Been giving this a lot of thought....and I am a OL guy and

[PDaDdy]

I still have hopes the Meredith or Bell could step up their game and man the RT position. Additionally, a name to watch is Rodger Saffold of Indiana. We just hired his old OL coach and he could be their in the 4th and could be a real steal there. He basically shut down Brandon Graham of Michigan who will probably be a first rounder.

 

 

I need to start looking deeper in the draft class to see who could be available to man the RT spot for us. I only heard about this guys name because DarthIce thought he would be a good candidate to draft late at LT so that we could use our #9 pick on a QB. Sounds like we have an inside track on the guy if he is available to us when we can fill the RT position.

 

Now I have to go check out more LeFevour video. I have only seen about 3 minutes but I immediately saw some size, a big arm and some wheels. Those things are the price admission for me to even CONSIDER a guy a potential franchise QB for Buffalo. No guarantee of success with those traits but all but a guarantee of failure without them.

[K-9]

Because I have integrity I will answer your hypothetical completely fantasy question. If I were starting a team from scratch and my fantasy choices were take a guaranteed franchise QB vs a guaranteed franchise LT I take the QB.

 

MEANWHILE BACK IN REALITY.... The Bills will potentially have the choice between a rookie QB prospect who for whatever reasons would start in 2010 behind an abysmal line OR draft a solid LT prospect who WILL help the o-line in 2010. I say "WILL" because anyone we get will be much better than what we have at LT. It is a technicality but one that makes my claim nearly a can't miss vs rolling the dice on a promising QB prospect who we might hit big on.

 

In the real world that the Bills currently live in I highly suggest that they get the line sorted first. Again this isn't a good line, it isn't a average line, it isn't even good enough to be bad right now. This is an abysmal, terrible line. At some point the line can get so bad that it becomes the #1 priority. We are here folks. It's that bad.

 

So I will ask you a question. I think you have already stated your answer but would you want to draft Sam "the shoulder" Bradford to play in his rookie year behind whatever patchwork line we slap together if we don't spend our #9 pick on a LT OR would you want to get a solid LT to help bolster the line and make the running game AND the QB better? Me ...I consider QBs enough of a risk and important enough to make sure there is ABSOLUTELY no chance to screw up their development because we put them in front of the firing squad with no blind fold.

 

On the Kelly situation. You are honestly focusing on completely the wrong thing. The thing to focus on is that Kelly didn't start for the Bills until some of those pieces were in place in 1986. When did they make their first superbowl? Don't forget that Kelly complained a lot about his o-line his first few years too!!!! Don't forget that. That line was light years ahead of what we currently have. Jim wasn't a wet behind the ears rookie who could have had his confidence and career crushed behind one of the worst lines in history. He was 4 year veteran behind a line that was much better than what we have and got only better.

 

Let's not bring in a rookie pick at #9 and ruin him because we didn't protect him.

 

*Queue the draft the QB and let him sit a year or 2 fantasy statement*

 

*sheesh*

 

I'll see if I can boil it down again.

 

1) I don't care if the Bills draft a QB at #9 or not. I want them to take whom they believe is the best player to take at that time. As I've stated, we have so many needs we pretty much can't go wrong by taking BPA. Take your argument back to those that ardently argue we NEED to take the QB if he's there. Wrong. We take him if that's who the Bills have rated higher than anyone else. If a QB is their highest rated player they will take him. It would suggest he has the ability to be a franchise player and solidify the most important position on offense. And we BOTH agree that a franchise QB will get thrown to the wolves his first couple seasons until we have a chance to fix the OLine and he learns to play at the next level.

 

But I suggest you are the one living in a fantasy world if you think it's a linear process of 1.) Fix OLine, 2.) Get franchise QB. If they feel a franchise QB is there when they pick they'll take him. Otherwise they simply don't feel one is worth it at that spot. It's far far more difficult to find a great QB than great OLmen.

 

2) Glad you pointed out that Kelly complained about his OLine his first few years. He had a LOT to complain about. Our OLine wasn't that good his first few years and yet he played at a very high level with little help up front. Yes that line was better than our current one but our current one is a lot closer to what Kelly had his first two seasons in Buffalo than any QB on our current roster is to what Kelly was his first few years. Kelly showed greatness playing behind a crappy line immediately upon entering the league. Wolford was a rookie GAURD. Hull, while having experience in the USFL, was still new to the NFL. BOTH would take several seasons to mature. Richter was the ONLY member of that line that was any good at the time. Christ, Jones and Devlin were our tackles for goodness sake. Yet Kelly shined. Because he was GREAT. Because he COULD. Without a great OLine. Without three great WRs or a good TE. Without Thurman. Without a great defense.

 

Regardless whom the Bills select, whether it be a QB, OLman, DLman, or LB, that rookie will face immediate pressure to perform well and will get roasted by everyone around here without a clue. It's well known that OT is the second hardest position on offense to learn next to QB. So, like Wolford and Richter before him, he's gonna get blown up at times until he adjusts to the NFL. All players drafted are crapshoots.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Thurman#1]

I know that 1990 superbowl is difficult for Bills fans to watch, you know SB 25, "wide right". The one where a back up scrub at QB ...a power running game ...great defense ...beat the highest scoring team of that year.

 

The Bills were 21 point favorites and should have destroyed the NY Giants... should have!

 

 

 

Did any of you watch the New England Patriot-Baltimore Ravens wildcard game they played in New England this year?

 

Joe Flacco went 4-10 for 34 yards and yet the Ravens beat the Patriots In New England for a 33-14 win.

 

Anyone care to explain how the Ravens won that game with the winning QB completing only 4 passes in 10 attempts for a total of 34 yards?

 

 

 

And yet somehow the Ravens didn't make the Super Bowl and the Colts and Saints did. Hmmm. Wonder why that was.

 

If you want to build a team with results like the Ravens this year, win one playoff game and out, build like the Ravens. But Flacco is a second-year guy and has a lot of room to grow, and if he does become a franchise guy, the Ravens have a shot to go very far.

[PDaDdy]

I'll see if I can boil it down again.

 

1) I don't care if the Bills draft a QB at #9 or not. I want them to take whom they believe is the best player to take at that time. As I've stated, we have so many needs we pretty much can't go wrong by taking BPA. Take your argument back to those that ardently argue we NEED to take the QB if he's there. Wrong. We take him if that's who the Bills have rated higher than anyone else. If a QB is their highest rated player they will take him. It would suggest he has the ability to be a franchise player and solidify the most important position on offense. And we BOTH agree that a franchise QB will get thrown to the wolves his first couple seasons until we have a chance to fix the OLine and he learns to play at the next level.

 

But I suggest you are the one living in a fantasy world if you think it's a linear process of 1.) Fix OLine, 2.) Get franchise QB. If they feel a franchise QB is there when they pick they'll take him. Otherwise they simply don't feel one is worth it at that spot. It's far far more difficult to find a great QB than great OLmen.

 

2) Glad you pointed out that Kelly complained about his OLine his first few years. He had a LOT to complain about. Our OLine wasn't that good his first few years and yet he played at a very high level with little help up front. Yes that line was better than our current one but our current one is a lot closer to what Kelly had his first two seasons in Buffalo than any QB on our current roster is to what Kelly was his first few years. Kelly showed greatness playing behind a crappy line immediately upon entering the league. Wolford was a rookie GAURD. Hull, while having experience in the USFL, was still new to the NFL. BOTH would take several seasons to mature. Richter was the ONLY member of that line that was any good at the time. Christ, Jones and Devlin were our tackles for goodness sake. Yet Kelly shined. Because he was GREAT. Because he COULD. Without a great OLine. Without three great WRs or a good TE. Without Thurman. Without a great defense.

 

Regardless whom the Bills select, whether it be a QB, OLman, DLman, or LB, that rookie will face immediate pressure to perform well and will get roasted by everyone around here without a clue. It's well known that OT is the second hardest position on offense to learn next to QB. So, like Wolford and Richter before him, he's gonna get blown up at times until he adjusts to the NFL. All players drafted are crapshoots.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

I got your point about drafting best player available. There is truth in that argument as there is truth in drafting for need. The answer is in the middle somewhere. My philosophy is drafting for need AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A REACH. If you draft purely for best player available we could end up with a team full of DBs because they are the best player available at picks 9 - 11 which we seem to own any given year. Ignoring need is stupid. Reaching for need is also stupid.

[PDaDdy]

And yet somehow the Ravens didn't make the Super Bowl and the Colts and Saints did. Hmmm. Wonder why that was.

 

If you want to build a team with results like the Ravens this year, win one playoff game and out, build like the Ravens. But Flacco is a second-year guy and has a lot of room to grow, and if he does become a franchise guy, the Ravens have a shot to go very far.

 

 

I'm sorry but those are foolish conclusions. The Jets and the Ravens BOTH made the play offs with the same basic formula. Barring injuries or losing key contributors those teams are set to be good for a while. Sooooo...if by some chance the Ravens or the Jets win the superbowl in 2010 or 11 will you then change your tune and say YES this is how you win a superbowl and that is the only way? OR...will you come to the factual realization that there are many ways to win a superbowl and the last two teams that got there happened to have great QBs AND great offensive lines?

[Thurman#1]

The difference between most GM's and Bill Polian is that Polian understands that the QB needs a solid surrounding cast to support him. Good experienced veteran offensive coaches, good O linemen, good skill players. Is it a surprise that Payton Manning's QB coach became the head coach after Tony Dungy retired?

 

You can flush the golden rule when your needs on the offensive line are greater then the need at QB. The Buffalo Bills currently need both a left and right tackle and a good blocking tight end.The Bills should have drafted a left tackle last year to replace Jason Peters.

 

So tell us Thurman#1... which QB in this years draft should the Bills go all out to acquire and not draft a left tackle. Which QB in the 2010 draft is going to lead this team to the playoffs?

 

The problem with the "golden rule" is that you need a GM like Bill Polian to have the intelligence to utilize it.

 

 

 

That's what you think the difference is, that Polian understands that teh QB needs a solid surrounding cast to support him? Seriously? Everyone on here underestands that. What makes you think that most GMs don't. Hell, most 9 year olds understand that. Polian is better at getting a surrounding cast, that's what makes him different. He knows how to be a great GM. The fact that POLIAN USES THE GOLDEN RULE EVERY TIME ought to be a lesson for every GM.

 

Polian's needs at OL that first year in Indy were great. Manning got destroyed that first year, and a lot of it was because his OL sucked. Yet he didn't pick an LT, he picked a QB.

 

You ask "So tell us Thurman#1... which QB in this years draft should the Bills go all out to acquire and not draft a left tackle. Which QB in the 2010 draft is going to lead this team to the playoffs? " That question has already been asked, virtually word by word and answered by me, in this thread, virtually word by word. It would have saved you some trouble to read the thread, but OK, I'll answer by quoting myself rather than type it again:

 

 

who is a good QB to draft?

 

Did you feel JeMarcus Russell was a good QB? Matt Leinart? Brady Quinn? John Beck? ......

 

 

I'm not saying that I know 100% correctly who the correct QB would be. Though I WAS pretty sure that JaMarcus Russell was NOT the correct guy.

 

What I AM saying is:

 

1) Both Clausen and Bradford in his last healthy year (he didn't play enough last year to give a legitimate sample of his work) have stats MUCH better than any of those other guys you used as examples.

 

2) The highest percentage way to find a franchise QB is to draft one in the first. There are definitely other ways, drafting one later, picking up an FA or even a UDFA, or trading, and all of them have provided some success. But with QBs, you have to try to maximize your chances of success, and the highest percentage way of finding a franchise guy is drafting one in the first round.

 

3) Whichever guy I like (Clausen) is not important. The important thing is whichever guy Nix likes. And if Nix likes either guy, he should do what he has to do. If he doesn't like either guy, then by all means go LT or DT or LB, though I'd go LT.

 

 

Finally, you say:

 

 

The problem with the "golden rule" is that you need a GM like Bill Polian to have the intelligence to utilize it.

 

 

Well, I have to agree with you there. To have any success in NFL football you need a good GM. It is simply an absolute necessity. If you have a GM as good as Polian, you are saying, you can have success with the "Golden Rule" but otherwise you will fail. Dude, without an excellent GM there is not one single rule in the book that will help you succeed. Bad GM = Bad Team, it's as simple as that.

 

So if Nix is a good GM, he will use the "Golden Rule," and be successful. And if Nix is a bad GM, this team is going nowhere, "Golden Rule" or not. Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

Whatever our differences, I'm sure we're both hoping Nix turns out to be a great GM like Polian.

[PDaDdy]

That's what you think the difference is, that Polian understands that teh QB needs a solid surrounding cast to support him? Seriously? Everyone on here underestands that. What makes you think that most GMs don't. Hell, most 9 year olds understand that. Polian is better at getting a surrounding cast, that's what makes him different. He knows how to be a great GM. The fact that POLIAN USES THE GOLDEN RULE EVERY TIME ought to be a lesson for every GM.

 

Polian's needs at OL that first year in Indy were great. Manning got destroyed that first year, and a lot of it was because his OL sucked. Yet he didn't pick an LT, he picked a QB.

 

You ask "So tell us Thurman#1... which QB in this years draft should the Bills go all out to acquire and not draft a left tackle. Which QB in the 2010 draft is going to lead this team to the playoffs? " What a horrendous question. Because it has already been asked, virtually word by word and answered by me, in this thread, virtually word by word. So, I'll quote myself rather than type it again:

 

ROFLOL....Oh how WRONG you are buddy. Manning's first year, 1998, Indy had the #6 overall passing offense and gave up the second fewest sacks in league with 22 vs the worst team that year at 67. THAT is 1/3 the number of sacks of the worst team. Tell me again how his line sucked? Please, please tell me. I want to see if you can speak with your foot in your mouth!!!!!

 

Other posters will whine about my attitude but it's this type of BS misinformation that runs the risk of making people dumber if they don't research a posters claims.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?off...mp;d-447263-p=1

[K-9]

That's what you think the difference is, that Polian understands that teh QB needs a solid surrounding cast to support him? Seriously? Everyone on here underestands that. What makes you think that most GMs don't. Hell, most 9 year olds understand that. Polian is better at getting a surrounding cast, that's what makes him different. He knows how to be a great GM. The fact that POLIAN USES THE GOLDEN RULE EVERY TIME ought to be a lesson for every GM.

 

Polian's needs at OL that first year in Indy were great. Manning got destroyed that first year, and a lot of it was because his OL sucked. Yet he didn't pick an LT, he picked a QB.

 

You ask "So tell us Thurman#1... which QB in this years draft should the Bills go all out to acquire and not draft a left tackle. Which QB in the 2010 draft is going to lead this team to the playoffs? " That question has already been asked, virtually word by word and answered by me, in this thread, virtually word by word. It would have saved you some trouble to read the thread, but OK, I'll answer by quoting myself rather than type it again:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, you say:

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I have to agree with you there. To have any success in NFL football you need a good GM. It is simply an absolute necessity. If you have a GM as good as Polian, you are saying, you can have success with the "Golden Rule" but otherwise you will fail. Dude, without an excellent GM there is not one single rule in the book that will help you succeed. Bad GM = Bad Team, it's as simple as that.

 

So if Nix is a good GM, he will use the "Golden Rule," and be successful. And if Nix is a bad GM, this team is going nowhere, "Golden Rule" or not. Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

To be fair, the Colts selected LT Tarik Glen the year prior to getting Manning so they were at least set at that position. The hypothetical I'm interested in is who Polian would have taken first if BOTH Glen and Manning were available in the same draft. There is no doubt he'd have taken Manning.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[PDaDdy]

To be fair, the Colts selected LT Tarik Glen the year prior to getting Manning so they were at least set at that position. The hypothetical I'm interested in is who Polian would have taken first if BOTH Glen and Manning were available in the same draft. There is no doubt he'd have taken Manning.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

Again more hypothetical stuff but let's hope he did have the vision to see that Manning was going to be Manning. That being said that situation has approximately 0% to do with the potential choice the Bills will have to make. The Colts had a great pass blocking line when they drafted Manning. We can not say the same.

[Thurman#1]

ROFLOL....Oh how WRONG you are buddy. Manning's first year, 1998, Indy had the #6 overall passing offense and gave up the second fewest sacks in league with 22 vs the worst team that year at 67. THAT is 1/3 the number of sacks of the worst team. Tell me again how his line sucked? Please, please tell me. I want to see if you can speak with your foot in your mouth!!!!!

 

Other posters will whine about my attitude but it's this type of BS misinformation that runs the risk of making people dumber if they don't research a posters claims.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?off...mp;d-447263-p=1

 

 

 

Oh, you replied before I finished that post. I had to go get the quotes. Check it out again.

 

As to your point, I never said he had a lot of sacks. I said he took a pounding, and he did. To this day, Manning is excellent at avoiding sacks, particularly by getting rid of the ball. He did an awful lot of that that first year.

 

The 1998 line:

 

LT Tarik Glenn

LG Steve McKinney

C Jay Leeuwenburg

RG Tony Mandarich

RG Larry Moore

RT Adam Meadows

 

When they started to be a good line is when Polian brought in C Jeff Saturday and a decent RG. That first year they had a young Tarik Glenn, who was already pretty good but got much better as he got experience. Following the Golden Rule, after picking up Manning, Polian shored up LG with Steve McKinney, who was pretty good, but was a rookie, with rookie problems. They also had Meadows, who was pretty good.

 

But after that year, they let Leeuwenburg go for a reason, and he was out of football two years later. Mandarich we all know, that was his last year in football for a reason. Larry Moore, another rookie, (and another proof of Polian's use of the Golden Rule, picking Manning first even though he had needs on the line) wasn't particularly good in replacement of Mandarich.

 

When Polian came, he had weaknesses at RG, C, and LG. He picked Manning first, then two guards later. After fiddling with the middle of that line for two years or so, he brought in Saturday, who was the crucial piece that made them good. That first year, they weren't. Yet Polian went QB first.

[John from Riverside]

ROFLOL....Oh how WRONG you are buddy. Manning's first year, 1998, Indy had the #6 overall passing offense and gave up the second fewest sacks in league with 22 vs the worst team that year at 67. THAT is 1/3 the number of sacks of the worst team. Tell me again how his line sucked? Please, please tell me. I want to see if you can speak with your foot in your mouth!!!!!

 

Other posters will whine about my attitude but it's this type of BS misinformation that runs the risk of making people dumber if they don't research a posters claims.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?off...mp;d-447263-p=1

 

 

 

I dont have the stats to back this up.....but I watched a lot of Manning in his first year and he got the crap kicked out of him.

 

Sacks aren't the only stat....pressures and knockdowns count quite a bit to.

[Bill from NYC]

Polian's needs at OL that first year in Indy were great. Manning got destroyed that first year, and a lot of it was because his OL sucked. Yet he didn't pick an LT, he picked a QB.

 

Excuse me. The year before Manning was drafted the Colts selected Tarik Glenn and Adam Meadows, two excellent OTs, in rounds 1 and 2 respectively.

 

Carry on.

[Thurman#1]

I dont have the stats to back this up.....but I watched a lot of Manning in his first year and he got the crap kicked out of him.

 

Sacks aren't the only stat....pressures and knockdowns count quite a bit to.

 

 

 

Bingo!

[Thurman#1]

I'm sorry but those are foolish conclusions. The Jets and the Ravens BOTH made the play offs with the same basic formula. Barring injuries or losing key contributors those teams are set to be good for a while. Sooooo...if by some chance the Ravens or the Jets win the superbowl in 2010 or 11 will you then change your tune and say YES this is how you win a superbowl and that is the only way? OR...will you come to the factual realization that there are many ways to win a superbowl and the last two teams that got there happened to have great QBs AND great offensive lines?

 

 

 

I NEVER said it was the only way. Just the highest percentage way. And it is.

 

But if Nix feels that neither Clausen nor Bradford is a potential franchise guy, I fully expect him to try another way, most likely going LT.

 

If he does think that Clausen or Bradford is the real thing, though, picking that guy will be the highest percentage move, and Nix knows it.

[Bill from NYC]

Bingo!

 

But he still had Tarik Glenn. You don't need a first round OT when you have Tarik Glenn.

[K-9]

Again more hypothetical stuff but let's hope he did have the vision to see that Manning was going to be Manning. That being said that situation has approximately 0% to do with the potential choice the Bills will have to make. The Colts had a great pass blocking line when they drafted Manning. We can not say the same.

 

There is no denying the numbers of sacks allowed and the proficiency of the Colts' passing game in Manning's rookie year.

 

But for an OL so great, it took seven seasons since Manning was drafted for the first of his OLmen (Glen) to be selected to the Pro Bowl. Not that the Pro Bowl selection process is the be all end all but it is telling to some degree. Manning, Faulk, James, Harrison, Dilger all made Pro Bowl and/or All Pro teams during that same span. The Colts' talent WAS recognized. And yet their OL was not honored in the same fashion. Interesting.

 

Manning, in his 13 seasons has always been among the least sacked QBs in the league. That covers many OL combinations. The one constant is Manning himself. He's always been able to get the ball out ON TIME or buy extra time in the pocket. This year they had no running game to speak of, yet Manning was sacked a mere 10 times. 10 TIMES!

 

Taking nothing away from their OLine and the sacks allowed stat, but I submit that the low sack numbers are more a testament to Manning's ability over the years than that of his OL to protect him. He simply gets rid of the ball so quickly.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[KOKBILLS]

IF he falls to us at 9

 

There is just something about him I really like.......Sam Bradford is my guy.

 

Then we look at a guy like the OT from USC in the 2nd round.

 

I doubt he falls...But under the circumstances as they are, I don't see how The Bills can pass on him if he's there at #9...

[Bill from NYC]

There is no denying the numbers of sacks allowed and the proficiency of the Colts' passing game in Manning's rookie year.

 

But for an OL so great, it took seven seasons since Manning was drafted for the first of his OLmen (Glen) to be selected to the Pro Bowl. Not that the Pro Bowl selection process is the be all end all but it is telling to some degree. Manning, Faulk, James, Harrison, Dilger all made Pro Bowl and/or All Pro teams during that same span. The Colts' talent WAS recognized. And yet their OL was not honored in the same fashion. Interesting.

 

Manning, in his 13 seasons has always been among the least sacked QBs in the league. That covers many OL combinations. The one constant is Manning himself. He's always been able to get the ball out ON TIME or buy extra time in the pocket. This year they had no running game to speak of, yet Manning was sacked a mere 10 times. 10 TIMES!

 

Taking nothing away from their OLine and the sacks allowed stat, but I submit that the low sack numbers are more a testament to Manning's ability over the years than that of his OL to protect him. He simply gets rid of the ball so quickly.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Glenn was a simply superb LT, but he wasn't quite as good as Walter Jones, Orlando Pace and Jonathan Ogden. That said, he was extremely good. Put it this way.....a LT who can play to that level is worth a first overall pick of a draft (in hindsight of course).

[K-9]

Glenn was a simply superb LT, but he wasn't quite as good as Walter Jones, Orlando Pace and Jonathan Ogden. That said, he was extremely good. Put it this way.....a LT who can play to that level is worth a first overall pick of a draft (in hindsight of course).

 

No doubt. Glen was a great, if not elite, LT. Yet it took him eight seasons (seven with Manning) to make the Pro Bowl while others on those teams were well recognized as Manning, Faulk, James, Harrison, Dilger all made Pro Bowl and/or All Pro teams during that span. I find that interesting.

 

I'm not even remotely suggesting that the Colt's OLine didn't/doesn't provide great protection. I'm saying Manning's greatness at getting rid of the ball has made their jobs a hell of a lot easier over the years.

 

Manning was sacked 10 times in 16 games this year. His backup, Painter, was sacked three times in the two games he appeared in, which amounted to about 5 quarters, give or take. It makes a difference when you have an HOFer behind center. That's all I'm saying.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[PDaDdy]

Oh, you replied before I finished that post. I had to go get the quotes. Check it out again.

 

As to your point, I never said he had a lot of sacks. I said he took a pounding, and he did. To this day, Manning is excellent at avoiding sacks, particularly by getting rid of the ball. He did an awful lot of that that first year.

 

The 1998 line:

 

LT Tarik Glenn

LG Steve McKinney

C Jay Leeuwenburg

RG Tony Mandarich

RG Larry Moore

RT Adam Meadows

 

When they started to be a good line is when Polian brought in C Jeff Saturday and a decent RG. That first year they had a young Tarik Glenn, who was already pretty good but got much better as he got experience. Following the Golden Rule, after picking up Manning, Polian shored up LG with Steve McKinney, who was pretty good, but was a rookie, with rookie problems. They also had Meadows, who was pretty good.

 

But after that year, they let Leeuwenburg go for a reason, and he was out of football two years later. Mandarich we all know, that was his last year in football for a reason. Larry Moore, another rookie, (and another proof of Polian's use of the Golden Rule, picking Manning first even though he had needs on the line) wasn't particularly good in replacement of Mandarich.

 

When Polian came, he had weaknesses at RG, C, and LG. He picked Manning first, then two guards later. After fiddling with the middle of that line for two years or so, he brought in Saturday, who was the crucial piece that made them good. That first year, they weren't. Yet Polian went QB first.

 

 

1998 was Manning's rookie year. He was still Peyton Manning but he still had a lot to learn and develop as a player. People have tried to use the "Peyton Manning is good at avoiding sacks" excuse to credit the QB and take away from the accomplishements of his o-line as a 12 year veteran. That excuse doesn't fly for any rookie no matter what their name is.

 

If the guy took the second lowest sacks in the league at 22 he didn't take a pounding and it wasn't his savvy veteran skills as a rookie that made his line better than it was. It is interesting though what positions they picked up before and after Manning. He had a great pass protecting line before and they had BOTH tackles in place before he started game one. After he was already there they got guards and a center. I will say this. I agree with getting the tackles set before the guards. That is why I was against the approach we took last year. Why did we let our tackle positions get SO screwed up and focused on 2 guards. DUMB on our part.

[PDaDdy]

Excuse me. The year before Manning was drafted the Colts selected Tarik Glenn and Adam Meadows, two excellent OTs, in rounds 1 and 2 respectively.

 

Carry on.

 

 

"Bingo!" -Thurman#1

[thewildrabbit]

And yet somehow the Ravens didn't make the Super Bowl and the Colts and Saints did. Hmmm. Wonder why that was.

 

If you want to build a team with results like the Ravens this year, win one playoff game and out, build like the Ravens. But Flacco is a second-year guy and has a lot of room to grow, and if he does become a franchise guy, the Ravens have a shot to go very far.

Yet you managed to over look my question

 

"Anyone care to explain how the Ravens won that game with the winning QB completing only 4 passes in 10 attempts for a total of 34 yards?"

 

Jeez, the Ravens managed to beat the Patriots in New England with a power running game and a QB who did almost nothing to help win, and everyone conveniently ignores the post.

 

Frankly, I could shive two gits who the Bills QB is... if only they can build a power running game and defense like the Jets and Ravens currently have ...it won't matter who plays QB.

 

Everyone keeps gushing about Jim Kelly and how great he was, I also remember is how good Thurman Thomas was with his cutbacks and the "counter trey" offense. The Bills ran the ball more then they threw the ball most of those glory years.

[PDaDdy]

I dont have the stats to back this up.....but I watched a lot of Manning in his first year and he got the crap kicked out of him.

 

Sacks aren't the only stat....pressures and knockdowns count quite a bit to.

 

 

Sure they do. QBs that don't get sacked also tend to not get pressured or knocked down as much They kind of go hand in hand. Makes sense doesn't it?

[PDaDdy]

No doubt. Glen was a great, if not elite, LT. Yet it took him eight seasons (seven with Manning) to make the Pro Bowl while others on those teams were well recognized as Manning, Faulk, James, Harrison, Dilger all made Pro Bowl and/or All Pro teams during that span. I find that interesting.

 

I'm not even remotely suggesting that the Colt's OLine didn't/doesn't provide great protection. I'm saying Manning's greatness at getting rid of the ball has made their jobs a hell of a lot easier over the years.

 

Manning was sacked 10 times in 16 games this year. His backup, Painter, was sacked three times in the two games he appeared in, which amounted to about 5 quarters, give or take. It makes a difference when you have an HOFer behind center. That's all I'm saying.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

But how is that relevant to the choice the Bills have to make if a QB drops to us at #9?

[PDaDdy]

Yet you managed to over look my question

 

"Anyone care to explain how the Ravens won that game with the winning QB completing only 4 passes in 10 attempts for a total of 34 yards?"

 

Jeez, the Ravens managed to beat the Patriots in New England with a power running game and a QB who did almost nothing to help win, and everyone conveniently ignores the post.

 

Frankly, I could shive two gits who the Bills QB is... if only they can build a power running game and defense like the Jets and Ravens currently have it won't matter who plays QB.

 

Everyone keeps gushing about Jim Kelly and how great he was, I also remember is how good Thurman Thomas was with his cutbacks and the "counter trey" offense. The Bills ran the ball more then they threw the ball most of those glory years.

 

 

Ah refreshing. Someone who knows there is more than one way to build a great if not super bowl winning team. Thank you sir.

[Orton's Arm]

Yet you managed to over look my question

 

"Anyone care to explain how the Ravens won that game with the winning QB completing only 4 passes in 10 attempts for a total of 34 yards?"

 

Jeez, the Ravens managed to beat the Patriots in New England with a power running game and a QB who did almost nothing to help win, and everyone conveniently ignores the post.

 

Frankly, I could shive two gits who the Bills QB is... if only they can build a power running game and defense like the Jets and Ravens currently have it won't matter who plays QB.

 

Everyone keeps gushing about Jim Kelly and how great he was, I also remember is how good Thurman Thomas was with his cutbacks and the "counter trey" offense. The Bills ran the ball more then they threw the ball most of those glory years.

A good running game is a lot more effective when coupled with a good passing game. If teams gang up on the run, you beat them with the pass. And if they gang up on the pass, you beat them with the run.

 

The Bills were effective in the Glory Years because when teams put seven men in the box, we could slice them apart with Thurman. And if they started putting more men in the box to stop the run, Jim Kelly could go to any number of excellent weapons to beat teams with the passing game.

 

A team with a good defense and a one-dimensional, run-oriented offense can often win a lot of regular season games, and can sneak its way into the playoffs. Maybe it can even win a game or two while it's there, as the Ravens and Jets teams recently did. But sooner or later, teams like that will typically run into better, more complete teams that use both the running game and the passing game to put enormous pressure on defenses. At that point, the teams without good passing attacks will generally get eliminated; as the Jets were when they faced Peyton Manning, and as the Ravens were.

[PDaDdy]

A good running game is a lot more effective when coupled with a good passing game. If teams gang up on the run, you beat them with the pass. And if they gang up on the pass, you beat them with the run.

 

The Bills were effective in the Glory Years because when teams put seven men in the box, we could slice them apart with Thurman. And if they started putting more men in the box to stop the run, Jim Kelly could go to any number of excellent weapons to beat teams with the passing game.

 

A team with a good defense and a one-dimensional, run-oriented offense can often win a lot of regular season games, and can sneak its way into the playoffs. Maybe it can even win a game or two while it's there, as the Ravens and Jets teams recently did. But sooner or later, teams like that will typically run into better, more complete teams that use both the running game and the passing game to put enormous pressure on defenses. At that point, the teams without good passing attacks will generally get eliminated; as the Jets were when they faced Peyton Manning, and as the Ravens were.

 

The funny thing is that the Ravens indeed won the superbowl with this same philosophy.....well....unless you think Trent Dilfer made his line look better than it was and it was really through his incredible play from the QB position that won the day for them

 

roflol

[Orton's Arm]

The funny thing is that the Ravens indeed won the superbowl with this same philosophy.....well....unless you think Trent Dilfer made his line look better than it was and it was really through his incredible play from the QB position that won the day for them

 

roflol

Yes, the Ravens of 2000 won the Super Bowl with that philosophy. But to do so, they needed to put together one of the three best defenses in NFL history, and they had Jonathan Ogden at LT (who arguably played at or near a Hall of Fame level), and they had Jamal Lewis with his 2000 rushing yards.

 

So yeah. If you can put together a defense, an offensive line, and a RB as good as the ones the Ravens had, then you don't necessarily need a spectacular QB to win the Super Bowl. The thing is that teams with Ravens of 2000-like defenses don't come along very often; which is why Super Bowl wins are typically associated with quarterbacks playing at or near a Hall of Fame level. This past Super Bowl, for example, both Drew Brees and Peyton Manning played very well throughout the season for their respective teams.

[JStranger76]

The 2000 Ravens are a once every 25 years team. That type of cast only comes around 3 or 4 times in a century.

[Pete]

The 2000 Ravens are a once every 25 years team. That type of cast only comes around 3 or 4 times in a century.

2002 Tampa with Brad Johnson. 85 Bears

[thewildrabbit]

My entire problem with the Buffalo Bills is that if they fail to address the O line and blocking tight end, then how will they ever know if its the QB or other problems?

Last season we all knew its the O line, I think everyone agrees that the line was completely horrid for most of the year and hindered the QB's and running game.

 

J.P. Losman and Trent Edwards both started out looking promising. People were saying playoffs in 07 after the 06 season and then JP came out and fell on his face.

Edwards came out and won 4 straight in 08, was severely concussed in the Arizona game and hasn't been quite the same since.

 

Who is to say that if the Bills draft Bradford or Clausen and they start to play a few games and look really good... and then "wham" they get injured or concussed.

Everyone will then say "oh they sucked from the start" and lets look at next years draft for the "real" Buffalo Bills franchise QB.

[Orton's Arm]

The 2000 Ravens are a once every 25 years team. That type of cast only comes around 3 or 4 times in a century.

Agreed. If the Bills wanted to have that kind of defense, they'd have to find upgrades at literally every starting position on the defense. The Ravens of 2000 had a ridiculously good defensive line--the kind where you'd want to double team each of the four guys on it if you could. (Which you obviously can't.) Their linebacking corps, led by Ray Lewis, was first-rate. They had two lockdown CBs that would outplay opposing receivers. At safety they had guys like Ed Reed. That defense was just ridiculously good!

 

But note that even with a defense that could only be compared to the Steel Curtain of the '70s and the '85 Bears, the Ravens won only one Super Bowl. That demonstrates that the strategy of good defense + good running game + good special teams has to be executed almost perfectly in order to result in a Super Bowl win. If there was margin for error with that strategy, the Ravens would have won multiple Super Bowls with the ridiculous amount of talent they had.

 

Teams with elite-level quarterbacks, on the other hand, are often associated with multiple Super Bowl wins.

[PDaDdy]

Yes, the Ravens of 2000 won the Super Bowl with that philosophy. But to do so, they needed to put together one of the three best defenses in NFL history, and they had Jonathan Ogden at LT (who arguably played at or near a Hall of Fame level), and they had Jamal Lewis with his 2000 rushing yards.

 

So yeah. If you can put together a defense, an offensive line, and a RB as good as the ones the Ravens had, then you don't necessarily need a spectacular QB to win the Super Bowl. The thing is that teams with Ravens of 2000-like defenses don't come along very often; which is why Super Bowl wins are typically associated with quarterbacks playing at or near a Hall of Fame level. This past Super Bowl, for example, both Drew Brees and Peyton Manning played very well throughout the season for their respective teams.

 

News flash.....QBs like Manning and Brees don't come along very often either but that doesn't stop people from throwing them out there as an example of why we should get a QB first and you can't win without one. Peyton Manning and Drew Brees didn't have good lines they had great QBs. People are idiots if they believe that junk. The truth is they had both a great QB and a great line. That is one recipe to win a superbowl. Great offensive line, good running game and a great defense can win you a super bowl too. The common thread is a great offensive line. This isn't rocket science. It's so basic and simple it drives me crazy how some people just don't get that.

 

If our line was at least average ....get the QB. Since our line is god awful horrible...get the o-line fixed. Getting a first round LT is the bare minimum we can do to try to protect whomever will be the QB savior that people think will fix all of our problems.

 

For the record the Ravens won that superbowl to the tune of 34 - 7. The defense did a great job but so did the offense and special teams.

[PDaDdy]

QUOTE (JStranger76 @ Feb 23 2010, 03:53 PM) *

The 2000 Ravens are a once every 25 years team. That type of cast only comes around 3 or 4 times in a century.

 

2002 Tampa with Brad Johnson. 85 Bears

 

 

ZING!!!!

 

AS much as I would like to let's not forget the 1991 Giants that beat our star QB led Bills

[PDaDdy]

Agreed. If the Bills wanted to have that kind of defense, they'd have to find upgrades at literally every starting position on the defense. The Ravens of 2000 had a ridiculously good defensive line--the kind where you'd want to double team each of the four guys on it if you could. (Which you obviously can't.) Their linebacking corps, led by Ray Lewis, was first-rate. They had two lockdown CBs that would outplay opposing receivers. At safety they had guys like Ed Reed. That defense was just ridiculously good!

 

But note that even with a defense that could only be compared to the Steel Curtain of the '70s and the '85 Bears, the Ravens won only one Super Bowl. That demonstrates that the strategy of good defense + good running game + good special teams has to be executed almost perfectly in order to result in a Super Bowl win. If there was margin for error with that strategy, the Ravens would have won multiple Super Bowls with the ridiculous amount of talent they had.

 

Teams with elite-level quarterbacks, on the other hand, are often associated with multiple Super Bowl wins.

 

 

How many elite QBs in the last 10 years have won superbowls? NOTE!!!!! I said how many elite QBs not how many superbowls

 

For extra credit, tell me how many of those elite QBs had an average or worse o-line?

[K-9]

But how is that relevant to the choice the Bills have to make if a QB drops to us at #9?

 

It isn't. Not in the least. My post was relevant to the consistently low sack totals Manning has taken over the years. Despite multiple line combinations and a stunning lack of Pro Bowl/All Pro recognition for his OLineman over the years. That speaks more to Manning's ability to avoid sacks than it does his line's ability to prevent them.

 

The only thing that's relevant to our choice if Clausen/Bradford falls to us at #9 is what the Bills' FO thinks of either of them. If either rate higher on their board than other players, they'll pick one of them to solidify the most important position on offense. If not, they won't.

 

In any event, as stated earlier, whomever the Bills choose at nine, regardless of position, that player is going to be crucified around here the first time he screws the pooch. Whether it's a QB making a stupid rookie play, an LT getting burnt for a sack, or an LB getting swallowed by a blocking guard. There will be no shortage of criticism for a kid learning to play the game.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[PDaDdy]

It isn't. Not in the least. My post was relevant to the consistently low sack totals Manning has taken over the years. Despite multiple line combinations and a stunning lack of Pro Bowl/All Pro recognition for his OLineman over the years. That speaks more to Manning's ability to avoid sacks than it does his line's ability to prevent them.

 

The only thing that's relevant to our choice if Clausen/Bradford falls to us at #9 is what the Bills' FO thinks of either of them. If either rate higher on their board than other players, they'll pick one of them to solidify the most important position on offense. If not, they won't.

 

In any event, as stated earlier, whomever the Bills choose at nine, regardless of position, that player is going to be crucified around here the first time he screws the pooch. Whether it's a QB making a stupid rookie play, an LT getting burnt for a sack, or an LB getting swallowed by a blocking guard. There will be no shortage of criticism for a kid learning to play the game.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

Well as long as you admit it has nothing to do with the choice the Bills may or may not have at #9 that's cool. The draft probably makes the most sense for the LT position as there isn't anyone of quality out there and good under contract LTs cost multiple picks and lot's of money if any team is stupid enough to trade them. Ask Jason Peters. The only way the Bills get great performance at bargain basement prices at LT is drafting a rookie that outperforms his contract.

 

We need a QB badly but 2 things are universal truths which I have dared anyone to dispute:

 

1) A rookie QB pick at #9 WILL start his first year. Other than Phillip Rivers, who backed up an eventual superbowl winning QB in Brees, show me a top 10 pick QB who didn't start his first year for whatever reason in the last say 10 15 years.

 

2) Show me a team that drafted their top 10 pick QB first before having a MUCH better line than we have now.

 

It's not done. It doesn't happen. It's foolish. The only exception is if we go out and buy the rest of an o-line in free agency and they some how elevate this line from abysmal to average. If we do that and screw the idea of putting together a solid young unit go ahead and draft the next in a long line of "saviors" at the QB position.

[Thurman#1]

Yet you managed to over look my question

 

"Anyone care to explain how the Ravens won that game with the winning QB completing only 4 passes in 10 attempts for a total of 34 yards?"

 

Jeez, the Ravens managed to beat the Patriots in New England with a power running game and a QB who did almost nothing to help win, and everyone conveniently ignores the post.

 

 

 

Wow. Tough question. OK, here's the answer. Weird stuff happens a small percentage of the time. That's all the answer that's necessary. Again, did they win another? Did they get to the conference championship? The Super Bowl?

 

Luck wins a game or two, probably more, every single week in the NFL. And in the case of that particular game, the Pats* are no longer as good as they looked, Thank the Deity, and the Ravens were lucky enough to get three turnovers. Doubt it was luck? Then why didn't they keep winning?

 

A team winning one playoff game, however they do it, doesn't impress. When they string together a few wins and get to the conference championship or the SB, start considering them a serious threat.

 

But smart people go for the high odds.

 

EDIT: Ah, I see you already answered that, EDWARDSARM, and better than I could have. Great job.

[Thurman#1]

Sure they do. QBs that don't get sacked also tend to not get pressured or knocked down as much They kind of go hand in hand. Makes sense doesn't it?

 

 

No, it doesn't. Sometimes they go together and sometimes they don't. In the case of a QB like Manning with incredible awareness, he often managed to get the ball out just before he got creamed.

 

I remember that year. Manning was a punching bag, but still looked like he had a serious future, and one of the main reasons was because he was able to limit his sacks despite the pressure he faced and the hits he took.

 

Sacks are one indicator, but far from a perfect one.

[Thurman#1]

The funny thing is that the Ravens indeed won the superbowl with this same philosophy.....well....unless you think Trent Dilfer made his line look better than it was and it was really through his incredible play from the QB position that won the day for them

 

roflol

 

 

OK, so apparently we have uncovered your blueprint for Super Bowl success. All we have to do is put together one of the great defenses of all time. Then you don't have to have a competent passing game. Wow, if only I had realized it was so simple. And that strategy works ... for the Ravens ... the 1985 Bears ...

 

Um ...

 

I'm sure there are others if you go far enough back.

 

Again, as I have said again and again and again, yeah, there are other ways to win. But they are lower percentage chances. The smart thing to do is go high percentage.

 

Bill Polian has followed the Golden Rule of the Draft, "Never pass up a franchise type QB, unless you already have one," every single time he built a team.

 

The Bills. He had one in Kelly, so he was able to work on other aspects.

The Panthers. He didn't have one, so he went QB in the first in his first draft there.

The Colts. He didn't have one, so he went QB in the first in his first draft there.