start his first year for whatever reason in the last say 10 15 years. 2) Show me a team that drafted their top 10 pick QB first before having a MUCH better line than we have now. It's not done. It doesn't happen. It's foolish. The only exception is if we go out and buy the rest of an o-line in free agency and they some how elevate this line from abysmal to average. If we do that and screw the idea of putting together a solid young unit go ahead and draft the next in a long line of "saviors" at the QB position.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE LOSMAN START FOR THE RAIDERS!!!! It may be the one and only chance to potentially see if he really did have what it takes and we just screwed him up and didn't give him that last chance instead of starting "stay the course, 1000 checkdowns of light" Trent Edwards.

*sigh* who cares if Brian "i forgot to wear my head gear" Westbrook is a free agent? Seriously. Why do our crappy as fans try to create more holes to fill. We have to good game day RBs and with all of the problems this team has we are worried about that crap. How about this for order of importance: LT QB NT RT LB LB Depth OT Depth NT Depth WR How about we take care of the 10+ bodies or depth we need to fill those holes before we make new ones. That doesn't even count the hole that will be left is Schobel really does retire.

How many elite QBs in the last 10 years have won superbowls? NOTE!!!!! I said how many elite QBs not how many superbowls For extra credit, tell me how many of those elite QBs had an average or worse o-line?

QUOTE (JStranger76 @ Feb 23 2010, 03:53 PM) * The 2000 Ravens are a once every 25 years team. That type of cast only comes around 3 or 4 times in a century. ZING!!!! AS much as I would like to let's not forget the 1991 Giants that beat our star QB led Bills

News flash.....QBs like Manning and Brees don't come along very often either but that doesn't stop people from throwing them out there as an example of why we should get a QB first and you can't win without one. Peyton Manning and Drew Brees didn't have good lines they had great QBs. People are idiots if they believe that junk. The truth is they had both a great QB and a great line. That is one recipe to win a superbowl. Great offensive line, good running game and a great defense can win you a super bowl too. The common thread is a great offensive line. This isn't rocket science. It's so basic and simple it drives me crazy how some people just don't get that. If our line was at least average ....get the QB. Since our line is god awful horrible...get the o-line fixed. Getting a first round LT is the bare minimum we can do to try to protect whomever will be the QB savior that people think will fix all of our problems. For the record the Ravens won that superbowl to the tune of 34 - 7. The defense did a great job but so did the offense and special teams.

The funny thing is that the Ravens indeed won the superbowl with this same philosophy.....well....unless you think Trent Dilfer made his line look better than it was and it was really through his incredible play from the QB position that won the day for them roflol

Ah refreshing. Someone who knows there is more than one way to build a great if not super bowl winning team. Thank you sir.

But how is that relevant to the choice the Bills have to make if a QB drops to us at #9?

Sure they do. QBs that don't get sacked also tend to not get pressured or knocked down as much They kind of go hand in hand. Makes sense doesn't it?