Fitz's QBR Numbers

[Orton's Arm]

Well if your yardstick for success is winning the Super Bowl then 31 teams are failures every season. While it feels good to take such a principled stand, it isn't a realistic way to run a franchise.

 

Why? Because franchise QBs can't be acquired at will. Just because you draft a QB high guarantees nothing. Most of the so-called franchise QBs coming out college never live up to their billing.

 

So having an average QB is not a bad thing. It allows you to concentrate on developing other positions. Then you can take a shot at a QB you believe is franchise level and surround him with more talent. How is Sam Bradford doing in St.L? He's getting killed because he's got nothing to work with.

 

Right now the Bills D is a disaster. If we don't fix it, we'll have to score 50 points a game just to have a chance to win.

 

So I'm fine with Fitz for now. Fix the D and wait to make a deal on a QB or draft someone who can learn under Fitz for a season or two.

 

PTR

I will specifically address your bolded statement. Obviously, someone will win the Super Bowl each year. Therefore, winning the Super Bowl is a perfectly realistic goal--at least for that someone. Over a ten year period, there will normally be six or seven different teams which win Super Bowls; and others which fell just short. Winning the Super Bowl is a realistic goal for such teams.

 

What are the things which separate the teams like those from a team like the Bills of the last 10 years? Let's put aside the obvious answers like ownership, Ralph is cheap, etc., and look a little deeper. I'd argue that before a team can win the Super Bowl, someone at the top of the organization has to adopt winning it as the #1, #2, and #3 goal, and must subsume all other priorities to that one. All his decisions should flow from that one objective.

 

The team Nix inherited could not possibly have been turned into a Super Bowl winner within one year. Therefore his objective should have been to build a team capable of winning a Super Bowl, and to do so within four years. Once you reach "capable of winning a Super Bowl" level, you want to maintain or even improve upon that high level for many years. That way you give yourself plenty of shots.

 

If you know that your long-term goal is to win the Super Bowl, and you know that Fitz cannot be the starting QB for that Super Bowl winning team, does it make sense to keep him around over the short-term? (Again, the short-term should be considered irrelevant, except to the extent that it helps you build toward your goal of a team capable of winning the Super Bowl.)

 

Suppose that in the off-season the Bills were to trade away Fitz for the best pick they could get. (Let's call that a third rounder for the sake of argument.) The Bills would probably go 1-15 or something with Tyler Thigpen as their quarterback. Does that short-term setback have any relevance toward their long-term goal of winning a Super Bowl? No! They weren't going to win it with either Thigpen or Fitz under center. But a 1-15 record would probably give them the first overall draft pick, which they very well might be able to use on a franchise QB. Once that critical but almost impossible-to-obtain piece was in place, they would then have the next several years to fill in the pieces around him. The hope is that those pieces could be added quickly enough to adhere to the planed schedule.

 

The question Nix and others in the organization need to ask themselves is, "is it worthwhile to abandon the plan to build a Super Bowl winner in order to obtain success over the short-term? Or, if the plan isn't going to be abandoned completely, it is worthwhile to postpone the long-term plan and significantly lessen its chances of success?" The Bills are much less likely to be able to obtain a franchise QB picking in their usual draft spot--somewhere between 8 and 20--than they would be if they had the first overall pick. If there was no franchise QB available with the first overall pick in a given year, I would have no objection at all to deliberately having two back-to-back 1-15 seasons with the intention of obtaining a franchise QB and an elite player at another position. One cannot be said to be truly committed to a goal until one is willing to sacrifice everything to achieve that goal. Including the short-term win/loss record.

 

As long as Fitz is quarterback, the Bills' draft picks will likely be similar to what we're used to seeing over the last ten years. This means we won't get the most highly touted QBs in any given draft. If Fitz is surrounded with more talent, the Bills might make the playoffs, and might even win a playoff game before being eliminated during the divisional round. This does not imply that they'd be getting closer to winning the Super Bowl. Again, winning the big one is all but impossible without a franchise QB. Getting to the playoffs does nothing to help them get a franchise QB. If anything, it would make it even less likely for them to obtain a franchise guy, because their draft position would be worsened. Therefore, a team should focus on getting a franchise QB first. Once they have him, they can then start concentrating on maximizing their number of wins.

[PromoTheRobot]

I will specifically address your bolded statement. Obviously, someone will win the Super Bowl each year. Therefore, winning the Super Bowl is a perfectly realistic goal--at least for that someone. Over a ten year period, there will normally be six or seven different teams which win Super Bowls; and others which fell just short. Winning the Super Bowl is a realistic goal for such teams.

 

What are the things which separate the teams like those from a team like the Bills of the last 10 years? Let's put aside the obvious answers like ownership, Ralph is cheap, etc., and look a little deeper. I'd argue that before a team can win the Super Bowl, someone at the top of the organization has to adopt winning it as the #1, #2, and #3 goal, and must subsume all other priorities to that one. All his decisions should flow from that one objective.

 

The team Nix inherited could not possibly have been turned into a Super Bowl winner within one year. Therefore his objective should have been to build a team capable of winning a Super Bowl, and to do so within four years. Once you reach "capable of winning a Super Bowl" level, you want to maintain or even improve upon that high level for many years. That way you give yourself plenty of shots.

 

If you know that your long-term goal is to win the Super Bowl, and you know that Fitz cannot be the starting QB for that Super Bowl winning team, does it make sense to keep him around over the short-term? (Again, the short-term should be considered irrelevant, except to the extent that it helps you build toward your goal of a team capable of winning the Super Bowl.)

 

Suppose that in the off-season the Bills were to trade away Fitz for the best pick they could get. (Let's call that a third rounder for the sake of argument.) The Bills would probably go 1-15 or something with Tyler Thigpen as their quarterback. Does that short-term setback have any relevance toward their long-term goal of winning a Super Bowl? No! They weren't going to win it with either Thigpen or Fitz under center. But a 1-15 record would probably give them the first overall draft pick, which they very well might be able to use on a franchise QB. Once that critical but almost impossible-to-obtain piece was in place, they would then have the next several years to fill in the pieces around him. The hope is that those pieces could be added quickly enough to adhere to the planed schedule.

 

The question Nix and others in the organization need to ask themselves is, "is it worthwhile to abandon the plan to build a Super Bowl winner in order to obtain success over the short-term? Or, if the plan isn't going to be abandoned completely, it is worthwhile to postpone the long-term plan and significantly lessen its chances of success?" The Bills are much less likely to be able to obtain a franchise QB picking in their usual draft spot--somewhere between 8 and 20--than they would be if they had the first overall pick. If there was no franchise QB available with the first overall pick in a given year, I would have no objection at all to deliberately having two back-to-back 1-15 seasons with the intention of obtaining a franchise QB and an elite player at another position. One cannot be said to be truly committed to a goal until one is willing to sacrifice everything to achieve that goal. Including the short-term win/loss record.

 

As long as Fitz is quarterback, the Bills' draft picks will likely be similar to what we're used to seeing over the last ten years. This means we won't get the most highly touted QBs in any given draft. If Fitz is surrounded with more talent, the Bills might make the playoffs, and might even win a playoff game before being eliminated during the divisional round. This does not imply that they'd be getting closer to winning the Super Bowl. Again, winning the big one is all but impossible without a franchise QB. Getting to the playoffs does nothing to help them get a franchise QB. If anything, it would make it even less likely for them to obtain a franchise guy, because their draft position would be worsened. Therefore, a team should focus on getting a franchise QB first. Once they have him, they can then start concentrating on maximizing their number of wins.

I disagree that having Fitz on the roster somehow blocks the Bills from acquiring a QB. Nix has said a QB is always on his list, but he isn't going just throw darts at anyone who might be available. As for complaining that making the playoffs will somehow set the franchise back, not all franchise QBs get picked at the top of the draft.

 

PTR

[The Dog]

I know from our years of posting that you are smart enough to figure it out.

 

His league leading RB got injured.

His squad leader Center got injured. Then the BACKUP Center got injured.

His LT got injured.

His WR unit was decimated with injuries.

 

You say it yourself, "The guy will need some solid help around him". All QBs do. The more help, the better the QB can play.

 

Well Stated. Thank you.

[LGB]

For the first 7 games Fitz passer rating was 98.4 and the Bills had a record of 5-2 - but Fitz was just terrible down the stretch – throwing 17 ints to 10 TDs with a passer rating of 65.2. Yep his pass attempts were high because the Bills were usually playing from behind - as they lost 8 out of their last 9 games.

 

There are many things that CHIX needs to fix and the Bills player personnel department did not do their job because all NFL teams experience injuries and the Bills had no depth.

 

Don't worry though because the Bills staff historically only gets a maximum of three years (since Marv) to turn things around and we will likely get to see a whole new cast of characters soon enough.

 

If you cannot improve on Jauron's record (and actually perform worse), too many fans will leave and the staff will likely be gone to stop the bleeding.

[Turbosrrgood]

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2012/01/17/fitzs-qbr-numbers/

 

32 teams in the NFL... He came in at 18th... That's below half the league so pretty much he failed...

 

 

Ahh yes, QBR...You can tell everything you need to know about a QB by this 1 arbitrary stat...

 

Of course if you believe that, then JP Losman consistently had good games, and was a top half QB in 2006... So that means he succeeded?

 

Then of course there is Rob Johnson, who had 3 consecutive years with a QBR over 100...He must be in the hall of fame...

 

Again, the normal case of failing to account for injuries and lack of surrounding talent applies as well... In the article you posted, Fitz's numbers were in line with the final numbers for Brees and Rodgers before the Bills started going down...

 

 

Seriously man, if you are going to say a guy failed, make a better case than that. This is laughable.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Turbosrrgood

[BuffaloBlizzard]

I think people atarted adjusting their game plans againt our offense and Gailey seemed a bit stubborn to make any changes. We have to be able to make adjustments to their adjustments and just never really did. That's what I felt I saw anyway.

[Just in Atlanta]

Bottom line, it's too difficult to tell. As one poster said, Fitz has never had a full training camp as the starter. He needs one more year, and healthy playmakers around him. Let him develop this offseason. I think he has what it takes, despite his mediocre stats, to be an above average QB. If he's still mediocre next season, then we can pounce.

 

He looked damn good the first seven games, IMO.

[Orton's Arm]

I disagree that having Fitz on the roster somehow blocks the Bills from acquiring a QB. Nix has said a QB is always on his list, but he isn't going just throw darts at anyone who might be available. As for complaining that making the playoffs will somehow set the franchise back, not all franchise QBs get picked at the top of the draft.

 

PTR

When Jimmy Johnson first took over the Cowboys, they'd gone 1-15. They used the resulting draft pick to take Troy Aikman first overall. In Aikman's first year the Cowboys again went 1-15, and used the first overall draft pick to take a defensive lineman. I forget the guy's name, but I recall him playing at or near a Hall of Fame level. Those two players proved very significant building blocks for the team that would start winning Super Bowls a few years later.

 

This past draft, the Bills had too good a record--and therefore too poor a draft position--to take the most highly rated QB prospect: Cam Newton. This draft, they will be excluded from drafting Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III. Next draft they will probably also be unable to take any QB slated to go in the top 5.

 

I realize not every franchise QB necessarily goes in the top 5. But if you're consistently excluded from the top 5 of the draft, acquiring a franchise QB becomes significantly more difficult than it otherwise would have been. A typical NFL team acquires a franchise QB once every 42 years. If you want to acquire franchise QBs significantly more often than that, you must do something atypical. I have proposed one method of acting atypically which would result in a greatly increased chance of obtaining a franchise QB.

[PromoTheRobot]

When Jimmy Johnson first took over the Cowboys, they'd gone 1-15. They used the resulting draft pick to take Troy Aikman first overall. In Aikman's first year the Cowboys again went 1-15, and used the first overall draft pick to take a defensive lineman. I forget the guy's name, but I recall him playing at or near a Hall of Fame level. Those two players proved very significant building blocks for the team that would start winning Super Bowls a few years later.

 

This past draft, the Bills had too good a record--and therefore too poor a draft position--to take the most highly rated QB prospect: Cam Newton. This draft, they will be excluded from drafting Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III. Next draft they will probably also be unable to take any QB slated to go in the top 5.

 

I realize not every franchise QB necessarily goes in the top 5. But if you're consistently excluded from the top 5 of the draft, acquiring a franchise QB becomes significantly more difficult than it otherwise would have been. A typical NFL team acquires a franchise QB once every 42 years. If you want to acquire franchise QBs significantly more often than that, you must do something atypical. I have proposed one method of acting atypically which would result in a greatly increased chance of obtaining a franchise QB.

So just so I am clear....You are suggesting the Bills cut Fitz and deliberately go 0-16 so we can draft a QB #1 because that is the only way to get to the Super Bowl? What happens if we draft the next Ryan Leaf? Go through that exercise again?

 

PTR

[1billsfan]

When Jimmy Johnson first took over the Cowboys, they'd gone 1-15. They used the resulting draft pick to take Troy Aikman first overall. In Aikman's first year the Cowboys again went 1-15, and used the first overall draft pick to take a defensive lineman. I forget the guy's name, but I recall him playing at or near a Hall of Fame level. Those two players proved very significant building blocks for the team that would start winning Super Bowls a few years later.

 

This past draft, the Bills had too good a record--and therefore too poor a draft position--to take the most highly rated QB prospect: Cam Newton. This draft, they will be excluded from drafting Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III. Next draft they will probably also be unable to take any QB slated to go in the top 5.

 

I realize not every franchise QB necessarily goes in the top 5. But if you're consistently excluded from the top 5 of the draft, acquiring a franchise QB becomes significantly more difficult than it otherwise would have been. A typical NFL team acquires a franchise QB once every 42 years. If you want to acquire franchise QBs significantly more often than that, you must do something atypical. I have proposed one method of acting atypically which would result in a greatly increased chance of obtaining a franchise QB.

 

Sorry but they're not excluded. People regard 1st round draft picks as way too important around here. The Bills aren't excluded from making a blockbuster trade for RG III with future 1st rounders. They can fill in the 1st round missed picks with top free agents who will WANT to come here since they'd have a franchise QB in RG III and would be a Superbowl contender for the next decade.

[Turbosrrgood]

This past draft, the Bills had too good a record--and therefore too poor a draft position--to take the most highly rated QB prospect: Cam Newton. This draft, they will be excluded from drafting Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III. Next draft they will probably also be unable to take any QB slated to go in the top 5.

 

Come on, really? You are saying that if the Bills were a worse team, that would be better...Sorry don't buy it. Many of those "top 5" QB's go on to be complete and utter busts, while many QB's taken after the 10th pick have gone on to be HOF's... You don't have to "suck" to become good, that's BS.

 

Rothlesburger (11th), Brees (2nd rnd), Rogers (24th, Alex Smith was taken #1 that year), Marino (27th), Kelly (14th), Favre (2nd rnd), Brady (7th rnd), Steve Young (supplemental), Joe Montana (3rd rnd), Kurt Warner (undrafted), Warren Moon (undrafted)...

 

Of course then you have guys like David Carr(1), Joey Harrington (3), Ryan Leaf (2), Jamarcus Russell (1), Tim Couch(1), Akili Smith (3), Mark Sanchez (5), Vince Young (3)...

 

Ok I got a little carried away, but you get my point... Top 5 draft picks are just as likely to be busts (maybe more likely), and most of the best QB's of all time were NOT drafted in the top 10...Maybe it's that those high draft picks are RUINED by the awful teams that take them.

 

I don't agree with your argument that the Bills are "too good to be good".

Edited January 19, 2012 by Turbosrrgood

[CodeMonkey]

Come on, really? You are saying that if the Bills were a worse team, that would be better...Sorry don't buy it. Many of those "top 5" QB's go on to be complete and utter busts, while many QB's taken after the 10th pick have gone on to be HOF's... You don't have to "suck" to become good, that's BS.

 

Rothlesburger (11th), Brees (2nd rnd), Rogers (24th, Alex Smith was taken #1 that year), Marino (27th), Kelly (14th), Favre (2nd rnd), Brady (7th rnd), Steve Young (supplemental), Joe Montana (3rd rnd), Kurt Warner (undrafted), Warren Moon (undrafted)...

 

Of course then you have guys like David Carr(1), Joey Harrington (3), Ryan Leaf (2), Jamarcus Russell (1), Tim Couch(1), Akili Smith (3), Mark Sanchez (5), Vince Young (3)...

 

Ok I got a little carried away, but you get my point... Top 5 draft picks are just as likely to be busts (maybe more likely), and most of the best QB's of all time were NOT drafted in the top 10...Maybe it's that those high draft picks are RUINED by the awful teams that take them.

 

I don't agree with your argument that the Bills are "too good to be good".

I agree. The Bills don't have to suck more to get a better draft pick to become better, they have to draft much better. Brady is the most glaring example, but all of your QB examples prove that point very well.

Edited January 19, 2012 by CodeMonkey

[K-9]

When Jimmy Johnson first took over the Cowboys, they'd gone 1-15. They used the resulting draft pick to take Troy Aikman first overall. In Aikman's first year the Cowboys again went 1-15, and used the first overall draft pick to take a defensive lineman. I forget the guy's name, but I recall him playing at or near a Hall of Fame level. Those two players proved very significant building blocks for the team that would start winning Super Bowls a few years later.

 

Jimmy Johnson and Troy Aikman both started with the Cowboys in 1989 when they went 1-15. The next draft they took Emmitt Smith with their first round draft choice, #17 overall, which they acquired by trade because they forfeited their first round pick when they took Steve Walsh #1 in the 1989 supplemental draft. They went 7-9 in 1990. I forget who they traded with, but they ended up with the #1 overall pick in the 1991 draft and they took Russell Maryland. I think that's the guy you're thinking of.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

So just so I am clear....You are suggesting the Bills cut Fitz and deliberately go 0-16 so we can draft a QB #1 because that is the only way to get to the Super Bowl? What happens if we draft the next Ryan Leaf? Go through that exercise again?

 

PTR

I am suggesting that the Bills do whatever it takes to maximize their odds of winning the Super Bowl over the next 5+ years. A team without a franchise QB will typically have to wait 22.5 times as long to win a Super Bowl as will a team with a franchise QB. The Bills should do whatever it takes to maximize their odds of obtaining a franchise QB.

 

As 1billsfan correctly pointed out, nothing prevents the Bills from making a "trade away the house" kind of deal for a franchise QB. Trading away the house for a franchise QB is considerably better than attempting to somehow win a Super Bowl without a franchise QB. If the Bills were to trade away literally every player on their roster for Aaron Rodgers, they would be considerably closer to building a Super Bowl winner than they are today. (Of course, it would take several years to assemble sufficient talent around Rodgers to build a Super Bowl winner, or even a credible team.) The downside to a trade like that is that it's highly doubtful the Packers would be foolish enough to accept it. They need Rodgers more than they need the Bills' roster in its entirety. (As an aside, fans underestimate the speed with which an NFL roster can be rebuilt. Look at how quickly TD replaced the vast majority of the Butler era roster, or the speed with which Marv replaced almost all of TD's players.)

 

Going 1-15 and drafting a franchise QB would allow the Bills to obtain the benefits of the above-described plan without needing to trade away either the existing roster or valuable picks in future drafts. In comparison with other strategies, this strategy has the second-highest probability of obtaining a franchise QB, and a much lower cost than other strategy associated with a high probability of success. (The strategy most likely to result in a franchise QB would be to trade away a king's ransom for a young franchise QB. Assuming there were any teams out there willing to make such a trade.)

 

I acknowledge that QBs picked in the top five of the draft don't always succeed. The odds of a bust can be reduced through a disciplined player evaluation process, and a willingness to see what is there, not necessarily what you want to be there. I also feel that a QB should not be drafted early based on his physical gifts or physical "upside." If you're taking him early, it should be for his demonstrated accuracy and football-related mental gifts. Most of the first round QB busts people had mentioned hadn't demonstrated proficiency in those areas, or else had other serious issues which should have excluded them from being chosen early. When people compared Manning to Leaf, Manning was said to be more "polished" and "NFL-ready," whereas Leaf supposedly had more "upside" due to his superior physical gifts. A GM who was only willing to use first round picks on QBs who were "polished" and "NFL-ready"--as opposed to "raw" like Leaf and Losman--is much less likely to draft busts.

 

If despite all this the GM drafted a QB bust, it would probably be necessary to endure another 1-15 season a few years later to rectify the error. More generally, the above plan is optimized to maximize the chances of winning the Super Bowl. This is not necessarily the same thing as optimizing it to maximize anyone's job security, from the general manager on down. The job security element is almost certainly why the above-described mentality is almost never employed by NFL GMs.

[PromoTheRobot]

I am suggesting that the Bills do whatever it takes to maximize their odds of winning the Super Bowl over the next 5+ years. A team without a franchise QB will typically have to wait 22.5 times as long to win a Super Bowl as will a team with a franchise QB. The Bills should do whatever it takes to maximize their odds of obtaining a franchise QB

To me that says deliberately lose out, or trade away all your draft picks for one player. I wouldn't do it but that's me.

 

PTR

[Orton's Arm]

Come on, really? You are saying that if the Bills were a worse team, that would be better...Sorry don't buy it. Many of those "top 5" QB's go on to be complete and utter busts, while many QB's taken after the 10th pick have gone on to be HOF's... You don't have to "suck" to become good, that's BS.

 

Rothlesburger (11th), Brees (2nd rnd), Rogers (24th, Alex Smith was taken #1 that year), Marino (27th), Kelly (14th), Favre (2nd rnd), Brady (7th rnd), Steve Young (supplemental), Joe Montana (3rd rnd), Kurt Warner (undrafted), Warren Moon (undrafted)...

 

Of course then you have guys like David Carr(1), Joey Harrington (3), Ryan Leaf (2), Jamarcus Russell (1), Tim Couch(1), Akili Smith (3), Mark Sanchez (5), Vince Young (3)...

 

Ok I got a little carried away, but you get my point... Top 5 draft picks are just as likely to be busts (maybe more likely), and most of the best QB's of all time were NOT drafted in the top 10...Maybe it's that those high draft picks are RUINED by the awful teams that take them.

 

I don't agree with your argument that the Bills are "too good to be good".

You're reaching pretty far back into the past for some of those examples. Joe Montana was drafted in 1979. Carter was still president, memories of the Vietnam War were very fresh, gasoline was being rationed. Even the QB class of '83 was a long time ago.

 

The first round busts you mentioned were more recent. But almost all of those guys were chosen in large part because of their physical gifts and "upside," not because they'd proven themselves as NFL-ready polished pocket passers at the college level. I remember a large number of people on this site began talking about Jamarcus Russell as a first round bust even before he signed his rookie contract! Most of the errors on that list would have been avoided by good GMs.

 

To avoid discussions about third round picks from '79, let's focus on the franchise QBs in the league today:

 

Tom Brady: 6th round

Peyton Manning: 1st overall

Eli Manning: 1st overall

Drew Brees: 32nd overall

Aaron Rodgers: 26th overall

Matt Schaub: 3rd round

Ben Roethlisberger: 11th overall

Phillip Rivers: 4th overall

 

Nearly half the guys on that list were chosen in the top five of the draft. Six of eight were taken in the first 32 picks. If a GM has a very high grade on a QB, but knows that QB will be long gone by the time his team gets to pick, he's pretty much out of luck. (Trading up for a franchise QB is very, very difficult.) Going 1-15 to get a top pick is a viable way to attain a franchise QB. This is especially true if, going into the season, there's a very promising prospect you're already targeting.

[HuSeYiN1978]

Ahh yes, QBR...You can tell everything you need to know about a QB by this 1 arbitrary stat...

 

Of course if you believe that, then JP Losman consistently had good games, and was a top half QB in 2006... So that means he succeeded?

 

Then of course there is Rob Johnson, who had 3 consecutive years with a QBR over 100...He must be in the hall of fame...

 

Again, the normal case of failing to account for injuries and lack of surrounding talent applies as well... In the article you posted, Fitz's numbers were in line with the final numbers for Brees and Rodgers before the Bills started going down...

 

 

Seriously man, if you are going to say a guy failed, make a better case than that. This is laughable.

 

What's laughable is you backing Fitz up and thinking he DIDN'T fail... Yeah ok, QBR doesn't determine everything I'll give you that but Fitz had one of the most bipolar seasons I've ever witnessed...

 

Fitz failed in many ways this year and the QBR shortens the way of explaining it. I'm riding with Fitz cuz I have to. We don't have a better option at QB than him right now so I'll still be in the stands rooting for Fitz and calling his name. I'm not one of the guys on here that's trying to make a case to get rid of Fitz.

 

What I would like to see as far as QBR is to have Fitz be in the top ten and I'll bet you that we would either be IN the playoffs or at least making a strong push for the playoffs.

 

Your statement about J.P. Losman having a good QBR was funny. What made you even say that? What was J.P.'s QBR in a whole season? I would love for you to dig up his QBR and post it.

 

When Jimmy Johnson first took over the Cowboys, they'd gone 1-15. They used the resulting draft pick to take Troy Aikman first overall. In Aikman's first year the Cowboys again went 1-15, and used the first overall draft pick to take a defensive lineman. I forget the guy's name, but I recall him playing at or near a Hall of Fame level. Those two players proved very significant building blocks for the team that would start winning Super Bowls a few years later.

 

This past draft, the Bills had too good a record--and therefore too poor a draft position--to take the most highly rated QB prospect: Cam Newton. This draft, they will be excluded from drafting Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III. Next draft they will probably also be unable to take any QB slated to go in the top 5.

 

I realize not every franchise QB necessarily goes in the top 5. But if you're consistently excluded from the top 5 of the draft, acquiring a franchise QB becomes significantly more difficult than it otherwise would have been. A typical NFL team acquires a franchise QB once every 42 years. If you want to acquire franchise QBs significantly more often than that, you must do something atypical. I have proposed one method of acting atypically which would result in a greatly increased chance of obtaining a franchise QB.

 

Or, maybe one season we can pick up a QB from another team like New Orleans did and have a "franchise QB" that way instead of trying to lose.

[Turbosrrgood]

You're reaching pretty far back into the past for some of those examples. Joe Montana was drafted in 1979. Carter was still president, memories of the Vietnam War were very fresh, gasoline was being rationed. Even the QB class of '83 was a long time ago.

 

The first round busts you mentioned were more recent. But almost all of those guys were chosen in large part because of their physical gifts and "upside," not because they'd proven themselves as NFL-ready polished pocket passers at the college level. I remember a large number of people on this site began talking about Jamarcus Russell as a first round bust even before he signed his rookie contract! Most of the errors on that list would have been avoided by good GMs.

 

To avoid discussions about third round picks from '79, let's focus on the franchise QBs in the league today:

 

Tom Brady: 6th round

Peyton Manning: 1st overall

Eli Manning: 1st overall

Drew Brees: 32nd overall

Aaron Rodgers: 26th overall

Matt Schaub: 3rd round

Ben Roethlisberger: 11th overall

Phillip Rivers: 4th overall

 

Nearly half the guys on that list were chosen in the top five of the draft. Six of eight were taken in the first 32 picks. If a GM has a very high grade on a QB, but knows that QB will be long gone by the time his team gets to pick, he's pretty much out of luck. (Trading up for a franchise QB is very, very difficult.) Going 1-15 to get a top pick is a viable way to attain a franchise QB. This is especially true if, going into the season, there's a very promising prospect you're already targeting.

 

Wow, you are really stretching to make your point huh. So basically you have the Mannings as the only 2 successful top 5 picks, of course leaving all of the busts out of your list. Go back and read my post again, it still stands and shoots this idea down...

[Dorkington]

I will specifically address your bolded statement. Obviously, someone will win the Super Bowl each year. Therefore, winning the Super Bowl is a perfectly realistic goal--at least for that someone. Over a ten year period, there will normally be six or seven different teams which win Super Bowls; and others which fell just short. Winning the Super Bowl is a realistic goal for such teams.

 

What are the things which separate the teams like those from a team like the Bills of the last 10 years? Let's put aside the obvious answers like ownership, Ralph is cheap, etc., and look a little deeper. I'd argue that before a team can win the Super Bowl, someone at the top of the organization has to adopt winning it as the #1, #2, and #3 goal, and must subsume all other priorities to that one. All his decisions should flow from that one objective.

 

The team Nix inherited could not possibly have been turned into a Super Bowl winner within one year. Therefore his objective should have been to build a team capable of winning a Super Bowl, and to do so within four years. Once you reach "capable of winning a Super Bowl" level, you want to maintain or even improve upon that high level for many years. That way you give yourself plenty of shots.

 

If you know that your long-term goal is to win the Super Bowl, and you know that Fitz cannot be the starting QB for that Super Bowl winning team, does it make sense to keep him around over the short-term? (Again, the short-term should be considered irrelevant, except to the extent that it helps you build toward your goal of a team capable of winning the Super Bowl.)

 

Suppose that in the off-season the Bills were to trade away Fitz for the best pick they could get. (Let's call that a third rounder for the sake of argument.) The Bills would probably go 1-15 or something with Tyler Thigpen as their quarterback. Does that short-term setback have any relevance toward their long-term goal of winning a Super Bowl? No! They weren't going to win it with either Thigpen or Fitz under center. But a 1-15 record would probably give them the first overall draft pick, which they very well might be able to use on a franchise QB. Once that critical but almost impossible-to-obtain piece was in place, they would then have the next several years to fill in the pieces around him. The hope is that those pieces could be added quickly enough to adhere to the planed schedule.

 

The question Nix and others in the organization need to ask themselves is, "is it worthwhile to abandon the plan to build a Super Bowl winner in order to obtain success over the short-term? Or, if the plan isn't going to be abandoned completely, it is worthwhile to postpone the long-term plan and significantly lessen its chances of success?" The Bills are much less likely to be able to obtain a franchise QB picking in their usual draft spot--somewhere between 8 and 20--than they would be if they had the first overall pick. If there was no franchise QB available with the first overall pick in a given year, I would have no objection at all to deliberately having two back-to-back 1-15 seasons with the intention of obtaining a franchise QB and an elite player at another position. One cannot be said to be truly committed to a goal until one is willing to sacrifice everything to achieve that goal. Including the short-term win/loss record.

 

As long as Fitz is quarterback, the Bills' draft picks will likely be similar to what we're used to seeing over the last ten years. This means we won't get the most highly touted QBs in any given draft. If Fitz is surrounded with more talent, the Bills might make the playoffs, and might even win a playoff game before being eliminated during the divisional round. This does not imply that they'd be getting closer to winning the Super Bowl. Again, winning the big one is all but impossible without a franchise QB. Getting to the playoffs does nothing to help them get a franchise QB. If anything, it would make it even less likely for them to obtain a franchise guy, because their draft position would be worsened. Therefore, a team should focus on getting a franchise QB first. Once they have him, they can then start concentrating on maximizing their number of wins.

 

If I'm getting this right... there's no point in being anything other than a superbowl winner, so you want to get rid of every average to good player we have to ensure that we get high draft picks?

 

Wouldn't that also end up being an endless cycle of mediocrity?

[Turbosrrgood]

What's laughable is you backing Fitz up and thinking he DIDN'T fail... Yeah ok, QBR doesn't determine everything I'll give you that but Fitz had one of the most bipolar seasons I've ever witnessed...

 

Fitz failed in many ways this year and the QBR shortens the way of explaining it. I'm riding with Fitz cuz I have to. We don't have a better option at QB than him right now so I'll still be in the stands rooting for Fitz and calling his name. I'm not one of the guys on here that's trying to make a case to get rid of Fitz.

 

What I would like to see as far as QBR is to have Fitz be in the top ten and I'll bet you that we would either be IN the playoffs or at least making a strong push for the playoffs.

 

Your statement about J.P. Losman having a good QBR was funny. What made you even say that? What was J.P.'s QBR in a whole season? I would love for you to dig up his QBR and post it.

 

 

 

Or, maybe one season we can pick up a QB from another team like New Orleans did and have a "franchise QB" that way instead of trying to lose.

 

I responded to your exact post...Saying that the QBR alone = Fitz failing at QB...You already admitted you that the QBR means almost nothing, so that's a good first step.

 

JP Losman had a QBR of 84.9 in 2006, that's what I was referring to, a "top half" number. Of course everyone knows that he was really one of the worst QB's in the league that year.

 

I also notice you didn't comment on Rob Johnson's 3 straight years finishing with a QBR of over 100...Despite having basically zero impact in those seasons, or his career.

 

You are right, Fitz's numbers were "bipolar" this year...Hmm, gee, why could that be? Before the Bill's suffered their major injuries he WAS a top 10 QB, with numbers on par with Brees, Rodgers ect... And after he lost his center, MVP running back, and a host of other players he struggled. Must just be a coincidence right?

 

I never said Fitz was great, I made one point in my original post...Judging the "success" of a QB soley by his QBR is something only people that know nothing about football do...You could say the team failed, but to blame that solely on Fitz (who but up the best passing numbers for the Bills in 10 years)is asinine...

Edited January 20, 2012 by Turbosrrgood