Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I'm curious as there seems to be a number of folks on TSW who seem to pretty desperately want a new top quality QB on this team. It seems so illogical from a football perspective that I have not even taken this as a serious thought and I attributed the occaional post wondering if we could get Vince Young as simply the rambling of folks who have bought the NFL star marketing that has continually led to folks overspending on QBs. I can see why the teams may do this because getting the glitzy star is s fine way to sell tickets which is the business they are in. However, you would think fans as tuned into football as many folks are on TSW would instead see this game as being won by having the ability to stop the run and run. Its great to have a marquee QB if you can develop your 6th round pick into Tom Brady, but that rarely happens and this is not the first priority of most folks looking to win it all. So do folks seriously want to spend the ranch and the dog (or more if you have to trade up to get Young or Cutler? Or alternately do they think we want to spend gazillions getting one oc the QB who will attract big $ if he is available. My sense is that though JP sucked last year it is still too early to give up on him or gosh forbid weaken us further by taking the accelerated cap hit of cutting him. Holcomb will almost certainly not be our answer at starting QB, but his cheap contract makes him a valuable back0up whi can play a critical role in an SB run as a back-up. The best strategy to me seems to be to demand that JP win this job on the field and if he does not you try to get as much as you can out of Holcomb, This seems like a far better strategy than the Bills taking the double hit of adding another large QB cap hit and taking an accelerated hit if you cut JP. I'm all for competition so if we can get another QB with a Holcomb/JP chance of developing into a starter that would be great. I doubt we find that lightening in a bottle as Doug Flutie for $200K is once in a blue moon as well. By all means look for another potential started, but the new QB better be the lightening in a bottle who wins the SB like Hurt Warner or Trent Dilfer because much additional expense at QB simply kills this team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 other ??????????????????????????????????????????????? JUST FOR FUN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I'm all for competition so if we can get another QB with a Holcomb/JP chance of developing into a starter that would be great. I doubt we find that lightening in a bottle as Doug Flutie for $200K is once in a blue moon as well. 590320[/snapback] This is the reason I feel that we could end up taking a QB in the middle (Round 4 or 5) of the draft. As he wouldn't kill our cap and would offer JP some competition but at the same time not an immediate threat to Losman. See Kyle Orton as a point of reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis in NC Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 No, get JP some friggin' BLOCKERS!!! JP has a lot of good skills, IMO, but has to run for his life constantly. It does not seem fair to judge him so harshly under such circumstances. Let JP, Holcomb, Ochs, and whoever duke it out in camp. It would not be bad to draft a mid-round QB as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I'm curious as there seems to be a number of folks on TSW who seem to pretty desperately want a new top quality QB on this team. It seems so illogical from a football perspective that I have not even taken this as a serious thought and I attributed the occaional post wondering if we could get Vince Young as simply the rambling of folks who have bought the NFL star marketing that has continually led to folks overspending on QBs. I can see why the teams may do this because getting the glitzy star is s fine way to sell tickets which is the business they are in. However, you would think fans as tuned into football as many folks are on TSW would instead see this game as being won by having the ability to stop the run and run. Its great to have a marquee QB if you can develop your 6th round pick into Tom Brady, but that rarely happens and this is not the first priority of most folks looking to win it all. So do folks seriously want to spend the ranch and the dog (or more if you have to trade up to get Young or Cutler? Or alternately do they think we want to spend gazillions getting one oc the QB who will attract big $ if he is available. My sense is that though JP sucked last year it is still too early to give up on him or gosh forbid weaken us further by taking the accelerated cap hit of cutting him. Holcomb will almost certainly not be our answer at starting QB, but his cheap contract makes him a valuable back0up whi can play a critical role in an SB run as a back-up. The best strategy to me seems to be to demand that JP win this job on the field and if he does not you try to get as much as you can out of Holcomb, This seems like a far better strategy than the Bills taking the double hit of adding another large QB cap hit and taking an accelerated hit if you cut JP. I'm all for competition so if we can get another QB with a Holcomb/JP chance of developing into a starter that would be great. I doubt we find that lightening in a bottle as Doug Flutie for $200K is once in a blue moon as well. By all means look for another potential started, but the new QB better be the lightening in a bottle who wins the SB like Hurt Warner or Trent Dilfer because much additional expense at QB simply kills this team 590320[/snapback] while i disagree with you on the success of 1st round QB's (another arguement for another day, so lets not get started here), taking a QB that high would be devastating for buffalo. I DO think that we should draft a QB in the late rounds (5-7) for the #3 spot. I'm a proponent of drafting a QB late every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kultarr Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Absolutely not. Fix the lines. Both of them are awful. I mean, c'mon. Denver has made Jake Plummer an "All-Pro" QB because they have a line that can produce a legit running game. That proves a team can win with just about anyone lined up at QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1gap2gap Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Go away your bothering me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Absolutely not. Fix the lines. Both of them are awful. I mean, c'mon. Denver has made Jake Plummer an "All-Pro" QB because they have a line that can produce a legit running game. That proves a team can win with just about anyone lined up at QB. 590521[/snapback] Ironically The Sporting News in their draft mag compared Losman to Plummer coming out of Tulane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I just read the mock draft that was posted on billszone.com I was like WTF? No D-lineman and Omar Jacobs in round 2? Obviously that person doesn't seem to think we have major d-line and o-line problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Unless your defense is as good as Baltimore's in 2000, you're not winning any Super Bowl rings without superior QB play. Usually to get that level of play you have to spend some money and/or a high draft pick. How well would Pittsburgh have done with Tommy Maddox at QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Unless your defense is as good as Baltimore's in 2000, you're not winning any Super Bowl rings without superior QB play. Usually to get that level of play you have to spend some money and/or a high draft pick. How well would Pittsburgh have done with Tommy Maddox at QB? 590892[/snapback] Perhaps they would have gotten to the divisional round of the playoffs like they did in '02 with Maddox at the helm. Perhaps they might even have done as well as they did with Kordell Stewart (whom you like to disparage around here also), with whom they made it to the AFC Championship game. Big Ben is good. But you're kidding yourself if you think this wasn't a quality team before his arrival. And in the meantime, they may not even have made it to the AFC championship this year if Indy had capitalized. Shows how things can hinge on moments. The Steelers are good, but as any team in this league must, they capitalize on good fortune as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 The Ravens won a SB with Trent Dilfer at QB. QB ain't the problem. There is no reason to draft a QB in any round when this team has so many holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 A great QB can make a weak O-line look better, and a Great o-line can make a Bad QB look better. The key is to try to get atleast one of the 2 options. By improving the o-line we should get better plays from our QB (or it will help us see that our QB is a bust) Since building a decent o-line is a bit easier than finding an excellent QB through the draft, or minor leagues (NFL Europe or CFL). Fix the o-line and maybe bring in a couple of QB options to make it a competition for QB. If you can improve both, why not. But to go out and spend significant money on just a QB when we have a young QB who could be great given some time to develop and a good 2nd string QB, the line has to be addressed first. Our other problem has already been addressed (Play calling and coaching, hopefully we have fixed it) now we move down the list and fix the line. When that is done, see whats out there as options for a QB to come in and compete. It can't hurt to try every option available to ensure we have the best available. (but that goes for every position) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 OFFENSIVE LINE....DEFENSIVE TACKLE....TIGHT END...then maybe defensive end, safety, outside linebacker...then...a field goal kicker....then...(maybe) a quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1959BillsFan Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Who would you suggest cutting to spend substantial money on, or just giving away: moulds, williams, clements, vincent, and milloy?????? Everyone seems to think d?onahow left us in a good cap position. It isn't as good as many want to believe. We have a ton of "veterans" that still have substantial signing bonuses to be allocated against the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Perhaps they would have gotten to the divisional round of the playoffs like they did in '02 with Maddox at the helm. Perhaps they might even have done as well as they did with Kordell Stewart (whom you like to disparage around here also), with whom they made it to the AFC Championship game. Big Ben is good. But you're kidding yourself if you think this wasn't a quality team before his arrival. And in the meantime, they may not even have made it to the AFC championship this year if Indy had capitalized. Shows how things can hinge on moments. The Steelers are good, but as any team in this league must, they capitalize on good fortune as well. 590915[/snapback] I agree with your implication that football is a team game, and that Pittsburgh has had a good team for some time. Of course your team should have a good OL, and a good defense. But there are teams that have these things, and also have good QBs. If you don't have a good QB yourself, it's awfully tough to get past those teams when the playoffs come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I'm curious as there seems to be a number of folks on TSW who seem to pretty desperately want a new top quality QB on this team. It seems so illogical from a football perspective that I have not even taken this as a serious thought and I attributed the occaional post wondering if we could get Vince Young as simply the rambling of folks who have bought the NFL star marketing that has continually led to folks overspending on QBs. I can see why the teams may do this because getting the glitzy star is s fine way to sell tickets which is the business they are in. However, you would think fans as tuned into football as many folks are on TSW would instead see this game as being won by having the ability to stop the run and run. Its great to have a marquee QB if you can develop your 6th round pick into Tom Brady, but that rarely happens and this is not the first priority of most folks looking to win it all. So do folks seriously want to spend the ranch and the dog (or more if you have to trade up to get Young or Cutler? Or alternately do they think we want to spend gazillions getting one oc the QB who will attract big $ if he is available. My sense is that though JP sucked last year it is still too early to give up on him or gosh forbid weaken us further by taking the accelerated cap hit of cutting him. Holcomb will almost certainly not be our answer at starting QB, but his cheap contract makes him a valuable back0up whi can play a critical role in an SB run as a back-up. The best strategy to me seems to be to demand that JP win this job on the field and if he does not you try to get as much as you can out of Holcomb, This seems like a far better strategy than the Bills taking the double hit of adding another large QB cap hit and taking an accelerated hit if you cut JP. I'm all for competition so if we can get another QB with a Holcomb/JP chance of developing into a starter that would be great. I doubt we find that lightening in a bottle as Doug Flutie for $200K is once in a blue moon as well. By all means look for another potential started, but the new QB better be the lightening in a bottle who wins the SB like Hurt Warner or Trent Dilfer because much additional expense at QB simply kills this team 590320[/snapback] Let's build a significantly better line before we start throwing all 3 QB's under the bus, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 If you don't have a good QB yourself, it's awfully tough to get past those teams when the playoffs come. 602580[/snapback] Were it not for the talent of superstars such as Hoestetler, Doug Williams, Rypien, and Dilfer, their respective teams would have been lucky to win wild card slots. As a matter of fact, I think that Kurt Warner deserves the bulk of the credit for the Rams superbowl win. He carried Orlando Pace on his back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Absolutely not. Fix the lines. Both of them are awful. I mean, c'mon. Denver has made Jake Plummer an "All-Pro" QB because they have a line that can produce a legit running game. That proves a team can win with just about anyone lined up at QB. 590521[/snapback] General point, but you can prove anything by looking at one example. The way to win is by passing - Stl in 1999. You need a highly drafted QB to win - Pit 2005. You don't - Bal 2000. There is no one recipe to winning a Superbowl. It helps to look at trends and not individual examples. What I take from the Denver example is that you don't need first rounders on your OL. They start an UDFA TE at LT, and no one on the Denver board is clamoring to replace him. Schemes and continuity - that's how to build a line. Yes, Pit and Sea do have a lot of high picks on their lines, but they also have a tremendous amount of continuity. I think all three of those teams have had four of five starters in place since 2001. You know how many starters we've had in place since 2001? Zero. As for the QB question, if Marv sees something in Cutler that he absolutely can't live without and doesn't see anything near that in Losman, then I could live with a QB pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 General point, but you can prove anything by looking at one example. The way to win is by passing - Stl in 1999. You need a highly drafted QB to win - Pit 2005. You don't - Bal 2000. There is no one recipe to winning a Superbowl. It helps to look at trends and not individual examples. What I take from the Denver example is that you don't need first rounders on your OL. They start an UDFA TE at LT, and no one on the Denver board is clamoring to replace him. Schemes and continuity - that's how to build a line. Yes, Pit and Sea do have a lot of high picks on their lines, but they also have a tremendous amount of continuity. I think all three of those teams have had four of five starters in place since 2001. You know how many starters we've had in place since 2001? Zero. As for the QB question, if Marv sees something in Cutler that he absolutely can't live without and doesn't see anything near that in Losman, then I could live with a QB pick. 602650[/snapback] Great post. I don't agree with you, but so what. It is great to read well reasoned, informed posts such as that. This is what keeps TBD on top! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts