Whoever doesn't want a QB at #3 is dillusional

[KOKBILLS]

Says the guy that knows that you fix what is broken and not what is not broken. Take your meaningless stats and stick 'em.

 

Meaningless stats...Seriously? You have got to be kidding...Meaningless like 12-23 as an NFL Starter?

 

Meaningless stats...

Edited April 19, 2011 by KOKBILLS

[Sisyphean Bills]

Meaningless stats...Seriously? You have got to be kidding...Meaningless like 22-42 as an NFL Starter?

 

Meaningless stats...

But it is meaningless if you are content to win 1 out of every 3 games.

 

Actually I was thinking if we draft QB at #3 this year, we could do a Detroit - get our QB injured, Draft in the top 3 next year for a top DL

[Dragonborn10]

It's trade down, Gabbert, front 7 defender in that order of preference. Just say no to Newton privately while talking him up publicly so some other team will be enticed to trade up for him.

[KOKBILLS]

But it is meaningless if you are content to win 1 out of every 3 games.

 

Exactly!

[Hplarrm]

What?

NYJ - drafted Sanchez with their #1

IND- Manning

Balt - Flacco 1st round

KC - Cassel - trade

NO - Brees - FA

GB- Rodgers 1st round

Philly - Kolb rd 2 Vick FA

Pitt- Ben 1st round

NE- Brady 6th

ATL - round 1 #3 overall

Chicago - Cutler trade

Seattle - Hasselbeck trade

 

So 6/12 QBs were acwuired by trade and one was taken in the late rounds.

 

THat means 6/12 were drafted by their current team and all but one of those was a 1st rounder.

 

I have no idea how you equate that to the vast majority of playoff qb's were acquired by trade or in late rounds. Please look a little bit before you make a post that can be so easily shown to be wrong.

 

My apologies for not wording it correctly or simple enough for you to understand so I will try again. The post attempts to point out that doing something other than drafting a QB at #3 is not delusional. I point out that on the face of it almost half of the 12 playoff QBs (the measure chosen in the lead post) were in fact not even drafted by the team they QB'ed to the playoffs (already the delusional comment is extreme.

 

The vast majority of QBs who led these teams to the playoffs stems from what the lead author classifies as delusional that rather than drafting a QB at #3, what makes a lot of sense is that you trade the pick away if you can and by trading down you pick up an extra second rounder (for example) and that still allows you to draft a QB (if you choose) later in the 1st round at the same position playoff capable QBs like Flacco, Sanchez, or Rodgers were taken.

 

It simply is far from delusional to get your franchise QB through FA or trade, or simply by passing on taking Gabbert or Newton at #3 and trading down to get extra picks to take a later 1st rounder (I suspect Mallet will actually go late in the first) or a second rounder with your extra picks (I suspect Kapernick (sp?) will go in the 2nd.

 

Rather than being deluded the intelligent thing for the Bills to do if it can find a trade partner is to trade down to answer the immediate question of being two players away from adequacy on D and a player and a half away from adequacy on the OL.

 

To me without the above essential improvements (particularly if they draft Gabbert or Newton at #3 I suspect they will not be productive they will have such a load to carry and likely will not even survive unless drastic changes are made to the OL.

[bluecarter]

ALL potential draftable players can be busts--its the system setup by the team--that makes the drafted player succeed...

 

The Bills history of first round choices are already closing in at 90% busts... I say WHO CARES... draft Gabbert---get the D-line help via free agency! This gives us an oppurtunity to draft a qb...might as well roll the dice!

So your thinking is since we suck at drafting, we might as well keep sucking?

[thewildrabbit]

So your thinking is since we suck at drafting, we might as well keep sucking?

This year the Bills can luck out and avoid their normal suckatude because the top 3 defensive players are all rated as blue chippers Darius DT- Von Miller LB- CB Peterson

 

So the bills are in a unique situation to be able to take a future pro bowler without much effort AND despite the fact they have the worst scouting dept in the league.

 

The Bills are not desperate for a QB as they have a serviceable vet in Fitz, only teams that are truly lacking a decent QB will reach for a QB this year. They will reach because there are no blue chip "franchise" QB's in this years draft, only projects that will take a year or two to develop.

 

 

 

Looking at how that vaunted Buffalo Bills O line performed with Trent Edwards and Brian Brohm as the starters, one would have to be delusional to believe that any rookie QB could find success playing behind that line- no running game-no tight end- one receiver = QB

[K Gun Special]

My apologies for not wording it correctly or simple enough for you to understand so I will try again. The post attempts to point out that doing something other than drafting a QB at #3 is not delusional. I point out that on the face of it almost half of the 12 playoff QBs (the measure chosen in the lead post) were in fact not even drafted by the team they QB'ed to the playoffs (already the delusional comment is extreme.

 

The vast majority of QBs who led these teams to the playoffs stems from what the lead author classifies as delusional that rather than drafting a QB at #3, what makes a lot of sense is that you trade the pick away if you can and by trading down you pick up an extra second rounder (for example) and that still allows you to draft a QB (if you choose) later in the 1st round at the same position playoff capable QBs like Flacco, Sanchez, or Rodgers were taken.

 

It simply is far from delusional to get your franchise QB through FA or trade, or simply by passing on taking Gabbert or Newton at #3 and trading down to get extra picks to take a later 1st rounder (I suspect Mallet will actually go late in the first) or a second rounder with your extra picks (I suspect Kapernick (sp?) will go in the 2nd.

 

Rather than being deluded the intelligent thing for the Bills to do if it can find a trade partner is to trade down to answer the immediate question of being two players away from adequacy on D and a player and a half away from adequacy on the OL.

 

To me without the above essential improvements (particularly if they draft Gabbert or Newton at #3 I suspect they will not be productive they will have such a load to carry and likely will not even survive unless drastic changes are made to the OL.

 

hey you were wrong. Its not a matter of you being smart. You said the vast majority when its incorrect. try not to be condescending.

[Hplarrm]

hey you were wrong. Its not a matter of you being smart. You said the vast majority when its incorrect. try not to be condescending.

Well is there a moderate ground we can agree upon that it is not delusional to not take a QB at #3?

 

My personal sense is that taking a QB at #3 is actually one of the worse things we could do.

[K Gun Special]

Well is there a moderate ground we can agree upon that it is not delusional to not take a QB at #3?

 

My personal sense is that taking a QB at #3 is actually one of the worse things we could do.

 

True. It only makes sense if you really believe that guy is the answer. The fact that it seems as though the bills are considering it, makes one wonder whether they have faith in Fitz.

 

They will get one of the guys they really want at #3. Personally, no one player stands out to me this year.

[dpberr]

I'm delusional. There's no way you reach for a QB at #3 in a draft of talent rich, top shelf defensive players when you're a pathetic run stopping team (league's worst) and you've got the #1 team in rushing points, and 4th overall in rushing yards in your division.

[K Gun Special]

I'm delusional. There's no way you reach for a QB at #3 in a draft of talent rich, top shelf defensive players when you're a pathetic run stopping team (league's worst) and you've got the #1 team in rushing points, and 4th overall in rushing yards in your division.

 

 

true but that has to do twit the offense as well.

 

THe bills O only converted 38% of third downs. THey averaged a measly 5.1 yds a play while the best are near 6.0 yards a play.

 

You cant really say they didnt have the ball either. The Bills O ran 2.5 less plays per game as compared to the packers, yet still sucked. The Bills O has one of the worst points per play ratios in the league.

 

You see bc our O isnt anywhere near as good as you think, and cant stay on the field, our poor run defense gets killed.

 

The O does not suck bc of lack of opportunity. its a lack of talent.

[Orton's Arm]

true but that has to do twit the offense as well.

 

THe bills O only converted 38% of third downs. THey averaged a measly 5.1 yds a play while the best are near 6.0 yards a play.

 

You cant really say they didnt have the ball either. The Bills O ran 2.5 less plays per game as compared to the packers, yet still sucked. The Bills O has one of the worst points per play ratios in the league.

 

You see bc our O isnt anywhere near as good as you think, and cant stay on the field, our poor run defense gets killed.

 

The O does not suck bc of lack of opportunity. its a lack of talent.

This is a very excellent point.

 

The Bills' defensive woes draw the most attention in large part because it vexes the fanbase to see us get physically dominated. (As against the run.) That's a perfectly legitimate thing to be concerned about. But just because the Bills' defensive problems create the strongest emotional reaction among many fans, does not therefore mean that they are necessarily the first thing we should try to solve in this draft. If there was a franchise QB waiting for us at #3, you take him. Period. I don't care if the Bills had an expansion defense with literally no players at all. If you don't have a franchise QB, and if there's a chance to draft one, you do it. Unfortunately, my sense is that there probably aren't any QBs in this draft worthy of going in the top-15. The Bills' best option may indeed be to address their defensive front-7.

[PromoTheRobot]

This is a very excellent point.

 

The Bills' defensive woes draw the most attention in large part because it vexes the fanbase to see us get physically dominated. (As against the run.) That's a perfectly legitimate thing to be concerned about. But just because the Bills' defensive problems create the strongest emotional reaction among many fans, does not therefore mean that they are necessarily the first thing we should try to solve in this draft. If there was a franchise QB waiting for us at #3, you take him. Period. I don't care if the Bills had an expansion defense with literally no players at all. If you don't have a franchise QB, and if there's a chance to draft one, you do it. Unfortunately, my sense is that there probably aren't any QBs in this draft worthy of going in the top-15. The Bills' best option may indeed be to address their defensive front-7.

And despite all that the Bills were in a position to win many games if it weren't for the inability to stop anyone on defense. You can quote stats all day. My eyes tell me we need a better defense NOW!

 

PTR

Edited April 19, 2011 by PromoTheRobot

[Bill from NYC]

This is a very excellent point.

 

The Bills' defensive woes draw the most attention in large part because it vexes the fanbase to see us get physically dominated. (As against the run.) That's a perfectly legitimate thing to be concerned about.

 

The Bills are poor offensively and defensively because they are weak. I would be thrilled if the Bills draft a qb at #3, IF he is a franchise qb. But even as great as this would be, he would have to sit for at least a year, or be destroyed.

 

Fitz was a nice bandaid for an OL that is just SO bad. The LT was small and weak; there was no RT. Wood, as much as he is heralded, isn't all that whereas he was seriously injured and doesn't get the push that many imagine he does. Levitre was their best lineman and as much as I do like him, this also says much about the line overall.

Fitz made many of his best passes while running for his life, and his rushes for first downs should not be discounted.

 

My point is simple. When the Bills get stronger up front (on BOTH sides), they will win football games. If not, they will lose football games, and there really is no grey area imo.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Bill from NYC

[Albany,n.y.]

It's trade down, Gabbert, front 7 defender in that order of preference. Just say no to Newton privately while talking him up publicly so some other team will be enticed to trade up for him.

Talking a player up makes no sense. The only way to accomplish a trade up for a player is to start a rumor that the team 1 pick below you wants the player and they can trade for him with you. If they think you like him, they're going to trade with the team ahead of you, not you, because if you truly like the player, you're not going to trade away the right to draft him.

So taking up a player to entice a team to trade for him accomplishes nothing positive for your team, unless there's someone on your board that you're afraid will be drafted a pick above you & by getting another team to trade up for Newton, that player falls to you. .

Edited April 19, 2011 by Albany,n.y.

[Bill from NYC]

And despite all that the Bills were in a position to win many games if it weren't for the inability to stop anyone on defense. You can quote stats all day. My eyes tell me we need a better defense NOW!

 

PTR

 

How did you like the blocking?

[Orton's Arm]

The Bills are poor offensively and defensively because they are weak. I would be thrilled if the Bills draft a qb at #3, IF he is a franchise qb. But even as great as this would be, he would have to sit for at least a year, or be destroyed.

 

Fitz was a nice bandaid for an OL that is just SO bad. The LT was small and weak; there was no RT. Wood, as much as he is heralded, isn't all that whereas he was seriously injured and doesn't get the push that many imagine he does. Levitre was their best lineman and as much as I do like him, this also says much about the line overall.

Fitz made many of his best passes while running for his life, and his rushes for first downs should not be discounted.

 

My point is simple. When the Bills get stronger up front (on BOTH sides), they will win football games. If not, they will lose football games, and there really is no grey area imo.

I'd categorize the Bills' most serious problems into three areas (in no particular order):

 

QB: Fitz is an easy player to like, and he did a lot of things well. But his serious accuracy issues caused the offense to stall and sputter on numerous occasions.

 

OL: the Bills had no RT this past season; and the line as a whole did not play top-tier football. As you pointed out, Fitz had to run for his life far too often.

 

Defensive front-7: even before the transition to the 3-4, the front-7 was largely bereft of young talent. Only Kyle Williams and Poz represented long-term answers to their respective positions. Everyone else was either nearing retirement (Schobel), not very good, or both. Adding numerous starting-caliber players had been necessary even before the switch.

 

Clearly, the Bills aren't just one draft away from fixing their problems in all three areas. (Let alone fixing their three main problems and their lesser problems.)

 

I think that you and I are on the same page about how those needs should be addressed. If position 1 is the hardest-to-fill and the most game-changing when filled, position 2 is the next-hardest to fill, and so on, the Bills should look for a player at position 1 first, position 2 second, and so on. By this I mean that the Bills should look for a franchise QB first. If one isn't available at third overall, then they should look for a player at the next-hardest-to-fill position. (Such as RDE or LT.) If no available RDEs or LTs are worthy of going third overall, then they move down to the next-hardest-to-fill position.

 

In my mind, the Bills should look at the next two or three drafts as though they're all one big draft. By that I mean that their goal should be to maximize their overall talent acquisition over the next several drafts--especially in the above-mentioned three areas. They should not rigidly say, "we have to get a player at position ____ this year, another player at position ____ next year," and so on. The idea that the Bills needed a SS and a DT right away was what led to the Whitner and McCargo selections. It's better to wait a year and get the right player, than to take someone right away and get the wrong guy.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[JESSEFEFFER]

true but that has to do twit the offense as well.

 

THe bills O only converted 38% of third downs. THey averaged a measly 5.1 yds a play while the best are near 6.0 yards a play.

 

You cant really say they didnt have the ball either. The Bills O ran 2.5 less plays per game as compared to the packers, yet still sucked. The Bills O has one of the worst points per play ratios in the league.

 

You see bc our O isnt anywhere near as good as you think, and cant stay on the field, our poor run defense gets killed.

 

The O does not suck bc of lack of opportunity. its a lack of talent.

 

When you subtract out the pathetic game 1, 2 and 16 offensive showings, the Fitz lead offense managed a 42% conversion rate and 5.7 ypp. Both are numbers that are worthy of the top 10. That 2010 run defense was "bad at the first snap" unlike in 2009 when it did wear down and collapse more often late in games.

Edited April 19, 2011 by JESSEFEFFER