folz

You guys are crazy.... Talk to any player from the SB teams, or Bill Polian, or Bill Parcells, or Don Shula, they all praise Marv's leadership and football knowledge! Sure, he stunk as a GM, but really he was more of a figurehead in that role... stop letting that make you revise history. Sure they had to be a very talented team to get to that first Superbowl, but it was Marv's leadership that got them to 3 more. How many teams have even been to 2 in a row let alone 4? And to say that had nothing to do with leadership is just crazy. In the first superbowl we lost by a field goal in the last seconds of the game. That's about as tight as a game could be and that's against a Parcells/Belicheck coached team (that we had already beat in another nail biter just a few weeks earlier in the regular season). So to say Marv was totally outcoached again is an over statement. Marv helped reinvent Special Teams...do you think Tasker would be who he was/is without Marv. I could go on and on...but Marv is not overrated and is totally deserving of the HOF. "It is said that leadership is that unique quality which enables special people to stand up and pull the rest of us over the horizon. By that or any other definition, Marv Levy is one of the greatest leaders this game has ever known." Bill Polian "That's one of my frustrations, not getting Dan Marino back into the Super Bowl, and Marv had a lot to do with that. They had a great team with great players. Bill Polian made it all happen when he hired Marv, and Marv's genius and ability to coach was just the natural fit for Buffalo." Don Shula

From Allen Wilson's Buffalo news article http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article94267.ece : "Denver's switch to the 3-4 helped its defense improve from 29th in the NFL in 2008 to seventh last season. Green Bay's newly installed 3-4 ranked first against the run, fifth against the pass and second overall. The Packers were 20th in total defense while using the 4-3 in 2008. Conversely, Kansas City found little success in its move to the 3-4, ranking 30th in the league (It was 31st in '08). Which category the Bills fall in remains to be seen, but Edwards has no doubt the move to the 3-4 will be a success." So, can we agree that we have to wait and see...switching to the 3-4 (in the first year) does not guarantee success, but it also isn't true that every team that switches has to wait 2-3 years for improvement. And I think one of the biggest positives about switching to the 3-4 is that our offense will be practicing against it on a regular basis (since everyone in our division plays it). I am looking for improvement this year. I think a lot will ride on the OLBs. If a couple guys step up and play well there, I think we could turn into a pretty tough D by mid-season.

I'm not saying he should change the tone for Bills fans...its his article and he can write whatever he wants...I was more just noticing how it seems to me that his tone towards the team has changed since he left this board. And for me, an optimistic fan, it makes his articles less interesting for me to read because they seem less objective than they used to be. Some might say more realistic, but football isn't fun for me if I expect my team to lose every week... so until proven otherwise, I'm hoping for the best (despite our holes and question marks).

It was nice of Tim to say it does look like we're heading in the right direction, but it also seems to me that Tim's columns have gotten more negative about the Bills since leaving this board due to a few fans being rude. You throw in the line about our LB coach never having worked in the 3-4, but don't mention that our DC has been a LB coach for the majority of his career and was part of switching to a 3-4 three times in his career. I'm sure DeMontie talks things over with Davis due to his experience and since he is calling the plays for the D right now... but don't make it sound like if it wasn't for Andra the coaches wouldn't know what to do. I guarantee DeMontie is getting more of his knowledge from his own experience and from Edwards than he is from Andra. Tim added that line after talking about a quote from Kawika, but did Kawika actually say "DeMontie relies on Davis when it comes to 3-4 questions (because he doesn't know)?" That's what Tim implies. And who cares how packed and vocal training camp is...It's training camp. Does that mean we won't be rowdy at the Ralph during games this year? Does it mean the entire fan base has given up on the team? No. And let's not forget, last year was the whole TO show. We had more media and probably more fans come out than would be normal, so to anyone this year is going to seem quieter. I'm not saying Tim has it out for the Bills or anything and his articles probably aren't that much different from before, except in tone. I mean when you start out the article saying, "Of any preseason prediction I can make, the one I'm most confident in is that the Buffalo Bills will finish fourth in the AFC East," it doesn't matter what you say after that, you have basically said "These guys suck right now." (Whether its true or not) To show the difference in tone, he could have said something like. "Gailey is trying to establish a new culture with his first training camp. He wants people to use two adjectives that haven't been associated with the Bills for a long time: tough and disciplined. (that is quoted from his article--then he could have said) I don't know that it will be enough for them to overtake any of their division rivals this year, but the players are buying into it. The Bills do have some concerns and question marks..." The tone of the article could have been different and I feel like that changed with TG after he left this board.

Thanks for the reports...much appreciated by us out-of-towners "...working on play-action fakes, bootlegs, screens, and even slants." Halleluja! Shouldn't these be a staple of any offense? How often did we see any of these in the Jauron era. Ok, a few bootlegs while J. P. was here, and I remember one slant last year to Evans that went for a TD, but God bless Chan for bringing back a real offense. Now let's just hope it works. Which, of course leads to another point in the article about O-line depth. I'm not totally thrilled with our O-line, but I'm not as down on the projected starters as some...but if we sustain even one or two injuries on the line this year, we could be in trouble. I hope they bolster the O-line depth before we wrap up camp.

Hear, Hear!

Do you all what to know who the true Captain Checkdown is?...It was Jauron. How many times did Trent say last year, when questioned, I'm just doing what the coaches tell me to do. And behind an injured, porous Oline, with nothing resembling an offensive plan and a head coach playing not to lose, they were telling him get the ball out as fast as you can. There was no time for long plays to the WRs to develop and the coaches were afraid to call inside slants. And what are you going to do as the starting QB, disobey the head coach? Well then you'll be riding the pine. Its tough to have swagger, or be "It" when you're losing, probably questioning the game planning, not being allowed to show what you can do, not being allowed to sling it and try to win a game, etc. And if the coaches don't show that confidence in you, then the team starts to question you to, and frustration sets in. I'm not saying Trent is going to light it up, or become the next coming, but I bet he'll look better, be more confident, and take control of the offense better this year because the coaches and therefore the team will have more confidence in him and he'll be in a position where he feels like the guys will follow when he leads. You can have all the swagger in the world, but if no one is following, it means nothing. Now we just have to hope he makes good decisions, is accurate, and can stay healthy. But I'm rooting for him (just as I am still rooting for Brohm, Fitz, Brown, and every other guy on the team). And Trent's new look made me think of Broadway Joe, the scraggly hair and the sideburns. Maybe he can steal a little swagger from Namath.

Come on BillsVet... if the Bills won 5 more games over the last 4 years (that's 1.25 games a year), they would have been .500 for 4 years straight. So, don't make it sound like FightClub is crazy. 7-9 IS close to .500. It's depressing that we are talking about being close to .500, but nevertheless it's not an outrageous statement. And you make it sound like Chan has not been around football at all for 11 years. Sure it's been that long since he was a head coach in the NFL, but he has been an offensive coordinator since then in the NFL and he was a head coach as recently as 2007 (at Georgia). Plus, we were 6-10 last year, not 5-11. I'm not denying the questions that you and we have all raised (QB, LT, OLB, new schemes, pass rush), but don't try to purposely paint the picture darker than it is. And as far as ESPN and anyone who agrees with that ranking, over the last 10 years the 31st place teams have averaged 2.9 wins a season. I just can't see how we will fall to only 3 wins with basically the same players now healthy and with more experience (+ rookies and FAs) but better coaching. Yes, we have a lot of question marks including the coaching (because we haven't seen any games yet), but are we really going to lose 3 or 4 more games than last year with that mess of a season we had?

I'm not saying this should or will make you feel better about him, but George Edwards has been an NFL Defensive Coordinator before and he had already been hired to be the defensive coordinator for one of the top college teams (Florida) before leaving to come to Buffalo. So, I wouldn't say he was a nobody. 1991-1997 Coached in the college ranks for Duke, Florida, Appalachian State, and Georgia 1998-2001 Dallas Cowboys: LB coach 2002 Washington Redskins: Assistant Defensive Coordinator/Linebackers coach 2003 Washington Redskins: Defensive Coordinator 2004 Cleveland Browns: Linebackers Coach 2005-2009 Miami: Linebackers Coach 2010: Hired as Defensive Coordinator of the University of Florida Gators His DC stint with the Redskins ended when Spurrier resigned (he was not retained by Joe Gibbs) He was one of only 2 coaches retained by Sparano after taking over the job from Cam Cameron in Miami. In fact, he started with Saban, was retained by Cameron, and then retained again by Sparano. He has worked under Nick Saban (a Belichick disciple), Steve Spurrier, Marvin Lewis, Dom Capers, Dave Campo, Mike Zimmer, among others. There have been some articles saying he will run a Saban style 3-4. Prominent names Edwards has coached throughout his career include Richard Seymour and Marcus Stroud (Georgia); Dexter Coakley (Dallas); LaVar Arrington, Jesse Armstead and Jeremiah Trotter (Washington); and Jason Taylor, Zach Thomas and Joey Porter (Miami). Former Florida now Dolphins LB Channing Crowder has referred to Edwards as “the best assistant coach in the NFL, period.” Plus, twice in his career he has been involved in changing a D from a 4-3 to a 3-4 (as a linebacker coach--and we all realize how important the LBs are in a 3-4 system and probably where our D needs the most help). Sounds like a pretty solid choice for what the team planned to do. We'll see if he works out or not, but he isn't a nobody without experience.

I'm not a Whitner basher, I think the guy is solid (although unimpressive for where he was drafted), and I like his passion for the team, but... I would start Wilson and/or Scott before I would start Whitner. I really don't see how the team doesn't start Wilson this year, unless the duties of the 3-4 are so different that Scott's or Whitner's skill set matches it better. But every opportunity G. Wilson has had over his career, he's impressed (well at least me). He's smart, a total team guy, and he played really well last year. I would start Wilson most of the time, but in games against teams with good pass catching TEs or middle receivers, play Scott a lot. Unless Whitner finally blossoms in this new system, under new coaches, I'd be very disappointed to see him starting this year.

I have no problem with people evaluating the team, seeing holes and question marks, wondering why they did or didn't make certain moves and then based on their opinion saying its going to be a rough season in the win column for the Bills. I also understand being cautious about what to expect from Nix, Whaley, Gailey, etc. because we have been through coaching and GM turnovers that didn't work out and sometimes change doesn't mean improvement. What I have a problem with is the people who guess 0-2 wins (we had six last year amidst a perfect storm of problems), trash players on the team (not evaluating how good they are or not or if we should stick with them, but just throwing out personal attacks), failing to recognize the talented players we do have (like one post I read that said everyone of our starters could be upgraded by third stringers from other teams), etc., etc. I have no problem being realistic about the team (even though I'm one who is optimistic), but how realistic is 1 win? How realistic is "we don't have one player that would start for another team?" There is a spectrum of optimism and pessimism and anyone on either extreme is not being realistic. The rest of us can discuss the issues, players, moves, coaching, etc. We can be critical of the team or players while still supporting them and not attack them personally. We're all Bills fans...but I think what people get tired of are not the people who aren't optimistic (trying to be realistic) about this upcoming season or coaching staff or whatever, but the ones who can never see anything positive about the team and trash the team any chance they get.

Do you like Grape, Orange, or Fruit Punch?

I didn't agree with everything Albany said, but I did like his last line. Just saying your optimistic about the team doesn't mean you're a head case that doesn't see the teams faults as well and expect them to go to the Superbowl or something. I'm optimistic because I feel like a breath of fresh air has swept through this organization. I might have been hopeful when G. Williams, Mularkey, and Jauron were hired, but I never felt like "these are the guys that are going to turn this thing around" like I do with Nix and Gailey. Do I think we will be a better team than last year? Hell Yes. Will that show in the win column? Maybe not, but I know we aren't going to be 1-15 Johnny. Am I still concerned about our OL, QB, and OLBs? Absolutely. We may not have the answer at these positions yet, but the OL and QBs won't be worse than last year if for no other reason than experience and coaching. And no I'm not just hoping for us to not be worse than last year and I would have been thrilled to have an all-pro QB and LT, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards for this season, so we just have to root the guys we have on to achieve their full potential until we can acquire the all-pros (they don't grow on trees). But they won't be worse than last year with all that went on. Do I expect us to make the playoffs? Expect, No. But I'm not automatically ruling it out either and God knows I'll be rooting for it till we're mathematically eliminated. Am I looking for (and expecting) a more exciting team that at least shows promise of what they can become down the road? You betcha. It's just more fun (for me) to be optimistic and I feel like the team is finally giving me cause to...and this time I don't think its just FO smoke and mirrors. I could be wrong, but how could it be wrong when it feels so right.

Just a few notes to keep the optimism flowing ... Gailey actually prepares a plan B and C (unlike Jauron and Co.), ready to overcome the worst case scenario instead of only hoping for the best: On K. Mitchell calling defensive plays: “Those guys have been in the fire so to speak, so you would like for those guys to be able to handle it as much as possible,” said Gailey. “Those veteran guys will end up getting the majority of that kind of responsibility on our football team. That’s what you want. You want your veterans to be able to do that. And in this day in age you never know when injuries are going to hit. You’re trying to make sure that we have as many people that can handle that duty as possible.” Coaches expect players to execute better (unlike, well, you know): "...the 11-on-11 segment had some spotty execution. So much so that offensive coordinator Curtis Modkins pulled the entire offense in for a huddle." A Coach with confidence? “You better have confidence in this business,” he said. ”If you don’t have confidence in this business you’re going to lose in a hurry. We have confidence that our system will put guys in position to make plays. You’ve still got to go make them, but I think we’re going to have guys that have some talent. We’ve got to make sure that they get the opportunity to go be special on the field and that’s what we’re working on. You try to have confidence without being cocky.” Chan Gailey And for all those who say we have no talent, how is our secondary looking? We may still have some big holes and question marks at important positions, but I bet there are a lot of teams who envy our offensive and defensive backfields (RBs, CBs, Ss). And I'm starting to get excited about our young WRs too. Kyle Williams. I've never understood the fans who don't think he's good. From day one that kid has been a player and that's all we've heard from both coaching staffs he's worked with, things like "now that's a football player". 66 tackles last year. In the radio interview (link below) he talks a bit about the switch and some of the things the D will do. I think he'll be just fine in the middle. It's hard not to root for him, he just seems like a funny, down to Earth kind of guy: http://rope.wgrf-fm.fimc.net/Norton_Interv...iams_062210.mp3 And Eric Wood is back, did you see Gailey light up in the interview talking about him. Keep the hope alive...Go Bills!

I hated it when they first switched to "Shout" because the song brought up other references for me than the Bills and I felt the song should be original (as most fight songs were back then--even though many were terrible like the Miami one). We had a bad one ourselves at the time "We can make it happen, we can make it happen, yeah" I remember the year they introduced that song, they actually printed a little music sheet in the program so we'd all know how to sing it and all of its maybe 10 words. Of course I grew to love "Shout" during the 90s and sang it as loud as anyone at games in OP and at backers bars in both Boston and NYC. But, I have come full circle now and feel that it is past its time and it feels like living old memories not creating new ones. New era, new team, hopefully new hope...new song. The only problem is we could end up with something worse...I'd be all for changing the song if the new one was good. And we'd all get used to it just like we did "Shout" if the team started winning again. The Bills have changed their song a number of times, its not like the Redskins or other teams who have had their songs forever.

I was listening to the Lee Evans radio interview http://www.wedg.com/goout.asp?u=/article.asp?id=1843584 and they asked how Chan Gailey's offense was different from last year's offense and his response was: "I don't want to call his (Gailey's) offense simple, but its, you know, he has the ability to get guys in different places and you know, still stay with the same play. It's not an offense where you have, you know, you go into a game with two or three hundred plays. He has the base package of things he likes to run and they can mix up formations and personnel and do the same thing, so, I think that's good cause the plays that will be run will be plays that you've run over and over and over and over again. You know them like the back of your hand; and that's the kind of sense I'm getting from it and I think that will help, you know, even when guys come in they'll know what they're doing and I think that's a big key going into the season or down the road." So it seems like Gailey's system means learn a smaller number of plays really well and then disguise them with formations and personnel. That kind of reminded me of the 90s Bills offense. I'm not saying Gailey will have that type of success by any means, but it sounded similar in that the players become experts at a handful of plays---like the couter trey, etc. back in the day---so execution is always at a high level. And as Lee said, with fewer plays but ones that have been run over and over, if you have to play 2nd or 3rd stringers due to injury or whatever, their heads aren't swimming because they haven't had any reps in half the plays in the playbook for that game...they can come in and execute at least at their own top level because they're confident in their knowledge of the plays. It also made me think that last season, with Jauron and Schonert, maybe it wasn't one of them being right and one wrong, maybe they were both wrong. (I'm reading between the lines here, so I could be off, but...) If Turk was coming in with 200-300 plays per game and the guys couldn't get them down, remember them, or whatever, then maybe Jauron was right in telling him he had to scale it back. But the problem with Jauron's scaling back was that with fewer plays, they didn't know how to disguise them, so other teams knew what was coming when they saw the Bills line up. Could that have been our problem last year?

I stopped watching the NBA years ago (before the ref scandal) because it all became geared to generating stars. A star player could hack a young guy or no name guy and never get called for it, yet when that star player drove the lane on the next play and missed the bucket when there was no or very minimal contact, a foul was called and he'd get 2 shots. Games were not called fairly and despite whether the league was doing that to rig the outcome of games or not (which I don't at all put past them), the star treatment alone made it unfair and took the fun out of the game for me. I was a huge Celtics fan growing up and a Lakers/Celtics final would have normally had me going crazy...yet, I haven't watched 1 game of these finals. If you want to watch basketball, watch college hoops. Now, I never thought the NFL was rigged...sure the better teams might get the benefit of the doubt more often than not, but like others say, you could chalk that up to human nature by the refs, not necessarily a conspiracy. But, Super Bowl XL Pittsburgh vs. Seattle, Jerome Bettis in his last game before a home audience, etc. gave me pause for thought. I do feel like the outcome of that game was severely altered by the refs. Was it a league conspiracy? I have no idea, but it did make me worry that the NFL might turn into the NBA. And the wholes Cheatriots fiasco didn't help either. But, so far it looks like that has been avoided (I hope). I still think the game has integrity. But for those who think it is too hard to rig an NFL game, all you have to do is look at holding penalties. The refs could call a hold on almost any play. A few holding calls at crucial moments could definitely change the outcome of a game if it makes a team punt, knocks them out of field goal range, pins them against their endzone giving the other team great field position on the turnover, etc. It might be tough to guarantee the outcome of a game, but they could sure stack the odds for or against a team pretty easily if they wanted to. I think we as fans (fans of all NFL teams) hold the burden of keeping the league honest, showing outrage if the league ever starts turning in that direction and/or not watching, buying their product if it came to that.

YES!

If make or break means vets that either step up now or they could be gone, either before or just after this season, then I'd say: (Traditional: Guys who haven't stepped up yet and need to in order to stay) Hardy McCargo Ellis Maybin (These guys have had some production but need to take it to another level or could be gone) Trent Fitz Marshawn Mitchell Ellison Kelsay Youboty Mitchell and Kelsay because of the switch; Marshawn, less about his production and more about his attitude. Youboty mostly because of the injury history. Not saying others aren't on the hot seat, but these are the guys that I would say are in a true make or break season (at least as far as their career with the Bills is concerned).

IF YOU DON"T WANT TO READ THE WHOLE POST, PLEASE AT LEAST LOOK AT THE TWO QUOTES AT THE BOTTOM. I can only imagine that most of the posters saying Levy is overrated, not HOF worthy, and worse yet not integral to the 90s Bills must be too young to actually remember watching that team. He was the oil that made that machine run, the glue that kept it together, and an overall great leader and motivator. PLEASE, please do not let his 2 years as GM tarnish his legacy...Marv was a great coach, just ask Bill Parcells, Don Shula, and others of that era that coached against him. Marv was a leader of men, he kept that team on track, personalities in check, inspired, motivated, and yes, well coached. The Superbowls, it always comes back to he sucks because he lost 4 Superbowls...everyone talks about him getting outcoached as the reason we lost. Well, was he out coached in the 123 games he won as a Bills coach? (that works out to 10.69 wins on avg. per season over 11 years). How many other coaches have been able to keep his team's eye on the prize to even go to 2 Superbowls in a row let alone 4. And let's not mention that SB XXV was lost in the last seconds on a missed field goal (that close) against a Bill Parcells team and Bill Bellicheat defense. Two of the greatest coaches ever and if Norwood straightens out that kick, Marv would have beat them. Actually Marv did beat them, unfortunately, it was during that same regular season. Week 15, December 15th, about a month before the Superbowl, the Bills beat the Giants 17-13 in another hard fought contest at the Meadowlands. Let's also not mention that that Bills team loved to party, even the night before the big game. Washington in SB XXVI still seems like a fluke to me...who knows what the hell happened in that game, I suppose it is as others said we just ran into another NFC East power running game. The NFC East (not the NFC) was our achilles heel. We ran over just about everyone else. Our record against the NFC in the Superbowl years was 14-2 and the two loses came in the last games of the'90 and '91 season when we were resting our starters for the playoffs). But the NFC East was built with beef up front and power running, which as others said was our one major weakness. By the time we get to the 3rd and 4th SBs against Dallas, our team had been together, basically since 1985/1986. We started losing players to age, the early years of FA, etc. We were waning as all dynasties do, while the Cowboys were hitting their stride. We were still good and had our core players (as evidenced by beating Dallas in week 2 of the '93 season between the two SB loses), but Dallas was a better team and built to shut us down. Anyhow, sorry for another long post, but it drives me mad to hear this talk about Marv. Was he a great GM, absolutely not. He came really with the hopes of coaching again, and with Wilson begging him to bring some stability and loyalty back after the Donahoe debacle. So, for Ralph and the franchise, he took the position for two years...I think more as an ambassador to the fans and media and a bit of sage advice here and there rather than as a true GM, which is Ralph's fault, not Marv's. Did it go well? Obviously not. But does that make his history as a great BILLS coach all of a sudden meaningless? Hell no. Polian and Levy were a team...just listen to how Polian speaks of Marv as a coach...they did it together. Throw in another coach (as some have said) and that same chemistry, never quit attitude, special teams, motivation, etc. wouldn't have been there. "It is said that leadership is that unique quality which enables special people to stand up and pull the rest of us over the horizon. By that or any other definition, Marv Levy is one of the greatest leaders this game has ever known." Bill Polian "That's one of my frustrations, not getting Dan Marino back into the Super Bowl, and Marv had a lot to do with that. They had a great team with great players. Bill Polian made it all happen when he hired Marv, and Marv's genius and ability to coach was just the natural fit for Buffalo." Don Shula

I found this interesting in the article too: "On offense, the New England Patriots were tied for fifth, breaking tackles on 6.3 percent of their plays. The Bills were tied for eighth at 6.2 percent. The Dolphins were tied for 15th at 5.6 percent. You'd think a run-dominant team like the New York Jets would be higher than 24th, making opponents miss on 4.9 percent of their plays." Obviously, our skill players can make things happen, we were 8th in the league at O players breaking tackles (and we added CJ too), now if we can just get them the damn ball, we'll be in good shape. And I never understood all of the talk last season that Poz wasn't playing well, the guy is solid and still getting better.

The problem was the offensive coaching (you can take that two ways). And a young OL with a ton of injuries. I'm not saying our QBs are or were real good or helped at all, but Jauron and AVP were in over their heads when it came to anything resembling an offense. And how Jauron and Co. refused to even give young guys or backups a chance when they were obviously performing better than the starter or deserved a better look (Greer, Wilson, F. Jackson, Parrish, Hardy, Johnson, etc.) just drives me mad. I'm glad to see everyone getting a chance to assert themselves under Gailey. With Jauron, the starters didn't have to work as hard because they knew they weren't going to lose their spot and the young guys might not work as hard because they weren't going to get on the field unless there was an injury. I know they're professionals and they should work hard all the time, but without incentive, its usually hard to give your all all of the time with no let downs. The farther away Jauron's regime becomes the more clear it is why he could never win in this league as a HC, his philosophy on almost everything was wrong (S&C, team competition, offense, personnel, accountability, game management, etc., etc.). Sure, last offseaon we talked about our skill players hopefully (and we were wrong), but everything is different this year. And hopefully one of our QBs can step up to at least be a solid starter. There is a much better chance of that with Gailey and Cortez (known for their work with QBs) than with AVP, no QB coach, and "No-offense is a good offense" Jauron.

12-15 carries a game is fine with me if say 1 or 2 of those are TDs that our other players might not have scored on the same play, changing say a FG to a TD or taking a kickoff return to the house. Or if he significantly changes field position and/or momentum in a game for us by popping off a big play at a critical moment. And he's a rookie, while we already have 2 quality backs...nothing wrong with easing him in to the pro game. I guarantee you though, if he is proving to be the best back on the team by mid- or late-season, he'll be getting more carries. And even if he only gets 12-15 touches per game all year, if he becomes a Chris Johnson, or our new Thurman, or even just a real good back next year and beyond (no guarantee of course, but...) will you still be saying that he didn't get enough production in his rookie year to warrant the #9 pick?

Yes, fixed...thanks. Good point. Without looking up each guy, I saw at least 9 starting QBs who are starting for a team they weren't drafted by (Delhomme, Orton, Cassel, Campbell, Romo, McNabb, Cutler, Favre, and Brees). Only 3 of those are 1st rounders (one of whom is McNabb who played the majority of his career with the team that drafted him). So, I guess that goes to the point that others were making, when a team drafts a QB in the first, they don't like to get rid of them too soon even if they aren't panning out because they want to prove they made the right pick, or because they spent a lot of money on him, etc. But also, when a 1st rounder is good, most teams will hang on to them, when they bust then they aren't really worth picking up, so very few 1st rounders get traded and then help the new team. But obviously teams can and do get QBs that can help the team via trade. That sounds about right 11 out of the 19, although I think a couple more might reach that level (Bradford, Young, maybe one or two more) but its just still too early to tell. I really just started looking up the info to see how many lower round guys were starting to see if statistically there was a chance that a 7th rounder (Levi) could be a starter in the future. And of course all I learned was what we already knew, the odds are low for a 7th rounder to turn into a legit starter (12.5-15.5% based solely on 2010 starters), but it has and does happen. Yeah, that could be interesting...our former QB vs. a guy some fans wanted us to trade for.

Yeah, fixed the post..thanks. Don't know how I screwed that up, I guess I still had predraft talk on my brain.