jonramz Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 We all know that drafting a QB in the top 10 costs a team a ton of money, especially upfront money. We know that are owner isn't the most free-spending owner in the world. We also know that there will be a new CBA come hell or high water, that will adjust rookie salaries. Could it be that the Bills are waiting for the new rookie cap in order to go get their QB? Just a thought I had, knowing what we know. BTW 5-11 this year... oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 We all know that drafting a QB in the top 10 costs a team a ton of money, especially upfront money. We know that are owner isn't the most free-spending owner in the world. We also know that there will be a new CBA come hell or high water, that will adjust rookie salaries. Could it be that the Bills are waiting for the new rookie cap in order to go get their QB? Just a thought I had, knowing what we know. BTW 5-11 this year... oh well Or, just maybe, there wasn't a QB available that was worthy of a #9 selection. Freakin trolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Because we needed another running back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Or, just maybe, there wasn't a QB available that was worthy of a #9 selection. Freakin trolls. How is that a troll-ish post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 How is that a troll-ish post? Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLiveRalph Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 How is that a troll-ish post? Yeah I don't get it either. Wasn't the original post essentially saying the same thing...that there wasn't a QB worthy of the guaranteed money of a #9 pick, given the 50/50 nature of drafting QBs? Perhaps the Bills are waiting until there's less financial risk. Granted, they could've taken Clausen in the 2nd round or McCoy in the 2nd or 3rd round, so The Dean is correct in saying that they just weren't in love with any of this year's crop of QBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaBill Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. yep--^^+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 We all know that drafting a QB in the top 10 costs a team a ton of money, especially upfront money. We know that are owner isn't the most free-spending owner in the world. We also know that there will be a new CBA come hell or high water, that will adjust rookie salaries. Could it be that the Bills are waiting for the new rookie cap in order to go get their QB? Just a thought I had, knowing what we know. BTW 5-11 this year... oh well Plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. I'm not saying he is right or wrong, but it just seemed like he was throwing something out for consideration/thoughts and not necessarily to get some kind of reaction out of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Bill Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Hidden? Not from anyone paying attention . . . Since March we've been talking about this combination of facts. #1) Not even Bradford was a stud lock QB compared to next year's group. #2) Next year's QB draft possibilities are not only better, but will likely be a better value given the impending CBA changes. Nothing new here. Certainly no need to be getting angry with each other. Every team in the league had to figure their way through this conversation. It's not about Ralph bein' cheap. It's about how best to gamble with your millions of dollars. This year the QBs were a roulette wheel, next year's QBs give you odds closer to blackjack. . . Troll? nah. Late to the party? maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBaumer Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. Settle down there sparky - the guy had an opinion. For all anyone knows $$ could have played a factor. Maybe with a rookie cap, the thought process would have been different..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 well...ralph actually is cheap. However, I don't think that had to do with not picking a qb. I think they rightly or wrongly wanted the best player available, were presented with the best player available who might actually be the best running back in the draft and decided the hell with other needs we'll go for him. I can live with that but would have expected them to go heavy on OT's and Defensive linemen (because of their totally restructuring the defense). after that, or to have addressed the OT/QB needs in free agency or trade. Spiller was a gutsy against the grain decision and one that discounts the gaping holes at tackle, and would be fine if we had addressed the tackle issue some other way or with the remaining draft choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsox Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 If it was money related. If it came out publicly that, that is the reason they didn't get a QB. I'll revoke EVER caring about this team again. Are you serious? Please go find something better to do with yourself please. Do us all a favor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. +2. The Bills didn't go after a QB with the #9 pick for an obvious reason the QBs available weren't very good. Not to mention that Bills DID go after a QB in the draft, Mr. "QB of the (Distant) Future" Levi Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven Moses Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 If this premise were true, we would have drafted a lineman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick in RaChaCha Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. Dean - You need to tone it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre Speed Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 ralphischeap... ralphischeap... ralphischeap... ralphischeap... ralphischeap... there, now it's been officially said ENOUGH !!! i am SICK to DEATH of this crap, usually stated with obnoxious arrogance: "since everyone KNOWs"... yeah, everyone knows that it's BULL !! before you continue, be sure to read ALL previous threads on the topic. read every single word. you'll die of old age doing that, which is the POINT. if u wanna make a new claim, include irrefutable proof- and i mean comprehensive figures, not "well, it seemed like this happened that one time" horsecrap. otherwise, put a sock in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13player Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Don't look to deep, theanswer is simple the 2010 qb draft pool sucked, the 2011 pool will be much stronger, the 9 pick went to the best player available, IMO the best player in the draft. This team finally makes the right decision and we still kill'em!!! next yaer they address qb and if bell sucks, LT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 This team is better than people think, so forget about the number one pick next year. the 5- 9 pick may be more likely again. Offensive live & defensive line still need depth & this FO seems to believe in TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 well...ralph actually is cheap. However, I don't think that had to do with not picking a qb. I think they rightly or wrongly wanted the best player available, were presented with the best player available who might actually be the best running back in the draft and decided the hell with other needs we'll go for him. I can live with that but would have expected them to go heavy on OT's and Defensive linemen (because of their totally restructuring the defense). after that, or to have addressed the OT/QB needs in free agency or trade. Spiller was a gutsy against the grain decision and one that discounts the gaping holes at tackle, and would be fine if we had addressed the tackle issue some other way or with the remaining draft choices. Didn't OJ and Kelly received the highest contracts in NFL history when they signed them? Drew Bledsoe once had the highest contract in NFL history and the Bills traded for him. But Ralph is cheap I guess. And 2 QBs went in the 1st - a guy #1, who was far and away the top guy, and another guy who is completely changing how he throws a football. Another guy who was suppose to be a top 10 guy went #48. Here's a shocking thought: the Bills didn't pick a QB at #9 because the QBs in this draft sucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts