Perkins Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Excellent OTs, yes, but there are real questions about whether some of them might end up being RTs like Oher. I'll leave this one up to Nix, personally. Oher was put at RT because they already had a LT in Jared Gaither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 QUOTE (DarthICE @ Feb 17 2010, 01:23 PM) *LOL yeah only if we want to be winners. But Fans like you have become so used to sucking for so long I think you like it. Without a stud QB no matter what Defense, O Line or whatever, this team isn't going anywhere. I'll see your Trent Dilfer and raise you Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler (super bowl winners) and throw in rookie sensations of the last 2 years, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez If you're going to talk Superbowl winners like Dilfer, Johnson, and Hostetler, you might as well look at the other QBs that won the Superbowl in the last decade: Brees Roethlisberger E. Manning P. Manning Roethlisberger Brady Brady B. Johnson Brady Dilfer Before that it was Warner, Elway, Elway, Favre, Aikman, Young, Aikman, Aikman. So in the last 18 Superbowls, you're talking about 2 non-elite (read: HOF caliber) QBs that won it all (3 if you count Eli Manning as not HOF material, which I am on board with). No offense, but for a guy that likes to chastise people for bringing up cases that he perceives as exceptions to the rule, this reference is poster-child-esque in that regard. As with Tampa Bay in 02-03 and Baltimore in '00-'01, it takes a once-in-a-generation defense (the NFL was lucky enough to have two in the same decade!) to win a Superbowl without a great quarterback. On that one subject I agree with ICE. However, as I've said several times on this board, I don't necessarily agree that the pick has to be a QB. It only has to be a QB if he's the right guy, which can only be determined by Nix and company. If they're confident that one of the QBs is the guy, they have to take him. If not, get the best player available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Oher was put at RT because they already had a LT in Jared Gaither. He also started 5 games at LT in place of an injured Gaither. In those games, he had his ups and downs (see analysis in the link below), but there's no reason to think that he couldn't play LT. http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?...p;playerid=4946 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 Lets be honest, we would draft Selvish Capers, you know the 4th round talent when a top 5 talent is on the board, ie Maybin>Orakpo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 Getting Okung at #9 would be amazing. I don't think anyone on this board could be upset with that pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 If you're going to talk Superbowl winners like Dilfer, Johnson, and Hostetler, you might as well look at the other QBs that won the Superbowl in the last decade: Brees Roethlisberger E. Manning P. Manning Roethlisberger Brady Brady B. Johnson Brady Dilfer Before that it was Warner, Elway, Elway, Favre, Aikman, Young, Aikman, Aikman. So in the last 18 Superbowls, you're talking about 2 non-elite (read: HOF caliber) QBs that won it all (3 if you count Eli Manning as not HOF material, which I am on board with). No offense, but for a guy that likes to chastise people for bringing up cases that he perceives as exceptions to the rule, this reference is poster-child-esque in that regard. As with Tampa Bay in 02-03 and Baltimore in '00-'01, it takes a once-in-a-generation defense (the NFL was lucky enough to have two in the same decade!) to win a Superbowl without a great quarterback. On that one subject I agree with ICE. However, as I've said several times on this board, I don't necessarily agree that the pick has to be a QB. It only has to be a QB if he's the right guy, which can only be determined by Nix and company. If they're confident that one of the QBs is the guy, they have to take him. If not, get the best player available. Can you point me to the guys on that list that played on a bad line? Or even an average line? BTW Roethlisberger in his first go-around was absolutely brought about slowly and given high-percentage opportunities before growing into the guy you know today. And he's hardly ever had a bad run game (or bad run- or pass-blocking, until these past few seasons). Peyton Manning played behind a line that couldn't do the job for him on Super Bowl Sunday. That said, the 2009 Indy line was basically an all-time anniversary selection lineup compared to the historically bad Bills line. If the Bills trot out D. Bell at LT and don't find more quality OL depth, even if they draft Bradford / Montana or clone a Manning, they will suck. This is indisputible. I'm not saying this means they need a R1 LT or a top FA at the position, but they need an upgrade badly. You can, of course find gems in R2/R3 (Loadholt, for example). However they choose to do it, the Bills have to locate OL talent, even if it's at the expense of drafting a QB. You can find a caretaker QB that will perform adequately with protection. In a year where no clearly elite QB seems to be available, and in which we are unlikely to put a young talent in a position to succeed, the OL upgrade should take precedence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 You mean like the jets? Game, set and match !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpcolosi Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 That's the pick I'd like to see. for the record my friend at ESPN is the guy who edits/publishes a lot of Kipers stuff and is the one who put this pick in there. The mocks will change over the next few weeks, but Mel said to my friend he thinks the Bills will have a decent shot at getting him unless there is a big shakeup at the combine. IMO, It's just a matter of is he the best guy on Nix and Modrak's board or do they want to go defensive side of the ball first.... should be interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogger Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 a huge part of me wants both QBs gone before Buffalo picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 Can you point me to the guys on that list that played on a bad line? Or even an average line? BTW Roethlisberger in his first go-around was absolutely brought about slowly and given high-percentage opportunities before growing into the guy you know today. And he's hardly ever had a bad run game (or bad run- or pass-blocking, until these past few seasons). Peyton Manning played behind a line that couldn't do the job for him on Super Bowl Sunday. That said, the 2009 Indy line was basically an all-time anniversary selection lineup compared to the historically bad Bills line. If the Bills trot out D. Bell at LT and don't find more quality OL depth, even if they draft Bradford / Montana or clone a Manning, they will suck. This is indisputible. I'm not saying this means they need a R1 LT or a top FA at the position, but they need an upgrade badly. You can, of course find gems in R2/R3 (Loadholt, for example). However they choose to do it, the Bills have to locate OL talent, even if it's at the expense of drafting a QB. You can find a caretaker QB that will perform adequately with protection. In a year where no clearly elite QB seems to be available, and in which we are unlikely to put a young talent in a position to succeed, the OL upgrade should take precedence. I'm not sure why you need me to research this for you, but hey, why not? The 2008 Steelers allowed 48 sacks, 4th most in the NFL The 2007 Giants allowed 28 sacks, 2 more than the Bills did in that season The 2002 Buccaneers allowed 41 sacks, 9th most in the NFL The 2001 Patriots allowed 46 sacks, tied for 9th most in the NFL with...Buffalo The 2000 Ravens allowed 43 sacks, 12th most in the NFL And that Steelers running game that supposedly carried Big Ben all these years ranked 19th in the league in rushing yards in 2008, when they won the Superbowl. It's hardly indisputable that the Bills will suck if they get a great QB without a great line. There are plenty of examples out there that prove that isn't true. If you sincerely believe that a guy like Manning is as good as he is because of his line, then I'm afraid this discussion is over. That line is comprised of low-round draft picks and undrafted FA's, and has experienced, on average, 40% overturn each year. That offense works because Manning knows his teammates inside and out, can sense pressure before it gets to him, knows how to read blitzes and coverages, knows how to move around in the pocket, and knows when to get rid of the ball. The only thing that is indisputable, in my mind, is that putting Peyton Manning behind Buffalo's line would result in 3-5 more wins per season on QB play alone. I won't take part in another debate as to whether QB or OL is more important, if anyone wants my arguments for that, they can check my post history. All I'll say is that the most important position on the field should always take precedence, unless, as I've said over and over, you don't feel that the right QB is available at your given pick. In that case, you take the best player available. That's how quality teams get good and stay good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grelit Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 I'm not sure why you need me to research this for you, but hey, why not? The 2008 Steelers allowed 48 sacks, 4th most in the NFL The 2007 Giants allowed 28 sacks, 2 more than the Bills did in that season The 2002 Buccaneers allowed 41 sacks, 9th most in the NFL The 2001 Patriots allowed 46 sacks, tied for 9th most in the NFL with...Buffalo The 2000 Ravens allowed 43 sacks, 12th most in the NFL And that Steelers running game that supposedly carried Big Ben all these years ranked 19th in the league in rushing yards in 2008, when they won the Superbowl. It's hardly indisputable that the Bills will suck if they get a great QB without a great line. There are plenty of examples out there that prove that isn't true. If you sincerely believe that a guy like Manning is as good as he is because of his line, then I'm afraid this discussion is over. That line is comprised of low-round draft picks and undrafted FA's, and has experienced, on average, 40% overturn each year. That offense works because Manning knows his teammates inside and out, can sense pressure before it gets to him, knows how to read blitzes and coverages, knows how to move around in the pocket, and knows when to get rid of the ball. The only thing that is indisputable, in my mind, is that putting Peyton Manning behind Buffalo's line would result in 3-5 more wins per season on QB play alone. I won't take part in another debate as to whether QB or OL is more important, if anyone wants my arguments for that, they can check my post history. All I'll say is that the most important position on the field should always take precedence, unless, as I've said over and over, you don't feel that the right QB is available at your given pick. In that case, you take the best player available. That's how quality teams get good and stay good. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 If you're going to talk Superbowl winners like Dilfer, Johnson, and Hostetler, you might as well look at the other QBs that won the Superbowl in the last decade: Brees Roethlisberger E. Manning P. Manning Roethlisberger Brady Brady B. Johnson Brady Dilfer Before that it was Warner, Elway, Elway, Favre, Aikman, Young, Aikman, Aikman. So in the last 18 Superbowls, you're talking about 2 non-elite (read: HOF caliber) QBs that won it all (3 if you count Eli Manning as not HOF material, which I am on board with). No offense, but for a guy that likes to chastise people for bringing up cases that he perceives as exceptions to the rule, this reference is poster-child-esque in that regard. As with Tampa Bay in 02-03 and Baltimore in '00-'01, it takes a once-in-a-generation defense (the NFL was lucky enough to have two in the same decade!) to win a Superbowl without a great quarterback. On that one subject I agree with ICE. However, as I've said several times on this board, I don't necessarily agree that the pick has to be a QB. It only has to be a QB if he's the right guy, which can only be determined by Nix and company. If they're confident that one of the QBs is the guy, they have to take him. If not, get the best player available. Do you think that Aikman would have been a great qb without one of the best OLs ever assembled, let alone his weapons and a defense that got him the ball constantly? To credit Aikman for the Dallas superbowl wins of that era isn't a terribly smart thing to do imro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 Do you think that Aikman would have been a great qb without one of the best OLs ever assembled, let alone his weapons and a defense that got him the ball constantly? To credit Aikman for the Dallas superbowl wins of that era isn't a terribly smart thing to do imro. Don't misconstrue the point, Bill. I have no idea how Aikman would've done, and neither does anyone else. What I said was that the other poster pointing to guys like Johnson, Dilfer, and Hostetler is using an extreme minority to make an invalid point. My point was that his examples are far, far out-done by the other side of the argument. For every Johnson, Dilfer, and Hostetler, there are 5 hall-of-fame QBs that have won a superbowl. Troy Aikman, like it or not, is a HOF QB. Yes, they had a great line. Yes, they had a very good defense. Yes, they had a HOF RB. That doesn't change the fact that Aikman is a HOFer. I guess the other side of the coin to the question you asked would be this: do you think Dallas wins all of those Superbowls with Danny White, Steve Beurlein, or Steve Walsh as their QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 I'm not sure why you need me to research this for you, but hey, why not? The 2008 Steelers allowed 48 sacks, 4th most in the NFL The 2007 Giants allowed 28 sacks, 2 more than the Bills did in that season The 2002 Buccaneers allowed 41 sacks, 9th most in the NFL The 2001 Patriots allowed 46 sacks, tied for 9th most in the NFL with...Buffalo The 2000 Ravens allowed 43 sacks, 12th most in the NFL And that Steelers running game that supposedly carried Big Ben all these years ranked 19th in the league in rushing yards in 2008, when they won the Superbowl. It's hardly indisputable that the Bills will suck if they get a great QB without a great line. There are plenty of examples out there that prove that isn't true. If you sincerely believe that a guy like Manning is as good as he is because of his line, then I'm afraid this discussion is over. That line is comprised of low-round draft picks and undrafted FA's, and has experienced, on average, 40% overturn each year. That offense works because Manning knows his teammates inside and out, can sense pressure before it gets to him, knows how to read blitzes and coverages, knows how to move around in the pocket, and knows when to get rid of the ball. The only thing that is indisputable, in my mind, is that putting Peyton Manning behind Buffalo's line would result in 3-5 more wins per season on QB play alone. I won't take part in another debate as to whether QB or OL is more important, if anyone wants my arguments for that, they can check my post history. All I'll say is that the most important position on the field should always take precedence, unless, as I've said over and over, you don't feel that the right QB is available at your given pick. In that case, you take the best player available. That's how quality teams get good and stay good. Simple question: Do you think a Bills QB will stay upright and be able to develop before the team and the fans give up on him, if Demetrius Bell is his #1 LT, and the backups are even worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 I'd take Bulaga over Okung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 If Schobel doesn't come back, can we count on Maybin to step in or should we start worrying and draft a DE? They're both going to play OLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 And that stud QB will be on IR in 3 weeks if Bell and other motley crew of LTs are protecting his blind side again. I don't disagree with the stud QB argument, but we need a LT pretty bad as well after passing on Oher last year for Maybin. If we had Oher, I'd be right with you in clamoring for the QB. Fact is, we need both and we only have one pick in the first round. I like the odds of finding a good OT in the second more than I do trying to find a franchise QB in the second round. So, IF our people think Clausen or Bradford are the real deal and IF we can get them, we shouldn't hesitate to do so. A solid OT in the first would be just fine with me too but if that happens, I think we might have to wait until next year to get a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 Simple question: Do you think a Bills QB will stay upright and be able to develop before the team and the fans give up on him, if Demetrius Bell is his #1 LT, and the backups are even worse? Don't know...what QB are we talking about? The crop of indecisive, inaccurate, tepid passers we currently feature? No. A decisive, strong-armed, accurate passer? Maybe. I also don't remember saying that D. Bell or the current group of OL personnel had to be the starters. As far as I'm concerned the OL needs to be upgraded as well. But--as I've explained multiple times on this board--since QB is the more important position, if the right QB is available (i.e. a guy that Nix and Co. feel will be their starter for the next decade) he has to be the pick. That doesn't mean he has to play right away, it just means that a team without a franchise QB should make that their No. 1 priority. If that guy isn't there when you draft, you take the best player available. The fact of the matter is that Buffalo needs to upgrade their OL, I've never argued that point. But what--pray tell--would be so bad about spending (hypothetically) a 1st round pick on a QB (provided--again--that the organization felt he was the guy), a 2nd round pick on a LB, and then every other pick (6 total) on OL? Even if you only get 1 in 3 picks right, you've got yourself two quality NFL starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grelit Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 Who were all first round picks, this team is spinning its wheels until it has a legitimate starting QB. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grelit Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 Do you think that Aikman would have been a great qb without one of the best OLs ever assembled, let alone his weapons and a defense that got him the ball constantly? To credit Aikman for the Dallas superbowl wins of that era isn't a terribly smart thing to do imro. A good quarterback can also make an offensive line look good. Its a two way street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts