bbb Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Is anybody here old enough to remember the Ed Rutkowsky fumble in the Raiders game in '68. I was only 6, but I have a really great memory that amazes and annoys people. I specifically remember my family being torn. Here we are ready to beat the great Raiders, but now we're going to lose out on OJ Simpson. We decided we wanted OJ. Ed fumbles on like the one yard line, and we get the best running back I've ever seen. I've been going to Bills games every year since that 68 season, and the last 25 have been with season tickets. I don't think that wanting OJ in 68 or Andrew Luck now more than a meaningless win makes me a lesser fan. I want to win the Super Bowl, not beat two fellow chumps during the regular season.
bisonbrigade Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Fitz had a good game today, and did a good job of taking advantage of the Bengals' depleted secondary. He's a solid starter. But what he is specifically not is an elite quarterback. If your He has been playing like this the WHOLE year. Have you been watching football this year? This team needs pass rushers, not a rookie QB.
Swift Sylvan Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 (edited) In this game, I noticed some throws where Fitz would have had to put the ball in a perfect spot to be successful. I can't recall his being successful on one of them. The throw would be a little behind the player, or to the player's left when it needed to be to his right; or would otherwise be a little off. Later in the game, Fitz attained success--but it was success based on making relatively straightforward throws to guys that were open. Fitz deserves credit for identifying the right players to throw to, looking off the safeties in order to get guys open, and making the right reads. But I don't recall seeing any "he put the ball exactly where it had to be" type throws today. Fitz had a good game today, and did a good job of taking advantage of the Bengals' depleted secondary. He's a solid starter. But what he is specifically not is an elite quarterback. If your goal is to go 8-8 each year, with the occasional year where you go 10-6 and get eliminated in the wild card or divisional round of the playoffs, having a solid but unspectacular quarterback is perfectly fine. But if you want to win the Super Bowl, your odds of doing so increase dramatically if you have a franchise QB under center. Opportunities to get franchise QBs are very rare. Most NFL teams don't have a quarterback who can consistently put the ball into tight places/make the perfect throw, while doing a good job of reading defenses, processing information quickly, and overall being a complete player. If the Bills want to be one of the few teams with a guy like that--rather than one of the many teams without one--they're going to need to take full advantage of the chance to add someone like that to the team. Every season starts with 32 teams hoping for a Super Bowl win, and ends with 31 teams coming away disappointed. If the Bills want to be that one team out of 32 that's actually successful, they're going to have to do something to separate themselves from the other 31 teams. If you're getting consistently elite-level play from your quarterback, that separates you from most other teams right there. It is going to hurt us getting the most talented QB in any draft and thus be less likely to be able to develop him in to our leader for 10 years and have a legitimate chance of the superbowl, true. On the other hand if we were to be so bad as to get the number 1 pick would we have the talent and ability for the QB to become successful? Perhaps Peyton Manning would be Peyton Manning anywhere with any talent, but I have to doubt that most QB's are so good that their output isn't effected by the players around them. Even if we were to only go 10-6 in the next 5 years, we don't know if our QB would develop and live from being sacked 50+ times. At least with the 10-6 the rest of our team becomes more talented as well as us becoming more attractive for free agents where even if we were to falter we still could have a good foundation to groom a QB of second tier talent which really drafting 10-20 can still get us a good enough QB. Rodgers was in the 20's, Brees second round, etc.... It's one of those things where there are so many factors we can't really know, but for every player we have who can win, will give every other playing more breathing room for when opponents take their focus off them. Edited November 22, 2010 by Swift Sylvan
Orton's Arm Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 It is going to hurt us getting the most talented QB in any draft and thus be less likely to be able to develop him in to our leader for 10 years and have a legitimate chance of the superbowl, true. On the other hand if we were to be so bad as to get the number 1 pick would we have the talent and ability for the QB to become successful? Perhaps Peyton Manning would be Peyton Manning anywhere with any talent, but I have to doubt that most QB's are so good that their output isn't effected by the players around them. Even if we were to only go 10-6 in the next 5 years, we don't know if our QB would develop and live from being sacked 50+ times. At least with the 10-6 the rest of our team becomes more talented as well as us becoming more attractive for free agents where even if we were to falter we still could have a good foundation to groom a QB of second tier talent which really drafting 10-20 can still get us a good enough QB. Rodgers was in the 20's, Brees second round, etc.... It's one of those things where there are so many factors we can't really know, but for every player we have who can win, will give every other playing more breathing room for when opponents take their focus off them. You've made some good points in your post, and have touched upon several subjects I've thought of myself. But before I jump right into addressing those, I want to say a few things first. Every team would love to have 22 elite players as its starters. However, there just isn't enough talent in the league at any one time to make that happen. Even in a very well-run team there are still going to be compromises. There will be positions where you'll have guys who are just "okay," because the talent in the NFL is spread too thin to allow teams to have 22 stars. Part of building a team involves finding ways to maximize the overall amount of talent on your team. But part of it also involves deciding where you want your elite players to be. A few years ago, Bill Parcells and the Dolphins had the first overall pick in the draft. They had the chance to add an elite player with that pick--but only one elite player. Parcells' choices were LT, RDE, or QB. He chose the LT and got a very good player. But now the Dolphins are plagued with quarterback problems. The rebuilding effort which got off to such a fast start now seems to have hit its ceiling, and that ceiling seems surprisingly low. Some (including me) would argue that the ceiling would have been higher had Parcells chosen the quarterback--Matt Ryan--instead of the LT. Now the Dolphins don't have any more Matt Ryan opportunities, because they're no longer picking in the top-5 of the draft. Every general manager needs to ask himself, "If I'm limited to having a relatively small number of elite players, which positions do I most want to have those elite players play?" Those are the positions the GM should gravitate towards with his earliest picks in the first round. You do what you can to create a core of elite players; and then you surround them with other players who are good, or at least serviceable. I would argue that if you want to win the Super Bowl, you almost have to have one of those elite players be your quarterback. An elite quarterback exerts a considerably greater influence on the outcome of the game than (for example) an elite SS or an elite TE. If your opponent has an elite quarterback and you don't, you're probably going to need a commanding talent advantage at other positions to balance out that effect. The deeper you advance in the playoffs, the more likely you are to encounter teams that have elite QB + above-average non-QB talent. Balancing out your own lack of an elite QB becomes increasingly difficult. But there is a very limited number of elite-level quarterbacks to go around. It's like a game of musical chair with 32 contestants and perhaps six or eight chairs. Being one of the small number of teams to actually acquire an elite QB is the first in a series of steps to take your team to a Super Bowl title. Trading up for an elite prospect like Luck would mean that the Bills would have succeeded in the most difficult and most important step in building a Super Bowl winner. (Getting the elite QB.) Elite quarterbacks can be found later in the draft, but players like Brady (or even Brees) are the exception. If a quarterback is elite, and is known by NFL GMs to be elite, he will be taken very, very early in the draft. Taking a quarterback later on means that you are either gambling on getting lucky, or else that you're gambling on your front office having seen something in the quarterback that other front offices missed. This is a case where it's worth paying a very high price to get a safe + high ceiling pick (such as Luck); because a bust or a player with a low ceiling implies the failure of the entire plan to win the Super Bowl. (Meaning, that you're almost certainly not going to win the SB until you somehow acquire an elite QB.) You can afford to take risks at other positions far, far more than you can afford them at QB. Once you have your elite quarterback, you obviously need to surround him with talent. I don't like the idea of getting him killed behind an inept OL any more than you do. I'd hoped that the Bills would use their second round pick on a RT in the upcoming draft. I realize that they'd probably have to trade that away as part of the price for moving up in the draft to take Luck. (That's one of the reasons why draft position is so critical: if we drafted first overall, we could take Luck without giving up the 2nd round RT.) But even assuming the BIlls would have to give up that second round pick (among other things) as part of the price of taking Luck, it would still be a price well worth paying. Ideally, Luck would sit on the bench and learn during his rookie year, much like Carson Palmer with the Bengals. That would buy the Bills an extra year with which to get the OL problems--especially at RT--straightened out before throwing Luck to the wolves. Even if Luck did experience some OL problems early on, I don't think those problems would kill his development. That said, addressing the OL would be my most urgent priority once I'd obtained my quarterback of the future. Getting your QB killed can't possibly produce good long-term effects. Once the elite quarterback was in place, the Bills could go back to a standard-issue effort to increase the team's level of talent. The goal would still be to add elite players at positions that were more critical as opposed to positions that were less so. But with the most critical position already filled by an elite player, some of that pressure would be reduced. For example, suppose the quarterback's entire offensive supporting cast consisted of guys who were reasonably good, but not great. Bell at LT, Steve Johnson as #1 WR, Fred Jackson at RB: guys like that. Those circumstances wouldn't be all that much different than those Brady encountered when the Patriots first won the Super Bowl. And Brady produced! An elite QB can lift the entire offense, assuming the guys around him are decent to good. You'd obviously need a core of a few good-to-elite players to lift the play of your defense. You'd want at least two guys in your front-7 who'd elevate the level of your pass rush, a good, strong NT to clog up the middle, a shutdown CB: stuff like that. The BIlls have some of that already. With the addition of a couple of elite pass rushers, the defense would be well on its way to becoming top-10. If the Bills got the elite QB + the two elite pass rushers + a solid RT + a decent LB or two, they'd be well on their way to being a serious threat to win the Super Bowl. Becoming a serious threat to win the Super Bowl is the work of more than just one offseason. The Bills should get the hardest part--the elite QB--out of the way now, or whenever Luck declares. Elite pass rushers can be added with first round picks in future drafts. Second and third round picks can be used on LBs, a RT, and whichever other positions that need to be solidified to eliminate the team's current holes.
bowery4 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 (edited) bbb I think it was a legitimate fumble, I always have and I asked Ed once and he said it was. Edwards Arm maybe you should change your name to Fitzpatrick's Beard and shorten your posts (which is mostly some common sense and some stuff I disagree with). Bla bla bla bla bla...... Oh and okay Maaaaaauuuuh, good bye Edited November 22, 2010 by bowery4
bbb Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 bbb I think it was a legitimate fumble, I always have and I asked Ed once and he said it was. Edwards Arm maybe you should change your name to Fitzpatrick's Beard and shorten your posts (which is mostly some common sense and some stuff I disagree with). Bla bla bla bla bla...... Oh and okay Maaaaaauuuuh, good bye Even if it was legit, I'm still glad he fumbled! I know he always said it was legit, but he was a politician!
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Is anybody here old enough to remember the Ed Rutkowsky fumble in the Raiders game in '68. I was only 6, but I have a really great memory that amazes and annoys people. I specifically remember my family being torn. Here we are ready to beat the great Raiders, but now we're going to lose out on OJ Simpson. We decided we wanted OJ. Ed fumbles on like the one yard line, and we get the best running back I've ever seen. I've been going to Bills games every year since that 68 season, and the last 25 have been with season tickets. I don't think that wanting OJ in 68 or Andrew Luck now more than a meaningless win makes me a lesser fan. I want to win the Super Bowl, not beat two fellow chumps during the regular season. Wanting the Bills to lose for whatever reason does make you a lesser fan. I mean it's really pretty simple.
Austin_Bills_Fan Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Well, now with us kicking the Bengals ( with TO) butts, we can forget that #1 pick,...Top 5, maybe.... Fitz just want us to draft a qb next year,... we do need defense help. Thank goodness for small miracles... so tired of hearing abour Luck and having the #1 pick...
Saint Doug Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 (edited) Funny, Peter King still thinks we're gonna get the #1 pick. I think he needs to turn on his TV and watch a game or two: 7. I think Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck is one special player. (Wow. Stop the presses.) Not just as a thrower either. The run he made against Cal Saturday shows everything NFL scouts need to see about the mobile side of his game. Put it this way: Without mobility, he'd still be the first pick in the 2011 draft. With the mobility, I could see teams fighting over him. But if Buffalo has the pick, forget it. Buddy Nix might be getting up there in years, but he's not stupid. He won't trade away the right to pick Luck. Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/11/21/monday-morning-qb-week-11/5.html#ixzz1627Vm2RA As for Fitz, I think I'm slowly changing my mind. I think Fitz would work in combination with an elite defense. So, if it comes to Fitz and getting rid of Edwards and getting someone to build a top 3 defense (I'm talking a Ravens with Dilfer defense) vs Luck and our current defense, I'd pick Fitz. Edited November 22, 2010 by kas23
bbb Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Wanting the Bills to lose for whatever reason does make you a lesser fan. I mean it's really pretty simple. Something is pretty simple, that's for sure.
clearwater cadet Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 No way keep winning, get better,... teach young guys how to win.... beat the Jets... Forget the Jets, lets beat the PATS
Meathead Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 why exactly, do you want the first overall pick? It's rarely worth it unless you want one, very specific player of course anything can happen leaf cough but luck is touted as the golden child of the decade so wth i wouldnt mind taking a shot at that but its moot now. no way this team outloses carolina and the panthers are taking him game over game OHver man
Bronc24 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Who Cares...we need to establish a winning attitude with this organization. + 1 000 000 000 000
Orton's Arm Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Funny, Peter King still thinks we're gonna get the #1 pick. I think he needs to turn on his TV and watch a game or two: Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/11/21/monday-morning-qb-week-11/5.html#ixzz1627Vm2RA As for Fitz, I think I'm slowly changing my mind. I think Fitz would work in combination with an elite defense. So, if it comes to Fitz and getting rid of Edwards and getting someone to build a top 3 defense (I'm talking a Ravens with Dilfer defense) vs Luck and our current defense, I'd pick Fitz. I agree that Fitz + a Ravens of 2000 defense > Luck + our current defense. However, a lot of people don't realize how good that Ravens defense truly was. The Ravens played a 4-3. Every guy on that defensive line was someone you'd like to double-team. Maybe Kyle Williams is somewhat comparable to his Ravens counterpart, but no one else on the Bills' DL is anywhere close. Not only did the Ravens have four very, very good players on their front-4, but they had a very good LB corps to back them up. Ray Lewis got a lot of attention, but realistically all three starters on that LB corps were at or near a Pro Bowl level. Finally there was the Ravens' secondary. They had a pair of shutdown cornerbacks to go along with guys like Ed Reed in the secondary. There were no weaknesses on that defense for other teams to attack. None. Every Ravens player had the potential to dominate his counterpart on the other team's offense. To dominate consistently, and by a wide margin. That defense didn't involve a lot of smoke and mirrors; but completely smothered offenses by consistently winning their physical matchups. If the Bills had a defense like that, and if they were to fill the hole at RT, they'd very likely win the Super Bowl. However, the Bills are ten defensive starters away from having a defense like that. You'd need to upgrade every DL not named Kyle Williams, you'd need to upgrade every LB, you'd need a pair of shutdown corners, and you'd need upgrades at both safety spots. The worst of those ten upgrades would have to be at or near a Pro Bowl level; and the best would have to be at or near a Hall of Fame level. Acquiring that much talent is possible--the Ravens did it, after all--but adding a player like Luck would be simpler, easier, and less expensive in terms of draft picks.
please stop the pain Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Winning attitude first. Don't hope to lose and expect some new kid to come in and change the program around. Change the atmosphere, fight for everything and keep building. Not all the best players start by being the first pick in the friggin' draft. If I recall properly, the superbowl has been won by many different teams in recent years. Not all those quarterbacks were #1 picks. Teams had the right attitude though..
Recommended Posts