Fake-Fat Sunny Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 Ghee, your right, if only we had started AVP, picked up Jeff Blake, or Trent Dilfer, we would be...hell...at LEAST 2 and 8 at this point! I will agree that Losman should be getting serious reps with the 1st team O at this point in practice before he starts. Guess what, hes still stuck behind some has-been who NEEDS that snaps to even have a chance to win. Its all too bad at this point. but I dont see Drew doing much of jack squat for us the rest of this year or any of next. JP is our future, we may suffer through some painfull games but he has upside that has long since set on Drews time in the sun. I have listened to your point about him being hurt by playing time, I just dont see it. Vic would probably have also said the same thing before Big Ben's first start, GUARANTEED! I respect Vic but he will always be conservative so as not to lose his credentials. He wont risk loosing his good name by taking any risk on anyone. The Bills and JP have nothing to lose and a SB win that much earlier to gain! 129699[/snapback] The stopping point which hit me and changed my attitude about what it takes to draft and develop a QB capable winning the SB (the goal as you pointed out in the last line of your post) is that the last QB drafted in the 1st round to deliver an SB win to the team which drafted him was Dallas selecting Aikman in 1989. Since then 1st round picks have certainly won SBs, but they have won them for teams other than the one which drafted them as teams have built up expectations on and gave up on the Farve's, Young's, Dilfer's, and Johnson's of the world. Perhaps the best example of developing a QB from near start to finish was Elway, but even he: 1. Did not deliver an SB to the team which drafted him as he forced a trade to a stronger Denver team and, 2. Only won an SB finally when he realized that the the team was more important than the self and did not sign for his market value so the team could hang onto Davis at RB and others. The lesson I think for the Bills now that we have spent a 1st rounder on a QB is that time is the key thing we can never create which must be guarded and sheparded with JP. There will be stark temptation to put him on the RoboQB track, but he has won and appeared in exactly as many SBs as Peuton Manning so far. In addition, RoboQB was judged a better talent by most pundits than JP and had a whole pre-season and a more well-rounded team around him so I think a pretty strong case needs to be made for why rushing JP along is a good idea. Beyond the demonstrably false application of logic that playing is the ONLY way to get better, there has been no demonstration whatsoever that he should start. I agree that he must play to get better, but last time I checked, playing themop-up role in blowouts, playing as an injury replacement, or even being put into play a quarter is PLAYING. I just don'tsee putting Losman on the panic development track which the Bills used to develop Todd Collins before he was ready or for us to use the development strategy used by two teams which cut Brad Johnson before he won the SB, Tampa Bay used to develop both Young and Favre or Carolina used on Trent Dilfer is the way for us to go. Maybe if we had only used a late draft pick as NE used on Brady and were forced to do it by injury I would start him, but starting him now seems more designed to satisfy folks pissed off by Bledsoe than to develop a young QB who needs a lot of work as best as I can tell before his mechanics and understanding of the vet game matches his athleticism and brash attitude. I thbnk he can lead men, I think he can play at pro speeds (two things which you can only get from playing), its his mechanics and his understanding of NFL offense and defenses which I think are the questions and there are other things he can (and as far as building chemostry correctly through having good mechanics must) do before he is ready to play and contribute to his development and the team.
BenchBledsoe Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 This will all be moot as soon as DB lays an egg in Seattle. And I mean it. Against a good team, on the road, DB is more likely to squat at midfield and produce a shiny white egg than to lead us to a win.
Alaska Darin Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 This will all be moot as soon as DB lays an egg in Seattle. And I mean it. Against a good team, on the road, DB is more likely to squat at midfield and produce a shiny white egg than to lead us to a win. 129762[/snapback] Please don't call Seattle a good team - they aren't. They're an average NFL team that's just as likely to lay an egg as play well. They've lost to the Cardinals and to the RAMS (twice). Coincidentally, those are two teams we've whipped. On paper they are tigers. Too bad for Holmgren they don't play games on paper.
cåblelady Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 I'd appreciate a PM and directions. 129634[/snapback]
BenchBledsoe Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Please don't call Seattle a good team - they aren't. They're an average NFL team that's just as likely to lay an egg as play well. They've lost to the Cardinals and to the RAMS (twice). Coincidentally, those are two teams we've whipped. On paper they are tigers. Too bad for Holmgren they don't play games on paper. 129767[/snapback] I'm not saying Seattle is world beaters. . . clearly they might not even make the playoffs if they were in the AFC. But, you're talking about a Bills team that is frightful on the road. Did we or did we not lose at Oakland? Bills on the West coast, on grass, versus an above .500 team? Drew's more likely to produce that egg at midfield than us win.
Rico Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 The big problem is that it forces us to rush Losman along and all signs indicate he will not be ready this year and maybe not next to start.129667[/snapback] I hope you're not basing your observation off JP's performance in the Pats game. Look up Favre's rookie stats with the Falcons: 5 passes attempted, 0 completed, 2 INTs. He looked so shaky that they traded him to the Packers. Now I'm not saying that JP is the next Favre, but I agree with ICE, the only way he's gonna get better is on the field, & AFAIC 2006 is NOT an option.
Guest Guest Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 - There is no way we can afford to wait for our 1st round QB to sit till the year after next.....not when we dont have a viable option in front of him.....NO WAY....... - Take the 3+ million in cap savings by cutting Drew....go out and get another quality veteran offensive linemen...as a matter of fact.....GET TWO OF THEM........ - Keep the same "run first" offense on board.....extend Eric Moulds.....get a quality TE option......and put Losman in...... We need to move past the Drew Bledsoe era....it has not been good to us
obie_wan Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 If TD is GM in 2005, then Bledsoe will be the starting QB. TeflonTom didn't give Drew a multi-year extension for nothing
JAMIEBUF12 Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 we won yesterday in spite of drew bledsoe,special teams and defense won that game! drew is done
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 I hope you're not basing your observation off JP's performance in the Pats game. Look up Favre's rookie stats with the Falcons: 5 passes attempted, 0 completed, 2 INTs. He looked so shaky that they traded him to the Packers. Now I'm not saying that JP is the next Favre, but I agree with ICE, the only way he's gonna get better is on the field, & AFAIC 2006 is NOT an option. 129829[/snapback] I think the trap to avoid here is the one that the only two choices regarding JP are to start him or to bench him. JP can get playing time in a mop-up role in blowouts (either way in a NE game or a Rams style game), he can get playing time if put in for an ineffective Bledsoe (not unlikely given some of the clunkers Bledsoe has laid this year), he can get playing time if Blesoe is hurt (not unlikely goven the rate that QBs go down for our team). The major difference between him starting and him coming it woulfd actually be that he would get more practice time with the first unit and that opponents would be loaded for bear for the rookie. Even if you know playing is the ONLY way to master parts of the game, then the poster should recognize there are other ways of playing beside starting. The Bills have shown the habit with their injury rehab and breaking in players of conservatism (McGee showed good of being a playmaker and contributor last season but they brought him along slowly until forced by injury to start him, the cries for WM to start began in earnest last season but he did not play regularly unto into this season, Fast Freddy has showed signs of being a contributor but being undisciplined right from the start and he even was cut and PSed). I see no reason to think they will do more with JP than bring him along slowly. My bet is that he plays and plays some significant time in 2004 but that he never starts. I hope I am wrong and he produces so well he cannot be denied a start. However, given the work a rookie usually needs to become a vet, the fact he has missed significant time and practice due to his injury and the mechanical issues which were obvious in the films of his running for his life at Tulane he is not ready to start yet amd develop into our QB of the future. My sense is that you start JP as soon as he is ready and not a moment to soon or a moment later.
Alaska Darin Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 I hope you're not basing your observation off JP's performance in the Pats game. Look up Favre's rookie stats with the Falcons: 5 passes attempted, 0 completed, 2 INTs. He looked so shaky that they traded him to the Packers. Now I'm not saying that JP is the next Favre, but I agree with ICE, the only way he's gonna get better is on the field, & AFAIC 2006 is NOT an option. 129829[/snapback] We really need to stop comparing our rookie QB with proven HOFers. Really. The Falcons traded Favre more because of his questionable off the field behavior than anything. Well, that and Jerry Glanville is a complete blockhead.
Guest Guest Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 The rest of this season somehow comes together and the Bills have the pieces in place to make a serious run next year. Is 1BD going to put their shot at a SB in the hands of an "unproven" rookie QB? By comes together, I echo a lot of what's been posted here. Excellent defense, superior special teams and a strong running game. One needs basically a caretaker QB who won't lose games. Look at the Ravens run. Would experience be more important than flash if it's determined that the QB doesn't have to be another Peyton? A little devils advocacy here, but once again, what if? 129567[/snapback] Questions - When was the last game Bledsoe & the Bills won on the road? When was the last time they beat a team on the road that had a wiining record?
ICE Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 But do you think the Marvin Lewis made the right decision in Cincinnati? Seems to me that he took a team that made strides last year and was hoping to take the next step, and basically told them he didn't think they could win this year. 10 games into the season, Lewis is now he's saying he won't accept mediocrity? You can't set up a team to fail and then B word and moan when they fail. I'm soooo glad Lewis isn't coaching the Bills. Depending on how the rest of the season goes for the Bills, I think it is quite possible Drew is the starter at training camp. JP needs to step up and earn the job and not count on the coaching staff handing it to him - exactly the way our RB position sorted itself out this year. I want JP playing because he's better than Drew, not because he's a first round pick or "the future". 129595[/snapback] Actually Most Cinci fans wish he would have played Palmer LAST year so they don't have to go through this stevestojan THIS Year. Which is what most will be saying about the Bills/ JP in 2005
Rico Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 IF the Bills run the table the next 6 games with Bledsoe and IF they make the playoffs and IF they make the Super Bowl and IF they win the Super Bowl and IF Drew gets named Super Bowl MVP, then I may be cool with him staying next year. Anything less than that & his monkey-ass needs to leave town. I believe that's fair.
justnzane Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Rico, that is pretty harsh. Anyway I am in favor of keeping JP on the bench. If you look at the teams that tucked away their first round quarterback for at least a year, these players have done much better than say Ryan Leaf or Tim Couch. Some teams have even tucked away these quarterbacks for two years and these QB's have done great (pennington and Culpepper). For the second season for those two qb's they had mediocre starters ahead of them (Vinny and Jeff George), and these organizations realized that it was the smart thing to do. I have criticized the hell out of the bungles for throwing in Palmer this year as he struggled this year, and Kitna was very solid the past few years.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Rico, that is pretty harsh. Anyway I am in favor of keeping JP on the bench. If you look at the teams that tucked away their first round quarterback for at least a year, these players have done much better than say Ryan Leaf or Tim Couch. Some teams have even tucked away these quarterbacks for two years and these QB's have done great (pennington and Culpepper). For the second season for those two qb's they had mediocre starters ahead of them (Vinny and Jeff George), and these organizations realized that it was the smart thing to do. I have criticized the hell out of the bungles for throwing in Palmer this year as he struggled this year, and Kitna was very solid the past few years. 130156[/snapback] I think the sad fact is that development time and method simply varies significiantly from player to player. A few contribute right friom the start (for QBs read that as next to none as RoboQB's accomplishments are pretty unheard of since the Marino days). Even the very few QBs who do contribute right away do include the Shaun King's of the world who start out like gangbustas but have non-careers from there on out. Far more prevalent are the QBs who sit the total or the vast amount of their rookie years and then take their team to the playoffs their second year. Many of them are unique enough talents that one would not choose this as THE method, but the real world occurences for the Pennington's, the Vicks and the Bradys show it as a myth that a player MUST start in order to contribute. I hope and think the Bills do not subscribe to any "rule" that unless their 1st round pick produces on the field his first year or is devoted playing time he has not earned with his play then he was a waste and a bad choice. Teams seem to routinely sit QBs who they spent a 1st round choice on and sometimes they are Carson Palmer and sometimes they are Chad Pennington. Drew has not played well enough to merit his money or the starting role, but the deal here in my view is start JP when he is ready to start and not a moment sooner because developing him as our QB of the future is far more important than sarisfying those who hate Bledsoe so much they are willing to risk sounddevelopment of JP to see someone else. and not a moment later because when he can produce we need wins.
OnTheRocks Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 I'm not on a bandwagon either way. They can play Annette Funicello at QB for all I care, as long as it wins games. 129580[/snapback] calling Annette Funicello......"it".....isn't very nice.
_BiB_ Posted November 23, 2004 Author Posted November 23, 2004 calling Annette Funicello......"it".....isn't very nice. 131069[/snapback] Point, I meant that in the broadest of terms. Insert palm tree, trained chimp, can of cranberry sauce...doesn't matter. Then again, I'm wondering why Annette Funicello popped into my head to start with.
Mark VI Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Then again, I'm wondering why Annette Funicello popped into my head to start with. 131078[/snapback] Because she used to make " it " pop when you were a tyke. God you're old.
OnTheRocks Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Point, I meant that broad 131078[/snapback] nice... now i am having fun.
Recommended Posts