LI_Bills

Me too. I'll add that a rookie QB has a better chance of success if he comes in surrounded by talent and competitive teams are in a better position to attract veteran talent (i.e. - Manning/Broncos) if the draft picks are busts.

StubHub?

Me too. Two weeks ago I was having lunch on a ski day and a table or two away I overheard a father telling his two young sons about game 6. He was describing how torturous it was, but he did it with a smile on his face because of their more recent success (probably the Pats success too). One day that will be us.

I was trying to point out that Marinos quick release allowed him to prevent sacks...something Matt Ryan could have done to ensure a SB trophy. As I recall Marino got criticized for giving up on plays and throwing the ball away instead of taking a sack cuz he didn't want to get hit. I never bought into that argument.

I remember thinking that was a great pick. At the time a prevailing theory was that bookend tackles were smart/safe picks. Which I think was also before the rookie pay scales were implemented. It's easier now to take a chance and not be locked in to an absurd contract Throw enough ***** at the wall and somethings bound to stick? Unless you're putting everyone on a one year make/break trial I think drafting a QB every year doesn't make sense. I do think that the OP pointed out an alarming trend that needs to be corrected.

Any reference to Blanda deserves major props. I had to look up his stats and was surprised to see he was still throwing passes in his late 30's. I remember him as one of the last non-soccer style kickers. Never saw him throw a pass. Well done. My recollection is that Marino was the king of the quick release and avoided many sacks (not saying he didn't take his beatings). Something Matt Ryan could have benefited from on that fateful 2nd down.

I can't argue with your facts, but are you suggesting that Kelly would have sucked if he had joined the Bills after being drafted?

I've heard this from many others in many posts and I understand the sentiment. So what do we do with the guy we pick each year? Let him sit and develop (if so, for how long?) or just throw him out there and let him sink or swim? Not worry about developing a competitive team until we have found "the guy" to build around? I just don't see drafting a QB every year as a cut and dried decision. Take this year for example. My feeling is that Tyrod is OK but needs to show improvement and we need to plan for the possibility that we need to move on from him (cue the Tyrod non-believer posts). Have we given up on Cardale? If so, we need to draft a QB this year when the general consensus is that the QB prospects will be better next year. Do we think Mahomes/Trubisky/Watson or whoever is "the man"? If so, by all means go get him but I don't think you can do that every year until it works. Back to the OP's point: 5 since 1996 is ridiculous

With the benefit of hindsight this may sound stupid, but at the time I actually thought making the reach for EJ was a good move. They saw the guy they wanted at the most important position and made sure they got him. Problem was it turned out to be a big swing and miss. Years ago I read something about how Jerry Jones would go after talented, high risk castoffs in free agency. Coming from the oil industry he was used to spending tons of cash drilling dry holes in the hopes that he'd strike oil on one of them. As it was told, that's how he made his fortune. The 5 since 2001 points out that we need to take more chances regardless which round.

That is stunning. I'm not a proponent of drafting one every year until you hit the jackpot, but 5 since 2001 is ridiculous.

Lighten up. I didn't mean to imply that others shouldn't discuss. I was just expressing my opinion on the topic. If you don't like it, you could just as easily ignore it.

It's maddening to me why it matters to anoint a GOAT. How about: "Otto Graham played in the NFL for 6 seasons and 4 seasons in the AAFC (which later merged into the NFL) and went to 10 championship games and won 7 of them" I'm not saying Brady was better than Montana or Graham or whoever, I just think comparing across eras makes no sense.

Could not agree any more. I'm not sure why it's so important to declare any player the "best ever". Statistics are completely irrelevant across eras and the eye ball test doesn't work unless you saw the guy play. Well then thanks for the back up!

And that made them LOADED?

Who are the players from the 1982 and 1984 Super Bowl that you are referring to?

I've heard the argument that the best players in this era would be just as good if they played in another era. Could be, we'll never know. Maybe there would've been another guy back then that would've made his mark if it wasn't "old school football". Or maybe Tebow would've been a monster in a bygone era. The broken record (me) says that comparing players from different eras is pointless.

I think it's a pointless exercise to try to anoint someone the best of all time. The game has consistently changed...rule changes, conditioning, free agency, salary cap...and by the way it's a team sport right? So lets throw in coaching and team make up to the mix. Who on this site ever saw Otto Graham? Not me, and I'm no spring chicken. From what I've been told Archie Manning was a phenomenal QB on phenomenally lousy teams. And while I'm on the Manning family, the Peyton Manning/Brady debate was a great one because they actually played in the same era. The perception is often that Brady killed Manning head-to-head, but how about on the biggest stage (for them it was AFC championship). And hypotehtically if they switched teams/coaches would one look better than the other? All my hot air aside, for years I put Peyton and Brady in the same category and never considered one better than the other. I'll grudgingly give Brady the nod for longevity and too many games like the last Super Bowl. But is Brady better than Graham or Montana? Not a fair comparison for any of those players IMO.

I would've gone with Vandalay Industries.

Howard - you may be retired USPS, but you never stopped delivering. Outstanding!

This trade has DePodesta/Moneyball written all over it.

Are the same people that think this is an all pass league the same ones that killed the Falcons for not running the ball in the second half? I'm all for balance and personnel. Right now with McCoy and Tyrod a road-grader FB makes sense to me, we are more suited to run so lets fortify that while acknowledging that the passing game needs work. A 16 game season from Sammy would help the passing game. As for Tyrod, it is what it is, there are many other threads in which to vent. IMO we can be competitive with him, but I get the concerns that the best is not yet to come.

Wow, you are quick! Didn't see that coming at all!

No doubt...Winslow, Joiner, Jefferson. Alsworth and the powder blue pre-dates me...and thats saying something!

That's like having the best hemorrhoids to me. No offense, admittedly those unis aren't as bad as some of the others, I just despise the whole concept and I'll never forgive the NFL for the Bills/Jets elf bowl.

As an out-of-towner whose youngest is dying to go to a game I've had my eye on the Columbus Day game the past few years. Don't think we'll make the tailgate...wifey would be horrified. As for Thursday night scheduling, I'd like to see them mix it up with less divisional games.