SuperKillerRobots Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 In 2001, Drew Brees was the "Colt McCoy" or "Tim Tebow" of this years' draft class. Obviously he was the second best QB prospect behind Vick, but unlike either Clausen or Bradford, whichever one you have ranked second this year, he had some limitations. He was only 6'0 tall and was not considered a "true first round"-worthy pick. In fact, when the Chargers took him with the first pick of the second round, I remember reading and hearing some experts accuse them of "reaching" at that early place in the draft, because they needed a QB so badly. Yeah sure, Brees was quite a "reach" wasn't he? So just like with Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Kurt Warner and Tony Romo, every team that had a first round pick in 2001 passed on Drew Brees. (Including the Saints!) And that simply amazes me because every year there are always at least 15 - 20 NFL teams that desperately need a true QB of the future. I understand the Ryan Leafs, Akili Smiths, Tim Couches and other classic first round QB busts make every NFL team gun-shy about investing so much money into first round QB's. But how can you not keep trying if you go 26 years between drafting Pro Bowl QB's like the Bills have?? (That is not a misprint - Kelly was drafted in 1983, and this past draft was 2009.) One Pro Bowl season out of Flutie and one Pro Bowl season out of Bledsoe, two QB's already past their prime, is not an "answer!" The Bills could have taken Brees with the number 21 pick of the 2001 draft instead of Nate Clements. What an absolute joke. Donahoe had Rob freakin' Johnson and had just decided to dump Flutie that April. And he passed on Brees. Along with every other team of course. So now the Bills have another chance to draft Clausen or Bradford, or get even bolder if they are both drafted by their number 9 pick, and take McCoy or even Tebow there. Many experts and fans will mock them and call them idiots for reaching so far for McCoy or Tebow. But I would applaud them for "getting the QB first." I understand the spirit of your arguement, but your point is lost. In this instance, would it have mattered which team took Brees? He was basically a bust until the last year of his rookie deal. Then he got hurt and they let him go. No one wanted him. It's easy to say just take a QB so you have one, but what good would it have done us to take him? We'd be his farm team instead of SD? At least when Clements played for us, he was a good player. It's an undeniable fact that you can't win in this league without a good QB, but just because you picka guy in the first round doesn't mean he will become a good QB. More often than not, they are not that good. If they were, you'd never see players like Todd Collins, generic Raiders backup QB, Kurt Warner and Shaun Hill would not have been starting last year.
NewHampshireBillsFan Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Basically, the Bills have not done well in evaluating QBs, both free agents or draft picks, over the last generation. Plus they also have not developed them properly either. We have only had 3 QBs that were very good to great over an extended period in Buffalo and most of our playoff appearances were with either Kemp, Fergie, or Kelly. Flutie had a couple of exciting years for us also. But I think I will trust Nix and Gailey to make the right decisions going forward on QB whether it is to get a new veteran, a rookie in the draft, or even make one of the current guys work. At least we have great talent evaluators in charge at this point after such a long period of idiocy at the top. I'm not saying Levy was an idiot but it would have made more sense to bring him back as HC instead of DJ, and give the GM job to someone else.
VADC Bills Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Aaron Rodgers fell to GB kind of like Brees falling to the Chargers. Face it, next to the Lions, we are the poster child for f-ing up draft picks in the 2000's. We could have had Rodgers in 2005 if we hadn't traded up for Losman in '04. We traded up so the Packers couldn't get him, supposedly. Lori mentions Brees virtually was not touched the whole game. I think Freeney was the only sack. It helps to draft good OL to protect any QB. If Clausen's not there, let's go Left OT. Sorry I meant Minnesota not GB.
nostyle126 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Brees is proof ... that his original team gave up on him too early, using the No. 1 overall pick on another quarterback just three years later. If Phillip Rivers hadn't held out of training camp, no telling whether or not Brees would have even gotten another chance to start in San Diego. Brees is also proof that drafting a first-round QB isn't the only way to win a Super Bowl, since the Saints signed him as a free agent. Out of this year's final four teams, the Jets and Colts started their own #1 picks, Vikings and Saints didn't. And Brees is proof of one more thing: when a good QB isn't pressured -- isn't even HIT in the entire second half -- he can pick defenses apart. Thank the Saints' offensive line, which featured four of their own draft picks, for that. + infinity
SuperKillerRobots Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 It's such a freakin long shot but Troy Smith! PLEASE!!! We have a lot of nothing at QB right now. Yes, they could be better with a better line but we are talking backup quality talent. I would rather get someone that has at least the slightest chanve to be more than what we have now. We know what is on our roster. Sometimes you just have to admit you backed the wrong candidate and move on. I don't want to waste one more single, year, off season, starting rep or game on Edwards. I said it a couple years ago. AT BEST Edwards could be our Frank Reich. Let's stop fooling around and find our Jim Kelly. I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's a chicken and the egg arguement. Can you have a good QB without any supporting cast? If so, will he be identified as a good QB against a backdrop of low talent players? These are the central questions to this arguement because if you think you can have a good QB lead your team without any supporting cast, then it stands to reason that you would want the best possible option at QB immediately, so you will get better. If however you believe that you need a team around the QB or else he will be no better than what we have had since Kelly, then you would like to see some sort of a stop gap at QB this year and a build up of the lines and defensive front 7 this year. I am in the latter group. I'm fine with getting a QB this year, so long as it's not detrimental the long term build. Basically I'd rather them draft a LT and some front 7 players this year and sort out what we have under a new coach and philosophy. Make a strong play for a QB next offseason.
nostyle126 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 You guys realize that Trent Edwards has pretty much the same skill set as Brees and Manning, right? The difference is that: a) he hasn't been given all the weapons brees and manning have b) he doesn't get to play in a dome c) he hasn't been given time to develop the way they were d) he hasn't been giving quality, stable coaching I still think that if you give Edwards a real coaching staff and a better climate, he'd turn into a quality QB in time.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Basically, the Bills have not done well in evaluating QBs, both free agents or draft picks, over the last generation. Plus they also have not developed them properly either. We have only had 3 QBs that were very good to great over an extended period in Buffalo and most of our playoff appearances were with either Kemp, Fergie, or Kelly. Flutie had a couple of exciting years for us also. But I think I will trust Nix and Gailey to make the right decisions going forward on QB whether it is to get a new veteran, a rookie in the draft, or even make one of the current guys work. At least we have great talent evaluators in charge at this point after such a long period of idiocy at the top. I'm not saying Levy was an idiot but it would have made more sense to bring him back as HC instead of DJ, and give the GM job to someone else. They have made no moves yet so it's hard to say they are great talent evaluators. They may have been good in the past but its all about the now
Canadian Bills Fan Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 You guys realize that Trent Edwards has pretty much the same skill set as Brees and Manning, right? The difference is that: a) he hasn't been given all the weapons brees and manning have b) he doesn't get to play in a dome c) he hasn't been given time to develop the way they were d) he hasn't been giving quality, stable coaching I still think that if you give Edwards a real coaching staff and a better climate, he'd turn into a quality QB in time. Really?? The only think I might agree with is about the coaching staff
Guest dog14787 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 It's such a freakin long shot but Troy Smith! PLEASE!!! We have a lot of nothing at QB right now. Yes, they could be better with a better line but we are talking backup quality talent. I would rather get someone that has at least the slightest chanve to be more than what we have now. We know what is on our roster. Sometimes you just have to admit you backed the wrong candidate and move on. I don't want to waste one more single, year, off season, starting rep or game on Edwards. I said it a couple years ago. AT BEST Edwards could be our Frank Reich. Let's stop fooling around and find our Jim Kelly. Jim Kelly could not succeed behind the Bills 09 O-line and he would probably tell you that himself, JK would get twisted up like a pretzel trying to make a play just like TE.
nostyle126 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Really?? The only think I might agree with is about the coaching staff Trent has shown us flashes of greatness. Yes, I think that with a quality offensive line and a sound offensive system he'd be a good QB in time. He is shell shocked right now. Part of the problem is that he has been coached to be too careful. The other part of the problem is that he's been rocked by some hits thanks to bad blocking. He's gunshy. In time, with good coaching, he could rebound to the Trent we knew before the Arizona game...and then from there he could continue to grow into an even better, more experienced QB. I still believe that. We give up on QBs too fast around here. We all admit that our receivers are average and our o-line sucks, but we want to throw the baby out with the bath water every year when we scream for a new QB too.
DarthICE Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 In 2001, Drew Brees was the "Colt McCoy" or "Tim Tebow" of this years' draft class. Obviously he was the second best QB prospect behind Vick, but unlike either Clausen or Bradford, whichever one you have ranked second this year, he had some limitations. He was only 6'0 tall and was not considered a "true first round"-worthy pick. In fact, when the Chargers took him with the first pick of the second round, I remember reading and hearing some experts accuse them of "reaching" at that early place in the draft, because they needed a QB so badly. Yeah sure, Brees was quite a "reach" wasn't he? So just like with Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Kurt Warner and Tony Romo, every team that had a first round pick in 2001 passed on Drew Brees. (Including the Saints!) And that simply amazes me because every year there are always at least 15 - 20 NFL teams that desperately need a true QB of the future. I understand the Ryan Leafs, Akili Smiths, Tim Couches and other classic first round QB busts make every NFL team gun-shy about investing so much money into first round QB's. But how can you not keep trying if you go 26 years between drafting Pro Bowl QB's like the Bills have?? (That is not a misprint - Kelly was drafted in 1983, and this past draft was 2009.) One Pro Bowl season out of Flutie and one Pro Bowl season out of Bledsoe, two QB's already past their prime, is not an "answer!" The Bills could have taken Brees with the number 21 pick of the 2001 draft instead of Nate Clements. What an absolute joke. Donahoe had Rob freakin' Johnson and had just decided to dump Flutie that April. And he passed on Brees. Along with every other team of course. So now the Bills have another chance to draft Clausen or Bradford, or get even bolder if they are both drafted by their number 9 pick, and take McCoy or even Tebow there. Many experts and fans will mock them and call them idiots for reaching so far for McCoy or Tebow. But I would applaud them for "getting the QB first." This team will never amount to anything till it finds a stud QB
nostyle126 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Trent has shown us flashes of greatness. Yes, I think that with a quality offensive line and a sound offensive system he'd be a good QB in time. He is shell shocked right now. Part of the problem is that he has been coached to be too careful. The other part of the problem is that he's been rocked by some hits thanks to bad blocking. He's gunshy. In time, with good coaching, he could rebound to the Trent we knew before the Arizona game...and then from there he could continue to grow into an even better, more experienced QB. I still believe that. We give up on QBs too fast around here. We all admit that our receivers are average and our o-line sucks, but we want to throw the baby out with the bath water every year when we scream for a new QB too. Having said all that, I will also say that he will likely never realize his full potential in Buffalo because of the climate...just like Manning or Brees wouldn't realize their full potential in Buffalo. Trent would look better if he played in the sunbelt or a dome, due to his limited arm strength. Buffalo needs a QB with a rocket arm just to survive the windy games that will inevitably come later in the season.
Guest dog14787 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 This team will never amount to anything till it finds a stud QB This team will never amount to anything until it builds a stud O-line
tennesseeboy Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 lets look at some other "quarterback first" teams...like the Bills with JP Losman, the Lions with Joey Harrington, the Browns with Tim Couch, the Texans with David Carr, the Bengals in their first years with Carson Palmer. The qb without an o-line is an accident waiting to happen.
NewHampshireBillsFan Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 They have made no moves yet so it's hard to say they are great talent evaluators. They may have been good in the past but its all about the now True. The only thing that gives me some confidence is that most people outside of Buffalo totally laughed at the Levy hire as GM and laughed even more later at Brandon being nominally in charge. Actually a lot of people seem to be laughing at Nix but more because they don't think he is suave enough to be an NFL GM. I guess what makes me feel better is we can't do any worse than we have done the last decade. Hopefully, we will do quite a bit better.
LynchMob23 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Per Mort on Twitter: Drew Brees 3rd NFL season: 11 TD's & 15 INTs...58% passer. Are you honestly telling me after a season with those numbers people would have wanted to keep him here? Heck, Edwards won't get a shot amongst most of Bills Nation...
BB2004 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Taking JP Losman first was a great idea. Clausen is the only sure thing IMO. Bradford and his shoulder scare me. Beyond that, we'd be better off drafting a lineman to keep a future franchise QB healthy. I am for taking Bradford and taking a chance, but we'll have to see what the front office has in mind. Again, drafting a left tackle is a good option depening on who we take (it is obviously a matter of opinion), but I am still for drafting Mike Iupoti.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Anyone remember if we had OL like Ballard, Hull and the rest of the SB OL before we drafted Kelly?
dave mcbride Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Anyone remember if we had OL like Ballard, Hull and the rest of the SB OL before we drafted Kelly? No. Wolford came after Kelly, as did Ballard. Ken Jones was the LT if memory serves.
tennesseeboy Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 yup...and if I remember correctly Kelly publicly blasted the rookie Ballard for his poor offensive line play which resulted in an injury to Kelly and also alienated Kelly from a lot of the rest of the team for a while. he came to a team with Devlin and Ritcher, and the makings of a good offensive line. http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2009/6/13/...-bills-no-41-ot One of the low points of Ballard's career was the days of the "Bickering Bills". Although he wasn't the hand that stirred the pot, he was part of the ingredients tossed in. Following the 1988 loss in the AFC Championship game, the team had high expectations and the pressure seemed to get to them early on. After a Week 5 loss to the Colts, Jim Kelly lashed out at his offensive line - Ballard specifically - citing them as the reason he suffered a separated shoulder. Ballard had missed a block on Colts defensive end Jon Hand, allowing him a free shot on Kelly. Marv Levy believed Kelly said that Ballard had struggled with Kent Hull's line calls, and hoped that he would benefit from the mistakes he made. Although Ballard went on to continue improving, the 1989 season was filled with turmoil for the team.
Recommended Posts