thewildrabbit Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 You're right, good catch, but again, Polian followed the Golden Rule. The difference between most GM's and Bill Polian is that Polian understands that the QB needs a solid surrounding cast to support him. Good experienced veteran offensive coaches, good O linemen, good skill players. Is it a surprise that Payton Manning's QB coach became the head coach after Tony Dungy retired? You can flush the golden rule when your needs on the offensive line are greater then the need at QB. The Buffalo Bills currently need both a left and right tackle and a good blocking tight end.The Bills should have drafted a left tackle last year to replace Jason Peters. So tell us Thurman#1... which QB in this years draft should the Bills go all out to acquire and not draft a left tackle. Which QB in the 2010 draft is going to lead this team to the playoffs? The problem with the "golden rule" is that you need a GM like Bill Polian to have the intelligence to utilize it.
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Nobody disagrees that we need to build a good OL and that it needs to build continuity. Including TBD. Drafting Wood and Levitre early last year shows that they finally get this. But without a good QB you aren't going to win a SB, the only exception being if you build one of the all-time great Ds, like the Ravens SB winners and the Bears SB winners. And that's just extremely unlikely statistically speaking. We aren't winning this next season. We won't be a really good team till 2011 or more likely 2012. That's a painful realization to come to, but when you have no LT, no QB and are switching defenses, you just have too many needs to reasonably expect to compete. And though good LTs are extremely difficult to find, good QBs are even more so, and it takes longer to train them and longer to find out whether or not they'll be any good. So anytime you have a chance to get a franchise QB, you absolutely have to take it. Again, I certainly don't disagree that we are in dire need of a good LT. I am on record (to the point of nausea to many) as having desperately wanted to keep Jason Peters for exactly this reason. A good LT isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. But good QBs are harder to find and take much longer to develop. If we can get one, we have to do it. He wouldn't live beyond mid season with our line.
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Why the first 9 spots? Oh yeah, to exclude Aaron Rodgers, who was picked in the first and sat for three years, a truly spectacular move, as it turned out. Try to nit pick ALL you want....the fact of the matter is that QBs taken in the first 10 picks of the draft will start their first year. It is a sad but true fact. I could care less about Aaron Rogers being picked in the late first round as it applys to us potentially picking a QB at #9. I think many would say that almost any rookie QB would benefit from sitting on the bench a year or 3 like Rogers. Sad fact is ....IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IF YOU ARE DRAFTED THAT EARLY. Players drafted that early START almost regardless of position. There are exceptions on bad picks or fits like Maybin but that is pretty much the rule.
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Right. So we drafted Kelly first. Luckily for us, he went to the USFL, getting some seasoning and allowing us to remain poor and build the line with good draft picks. But Polian followed the Golden Rule of the NFL Draft. When you have a chance to draft a franchise QB, you do it. As should Nix. I guess we could argue a technically all day but the FACT of the matter is that Kelly didn't play until the line was in place. THIS and the experience he gained in the USFL were VERY large contributing factors in his success. I see your point on the technicality though. If you recall even with what ended up being a stellar line Jimbo used to complain about o-line play early on in his career in Buffalo. Imagine what might have been if he played in front of the guys that his eventual probowl line replaced?
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Would the media and fans want to see him start? Yup. Would the braintrust bow to the fans? Are you serious? How many fans wanted Whitner? How many fans wanted Fred Jackson instead of A-train? How many fans wanted Flutie instead of Johnson for the Music City Miscarriage of Justice? Yes, of course they would stand up to the fans. Right or wrong. Your on crack. If we get a QB at 9 this year he plays first year. End of story. Again I challenge you to show me a QB other than Phillip Rivers, who was backing up Drew Brees by the way, who was drafted in the top 10 picks that didn't start his first year. Stop spweing hypothetical BS. WE ALL KNOW THE KID WOULD PLAY AND NOT HAVE TIME TO SIT AND LEARN!!!
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 First of all, it's not night and day at all. Yeah, it's several million a year between #9 and #24 (Aaron Rodgers). But who cares? The point is that wherever your guy is drafted, you do what is best for him and for the team. How many of those guys who were drafted early and played the first year were in a position where the team thought it would be better for him and for the team for him to wait a year? Basically, one, Philip Rivers, and surprise, surprise, he sat. If we thought it would be best we would sit him, plain and simple. Your living in a fantasy world buddy. I agree it would be a good idea but NOBODY IN THE NFL ACTUALLY DOES THIS!!!!! I'm done with you.
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Yep. In fact when Kelly WAS drafted, the ONLY piece of the dominate OLine to be was Richter at LG. And he wasn't taken by Polian. Wilford, Hull, Davis, Ballard, et al came WAY after we selected Kelly. And your point about Kelly going to the USFL is not lost on me. The seasons he spent running the Run and Shoot under Mouse Davis taught him how to read defenses. I'm not convnced Kelly would have become the QB he became if he signed with the Bills as a rookie in '83. I won't characterize it as being "lucky" that he went to the USFL but it worked out for the best. Anyway, the Golden Rule of the Draft ALWAYS applies if you don't have a great QB and you think one is available to grab when your pick comes up. Yes it's a crapshoot but you gotta have a QB first and foremost. In other words, a franchise QB will get you through times of inconsistent OLine play than better than a franchise OLman will get you through times of inconsistent QB play. It ALL starts with a great QB. There just aren't that many to be had. GO BILLS!!! IF the fact that Kelly played in the USFL isn't lost on you and you realize the UNIQUE set of circumstances and events that surrounded Kelly you would realize that trying to use this case to prove your point is ridiculous. As another poster said....let's draft Bradford or Claussen and create a new league that he can play in for 3 years while we put together a line AND ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP SOME COHESION then we are talking. These ridiculous hypothetics are just silly and show how desperate some are and buy into the QB as the savior mentality. You need a good if not great one agreed. Not realizing that there is no way a #9 pick QB sits the bench for a couple years is just naive and wishful thinking.
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 If you take any three to four year period, you will find, on an even a stable solid OL, two guys, on the average, who either get old, retire unexpectedly (sound familiar?), get injured or simply stop playing well. That's the way things go. Who would be difficult to replace? Wood. Levitre. To some extent, Hangartner. And you're right, you can find serviceable QBs all the time. Just not guys who will take you to the Super Bowl. As long as you don't mind a lot of seasons where you nearly make the playoffs and then occasionally make them and go out after one game, yeah, pick up a Collins or a Simms or a Garcia. Personally, for me, no thanks, but if that kind of future doesn't bother you, yeah, get a serviceable guy. Heck, that's what Fitz is now. And as for your last paragraph, you say "I defy you to show me one situation where the hotshot QB stepped in behind a line as bad as the Bills', and the team was in the playoffs that year or next." Jeez, man, forget the next two years. We are rebuilding. You're going to have to deal with that whether you want to or not. We aren't going to improve over the next two years just by building the o-line and going with Fitz or Brohm or Trent. We have far too many other weaknesses. Three years from now a franchise QB who we get in the draft is going to be coming into his own (or we'll know he's a dud and can move on), and we will also have had time to put together a good line and defense. Try to pick up a QB two or three years from now and it will take him yet another two or three years to get good enough to take the team to the SB (or to find out if he's a dud), and you're statistically unlikely to have a good chance at a franchise guy anyway. Dick Jauron is that you????? Ya...just slap a couple 300lb guys together and line them up 5 wide that is all an offensive line is. Have you heard of CONTINUITY? How long did it take the Jets line to become what it is? It's taken a good 3 or so years with basically the same guys in place to get there. THEN they got the QB. THEN they made it to the AFC championship game with a rookie QB. A recipe for success perhaps? Of course some great defense helped too. But why don't people that that could be our formula for success in 3 or perhaps even as early as 2 years. A little on the optimistic side with 2 years, I know, but you get the idea.
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 If you take any three to four year period, you will find, on an even a stable solid OL, two guys, on the average, who either get old, retire unexpectedly (sound familiar?), get injured or simply stop playing well. That's the way things go. How is that working out for the Jets? Oh?...4 years and going strong....K
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Now, after reading the last two paragraphs, what does that tell you about Trent Edwards? 10 games in 2007--14 games in 2008--8 games in 2009. Kinda tough to learn the ropes from the sidelines after running for your life game after game. The kid had some real morons teaching him, bad O line, in a poor scheme with a rookie play caller and no QB coach his last year, WTF. Hell if we believe that philosophy we should bring back JP Losman. He suffered from the same ****ty caoching. Actually it was even worse as he never had the same offensive coordinator and system 2 years in a row.
thebandit27 Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Your on crack. If we get a QB at 9 this year he plays first year. End of story. Again I challenge you to show me a QB other than Phillip Rivers, who was backing up Drew Brees by the way, who was drafted in the top 10 picks that didn't start his first year. Stop spweing hypothetical BS. WE ALL KNOW THE KID WOULD PLAY AND NOT HAVE TIME TO SIT AND LEARN!!! I tried. I tried to let you off the hook. Gave you time to come up with it yourself, so that you didn't look stupid. But now, you shall. 2005: Alex Smith sat behind Trent Dilfer until Dilfer got hurt (Smith eventually started 7 games). 2006: Jay Cutler sat behind Jake Plummer until Plummer got hurt (Cutler eventually started 5 games). 2007: Jamarcus Russell sat behind both Josh McCown and Daunte Culpepper all year (Russell started the last game of the season) So no, it's not a given as you claim. It's a case-by-case basis. The guys that start as rookies do so because their teams have no other options. - Eli Manning started in 2004 because Kurt Warner got hurt after going 5-4 in the first 9 games of the season...doesn't sound like a "money plays" scenario to me. - Ben Roethlisberger started in 2004 because Tommy Maddox got hurt in the 2nd game of the year...doesn't sound like a "money plays" scenario to me. - Vince Young started in 2006 because Kerry Collins was awful in week 1-3, leading the team to a total of 33 points in 3 games...doesn't sound like a "money plays" scenario to me. - Matt Ryan started in 2008 because the only other QBs on the roster were Chris Redman and D.J. Shockley, and the team was coming off of a 2-14 season with nothing to lose...doesn't sound like a "money plays" scenario to me.
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 By the way, the photo under your name is ONE PLAY, probably a draw play that was run after 3 straight completions by the No-Huddle, in a 3 wide set, against a Dime Defense. Yeah, there were some big holes, that's what happens when you have a HOF QB that puts a defense on it's heels with a record breaking passing attack. One of the best ways to help out your O-line is to have a QB that poses a threat of some kind. I saw Jim Kelly throw that lead block that opened up that hole!!! It was amazing I don't know how he beat the guard and tackle to the point of attack. It was like magic.....oh ...wait.....you mean he didn't block and open holes? You QB "X" is our savior guys kill me. YES a good QB can "HELP" the running game. That is not to say that they ARE the running game and are responsible for it's success. O-line still has to block, RB still has to run. Don't over inflate the QBs importance in that!!!! GET REAL!!!!
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 I tried. I tried to let you off the hook. Gave you time to come up with it yourself, so that you didn't look stupid. But now, you shall. 2005: Alex Smith sat behind Trent Dilfer until Dilfer got hurt (Smith eventually started 7 games). 2006: Jay Cutler sat behind Jake Plummer until Plummer got hurt (Cutler eventually started 5 games). 2007: Jamarcus Russell sat behind both Josh McCown and Daunte Culpepper all year (Russell started the last game of the season) So no, it's not a given as you claim. It's a case-by-case basis. The guys that start as rookies do so because their teams have no other options. - Eli Manning started in 2004 because Kurt Warner got hurt after going 5-4 in the first 9 games of the season...doesn't sound like a "money plays" scenario to me. - Ben Roethlisberger started in 2004 because Tommy Maddox got hurt in the 2nd game of the year...doesn't sound like a "money plays" scenario to me. - Vince Young started in 2006 because Kerry Collins was awful in week 1-3, leading the team to a total of 33 points in 3 games...doesn't sound like a "money plays" scenario to me. - Matt Ryan started in 2008 because the only other QBs on the roster were Chris Redman and D.J. Shockley, and the team was coming off of a 2-14 season with nothing to lose...doesn't sound like a "money plays" scenario to me. OMFG YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT!!! EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR EXAMPLES STARTED THEIR ROOKIE YEAR!!!! This proves exactly what I said!!! Please tell me how this is "NOT" letting me off the hook you freakin' clown!??!!?!? I don't care how they got the job.....THEY STARTED JUST LIKE I SAID!!!!
thebandit27 Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 OMFG YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT!!! EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR EXAMPLES STARTED THEIR ROOKIE YEAR!!!! This proves exactly what I said!!! Please tell me how this is "NOT" letting me off the hook you freakin' clown!??!!?!? I don't care how they got the job.....THEY STARTED JUST LIKE I SAID!!!! I like it when you type in all caps, it makes your argument more effective. The point you made, over and over, is that it's a "money plays" scenario. That's exactly what you said, not "I don't care how they started, they just did". Here, in case you've forgotten: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1765767 http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1766014 So either you (a) don't believe that it's a "money plays" scenario as you previously trumpeted or (b) are just completely full of crappola and will say whatever comes to mind in an attempt to cover your rear end when you are proven wrong. My point, which could not possibly be any clearer, is that rookies play when they're needed, not before due to your "money plays" garbage. It's very, very clear. Now learn to turn your caps lock off.
1billsfan Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Anybody suggesting that we should draft an offensive lineman over Bradford if he were to magically still be there when we pick is smoking some serious high octane crack. It would be Buffalo's lucky day if either QB were still there.
thebandit27 Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 How is that working out for the Jets? Oh?...4 years and going strong....K Except, of course, that the current Jets line has only been together for 2 years, as both Alan Faneca and Damien Woody were signed as UFA's prior to the 2008 season...but keep spewing your BS if it makes you feel better.
Max997 Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 IF he falls to us at 9 There is just something about him I really like.......Sam Bradford is my guy. Then we look at a guy like the OT from USC in the 2nd round. is it the fact that he has been injured or that he only weighs 195 pounds that you really like?
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 I like it when you type in all caps, it makes your argument more effective. The point you made, over and over, is that it's a "money plays" scenario. My point, which could not possibly be any clearer, is that rookies play when their needed, not before due to your "money plays" garbage. It's very, very clear. Now learn to turn your caps lock off. Nice come back retard. "Turn off your caps lock off". Your point is ridiculous and irrelevant. WHO CARES?!?!?!?! Rookie QBs drafted in the first 10 picks start. END OF STORY!!! You are a sad little man trying to win some pitiful moral victory saying rookie's play due to need not money. Thanks for trying to magnify a small component of my main point that top 10 rookie QBs do start in their first year and claim victory. Not going to try to let you shift the battle field. Again....rookie top 10 pick QBs play... got that? ....Nothing to refute on THAT statement. Go ahead maybe you can win by trying to point out a spelling error or lack of proper punctuation. Something equally as meaningless.
thebandit27 Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 is it the fact that he has been injured or that he only weighs 195 pounds that you really like? I'm not advocating for Bradford or anything, but he's almost the exact same size (6'4", 223 lbs) as Tom Brady... http://espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=188934 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=2330
PDaDdy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Anybody suggesting that we should draft an offensive lineman over Bradford if he were to magically still be there when we pick is smoking some serious high octane crack. It would be Buffalo's lucky day if either QB were still there. Apparently I love the high octane crack. If either of those guys falls to us it would be the unluckiest day in their lives. This isn't an issue where we have a competent or even poor line. Our line is terrible. If our line was at least average I would gladly say get a QB if one fell to us. The sad fact of the matter is our line is so bad that it has become our #1 priority. Now that Brad Butler has retired that shouldn't even be in question. It is really an embarrassment and a joke the current state of affairs with our front 5. Woods might not even be ready for the regular season next year. We are in bad bad bad shape.
Recommended Posts