A Few Thoughts About The Game, in no particular order.....

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Yes, because QUANTITY always trumps QUALITY. Unless you consider the likes of these guys as quality QBs: Jay Barker, Kyle Wacholtz, Ron McAda and Ingle Martin. That's 4 out of the 11 drafted by GB that never took a snap in the league. Green Bay took late round flyers on these guys.

 

I'll cut to the chase: 1 out of the 11 has won them a ring (Rogers). Too bad we didn't have a #1 pick that year.

 

1 out of the 11, in addition to Rogers has had ANY modicum of success in the league (Hasselback).

 

So, that's 2 out of 11 success stories for all those draft picks spent on QBs. A whopping 18% success rate. Way to blaze a trail Green Bay Packers! Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting they were paying any more than lip service to the QB position by making these picks and that ANYONE other than Favre, whom they traded for and Rogers whom we had no chance at, is the reason for their success. So no, not even close to a hard enough fact for me.

 

Anyway, I thought we already agreed that the Bills haven't done enough? I never suggested otherwise. And it won't be enough until we get our franchise guy.

 

Perhaps you should loosen your grip a bit. You're hanging on too tight it seems. How far did you have to dig for this snippet of Green Bay Packers trivia? Sorry you wasted your time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I'm not suggesting any of the things you mentioned. You claimed that the Bills have spent a reasonable amount of draft picks on QB's (whether directly, or through trades). I disagree. And the fact that GB drafts so many QB's is surely an indication that they place a lot of importance on QB's. You, with the benefit of hindsight are able to dismiss failed prospects, just as easily as others are able to point to players like Brees, and Brady that have worked out. It's a roll of the dice that the Bills haven't been taking often enough.

 

A brief perusal of this site http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/ will allow you to quickly find any teams draft history. If you look into a few teams, it's easy to see that most (if not all) have drafted more QB's than the Bills have since 1995, and all of them have made the playoffs more recently than the Bills.

[K-9]

I'm not suggesting any of the things you mentioned. You claimed that the Bills have spent a reasonable amount of draft picks on QB's (whether directly, or through trades). I disagree. And the fact that GB drafts so many QB's is surely an indication that they place a lot of importance on QB's. You, with the benefit of hindsight are able to dismiss failed prospects, just as easily as others are able to point to players like Brees, and Brady that have worked out. It's a roll of the dice that the Bills haven't been taking often enough.

 

A brief perusal of this site http://www.pro-footb...ence.com/draft/ will allow you to quickly find any teams draft history. If you look into a few teams, it's easy to see that most (if not all) have drafted more QB's than the Bills have since 1995, and all of them have made the playoffs more recently than the Bills.

 

OK, let's do apples to apples with the draft picks spent:

 

Green Bay = 11 picks total in the following rounds:

 

1 - 1

2- 1

3- 0

4- 1

5- 3

6- 1

7- 4

 

In the same time frame Buffalo has invested a total of 7 draft picks in the draft:

 

1- 3

2- 1

3- 1

4- 1

7- 1

 

Now, I'm no draft chart value expert, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that even though the Bills devoted only 4 less picks, they paid far more in value for their QB investments than did the Packers. And it's not even close considering the relative draft positions of both teams. The Bills took a far greater gamble and chance on finding their QB than GB could even hope to come close to. So yes, I'd say that's MORE than reasonable investment in the position.

 

And when I consider the fact that 4 of those QBs that Green Bay drafted never took a snap in the league, the disparity in the value of the investment in the position is even greater.

 

Quantity vs. quality like I said.

 

If you aren't suggesting that there's a correlation between their success on the field and the investment of all those draft picks (albeit only 1 can be considered premium), why do you bring it up?

 

Again, and for the last time, the Bills need to find a franchise QB. Just stop trying to convince me they haven't invested enough low round draft picks in the process to prove that they've been trying.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Geno Smith's Arm]

I'm suggesting that there is a correlation between bringing in QB's, and finding a good one. And I'm suggesting that a team that is willing to draft that many quarterbacks, while they already have what they feel is a long term, high quality starter, is placing a higher priority on finding a quality QB than the Bills.

 

They didn't need to spend high picks on QB's, but I would venture to say that if they didn't have one, they wouldn't hesitate to spend high picks.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Matthews' Bag

[K-9]

I'm suggesting that there is a correlation between bringing in QB's, and finding a good one. And I'm suggesting that a team that is willing to draft that many quarterbacks, while they already have what they feel is a long term, high quality starter, is placing a higher priority on finding a quality QB than the Bills.

 

They didn't need to spend high picks on QB's, but I would venture to say that if they didn't have one, they wouldn't hesitate to spend high picks.

 

I don't think any team would hesitate to spend high picks on QBs when they don't have one. Such is the importance of the position.

 

I will suggest that there is NO correlation between finding a franchise QB and drafting one lower than the first round. Outliers like Brady and other once in a blue moon hits don't make it a correlation. It's rare to get them even in the first round. And the success stories drop precipitously after round one.

 

I'll also suggest we've beaten this horse to death.

 

I want a great QB, you want a great QB and we both know we don't have one yet. And that plain sucks.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Geno Smith's Arm]

I don't think any team would hesitate to spend high picks on QBs when they don't have one. Such is the importance of the position.

 

I will suggest that there is NO correlation between finding a franchise QB and drafting one lower than the first round. Outliers like Brady and other once in a blue moon hits don't make it a correlation. It's rare to get them even in the first round. And the success stories drop precipitously after round one.

 

I'll also suggest we've beaten this horse to death.

 

I want a great QB, you want a great QB and we both know we don't have one yet. And that plain sucks.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Hahaha! Okay...

[Orton's Arm]

The point I'm making is that no amount of statistical justification, for or against the case to select Rob Johnson, could have been used to influence Tom Donahoe's decision one way or the other. You dismiss the emotional aspects entirely as if stats are the only drivers of decision making. Bottom line is, Tom Donahoe was PRECLUDED from selecting a QB in the first round of his first draft.

 

But if you're into a statistical analysis, I'd be interested in seeing some data on those QBs selected in the first round with careers similar to Brees and with superior physical measureables to boot. My hunch is that there are more failures than success stories over the years. GMs just don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and that's really all this exercise comes down to.

 

This has been beaten to death. You and others claim we've ignored the most important position. I disagree. There's a difference between being wrong about something and ignoring it. And we've been plenty wrong. I'd say that we not only didn't ignore it, we obsessed over it and panicked.

 

I'm glad Nix isn't that type of GM. He's got a game manager, he's building the surrounding cast, and when he has a chance to take that ONE guy, he will. He has repeated that on several occasions. He's not ignoring the position. He's just not panicking, reaching, and being stupid about it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> The point I'm making is that no amount of statistical justification, for or against the case to select

> Rob Johnson, could have been used to influence Tom Donahoe's decision one way or the other.

> You dismiss the emotional aspects entirely as if stats are the only drivers of decision making.

 

I do not dismiss the emotional aspects. I feel that TD's emotions were a big reason why he made an avoidable error. (As had also been the case on other occasions.)

 

> Tom Donahoe was PRECLUDED from selecting a QB in the first round of his first draft.

 

Precluded by what: his own preconceptions, or by a direct order from Ralph Wilson? If the latter, then you lay the blame at Wilson's feet. If the former, you analyze where TD went wrong in forming his preconceptions and gut-level decisions, to avoid repeating that category of error in the future.

 

> But if you're into a statistical analysis, I'd be interested in seeing some data on those QBs selected in the

> first round with careers similar to Brees and with superior physical measureables to boot.

 

It depends on what you mean by "similar." Do you mean "similar statistically," or "similar in having proved themselves as polished pocket passers at the college level." If the latter, then yes: I too would be interested in viewing the data. I'm sure there are a fair number of first round busts sprinkled into that group, just as there are amongst first round players chosen at any position. But I also feel confident that the bust rate is lower among polished pocket passers than among first round QBs selected primarily for their physical gifts.

 

> GMs just don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and that's really all this exercise comes down to.

 

Earlier in this discussion, you seemed to be of the opinion that barring an extraordinary stroke of luck (such as taking Tom Brady in the 6th round) there was very little the Bills could have done to have addressed their QB position over the last 10 - 15 years. I have pointed to at least three things they could have done to have obtained a franchise QB. 1) Take Drew Brees in 2001. 2) Trade up for Roethlisberger in 2004. 3) Eschew the Losman trade in 2004; thereby allowing themselves to draft Aaron Rodgers with our first round pick in 2005.

 

How much of the above represents 20/20 hindsight, and how much was knowable at the time? Going into the 2001 draft, I liked the idea of Drew Brees, and had misgivings about Johnson and his sacks. I liked the idea of taking Brees, but was not in love with it.

 

Going into the 2004 draft, I would have been strongly in favor of trading up for one of the Big Three. Likewise, I was strongly opposed to the idea of taking Losman; because Losman belongs to the general category of QBs upon whom I don't want to use first round picks. TD's misplaced faith in Losman cost us two franchise QBs. It cost us Roethlisberger, because TD thought to himself, why pay full price for a guy like Big Ben, when I can get someone equally good like Losman for a fraction of the cost? It also cost us Aaron Rodgers: part of the Losman deal involved trading away our first round pick of 2005.

 

> You and others claim we've ignored the most important position. I disagree.

 

I do not recall having used the word "ignored." A word like that expresses things in absolute terms; and turns this into a binary discussion. I have stated that in the draft, the Bills have under-emphasized the QB position, while greatly over-emphasizing positions such as DB and RB. A comparison of Bills' first round picks spent on QBs versus RBs and DBs bears me out.

 

> There's a difference between being wrong about something and ignoring it. And we've been plenty

> wrong. I'd say that we not only didn't ignore it, we obsessed over it and panicked.

 

I take issue with the word "obsessed," but otherwise agree with the above. The Bills' approach was indeed reactive, panicky, and wrong-headed. It was also penny wise, pound foolish. I wish TD had realized it's better to pay a high price, once, for The Guy, than to use quick fixes (Bledsoe) or half measures (Losman), and never get the problem solved.

 

> I'm glad Nix isn't that type of GM. He's got a game manager, he's building the surrounding cast, and when he has a chance to take that ONE guy, he will.

 

I agree that thus far, Nix's approach seems more cool-headed and disciplined than TD's or Marv's had been. I hope he continues to apply that disciplined approach when an opportunity arises to find The Guy at QB position. I also hope he realizes that a disciplined approach might well require him to pay a high price to trade up. But while I'm hopeful about all this, I've learned that as a Bills fan, I should never count my chickens until they're hatched, fully grown, and have begun laying eggs of their own.