QB Update- 1st Rd drafted QBs wins at typical rate

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

To me a successful season of NFL play is defined by making the conference championship. It's no where near winning the SB, or even making an appearabce in the final game though a team may lose.

 

However, I think any team that makes it ot the conference championship should be counted at having a successful season (though again ultimate success is when you win it all, though I think it is a bit rediculous to call team which has win a playoff game unsuccessful.

 

At any rate, in this over-QB focused league I have made a point of noting countless times that the true irony of the alleged need to draft a QB in the first, I simply say look at the record.

 

Namely that the last time a team drafted a QB in the 1st round who led that team to an SB victory wwould have been Dallas choosing Aikman in 1989.

 

When the search is rationally expanded to look at those who spent the cap resources to draft a QB in the 1st (they often are drafted too high and they also generally get a premium on their slot). Add to this that I AM NOT saying all first rounders are bad (on the contrary actually) I'm simply sayinf fan expectations are usually so high that when they go through the usual QB growing pains, impatient fans and media often run these players out of town or they have the stupidity of youth and 1st round drafted QBs who actually have been trained by others such as Young, Dilfer or Favre (not a 1st rounder but a second round choice but an example of how good QBs can be acquired in trade so drafting for them is far from a good strategy).

 

At any rate, these are the results of the final 4 QB derby:

 

Seahawks- Hasselback (originally drafted by Packers)

Carolina- Delhomme (UDFA signing by NC)

Steelers-RoboQB- (!st round pick by Pitts)

Denver- Plummer- (orignially picked by AZ)

 

The results were fairly typical of 1st Round drafted QBs for teams as one led the team which chose him to the conference championships (last year was actually a banner year for this method as 2 teams had these high priced guys leading them to the conference championships with McNabb being the first 1st round drafed QB to lead the team which chose him to an SB lose since McNair came close leading TN in 99.

 

However, once again these results show that looking elsewhere for a winning QB to get you to the next to the last game is a better strategy for getting results than drafting one in the first.

 

The real life results become a flat out certainty since Dallas' winning runs as clearly the way to get a QB capable of leading your team to the promised land has proved to be looking late in the draft for a Tom Brady, for two time loser rejects like Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer or for a Wal-mart box boy who turns out to be Kurt Warner. As rediculous as these QB search strategies were, the only one clearly more rediculous is drafting a QB in the 1st.

 

These are simply the facts.

 

I though this would be the year finally reversing over a decade of results with Polian finally compensating for the drag on the salary cap Peyton Manning brings to the Colts along with his stellar playt. However, even the off-cap investment of one of the best D HCs in the league and good cap work to build the ST necessary to win it all was simply defeated by the dumb luck of reality.

 

Perhaps RoboQB can stay lucky and good and break the streak, but if he does he will be little more than the exception that proves the rule.

 

It does not bode well for the Bills spending heavily on JP, then rushing him to start before he was ready and then fans and media now prematurely wanting to run him out of town.

 

However, I am once again surprised and impressed by how much of a stone cold lock this factoid is turning out to be.

[ExiledInIllinois]

You can't throw the baby out with the bath water and NOT bite on a QB in the 1st two rounds. That is where the talent is! You just can't take that chance and strategically pass them up!! It defies convention.

 

Here is the data... Took me a while... But, you make the call. Most of the recent players MAY end up on different teams, isn't that a sign of the times?

 

 

Historically, Lets look at the 1st round SB QB's. The ones that WON a SB are in BLUE:

 

Donovan McNabb...1999

Steve McNair...1995

Kerry Collins...1995

Trent Dilfer... 1994

Drew Bledsoe...1993

Troy Aikman...1989

Steve Young...1984

John Elway...1983

Jim Kelly...1983

Tony Eason...1983

Dan Marino...1983

Jim McMahon...1982

Phil Simms...1979

Doug Williams...1978

Jim Plunkett...1971

Terry Bradshaw...1970

Bob Griese...1967

Joe Namath...1965

Craig Morton...1965

Billy Kilmer...1961

Len Dawson...1957

Earl Morrall...1956

 

A lot of 1st rounders do "get you there." Maybe you didn't draft them but, somebody knew the talent the player had and gave them a shot in the high rounds. AND A LOT WON THE SB!!!

 

Now, lets look at the 2nd rounders (may I note, sooo, sooo close to 1st rounders) that "get you there" (very, very few). The ones that WON a SB are in BLUE:

 

Brett Favre...1991

Boomer Esiason...1984

Ron Jaworski...1973

Ken Stabler...1968

 

All the other rounds that "got you there." The ones that WON a SB are in BLUE:

 

Tom Brady...2000 (6th round)

Jake Delhomme...1997 (UNDRAFTED)

Kurt Warner...1993 (UNDRAFTED)

Brad Johnson...1992 (9th round)

Neil O'Donnell...1990 (3rd round)

Chris Chandler...1988 (3rd round)

Stan Humphries...1988 (6th round)

Rich Gannon...1987 (4th round)

Mark Rypien...1986 (6th round)

Jeff Hostetler...1984 (3rd round)

David Woodley...1980 (8th round)

Joe Montana...1979 (3rd round)

Vince Ferragamo...1977 (4th round)

Steve Grogan...1975 (5th round)

Ken Anderson...1971 (3rd round)

Joe Theismann...1971 (4th round)

Roger Staubach...1964 (10th round)

Daryle Lamonica...1963 (12th round)

Fran Tarkenton...1961 (3rd round)

Joe Kapp...1959 (18th round)

Bart Starr...1956 (17th round)

Johnny Unitas...1955 (9th round)

 

Now lets look at the last 40 years of the SB and the starting QB matchups :

 

(SB winning QB's are again in BLUE)

 

I...Bart Starr...1956 (17th round) v. Len Dawson...1957 (1st round)

II...Bart Starr...1956 (17th round) v. Daryle Lamonica...1963 (12th round)

III...Joe Namath...1965 (1st round) v. Johnny Unitas...1955 (9th round) & Earl Morrall...1956 (1st round)

IV...Len Dawson...1957 (1st round) v. Joe Kapp...1959 (18th round)

V...Johnny Unitas...1955 (9th round) & Earl Morrall...1956 (1st round) v. Craig Morton...1965 (1st round)

VI...Roger Staubach...1964 (10th round) v. Bob Griese...1967 (1st round)

VII...Bob Griese...1967 (1st round) v. Billy Kilmer...1961 (1st round)

VIII...Bob Griese...1967 (1st round) v. Fran Tarkenton...1961 (3rd round)

IX...Terry Bradshaw...1970 (1st round) v. Fran Tarkenton...1961 (3rd round)

X...Terry Bradshaw...1970 (1st round) v. Roger Staubach...1964 (10th round)

XI...Ken Stabler...1968 (2nd round) v. Fran Tarkenton...1961 (3rd round)

XII...Roger Staubach...1964 (10th round) v. Craig Morton...1965 (1st round)

XIII...Terry Bradshaw...1970 (1st round)v. Roger Staubach...1964 (10th round)

XIV...Terry Bradshaw...1970 (1st round)v. Vince Ferragamo...1977 (4th round)

XV...Jim Plunkett...1971 (1st round) v. Ron Jaworski...1973 (2nd round)

XVI...Joe Montana...1979 (3rd round) v. Ken Anderson...1971 (3rd round)

XVII...Joe Theismann...1971 (4th round) v. David Woodley...1980 (8th round)

XVIII...Jim Plunkett...1971 (1st round) v. Joe Theismann...1971 (4th round)

IXX...Joe Montana...1979 (3rd round) v. Dan Marino...1983 (1st round)

XX...Jim McMahon...1982 (1st round) v. Steve Grogan...1975 (5th round) & Tony Eason...1983 (1st round)

XXI...Phil Simms...1979 (1st round) v. John Elway...1983 (1st round)

XXII...Doug Williams...1978 (1st round) v. John Elway...1983 (1st round)

XXIII...Joe Montana...1979 (3rd round) v. Boomer Esiason...1984

XXIV...Joe Montana...1979 (3rd round) v. John Elway...1983 (1st round)

XXV...Jeff Hostetler...1984 (3rd round) v. Jim Kelly...1983 (1st round)

XXVI...Mark Rypien...1986 (6th round) v. Jim Kelly...1983 (1st round)

XXVII...Troy Aikman...1989 (1st round) v. Jim Kelly...1983 (1st round)

XXVIII...Troy Aikman...1989 (1st round) v. Jim Kelly...1983 (1st round)

XXIX...Steve Young...1984 (1st round) v. Stan Humphries...1988 (6th round)

XXX...Troy Aikman...1989 (1st round) v. Neil O'Donnell...1990 (3rd round)

XXXI...Brett Favre...1991 (2nd round) v.Drew Bledsoe...1993 (1st round)

XXXII... John Elway...1983 (1st round) v. Brett Favre...1991 (2nd round)

XXXIII...John Elway...1983 (1st round) v. Chris Chandler...1988 (3rd round)

XXXIV...Kurt Warner...1993 (UNDRAFTED) v. Steve McNair...1995 (1st round)

XXXV...Trent Dilfer... 1994 (1st round) v. Kerry Collins...1995 (1st round)

XXXVI...Tom Brady...2000 (6th round) v. Kurt Warner...1993 (UNDRAFTED)

XXXVII...Brad Johnson...1992 (9th round) v. Rich Gannon...1987 (4th round)

XXXVIII...Tom Brady...2000 (6th round) v. Jake Delhomme...1997 (UNDRAFTED)

XXXIX...Tom Brady...2000 (6th round) v. Donovan McNabb...1999 (1st round)

XL...???

 

Soon to be's'????:

 

Ben Roethlisberger...2004 (1st round)

Matt Hasselbeck...1998 (6th round)

Jake Delhomme...1997 (UNDRAFTED)

Jake Plummer...1997 (2nd round)

[Bear]

[Bill from NYC]

FFS, you brought this topic to us many years ago, and I thank you for doing so. Despite the fact that it is fundamentally flawed (you don't count Elway because he wasn't drafted by Denver, despite playing for them for his ENTIRE career), there are things to be learned from your theory.

 

The Colts DO spend a large chunk of their cap space on Manning (an annoying little twit I might add), and as good is he is, a case COULD be made that they need help in other areas that they can't get while being hamstrung with the cap hit that comes along with a first round (or even first rate such as Brady) quarterback.

 

Despite the above, a team would be foolish to pass up on the next John Elway, Dan Marino, Troy Aikman, Jim Kelly, etc. These guys are winners. They also draw fans. Yes, teams CAN advance in the playoffs with a so-so quarterback, but it doesn't happen all too often.

 

It is interesting that while at Pittsburgh, TD seemed to subscribe to your theory. TD seemed content to let others chase qbs, while he stocked the team with strong blockers and defenders. Steelers Draft History

When he got to Buffalo he changed his ways, and in a hurry I might add. Remember how badly he wanted Little Joey Harrington? When foiled at this endeavor, what to do? Sure, give away the store (don't forget the 2nd and 5th) and reach for JP! When he DID select an early blocker, he chose Pudgy the Whale instead of 2 strong Left Tackles. Nice work.

 

In summary, your point about taking qbs early is valid to some degree and taken, but the bottom line of winning in the National Football League is the ability to draft good football players, and this does include quarterbacks. The Bengals were doormats until they learned how to do so, and yes; they would have been foolish to pass up on Carson Palmer.

[ExiledInIllinois]

FFS, you brought this topic to us many years ago, and I thank you for doing so. Despite the fact that it is fundamentally flawed (you don't count Elway because he wasn't drafted by Denver, despite playing for them for his ENTIRE career), there are things to be learned from your theory.

 

The Colts DO spend a large chunk of their cap space on Manning (an annoying little twit I might add), and as good is he is, a case COULD be made that they need help in other areas that they can't get while being hamstrung with the cap hit that comes along with a first round (or even first rate such as Brady) quarterback.

 

Despite the above, a team would be foolish to pass up on the next John Elway, Dan Marino, Troy Aikman, Jim Kelly, etc. These guys are winners. They also draw fans. Yes, teams CAN advance in the playoffs with a so-so quarterback, but it doesn't happen all too often.

 

It is interesting that while at Pittsburgh, TD seemed to subscribe to your theory. TD seemed content to let others chase qbs, while he stocked the team with strong blockers and defenders. Steelers Draft History

When he got to Buffalo he changed his ways, and in a hurry I might add. Remember how badly he wanted Little Joey Harrington? When foiled at this endeavor, what to do? Sure, give away the store (don't forget the 2nd and 5th) and reach for JP! When he DID select an early blocker, he chose Pudgy the Whale instead of 2 strong Left Tackles. Nice work.     

 

In summary, your point about taking qbs early is valid to some degree and taken, but the bottom line of winning in the National Football League is the ability to draft good football players, and this does include quarterbacks. The Bengals were doormats until they learned how to do so, and yes; they would have been foolish to pass up on Carson Palmer.

569384[/snapback]

 

I am with you Bill.

 

If the talent is there... You go for it.

[Bill from NYC]

I am with you Bill.

 

If the talent is there... You go for it.

569386[/snapback]

 

Thanks. You know, I spent FAR too long posting it. I can only imagine how long it took you to compile that info.

 

Bills fans are the greatest, but we are crazy.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Thanks. You know, I spent FAR too long posting it. I can only imagine how long it took you to compile that info.     

 

Bills fans are the greatest, but we are crazy. 

569395[/snapback]

 

 

There would be a lot here that wouldn't dispute my craziness.

 

It didn't take long... Had a few browsers open! At least it is there for the record when this debate gets rehashed.

 

I also find FFS's rule about "not being with the team that drafted them" fundamentally flawed.

 

It is interesting looking at all those games and seeing where each player came from in the draft.

 

I do see FFS's point... Yet, you can't deny what that talent brings to teams... Even if they do end up somewhere else.

 

I have a feeling if you take the draft stats one step lower, say the playoff level... You would really see the major effect that 1st and 2nd round QB's have on their team's success!

[Orton's Arm]

Here is the data... Took me a while... But, you make the call. 

569371[/snapback]

An excellent post that ought to definitively put the issue of first round QBs to rest. As you point out, there's QB talent to be had in the first round, and it's awfully tough to get to the Super Bowl without solid QB play.

[SDS]

what is PARTICULARLY asinine about this latest installment is that when 2 drafted 1st RD QB's face each other - only one can be the winner.

 

So, Manning and Palmer are out, by virtue of Ben getting in...

 

yet someone was foolish enough to make a conclusion that the Plummer/Brady outcome dictates how successful 1st RD QB's perform....

 

Just give it up already....

[colin]

the biggest thing to me is the coaching.

 

the teams that make the play offs have kick ass coaches.

 

i really don't think mularky or our old batch of goofs had a snowballs chance in hell of winning a playoff game

[finknottle]

what is PARTICULARLY asinine about this latest installment is that when 2 drafted 1st RD QB's face each other - only one can be the winner.

 

So, Manning and Palmer are out, by virtue of Ben getting in...

 

569502[/snapback]

 

what is PARTICULARLY asinine about this latest installment is that when 2 undrafted drafted QB's face each other - only one can be the winner.

 

The numbers are the numbers.

[Ramius]

what is PARTICULARLY asinine about this latest installment is that when 2 undrafted drafted QB's face each other - only one can be the winner.

 

The numbers are the numbers.

569585[/snapback]

 

FFS has been on this rant for a long time. I had a counter arguement a few weeks ago that he didnt even attempt to dispute, because it bascially discredited what he had to say. It was something like this:

 

looking at the QB's drafted from 1999-2004, there were 18 first round QB's drafted, this past season, 12/18 were starters for their respective teams. There were also something like 64 QB's drafted in rounds 2-7, and out of those, 4 were starters.

 

My point was this. You need good QB play to go far in the NFL. To get it, your best chance is to draft a QB in round 1. Sure, it may be a 50/50 shot. But your odds of getting a good QB in round 1 are a hell of a lot better than finding a good QB anywhere else in the draft.

 

And, btw - out of the 12 playoff teams this season, 6 has 1st round QB's starting for them.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

FFS has been on this rant for a long time. I had a counter arguement a few weeks ago that he didnt even attempt to dispute, because it bascially discredited what he had to say. It was something like this:

 

looking at the QB's drafted from 1999-2004, there were 18 first round QB's drafted, this past season, 12/18 were starters for their respective teams. There were also something like 64 QB's drafted in rounds 2-7, and out of those, 4 were starters.

 

My point was this. You need good QB play to go far in the NFL. To get it, your best chance is to draft a QB in round 1. Sure, it may be a 50/50 shot. But your odds of getting a good QB in round 1 are a hell of a lot better than finding a good QB anywhere else in the draft.

 

And, btw - out of the 12 playoff teams this season, 6 has 1st round QB's starting for them.

569608[/snapback]

 

First, thanks to Exiled and BINYC for some great research. It's us crazy football addicted folks which is one of the best aspects of TSW in my view.

 

Second, I understand and acknowledge some of the points made here as undercutting the "rule" that drafting a QB in the 1st is not a good strategy. However, I try to incorporate points such as this into my thinking by recognizing that the NFL (and many sports generally) are interesting quite frankly because there are no "rules" that apply in all cases.

 

Just when you think you have seen it all, something new happens that you have never seen before. Sometimes they are "new" rules interpretations or uses by a team (the tuck rule, BB refusing to line-up D guys before the play and stifling Bledsoe), sometimes they are outstanding performances (Vince Young in BCS game was phenomenal), sometimes they are stupid unbelievable errors (I still can't believe ref Phil Luckett miscalled the coin flip). There simply is not only one way to build a team or develop a player. My rants are mostly against those who foolishly claim we MUST draft a Harrington, Manning, or some other QB of the moment in order to win. These fools are simply wrong regardless of whether the QB is as good as Manning or as mediocre as Harrington.

 

However, when one considers some of these points they simply are not reasonable points against my views as they actually apply both ways. For example, just as Manning/Palmer guarantees that a 1st round drafted QB by their original teams gets canceled out, so too does Hasselbeck/Brunell guarantee thhat a transplant QB gets cancelled out. This is a true fact but really not a relevant consideration for this comparison which goes beyond chance.

 

Third, the key thing here is the numbers and the reality. I aggree with BINYC that winning is everything in the NFL, but this view takes you right back to reality and the numbers. Their basic argument here is that you need a great QB to win in this league and the best QB's are drafted by their teams in the 1st round.

 

OK.

 

If this is true then, there should be a virtually repetitive list of teams which won (or even routinely appeared in) the SB and won led by the 1st round QB they drafted.

 

OK, who are these men who led their team's to SB victories who were drafted in the last 5 years?

 

The sound you here is crickets chirping.

 

Okay, perhaps that is simply because it takes a while for QBs to develop so we''ll ignore the abberations of late draft choice Brady winning or UDFA Delhomme appearing and instead ask who are these men who led the team's which drafted them in the 1st in the last 10 years to an SB win?

 

Them darn crickets again.

 

15 years?

 

Ther world is being taken over by crickets.

 

You gotta go back to Troy Aikman's selection in 1989 to find one.

 

It's not that I do not accept the idea you need a good QB to win in the NFL, its that I will only accept the idea that your team wins it all with a 1st round QB choice when it happens with any frequency at all.

 

There is still a chance that lightening will strike and RoboQB will do it this year, but agaion weighed against 15 years even this event may well be a abberation.

 

The post above which says the numbers are the numbersd is simply not effectively answered by these points.

 

Finally, there is a tendency for folks to want to misinterpret my point as a slam on 1st round choices. It is not.

 

It is simply a slam on making 1st round QB choices yourself.

 

Despite the sense that one cannot find (or you have your best chance at) a winning QB in this league unless you draft a 1st rounder, reality indicates that:

 

1. First round or highly drafted QBs capable of winning the SB are more often found on the waiver wire or as FAs than if you draft them (Young, Dilfer, Favre, etc.).

2. QBs capable of winning or getting to the SB are found more frequently though other means such as trades, FAs, or even UDFAs than drafting QBs yourself.

 

I'm not making this stuff up (as Dave Barry would say) these are simply the facts.

[SDS]

I'm not making this stuff up (as Dave Barry would say) these are simply the facts.

569707[/snapback]

 

It is also a "fact" that winning the Lotto is a 50/50 proposition. Either you win it or you don't...

 

Think about that for awhile and maybe the truth will hit you and we can put this tired thread out of its misery.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

It is also a "fact" that winning the Lotto is a 50/50 proposition.  Either you win it or you don't... 

 

Think about that for awhile and maybe the truth will hit you and we can put this tired thread out of its misery.

569713[/snapback]

 

 

I guess the Lotto is a good financial investment using math the way you suggest. Also, Russian Roulette is a game in your favor since you survive in 5 out of six outcomes.

 

Perhaps a better way to put this is rather than the numbers are the numbers would be to point out the RESULTS are simply the RESULTS.

 

Do you feel that any team's choice to draft a QB on the first since 1990 has been a choice that resulted in getting a QB who led the team to an SB win?

 

Perhaps the best argument that there is any yes answer to this is that when the Pats drafted Bledsoe they got a player who get get his lung collapsed so a 6th roundwe coukd do his part in leading the TEAM.

[GG]

Where are the facts of the Superbowls that Gus Frerotte has won? Jay Fiedler? Travis Brown? Tony Banks? Anthony Wright? Chris Redman?

 

Yet again, you miss the point in your rush to justify your Aisle 8 QB theory.

 

While there may be little correlation between first round QB leading teams that drafted them to a SB victory, there is a high correlation between very good QB play and Superbowl victories.

 

It's acknowledged by each and every single NFL administration that a QB is more than 1/11th of the offense and 1/22 of the starters. The trouble for personnel guys is finding the QB that will lead a team, while knowing that only a small percentage of draftees/QBs will work out. For that reason, QBs tend to get picked early & fast.

 

I do enjoy the cries that Bills paid too much for Losman but obviously not enough to get Ben.

[ExiledInIllinois]

It's acknowledged by each and every single NFL administration that a QB is more than 1/11th of the offense and 1/22 of the starters.  The trouble for personnel guys is finding the QB that will lead a team, while knowing that only a small percentage of draftees/QBs will work out.  For that reason, QBs tend to get picked early & fast.

 

570453[/snapback]

 

Exactly!!

 

Also... Take a look at the drafts. There are years with feeding frenzies on QB's in the early rounds.

 

I am not disputing that FFS has some valid, logical points. Yet, every organization understands that if you make a conserted effort to suppress taking a QB to later rounds... You are gonna get burned. In the early rounds (1st and 2nd) you got to take the best QB available (if you have ANY question about your current QB)! The classic example of this being the 1983 Miami draft... It paid wonders for the Felons. This draft was right after they went to the SB... They picked Marino in the 1st even know a capable 8th round pick in David Woodley just led them to the SB (a loss).

 

I know it seems irrartional to FFS... But, you gotta do it and bite on the QB!

 

[Bear]

Why don't we have a "pulling my hair out" smiley????

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Exactly!!

 

Also... Take a look at the drafts.  There are years with feeding frenzies on QB's in the early rounds.

 

I am not disputing that FFS has some valid, logical points.  Yet, every organization understands that if you make a conserted effort to suppress taking a QB to later rounds... You are gonna get burned.  In the early rounds (1st and 2nd) you got to take the best QB available (if you have ANY question about your current QB)!  The classic example of this being the 1983 Miami draft... It paid wonders for the Felons.  This draft was right after they went to the SB... They picked Marino in the 1st even know a capable 8th round pick in David Woodley just led them to the SB (a loss).

 

I know it seems irrartional to FFS... But, you gotta do it and bite on the QB!

 

570489[/snapback]

 

I certainly do not think it is irrational to get the best players you can at every position (well duhh) and to try most of all to get the best player you can at a position virtually guranteed to hold the ball on every offensive snap and to have to make decisions and make physical plays on every offensive snap (well duhh).

 

This is essentially the point folks are making and I aggree completely that this is true.

 

However, what I do think borders on the irrational (if anything we pyschotics about this game are rational in any way about it) is:

 

1. To assume that the truth of this point means that simply because good QB play is essential that play at other positions is not. So many things are essential to a winning team and nothing (zero, nada, zilch) is sufficient in an of itself that good to great QB play MUST be considered as to how it fits into the whole before it is judged in and of itself to truly judge its worth to the TEAM.

 

2. Not to take strongly into account the level playing field that the salary cap enforces on the NFL which has simply heightened the importance of the % a player's cap hit has on the team to the extent it impacts the team's strategy for building a winner.

 

To me, the oddity of no team drafting a QB who has led them to an SB win since 1989 is almost certainly an aberration caused by chance to be the case regarding 17 years of choices. The thing which makes this factoid important though his the fan adoration which unfortunately drives many personnel guys to foolishly try to meet their goal of winning the SB by drafting a marquee QB in the 1st.

 

This method almost worked last year for Philly and also most worked for the Titans in 1999, but the simple fact is that this choice has not worked for a team since Dallas made their 1989 decision work and it took MN giving them the store for Herschel to help make it work.

 

Is this issue relevant for the Bills?

 

You bet. The jury is still out on whether our selection of JP in the 1st was a good strategic move for accomplishing the Bills ultimate goal. However. this choice hive:

 

1. the constraining cap hit it put on our team when the accelerated bonus of a cut Bledsoe in 05 is factored in,

 

2. the clear discord that this learning QB's failure to use his WR's properly caused on the team.

 

3. and my sense (guess) that part of our D ineffectiveness this year may actually stem from the players sensing that TD and the crew were using 05 as a training year for JP rather than going for it in 05. When the D lost that edge it made a huge difference in their performance.

 

If asked to summarize the Bills problems since the last SB and you required me to make it short (which is near impossible for me as most reader know). It would be:

 

Over-focus on the QB position.

 

1. The downfall began when the Bills braintrust put foolish faith in Kelly lasting forever and not making cheaper investments early to find an adequate repolacement for him. This delay is clearly seen in RWS handshake deal to reward Kelly in his next FA contract as though we woulg have years to work with and we had to cut him instead.

 

2. We over-reached using a 2nd on TC and then rushed him along when the boy needed time and training if he were ever going to be adequate.

 

3. We then panicked and traded a 3rd for nothing for Hobert.

 

4. The void of the 1997 season created further panic and AJ Smith's intelligent assessment of DF being adequately skilled to play in the NFL was great, but the panic caused us to give an unwarranted bonus to RJ.

 

Even worse, much to DF's surprise (again the panic by us) we rolled his achieved bonuses into his salary and when DF played as AJ Smith assessed after RJ proved to be injury prone, we faced an $11 million cap hit at the QB position for 1998 which forced us to extend and prorate DF and ignited a QB controversy which still plagues us.

 

5. IMHO the TN Homerun Throw-up is directly attributable to even with the long-term prorated DF deal we were forced to cut vets who may well have stayed in their lanes on the horrendous play because of our cap being skewed toward the QB position. Add onto this the bad football karma of the owner forcing the braintrust to play the guy he was paying millions to at QB and the Bills product was simply bad.

 

6. Add the Bledsoe/JP mess to this and it is this over-focus on QB that cost TD his job and made the mess we are in.

 

That is what is irrational.

 

This is different that the draft a QB in the 1st issue but they are both symptoms of the same disease which has plagued the NFL since the late 80s.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

Anyone else experiencing an out-of-body-experience while reading this stuff?