bills in va Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Trading our future for McNabb would be a mistake. I believe he is a good quarterback and could help us win more games next year, but he is not taking us to the Superbowl. We need a franchise QB, solid 3-4 defense (currently missing 2-4 LB's, NT, DE ) and improved lines on both sides of the ball. Trading for McNabb only sets us back in getting all the players we need to reach the Superbowl. It will cost us at least 2-3 draft picks and maybe a player or two. It is too high a price for a team with so many holes to fill. Do not be short-sighted! We need to have a blue print that will lead to a Superbowl ring in 3-4 years, trading for McNabb will not bring us a Superbowl victory, only set us backwards.
bananathumb Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Trading our future for McNabb would be a mistake. I believe he is a good quarterback and could help us win more games next year, but he is not taking us to the Superbowl. We need a franchise QB, solid 3-4 defense (currently missing 2-4 LB's, NT, DE ) and improved lines on both sides of the ball. Trading for McNabb only sets us back in getting all the players we need to reach the Superbowl. It will cost us at least 2-3 draft picks and maybe a player or two. It is too high a price for a team with so many holes to fill. Do not be short-sighted! We need to have a blue print that will lead to a Superbowl ring in 3-4 years, trading for McNabb will not bring us a Superbowl victory, only set us backwards. Totally.
bills1960 Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Look, i get what you're saying about a franchise QB, and that's why i don't want to give up more than a second for him. But you can't trash a QB for not winning a Superbowl because we havent won one either or even been to one since 1993.
loyal2dagame Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 But you can't trash a QB for not winning a Superbowl because we havent won one either or even been to one since 1993. yes you can. from all accounts, mcnugget had a panic attack that may have cost that team dearly. now i'm not saying the loss was ALL his fault, but come on
CarolinaBill Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Trading our future for McNabb would be a mistake. I believe he is a good quarterback and could help us win more games next year, but he is not taking us to the Superbowl. We need a franchise QB, solid 3-4 defense (currently missing 2-4 LB's, NT, DE ) and improved lines on both sides of the ball. Trading for McNabb only sets us back in getting all the players we need to reach the Superbowl. It will cost us at least 2-3 draft picks and maybe a player or two. It is too high a price for a team with so many holes to fill. Do not be short-sighted! We need to have a blue print that will lead to a Superbowl ring in 3-4 years, trading for McNabb will not bring us a Superbowl victory, only set us backwards. look here buddy, if we have to give up 2-4 picks that could help build a long term winner, just to get 1 aging overrated player then so be it. I mean look at his body of work he got to 1 super bowl and 5 nfc championships, he ALWAYS comes up juuuuust short in the big games, I mean wow, lets sell the farm to get this guy, now. Sure it'll only be a 2-3 yr short term fix, which delays the inevitable, but so what at least we might be a winner for 1 yr. NO ONE DENIES THIS!!!
CardinalScotts Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 we HAVE to get the entire culture turned around and you can only do that by winning football games as fast as possible. This is the NFL in 2010 not 1983, very few build from the ground up. You patch where you can build where you can and win as soon as you can. If you get into the playoffs you CAN win it as it's been proven over the last couple years. Go get him - nothing hire than a two though. If we don't were going to draft a guy that what we hope will someday be as good as McNabb is even now.
CarolinaBill Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 we HAVE to get the entire culture turned around and you can only do that by winning football games as fast as possible. This is the NFL in 2010 not 1983, very few build from the ground up. You patch where you can build where you can and win as soon as you can. If you get into the playoffs you CAN win it as it's been proven over the last couple years. Go get him - nothing hire than a two though Pats, Charger, Ravens, Giants, Colts, all built from the ground up, very few high profile FA's brought in, most of their talent came thru the draft. We don't need Mcnabb, we need to solidify our lines, draft some quality LBs, and develop a QB, STOP LOOKING FOR QUICK FIXES, Mcnabb doesn't even want to play here, very few do. We have to prove we are a relevant franchise before we have a chance to lure in top flight vets.
CountDorkula Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 I was never on the McNabb band wagon.... If Nickelback is the Band on this wagon alot of people on this board are going to be pissed...
manbeast Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Trading our future for McNabb would be a mistake. I believe he is a good quarterback and could help us win more games next year, but he is not taking us to the Superbowl. We need a franchise QB, solid 3-4 defense (currently missing 2-4 LB's, NT, DE ) and improved lines on both sides of the ball. Trading for McNabb only sets us back in getting all the players we need to reach the Superbowl. It will cost us at least 2-3 draft picks and maybe a player or two. It is too high a price for a team with so many holes to fill. Do not be short-sighted! We need to have a blue print that will lead to a Superbowl ring in 3-4 years, trading for McNabb will not bring us a Superbowl victory, only set us backwards. How much research have you done on this? I have done alot and find that we need 2 NTs and 1 LB and a DE. The DE and the LB are brought in to compete and add depth. Even Nix says we are not that far away so why do you people think we should scrap everything and start over. You give me a LT and a WR with McNabb and the above and I will show you a team that makes the playoffs will in the rebuilding process. The truth is that the NEs and INDs of the world are always in the rebuilding process. Thats why they stay good.
rstencel Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Pats, Charger, Ravens, Giants, Colts, all built from the ground up, very few high profile FA's brought in, most of their talent came thru the draft. We don't need Mcnabb, we need to solidify our lines, draft some quality LBs, and develop a QB, STOP LOOKING FOR QUICK FIXES, Mcnabb doesn't even want to play here, very few do. We have to prove we are a relevant franchise before we have a chance to lure in top flight vets. Well the Pats started their good fortune with a bunch of low profile castoff signings. They made a lot of good trades to get more draft choices to build for future, but because of their free agent signings, they were not hurt by the trading picks for higher picks in the next years draft. So while yes, they have a ton of drafted talent, think there free agent signings are reason they were able to wait an extra year to pick a player early on to get all those high round picks that are on the team currently. Ravens and Giants did have some very good free agent signings that contributed to their success as well. The key thing in common however seems to be they didnt have to overpay or sign high profile free agents. They signed budget freindly deals with veterans that had proven themselves to fit the role that the team put them in. You are so right about the luring of top flight free agents however. Not only do you have the stigma for the area and lack of night life items, but team hasn't made the playoffs in a long time. Not a good combo for recruiting purposes.
manbeast Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Pats, Charger, Ravens, Giants, Colts, all built from the ground up, very few high profile FA's brought in, most of their talent came thru the draft. We don't need Mcnabb, we need to solidify our lines, draft some quality LBs, and develop a QB, STOP LOOKING FOR QUICK FIXES, Mcnabb doesn't even want to play here, very few do. We have to prove we are a relevant franchise before we have a chance to lure in top flight vets. NO, ARZ, MINN, what do they have in common oh they didn't draft their QBs. Packers and Jets didn't draft there NTs. the Pats didn't draft Welker or Moss. The giants didn't draft Plaxico Buress regardless of what you think they were better with him. All of these teams are loaded with FA aquisitions before you make a statement why don't you actually look into it the first Team you mentioned Always brings in Free Agents every year almost their entire secondary for 09 were FAs.
marsadale Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Trading our future for McNabb would be a mistake. I believe he is a good quarterback and could help us win more games next year, but he is not taking us to the Superbowl. We need a franchise QB, solid 3-4 defense (currently missing 2-4 LB's, NT, DE ) and improved lines on both sides of the ball. Trading for McNabb only sets us back in getting all the players we need to reach the Superbowl. It will cost us at least 2-3 draft picks and maybe a player or two. It is too high a price for a team with so many holes to fill. Do not be short-sighted! We need to have a blue print that will lead to a Superbowl ring in 3-4 years, trading for McNabb will not bring us a Superbowl victory, only set us backwards. couldnt agree more. You didnt point to his age specifically, but that alone makes a move for McNabb logically implausible. What would be the purpose unless you thought that we were a realistic playoff contender NEXT year, or possibly the following. I do believe that ole dude has it in the tank to be productive for a few more years, but what would be the point? Personally i doubt he'd even DO it. What would he have to gain by coming here? Not that "we're not worthy"....but how is McNabb and the Bills a good match for either side?
Alphadawg7 Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Trading our future for McNabb would be a mistake. I believe he is a good quarterback and could help us win more games next year, but he is not taking us to the Superbowl. We need a franchise QB, solid 3-4 defense (currently missing 2-4 LB's, NT, DE ) and improved lines on both sides of the ball. Trading for McNabb only sets us back in getting all the players we need to reach the Superbowl. It will cost us at least 2-3 draft picks and maybe a player or two. It is too high a price for a team with so many holes to fill. Do not be short-sighted! We need to have a blue print that will lead to a Superbowl ring in 3-4 years, trading for McNabb will not bring us a Superbowl victory, only set us backwards. Trading for McNabb in no way equals trading away our futrue. Its not like we would be giving up 2 first rounders, a 2nd and a 3rd to get him. He will most likely be had for a 2nd round pick and some change or maybe a swap of first rounders and our 2nd or 3rd. Many draft picks dont pan out anyway, so to say we are trading our future is over the top. McNabb has 3 good years left in him, maybe more, and we have a team with lots of young talent at key positions. This team is NOT that far off...add a LT and a QB to this team last year and we were a playoff team easily. So adding McNabb and a top tackle at #9 this year, a few FA's and this team is a strong contender (barring key injuries of course) immediately. So, how is trading away a 2nd round pick to get McNabb trading away our future? Even two 2nd round picks? Even swapping first round picks and giving them our second or third? Seriously, so many posters put up all these over the top statements. You want to know what trading away your future is? See the Herschel Walker trade to Minn, or the infamous Ditka trade of his entire draft to get Ricky Williams where both Minn and NO traded an absurd bounty of picks. McNabb over three years would be more productive than probably 90% of all second round picks in the next 3 drafts...so please, saying it will be trading away our future is just a over dramatized reaction and really not very accurate. Not to mention, adding McNabb to a young team to CHANGE THE LOSING CULTURE (not yelling, just emphasizing how important that is) and return to a winning franchise would be huge for this team. Plus it would make us a more attractive option to free agents...
Orton's Arm Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Trading our future for McNabb would be a mistake. I believe he is a good quarterback and could help us win more games next year, but he is not taking us to the Superbowl. We need a franchise QB, solid 3-4 defense (currently missing 2-4 LB's, NT, DE ) and improved lines on both sides of the ball. Trading for McNabb only sets us back in getting all the players we need to reach the Superbowl. It will cost us at least 2-3 draft picks and maybe a player or two. It is too high a price for a team with so many holes to fill. Do not be short-sighted! We need to have a blue print that will lead to a Superbowl ring in 3-4 years, trading for McNabb will not bring us a Superbowl victory, only set us backwards. I agree that it would be a serious mistake for this team to trade away first day draft picks for an aging veteran player at any position. The Bills are in rebuilding mode, and should be focused on ways to increase the pace at which they acquire young talent. Trading down for McNabb is also in that same general category. If our goal is to trade down in the draft, our compensation should be draft picks, not some aging player who's only going to be good for a very short window.
1billsfan Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Trading our future for McNabb would be a mistake. I believe he is a good quarterback and could help us win more games next year, but he is not taking us to the Superbowl. We need a franchise QB, solid 3-4 defense (currently missing 2-4 LB's, NT, DE ) and improved lines on both sides of the ball. Trading for McNabb only sets us back in getting all the players we need to reach the Superbowl. It will cost us at least 2-3 draft picks and maybe a player or two. It is too high a price for a team with so many holes to fill. Do not be short-sighted! We need to have a blue print that will lead to a Superbowl ring in 3-4 years, trading for McNabb will not bring us a Superbowl victory, only set us backwards. You nailed this! Every day I inexplicably see fans here willing to give up a second round pick and more for an aging QB who, EVEN WHEN HE WAS IN HIS PRIME, ALWAYS FAILED in the big game. But they're none the less willing to give up prime draft picks for him???? If the Bills front office foolishly did this I would be as mad as when they kept Jauron after the '07 and 08' seasons. McNabb is one of the most over-rated QBs in the history of the NFL. He wouldn't even play in over half the games due to being injured behind our suspect line. Donavan McNabb is fools gold. Please Bills, stay away!
Alphadawg7 Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 You nailed this! Every day I inexplicably see fans here willing to give up a second round pick and more for an aging QB who, EVEN WHEN HE WAS IN HIS PRIME, ALWAYS FAILED in the big game. But they're none the less willing to give up prime draft picks for him???? If the Bills front office foolishly did this I would be as mad as when they kept Jauron after the '07 and 08' seasons. McNabb is one of the most over-rated QBs in the history of the NFL. He wouldn't even play in over half the games due to being injured behind our suspect line. Donavan McNabb is fools gold. Please Bills, stay away! Overrated? That is unbelievably absurd. First off, McNabb didnt lose the NFC championship games for them or the SB, the Eagles lost those games. Secondly, do even understand how little, and I mean little, talent McNabb has had at WR during his career? He made lame players look good who couldnt do squat any where else. He made Donte Stalworth a stud for a season who never did squat in NO and even less the very next year in NE playing with Brady and even less in Cle. McNabb had one year with TO (they went to the SB), and has had a young speedster in D Jax the last 2 years...THATS IT! No other year in his 11 or so seasons has he had a single WR that deserved to be a starter, not once. He has done more with less talent at WR than dozens and dozens of other QB's with way better talent at WR did in his time in the league. If McNabb would have had at least one #1 WR in his career for more than a year, he would have won more of those 5 NFC championship games and have at least one SB ring, probably more. Look at these scrubs...James Thrash, Reggie Brown, Kevin Curtis, Donte Stalworth, Todd Pinkston, Greg Lewis, Freddie Mitchell, Torrance Small, Charles Johnson, Jason Avant, etc. These have been his starting WR's for most of his career. The only exception, the short lived TO reign, and D Jax the last 2 years, but even D Jax had just a decent rookie year and was hurt some in his second year. So in his 11 years as the Eagles QB, he has had total scrubs in 8 of those years not to mention in one of the 3 years he had a WR was the year TO got banned from the team half way through. Add in that in one more of those 3 years D Jax was a rookie and not that big of a factor. So in reality he has spent 9-1/2 years with little to no effective WR's. Plus, even when he had TO and D Jax the rest of the WR corp stunk... Imagine what this guy would have done with some talent to throw to.
CarolinaBill Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 NO, ARZ, MINN, what do they have in common oh they didn't draft their QBs. Packers and Jets didn't draft there NTs. the Pats didn't draft Welker or Moss. The giants didn't draft Plaxico Buress regardless of what you think they were better with him. All of these teams are loaded with FA aquisitions before you make a statement why don't you actually look into it the first Team you mentioned Always brings in Free Agents every year almost their entire secondary for 09 were FAs. welker was not a high priced FA, neither was moss. Both were trades, and they were not high tender trades at that, do some research. plax got the giants over the hump, but how many SB's did they pats win with welker and moss? thats right 0. Chargers, colts, and ravens are almost exclusively built on low cost FA's, minor trades, and good drafting. In context of buffalo trading for mcnabb, essentially the thought process is well trade 2-3 picks for 1 old player. so what 2-3 more wins, for 1 yr maybe 2, then back to the sh*tter, no thanks. I'd rather build my team the right way. Now, in the giants case, plax was the "missing piece" so to speak, but he was the ONLY big FA guy they brought into that playoff team. What I said, which Is what you obviously didn't COMPREHEND, was that the teams I listed didnt bring in MANY high priced FA's. MCNABB IS NOT A FREE AGENT, HE WILL HAVE TO BE TRADED, PHILLY WANTS HIGH PICKS FOR HIM, so IMO it is not worth mortgaging the sustained success of the future, for the possibility of temporary success now. I hope this clears things up for you.
reddogblitz Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 NO, ARZ, MINN, what do they have in common oh they didn't draft their QBs. Go back a little ways, and Seattle didn't draft Hasselbeck, the Ravens didn't draft Dilfer, the Bucs didn't draft Brad Johnson, and the Raiders didn't draft Gannon. This notion that we have to draft a guy and keep him for 15 years in order to get to or win a SB is over the top. Great if it works. More often than not it doesn't. Getting a proven winner like McNabb plus the talent we have, and we can start winning some now. Nothing starts a culture of winning like winning. Does anyone honestly think that if we put McNabb on the 2009 team we don't win at least 9 games? That's how many the Jets and Ravens won. Just because we take a vet and win now, doesn't mean we can't find another guy to take over, either youngster or another vet. This isn't' the 1980s anymore when the only way to get players was the draft and trade. Even if we do draft a young guy and he comes along, his contract will run out in 3 or 4 years, then what? We've been playing young QBs to try to bring them along for the last 5 years with zero success. Enough is enough. There are NFL QBs out there on the market. Not guys who might one day be good NFL QBs, but guys who are good now. Let's do what we can to get one for 2010.
CarolinaBill Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Go back a little ways, and Seattle didn't draft Hasselbeck, the Ravens didn't draft Dilfer, the Bucs didn't draft Brad Johnson, and the Raiders didn't draft Gannon. This notion that we have to draft a guy and keep him for 15 years in order to get to or win a SB is over the top. Great if it works. More often than not it doesn't. Getting a proven winner like McNabb plus the talent we have, and we can start winning some now. Nothing starts a culture of winning like winning. Does anyone honestly think that if we put McNabb on the 2009 team we don't win at least 9 games? That's how many the Jets and Ravens won. Just because we take a vet and win now, doesn't mean we can't find another guy to take over, either youngster or another vet. This isn't' the 1980s anymore when the only way to get players was the draft and trade. Even if we do draft a young guy and he comes along, his contract will run out in 3 or 4 years, then what? We've been playing young QBs to try to bring them along for the last 5 years with zero success. Enough is enough. There are NFL QBs out there on the market. Not guys who might one day be good NFL QBs, but guys who are good now. Let's do what we can to get one for 2010. Im ok with bringing in a vet, but not at the cost of what mcnabb would fetch, or vick. No trading more than a 5th or lower for a vet QB
Recommended Posts