PDaDdy

"Bingo!" -Thurman#1

1998 was Manning's rookie year. He was still Peyton Manning but he still had a lot to learn and develop as a player. People have tried to use the "Peyton Manning is good at avoiding sacks" excuse to credit the QB and take away from the accomplishements of his o-line as a 12 year veteran. That excuse doesn't fly for any rookie no matter what their name is. If the guy took the second lowest sacks in the league at 22 he didn't take a pounding and it wasn't his savvy veteran skills as a rookie that made his line better than it was. It is interesting though what positions they picked up before and after Manning. He had a great pass protecting line before and they had BOTH tackles in place before he started game one. After he was already there they got guards and a center. I will say this. I agree with getting the tackles set before the guards. That is why I was against the approach we took last year. Why did we let our tackle positions get SO screwed up and focused on 2 guards. DUMB on our part.

Again more hypothetical stuff but let's hope he did have the vision to see that Manning was going to be Manning. That being said that situation has approximately 0% to do with the potential choice the Bills will have to make. The Colts had a great pass blocking line when they drafted Manning. We can not say the same.

ROFLOL....Oh how WRONG you are buddy. Manning's first year, 1998, Indy had the #6 overall passing offense and gave up the second fewest sacks in league with 22 vs the worst team that year at 67. THAT is 1/3 the number of sacks of the worst team. Tell me again how his line sucked? Please, please tell me. I want to see if you can speak with your foot in your mouth!!!!! Other posters will whine about my attitude but it's this type of BS misinformation that runs the risk of making people dumber if they don't research a posters claims. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?off...mp;d-447263-p=1

I'm sorry but those are foolish conclusions. The Jets and the Ravens BOTH made the play offs with the same basic formula. Barring injuries or losing key contributors those teams are set to be good for a while. Sooooo...if by some chance the Ravens or the Jets win the superbowl in 2010 or 11 will you then change your tune and say YES this is how you win a superbowl and that is the only way? OR...will you come to the factual realization that there are many ways to win a superbowl and the last two teams that got there happened to have great QBs AND great offensive lines?

I got your point about drafting best player available. There is truth in that argument as there is truth in drafting for need. The answer is in the middle somewhere. My philosophy is drafting for need AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A REACH. If you draft purely for best player available we could end up with a team full of DBs because they are the best player available at picks 9 - 11 which we seem to own any given year. Ignoring need is stupid. Reaching for need is also stupid.

I need to start looking deeper in the draft class to see who could be available to man the RT spot for us. I only heard about this guys name because DarthIce thought he would be a good candidate to draft late at LT so that we could use our #9 pick on a QB. Sounds like we have an inside track on the guy if he is available to us when we can fill the RT position. Now I have to go check out more LeFevour video. I have only seen about 3 minutes but I immediately saw some size, a big arm and some wheels. Those things are the price admission for me to even CONSIDER a guy a potential franchise QB for Buffalo. No guarantee of success with those traits but all but a guarantee of failure without them.

Let's not half ass it. Lets finish the job we started.

MAN....no draft is perfect but I would be VERY VERY happy with that draft!!!! Personally a starting caliber RT would be higher on my list for a 3rd round pick but there is a lot of support for LeFevour Fever. Maybe the guy could be something with some polishing. I was NOT in favor of getting Edwards in the 3rd when he was drafted but at least this guy has a big "nfl" arm and is way more mobile. These traits could serve him well in Buffalo especially when the passing game becomes an afterthought due to weather conditions. Because he isn't a top 10 pick QB, there is actually a chance that the guy might be able to sit his first year. Even if he did win the starting job in camp, which wouldn't be much of a stretch, the guy would at least have the benefit of one upgrade at the most important position on the o-line, LT. If LeFevour was gone by our 3rd round pick I would be all for hopefully getting a steal at RT that could become a day 1 starter or win the position by mid season. This would make us better as a team much quicker with less risk.

QUOTE (PDaDdy @ Feb 23 2010, 11:55 AM) * I got the point you were trying to make for a moral victory. It's pretty much worthless and an attempt to change the battle field and argue a point that is so minuscule in comparison. THE point is the fact that regardless of reason rookie top 10 QBs play. I assume you will continue to ignore that part of my post which is 99% of my point because you can't dispute it. Try to dispute that fact. Show some integrity! Let's all learn something and get to the real truths and facts instead of trying to pick out absurd points to try to win an argument. THE point is that the crowd that advocates getting a top 10 QB to sit for a year or 2 is unrealistic because it is a fantasy and it doesn't happen. Great point but wrong post. I was actually not making personal insults on that post. I'm sure I come off as an a-hole in response to some posters but I give what I feel I get. Some people make the most ludicrous statements and cop attitude when they do it. The only time I ever do it is when people dispute actual recorded facts or statistics or try to inflate a very tiny portion of a point you are trying to make to prove that they have won some sort of argument. "Small" behavior from "small" people. It may not seem like it but ultimately I really am trying to get at the truth of things. I have learned plenty from this forum from people whose main goal is to enlighten and educate vs the time wasters who are just interested in winning an argument. My mistake is without question being too passionate about dispelling misinformation as I see it. Yes I said "as I see it" for a reason. Like I told some very close friends of mine...."There is a difference between wanting to know the right answer and wanting to be right" I want to know the right answer. I don't derive any inflated sense of self esteem from it. I just want to know the right answer even if that means I am initially wrong. Winning an argument gains you nothing.

Because I have integrity I will answer your hypothetical completely fantasy question. If I were starting a team from scratch and my fantasy choices were take a guaranteed franchise QB vs a guaranteed franchise LT I take the QB. MEANWHILE BACK IN REALITY.... The Bills will potentially have the choice between a rookie QB prospect who for whatever reasons would start in 2010 behind an abysmal line OR draft a solid LT prospect who WILL help the o-line in 2010. I say "WILL" because anyone we get will be much better than what we have at LT. It is a technicality but one that makes my claim nearly a can't miss vs rolling the dice on a promising QB prospect who we might hit big on. In the real world that the Bills currently live in I highly suggest that they get the line sorted first. Again this isn't a good line, it isn't a average line, it isn't even good enough to be bad right now. This is an abysmal, terrible line. At some point the line can get so bad that it becomes the #1 priority. We are here folks. It's that bad. So I will ask you a question. I think you have already stated your answer but would you want to draft Sam "the shoulder" Bradford to play in his rookie year behind whatever patchwork line we slap together if we don't spend our #9 pick on a LT OR would you want to get a solid LT to help bolster the line and make the running game AND the QB better? Me ...I consider QBs enough of a risk and important enough to make sure there is ABSOLUTELY no chance to screw up their development because we put them in front of the firing squad with no blind fold. On the Kelly situation. You are honestly focusing on completely the wrong thing. The thing to focus on is that Kelly didn't start for the Bills until some of those pieces were in place in 1986. When did they make their first superbowl? Don't forget that Kelly complained a lot about his o-line his first few years too!!!! Don't forget that. That line was light years ahead of what we currently have. Jim wasn't a wet behind the ears rookie who could have had his confidence and career crushed behind one of the worst lines in history. He was 4 year veteran behind a line that was much better than what we have and got only better. Let's not bring in a rookie pick at #9 and ruin him because we didn't protect him. *Queue the draft the QB and let him sit a year or 2 fantasy statement* *sheesh*

I got the point you were trying to make for a moral victory. It's pretty much worthless and an attempt to change the battle field and argue a point that is so minuscule in comparison. THE point is the fact that regardless of reason rookie top 10 QBs play. I assume you will continue to ignore that part of my post which is 99% of my point because you can't dispute it. Try to dispute that fact. Show some integrity! Let's all learn something and get to the real truths and facts instead of trying to pick out absurd points to try to win an argument. THE point is that the crowd that advocates getting a top 10 QB to sit for a year or 2 is unrealistic because it is a fantasy and it doesn't happen.

Apparently I love the high octane crack. If either of those guys falls to us it would be the unluckiest day in their lives. This isn't an issue where we have a competent or even poor line. Our line is terrible. If our line was at least average I would gladly say get a QB if one fell to us. The sad fact of the matter is our line is so bad that it has become our #1 priority. Now that Brad Butler has retired that shouldn't even be in question. It is really an embarrassment and a joke the current state of affairs with our front 5. Woods might not even be ready for the regular season next year. We are in bad bad bad shape.

Nice come back retard. "Turn off your caps lock off". Your point is ridiculous and irrelevant. WHO CARES?!?!?!?! Rookie QBs drafted in the first 10 picks start. END OF STORY!!! You are a sad little man trying to win some pitiful moral victory saying rookie's play due to need not money. Thanks for trying to magnify a small component of my main point that top 10 rookie QBs do start in their first year and claim victory. Not going to try to let you shift the battle field. Again....rookie top 10 pick QBs play... got that? ....Nothing to refute on THAT statement. Go ahead maybe you can win by trying to point out a spelling error or lack of proper punctuation. Something equally as meaningless.

OMFG YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT!!! EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR EXAMPLES STARTED THEIR ROOKIE YEAR!!!! This proves exactly what I said!!! Please tell me how this is "NOT" letting me off the hook you freakin' clown!??!!?!? I don't care how they got the job.....THEY STARTED JUST LIKE I SAID!!!!

I saw Jim Kelly throw that lead block that opened up that hole!!! It was amazing I don't know how he beat the guard and tackle to the point of attack. It was like magic.....oh ...wait.....you mean he didn't block and open holes? You QB "X" is our savior guys kill me. YES a good QB can "HELP" the running game. That is not to say that they ARE the running game and are responsible for it's success. O-line still has to block, RB still has to run. Don't over inflate the QBs importance in that!!!! GET REAL!!!!

Hell if we believe that philosophy we should bring back JP Losman. He suffered from the same ****ty caoching. Actually it was even worse as he never had the same offensive coordinator and system 2 years in a row.

How is that working out for the Jets? Oh?...4 years and going strong....K

Dick Jauron is that you????? Ya...just slap a couple 300lb guys together and line them up 5 wide that is all an offensive line is. Have you heard of CONTINUITY? How long did it take the Jets line to become what it is? It's taken a good 3 or so years with basically the same guys in place to get there. THEN they got the QB. THEN they made it to the AFC championship game with a rookie QB. A recipe for success perhaps? Of course some great defense helped too. But why don't people that that could be our formula for success in 3 or perhaps even as early as 2 years. A little on the optimistic side with 2 years, I know, but you get the idea.

IF the fact that Kelly played in the USFL isn't lost on you and you realize the UNIQUE set of circumstances and events that surrounded Kelly you would realize that trying to use this case to prove your point is ridiculous. As another poster said....let's draft Bradford or Claussen and create a new league that he can play in for 3 years while we put together a line AND ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP SOME COHESION then we are talking. These ridiculous hypothetics are just silly and show how desperate some are and buy into the QB as the savior mentality. You need a good if not great one agreed. Not realizing that there is no way a #9 pick QB sits the bench for a couple years is just naive and wishful thinking.

Your living in a fantasy world buddy. I agree it would be a good idea but NOBODY IN THE NFL ACTUALLY DOES THIS!!!!! I'm done with you.

Your on crack. If we get a QB at 9 this year he plays first year. End of story. Again I challenge you to show me a QB other than Phillip Rivers, who was backing up Drew Brees by the way, who was drafted in the top 10 picks that didn't start his first year. Stop spweing hypothetical BS. WE ALL KNOW THE KID WOULD PLAY AND NOT HAVE TIME TO SIT AND LEARN!!!

I guess we could argue a technically all day but the FACT of the matter is that Kelly didn't play until the line was in place. THIS and the experience he gained in the USFL were VERY large contributing factors in his success. I see your point on the technicality though. If you recall even with what ended up being a stellar line Jimbo used to complain about o-line play early on in his career in Buffalo. Imagine what might have been if he played in front of the guys that his eventual probowl line replaced?

Try to nit pick ALL you want....the fact of the matter is that QBs taken in the first 10 picks of the draft will start their first year. It is a sad but true fact. I could care less about Aaron Rogers being picked in the late first round as it applys to us potentially picking a QB at #9. I think many would say that almost any rookie QB would benefit from sitting on the bench a year or 3 like Rogers. Sad fact is ....IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IF YOU ARE DRAFTED THAT EARLY. Players drafted that early START almost regardless of position. There are exceptions on bad picks or fits like Maybin but that is pretty much the rule.

He wouldn't live beyond mid season with our line.