Orton's Arm

You're reaching pretty far back into the past for some of those examples. Joe Montana was drafted in 1979. Carter was still president, memories of the Vietnam War were very fresh, gasoline was being rationed. Even the QB class of '83 was a long time ago. The first round busts you mentioned were more recent. But almost all of those guys were chosen in large part because of their physical gifts and "upside," not because they'd proven themselves as NFL-ready polished pocket passers at the college level. I remember a large number of people on this site began talking about Jamarcus Russell as a first round bust even before he signed his rookie contract! Most of the errors on that list would have been avoided by good GMs. To avoid discussions about third round picks from '79, let's focus on the franchise QBs in the league today: Tom Brady: 6th round Peyton Manning: 1st overall Eli Manning: 1st overall Drew Brees: 32nd overall Aaron Rodgers: 26th overall Matt Schaub: 3rd round Ben Roethlisberger: 11th overall Phillip Rivers: 4th overall Nearly half the guys on that list were chosen in the top five of the draft. Six of eight were taken in the first 32 picks. If a GM has a very high grade on a QB, but knows that QB will be long gone by the time his team gets to pick, he's pretty much out of luck. (Trading up for a franchise QB is very, very difficult.) Going 1-15 to get a top pick is a viable way to attain a franchise QB. This is especially true if, going into the season, there's a very promising prospect you're already targeting.

I am suggesting that the Bills do whatever it takes to maximize their odds of winning the Super Bowl over the next 5+ years. A team without a franchise QB will typically have to wait 22.5 times as long to win a Super Bowl as will a team with a franchise QB. The Bills should do whatever it takes to maximize their odds of obtaining a franchise QB. As 1billsfan correctly pointed out, nothing prevents the Bills from making a "trade away the house" kind of deal for a franchise QB. Trading away the house for a franchise QB is considerably better than attempting to somehow win a Super Bowl without a franchise QB. If the Bills were to trade away literally every player on their roster for Aaron Rodgers, they would be considerably closer to building a Super Bowl winner than they are today. (Of course, it would take several years to assemble sufficient talent around Rodgers to build a Super Bowl winner, or even a credible team.) The downside to a trade like that is that it's highly doubtful the Packers would be foolish enough to accept it. They need Rodgers more than they need the Bills' roster in its entirety. (As an aside, fans underestimate the speed with which an NFL roster can be rebuilt. Look at how quickly TD replaced the vast majority of the Butler era roster, or the speed with which Marv replaced almost all of TD's players.) Going 1-15 and drafting a franchise QB would allow the Bills to obtain the benefits of the above-described plan without needing to trade away either the existing roster or valuable picks in future drafts. In comparison with other strategies, this strategy has the second-highest probability of obtaining a franchise QB, and a much lower cost than other strategy associated with a high probability of success. (The strategy most likely to result in a franchise QB would be to trade away a king's ransom for a young franchise QB. Assuming there were any teams out there willing to make such a trade.) I acknowledge that QBs picked in the top five of the draft don't always succeed. The odds of a bust can be reduced through a disciplined player evaluation process, and a willingness to see what is there, not necessarily what you want to be there. I also feel that a QB should not be drafted early based on his physical gifts or physical "upside." If you're taking him early, it should be for his demonstrated accuracy and football-related mental gifts. Most of the first round QB busts people had mentioned hadn't demonstrated proficiency in those areas, or else had other serious issues which should have excluded them from being chosen early. When people compared Manning to Leaf, Manning was said to be more "polished" and "NFL-ready," whereas Leaf supposedly had more "upside" due to his superior physical gifts. A GM who was only willing to use first round picks on QBs who were "polished" and "NFL-ready"--as opposed to "raw" like Leaf and Losman--is much less likely to draft busts. If despite all this the GM drafted a QB bust, it would probably be necessary to endure another 1-15 season a few years later to rectify the error. More generally, the above plan is optimized to maximize the chances of winning the Super Bowl. This is not necessarily the same thing as optimizing it to maximize anyone's job security, from the general manager on down. The job security element is almost certainly why the above-described mentality is almost never employed by NFL GMs.

Other than New England allowing the second-most passing yards in NFL history, how did their hybrid defense work out for them?

When Jimmy Johnson first took over the Cowboys, they'd gone 1-15. They used the resulting draft pick to take Troy Aikman first overall. In Aikman's first year the Cowboys again went 1-15, and used the first overall draft pick to take a defensive lineman. I forget the guy's name, but I recall him playing at or near a Hall of Fame level. Those two players proved very significant building blocks for the team that would start winning Super Bowls a few years later. This past draft, the Bills had too good a record--and therefore too poor a draft position--to take the most highly rated QB prospect: Cam Newton. This draft, they will be excluded from drafting Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III. Next draft they will probably also be unable to take any QB slated to go in the top 5. I realize not every franchise QB necessarily goes in the top 5. But if you're consistently excluded from the top 5 of the draft, acquiring a franchise QB becomes significantly more difficult than it otherwise would have been. A typical NFL team acquires a franchise QB once every 42 years. If you want to acquire franchise QBs significantly more often than that, you must do something atypical. I have proposed one method of acting atypically which would result in a greatly increased chance of obtaining a franchise QB.

I will specifically address your bolded statement. Obviously, someone will win the Super Bowl each year. Therefore, winning the Super Bowl is a perfectly realistic goal--at least for that someone. Over a ten year period, there will normally be six or seven different teams which win Super Bowls; and others which fell just short. Winning the Super Bowl is a realistic goal for such teams. What are the things which separate the teams like those from a team like the Bills of the last 10 years? Let's put aside the obvious answers like ownership, Ralph is cheap, etc., and look a little deeper. I'd argue that before a team can win the Super Bowl, someone at the top of the organization has to adopt winning it as the #1, #2, and #3 goal, and must subsume all other priorities to that one. All his decisions should flow from that one objective. The team Nix inherited could not possibly have been turned into a Super Bowl winner within one year. Therefore his objective should have been to build a team capable of winning a Super Bowl, and to do so within four years. Once you reach "capable of winning a Super Bowl" level, you want to maintain or even improve upon that high level for many years. That way you give yourself plenty of shots. If you know that your long-term goal is to win the Super Bowl, and you know that Fitz cannot be the starting QB for that Super Bowl winning team, does it make sense to keep him around over the short-term? (Again, the short-term should be considered irrelevant, except to the extent that it helps you build toward your goal of a team capable of winning the Super Bowl.) Suppose that in the off-season the Bills were to trade away Fitz for the best pick they could get. (Let's call that a third rounder for the sake of argument.) The Bills would probably go 1-15 or something with Tyler Thigpen as their quarterback. Does that short-term setback have any relevance toward their long-term goal of winning a Super Bowl? No! They weren't going to win it with either Thigpen or Fitz under center. But a 1-15 record would probably give them the first overall draft pick, which they very well might be able to use on a franchise QB. Once that critical but almost impossible-to-obtain piece was in place, they would then have the next several years to fill in the pieces around him. The hope is that those pieces could be added quickly enough to adhere to the planed schedule. The question Nix and others in the organization need to ask themselves is, "is it worthwhile to abandon the plan to build a Super Bowl winner in order to obtain success over the short-term? Or, if the plan isn't going to be abandoned completely, it is worthwhile to postpone the long-term plan and significantly lessen its chances of success?" The Bills are much less likely to be able to obtain a franchise QB picking in their usual draft spot--somewhere between 8 and 20--than they would be if they had the first overall pick. If there was no franchise QB available with the first overall pick in a given year, I would have no objection at all to deliberately having two back-to-back 1-15 seasons with the intention of obtaining a franchise QB and an elite player at another position. One cannot be said to be truly committed to a goal until one is willing to sacrifice everything to achieve that goal. Including the short-term win/loss record. As long as Fitz is quarterback, the Bills' draft picks will likely be similar to what we're used to seeing over the last ten years. This means we won't get the most highly touted QBs in any given draft. If Fitz is surrounded with more talent, the Bills might make the playoffs, and might even win a playoff game before being eliminated during the divisional round. This does not imply that they'd be getting closer to winning the Super Bowl. Again, winning the big one is all but impossible without a franchise QB. Getting to the playoffs does nothing to help them get a franchise QB. If anything, it would make it even less likely for them to obtain a franchise guy, because their draft position would be worsened. Therefore, a team should focus on getting a franchise QB first. Once they have him, they can then start concentrating on maximizing their number of wins.

I agree that Fitz is about average. The question is: how do we define success? Is the ultimate goal to build a Super Bowl winner? If so, what is the likelihood of Nix accomplishing that with Fitz as his starting QB? While we can't calculate the exact odds, we can at least come up with a rough approximation. Of the last ten Super Bowl winners, nine have had franchise QBs. There are typically about eight franchise QBs in the league at any one time, give or take. Therefore, if you have a franchise QB, your odds of winning the Super Bowl in any particular year are: 90% x (1/8) = 11%. The reason for this is because 90% of the Super Bowl wins are being divvied up among the eight teams with franchise QBs. If you don't have a franchise QB, your odds of winning the Super Bowl are 10% x (1/24) = 0.4% in any particular year. This is because the 24 teams without franchise QBs are divvying up the remaining 10% of Super Bowl wins. A team with a franchise QB should expect to win about one Super Bowl every nine years. A team without a franchise QB should expect to win a Super Bowl about once every 250 years. If the goal is to win a Super Bowl, then having Fitz as the starting QB virtually guarantees failure to achieve that goal.

This.

Your post sounds reasonable enough. The one area which you and I may see differently is in the use of words like "success" and "failure." Maybe the OP's definition of a successful QB is a guy at or near franchise level. By that definition Fitz is a failure. Perhaps other people would define a success at QB as a guy who can hold his own against other middle-of-the-road QBs. By that second definition, Fitz is a success. I think the main reason you and the OP disagree on whether Fitz is a failure is because the two of you haven't agreed on a definition of failure or success.

The links you provided are specific to particular weeks. Yes, Tom Brady had the 14th best performance of week 17--at least if QBR is used as the measuring tool. The link the OP cited stated that Fitz had the 18th best QBR for the whole year, not just one particular week. A comparison of QBs' numbers over the course of a year--which is what the OP has linked to--is much more meaningful than making comparisons between specific, cherry picked weeks of the season (such as week 17 or week 8). Your criticism of the original poster's logic is misplaced.

My thoughts about Fitz are similar to yours. My biggest concern with him is his propensity to make inaccurate throws, including on what should be fairly standard-issue patterns. While his inaccurate throws don't occur all the time, they do happen often enough. Someone wrote that Fitz is a better quarterback than Sanchez. This is true. Fitz averaged 6.8 yards per attempt in 2010 and 6.7 yards per attempt in 2011. Sanchez averaged 6.5 and 6.4 yards per attempt during those years, and has a career average of 6.5. (To put this into perspective, Trent Edwards' career average is also 6.5.) Sanchez is surrounded by a much better supporting cast than the one Fitz has or the one Edwards had. While Sanchez plays better than Edwards in flashes, his overall body of work is inferior to Edwards' or Fitzpatrick's. A QB should have a career average of 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt to be considered franchise. Some franchise QBs have averages which are considerably higher. Matt Schaub for example, has averaged 7.9 yards per attempt over the course of his career. Matt Schaub is well above the Sanchez/Edwards/Fitzpatrick level, and changes the equation of games in ways that those three QBs do not. When faced with a choice between building around a non-franchise QB or obtaining a franchise QB, I believe a franchise should always do the latter. Unfortunately, the Bills are not likely to have an opportunity to obtain a franchise QB in the upcoming draft.

I agree that finding a franchise QB is easier said than done. Earlier, I mentioned that each team in the AFC East has had 1 - 2 franchise QBs. (One each for the Jets and the Bills, 1.5 for the Patriots, 2 for the Dolphins.) Considering these teams have been around since about 1960, the AFC East illustrates that most of the time your team will not have a franchise QB. I disagree with your thought that having the other pieces in place makes a franchise QB more likely to appear. The Colts were able to draft Peyton Manning not because the other pieces were in place, but because the other pieces were so far out of place that the Colts went 1-15. Other franchise QBs taken in the top-12 include Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, and Philip Rivers. As for Tom Brady: within his first few games it had become clear that he was a significant upgrade over Drew Bledsoe. Bledsoe had begun his career as a franchise QB, but for whatever reason had become a merely average QB in the years leading up to his replacement. I agree that Brady wasn't asked to do as much back then as he is today. Partly that's because Brady was surrounded by less talent on offense then than now. Partly it's because the Patriots actually had a defense back then. And partly it's because Brady seems like he's playing at a higher level now than he had earlier in his career. (Though even back then, it was obvious Brady was a lot more than just a game manager. I remember reading that after the snap, Brady could process information over a full second faster than Bledsoe.) I'd argue that building a Super Bowl winner requires both a franchise QB and a reasonably good assemblage of talent around him. If you're missing one or the other of those two things, you're almost certain to experience a postseason loss to some other team which has both these things. There are some exceptions to this rule, but they are rare exceptions. Back in 2000, the Ravens had one of the three best defenses in NFL history. They had an offensive line led by Hall of Fame-level LT Jon Ogden. They had a very good running game in the form of Jamal Lewis. Almost none of the teams they faced in the playoffs had franchise QBs. They beat the Broncos (Elway's successor) in the wildcard round, and the Titans (McNair) in the divisional round. They beat the Raiders in the AFC Championship game. Gannon was injured in the second quarter, so for most of that game they faced Gannon's backup. They beat the Giants (Kerry Collins) in the Super Bowl. Most years are not like that. Normally, there will be a team that's a) reasonably complete, and b) that has a franchise QB. In order to win the Super Bowl, you will have to beat that team in particular! Beating a complete team that also has a franchise quarterback is almost impossible, unless you have a franchise quarterback of your own. This is why obtaining a franchise QB is both the single most difficult and the single most necessary step toward building a Super Bowl winner.

Earlier, I mentioned that if a QB has a career average of 7.2 - 7.3 yards per attempt, he might be a franchise QB. If his career average is 7.4 yards per attempt or higher, he's definitely franchise! Matt Schaub has averaged 7.9 yards per attempt over the course of his career. That's a higher career average than Peyton Manning (7.6) or Tom Brady (7.5). This past season Schaub put up a jaw-dropping 8.5 yards per attempt. Brady's average for the season was 8.6. Schaub has thrown nearly twice as many TDs as INTs over the course of his career. This past season he threw almost three times as many TDs as INTs. I'd argue that Schaub is the most underrated QB in the NFL, and is among the five best QBs in the league. To put this into perspective, the best season of Fitz's career was 2010, in which he averaged 6.8 yards per attempt. His overall career average is 6.3 yards per attempt. Even if going forward he's more likely to average 6.7 - 6.8 yards per attempt than 6.3, that's still 1.1 - 1.2 yards less than Schaub's career average. A 1.1 yard difference in two QBs' average yards per attempt is like a 0.7 yard difference between two RBs' average yards per carry. In other words, it's huge!

I agree that when two teams each have an elite QB, the more complete team will tend to win. (Even if the less complete team has the better of the two elite QBs.) There are some exceptions to that rule. I'd argue that in this past Super Bowl, the Steelers were the more complete team, but the Packers won anyway because of Aaron Rodgers being that much better than Ben Roethlisberger. But the general trend you've pointed out still applies. Almost every Super Bowl winner has a franchise QB. But not every franchise QB retires with a Super Bowl ring. Obtaining a franchise QB has to be part of any serious plan to win the Super Bowl. But that's only one of several things which must be done. As I pointed out in another thread, the four teams of the AFC East were each founded around 1960 or thereabouts. The Bills have had one franchise QB in their history (Kelly). The Jets have had one franchise QB (Namath). The Patriots have had 1.5 franchise QBs (Brady, plus the first half of Bledsoe's career). The Dolphins have had two franchise QBs in their history (Griese and Marino). Nearly all those teams' Super Bowl appearances and wins have come when they had franchise QBs; even though those teams have averaged about 1.5 franchise QBs each over the last 50 years. Obtaining a franchise QB will change the course of your team's history for the next decade or more.

QB rating is a deeply flawed stat. John Elway had a QB rating of 79.9, compared to 79.2 for Kelly Holcomb. Does anyone really believe the performance of the two QBs was only 0.8% apart? The problem with QB rating is that it takes completion percentage into account. This means a QB who attempts a lot of short passes--such as Holcomb--will be unfairly rewarded when compared to someone with Elway's playing style. Like Kelly Holcomb, Fitzpatrick also attempts a lot of short passes. (As an aside, Holcomb was a more accurate and consistent passer than Fitzpatrick, but Fitz is better at pre-snap reads.) Holcomb's career yards per attempt was 6.6, as compared to 7.1 for John Elway. Elway was a much better quarterback than Holcomb, and yards per attempt illuminates this in a way that QB rating does not. A QB can inflate his completion percentage--and therefore his QB rating--by completing passes for zero yards, or by relying on short, high percentage passes to the exclusion of his deep passing game. Yards per attempt is a much harder stat to inflate! A zero yard pass is every bit as bad for your yards per attempt stat as an incompletion would have been. Over the course of his career, ]Joe Flacco has averaged 7.1 yards per attempt. This past season, Ryan Fitzpatrick averaged 6.7 yards per attempt. During the 2010 season--his best in the league--he averaged 6.8 yards per attempt. Joe Flacco's usual level of play is clearly a step above Fitzpatrick's best level of play. Admittedly, this past season Flacco had an off year, and only averaged 6.7 yards per attempt. In the playoffs one of two things will likely happen: either Flacco will return to his old self, or the Ravens will get eliminated. Though quite frankly, the Ravens will probably be eliminated even if Flacco does return to his usual form. While Flacco at his usual is a step above Fitzpatrick, he's a step below Brady or Rodgers or the other elite QBs of the league. Nine of the last ten Super Bowls have been won by teams with franchise QBs, which means that teams led by Joe Flacco-level QBs were eliminated at some point in the postseason.

This.

When I saw this possibility being discussed, the following scenario leaped into my mind: January 10th, 2013 Chan Gailey Fired! After a 5-11 season, Bills' general manager Buddy Nix announced the firing of head coach Chan Gailey. "We respect Chan and his contribution to the organization over the years," Nix said, "but we ultimately decided it was in our best interest to go in a different direction." The firing comes after another disappointing season under Gailey's direction. A renowned offensive guru, Gailey could never quite put all the pieces together in Buffalo. Coming into Buffalo, he was known for taking second- or third-tier quarterbacks, such as Kordell Stewart, Jay Fiedler, and Thigpen, and making them succeed. He continued this for the Bills with Ryan Fitzpatrick. "They didn't give Gailey much to work with on offense," said one source who asked to remain anonymous. "The team he inherited had very little talent on either side of the ball. Most of their early draft picks were used on defense. On the rare occasion the team came across a talented player--such as Stevie Johnson--they let that player walk. 'Too many touchdown celebrations!' they told him." Despite having been given so little with which to work, Gailey gave the Bills a feisty offense which could not be taken lightly. But Gailey the offensive coordinator could not overcome the deficiencies of Gailey the head coach. "Their defense was their Achilles heel," said that same anonymous source. "Maybe you can get away with a sieve of a defense when you have a quarterback like Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers. But when you have Ryan Fitzpatrick is your quarterback, you need a pretty good defense if you want to win games." The Bills' defense set a new, franchise-worst record for most yards allowed and most points allowed. "That is not what we were hoping for when we invested so many early picks in our defense," said Nix candidly. As an offensive coordinator, Gailey succeeded brilliantly. As a head coach he was a failure due to his inability to surround himself with a capable coaching staff. After announcing Gailey's firing, Buddy Nix named defensive coordinator Dave Wannstedt the Bills' new head coach.

I'd argue that not all situational pass rushers are created equal. For example, Simeon Rice was a DE drafted 3rd overall by the Cardinals. He didn't live up to their expectations, was released, and was signed by the Tampa Bay Bucs. He was a situational pass rusher for the Bucs, and was an important part of the defense that helped the Bucs of 2002 win the Super Bowl. John Madden even wanted to make him Super Bowl MVP, on the theory that the Bucs' defensive line as a whole was the unit most responsible for their win, and Rice had played the best of any player on that line. Simeon Rice was valuable as a situational pass rusher because they lined him up as a defensive end, and asked him to quickly win one-on-one battles against offensive linemen. (Which he did.) That's very different from a guy who will lose his battles with offensive linemen--such as Maybin--but who still gets sacks anyway due to the design of the play. I find it very easy to believe that all Maybin's sacks have come on plays which have lasted five seconds or more. Clearly, a situational pass rusher who causes the pass rush to arrive in 2 - 3 seconds--such as Simeon Rice--is much more valuable than a situational pass rusher who requires a minimum of five seconds to get to the quarterback!

To an extent you can also use the pass to set up the pass. For example, let's say you're defending a team like the New England Patriots. Early on, you might tell your DBs to give decent cushions to shut down the deep passing game. Brady will respond by killing you with the underneath stuff. If you then tell your CBs to get rid of the cushions and take away the underneath stuff, Brady will respond by killing you with intermediate and deep passes. Choose your poison. The Patriots' running game creates many fewer problems for your defense than does their passing game. The main effect of their running game is that opposing defenses are prevented from selling out 100% against the pass.

In that case, let's compare more recent scars which have yet to fully heal. I'll take three Marv-related scars: Donte Whitner, John McCargo, Marshawn Lynch. On another matter, Lee Evans provides a very good #2 threat/deep burner. If a defense puts a CB on an island against him, he will sometimes punish the CB by burning him deep. He serves the same general purpose as Alvin Harper, Peerless Price (the first time around), John Taylor, and other #2 WRs known primarily for their speed. Any coaching staff which tries making him into a #1 WR is setting itself up for failure, and the fan base up for disillusionment. Any time you take a deep burner/#2 WR and try to make him into something more than he is (a #1) you will encounter this problem. Defenses haven't exactly bent over backwards to respect the Bills' deep passing game, so adding someone like Evans seems tempting. But it's not as though the lack of a deep passing game is because Gailey woke up one morning and said, "Deep threat, shmeep threat." The causes are deeper: the offensive line has often failed to pass protect well enough to allow deep threats to develop. Even if that problem were solved, Fitz is at his most erratic and inaccurate when trying to throw the ball deep. Sure, some of his deep throws will be on the money. Most deep throws will not be. This means a player like Evans will help the Bills less than he would have helped a team with a QB who was decent at throwing intermediate and deep passes.

On the other hand, this year's Packers and Patriots teams have done very well, despite having mediocre running games at best, and despite having the two worst pass defenses in NFL history. A good passing attack can hide a lot of sins. On the other hand, the Packers and Patriots almost have to have an elite-level passing attack each and every week to hide all those other sins. If the passing game happens to have a somewhat less than elite-level game, they will typically lose. If they were more balanced, they would be able to win games even when the passing game was a little off that day.

I agree that passing is a lot more important than running. That's why it's so much more important to acquire good talent for your passing game than your running game. But there are times when defensive coordinators will over-commit to stopping the pass. (As Belichick did against the Bills during the Super Bowl.) When this happens, it's important to run the ball a lot, and to keep running it until the defense has been punished enough. Once the defense has been punished enough, they will back off from their over-commitment to pass defense, and will become more balanced instead. Once the defense has been forced to become more balanced, you go back to your passing attack. That's what's going to win you the game. (Assuming, of course, that your passing attack has been built to win games. If it hasn't been, you won't get very many wins!)

Your two questions are reasonable. Before I answer them, I'd like to look at some historical data. Team: NYJ. Founded: 1959. Number of franchise quarterbacks in the team's history: 1. (Joe Namath.) Team: Buffalo Bills. Founded: 1960. Number of franchise quarterbacks in the team's history: 1. (Jim Kelly.) Team: New England Patriots. Founded: 1960. Number of franchise quarterbacks in the team's history: 1.5. (Tom Brady and the first half of Drew Bledsoe's career.) Team: Miami Dolphins. Founded: 1966. Number of franchise quarterbacks in the team's history: 2. (Bob Griese and Dan Marino.) A typical AFC East team has averaged about 1.5 franchise quarterbacks over the last 50 years. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, nine of the last ten Super Bowl winners have had franchise quarterbacks.* Adding a franchise QB will fundamentally change the next 10+ years of your franchise's history. Looking at the above list of AFC East franchises, you will see that nearly all their Super Bowl appearances and wins coincided with their (rare) moments of having a franchise QB. Having a franchise QB didn't guarantee a Super Bowl win, as the Bills found with Kelly, the Dolphins with Marino, and the Patriots with the first half of Bledsoe's career. But at least those teams were legitimate threats to win the Super Bowl. AFC East teams have almost never managed to become bona fide Super Bowl threats when they have lacked franchise QBs. (Which has been most of the time.) How much would I give up to obtain a franchise QB? Obviously, that all depends on my level of confidence that the guy I was targeting really was going to be franchise material. I'd also look at his upside, because not all franchise QBs are created equal. Johnny Unitas was worth more than Terry Bradshaw. After looking at those factors, would I decide to trade the house for one player? Maybe. Suppose (for example) that the Bills had traded away literally all their draft picks from 2000 - 2007, and had gotten a rookie Joe Montana in return. Would that one player have provided more value to the franchise than everyone they actually drafted during that eight year span? Absolutely and unquestionably! The above is an extreme example, and I certainly wouldn't advise a team to trade away eight years' worth of picks for one player! Just because that trade would have been better than what a chopped liver team actually did, does not mean that trade would have led to a Super Bowl win. It probably wouldn't have. But suppose a team traded away just three years' worth of draft picks, and received a Joe Montana in return. Might that tactic help lay the foundation for a Super Bowl winner? It absolutely might! On the other hand, if you are trading away three years' worth of picks, you'd better be 100% confident you're getting the next Montana, Unitas, or Aaron Rodgers! * I'd like to specifically address the issue of Eli Manning. Giants fans hoped he would be Peyton Manning version 2. During Eli's first few years in the league he was well below that. Peyton Manning has averaged 7.6 yards per attempt over the course of his career. From 2004 - 2008, Eli Manning never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt. In some seasons he averaged less. On the other hand, he played like a franchise quarterback during the postseason in which the Giants won the Super Bowl. He also played like a franchise QB in the Super Bowl and was named Super Bowl MVP. But during the last three seasons something seems to have clicked for him: he has averaged 7.9, 7.4, and 8.4 yards per attempt during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons, respectively. Those numbers are very solid by Peyton's standards, and that's saying something! Eli is currently playing at a top-5 level, and has been for the last three seasons.

You are correct to say that five of the last ten Super Bowl winners had franchise QBs found outside the first round. Three of those five wins were achieved by Tom Brady. The other two were attained by Drew Brees, chosen 32nd overall. This was the first pick of the second round, because the Texans had not yet come into being. Tom Brady was a sixth round pick of the 2000 draft. Since 2001, not one franchise QB has been added to the NFL in rounds 4 - 7, or as an undrafted free agent. Any given NFL team should expect to be the beneficiary of a Tom Brady story about once every 210 years. All the franchise quarterbacks active in the league today were taken in the top 32 picks, with the exception of Matt Schaub (third round) and Tom Brady (sixth round). Your odds of finding a franchise QB in the first round are much higher than they are outside of it. I agree there are pitfalls associated with drafting a quarterback in the first round. But there are pitfalls associated with using a first round pick at any position. This past decade, the Bills have achieved first round busts at OT (Mike Williams), RB (McGahee), QB (Losman), SS (Whitner), DT (McCargo), RB (Lynch), CB (McKelvin), and LB (Maybin). If you know you're probably going to strike out no matter what position you target, why not swing for the fences (by taking a QB) rather than bunting (by taking a RB or SS)? I hope the current front office is more competent than the above list would imply. But the logic is still the same: if a draft pick is associated with high risk, why not work to increase the possible reward? That said, there are things which can be done to reduce the risk element. For example, "polished" quarterbacks chosen because of their ability as pocket passers are more likely to succeed than "raw" QBs taken because of their athletic potential. Losman was a member of the latter category, which is another way of saying he was a near-certain bust from the very moment he was drafted. Another way to reduce risk is to take college quarterbacks who have performed at a high level for at least 2 - 3 years. One good season is not enough. A team using this thought process would have steered clear of many of the bust QBs you mentioned, without also steering clear of a single franchise QB taken in the first round during the last ten years. As for specific college quarterbacks the Bills should target: I have not followed college football closely enough to meaningfully answer that question. The Bills should trade the house for a franchise QB if the right guy is there, but should eschew drafting a QB if the right guy isn't there.

We have some common ground. First, I agree that football is a team sport, and that it doesn't make sense to lay the blame for the 6-10 season at Fitz's feet when the defense as a whole provided significantly worse play than did Fitz. I also agree that some of his INTs weren't his fault. On the other hand, there were plenty of times when a defender should have picked off one of his passes, only to drop it instead. Or when a Bills' WR made a good play to prevent what otherwise would have been an INT. I also agree with your bolded statement that Fitz is not a franchise quarterback. For me to consider a quarterback franchise, he needs to have a career yards per pass attempt of at least 7.2 - 7.4. (If a guy comes in at 7.2 or 7.3, you look at other factors--such as the quality of his supporting cast--to determine whether he's franchise.) Fitz's career average is 6.3 yards per attempt, or 0.2 yards per attempt lower than Trent Edwards' career average. Over the last two seasons, Fitz averaged 6.8 and 6.7 yards per attempt. That's a step above what we're used to seeing from Trent Edwards, but two steps below what a franchise quarterback would have provided. (As an aside, some franchise quarterbacks had averages significantly higher than 7.4. Kurt Warner, for example, averaged 7.9 yards per attempt during his career.) Of the ten most recent Super Bowl winners, nine had franchise quarterbacks. The tenth was the Bucs of 2002: a team with a very good defense, plus a QB who had a Pro Bowl season the year the Bucs won the big one. One can say with near certainty that the Bills will not win a Super Bowl with Fitz under center. Some believe that if you don't have a franchise quarterback, but also have deep flaws at other positions, you should fix those other deep flaws first, and wait until later to find your franchise quarterback. The problem with that line of thinking is that franchise quarterbacks enter the league at the rate of less than one a year. This means that an average team will have to wait 42 years before acquiring a franchise quarterback. Deliberately passing up the opportunity to draft a franchise quarterback, because other pieces are not yet in place, is nearly certain to set the rebuilding effort back by years or (more likely) decades. Three teams obtained franchise QBs from the class of '83, including the Dolphins, Broncos, and Bills. The Dolphins have yet to replace Dan Marino. The Broncos are still searching for John Elway's replacement. The Bills have been unable to fill the void left by Kelly. The Carolina Panthers and the Jacksonville Jaguars came into existence in 1995. Thus far neither team has yet obtained a franchise quarterback; though that may change for the Panthers with Cam Newton. The New York Jets came into existence in 1959, and have had one franchise quarterback in their history (Joe Namath). Just as Jim Kelly is the only franchise QB in the Bills' history. Suppose a team with a large number of needs decides to fill its non-QB needs first. Filling those other needs will presumably improve its record. By the time it gets around to addressing the need for a franchise quarterback, its draft position will be low enough to preclude it from the most highly touted QBs available. Take a team like the Colts. They went 1-15 in 1997, which allowed them the first overall pick in the 1998 draft. That 1-15 record suggests that that team's needs went well beyond just quarterback. But they took a quarterback anyway, and built a team around him. Drafting Peyton Manning was by far Bill Polian's most successful move as the Colts' GM. I'd argue that Manning was more useful to the Colts than any three other Polian player acquisitions combined. The effect Manning had on the franchise was of a different order than (for example) the effect Edgerrin James had, or the effect Polian's other good non-Manning acquisitions had. To make a long story short, if you don't have a franchise quarterback, and if you have the chance to draft one, you take it. There can be no reasonable dispute on this point.

I refuse to click on that link, because I don't want to reward The Buffalo News for printing the above drivel. Jerry wants the Bills to not re-sign Stevie Johnson because of his touchdown celebrations. That's like telling a starving man that he should turn down the offer of a feast, because some of the attendees at the feast talk too much.