Hplarrm

Now let me get this straight. You're saying that because Eric Moulds was not a starter (in fact not much of a helpful player at all) because he did not start in his second year he was a bad pick? Sure this is one player's story but your declaration declaring any #2 or #3 who does not start is a bad pick does not seem to offer an latitude for reality.

How you employ the weight you have (or fail to use it) makes a huge difference beyond the simple stats. An example is Ryan Denney (not a great player but does show this point). Stat wise he seemed to be the DL player the Bills needed as a rookie. He was tall, the rookie weight was stout enough to hold his own against the run but agile and tapered enough to have registered a bunch of sacks against college competition to get a high draft pick. Most impressive logistically having taken a couple of years to a Morman mission, he was older than most seniors and held the potential to help the Bills quickly. Yet, he proved to not even be a contributor his first year (the conventional wisdom somehow has a first day pick probably starting his first year though in real life this is only true for a small bit above 50% of 1st rounders and even here the bias is toward top 10 picks being first year starters in part because the guys they replace are so bad). In fact he not only did not contribute he was not even active virtually all games his rookie year. Apparently he had trouble bending his knees and retaining leverage when he locked up with blockers and proved to be easily defeatable as a pro as even pedestrian blockers were taught to grab him when you engage, take leverage he gave you because he did not bend his knees and could be straightened up and throw him aside like a ragdoll. It took a year, bu he finally learned to resist his natural tendency to get too high when engaged and learned additional effective moves besides run around the blocker(cause if he engaged he was gonna get beat and if he only was effective when using his athleticism to run around the blocker tackles were simply faster as pros, RBs had learned how to effectively blitz pick-up (a big problem for virtually all rookie RBs), and QBs simply had to step up in the pocket to eliminate Denney as an issue. Carrington is a different type of player as a DE and the new improved Denney actually held his own at DT so recognition of Troupe being different is relevant also. The big relevant thing is Denney while no world beater does show that a player can learn some pretty basic things in one year of play to turn them from a non-factor to at least being a contributor in one year. Both Troup and Carrington have the potential advantage that both in fact were contributors as rookies. They have a pro-bowl meriting DT playing with them all the time or at least when we go 4-3 and the future actually bodes well for the Bills on DL even if they do not get more talent on DL. In fact, particularly since the base D is a 3-4 and arguably we have two adequate LBs at any given moment the #3 would most improve this team by getting the best LB possible (likely by trading down as none of the LBs seems worth a #3) and getting the additional talent needed on the OL as well.

W/L record is the answer

Not so fast in simply ASSuming that the leverage situation will remain the same. Just as in the late 80s when the NFL so effectively kicked the tails of the old AFL-CIO style NFLPA leaders led by Ed Garvey that the talented tenth of smart NFL players led by Gene Upshaw were able to ride a decertification threat to the new CBA, the leverage can shift and shift back relatively quickly. The NFL is now tasting the fruit of them conspiring with old NFLPA to actual undercut the rights of the individual and to restrain free trade through mechanisms like the NFL draft, The NFL benefitted big time and taxpayers like you and me subsidized player training and development through the colleges. However, the NFL also stalled reaching agreements with individual players until they were adults. As a result once they beat the crap out of the old union leadership they created an opening for the talented tenth of players who understood all this stuff to join smart lawyers from NYC to create the new CBA, My guess is that the talented tenth of players have reached the same conclusions you have about leverage, Soon after the NFL announces its lockout and imposition of new rule, you will see the newly free agent players be presented with free market options to stay with the old NFL and its imposed rules or instead go with a new football league powered by communications (other TV networks $). I think you are simply wrong to ASSume that the NFL has all the leverage here. First, look at the ESPN videotape posted. Upfront in this piece it describes divisions not only between the players (folks with big baby mama payments like Cromartie or drug habits like Travis Henry) or the talented tenth of players like Upshaw when he was alive or men like Troy Vincent or TKO Spikes who spent their offseason taking Ivy League business classes/ It however also sited division among the owners, Some like Jerry Jones may have the capital to gang in there, Some like Ralph are not leverage much at all, Others however are family based rather than business based owners like the Rooneys or the owner groups are so highly leveraged that even with consistent TV money any disruption of cash flow from other sources will make things tough, The major advantage of the players is that they basically like a free market where owners bid for individual services and compete for the best players. The NFL owners on the other hand really depend on their being a more social compact based economic model where the team owners really cooperate more than compete. I do not think the basics have changed and the freeer market which benefits the players will rule.

I think there is a general consensus in this thread I find easy to agree with. You meed everything to be as good as you can possibly be! Duh. I think the question for the Bills is not so much what do you need (Everything like a running game amd ability to stop the run, the ability to stop the opponent and to convert 3rd downs, a franchise QB) or what do we have right now (next to nothing as we cannot have virtually no ability to stop the run and at best inconsistent running attack, we suck both ways on 3rd down, and our QB is a gamer but not anywhere near a franchise QB right now and really unlikely to become one) but the question is what is the single next step we should make on the road to getting as close to everything as we can. My sense is that while it is tough an answer is clearer. 1. Run and stop the run- we suck both ways but I feel we are further away on the D than on the O. Better players would help on either side obviously, but it seems more reasonable to me that we are simply in need of better players on D than on O. I could conceivably see this D performing better and this virtually immediately improving the O performance with shorter fields to work with. However. even if the O improved enormously I think the D is bad enough that we lose quickly any lead an improved O gives us. Further, this D is more than one player away. I go D first in terms of next steps. 2. A franchise QB is a great thing to have a virtual must for an SB winner! However, the Bills boat has so many leaks and holes that it strikes me as rearranging some eventually essential deck chairs on this sinking ship to focus on a QB first. I know a franchise QB is much more than a deck chair and a franchise QB is in part defined as a player who makes the athletes around him even better.. BUT... a. He would need to make an OL that is at least a player and a half short of adequacy better and even a franchise QB would find this challenge hard b. He would need to set the opponent back on their heels that our D would not be just fighting to hang on but would be poised for the kill. Again, even if this franchise QB delivered all he could deliver on the O side and even inspired the D, ST. the coaches. and the region with his leadership, the simple fact is that this D is at least 2 quality players short of adequacy (specifically the DL may be simply a solid though not outstanding player short due to some young potential on the roster and Williams outstanding play, but the LB corps has neither one leading go-to stud and as a 4 LB unit is simply a consistent player short. c. The player failings on this team are such that not only would the newly acquired franchise QB not be given the support he needs to win, but in this faster heavier hitting NFL it is simply questionable whether the franchise QB even lives behind this OL. d. Finally, with Luck passing there simply is no one even near a concensus franchise QB pick in this draft. DO NOT TRADE UP OR SPEND THE VALUABLE #3 and #2 IN THE SECOND ROUND ON qb INSTEAD OF STRENGTHENING THE TRENCHES.

I agree with Kelly and others who are confident we will see Edwards and not Wanny doing the play calling next year. I am not sure which theory makes LESS sense: that the Bills playcalling will do through the delay of being called on the headset by Wanny and then recalled on the headset by Edwards (huh?) or that this was a face-saver for Edwards (Look, these are all adults and the NFL profession is one which routinely eats folks for lunch even when their units are productive- unless Edwards has pictures of Gailey in some compromising position my sense is he easily is canned if thats what Gailey/Wanny want to do. In fact, there could be little more embarrassing or costing Edwards face than to keep him here as DC while Wammy BOTH leads the gameplanning AND does the playcalling. The AC title seems to affirm a Wanny lead role in scheming.

Let me begin by pointing out YOU ARE FLAT-OUT WRONG in your reading of my post. It contains among other analysis nuggets like "Marv was clearly inadequate as he had never been a GMz". You call this a "defense of Levy". If he had defense like this in a court of law then warm up old Sparky because he would get the death penalty for a parking ticket. My posts are not a defense of Levy. What they actually are meant as is an offensive attack on what is simply a view unsupported by the fact that Levy set this team back by years. This view simply ignores the facts that: 1. This team was well on the road to a decade plus of missing the playoffs when it had stacked up a continual record of missing the playoffs at the end of the Butler reign of error and under the I'm not gonna get run out of town by an HC I hired leadership under TD. Do you want to really claim that we were somehow on the road to making the playoffs but it was the moves under Marv which denied us the playoff appearance which was sure to come except Marv changed course from the winning ways of Butler and TD. It is simply factually inaccurate to claim that even a bad performance by Marv was a reversal of the winning track we were on. 2. Did Marv make great moves? No! Even a lame reading of what my post says sees that at its foundation I say things like "Marv was clearly inadequate as he had never been a GM" 3. Look at the record. Under Marv who had hired Jauron the problem is not that we produced results which reversed the winning path you seem to imply we were on but instead produced continually a mediocre 7-9 record. This mediocrity even continued in the year immediately post Marv (if you want to blame him for that my defense of him says feel free as even if you blame him for 3 years it still fall short of the length of the record of failure before he even got here. The best thing you can actually say about what reasonably can be called the post Marv leadership era actually produced even worse results with non-existent 1st round choices like Maybin (who makes even McKelvin look like a more productive choice) is to say it needs to get worse before it gets better. 4. Your ability to predict the future with no room for dispute is another thing which is simply silly about the claim Marv set this team back by years. Was his work good? NO! Did this work set the team back by years? Impossible to tell actually as who knows what the future holds. You are more than entitled to your opinion on this (fact-free or otherwise) but what you are not correctly entitled to is to claim that the outcome on this debate is stunningly obvious unless you know something normal human beings do not about what will happen when something that doesn't happen occurs (do you really think the Bills were on some track to make the playoffs under the TD methodology augmented by some theoretical replacement you have yet to name). Do you really think that there was some set of moves Marv without a doubt should have made and if only he would have we would be in the playoffs but it was all Marv's fault we did not make them. Look, even I was a pre-draft advocate of taking Ngata because I tend to be more of a start with the trenches rather than start with a safety or even a QB guy. However, I am under no illusion that if Marv had taken Ngata we would be in the playoffs. Again, I do not think Marv was up to being a GM when he got the job, however, I do not think that there was any credible talent who would have been the GM we needed under Mr. Ralph given the toxic relationships he had with his 3 previous GMs. Again I state repetitively in response to your own repetitive contention that Marv set this team back by years that there is a difference between what I think is true that he was in over his head at GM AND it is also true he was probably the best man for the job of being GM under Mr. Ralph. Mr. Ralph simply burned his way through 3 GMs and unless you want to even suggest who would have been a better alternative specifically (competent past winners at GM like Cowher, Shanahan, and Gruden simply refused the job when offered and perhaps you could have attracted used goods like Marty Morningstar but like it or not Levy, inadequate as a GM as he is was likely the best candidate for the job. Was Levy bad? Yep. The repetitive 7-9 records during the brief time he was here demonstrate that. However, is your contention that he set this franchise back years true? Maybe, but pretty doubtful as his record was simply mediocre. Further, he took over a team made mediocre before he got here and actually still under the ownership of the fellow whom the buck stops with for the past mediocre performance. Overall, you simply do not make a case that Marv was anything but mediocre and in fact to try to depict it as some galactic source of the problem not only overstates the bad case but really misses the problem which was shown to be worse when a new GM to replace him could not even be hired. Maybe you want to stick with your unsupported claim that if only they hired Mr. X (the unnamed possibility you clim without even suggesting who this mystery man -or maybe its a gal- would be). My claim is not a defense of Marv (and you are flat-out WRONG to read words like a statement he is inadequate as being a defense)but is simply a reasoned and supported claim that this inadequate GM was about the best we could do under Mr. Ralph's leadership. Your failure to see this and harping on Marv as somehow setting us back years from the road to improvement we were on makes little sense.

Amswering this question correctly is easy and it is crystal clear to me that Marv was the best (and likely only man to fulfill what was required of a Bills GM at the time. Marv was hired to be GM after Mr. Ralph had been a part of 3 completely toxic relationships with three straight GMs. 1. He fired Polian likely over some slight of Ralph's daughter which Polian allegedly said. If Polian did trash Ralph's daughter this firing is more than justified in my eyes. However, in this testorone infused boys game where folks like Favre apparently delight in sending pictures of their junk to woman not his wife these sophomorics are apparently not unheard of even if not the norm. The big deal about this without knowing the reason is that it demonstrated that simply winning was no defense if Mr. Ralph wanted you gone. This is actually pretty unusual in the NFL where winning seems to pave pave over much stupidity. 2. His relationship with Butler was so bad that Butler was able to shine him on about no contract talks until after the season and then quickly jumped ship to SD leaving the Bills high and dry. I do not know what JB was paying back Ralph for but payback is a dog (it is even argued by some that JB deliberately tanked the last draft with a DE pick who never seriously played the game in Mayb... sorry Flowers. 3. On paper Mr. Ralph struck gold getting TD after Pitts paid him to be paid by the media and go off scouting players with a travel budget. However, Mr. Ralph ended up with an unprecedented team president who did a great job on paper moving the Bills management structure into the end of the 20th century from Ralph's 60s stylings where in the late 80s or even early 90s Will Call tickets could be found sorted in a shoebox at one window. The paper of business was great and TD was a wizard in negotiation ripping AT a new one getting a 1st for Price and actually trading drug addict con Henry for value, Yet, he sucked on the field quite often seeming to be willing to sacrifice results to make sure he did not get run out of town by a HC he hire as Cowher did in Pitts. In the face of this situation THE PRIMARY role for the GM was to be someone who would be able to tolerate Mr. Ralph, but also be someone who did not evoke immediate laughter from Bills fans and the media. No one that anyone took seriously was likely to accept a GM job from Me. Ralph even though these 32 jobs are hard to come by. Most of the folks who would take the job were quite likely to be unproven idiots or good football guys but willing to get canned or storm out in a huff like the last 3 GMs. You are right that Marv was grossly under qualified for being a GN (Marv knew this also and clearly wanted to be HC) but in the end he not only was clearly under qualified but also he was clearly the best man for the job. Its stupid, but is real life in the world Mr. Ralph had created. I remain surprised that you allow yourself to lapse into the distracted missing of the point and making the claim that Marv set back the team by years. On the face of it, Marv can not be logically blamed for the over half decade of failing to make the playoffs which occurred. Yes he does deserve the primary blame for the two years he over saw the team as GM. The results clearly show him to be mediocre at best. However, realizing that he oversaw teams that were at best producing results at the top of the lower third of the league (they routinely drafted around 8 until we found out how bad bad could be this year under the new management and them is just the facts). Your assertion that he set the team back simply is not supported by the actual results. The team was well entrenched in mediocrity when he got here and it remained entrenched in mediocrity the short time he was here (and actually got worse in terms of results when he left but the faithful have to believe it had to get worse a bit before it gets better. Did Narv set the team back by years? Nope, I'm sorry but this hyperbolic assertion is just not supported by the results. The team had a long history of mediocre inadequacy before he got here and continued with that inadequacy during his brief stint as GM. A more rational assertion supported by the results is that Marv's time represented a 2 year delay in the horrible accounting and roster clearing which likely had to happen. A fair and balanced view based on reality would clearly fault Marv for overseeing the decision which simply did not work of trading to move up to pick McCatgo, This bust move did not work. No one should claim it did. However, reality does demand that one also recognize that in addition to failing in his oversight of the McCargo pick has to come credit for the Williams pick in the 5th round. Getting a Pro Bowl worthy player in the 5th is a pretty good pick. It does not outweigh the mistake of trading up for McCargo but it actually comes pretty close back here in reality. One of the other favorite rants from folks who I think should know better based on some other intelligent posts simply maintain you do not pick a safety in the top 10. Definitely true in your grandmother's NFL, but simply a wrong piece of conventional wisdom in the current Cover 2/Tampa 2 modern NFL. In today's NFL it is players like safeties Polamalu and Sanders who arguably were just as critical to SB wins by Pitts and Indy as QBs (longtime non SB winning stud QB) Manning and rookie RoboQB. Even the whine that a safety can be found on the second day simply ignores reality that Whitner was actually the second safety taken (and ironically is pretty broadly considered to have had a better rookie year than Huff taken before him) as 3 safeties were actually taken in the first round that year. Whitner did not pan out. However, it would simply be wrong to label him a bust like Mike Williams or Harrington were busts. I will join folks in whining if Whitner is resigned to a big contract the market will likely give him (again back in reality safeties have value in this league). However, rather than the irrational that he set the team, back for years, the more rational he kept them mediocre for the two years he was here is supported by the results, If one wants to make a real complaint, rather than being distracted by Marv's reign of stasis, a better thing to complain about is the year after Marv left which saw this rudderless GMless team with a beancounter guiding the draft which took Maybin. The simple fact is that this team needed to get worse before it got better but if anything set this team back in multiples of the time it was the GM less year that may well cost us a couple of years. Marv was clearly inadequate as he had never been a GM before and no one would accuse Marv of being a spring chicken, but given there is a good chance no one with any chops would take the job (see Shannahan and Cowher when we hired Nix) and given Mr. Ralph disastrously exercising his owners right to meddle (again one sees proof positive on his antics where he made a wrong wrong wrong handshake deal with Jimbo which only he could make (for those who want to claim the boss was just taking orders) and he was told you are wrong on the firing Wade case and many signs point to the prospect of working for Mr. Ralph being so foreboding Mularkey would not do this for multi-millions. Marv clearly was inadequate as a GM, but clearly it misses the point about what is wrong with our Bills to get ones panties all up in wad about Marv when the real problem was here before him, hired him, and remains in control after he was gone.

I think some of the folks you may view as Marv defender actually do not feel positively at all about his 2 years as GM (how could anyone feel good about it as the results produced in the two years were mediocre at best and the result after he was done as GM was basically a melt down), However, where I think folks (and I know it is true of me) is that while yes the Bills were an unmitigated disaster that crashed into the canyon floor, that the actual fault for this crash and burn was Ralph jumping off the cliff over a decade ago with his mismanagement of the Polian/Butler/TD situations. One can blame Marv if one chooses for his flapping of the Bills wings failing to stop the flaming carcass of the Bills from hitting the canyon floor. However, this analysis simply incorrectly focuses on Marv's term when fatal mistakes not worth glossing over with a focus on Marv. In my view Marv needs no defending actually. He deserved the HOF nod for being HC of a phenomenal football team in the early 90s. His failed stint as GM obviously does not add to his glory, but also does not detract from the facts on the ground of achievements of the early 90s. I think by far the most significant thing about Marv's GM stint is that it is a pretty straightforward demonstration that Ralph bollicks things so badly that the best he could do at GM was to find a senior citizen beyond his best years to take this highly desirable job. In fact, Ralph managed things so badly that when Marv left he could not or would not find someone to be GM. This is the story. Finding fault with Marv is not insane just silly.

I think one reads your continued fixation on Marv as being the source of the unmitigated disaster and simply has to shake your head as this view misses the point that the true and absolute determining and rate limiting factor on the fate of the Bills is none other than Mr. Ralph. One way to check your theory is to ask yourself the simple question: if not Marv then WHO specifically would you suggest should have been the GM? I think the answer is that after being the prime constituent in 3 straight incredibly toxic GM relationships I simply do not see anyone who one can reasonably propose as being the GM. The simple contradiction that anyone who follows the Bills needs to show some understanding of is that: Yes, Marv was unqualified to be an adequate GM! Yes, but also Marv was the best and virtually only person able to be the GM given the clear rate limiting and determining factor of Mr. Ralph having totally toxic relationships with his GM. Understanding and acknowledging this contradiction is a key to understanding the current sorry state of the Bills franchise. The simple fact is that even worrying about Marv's work as GM simply defines worrying about one's fiddle playing style while Rome burns around you. Ragging on Marv is simply displaced thinking about what really is happening with the Bills.

As best as I can tell Marv was about the ONLY person who was qualified to take the job which was offered. This job was to oversee the rubble that was left after Mr. Ralph: 1. Fired the best GM in football who most agree deserves the primary credit among many for building the Buffalo Bills early 90s juggernaut. As best as I can tell, I'm not sure whether the blame lies more with Polian for being insubordinate to his boss or Mr. Ralph for not realizing for football purposes Polian was gonna GM a team to ab SB win sooner or later and if he wanted an SB win for the Bills primarily to win an SB then keeping Polian would be a good move. Either way, Marv took a GM job which had a history of the owner and a great GM not making it work. 2. Add to this, that the relationship between Mr. Ralph and Butler proved to be so toxic (again blame whichever man you want or blame both, it is clear the Mr. Ralph is developing a record of having such bad relationships with his primary employee that the working relationship did not work) it hurt the team big time. 3. Next we have TD where once again the relationship proved to be so bad TD got canned. Once is an incident. Twice may well be a co-incidence. The third time Mr. Ralph proved incapable of having a productive relationship with his GM, there is a good case to be made that what we have here is a trend. Enter Marv as the next GM/ My sense is that given the difficulties Mr. Ralph was having simply having productive working relationships with his GM that Marv was likely the only person with the track record of at least having a tolerable relationship with the man in charge (and Mr. Ralph even fired him) I am not sure who else would be more qualified to survive, be awarded the job or take it if offered. In fact, what happened seemed to bear this out. Marv was on record saying what he wanted (the HC job) but right or wrong Mr. Ralph could not successfully manage the relationship such that Marv did not walk. If you want to question whether this is all Marv's fault, merely look at the next GM he hire -- No one. The look at who interviewed for the job the next season but seemed to turn it down for reasons we do not know Shanahan and Cowher. If you want to maintain that Marv was in over his head, so be it However, it is not unreasonable to ask if this is your contention who should we have hired instead and even if offered who would take the job (clearly not Shananhan or Cowher. I actually agree with you that Marv was in over his head, but oddly even though this is true as best as I can tell he was the best man available for the job of working with an owner who: 1. Had three straight toxic relationships with his GN (again without regard to who was at fault in any of these cases the owner either fired these men stupidly or was stupid enough to hire guys who deserved to be fired. 2. Add to the toxic GM relationships the fact that he ended up losing an appeal to not pay an HC he canned (again either it was stupid firing or a stupid hiring of a guy so bad he deserved to be fired with time left on his contract- those are really the only two choices. 3. Again, for whatever reason, Mr. Ralph was kept out of the HOF when he clearly seemed to deserve it either for simply being there when the AFL was established or being the owner of a singular team which went to 4 straight SBs (a great achievement even with the losses. It make little sense to me that you would point a finger at Marv without an at least an acknowledgment that the 4 other fingers should be pointing at Mr. Ralph. After all there is a clear record of over a decade of failure to make the playoffs. How many of these do you blame on Marv and who was pivotally involved in all 10+?

It is also worth adding to a recitation of the real events which describe the Wilson reign: 1. When the Bills relationship with Wade Phillips ended his firing was completely justified as Wade publicly declared the season over when the team still had a mathmatic possibility of making the playoffs (a fact brought into stark relief when an Indy team with the exact same record at the point Wade cryed No Mas did make the playoffs that year). However, though the firing was justified it was also clear contractually that if Mr. Ralph canned Wage even if Wade was a poor competitor that he was owed the rest of his contract. Mr. Ralph foolishly went forward anyway and despite folks widely telling him he was gonna lose the appeal to the NFL he forced the league to make him pay. 1. The discussion was not public so who know for sure (besides Larry Felser and members of the HOF selection committee) but I do wonder what the reason was for Mr. Ralph being denied membership in the HOF for a long time. My guess is that Mr. Ralph deliberately flaunted the salary cap in making a handshake deal which only he could make with Jimbo (the Ralph simply signs the checks arguments are silly here and likely elsewhere also). Mr, Ralph does deserve credit and props for keeping the team here when he almost certainly could have pulled an Art Modell and moved the team with big profit. However, along with acknowledgment of the good also needs to come admission that he really butchered his team in so many ways.

Its not ALL about any one thing. It takes a lot of different miscues in different areas of operation to miss the playoffs for more than a decade. It comes off as simply simple to claim it is one simple thing that is the problem like the draft and ignore the toxic relationships between Ralph and a ton of underlings (Butler= walked and screwed us, Polian got canned, Phillips got fired and had to take action to get paid, Mularkey got forced out, etc), we have not played the FA game well (big bucks to Dockery and others who did not pan out), we have not managed some contracts like Peters successfully, etc. It seems incorrect to claim that these miscues did not play a serious role and its ALL about draft problems (its odd also that you do not list one of the big draft miscues which was M. Williams or any of the superior examples of draft manipulation (its silly to mention the McCargo error with out also mentioning the great Williams pick at the same time and also the Peerless situation was maneuvered quite well with a draft benefit.

Fplks can argue all they want about which list is the right list to use (I don;t think it matters much for discussion purposes as thus list is close enough) or whether you need a 1st round choice or not. The key for the Bills is simply how you acquire your first round drafted guy. Particularly since with Luck not in there really is no remote agreed must pick franchise QB the Bills seem far better off getting their highly thought of QB from some other means, At some point i will go through this list looking at how the team which has this top 10 QB acquired them but offhand from 6th round pick Brady to FA Brees ot looks to me like getting your QB through other means than a 1st rd pick is a viable option

Well, lets look at this thread itself. One of the early lists submitted was the following: Current franchise quarterbacks: P. Manning, T. Brady, A. Rogers, B. Rothlisberger, D. Brees, P. Rivers Borderline: T. Romo, E. Manning, J. Flacco, M. Ryan Becoming and Fading: S. Bradford, J. Cutler, M. Sanchez, M. Stafford, D. McNabb, B. Farve My guess is that one can disagree about specific individuals here and there in this list but it is not totally or grossly away from where many come down. Roughly half of this list are QBs held by the team which drafted them and roughly half from the field of other options from FA to a targeted trade on draft day. I am not saying good QBs are not drafted early (they are). I am simply saying that not only is the obvious you state true that there are other methods besides drafting a guy in the 1st but in aggregate the other options are not once in a while but happen quite often.

No one would argue do not get a great QB (well duh) I only argue that there are other methods besides drafting one in the first to get a franchise QB. This year actually strikes me as unusual not in that all the QBs are first round choices but unusual in that they a full 3 of 4 were first rounders playing for the team which drafted them. It is far too often the case that a player gets taken in the first like a Cutlet, he gets run out of town by the team which chose him as a QB incapable of leading a team deep into the playoffs and lo and behold he actually develops at his second stop. In fact, this was the case with last year's SB winner in that Drew Brees was drafted early to great expectations and then was allowed to leave in FA. I merely have been repetitively arguing that unless the Bills see the QB who can put them over the top and trade for him like Eli Manning, the better strategy is to allow some other team to draft a 1st rounder and let him learn the game and then get your first rounder from some berg like TD who impatiently gave up on Young (and second rounder Favre) or the folks who gave up on first rounder Dilfer or the folks who gave up on Brees. 1st round QBs from proven SB appearers like McNabb or Favre are available for the right price IF you see them making the difference for your team. The problem for the Bills is that we are no where near the status of a team like Pitts which did in fact spend a 1st on RoboQB who got them to the promised land, but intelligent teams have built a solid TEAM to fit the appropriate QB into. This draft a franchise QB 1st model and build around him has no precedent of working as best as I can tell.

No I actually do agree with you that this is not a coincidence. What I think this points to is that reality indicates that scouting has vastly improved over the last decade, The evidence which I think indicates this is true is the real world results at winning the SB which has been achieved by QBs over the last 20 or so years. Dallas choosing Aikman in the late 80s marked a significant drought in QBs drafted by teams in the 1st round actually leading the teams which drafted them to SB victories (and often after the retirement of Jimbo even seeing many first round choices even lead the teams which drafted them to SB berths even to lose. If you do not believe me check the records. Until Peyton Manning broke a 2 decade drought no team had selected a QB in the first round who had led the team that drafted him to even an SB berth. Steve McNair losing the SB by a few yards on the final play of the SB even marked a several year streaks (I think broken by Donovan McNabb) of first round QB choices not even leading the teams which chose them to even a losing berth, The odd thing to me was that in the face of reality being what it was, we actually saw the conventional wisdom become that a team MUST draft a QB judged worthy of being a 1st rounder if their goal was to win the S. In this QB centric league, the Bills were a particular victim of this counter to the facts we must draft a savior at QB or by any means find a new rangy Jim Kelly. This fruitless quest led to several miscalculations which to me are at the heart of a painful last decade +. Scouting, selecting and training have improved a lot over the last decade. Finally Manning broke through (though as QBs are still overvalued we see a team which pretty clearly has had one of the best passers in the league not only need the best D HC, the best GM. the best kicker, the best safety (the way Sanders played and was used at S revolutionized the game making the Cover 2 the D of choice and making a lie of the conventional wisdom that you never draft a safty in the top 10) and a pretty continual failure to come even close to repeating their SB glory. NFL teams (the Bills being a notable exception) have gotten much better at choosing QBs to meet their teams needs (thus the success of RoboQB, trading for E. Manning, and even the quick success of the very flawed Samchez. I agree that drafting the QB you want has gotten much better and refined the past 5 years or so, but a big part of this is not drafting an idiot QB in the 1at just to say you got a franchise QB. I simply do not see the needs of this Bills teams with his significant limitations on the OL, LB. and DL producing a winner by drafting a rookie to get killed. Ironically, I do not think Newton has the right stuff to be a team leading QB as a rookie. However, he is the only choice I could see the Bills making of an offensive player in the 1st round but if Newton is the one I do not start him at QB but instead use him in the O like the Jets use Smith as a snap catcher in Wildcat offense who I have no fear of running and sometimes throwing the ball if the D puts to many players in the box.

This is a good point as the fact of the matter is that it seems somewhat counter to reality to define a guy as franchise because you would never trade him when actually there are a significant number of players whom virtually all would agree are "franchise" QBs who were not only traded but actually cut, Is Brett Favre a franchise guy? Was Steve Young a franchise guy> In recent history not only was Favre acquired as an FA twice, Donovan McNabb acquired as an FA and it appears likely to be one soon again, and Drew Brees also was simply run out of dodge. Its one of the reasons why when folks claim you MUST draft a franchise guy are simply ignoring reality is that it is simply the case franchise QBs are there to found in other methods besides the draft. Add to this fact, that being a QB capable of leading your team to an SB win and being a franchise QB are two different things (did Brad Johnson play an essential role in QBing TB to an SB win? Yep, Is he a franchise QB? Nope. Was Dilfer capable of QBing Bal to an SB win? Was he even a first round bust picked up in FA? Yep and yep. Do the Bills need a franchise QB? Nope, it would be nice. However, if I can win an SB without a franchise QB or simply just make the playoffs without a franchise QB then I question mortgaging the farm in a likely unsuccessful attempt to acquire one. A 1st rounder is in fact more likely to be a franchise QB, but given that a bunch of first rounders will be available after they get run out of Dodge, that it is not impossible at all to get a franchise QB in a later round, and given that our goals are NOT to get the next Jimbo lets just make the darn playoffs first, I think folks need to get a clue.

For me, franchise is not an episodic delineation, but really talks about a career. This cuts both ways. Brad Johnson does not qualify for me as a franchise QB "merely" for leading TB to an SB win (what he did was way cool and he deserves kudos for this but he is not a franchise QB in my lingo- I would chose Jimbo as my QB over Brad Johnson all day. The same goes for Trent Dilfer who was not a franchise QB as much as he was the right talented but limited guy in Baltimore at the right time after he proved to be a 1st round drafted bust). Thus, Brady does not lose my designation of him as a franchise guy simply because he has lost 3 playoff games in a row (a pretty phenomenal record of failure actually which begins to at least raise some questions about his patina- questions which I think are easily answered by his previous record of success but legit questions begin to be raised). I would add however, that my favorite story of a player who in my too much NFL watching experience totally deserved the franchise QB label despite only meriting a 3rd round choice was Joe Montana. The story is that apparently in one game which came down to SF having one play where they would either score a TD or go home losers and SF had apparently gotten rocked and beaten up all day unexpectedly, the players came to the huddle looking to Joe for leadership in what was clearly the most critical play of the day and in fact of the season. The potential for panic was setting in and all eyes and ears turned to Joe to give them direction to put this all into perspective as the big play. Joe looked at the group and then toward the endzone and said. Hey, isn't that John Candy (a big time comedian at the time for you yute too young to remember) in the third row? I love his work. He was great in the movie Splash" Let's score a TD on a fade pass to Rice (or whoever) right in front of him. Leaders have a great way of instilling confidence, perspective, and shared mission among the people they lead. My favorite SB quote is some press flack asked Hollywood Henderson, Duane Thomas or some other Dallas Cowboy who walked to his own drummer whether the coming SB was the biggest moment in his life. He replied, "If its so important why do they play it every year?" I love leadership and it is one of the marks of a franchise QB. The 9ers scored and won it all

I disagree. Rodgers is an excellent QB that any team should be proud to have. His racking up a QB rating over 100 a couple of years in a row are great indications of how phenomenal talent he is. However, though my view may not be the norm in the "right now" society that we have, I do not think we should grace a QB with the franchise stamp until they are a proven winner and leader several times in a row. Doing it once may be an event. Doing it twice may be a coincidence. You have to do it three times to make it a trend. This to me is why Jim Kelly is the real deal and actually a worthy HOF player though he never won it all (and it can be said credibly with his partying that his pregame lack of preparation was one of the big stories of ther Bills first SB loss( but he us someone I would grace with the tag franchise QB. Rodgers has had a great couple of seasons and he is clearly a go-to guy right here and right now in my book. However, it was merely a couple of seasons ago he led his team to a ginormous 6-10 record. In addition, he is about to play the team which beat them and cost them them a division title this year. I think you are being a bit too easy in your praise to designate him as an obvious franchise QB. In fact, Rodgers is leading his team into the friendly confines of Soldiers Field rather than getting the advantage of the Lambeau Leap specifically because he is not a franchise QB (YET). He may do it and he has a chance to prove it on Sunday. However, your designation of undoubtedly? If Rodgers gets folded, spindled, and mutilated on Sunday his play this year will not be franchise but not even a footnote.

I think that the word "franchise" is not just a mere statement of the skill level of a QB, but whether he has the support from his teammates and the luck of how this oddly shaped ball bounces to actually win big time for a while. I would flat out reject the contention that virtually all the players on the list above should be designated as franchise QBs. Sanchez is headed there with two straight AFC Championship appearances I define going deep in the playoffs as appearing in the championship game. However, I simply cannot see giving this title to a player merely because he led gets designated the starting QB but did not lead his team deep into the playoffs. Bradford is a very talented and promising QN I would love to have but he is not a franchise QB in my book.

I don't think that generally there is any feeling among most that the Pats are a classy team. A winner and a very good playing team yes, but classy nope. I think folks look at the videotaping scandal where Belicheat got an unprecedented fine levied (my guess is that Kraft paid it and it was chalked up as a cost of doing business) and BBs history where he announced his decision to HC the Jets and then reneged on his word and jumped ship that he is far more classless than classy, He clearly is one of the best game HC going, and one has to give the Pats players props for turning BB completely messing up negotiations with Lawyer Milloy over a few meaningless bucks into a TEAM building rallying point. However, classy is not a descriptor I think most folks outside of Boston and the TV network board rooms would apply to the Pats.

The other potential problem the owners have btw is the threat by elected officials to take away the partial exemption which the NFL has in regard to anti-trust laws. It is this partial exemption under which NFL teams to some extent conspire with each other to block other competitors from entering the market. The threat to this exemption is one of the reasons why political leaders in Cleveland who are about as stupid as the NYS political leaders were able to beat up the NFL and force the league into letting them keep the Browns and get the expansion of the league back into Cleveland. Who knows for sure how the publicity war between the millionaire players and the billionaire owners will play out, but the owners would be playing a game where even if it is unlikely a new bill will pass to strip them of the partial antitrust exemption, merely the threat of this is going to create problems for the teams which are heavily leveraged. One of the mistakes some folks make in analyzing this situation is to assume that all NFL teams have the same needs and views on this issue. The likelihood is that some are more heavily leveraged as they have gotten loans to buy their teams. These teams will be putting a lot of pressure on the rich owners like Snyder and Jones to get a deal done, I think folks are fooling themselves if they choose to believe all the teams are monolithic. The teams may well only be as strong as their weakest links.

First its simply a guess as the owners are refusing to tell the truth about finances. No one can know for sure what the real situation is as the NFL has decided not to let folks know what is real and what is not. However, I do not think that it is an unreasonable guess that the owners are not releasing the real #s because there is something in there that does not help their case. No one knows for sure what it is (it could be they undercut the case they are in trouble and need a fix from the players or I think it may be that the numbers would reveal which teams are in the worst shape and thus most vulnerable to being pushed around- anyway whatever it is cannot be good for the owners or they likely would release the #s. My guess is that a few of the teams are heavily leveraged and if so they will put peer pressure on the other well0to do owners to make a deal so that their loans do not default, I doubt the owners are monilithic and likely will find it hard to be stronger than a few weak links, In addition, the player leadership has long seen this coming and I would suspect a talented tenth of players who understand this situation have likely come up with some left field strategies like the NFLPA threat to decertify which won the last couple of CBA fights. The sad fact is that the owners took advantage of the taxpayers and the system to get college ball to absorb a huge training cost for them. I think the owners will probably take it on the chin as their forcing the players not to sign with them until they were adults is likely gonna come back and bite them.

I also thought that the Forbes article provided a far more straightforward explanation of the situation than most. One can easily disagree to some extent about the relative motivations it assumes, but in general, the facts know see, to be well analyzed and stated. The big issue here is that the unknown facts are the question of what are the actual individual team fiscal situations and since the NFLPA has asked for that to be revealed and the NFL has refused it is not unreasonable to assume that these facts would undercut the NFLs case. It is particularly interesting to me that the NFLPA proposal is not one to expand their power or $ take but to maintain the status quo. Even if the status quo is not as lucrative as the owners would like it clearly is doable. The GN numbers are likely not those of the average team but in the absence of the NFL providing real numbers it is not unreasonable to realized that they actually may be wrong because the average team makes a lot more. I do think the article actually does give too short a shrift to weapons potentially on the NFLPAs side. 1. As mentioned above, the debt loads carried by some teams are likely to be something which will force the owners to cave. I actually am quite surprised and amazed that the networks have agreed to pay the NFL even if they do not provide the networks with games to sell soap, beer, and car ads around. Yet, even if this subsidy for the owners from other for profit businesses is true, my guess is that this will not be true for all the vendors and businesses which provide a far smaller amount of income than the nets, but still a lot. When the banks come calling for loan payments and the teams have a large source of income in the nets to pay but do not have the marginal millions from other sponsorship deals the pressure on owners to settle will be high. 2. Yhe NFLPA under Ed Garvey and the AFK-CIO types got their butts licked by the mif 80s lockout and replacement players. However, the players led by Upshaw were now much more willing to listen and try new ideas. The untought of notion of decertification caused the owners to run and not walk to essentially cave in to NFLPA demands )as demonstrated when Upshaw said publicly before the last negotiation that the salary cap # would need to start with a 6 (the final deal set the new total revenue cap at 60.5%, What new idea or approach will the NFLPA take> It is doubtful that they will simply be static in the face of the owners forcing a retalk. 3. Ovverall I think that this last point highlights the fact that the NFL actually is the beneficiary of a huge taxpayer subsidy provided by the NCAA (many of its members are taxpayer funded entities like the U. of Mebraska et al. Most other major leagues actually pay exhorbitant contracts to kids to train and develop them (MLB contracts for 16 year olds and South American recruiting and contract- NHL developmental and minor league teams(. The NFL not only gets the subsidy of the training and development of these child athletes, but even gets their coperation in the Combine and on campus pro days. Even better for the NFL (and current players through the NFLPA they actually have colluded to do the un-American thing of denying adults the ability to sign contracts until they reach 21 amd uses the draft to restrain free trade of player negotiation by locking them to one team, The downside of this benefit for the NFL is that they are negotiating with adults rather than with the minors who with their parents bind themselves to team when the athletes are kids. My bet is that he talented 10th of adult players in the NFLPA may well lead other players to access other sources capital than the current NFL team owners if a lockout occurs. My guess is that a deal will be made because if one is not then the NFL owners are going to take it on the chin.