I am going to say it....Bills don't need a QB

[Chandemonium]

Yes: correct.

 

You know why the defense is crap? Because the Bills can't draft, and pass on good D players and manage to find the busts

every year.

 

A franchise QB can keep you in many games, and even win you some. The Bills can go back to drafting crap players after

the 2011 first round.

1) If the Bills can't draft and pass on good players to find busts every year, how would picking a Quarterback instead of a defensive player change this?

 

2) Fitz has been keeping us in many games, and has won us 1. We would have won a few more that he kept us in if the defense could make a stop when they needed to.

[San-O]

1) If the Bills can't draft and pass on good players to find busts every year, how would picking a Quarterback instead of a defensive player change this?

 

2) Fitz has been keeping us in many games, and has won us 1. We would have won a few more that he kept us in if the defense could make a stop when they needed to.

 

 

My opinion is:

 

1. The Bills aren't 1 or 2 players away, they just aren't. They can always take a flyer on a McCargo or a Maybin, however

give your team a chance and draft a real QB.

 

2. Fitz had success against 2 very bad teams, and has thrown the Bills out of winning games also. He's a backup.

[Dan]

They Beat Detroit and Cincinnati. That is all. When they beat a Playoff contending team wake me up. Let me know how much faith you have in Fitz after Pittsburgh. This one's gonna be ugly...

 

Exactly. If they win out or win against Playoff contending teams the remainder of this year, then we may have something. Our team is piss poor. Make no bones about it. They need alot of churn in the offseason and bring in some bigtime playmakers via draft and Free Agency. Buddy will draft the best available player on the board and get us some good talent.

Isn't that exactly what was said just prior to the Ravens game?

 

I seem to recall him having a pretty decent game against one of the premier defenses in the league that day. I guess we forget all about that now? So, what will be the excuse if Fitz plays another solid game against the Steelers, but we lose because the defense lets them score 30+ points?

 

You're pinning your assessment of Fitz on 1 game; however, most others advocating for Fitz are looking at the sum of all his games this season. Every QB and team has bad games. One bad game does not make the season. So, regardless of how Fitz looks against the Steelers, how can you so easily discount his performance against the Ravens? The reality is... Fitz is putting together one of the best seasons we've seen from a QB in the last decade. That's hard to dismiss.

[Bill from NYC]

The Bills can throw away 1st round picks on Whitner, McCargo, Maybin, Erik Flowers, Mike Williams, Lynch and McLuvin,

and NOT on a possible franchise QB? That may be one the worst excuses I have heard, given Buffalo's lack of a competent

QB for the last 15 years or so. How many times are you going to be drafting this high and have a Luck possibly available?

 

If the Buffalo Front Office screws this up, as they seem to always do, and wastes another 1st round pick on a bust, or someone who doesn't play, expect many more years of losing footbal, at least while the teamis still in B-lo.

 

Draft LUCK, and give away the store, the farm, whatever you have to get him. IMHO.

 

I understand the premise of your post very well. My question is, what should they do if they think Mallett is better than Luck?

 

The overall mindset here that Luck is absolutely guaranteed to be a smashing success is disturbing. Mallett, based on his almost unseen skill set, has a bigger upside than Luck imo. And, Gailey would seem to be a man who could "coach him up" for various reasons, to include past experience with QBs, and even cultural similarities.

 

Please keep in mind that I really do see your point. Selections such as Whitner, Lynch, McKelvin, Maybin and Spiller have caused us to lose football games. I, like yourself, am about a quarterback because unlike the players I mentioned, they are not a dime a dozen. My point is that it doesn't necessarily have to be Luck.

[San-O]

I guess I'm just going with the crowd and the experts/mock draft bandwagon here.

 

If they think Mallett is better, then get him. Luck seems to have the physical tools and head for the game. I want a smart

QB back there. His accuracy also intrigues me.

Edited November 23, 2010 by SoCal-Surf

[Chandemonium]

My opinion is:

 

1. The Bills aren't 1 or 2 players away, they just aren't. They can always take a flyer on a McCargo or a Maybin, however

give your team a chance and draft a real QB.

 

2. Fitz had success against 2 very bad teams, and has thrown the Bills out of winning games also. He's a backup.

1. you didn't answer my question. If the Bills can't draft as you say, what about the quarterback position decreases their chances of busting? Furthermore, if they aren't one or two players away, how does one person playing one position (quarterback) change this?

 

2. I disagree. If winning is your only metric of success, then yes Fitzpatrick had success against 2 bad teams. However, I did not think he played as well against Detroit as he has in several of our losses. You say that he threw us out of wins in some of these games. While his mistakes did contribute to the losses and can't be ignored, I am of the opinion that we were in these games to begin with primarily because of Fitzpatrick, and that with better play from the defense we would have won. Every QB throws picks. Fitz's happen to be especially backbreaking because the D can't make a stop after a turnover, or even throughout most of the game in many cases this year. If we had a D that came out after a turnover and got one of their own or forced a three and out, the impact of interceptions would be minimal.

[JohnC]

You might as well just say all of those guys are different because their names are not Andrew Luck and they went to teams other than Buffalo, which is true but those are not good reasons to pass on this guy if we have the chance.

 

An example of your point on how a highly rank qb prospect can change the dynamic of a team is Bradford with the Rams. I'm confident that this now very energized franchise is glad it took him.

[ajzepp]

Well, I sure hope that whatever wunderkind you guys think we need to draft can put up numbers as good or better than what Fitzy is putting up. As others have pointed out, there's little to no chance that we're going to be able to draft Luck. I still feel that unless Fitzy has a major meltdown, Chan is going to advocate for him remaining his guy for the forseeable future. I guess we'll see what they do next April!

[Hplarrm]

Amazing how some ugly wins against two bad football teams will change peoples opinions.

 

I know my opinion remains the same despite the two "ugly" wins (quite frankly no win is ugly IMHO.

 

Drafting a rookie (even if he is as good as Peyton Manning was) is probably one of the worst things the Bills could do if the goal is to build a winning team. I thought this was true two games ago because:

 

1. The Bills as a team are simply not good enough as Pitts was when the rookie RoboQB led them to an SB that not only would drafting a one day stud QB make little difference in Bills productivity but in fact as even in the Manning case, this rookie who has become one of the best ever not only made no immediate productivity difference but due to a combination of previous OL investments Indy did prior to Manning but the Bills have not done Luck or any stud QB quite likely gets killed his first year.

 

2. The Buffalo media led by WGR and Sully fanning the flames of a small but vocal minority of fans are simply not mature enough to allow a rookie QB the time and mistakes to become a vet. Basically any QB we pick is like Manning going to hit some rocks his first year and it is quite doubtful IMHO that a rookie QB would end up being declared a bust and run out of town like Young or Favre on their way to likely HOF careers.

 

3. A great performing QB can in fact lead a team (even the D and ST) to higher levels of play with a refuse to lose performance and ethic. However, a rookie QB will like it or not still be a rookie QB (even if he is the next Peyton Manning) and he almost certainly is not going to help Bills production immediately and we all will die.

 

4. By spending the first on a QB by definition we pass on adding to the OLB slot, the OL, and the DL which will be a death blow to the 2011 Bills even with this stud QB.

 

5. Chan Gailey has excelled in the past in building an O around a smart vet like Fitzy, Bulger or even with playoff qualifying run with folks like Fiedler or Kordell at QB. I do not know of any evidence where Gailey has proven to be a breeder of stud rookie QBs.

 

6. The repetitive last 10 years of Bills play has seen us overreach again and again and rush inappropriately players from TC to RJ, to Hobert, to JP, and others into a fruitless search for a savior at QB.

 

Drafting Luck or any any other first round QB was a bad idea two games ago and it is a bad idea now.

[ajzepp]

My question is, what should they do if they think Mallett is better than Luck?

 

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

aHEM, uh....err....I mean, uh, interesting point, my friend.

 

( )

[San-O]

1. you didn't answer my question. If the Bills can't draft as you say, what about the quarterback position decreases their chances of busting? Furthermore, if they aren't one or two players away, how does one person playing one position (quarterback) change this?

 

2. I disagree. If winning is your only metric of success, then yes Fitzpatrick had success against 2 bad teams. However, I did not think he played as well against Detroit as he has in several of our losses. You say that he threw us out of wins in some of these games. While his mistakes did contribute to the losses and can't be ignored, I am of the opinion that we were in these games to begin with primarily because of Fitzpatrick, and that with better play from the defense we would have won. Every QB throws picks. Fitz's happen to be especially backbreaking because the D can't make a stop after a turnover, or even throughout most of the game in many cases this year. If we had a D that came out after a turnover and got one of their own or forced a three and out, the impact of interceptions would be minimal.

 

 

1. They can't draft, it's not even an opinion. Take a look at this roster on D. Having a chance to get a franchise Qb doesn't come around every day. Taking a chance on a QB could make a real difference: QBs are hard to come by, and this is a QB/throwing league. You can't throw away draft picks every year on D-linemen or DBs when a potential franchise QB is there is all I'm saying.

 

P.S. I do love me some GOOD D-linemen though. Bills just can't find them.

[BuffOrange]

Yes, I erred big time on Rodgers, but as my prior post confessing so indicates, his inclusion in this discussion is more so moot than Flacco's.

 

Also, I don't take any draftnick's word as bible. I was a big Goeslin fan (sic), but he had Maybin rated even higher than we took him. So who's to say ANY of these guys have the answer?

 

But your last comment is what makes this discussion most infuriating: how incredibly hypothetical it is. There is a chance, after the next two weeks, (albeit an outside one) that we COULD be looking at the 9th or 10th pick. There's even MORE of a chance that Luck won't even declare. By these two factors combined, i think it's highly HIGHLY unlikely he'll be available for us to pick, unless he plummets (for good reason) like Quinn, Tebow, and Leinart before him.

 

in which case, watch us pass on him, watch the board explode, then wait two years for the "i was wrong about luck" posts that will never come.

 

I agree the 1st pick looks unlikely at this point, so maybe it is all hypothetical and pointless. But infuriating? Why say stuff like "he wouldn't be good here" and "he's no Ryan" then? Which point are arguing - that he won't be here or that he won't be good?

 

BTW, I've seen as many "I was wrong about defending the McGahee/Whitner/Maybin" posts as you have seen "I was wrong about Leinart" posts.

Edited November 23, 2010 by BuffOrange

[No Cease Fires]

The Fitz question won't be answered until the end of the season (if then). I'm willing to wait six more games to see where Fitz ends up before deciding if he is the Future.

 

However, I will say this:

 

The only people who seem dead-set against Fitz being the guy are Bills fans. I talk to fans of other teams and they seem to think that we have our guy.

 

I'd be shocked if Buddy didn't try to draft one in the early rounds, though.

[The Big Cat]

He's a 58 % QB career. He is inaccurate.

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/players/ryanfitzpatrick/profile?id=FIT792915

 

P. Manning's % after his first 37 games: 59%

 

16 fewer incompletions over 1,140 attempts to get to Fitzmagic's over the same period.

 

There's no hope for Ryan.

[ajzepp]

The Fitz question won't be answered until the end of the season (if then). I'm willing to wait six more games to see where Fitz ends up before deciding if he is the Future.

 

However, I will say this:

 

The only people who seem dead-set against Fitz being the guy are Bills fans. I talk to fans of other teams and they seem to think that we have our guy.

 

I'd be shocked if Buddy didn't try to draft one in the early rounds, though.

 

I agree...you should ALWAYS be looking for young QBs in the mid to late rounds of the draft, IMO.

[The Big Cat]

I agree the 1st pick looks unlikely at this point, so maybe it is all hypothetical and pointless. But infuriating? Why say stuff like "he wouldn't be good here" and "he's no Ryan" then? Which point are arguing - that he won't be here or that he won't be good?

 

BTW, I've seen as many "I was wrong about defending the McGahee/Whitner/Maybin" posts as you have seen "I was wrong about Leinart" posts.

 

I'm saying I'd rather a player who can make an impact next year. Perhaps a new quarterback could, but we already have on making an impact, so I'd rather our resources be used in different areas.

 

It's not like all college quarterbacks fall off the face of the earth after Luck goes through the draft. They come around EVERY year. There's a chance EVERY year to get your franchise guy and build around him.

 

I want a player we need and can use next year (OT or pass rusher).

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

 

you must not have followed the many many times that i've insisted that the term "franchise qb" means nothing, so of course i'm in no rush to define it for you. i've derided the term's use for weeks now.

 

also, matt ryan had better numbers than luck coming out of college. you can tell me all day that stats don't tell the story, and on a game-game basis i agree. career stats, though, that's saying something. he had the eagles overing around #1/2 his senior year. his college career was more impressive than any quarterback declaring this year, imo.

 

sanchez i still think was a gamble, but years of drafting to the trenches put a solid team around him. the jets were fortunate to have one bad year among several decent years, and he came in to a much more stable situation than any bill qb would in 2011. You think our d will get that tough overnight? no, the jets spent years drafting on d and on the oline so sanchez could be effective.

 

aaron rodgers was a first overall pick, we don't/won't have that.

 

flacco was taken 18th overall in 2008 to a team that finished 13-3 in 2006. he and the ravens have no business in this discussion.

 

Actually, you said this: "we need a franchise qb, yeah no kidding. presuming there's a clear-cut choice to fill that roll completely ignores draft history."

 

To fill "that roll" that "means nothing"?

 

Anyway, disregarding your confusion re: Aaron Rogers, your take on the Jets is interesting. They had lost 4 of their last 5 games, had lost a veteran QB who would take his next team to the NFCC game...AND they had just fired their HC. Yes, this is "a much more stable situation" that Sanchez walked into. Oh, and the Jets starting roster is loaded with guys they never drafted (Richardson, Woody, Tomlinson, Holmes, Edwards, Pace Scott, Cromartie, Poole, and Leonard).

 

As for Flacco, I don't know what your point is--2 years before he arrived they were 13-3? Hmmm....OK. You left out the part where they were 6-10 before that and were 5-11 the year before they drafted him. AND they drafted him because.......they needed a "franchise QB"---that's why he belongs in a discussion about franchise QBs.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Mr. WEO

[San-O]

P. Manning's % after his first 37 games: 59%

 

16 fewer incompletions over 1,140 attempts to get to Fitzmagic's over the same period.

 

There's no hope for Ryan.

 

 

You know why he's only played 37 games in 6 years?

 

Also, I can't believe you're comparing Fitz to Manning.

[zer0vette]

An example of your point on how a highly rank qb prospect can change the dynamic of a team is Bradford with the Rams. I'm confident that this now very energized franchise is glad it took him.

 

You do know that the rams lost to arizona, oakland, detroit, and san fran.. and they are 4-6 in the nfc west, and.. the bills could have easily been 4-6 or better in the AFC east, with a better D. Just saying....

 

We need a D first and an o-line in a veryyyy close second.

Edited November 23, 2010 by zer0vette

[K Gun Special]

I know my opinion remains the same despite the two "ugly" wins (quite frankly no win is ugly IMHO.

 

Drafting a rookie (even if he is as good as Peyton Manning was) is probably one of the worst things the Bills could do if the goal is to build a winning team. I thought this was true two games ago because:

 

1. The Bills as a team are simply not good enough as Pitts was when the rookie RoboQB led them to an SB that not only would drafting a one day stud QB make little difference in Bills productivity but in fact as even in the Manning case, this rookie who has become one of the best ever not only made no immediate productivity difference but due to a combination of previous OL investments Indy did prior to Manning but the Bills have not done Luck or any stud QB quite likely gets killed his first year.

 

2. The Buffalo media led by WGR and Sully fanning the flames of a small but vocal minority of fans are simply not mature enough to allow a rookie QB the time and mistakes to become a vet. Basically any QB we pick is like Manning going to hit some rocks his first year and it is quite doubtful IMHO that a rookie QB would end up being declared a bust and run out of town like Young or Favre on their way to likely HOF careers.

 

3. A great performing QB can in fact lead a team (even the D and ST) to higher levels of play with a refuse to lose performance and ethic. However, a rookie QB will like it or not still be a rookie QB (even if he is the next Peyton Manning) and he almost certainly is not going to help Bills production immediately and we all will die.

 

4. By spending the first on a QB by definition we pass on adding to the OLB slot, the OL, and the DL which will be a death blow to the 2011 Bills even with this stud QB.

 

5. Chan Gailey has excelled in the past in building an O around a smart vet like Fitzy, Bulger or even with playoff qualifying run with folks like Fiedler or Kordell at QB. I do not know of any evidence where Gailey has proven to be a breeder of stud rookie QBs.

 

6. The repetitive last 10 years of Bills play has seen us overreach again and again and rush inappropriately players from TC to RJ, to Hobert, to JP, and others into a fruitless search for a savior at QB.

 

Drafting Luck or any any other first round QB was a bad idea two games ago and it is a bad idea now.

 

 

Im at a loss for words.

 

Taking a player, assuming he's as good as Manning, is the worst thing a franchise can do to build a winning team????

 

The bills have tried to solidify their lines like Indy did, see Wood, levitre, wang, hangartner.

 

If a Manning type player is there you take him, its silly to argue otherwise. i mean cmon mannnnn