Lori Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 No. Wolford came after Kelly, as did Ballard. Ken Jones was the LT if memory serves. Technically, Wolford was drafted three years after Kelly, but actually joined the Bills first in 1986. (Semantics -- he was here for minicamp of his rookie season, while Kelly and Hull didn't sign until training camp. You already know this, I'm sure, but others might not.) Jim Ritcher and Joe Devlin were the vets on that line, along with Jones. And that lesson: Wolford and Ritcher were both first-round picks, Jones and Devlin second-rounders ...
dave mcbride Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 No. Wolford came after Kelly, as did Ballard. Ken Jones was the LT if memory serves. Actually, while Kelly was drafted before Wolford, they both arrived in Buffalo in the same season - 1986.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 So would you say that Kelly came first or the OL was formed first?
Lori Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 If Kelly had signed here as a rookie, it would have been QB first ... and he might not have survived long enough to make it to a Super Bowl. Bills QBs were sacked 139 times from 1983-85, including 60 in 1984.
PromoTheRobot Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Technically, Wolford was drafted three years after Kelly, but actually joined the Bills first in 1986. (Semantics -- he was here for minicamp of his rookie season, while Kelly and Hull didn't sign until training camp. You already know this, I'm sure, but others might not.) Jim Ritcher and Joe Devlin were the vets on that line, along with Jones. And that lesson: Wolford and Ritcher were both first-round picks, Jones and Devlin second-rounders ... And here's the irony...The Bills line then was considered "suspect". Of course that was back before the Internet, where players are labelled busts in nanoseconds. PTR
Cornerville Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 I think sometimes fans and the media think there is 1 way to go to build a winner...no, don't take a QB high, take an OL high etc. Bottom line: You need a top GM to draft players that can make playes, no matter if it is a LB, DT, DE, SS, QB, WR or RB. AND those players must fit what you are trying to do as a team...Cover 2...3-4, West Coast offense, pistol...whatever the case may be.
Guest dog14787 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 I think sometimes fans and the media think there is 1 way to go to build a winner...no, don't take a QB high, take an OL high etc. Bottom line: You need a top GM to draft players that can make playes, no matter if it is a LB, DT, DE, SS, QB, WR or RB. AND those players must fit what you are trying to do as a team...Cover 2...3-4, West Coast offense, pistol...whatever the case may be. You make a good point in that everyone needs to be on the same page from the GM on down.
Cornerville Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 You make a good point in that everyone has to be on the same page from the GM on down. Absolutely...and another thing is...teams that set the trends generally do better then ones that follow it. Rams set a trend in the early part of the decade...Buffalo 'attempted' to emulate that and failed miserably. That is my only worry when it comes to this 3-4 switch, seems that everyone is going that way, and some team will figure out a way to beat that defense.
PDaDdy 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. a) His arm strength pales in comparison to Brees and Manning b) He has no balls c) Manning and Brees had better numbers for the same number of starts and time to develop
PDaDdy Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 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. Uh...no! I'm not saying Jim wouldn't have as much success as in the early 90's but he would definitely be better than Edwards with this line.
PDaDdy Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 This team will never amount to anything till it finds a stud QB Agreed x10. Also...a "stud QB" won't amount to anything without a decent if not great line already assembled in front of him.
PDaDdy 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... Brees didn't start his 1st year. He played one game. Take a look at his magical 3rd year starting. He showed signs early enough to show that he could become what he is. Also, people need to stop with the ...there have been a scant handful of cases in the past so we should give Trent more time. Just because people have won the lottery in the past doesn't mean that it is a valid retirement plan.
PDaDdy 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? By the time we drafted Kelly or by the time that he finally played his first game for Buffalo after he acquired a bit of experience?
Guest dog14787 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Absolutely...and another thing is...teams that set the trends generally do better then ones that follow it. Rams set a trend in the early part of the decade...Buffalo 'attempted' to emulate that and failed miserably. That is my only worry when it comes to this 3-4 switch, seems that everyone is going that way, and some team will figure out a way to beat that defense. Chan Gailey is more of a trend setter in my opinion.
thebandit27 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 I just want all of the "OL makes the QB" supporters to answer one question honestly: Put any Bills QB since Jim Kelly behind either New Orleans' or Indy's o-line, and you think you get the same result? Now, the corollary: Put either Drew Brees or Peyton Manning behind Buffalo's o-line, and you think you get the same result? I'm sure most of you already know my opinion on the subject, but just in case you don't, the answers are "NO" and "NO". I've made the argument dozens of times on this board, and nobody's ever refuted it with any kind of evidence: look at the most sacked QBs in the league in 2009, and you'll see names like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Romo, McNabb, and Favre in the top 10. All lead passing offenses that ranked in the top 10 in the NFL, and only 1 had a running game that ranked in the top 12 (Romo). The other running games all ranked within 4 rushing yards/game of Buffalo (save for Philadelphia, who's running game was significantly worse than Buffalo's). http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?sea...mp;d-447263-n=1 http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tab...mp;d-447263-n=1 http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tab...mp;d-447263-n=1 The bottom line, as I see it, is that a good QB can do things like make reads quickly, get rid of the ball quickly, adjust protection schemes, read blitzes, connect with a hot route, hit a receiver before it's obvious to the entire breathing world that he's open, etc. Great QBs do this regardless of the play of their OL, which leads me to believe that it's much more important to get the right QB than it is to prioritize getting a great OL before you get such a QB. My ideal example of this was the 2007 Falcons. They gave up 49 sacks and were a putrid 3-13. Had they prioritized getting an OL first, they would've missed out on drafting Matt Ryan, who was the single biggest contributor to their remarkable turnaround in 2008. Now, they also traded back into round 1 to draft LT Sam Baker (who started 7 games as a rookie), but clearly Atlanta made drafting a QB the priority. Ditto for Baltimore in 2007, who gave up 39 sacks (13 more than Buffalo) and lost their future HOF LT Jonathan Ogden to retirement. They went with a 5th round supplemental draft pick (Jared Gaither) at LT and traded out of the top 10 to draft Joe Flacco, and that worked out pretty well for them. My point here is that getting the right QB should trump every other personnel move. You can have an outstanding OL, but sooner or later it's QB play that makes the difference. Sure, you'll see the occasional anomoly like this year's Baltimore-NE playoff game, but--overwhelmingly--the great QB wins when it matters, not the great OL. Even take yesterday's game as an example. Which OL played better? To the naked eye, I would have said it was pretty even, but I'd give the edge to the Colts, since they clearly had better run blocking. But as far as stats are concerend, Indy rushed for an average of 5.21 ypc and Peyton Manning was never even knocked down. New Orleans rushed for 2.83 ypc and Brees suffered the games only sacked and was knocked down several other times. By all things measurable, Indy's OL played the better game. But Brees played better than Manning, and the Saints won. It's a QB's league folks, and if a team has the chance to get the right one, they should do it, regardless of their OL situation. EDIT: I'd also like to throw out the example of the 2007 Patriots vs. the 2008 Patriots. The 2007 team had Tom Brady and went 16-0 while allowing only 21 sacks (5 fewer than Buffalo's OL that year), while the 2008 team didn't have Brady and went 11-5 (5 fewer victories) and allowed 48 sacks (10 more than Buffalo) with the same OL as in 2007. Now I'm certain there will be those of you that want to throw out every example, but before you do, please provide me with the example that proves your point.
Guest dog14787 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Uh...no! I'm not saying Jim wouldn't have as much success as in the early 90's but he would definitely be better than Edwards with this line. Kelly would probably end the season with concussion or injury because he's to ballsy for it to go any other way.
Guest dog14787 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 I just want all of the "OL makes the QB" supporters to answer one question honestly: Put any Bills QB since Jim Kelly behind either New Orleans' or Indy's o-line, and you think you get the same result? Now, the corollary: Put either Drew Brees or Peyton Manning behind Buffalo's o-line, and you think you get the same result? I'm sure most of you already know my opinion on the subject, but just in case you don't, the answers are "NO" and "NO". I've made the argument dozens of times on this board, and nobody's ever refuted it with any kind of evidence: look at the most sacked QBs in the league in 2009, and you'll see names like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Romo, McNabb, and Favre in the top 10. All lead passing offenses that ranked in the top 10 in the NFL, and only 1 had a running game that ranked in the top 12 (Romo). The other running games all ranked within 4 rushing yards/game of Buffalo (save for Philadelphia, who's running game was significantly worse than Buffalo's). http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?sea...mp;d-447263-n=1 http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tab...mp;d-447263-n=1 http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tab...mp;d-447263-n=1 The bottom line, as I see it, is that a good QB can do things like make reads quickly, get rid of the ball quickly, adjust protection schemes, read blitzes, connect with a hot route, hit a receiver before it's obvious to the entire breathing world that he's open, etc. Great QBs do this regardless of the play of their OL, which leads me to believe that it's much more important to get the right QB than it is to prioritize getting a great OL before you get such a QB. My ideal example of this was the 2007 Falcons. They gave up 49 sacks and were a putrid 3-13. Had they prioritized getting an OL first, they would've missed out on drafting Matt Ryan, who was the single biggest contributor to their remarkable turnaround in 2008. Now, they also traded back into round 1 to draft LT Sam Baker (who started 7 games as a rookie), but clearly Atlanta made drafting a QB the priority. Ditto for Baltimore in 2007, who gave up 39 sacks (13 more than Buffalo) and lost their future HOF LT Jonathan Ogden to retirement. They went with a 5th round supplemental draft pick (Jared Gaither) at LT and traded out of the top 10 to draft Joe Flacco, and that worked out pretty well for them. My point here is that getting the right QB should trump every other personnel move. You can have an outstanding OL, but sooner or later it's QB play that makes the difference. Sure, you'll see the occasional anomoly like this year's Baltimore-NE playoff game, but--overwhelmingly--the great QB wins when it matters, not the great OL. Even take yesterday's game as an example. Which OL played better? To the naked eye, I would have said it was pretty even, but I'd give the edge to the Colts, since they clearly had better run blocking. But as far as stats are concerend, Indy rushed for an average of 5.21 ypc and Peyton Manning was never even knocked down. New Orleans rushed for 2.83 ypc and Brees suffered the games only sacked and was knocked down several other times. By all things measurable, Indy's OL played the better game. But Brees played better than Manning, and the Saints won. It's a QB's league folks, and if a team has the chance to get the right one, they should do it, regardless of their OL situation. The Jets while they didn't go all the way prove you wrong. Give an average, even rookie QB a great O-line, Good running game and a great defense and he can succeed. Throw Sanchez behind our O-line on the other hand and he gets slaughtered. Manning and Brees were playing behind two of the best O-lines in the NFL .
John from Riverside Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Chan Gailey is more of a trend setter in my opinion. THis..... I think the word that is used for Chan Gailey (who will also be our OC) is "innovative"
Lori Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Bandit, you presume "the right one" is available. If the next Peyton Manning drops to the Bills at No. 9, of COURSE they should take him ... but we've also seen what happens when a desperate team says, "We need a franchise QB," and reaches for a guy who can't fill those shoes. Once Roethlisomething's name came off the board in 2004, the Bills would have been better served to stay put and draft for value instead of panicking and trading up for Losman. That's the mistake I don't want them to repeat this year.
thebandit27 Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 The Jets while they didn't go all the way prove you wrong. Give an average, even rookie QB a great O-line, Good running game and a great defense and he can succeed. Throw Sanchez behind our O-line on the other hand and he gets slaughtered. Manning and Brees were playing behind two of the best O-lines in the NFL . No, 1 team out of 32 does not prove me wrong. Besides, the Jets had the same OL as last year, but they got better QB play this year, as a young Sanchez played better than an injured Favre did down the stretch, and they made the playoffs. And they lost to a team with a lesser OL and a better QB. And as to their wins in the playoffs, it's not a coincidence that the Jets won 2 games in which Sanchez outplayed the opposing QBs (Palmer and Rivers). As to Indy and NO, did they really have the best OLs, or do they just have QBs that know how to read a blitz, throw to a hot option, make blocking adjustments, get rid of the ball quickly, move effectively within the pocket, etc.? You think that if Indy really had one of the best OLs in the NFL they would have been dead last in rushing (both in ypc and ypg)? Is New Orleans line so much better than Buffalo's because they average 4.5 rushing yards per carry vs. Buffalo's 4.4?
Recommended Posts