BillsVet

It was a rhetorical question. Anyway, the point remains that teams who don't find their franchise QB early in a rebuild aren't truly rebuilding. Good enough? Not everyone convinces themselves this team is on the right path after a 1-1 start. If that's something you don't like, well, sorry. Blind homerism isn't a mindset everyone shares.

New regimes take their QB early, as noted already in the thread. We're way off topic, but this has become a debate about a team's vision, specifically QB development. You've gone a step further and used the Rams as evidence that taking a QB before other positions has the probability for failure. And if failure is something you want to eliminate then there's nothing I can offer you. As to the Rams, well, they are rebuilding but have some talent in place at the need positions. Second, Bradford is still in development and most certainly not a bust. None of this proves that taking a QB is overrated or somehow the exception to the rule. And for the record, ask the Falcons, Lions, and Ravens about rebuilding with a young QB. With the right guy in the right system and with a decent amount of talent around him it can work. Teams simply do not go with the previous regime's guy (in Buffalo's case the former backup) and not then take someone to develop. Buffalo's addressing the QB position is the exception to the rule. There are 5 rookies starting this year and 5 second year guys starting. Teams are going with younger QB's and trying to win now.

There is no higher need than QB, now or in 2010 when Nix took over. And if a franchise lacking a franchise type prioritizes another position over QB, what does that say about their team building approach?

The 2008 Atlanta Falcons. New GM, new HC, new QB. 4-12 in '07 to 11-5 (08) and 32 wins in (EDIT: 09)-11. I suppose now you'll say because they haven't won a playoff game that that doesn't count. The 2006 New Orleans Saints. New HC, new QB, 3-13 in '05 to 13-3 (06) and 49 wins in 07-11. The 1999 Indianapolis Colts. 3-13 in '98 to 13-3 (99) and 125 wins in 00-10. The 2011 San Francisco 49ers. 6-10 in '10 to 13-3 (11) 2-0 to start 2012. The 2003-04 New York Giants. 4-12 in '03 and 6-10 in '04 to 11-5 in '05. 57 wins in 06-11 and 2 SB titles.

They've earned patience? Based on what, a 1-1 record this season with a bad road loss to a division rival? Buddy and Chan have all their chips in for 2012. If they go 10-6 and make the playoffs, sure they get another year. On the flip side, anything less than a playoff season after spending millions on UFA's, having 3 drafts under their collective belts, and inheriting no less than 7 starters from previous regimes is a massive disappointment. That especially goes for a franchise 12 seasons without a post-season berth. Patience? We'll see.

You forgot to mention those 38 INT's in 29 games as the starter in 2010-11. It is amazing, but consistent for homers who review what happened rather than anticipate how opponents will respond with another week of film to work with. I can't imagine future opponents won't be scheming to force Fitz into throwing more, where he is prone to incompletions or at worst, turnovers.

And in other news, all beer will be served in sippy cups at RWS. I also believe Bills management should take all the players out for ice cream, win or lose.

There hasn't been a good Bills QB for an entire season since the late nineties, which not coincidentally is the last time the franchise advanced to the post-season. To quote Vince Lombardi, "Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all time thing. You don't win once in a while, you don't do things right once in a while, you do them right all the time. Winning is habit. Unfortunately, so is losing." A habit on TBD is being gun-shy to criticize the team for fear of not being called a real fan. Yesterday's win was a good one, but if they're going to continue doing that defenses are going to make RF beat them. And right now if you can't hit that pass to Chandler 10 out of 10 times it's going to be hard to beat the top AFC teams. And I'll boo if I want to when the team isn't cutting it. It's my right as a fan, especially when I show up and spend my day there expecting to see a W.

If Fitz isn't better throwing the ball, I can see more 8 in the box sets to stop the run and force him to air it out. Until he proves he can make those throws, I just can't get excited that their running game looks good through 2 weeks. Opponents are going to adapt and try to take away their running strength.

"We got 35 calls a day, and you wouldn't believe some of the names."

Problem is, the only way Buffalo goes vertical is down the sideline. The ever-brilliant Antonio Cromartie noted after the game that Buffalo either throws short or down the sidelines, which is precisely what Fitzpatrick and Gailey did. The pick-6 may have been a misunderstanding between Nelson and Fitz, but when the CB saw Nelson stop and go toward the sideline I bet he knew what was coming. It's one thing to run the spread, it's another to have the personnel to do it effectively. And it's up to the HC/OC to start coming up with some game-plans that opponents aren't so well prepared for. Megamind better start living up to his nickname.

So Buddy uses the exception to prove the rule once again? Every NFL team, upon beginning a rebuild, finds the guy they think will be their franchise type. And in the case of SF, Smith isn't asked to throw the ball 30 times a week like Gailey has Fitzpatrick do. I'd like to see the team run more to keep Fitzpatrick from throwing those INT's. But they won't be giving Spiller 25 carries a day either, nor do they need Tashard Choice on the field any more than necessary. Losing FJ is a blow because now the burden on Fitzpatrick is even greater to carry the offense. And that's not what this team needs now. We'll see what Gailey decides to do against a good front 7 KC can put on the field. If they can't put some points up and confuse defenses, it could be a long season.

When RW fired TD and hired Marv, it set in motion a chain of events that have made this organization NFL Siberia. After ML retired, Brandon was inexplicably promoted despite having zero NFL personnel experience. When he realized he couldn't handle the gig, Nix was promoted. This after DJ had been fired and the organization conducted all of 2 interviews (Guy was the other) for the GM job. Guy was fired in late January 2010, so the Bills really had one option all along. Did they interview guys like Eric DeCosta from Baltimore or other personnel directors? No. And I chalk that up to RW being unwilling to commit to someone he didn't know. And so he went with Nix, who despite having the owner's favor, presides over a team 10-23 since his hiring. No one wants to work for this team. It's why the Bills didn't conduct a real search for a GM in late 2009. It's why they ended up with Gailey as a HC after 5 coaches (Leslie Frazier, Jim Harbaugh, Russ Grimm, Brian Schottenheimer, and Ron Rivera) turned this team down. That's not a coincidence. Moral of the story? Repeated bad executive and personnel moves make your reputation such that no one wants to work for you. And when you hire inferior talent evaluators and coaches, you get Buffalo Bills football 2001-present. It doesn't help that the owner is elderly, can't guarantee the team will remain in Buffalo, and hires typically only people he knows as insurance against another TD situation.

Awesome. Gailey is an offensive genius and he'll adapt to teams who already know Fitz doesn't throw in the middle of the field, doesn't throw beyond 15 yards, and is without their all-purpose starting running back. What QB problem?

Winning the turnover battle should help you win, but not always. See 2007 MNF versus Dallas. Unless Gailey has Fitz throw only 2 yard swing passes, there's always a chance this team will lose the turnover battle. It doesn't help that the DC has his DB's playing off the ball so much.

Riding off into the sunset together with RW's money. No one says they're not trying, but their attempts at rebuilding a roster and coaching said roster aren't enough.

All-22 becomes available tomorrow at noon. I want to see how NYJ lined up defensively given that Cromartie said they never expected Fitz to throw over the middle. (EDIT: It's available now for subscribers)

This playoff drought thing is waaaay over-done. At least Buffalo won a playoff game before 3 other franchises. That has to count for something.

The truth hurts.

10 NFL teams started first or second year QB's during Week 1. There hasn't been a time in NFL history when more teams went with younger options than this year. And yet, there's Buffalo riding the same guy they have since early in 2010 who may know the system, but lacks the accuracy to be more than a journeyman. I won't count 2009 because Nix/Gailey weren't around yet. Taking a QB is a risk that Nix never wanted to take. It'll be his and Gailey's legacy that they never corrected the position team's prioritize first when rebuilding.

That's not the only part of the roster where they did that.

I expect an offensive unit featuring a QB with 30 starts now in a Gailey designed scheme with essentially the same receivers and backs to be better than today. Because if they didn't have it after an entire off-season, it's not going to magically show up next week when a new opponent has regular season game film to review.

To the OP's point, Gailey's offense is predicated on timing and clearly there wasn't much between the QB and his receivers. Ironically, Fitz came out and was red-hot the first three games last season without the benefit of a full off-season of practices. How does an offense with largely the same cast of characters have less cohesion this time around? Not to mention the only new starter on offense is the LT, who was adequate today from my perspective. Any homer can claim it's only one game, but the underlying issues will not go away in one week.

There are two types of teams in the NFL: those who have QB's and those who do not. Not coincidentally Buffalo has been without one for an entire season since the late nineties at the least when they last were went to the playoffs. Buffalo will go a another season without the guy consistent enough to get them into the post-season.

You don't game plan around sketchy QB play. Fitz may not toss 3 horrible INT's every game, but he's not consistent enough to make up for other shortcomings on the roster. How many teams get to the post-season without above average or better QB play? And how many teams conduct a rebuild by going with the previous regime's backup QB?