Orton's Arm Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 I fully agree with his main point, which is that the Bills shouldn't trade away an early draft pick for McNabb. But there's one statement he made with which I take issue: The situation was far different in 2002, when the franchise dealt its first-round draft pick to New England for Drew Bledsoe. Back then, it could be argued that quarterback was the glaring need, the missing piece. There were no major concerns at other positions. The deal didn't pay off as anticipated, but the thinking that supported it was sound. Circumstances had called for an immediate upgrade at QB. The Bills had gone 3-13 in 2001; which was the season immediately before they acquired Bledsoe. A 3-13 record does not spell "no glaring needs except quarterback," at least not to me. The decision for that 3-13, rebuilding team to trade away a first round pick for an aging veteran QB was not the result of "sound thinking"! It was the result of boneheaded thinking!! Boneheaded thinking which I hope Nix and Gailey are disciplined enough to avoid this time around with any would-be McNabb trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omar Little Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 DiCesare is an idiot. Always has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Buddy is not the arogant ass that Donohoe was. . . He won't make the same mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 This column is commentary, still not a readily understood concept at TBD. DiCesare may be incorrect about being a QB away from competing in 2002, but he's not wrong when making the point that acquiring McNabb for a pick or picks and giving him a contract would be a marketing/RW decision. For all the love Nix and Gailey are receiving from some (unfounded yet) there are powers that be who overrule them at OBD. Call it conspiracy, call it whatever. RW still runs the show and he's not going to be happy if season ticket sales are down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEHADIT Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Buddy is not the arogant ass that Donohoe was. . . He won't make the same mistake. Tom Donahoe is actually a very nice gentleman. Do you know him or are you judging him by his body of work with the bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Bash Bledsoe all ya want....he made the probowl with the bills and threw for 10,000 in three years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKillerRobots Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 I fully agree with his main point, which is that the Bills shouldn't trade away an early draft pick for McNabb. But there's one statement he made with which I take issue: The Bills had gone 3-13 in 2001; which was the season immediately before they acquired Bledsoe. A 3-13 record does not spell "no glaring needs except quarterback," at least not to me. The decision for that 3-13, rebuilding team to trade away a first round pick for an aging veteran QB was not the result of "sound thinking"! It was the result of boneheaded thinking!! Boneheaded thinking which I hope Nix and Gailey are disciplined enough to avoid this time around with any would-be McNabb trade. It was a bad move in hindsight, but they had a defense, an RB, WRs, and looked to be only a QB away from being competitive. If Bledsoe still had something in the tank, we would have been pretty good for a few more years with those semi-dominant defenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mob16151 Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Wait I'm confused if we acquired Bledsoe in 2003 how was 2001 the season before we acquired him? Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrudginglyPessimistic Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 It was a bad move in hindsight, but they had a defense, an RB, WRs, and looked to be only a QB away from being competitive. If Bledsoe still had something in the tank, we would have been pretty good for a few more years with those semi-dominant defenses. I disagree that in hindsight picking up Bledsoe was a bad move in that like it or not he did play a key role in moving this team from being a 3-13 team to an 8-8 team and though obviously flawed he did play well enough that I think he merited his third QB on the Pro Bowl team nod (if you disagree then you should be able to simply point out which QB you think was a Pro Bowl talent who should have gone over Bledsoe. In hindsight the mistake was not in acquiring Bledsoe but in extending him after his goshawful second year, While the pick-ip of Bledsoe was a wash after two years (1 Pro Bowl season and one dreck, the mistake was in not having the grumbas to recognize this wash and cut him. This was quite easily forseeable by even ocaissional observers and TD missed it. On the other hand the acquisition was pretty clearly a needed move for marketing and the huge immediate payoff in ticket sales shows this. While ignoring the reality of the business of the game would simply be ignorant, it is understandable at least if folks make their judgments based on on the field performance, but if you take this view simply ignoring his great first year of proven production is the ignorant thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKillerRobots Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 I disagree that in hindsight picking up Bledsoe was a bad move in that like it or not he did play a key role in moving this team from being a 3-13 team to an 8-8 team and though obviously flawed he did play well enough that I think he merited his third QB on the Pro Bowl team nod (if you disagree then you should be able to simply point out which QB you think was a Pro Bowl talent who should have gone over Bledsoe. In hindsight the mistake was not in acquiring Bledsoe but in extending him after his goshawful second year, While the pick-ip of Bledsoe was a wash after two years (1 Pro Bowl season and one dreck, the mistake was in not having the grumbas to recognize this wash and cut him. This was quite easily forseeable by even ocaissional observers and TD missed it. On the other hand the acquisition was pretty clearly a needed move for marketing and the huge immediate payoff in ticket sales shows this. While ignoring the reality of the business of the game would simply be ignorant, it is understandable at least if folks make their judgments based on on the field performance, but if you take this view simply ignoring his great first year of proven production is the ignorant thing. What I meant about him not having anything left in the tank was simply that we only got about a season and a half out of him at a decent level of play for our first round pick. I agree about the business aspect of it and that was a good move. I was actually trying to disagree with the original poster's contention that the Bledsoe trade was a "bonehead move", as he put it. The article stated that we shouldn't trade for McNabb because we are not only a QB away from being competitive, while when we traded for Bledsoe we were only a QB away. The original poster took exception to this point, while I agreed with it. I think if they could have gotten a full three years out of him we would have made the playoffs. The fact that we didn't get that much time out of him while giving up a first rounder makes it a poor deal for us. I'm not syaing Bledsoe fell apart because of anything he did necessarily (I actually liked him a lot while he was here), but there was a problem witht he offense that was never addressed while he was here that ultimately did him in. I think if they had replaced Peerless with the McGahee pick instead of taking him (maybe Dallas Clark, I didn't look at the players drafted afterwards, just guessing) Bledsoe probably would have lasted longer and done better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 27, 2010 Author Share Posted March 27, 2010 Wait I'm confused if we acquired Bledsoe in 2003 how was 2001 the season before we acquired him? Am I missing something? We made the trade for Bledsoe in the 2002 draft (the same draft that netted us Mike Williams). In order to get him, we had to give the Patriots our first round pick in the following draft (2003). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mob16151 Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 We made the trade for Bledsoe in the 2002 draft (the same draft that netted us Mike Williams). In order to get him, we had to give the Patriots our first round pick in the following draft (2003). Ahhh thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 I recall everyone loving the Bledsoe trade back in the day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mob16151 Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 I recall everyone loving the Bledsoe trade back in the day... I was pumped up about it. I mean at the time it seemed like a really good deal. Now, not so much. But you know whatthey say hindsight is 20/20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CFLstyle Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 It was a bad move in hindsight, but they had a defense, an RB, WRs, and looked to be only a QB away from being competitive. If Bledsoe still had something in the tank, we would have been pretty good for a few more years with those semi-dominant defenses. I agree with this completely. You can't just look and say, oh they were 3-13, they weren't ready to compete. The difference between Rob Johnson and Drew Bledsoe could easily have been 10 wins. Doesn't matter what players you have around you, if you don't have a QB you're not going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 This column is commentary, still not a readily understood concept at TBD. DiCesare may be incorrect about being a QB away from competing in 2002, but he's not wrong when making the point that acquiring McNabb for a pick or picks and giving him a contract would be a marketing/RW decision. For all the love Nix and Gailey are receiving from some (unfounded yet) there are powers that be who overrule them at OBD. Call it conspiracy, call it whatever. RW still runs the show and he's not going to be happy if season ticket sales are down. Ralph Wilson is approaching 92 and is fading in his involvement with the team. The Chan Gaily hiring was a Nix hire. The Whaley hiring was his hire. The free agent pickups, ILB Davis, DE Edwards and OT Green were Whaley/Nix procurements. Wilson wasn't comfortable hiring someone he didn't know to take over running his team. So Nix was the owner's selection. Under this arrangement I don't see Brandon having much serious input on the personnel side of the operation. Now if the Bills make a deal for McNabb or they draft a player such as Spiller or Dez Bryant then I will concede that the Bills are again taking the short term and ultimately losing strategy to rebuilding this very troubled organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 I disagree that in hindsight picking up Bledsoe was a bad move in that like it or not he did play a key role in moving this team from being a 3-13 team to an 8-8 team and though obviously flawed he did play well enough that I think he merited his third QB on the Pro Bowl team nod (if you disagree then you should be able to simply point out which QB you think was a Pro Bowl talent who should have gone over Bledsoe. In hindsight the mistake was not in acquiring Bledsoe but in extending him after his goshawful second year, While the pick-ip of Bledsoe was a wash after two years (1 Pro Bowl season and one dreck, the mistake was in not having the grumbas to recognize this wash and cut him. This was quite easily forseeable by even ocaissional observers and TD missed it. On the other hand the acquisition was pretty clearly a needed move for marketing and the huge immediate payoff in ticket sales shows this. While ignoring the reality of the business of the game would simply be ignorant, it is understandable at least if folks make their judgments based on on the field performance, but if you take this view simply ignoring his great first year of proven production is the ignorant thing. the real mistake was not fixing the OL. after spending a 1st round pick and big bucks on Bledsoe, it was incredibly stupid and arrogant to not protect him by using a swiss cheese OL populated by such outstanding studs as Bennie Anderson and Tuten Reyes even when they spent a #1 on the OL, they stupidly (and arrogantlyt) picked a fat unmotivated slob that could only play RIGHT T, when a bonafide stud LT was also available. stupid, but not surprising, since the Bills have been playing the same game with the OL since Polian and Butler left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 the real mistake was ignoring the OL. after spending a 1st round pick and big bucks on Bledsoe, it was incredibly stupid to not protect him by using a swiss cheese OL populated by such outstanding studs as Bennie Anderson and Tuten Reyes stupid, but not surprising, since the Bills have been playing the same game with the OL since Polian and Butler left. They had a LT for the next decade, supposedly, by picking Mike Williams the same year they drafted Bledsoe. The only problem was how bad Mike Williams turned out. Not only could he not go to LT, he sucked as a RT as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Projay89 Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 the error was paying too much for a guy that went .500 (Bledsoe) when prior to that deal they were talkn to Jeff Blake. he was a free agent that was on the cheap, with much more mobility & a cannon. think Blake to Pickins ,blake to Darney Scott. could of been Blake to MOulds!! naw we got a guy who once forced folks to ask "which is slower bledsoe? or a cardboard cut out of Bledsoe?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Tom Donahoe is actually a very nice gentleman. Do you know him or are you judging him by his body of work with the bills? you can be arrogant and nice at the same time. But there were plenty of actions he took that can be seen as arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts