Hplarrm

I think in judging QBs many Bills fans judge the grass always being greener elsewhere. Tebow would have been our savior but to do this ignores the fact that with our OL and with our D keeping the O off the field and on its heels likely the same O problems Tebow had would happened here (and likely would have been worse. I think that basically almost any vet would have done better than a rookie with our O (except maybe Bradford who I think is the real deal but he likely would have been far worse here than he was if we had him). Fitzy is likely not our answer for the future but I think he performed better here than we would have with any of the rookie QBs.

Rather than rearranging the deck chairs of the draft system, the change I would love to see is the NFL move to having a premiere and standard league with the top 3 or 4 teams in the two leagues moving up or down based on how they finished in the league. The teams could then choose to invest or not invest to create a particular level of play. Further, there would be the excitement created by the best of the lower league teams striving to move up and also the worst of the upper league teams fighting to avoid relegation to a lower level of play. Perhaps there could be some method of setting a salary cap so all teams are forced to spend a minimum amount to both reward all the players but also allow all the teams to potentially compete with each other (the best of the lower level teams would be operating with a smaller salary cap but due to their superior tactical play they can move up and thus qualify for greater fiscal reward). The Bills would be interesting in this type of set-up. Clearly one of the best in the early 90s the system can be designed so the team did not undergo the salary cap driven bloodletting which forced to cut adequate ST guys leading to the Homerun Throw-up or having to overpay the John Finas of the world (good player and a good guy but not worth what the Bills paid him to keep an LT). On the downside the Bills likely would have flirted with relegation to the second division based on their recent records.

This actually states the exact problem for anyone who wants to claim any rookie QB is exactly the type Nix wants in that even if this true, exactly the type Gailey has experienced success in the past working with and seems to like is a vet QB who has learned to read pro defenses to produce quick decisions. Gailey simply has no experience I am aware of that he has been successful producing a rookie who can make his O work. If the Bills were to go with a QB draftee with any expectation he is going to produce this year the likelihood would be they have made such a choice with zero demonstration that Gailey can make it work a rookie QB.

Actually the simple fact is that without Bledsoe the Pats never would have won their first SB for the 2001 season, Like it or not the Pats were in a must win game in the AFC Championship and if they lose they do not win the SB. Wunderkind Brady goes down to injury and none other than Bledsoe who did team up and accept that the better QB was starting. Even though part of the incorrect conventional wisdom is that you do not lose a starting job to injurym Bledsoe manned up and came off the bench without the usual NFL whining. Bledsoe not only took one for the team but actually threw the winning TD pass in a must win game. It is true that TD should have never signed an extension with Bledsoe after he sucked his second season here despite honestly deserving the Pro Bowl nod he got here as comeback player of the year his first season here, but again the simple fact is without Bledsoe it is pretty doubtful the Pats win the SB for the 2001 season.

The thing I believe is that Gailey and the Bills likely will say things that benefit the Bills. In this case, feeding the perception that the Bills are going to draft a QB drives up what folks will offer to get the #3 and the fear the Bills are gonna tighten the market if they are allowed to pick. In this light, then the separate issue that Gailey has made the playoffs with marginally talented QBs along with the definite need for better talent at LB and in the trenches is what gives me little doubt that in order to win this team will look at a position other than QB for a first round or even early pick/ Even the arguments that SB teams MUST have first round or franchise QBs actually underscores the real fact that from Drew Brees to Dilfer to Favre the best way to get a high pick QB is to let him learn the game elswhere and get run out of town.

There have been a posts heralding this or that rookie QB as a player perfect for a Gailey style offense (or pointing to other rookies as being Bledsoe like plodders who do not fit Gailey's style. The argument does make some superficial sense but actually it does not take a lot of thought and it would be great if someone checked the record and confirmed that actually there is no first year QB who fits the Gailey model, The model is based not on the QB being an extraordinary talent but instead being a vet QB who has started a few games and actually been judged a failure elsewhere. The Gailey model is one which takes a Fiedler, Kordell, and to some extent even a Fitzy and plugs him into an O system which emphasizes the QB using whatever talents he has (even if they are lacking in some significant physical area) and calls upon this vet to make quick reads and commit to them. In my mind Edwards failed not because he could not make the reads and even was a little fleet of foot which the Gailey O uses wellm but instead he had allowed himself to become incredibly gunshy after hie concussion and running the Jauron Noffense. I simply do not see Gailey showing much history of drafting and developing successful QBs. Please correct me if there are examples.

The problem with you plan or great and powerful Oz is that it basically is am unvarnished surrender of the 2011 season for the potential (probable at best and actually merely possible benefits because the draft is as much art as it is science) for the 2012 season. You simply do not even describe: 1. The impact on the 2011 Bills players and coaches when they transparently decide to put an inferior product on the field in the hopes of gaining benefits later. Basically the transparent rule for the players in 2011 will be that if the FO is making little effort to win in 2011 then the individual player need only make an effort to survive to get a payoff from some other team. 2. The impact on the hard built season ticket base and Bills fans simply see through the plan and choose to not spend their hard earned dollars on the 2011 Bills. Perhaps the TEAM makes such an outstanding comeback with the presence of the rookie QB Luck (my guess is that Luck does as much for the Bills performance as Peyton Manning did for Indy's results in his first year). If the Bills were to as transparently capitulate in 2011 as you suggest my guess is that at best the Bills recover their fan support in 2012 at best if ever. 3. The impact on the rest of the league is also uncertain. The biggest beneficiaries of this strategy in 2011 and likely 2012 is going to be the Jets, the Fish, the Pats, and whatever opponents face the Bills these two years as they likely can pencil in a win. ESPM coverage is likely to center on discussing which teams benefit the most because their schedule includes a team that has said No Mas and in a sport where the margins for making the playoffs are often determined by tiebreakers and one game, the entire competitive balance of the league is thrown off by one team capitulating. Part and parcel of the strategy you lay out is one getting rid of Fitz because he actually played a clear role in winning a couple of games. The strategy you lay out is a total repudiation of the "on any given Sunday" approach taken by the game which to a great extent is why its worth watching. You do not even give lip service to how this franchise (and maybe even the league) survive one of its teams simply surrendering for a season (or two or more as it will take time to rebuild from this debacle).

Yet. I think the options presented in the poll actually gives you the opportunity to both things and have both the QB and the athlete by trading down into the middle of the first and getting Newton. When the smoke clears the positioning for the Bills is: 1. You trade the valuable #3 using the draft value charts to get a 10-15 choice (whereever you judge Newton will drop to as it is quite doubtful he is a good to go starter at QB in his first year). However, though Newton is not likely to be a quality QB right out of the draft (he has not shown the made to start at QB that Luck has shown but then nobody has). Newton is a good passer and a nimble runner who is able to make good reads against college opponents. However, against the bigger and consistently faster pro players Newton appears to need a year or more watching pro Ds up close and personal before he becomes quality starter he might well be. 2. Even though you traded down to get Newton he still can play a valuable role in the Bills O as: A. We make more use of the Wildcat O with Newton as the QB primarily used as a runner receiving the direct snap. B. The Jets showed how one can use a talented athlete who can pass but is primarily a runner in the Wildcat. C, Newton appears to be a good enough athlete that when he is in the game he not only provides the possibility of traditional QB or use as an RB but potentially provides a credible WR threat. 3. Firzgerald is actually our designated QB and its his job to hold for at least a year. This gives Newton time tp develop. However by trading down for a significant pick we get potential D supplements with our #2 pick in the second round and the supplemental pick we get for trading down. I can see how this can work well to make us potent next year.

Unfortunately reality is simply reality. Back in the real world he was special enough to take advantage of the lousy tackling and fellow Shag RBs Forsett and Robinson were not special enough to shrug off the same lousy tackling (and most unfortunately former fellow Bills Jackson and Spiller were watching the game on TV). The simple reality is that Lynch did the job and nobody with a mere fact free opinion is gonna be able to take that away from him.

Jim Kelly proved flat out that one can be dumb as a stump about real life and one can still be a great football player. The conventional wisdom tends to be wrong about many things but one thing it seems to pretty right about is that you need to see how a player performs over 3 seasons before you declare that player a bust based on one year of disappointing performance (or two years in Moulds case) or declare a player a football god based on a year's success. It also seems pretty lame to draw conclusions based on what an announcer says a player told them. I do not think that Spiller will ever make us forget about how Thurman used to do blitz pickup but even dumb players improve over an off-season (and or coaches learn how to compensate for any lack of skills at this use in the game.

\\You make a pretty compelling case here that the man who has hired Modrak and empowered him time and again to scout the draft is really the one at fault here for the Bills problems,

Who makes the ultimate decision on what and whether to sign a contract? It ain't some hapless GM or Modrak it is Mr. Ralph. Is the current plight Nix's fault? Too early to indict but results do not look good so far. Was the previous failure Jauron's fault? Given the lack of a GM he has to be bear some of the blame. Was the pren- GM phase Marv Levy's fault? Sure. Granted the bust of McCargo is balanced by an extraordinary pick of Pro Bowl qualifier in the 5th but overall sure/ And so on TD, and so on Butler, and so on who fired Polian Any blame anyone wants to cast really needs to start with Mr. Ralph or it is simply wrong. In fact it can end with Mr. Ralph as well as like it or not Modrak, Jauron, Levy, or whomever simply can not be blamed for the majority of the decade plus of inadequate results.

The thing I think is naive is to not seem to recognize that even if one stipulates as an unassailable fact that Modrak sucks (or that Jauron sucks or that Levy sucks, or whomever, the buck clearly must stop with one guy who is to blame for a decade plus without the playoffs, This is Mr, Ralph! I mean get a clue. Who has been in charge for the entire decade plus whether it was Butler leading a toxic final draft, TD stepping in to lead the team only to deserve by all assessments to get canned, or Levy stepping in a first time GM who was only up to the job for 2 years, or any of the series of failures at HC from Gregg Williams, to Mularkey to Jauron, From my standpoint any article which tries to lay the blame for our failures on Modrak without flat out recognizing that it is Mr. Ralph who had retained and empowered Modrak again and again is simply bad reporting. Even going back past a decade for the seeds of the current disaster it really starts and pretty much ends with recognizing Mr. Ralph completely bollicksed the relationship with Polian and then with Butler. If you want to point to his exercising his owner's right to meddle but doing so poorly with horrendous football judgment it starts with him making a handshake deal to reward Jimbo in his next contract and him not recognizing that Jimbo was done. This led directly to the stretch to take TC rushing him to start and a litany of QB miscues through Losman/Edwards. Blaming Modrak is simply bad reporting not because he is good but because as bad as anyone wants to claim he is then the blame must go to the guy who keeps hiring and empowering this idiot, Honest reporting gives Mr. Ralph kudos for keeping the team here, but also indicts him and only him as the guy who the buck stops with.

The silliest thing about this thread is that a big part of the reason Troup did not get anywhere #1 NT reps on this 3-4 team with only one DT slot is that in order for Troup to play that means you have to sit the lone Pro Bowl qualifier on this team Kyle Williams, I do not think this would have or should have happened. Quite frankly anyone disappointed by the not bad back-up to a Pro Bowler #s which Troup put up are simply spouting a lot of non-football assessment. In fact arguably one of the reasons that the Bills began to play more 4-3 this year rather than their base 3-4 is that Troup played well enough that this was a better team playing with the traditional 2 DT set-up than they did with an LB corps not only ravaged by injuries but Poz had trouble picking up the 3-4 ILB set-up and our OLB simply proved to be weak,

The mistake the lead post makes (and seems to be one made constantly by political pundits) is the claim that ther is one and only one motivation for an action or even a point of view. Does Mr. Ralph view the Bills as a business? Yep and it is a clear motivation. Does Mr, Ralph view the Bills as a sportsmanship enterprise> Yep and its a clear motivation. The lead post is totally wrong in claiming that business is the only motivation. Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time and this is true of the Bills. From where I sit the team clearly occupies both spaces whether they are being to chintzy as is often the case or choosing to pay more than the market rate for Kelsay. The lead post does not seem connected to reality.

I think this is interesting for several reasons: 1. It means that the general affirmation of all the coaches which Gailey seemed to give is not actually and operative statement. While it is not good that there is even the perception that what Chan says and what he does are too different things, the wholesale endorsement of the coaches which this statement was interpreted as being was essentially nonsensical and undercut a central premise for any winning team that losing is ultimately not an option and jobs must be at risk based on results. Thank gosh somebody (s) paid with their jobs given the awful run D results (and arguably there should be more with Edwards on thin ice). 2. This points to where the braintrust feels there is a need for improvement in scheme and teaching for the awful run D results. This makes sense though as when you look at the run D lack of production the ? is how do you make it better? The choices are: A. Better players B. Better scheme C. Better coordination (cause the players are good enough and the scheme is sound) D. Better teaching and implementation My guess is it likely is some combination of all of the above, but given that I think the DBs actually do well in many of these areas, the DL is actually not far from being better (it could use another stud player), the LBs actually need repair in a number of these areas and is the area I am most likely to simply tear down and start over. New leadership is likely a key to doing something very different.

If I was gonna sign a couple of big FAs this is certainly the statement I would make: Declaring you are gonna go FA bug tine destroys your leverage. Negotiating with an individual player you would not want to signal that you can and must sign a big FA deal, We recently saw what happened when Arthur Blank publicly promised to sign a WR as an FA to give Vick a weapon, TD immediately franchised Peerless and named their Price after Falcs owner Blank forced himself into having to not only pay a big contract but trade a first for talent he generally declared he would pay a high price for.

The problem with this thinking though is that with pretty much any rookie QB the Cards are writing off the season anyway as this rookie learns to win (if he survives). The Cards are no where near the position that Pitts was when RoboQB joined a team featuring Polamalu, Ward, Bettis among others to allow them to win with a rookie QB. As the Luckless draft has no QB around projected to be an immediate difference maker this logic makes little sense for the Cards.

If a team chooses to depend on their QBs fleet feet to avoid rush issues there are several things they will also need to do: 1. Make sure they have a good back-up QB who is capable of playing the Frank Reich role of being a credible starter for at least 3 games as a strategy which relies on your QB to be more than a change of pace running threat is likely to see this QB go down for significant periods of time. 2. Do not forget that the weak OL in protecting the passer is likely a weak OL in opening the holes for the running game and simply getting a tough QB will help but does not get rid of the need to upgrade the OL but now you have used your first rounder on a QB so you are using later picks to upgrade your OL. 3. You may well have to use later picks to upgrade your OL because you have primary needs to upgrade at LB and on DL. If you spend the #3 on your QB and your second on the needed upgrade at OL for your running game then you now relegate the needed upgrade at 2 D positions to later picks. Is hard to see how your strategy produces a winner.

I agree with you that this is a franchise QB driven league. However, this is a different issue than whether you acquire this franchise QB. Take a look at your own list. Pittsburgh- Yep, they drafted RoboQB in the first. but no one mistakes Buffalo for being anywhere near where Pitts was in terms of quality players like Polamalu, Ward, Bettis, etc. Do you really think that Luck no matter how god he is will mean the same thing for the Bills that a franchise QB like RoboQB meant for Pitts if you want to claim this as a determinative example for us. New Orleans- actually got their franchise QB through FA so this is a reason not to draft a Luck New England- again got their franchise QB through a 6th round pick and again is a reason not to go QB in the 1st. Indianapolis- yes, here is a QB taken in the 1st, but the key points of this pick are: 1. Indy clearly had done more to build an OL for Peyton than the Bills have for whatever sacrificial lamb rookie they will throw to the wolves if thry draft an immediate starter at QB. 2. Even if one chooses to assume the QB chosen is another Manning in skill level, specifically the new guy must have a rocket release cause even Manning got sacked a lothis rookie year. 3. Manning ended up on the 7 year plan before he finally delivered the SB win and needed James as a #5 to move Indy off the same 13 loss record I am not sure the Bills can survive the learning curve to eventual production a rookie QB brings to a bad team even if Luck or whomever turns out to be the next Peyton. NY Giants- Not only was Eli acquired by trading for his specific talents but those talents were the needed augment to put NYG over the top not completely revive the team as our QB will have to do. The examples which you site point more towards why the Bills should not draft Luck rather than advocate trying to find a franchise bolt of lightening in the draft.

1. The OL needs some serious injections of talent (and even with that it will be a year away from having the needed chemistry. 2. This DL is incapable of stopping the run in its current configuration (talent and application of the talent we have). 3. While yesterday was no proof of Fitz's ability as he did not play, we clearly saw a difference in performance by this team when run by a second string (and possibly a third string) QB who is not capable of reading Ds and having the ability to get rid of it quick (which is about the level just about all rookie QBs come in with as they simply have not had the experience of reading pro D in game situations.

This formula means developing Fitz because even if you do not think he can develop into a decent QB it is contradictory to claim we are going to both draft a decent QB in the first AND also draft the playerS we need to stop the run at the same time.

It appears doubtful that Newton will be the second QB taken so this says to me trade down if at all possible to try to get an extra pick to take the DE we need and still get Newton with a later pick in the 1st.

yes, but do you also take into account that drafting a QB in the first yourself and developing him is a different thing than acquiring a QB drafted in the first and then picking him up after he gets run out of town after failing grandly with the team which picked him. History is full of QBs drafted early and then run out of town (Steve Young is the classic). If you expand the version of stud QBs to include first day picks then recent examples like Drew Brees or classics like Brett Favre also fit these examples. Even if you want to claim these are episodes rather than trends, actually until Peyton and RoboQB delivered SB wins to the teams which picked them, one has to go back to the late 80s when Dallas chose Aikman to find a QB drafted in the 1st who delivered an SB win to the team which picked him. In fact, the teams which make drafting a QB in the first work for them are teams like Pitts where RoboQB was the additional piece complimenting Hines Ward, Polamalu etc rather than the leader like a Bills QB will need to be as he operates with a substandard OL. Drafting Luck with our team has disaster written all over it.

+1 This sending messages thing is given too much import by many posters. The same action can be interpreted differently by different people. If Gailey/Nix want to send a message to a particular player by far the best method is to tell the player what you want. A particular action may underscore what has been said (or what has been said is pretty much unknown to us outside the locker room and a player may have been told specifically to ignore the alleged import of some action )for example if the coaching staff or FA has told Poz they plan and want to get a deal done with him and asked him what he thought about us signing Merrimen- who knows besides Poz and the FO). Unless there is some public statement that a maneuver either underscores or runs counter to this sending a message thought can be pretty much ignored.