For those that want to draft something other than QB

[thewildrabbit]

They are about to go to 3-3 with the addition of Bradford. It is crazy to talk about drafting tackles if a QB available at 1. Having a great QB makes everything else better.

 

Until he gets concussed or hurt, a serious injury keeps a 50 million dollar QB on the bench ....or a serious injury could even end his career and waste that money and draft pick. But ...throw caution to the wind and say F it and let him run for his life if need be

 

 

 

Only a fool builds a team in reverse and plays Russian roulette with his superstar QB, but hey...lots of NFL teams think the same way you do.

[Orton's Arm]

Dolphins

They went to the playoffs with an 11-5 record with the addition of Jake Long. It is crazy to talk about drafting a QB if a LT is available at 1. Having a great LT makes everything else better.

While Jake Long contributed a lot his rookie season, there was no way they would have even flirted with 11-5 had it not been for the addition of Chad Pennington. Pennington gave them savvy, solid veteran play from the QB position.

 

However, Pennington only lasted a year or two. At least in previous seasons, Henne was decent but not special. The Dolphins took a step backwards in the quality of their quarterback play. Coincidentally, their record slipped as well--there were no more 11-5 seasons for them after that initial year of Pennington.

[tennesseeboy]

"the most ready college qb prospect" and a franchise quarterback are not necessarily the same thing. In fact I would rate Christian Ponder as close to the best quarterback, and I suspect he will be available in round 2. There will be three or four huge talents identified by draft day, and one of them MIGHT be a qb. I say take the blue chip player if he is in a position of need. That MIGHT be a qb, but might be a DE, Nose Tackle, or OLB or even OT. The best talent (FRANCHISE player) at any of those positions should be where we go. If we don't see a FRANCHISE player...trade down..

[Orton's Arm]

Until he gets concussed or hurt, a serious injury keeps a 50 million dollar QB on the bench ....or a serious injury could even end his career and waste that money and draft pick. But ...throw caution to the wind and say F it and let him run for his life if need be

 

 

 

Only a fool builds a team in reverse and plays Russian roulette with his superstar QB, but hey...lots of NFL teams think the same way you do.

I disagree. Opportunities to draft franchise quarterbacks are extremely rare. If Bill Polian had eschewed the chance to draft Peyton Manning, how many future opportunities at a player like that would he have had?

 

If you don't have a franchise quarterback, and if there's one there, you take him. Period. You have to.

 

If the problem you're trying to avoid is having your expensive franchise QB get killed behind an inadequate OL, there are things you can do to prevent that. Things which don't require you to make the mistake of passing up a franchise QB when your team needs one.

 

There's nothing in the NFL rule book which requires you to start a rookie QB from his very first day. The Bengals drafted Carson Palmer first overall; and yet he was the third string quarterback during his entire rookie year. That's exactly what all teams should do with their rookie QBs.

 

The Bills could draft a quarterback in round 1 of 2011; and then follow that up with an offensive lineman in round 2. Perhaps even another OL in round 3. They'd sit the first round QB his rookie year. Then in 2011, they could use a first round pick on another OL in round 1 of 2012, if there was a sufficiently good one available at a position of need. By the time this quarterback took the field, the pass protection would have been significantly upgraded over the travesty we see now, and he would have had over a full year to learn the offense and its terminology.

[thewildrabbit]

Put Jim sorgi behind Glenn and meadows and the colts win 6 games, that's a fact.

Granted, Manning is that team, without him they are nothing with the worst running game in the NFL, but then who needs to run when you have Manning.

 

On that same note put Payton Manning behind Buffalo's PoS O line and they win 7-9 games, meanwhile the QB gets the crap beaten outta him every game...how many games till end game and his career is over?

Payton Manning is one of the least sacked QB's in the NFL year after year for a reason, it starts with the center Jeff Saturday, Manning can actually step up in the pocket if need be. He and Tom Brady have had some of the very best O lines over the last ten years, they actually have linemen that have been on the team for more then 2 years. This season he has a decent but not great O line and it shows, he would get killed playing behind Buffalo's line.

 

I disagree. Opportunities to draft franchise quarterbacks are extremely rare. If Bill Polian had eschewed the chance to draft Peyton Manning, how many future opportunities at a player like that would he have had?

 

If you don't have a franchise quarterback, and if there's one there, you take him. Period. You have to.

 

If the problem you're trying to avoid is having your expensive franchise QB get killed behind an inadequate OL, there are things you can do to prevent that. Things which don't require you to make the mistake of passing up a franchise QB when your team needs one.

 

There's nothing in the NFL rule book which requires you to start a rookie QB from his very first day. The Bengals drafted Carson Palmer first overall; and yet he was the third string quarterback during his entire rookie year. That's exactly what all teams should do with their rookie QBs.

 

The Bills could draft a quarterback in round 1 of 2011; and then follow that up with an offensive lineman in round 2. Perhaps even another OL in round 3. They'd sit the first round QB his rookie year. Then in 2011, they could use a first round pick on another OL in round 1 of 2012, if there was a sufficiently good one available at a position of need. By the time this quarterback took the field, the pass protection would have been significantly upgraded over the travesty we see now, and he would have had over a full year to learn the offense and its terminology.

Heh, the GM stated that the O line was a priority in last years draft, and the best he could do was Wang at #5....

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

He and Tom Brady have had some of the very best O lines over the last ten years,

 

This is just flat-out fiction. Do you remember the Patriots in the weeks leading up to Brady's first start? Their line was ABYSMAL, and Bleedslow was shuffling for his life back there. As soon as Drew was out, the line improved.

 

The QB makes the line at least as often if not more often than the line makes the QB.

 

Oh, and Manning's having yet another Pro Bowl year behind his "decent not great" line.

 

Buffalo Bills fans:

 

Utterly desperate to NOT have an elite-level quarterback.

 

Everyone knows that if you have an elite qb, you contend for championships year after year.

 

Many Bills 'fans' are terrified of this happening. They hope the team will continue to ignore the most important position in professional sports so they can retain the Loveable Loser moniker.

 

Sick.

 

 

This.

[Bill from NYC]

Yeah, and all those OLs didn't do anything to improve their W-L record, because the QB play was garbage. They still needed to use the #1 overall pick to take a QB. You don't pass up a franchise QB. No one is saying that you need to start them from day 1, but when you get the chance to take one, you take one.

 

David Carr was bad because he was a bad QB. His situation didn't help, but lets not pretend that he would have turned into Peyton Manning if he had a better line. We can take a QB at #1, get some OL help in rounds 2-3, and we can even sit the rook for his 1st season and play Fitzpatrick.

 

Interesting post. For the first time in longer than I can remember, I favor the Bills drafting a QB, specifically Mallett.

 

That said, your post seems to indicate that you think that it isn't possible for a QB to be "ruined" by a bad OL. I disagree with this, but the problem is that it is something that is impossible to prove imo.

For instance, would Losman have sucked if the Bills drafted Mangold and Trueblood instead of Donte Whitner? How about Trent if they took Clady instead of Leotis McKelvin?

 

I am about drafting Mallett, and getting him some big time help. If it means giving Trueblood 60 million for 6 years to play RT, so be it. If there is a good LT in round 2, grab him. I hope that the Bills stockpile draft choices to give them room to move around in 2011 and get the players they need to be a strong team. If it means trading a vet or 2, so be it.

What I DON'T want is for the Bills to draft a QB and toss him in behind garbage, ala JP and Trent. Am I asking too much?

Edited October 18, 2010 by Bill from NYC

[The Senator]

Buffalo Bills fans:

 

Utterly desperate to NOT have an elite-level quarterback.

 

Everyone knows that if you have an elite qb, you contend for championships year after year.

 

Many Bills 'fans' are terrified of this happening. They hope the team will continue to ignore the most important position in professional sports so they can retain the Loveable Loser moniker.

 

Sick.

You do realize that the board is fairly split on this, yes? Actually, probably well more than half WANT the Bills - are CLAMORING for the Bills - to draft an elite QB.

 

There are literally NO Bills fans that do not want 'an elite QB'. Not a single one. What NO ONE wants is for the Bills to blow a very high - potentially #1 overall - pick on someone like a Jamarcus Russell, a Tim Couch, a Ryan Leaf, a Rick Mirer, an Art Schlichter, a Matt Leinart, etc., etc. - you know, all those high first-round guys that contended for all those championships year after year.

 

Really not too difficult to comprehend, if you try.

 

Myself, I want Ryan Mallett - but I could be happy with Wisconsin OT Gabe Carimi if that's how it pans out. Hopefully we get both.

Edited October 18, 2010 by The Senator

[Ramius]

This is just flat-out fiction. Do you remember the Patriots in the weeks leading up to Brady's first start? Their line was ABYSMAL, and Bleedslow was shuffling for his life back there. As soon as Drew was out, the line improved.

 

The QB makes the line at least as often if not more often than the line makes the QB.

 

Oh, and Manning's having yet another Pro Bowl year behind his "decent not great" line.

 

 

 

 

This.

 

This board is filled with a bunch of chubby chasers who have this strange fascination with 300+ lb men, to the point where people actually don't want a great QB, but they'd rather have a great OL. I'll never figure it out.

 

Last time i checked, a great OL never improved a crappy QB's inaccuracy or inability to read a defense.

 

Interesting post. For the first time in longer than I can remember, I favor the Bills drafting a QB, specifically Mallett.

 

That said, your post seems to indicate that you think that it isn't possible for a QB to be "ruined" by a bad OL. I disagree with this, but the problem is that it is something that is impossible to prove imo.

For instance, would Losman have sucked if the Bills drafted Mangold and Trueblood instead of Donte Whitner? How about Trent if they took Clady instead of Leotis McKelvin?

 

I am about drafting Mallett, and getting him some big time help. If it means giving Trueblood 60 million for 6 years to play RT, so be it. If there is a good LT in round 2, grab him. I hope that the Bills stockpile draft choices to give them room to move around in 2011 and get the players they need to be a strong team. If it means trading a vet or 2, so be it.

What I DON'T want is for the Bills to draft a QB and toss him in behind garbage, ala JP and Trent. Am I asking too much?

 

Had we drafted the lines, chances are both Losman and Edwards would have performed better. I'd say either one of them was probably capable of leading this team to roughly the 10 win mark (they both had talent). However, both had their flaws, and i dont think either would have lead us to much more than some wildcards and the occasional division title.

 

It is possible for a QB to get ruined by a bad OL, however, as stated above, we dont have to start the rook right away. We can glue Mallet/Ponder/Luck to the bench for 2011 and let Fitzpatrick have the reins one more season. This would then allow us the 2011 FA period, 2011 rounds 2-7, the 2012 FA period, and 2012 draft to improve the lines.

 

Also, i'm a proponent of drafting OLs a bit later on. I think you can get a ton of OL talent around picks 26-70 that is not significantly worse than the OL talent selected in picks 1-25. To me, i'd rather have 5 above average line players than 1 superstar. Cohesiveness along the line is much more important than pure talent. (Provided you have a minimal level talent, which the Bills severly lack at the OT spots)

[Orton's Arm]

Interesting post. For the first time in longer than I can remember, I favor the Bills drafting a QB, specifically Mallett.

 

That said, your post seems to indicate that you think that it isn't possible for a QB to be "ruined" by a bad OL. I disagree with this, but the problem is that it is something that is impossible to prove imo.

For instance, would Losman have sucked if the Bills drafted Mangold and Trueblood instead of Donte Whitner? How about Trent if they took Clady instead of Leotis McKelvin?

 

I am about drafting Mallett, and getting him some big time help. If it means giving Trueblood 60 million for 6 years to play RT, so be it. If there is a good LT in round 2, grab him. I hope that the Bills stockpile draft choices to give them room to move around in 2011 and get the players they need to be a strong team. If it means trading a vet or 2, so be it.

What I DON'T want is for the Bills to draft a QB and toss him in behind garbage, ala JP and Trent. Am I asking too much?

You ask whether Losman and Edwards would have had good careers had they been surrounded with better supporting casts. That's a question well worth asking.

 

Losman didn't prove a whole lot as a college QB. However, his big arm, fast feet, and good long ball were tempting to some NFL scouts. Dave Wannestadt, on the other hand, observed that he wouldn't have drafted Losman with the last pick of the seventh round.

 

During the second half of the 2006 season, Losman was surrounded by a good supporting cast. His offensive line was anchored by Jason Peters at LT; and the line as a whole did a reasonable job in pass protection. Even so, the offense had to be considerably simplified to accommodate Losman's mental limitations. He had some big plays that year, including a number of long bombs to Lee Evans. But what he didn't do was demonstrate the ability to lead the offense down the field on many-play, "death by a thousand small cuts" type drives. Losman failed because of his mental limitations, and he brought those mental limitations with him to the NFL.

 

Edwards also didn't prove a whole lot in college; in large part because his offensive supporting cast was so horrendous. It's hard to work your way to your third or fourth read when the pass rush arrives almost instantly. Edwards was available in the third round because of the absence of a solid college track record. Sure, Marv told us the Bills had him rated as a first round QB. So you have to decide whether to believe Marv's judgment--or the judgment of the NFL GMs who passed over Edwards in the first and second rounds.

 

An average third round QB isn't going to amount to much--perhaps a decent backup if all goes well. Maybe Edwards could have had a successful career with better pass protection, but the odds would have been heavily against him.

 

I'm open to the possibility that a bad supporting cast/overall situation might seriously jeopardize a quarterback's future. But Losman in particular--and probably Edwards as well--would have failed, regardless of the quality of their supporting casts.

 

Obviously, if you take a QB early, and if your team has offensive line problems, you should focus on getting those problems fixed as quickly and effectively as possible. A QB in the first round (if there's one there worth taking) followed by a RT in the second round, seems like a good approach for the Bills' 2011 draft.

[K Gun Special]

If the Bills are able to take what they believe to be a franchise QB they will take him. There will be no discussion of taking a OL.

 

The reality is the Bills have had terribly inconsistent QB play sine Kelly retired. The answer isnt on the roster now. The Bills, in their heyday, didnt have a franchise LT. Can you name the LT who was on the Saints when they won the super bowl? it was a backup LT.

 

Think they wouldve won with a backup QB????

 

 

THe NFL is a QB driven league and if the best QB is there you take him.

[K-9]

If the Bills are able to take what they believe to be a franchise QB they will take him. There will be no discussion of taking a OL.

 

The reality is the Bills have had terribly inconsistent QB play sine Kelly retired. The answer isnt on the roster now. The Bills, in their heyday, didnt have a franchise LT. Can you name the LT who was on the Saints when they won the super bowl? it was a backup LT.

 

Think they wouldve won with a backup QB????

 

 

THe NFL is a QB driven league and if the best QB is there you take him.

 

I think you're selling Will Wilford a bit short. No, he wasn't an Ogden of Pace but he was easily a top 5 left tackle in the league at the time. Sure we had three other Pro Bowl offensive lineman in Richter, Hull, and Ballard but Wilford was very good.

 

That said, I totally agree with your premise.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited October 18, 2010 by K-9

[K Gun Special]

I think you're selling Will Wilford a bit short. No, he wasn't an Ogden of Pace but he was easily a top 5 left tackle in the league at the time. Sure we had three other Pro Bowl offensive lineman in Richter, Hull, and Ballard but Wilford was very good.

 

That said, I totally agree with your premise.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

We did have other stud OLs and Wolford was a beast.

 

But even in that case, Kelly was acquired first and we built around him.

 

A QB is the cornerstone of any franchise, not a LT and def not a RT.

 

Anyone who thinks the bills will pass on a franchise QB to take a OL is not taking their medication.

[K-9]

We did have other stud OLs and Wolford was a beast.

 

But even in that case, Kelly was acquired first and we built around him.

 

A QB is the cornerstone of any franchise, not a LT and def not a RT.

 

Anyone who thinks the bills will pass on a franchise QB to take a OL is not taking their medication.

 

Like I said, I agree with everything else in your post.

 

It's such a no-brainer it's amazing people around here even argue the point. If they feel there's a Kelly-type out there, they'll take him. No questions asked.

 

Then again, why would you want to solidify the single most important position in all of sports?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Astrobot]

You forget that the Rams addressed the OL for a few drafts before.

+1

 

Note also the success of the Jets after previously drafting D'Brick, Mangold in 2006.

[akm0404]

On that same note put Payton Manning behind Buffalo's PoS O line and they win 7-9 games

Wow you are dumb.

 

So having a franchise quarterback on your team like Peyton Manning is worth LITERALLY SEVEN WINS to you, but you are still so desperate not to have one.

 

I wonder how many games a season your fat lineman is going to win for you.

 

Holy crap it is scary how desperate some Bills fans are to maintain their lovable loser status.

[Bob in STL]

They are about to go to 3-3 with the addition of Bradford. It is crazy to talk about drafting tackles if a QB available at 1. Having a great QB makes everything else better.

 

 

The Rams bottomed out for three years and they play in a woeful division. They replaced the FO, the coaches, and they selected Bradford.

 

Happy to see Bradford doing well but the kid still has a long way to go and they need more help around him to enable him to take the next step.

 

I would love to see the Bills draft a franchise QB and see him step in and do well right away. That would be ideal in that it almost never happens.

[The Senator]

They are about to go to 3-3 with the addition of Bradford. It is crazy to talk about drafting tackles if a QB available at 1. Having a great QB makes everything else better.

You do realize that only one team could pick Bradford, right? Once St. Louis took him, Buddy Nix couldn't.

 

You understand that, yes?

Edited October 21, 2010 by The Senator

[Cash]

Also, i'm a proponent of drafting OLs a bit later on. I think you can get a ton of OL talent around picks 26-70 that is not significantly worse than the OL talent selected in picks 1-25. To me, i'd rather have 5 above average line players than 1 superstar. Cohesiveness along the line is much more important than pure talent. (Provided you have a minimal level talent, which the Bills severly lack at the OT spots)

 

This.