A Few Thoughts About The Game

[Big Turk]

7) Kyle Williams, from what I could see, was being double teamed for most of the game but he still made plays. He caught Ricky Williams by surprise on that screen and really banged him out! He knew exactly where that play was going, ran to the perfect place and put a monster hit on a very strong back. That was freaking awesome.

 

Williams has been just destroying fools out there, double teams or not...more than a few occasions have seen the double team being pushed back into the lap of the QB...Williams is the best DT in the NFL right now, and the Defensive Player of the Year according to Pro Football Focus.

[snamsnoops]

From John I'm looking at a big picture, a picture much bigger than most others are not willing or daring to see.

 

 

Little dramatic, don't you think?

LMAO! Exactly what i was thinking. We are sooooo scared!!

Edited December 21, 2010 by snamsnoops

[Hplarrm]

I too finished watching the game with the same feeling you mention in regards to Moorman. I don't believe its a physical issue because he crushed a 60 yard punt at the end of the game. Maybe he's being directed to get hang time vice distance...

The Moorman assessment remains the same as it was which is who can we get who is better than him, Without regard to whether he is a Pro Bowler or a stiff this is the question in regard to virtually all players and quite to the point for an ST skill position player.

 

It was only a couple of years ago that in order to be better than Moorman one needed to be a Pro Bowl talent. Moorman;s production has clearly decreased but one would be pretty hard pressed to find a punter who is better than he is that we can stand much of a chance of acquiring.

 

My sense is that the major change we would make in this area is that in the recent past we would bring in a player to share punting duties in pre-season almost completely as a player to save Moorman's leg. However, we should look to bring in some body with at least the possibility of challenging Moorman, This player will almost certainly lose out to Moorman but competition helps make a player better.

[Bill from NYC]

I saw that play last week that you are talking about, and you mis-characterize it as much as you do this sack by Misi this week.

 

On that play, Bell was engaged with a lineman/linebacker up to the whistle, pushing forward. As the whistle blew, he let up, and at that point the defensive back pushed him from behind. Bell did not even see the guy, who came up behind him and hit him while he was engaged with a guy in front of him, and after the whistle.

You make it sound like he is being pushed around face on by defensive backs.

 

I have to say that I think you are still pining for Jason Peters, and that it is evident in your every comment on Bell, whom you will never give a fair shake. Yes he is not Jason Peters.

When Bell is in his eighth year at LT for the Bills, maybe not a pro-bowler but a good player, are you still going to be dissing him because Peters would have been better?

 

The bold is true, and I don't pretend otherwise. Doc, I am only trying to make a point. I'm not even trying to win an arguement. My point is that while I laud his agility, I am afraid that Bell isn't strong enough. I want him to do well but this team has taken quite a big chance on him.

 

Maybe you don't agree, but imo the Bills, due to the climate they (along with NE and NYJ) play in, need blockers who can open up holes for the run, and of course protect their qb. I like Gailey and Nix, but those comments about Spiller making the OL better were insane, and I said it way back then.

 

Take me to task all day long. I love the dialogue, but as a long time Bills fan I am admittedly gun shy from watching quarterbacks get bloodied and bruised. If Bell is to be THE guy at LT, so be it but he does need to be a lot stronger imo. Wrotto is praised here but he looks like more of a stumblebum to me. Have we seen worse at RT? Of course! We are Bills Fans!

 

So anyway, I'm not hating on Bell, even if it seems so. But, the Bills, imo, continue to need help at the OT slot in order to be a strong team and contend.

 

Are we getting closer to a consensus?

[Dr. K]

The bold is true, and I don't pretend otherwise. Doc, I am only trying to make a point. I'm not even trying to win an arguement. My point is that while I laud his agility, I am afraid that Bell isn't strong enough. I want him to do well but this team has taken quite a big chance on him.

 

Maybe you don't agree, but imo the Bills, due to the climate they (along with NE and NYJ) play in, need blockers who can open up holes for the run, and of course protect their qb. I like Gailey and Nix, but those comments about Spiller making the OL better were insane, and I said it way back then.

 

Take me to task all day long. I love the dialogue, but as a long time Bills fan I am admittedly gun shy from watching quarterbacks get bloodied and bruised. If Bell is to be THE guy at LT, so be it but he does need to be a lot stronger imo. Wrotto is praised here but he looks like more of a stumblebum to me. Have we seen worse at RT? Of course! We are Bills Fans!

 

So anyway, I'm not hating on Bell, even if it seems so. But, the Bills, imo, continue to need help at the OT slot in order to be a strong team and contend.

 

Are we getting closer to a consensus?

 

Fair enough. I want improvement in the line, I agree they need better run blocking--and so does Gailey, to hear his comments both Sunday after the game and yesterday. The fact that he is so outspoken about that need makes me think the situation will not be ignored.

 

I hope they will spend their high draft choices on the lines and linebacking, not on a QB. And yes, I want to see Bell play better than he has, but IMO in posts like this you have made him seem much worse than he is, distorting the picture. If a DB came up and pushed Peters from behind, after the whistle, when he was leaning forward after just blocking someone, he too would stumble forward, and it would not indicate he was incapable.

 

Peters is gone, a long time now. I hated it when the Bills let pat Williams go, and thought Gregg Williams was a moron for saying with regard to Williams and Ted Washington that he hated "big fat guys" on the line. But that stuff is water under the bridge, and guys like us who bleed for the team have to let it go.

 

I think Bell is already serviceable, and will become a good, if not great, LT. You are more worried about this than I. We'll see how it plays out. I hope you won't mind my throwing my two cents in from time to time.

 

Peace.

[Peace]

Bill, I enjoy your thoughts after the game. My only criticism is that you have players that you just stubbornly don't like. You formed an opinion on them early and won't change it. For whatever reason, you have always been very critical of D. Bell. Again, he is a very raw football player and suffered a major injury last year & missed all of OTAs.

 

 

Sounds like he's human. That said, I would guess Bill really likes Kyle Williams now and early on including last year, he was one of Bill's regular whipping boys.

 

Bill has said here that Bell is a pleasant surprise. He HATED Bell last year and this year has been noting his continuing progress, especially in the passing game. He'd probably agree that Bell would be an excellent guy to keep around as a backup and continue to develop. But really, can't we all agree that the running game suffers for failing to have tackles who can push?

 

No one wants to cut Bell. He's earned a spot on the Bills. The question is whether the Bills can find someone better (or even better, Bell improves a lot in the off-season) and we should all hope the answer is yes.

[Orton's Arm]

Little dramatic, don't you think?

Dramatic or no, John has a point. If you want to achieve any significant task, you need to begin by envisioning your desired end goal. No one ever built a car from scratch by accident, or fortuitously stumbled into building a great monument.

 

Most people on these boards seem focused on the short-term. They point out that a new OLB or DE would help the team more in 2011 than would a rookie QB. They add that it will be a while before said rookie QB will be able to provide what Fitz can give. All those are valid points. But that's looking at things from the wrong direction.

 

Instead, you need to have a completed picture in your head--a vision of what the team should look like as they get ready to hoist that Lombadi trophy over their heads. That vision should be based on the actual data of past Super Bowl winners. Once you have that picture of where you need to be, you compare it to where you are today. The differences between those two things are the list of what you need. Once you've made that list of things you must obtain, you should go about getting them.

 

Currently the Bills have a solid quarterback in the form of Fitz. What we need is an elite quarterback, because that's what Super Bowl winners and serious contenders typically have. There are other things we need as well before we hoist that Lombardi trophy. But a franchise quarterback is both the most difficult-to-attain, and single most important, component.

 

Luck has been billed as being somewhere between Matt Ryan and Peyton Manning. Assuming he lives up to that billing, he will be the franchise quarterback that some team needs. I would not hesitate to trade Fitz + the Bills' 2011 first rounder + one or two other things of major value to the Carolina Panthers in order to draft Luck. (Assuming he declares.) Yes, losing all those things would set the Bills' rebuilding effort back significantly. But that short-term setback would also imply a significantly higher ceiling for the rebuilding effort once it's finished. If Luck lives up to his billing, his ceiling will be a lot higher than Fitz's; which means that the ceiling for the Bills as a whole will also be a lot higher. Much like Peyton Manning has lifted the ceiling for the Colts, or Kurt Warner lifted the ceiling for the Cardinals.

 

Kurt Warner + the Cardinals is an excellent example of how a quarterback can raise a team's ceiling. That team made it to the Super Bowl despite a suspect defense, and despite having Mike Gandy as their LT!! Granted, both those things came back to haunt them in that Super Bowl itself. That shows there's a limit to how much a Hall of Fame quarterback and top-tier receiving corps can compensate for the flaws of the players around them. But that said, there's no question the Cardinals wouldn't have made it to the Super Bowl at all with Matt Leinart at quarterback. And--as much as I respect Fitz's heart and intelligence--I very strongly doubt the Cardinals would have made it to the Super Bowl if they'd had him instead of Warner.

 

If the Bills get their hands on the closest thing to Warner they can (Andrew Luck) and if they do a better job of surrounding Luck with talent than the Cardinals did with their quarterback, a Super Bowl win becomes a very realistic possibility.

[silvermike]

Sounds like he's human. That said, I would guess Bill really likes Kyle Williams now and early on including last year, he was one of Bill's regular whipping boys.

 

Bill has said here that Bell is a pleasant surprise. He HATED Bell last year and this year has been noting his continuing progress, especially in the passing game. He'd probably agree that Bell would be an excellent guy to keep around as a backup and continue to develop. But really, can't we all agree that the running game suffers for failing to have tackles who can push?

 

No one wants to cut Bell. He's earned a spot on the Bills. The question is whether the Bills can find someone better (or even better, Bell improves a lot in the off-season) and we should all hope the answer is yes.

 

I like Bell as an LT, not completely, but a lot more than I like Wrotto as an RT, and I'd put that as our top line priority. ALthough with the offensive line, I think you can make a lot of progress by drafting the best lineman on the board, and then figuring out where he fits. Training camp is there to figure out your ideal combination. If the best linemen we can get is a guard, we move Wood to center, etc.

[Coach Tuesday]

Dramatic or no, John has a point. If you want to achieve any significant task, you need to begin by envisioning your desired end goal. No one ever built a car from scratch by accident, or fortuitously stumbled into building a great monument.

 

Most people on these boards seem focused on the short-term. They point out that a new OLB or DE would help the team more in 2011 than would a rookie QB. They add that it will be a while before said rookie QB will be able to provide what Fitz can give. All those are valid points. But that's looking at things from the wrong direction.

 

Instead, you need to have a completed picture in your head--a vision of what the team should look like as they get ready to hoist that Lombadi trophy over their heads. That vision should be based on the actual data of past Super Bowl winners. Once you have that picture of where you need to be, you compare it to where you are today. The differences between those two things are the list of what you need. Once you've made that list of things you must obtain, you should go about getting them.

 

Currently the Bills have a solid quarterback in the form of Fitz. What we need is an elite quarterback, because that's what Super Bowl winners and serious contenders typically have. There are other things we need as well before we hoist that Lombardi trophy. But a franchise quarterback is both the most difficult-to-attain, and single most important, component.

 

Luck has been billed as being somewhere between Matt Ryan and Peyton Manning. Assuming he lives up to that billing, he will be the franchise quarterback that some team needs. I would not hesitate to trade Fitz + the Bills' 2011 first rounder + one or two other things of major value to the Carolina Panthers in order to draft Luck. (Assuming he declares.) Yes, losing all those things would set the Bills' rebuilding effort back significantly. But that short-term setback would also imply a significantly higher ceiling for the rebuilding effort once it's finished. If Luck lives up to his billing, his ceiling will be a lot higher than Fitz's; which means that the ceiling for the Bills as a whole will also be a lot higher. Much like Peyton Manning has lifted the ceiling for the Colts, or Kurt Warner lifted the ceiling for the Cardinals.

 

Kurt Warner + the Cardinals is an excellent example of how a quarterback can raise a team's ceiling. That team made it to the Super Bowl despite a suspect defense, and despite having Mike Gandy as their LT!! Granted, both those things came back to haunt them in that Super Bowl itself. That shows there's a limit to how much a Hall of Fame quarterback and top-tier receiving corps can compensate for the flaws of the players around them. But that said, there's no question the Cardinals wouldn't have made it to the Super Bowl at all with Matt Leinart at quarterback. And--as much as I respect Fitz's heart and intelligence--I very strongly doubt the Cardinals would have made it to the Super Bowl if they'd had him instead of Warner.

 

If the Bills get their hands on the closest thing to Warner they can (Andrew Luck) and if they do a better job of surrounding Luck with talent than the Cardinals did with their quarterback, a Super Bowl win becomes a very realistic possibility.

 

Interesting that you compare Luck to Warner, and not Fiz. If anything, Fitz's career has been more like Warner's.

 

Not saying I disagree with you, but how do you know Fitz isn't continuing to improve? And if he is, you can't really declare that he won't be "elite" (to the extent he isn't already).

 

The choice the Bills have to make, and it's a damn tough one, is whether Fitz is continuing to improve, and his current stats are the new norm, or whether he is just "streaking" right now and will regress to his previous stats. You seem confident it's the latter. I wouldn't be so sure.

[Ramius]

Interesting that you compare Luck to Warner, and not Fiz. If anything, Fitz's career has been more like Warner's.

 

Not saying I disagree with you, but how do you know Fitz isn't continuing to improve? And if he is, you can't really declare that he won't be "elite" (to the extent he isn't already).

 

The choice the Bills have to make, and it's a damn tough one, is whether Fitz is continuing to improve, and his current stats are the new norm, or whether he is just "streaking" right now and will regress to his previous stats. You seem confident it's the latter. I wouldn't be so sure.

 

Please don't get Holcombs arm started on regression, for everyone's sake.

 

Regarding Fitz, i tend to agree with you coach. He'd be treated so much differently if we look at him as a rookie drafted in 2008, and then use that as his the start of career trendline. (Since he played almost none during his 1st 3 seasons). To me, Fitz has started barely over 2 seasons worth of games. And, since he began starting consistently, he's steadily improved. I think the odds are much greater than Fitz gets better versus his returning to the way he played in cincy.

 

I'm not to pass on a QB if you think he's the ultimate guy. But with the way Fitz has played, we don't need to burn a high pick on someone who we aren't sold on.

 

Personally, i'd rather draft someone like Ponder in the 3rd or 4th (who'd be an absolute steal at that point) and let him develop over the course of a few years, and let him compete with Brohm for the backup spot (or eventual starter down the road if Fitz doesn't pan out)

[Magox]

What I do know is that Fitz has been progressing and has won over the hearts and minds of players and fans. He's tough, he's smart, he's gutsy and he definitely has the awareness and desire to take it another level. Consider me sold! Only and only if Luck is available would I consider another QB other than Fitz as our long-term solution.

 

You surround him with a more effective run blocking O-line and continued development of our young recievers and another year of familiarity with this offense, we WILL be a top 10 offense. If you can combine that with at least an average defense, we go to the playoffs.

[Peace]

What I do know is that Fitz has been progressing and has won over the hearts and minds of players and fans. He's tough, he's smart, he's gutsy and he definitely has the awareness and desire to take it another level. Consider me sold! Only and only if Luck is available would I consider another QB other than Fitz as our long-term solution.

 

You surround him with a more effective run blocking O-line and continued development of our young recievers and another year of familiarity with this offense, we WILL be a top 10 offense. If you can combine that with at least an average defense, we go to the playoffs.

 

What he said.

 

Fitz is having one of the ten best seasons ever for a Bills QB and he didn't even enter the season as the starter. And his tackles and WRs are suspect. And he has no TE to speak of.

 

The Bills won't pick in the draft until #5-6. Build around Fitz.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Peace

[yungmack]

Instead, you need to have a completed picture in your head--a vision of what the team should look like as they get ready to hoist that Lombadi trophy over their heads. That vision should be based on the actual data of past Super Bowl winners. Once you have that picture of where you need to be, you compare it to where you are today. The differences between those two things are the list of what you need. Once you've made that list of things you must obtain, you should go about getting them.

 

Currently the Bills have a solid quarterback in the form of Fitz. What we need is an elite quarterback, because that's what Super Bowl winners and serious contenders typically have. There are other things we need as well before we hoist that Lombardi trophy. But a franchise quarterback is both the most difficult-to-attain, and single most important, component.

 

Luck has been billed as being somewhere between Matt Ryan and Peyton Manning. Assuming he lives up to that billing, he will be the franchise quarterback that some team needs. I would not hesitate to trade Fitz + the Bills' 2011 first rounder + one or two other things of major value to the Carolina Panthers in order to draft Luck. (Assuming he declares.) Yes, losing all those things would set the Bills' rebuilding effort back significantly. But that short-term setback would also imply a significantly higher ceiling for the rebuilding effort once it's finished. If Luck lives up to his billing, his ceiling will be a lot higher than Fitz's; which means that the ceiling for the Bills as a whole will also be a lot higher. Much like Peyton Manning has lifted the ceiling for the Colts, or Kurt Warner lifted the ceiling for the Cardinals.

 

Kurt Warner + the Cardinals is an excellent example of how a quarterback can raise a team's ceiling. That team made it to the Super Bowl despite a suspect defense, and despite having Mike Gandy as their LT!! Granted, both those things came back to haunt them in that Super Bowl itself. That shows there's a limit to how much a Hall of Fame quarterback and top-tier receiving corps can compensate for the flaws of the players around them. But that said, there's no question the Cardinals wouldn't have made it to the Super Bowl at all with Matt Leinart at quarterback. And--as much as I respect Fitz's heart and intelligence--I very strongly doubt the Cardinals would have made it to the Super Bowl if they'd had him instead of Warner.

 

If the Bills get their hands on the closest thing to Warner they can (Andrew Luck) and if they do a better job of surrounding Luck with talent than the Cardinals did with their quarterback, a Super Bowl win becomes a very realistic possibility.

As your main point seems to be that the Bills must do whatever it takes to get an "elite" QB, and that Luck is The One in this year's draft class, I find it odd that you then use Kurt Warner as your example of such a QB. You do know he was pretty much an afterthought for years, playing Arena Football and bagging groceries, and that he was the backup for the Rams (and projected to probably always be the backup) when fate intervened? Had Green not suffered that injury, I suspect most people would never have heard of Kurt Warner. Your own example shows the crapshoot that is the quarterback position in this league.

 

As for your assertion that you must have an elite QB to win the SB, I would remind you that the Bills had HOF QB JIm Kelly and yet were defeated in their first two appearances by backup QBs? Look back on all the Super Bowls and see how many elite QBs lost and how many not-so-elite QBs won. I think you'll find that the majority of winners were "system QBs" who were seldom the best that year in any statistical category...except wins. Bart Starr "beat" Len Dawson and Daryle LaMonica in the first two; since 2000, here are the starting QBs:

 

Kurt Warner/Steve McNair

Trent Dilfer/Kerry Collins

Tom Brady/Kurt Warner

Brad Johnson/Rich Gannon

Tom Brady/Jake Delhomme (!)

Tom Brady/Donovan McNabb

Ben Roethlisberger/Matt Hasselbeck

Peyton Manning/Rex Grossman

Eli Manning/Tom Brady

Ben Roethlisberger/Kurt Warner

Drew Brees/Peyton Manning

 

Some other notable SB starters at QB over the years: Tony Eason, Craig Morton, Joe Kapp, Billy Kilmer, Vince Ferragamo, David Woodley, Stan Humphries, Neil O'Donnell, Chris Chandler.

 

Here are some of the winning QBs with the most SB appearances: Bart Starr, Roger Staubach, Bob Griese, Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, Tom Brady. In my opinion, they are all system QBs and none of them were the flashy type of "gunslinger" QB that garners the highlight footage because "they make things happen/they take the game into their own hands."

 

Bret Favre is probably the best example of that type right now, with Michael Vick coming up fast and Doug Flutie being the most recent example with the Bills. These sorts of QBs seem like sandlot players, making plays up on the fly, likely to take off running at any time, making insane passes, always pulling something out of their butt. They are the most exciting QBs to watch, especially compared to the duller "system QBs." The thing is, though, the system QBs more consistently win the Super Bowl, and in general do it more frequently than the "gunslingers."

 

But the gunslingers do make it to the SB and even win it sometimes. Here are a few of the most famous ones: First and foremost, Joe Namath; Daryle LaMonica, Ken Stabler, Dan Marino, Jim McMahon, John Elway, Jim Kelly, Steve Young, and Brett Favre. No gunslinger has won a Super Bowl since Favre (Warner, the Manning brothers, Brees, Roethlisberger, et al are "system QBs," not ad lib guys).

 

Too much is made about the necessity of having a "stud" QB, that without one you cannot win. I believe the actual record contradicts that belief. What defines the dynasty teams is a great front office and great coaching more than anything else. And I believe the Bills are on the right track in that area.

[Orton's Arm]

Interesting that you compare Luck to Warner, and not Fiz. If anything, Fitz's career has been more like Warner's.

 

Not saying I disagree with you, but how do you know Fitz isn't continuing to improve? And if he is, you can't really declare that he won't be "elite" (to the extent he isn't already).

 

The choice the Bills have to make, and it's a damn tough one, is whether Fitz is continuing to improve, and his current stats are the new norm, or whether he is just "streaking" right now and will regress to his previous stats. You seem confident it's the latter. I wouldn't be so sure.

I agree that Fitz and Warner are similar in that Fitz was chosen a little later in the draft, and Warner went undrafted. But where they differ is that it became obvious very quickly that Warner was a very accurate passer almost immediately upon his getting the Rams' starting position. In contrast, Fitz had traditionally been regarded as a career backup due in large part to his accuracy issues. He's gotten better about that this season, but does not have the consistent accuracy you'd expect from a top-tier QB.

 

As for Fitz's current stats: its useful to remember that guys like Jay Fiedler and Tyler Thigpen put up good stats with Gailey as their head coach. Yes, Fitz is a better quarterback than either of those two. Yes, his method of getting those good stats is different from/better than theirs. And yes, if he stopped improving today, he'd still have to be regarded as a top-15 quarterback. But his accuracy is still an issue--albeit not as much of one as it used to be. Part of being an elite quarterback is having that consistent, deadly accuracy--a trait Fitz lacks.

 

Edit: I'd wanted to reply to one or two of the other posts on this thread. Unfortunately, when I try to post consecutively, my two little posts get lumped together into one big post. Until or unless that (irritating) feature gets turned off, I'll have to wait until others post to this thread before adding additional responses.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Edwards' Arm

[Peace]

I agree that Fitz and Warner are similar in that Fitz was chosen a little later in the draft, and Warner went undrafted. But where they differ is that it became obvious very quickly that Warner was a very accurate passer almost immediately upon his getting the Rams' starting position. In contrast, Fitz had traditionally been regarded as a career backup due in large part to his accuracy issues. He's gotten better about that this season, but does not have the consistent accuracy you'd expect from a top-tier QB.

 

 

And yet the Rams let Warner go and he could barely find the field in NY. Even when he went to the hopeless Cardinals, it was just as an afterthought backup to Leinart. Warner didn't just get recognition and become a stud until just at the end of his career, when everyone looked at him and realized what he'd been doing.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Peace

[Coach Tuesday]

I agree that Fitz and Warner are similar in that Fitz was chosen a little later in the draft, and Warner went undrafted. But where they differ is that it became obvious very quickly that Warner was a very accurate passer almost immediately upon his getting the Rams' starting position. In contrast, Fitz had traditionally been regarded as a career backup due in large part to his accuracy issues. He's gotten better about that this season, but does not have the consistent accuracy you'd expect from a top-tier QB.

 

As for Fitz's current stats: its useful to remember that guys like Jay Fiedler and Tyler Thigpen put up good stats with Gailey as their head coach. Yes, Fitz is a better quarterback than either of those two. Yes, his method of getting those good stats is different from/better than theirs. And yes, if he stopped improving today, he'd still have to be regarded as a top-15 quarterback. But his accuracy is still an issue--albeit not as much of one as it used to be. Part of being an elite quarterback is having that consistent, deadly accuracy--a trait Fitz lacks.

 

Edit: I'd wanted to reply to one or two of the other posts on this thread. Unfortunately, when I try to post consecutively, my two little posts get lumped together into one big post. Until or unless that (irritating) feature gets turned off, I'll have to wait until others post to this thread before adding additional responses.

 

I just want to highlight this one more time because, in my view, it's THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION FACING THIS FRANCHISE IN YEARS. They need to somehow decide, based on a small subset of information, whether Fitz is capable of being "the guy" or whether they need to draft/acquire a long-term solution at the position. You've made your mind up, good for you. I am willing to admit that I don't know the answer and I'm glad I'm not the one making the call. But it's damn important. Nix and Gailey will have to trust their experience and, perhaps more importantly, their instincts, in deciding whether Fitz is improving or just streaking. The consequences of this decision will determine the next 5 years, which is a scary thought.

 

Oh, and as for your suggestion that the Bills deal their #1 and Fitz to the Panthers for the Luck Pick, why on Earth would Carolina do that? You'd basically have to assume that the Panthers are worse at evaluating QBs and managing a draft than the Bills are. Right now, I wouldn't assume anyone is worse at those things than Buffalo, except maybe the Redskins.

[Orton's Arm]

As your main point seems to be that the Bills must do whatever it takes to get an "elite" QB, and that Luck is The One in this year's draft class, I find it odd that you then use Kurt Warner as your example of such a QB. You do know he was pretty much an afterthought for years, playing Arena Football and bagging groceries, and that he was the backup for the Rams (and projected to probably always be the backup) when fate intervened? Had Green not suffered that injury, I suspect most people would never have heard of Kurt Warner. Your own example shows the crapshoot that is the quarterback position in this league.

 

As for your assertion that you must have an elite QB to win the SB, I would remind you that the Bills had HOF QB JIm Kelly and yet were defeated in their first two appearances by backup QBs? Look back on all the Super Bowls and see how many elite QBs lost and how many not-so-elite QBs won. I think you'll find that the majority of winners were "system QBs" who were seldom the best that year in any statistical category...except wins. Bart Starr "beat" Len Dawson and Daryle LaMonica in the first two; since 2000, here are the starting QBs:

 

Kurt Warner/Steve McNair

Trent Dilfer/Kerry Collins

Tom Brady/Kurt Warner

Brad Johnson/Rich Gannon

Tom Brady/Jake Delhomme (!)

Tom Brady/Donovan McNabb

Ben Roethlisberger/Matt Hasselbeck

Peyton Manning/Rex Grossman

Eli Manning/Tom Brady

Ben Roethlisberger/Kurt Warner

Drew Brees/Peyton Manning

 

Some other notable SB starters at QB over the years: Tony Eason, Craig Morton, Joe Kapp, Billy Kilmer, Vince Ferragamo, David Woodley, Stan Humphries, Neil O'Donnell, Chris Chandler.

 

Here are some of the winning QBs with the most SB appearances: Bart Starr, Roger Staubach, Bob Griese, Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, Tom Brady. In my opinion, they are all system QBs and none of them were the flashy type of "gunslinger" QB that garners the highlight footage because "they make things happen/they take the game into their own hands."

 

Bret Favre is probably the best example of that type right now, with Michael Vick coming up fast and Doug Flutie being the most recent example with the Bills. These sorts of QBs seem like sandlot players, making plays up on the fly, likely to take off running at any time, making insane passes, always pulling something out of their butt. They are the most exciting QBs to watch, especially compared to the duller "system QBs." The thing is, though, the system QBs more consistently win the Super Bowl, and in general do it more frequently than the "gunslingers."

 

But the gunslingers do make it to the SB and even win it sometimes. Here are a few of the most famous ones: First and foremost, Joe Namath; Daryle LaMonica, Ken Stabler, Dan Marino, Jim McMahon, John Elway, Jim Kelly, Steve Young, and Brett Favre. No gunslinger has won a Super Bowl since Favre (Warner, the Manning brothers, Brees, Roethlisberger, et al are "system QBs," not ad lib guys).

 

Too much is made about the necessity of having a "stud" QB, that without one you cannot win. I believe the actual record contradicts that belief. What defines the dynasty teams is a great front office and great coaching more than anything else. And I believe the Bills are on the right track in that area.

My own personal preference is for a methodical "system QB" like Joe Montana versus a "gunslinger" like Brett Favre. Both styles of play can be very effective if executed at a high enough level. But for the purposes of the rest of my post, I'd like to put aside the question of whether a QB was a system QB or a gunslinger to focus on whether he delivered high quality play.

 

Let's take a closer look at the QBs from Super Bowl teams listed above:

 

Tom Brady x 4

Kurt Warner x 3 (including one SB win before your data set started)

Ben Roethlisberger x 2

Peyton Manning x 2

Steve McNair

Trent Dilfer

Kerry Collins

Brad Johnson

Rich Gannon

Jake Delhomme

Donovan McNabb

Matt Hasselbeck

Rex Grossman

Drew Brees

 

I think we can agree that everyone who made it multiple times was or is a very good or even elite QB. Tom Brady, Kurt Warner and Peyton Manning will all be in the Hall of Fame; and Ben Roethlisberger is very solid. The question is how many of the single appearance guys played at a high level the year their teams appeared in the Super Bowl.

 

Drew Brees played as well as Peyton Manning did the year the Saints won the Super Bowl. Winning a Super Bowl isn't about comparing careers: it's a question of how good player X is in comparison to player Y on one particular day. On the day the Saints faced the Colts, the Saints received QB play every bit as good as the Colts received. Another single-appearance QB whose team won the Super Bowl was Trent Dilfer. Dilfer's was clearly a case where one of the three greatest defenses in NFL history balanced out the Ravens' weakness at the QB spot. No Bills player not named Kyle Williams could even dream of starting for that defense. The third single-appearance QB whose team won the SB was Brad Johnson. Johnson had a Pro Bowl year the year his team won the Super Bowl, and the stats to go with it. Tampa Bay had the best defense in the league that year, but they also had a QB whose level of play put him in the top-5 or top-7 in the league--at least for that particular year.

 

All the other single-appearance QBs on the above list were on teams that lost their respective Super Bowls. But even in those cases, the teams often received strong QB play. Jake Delhomme is not now a credible quarterback. But he was good back when he led the Panthers to their Super Bowl appearance against the Patriots. Donovan McNabb also played very well the year his team made the Super Bowl. Ditto Matt Hasselbeck and Steve McNair. Rich Gannon also came on strong late in his career, and had a Montana-like ability to hit receivers in perfect stride. His play at QB was a big reason why the Raiders got to the Super Bowl. Rex Grossman didn't exactly set the world on fire at QB--which is one of the reasons why his team lost the SB. The reason they made it there in the first place was because of defense and special teams. Kerry Collins was better than Grossman, but not as good as any of the above Super Bowl winning QBs except for Dilfer. Overall, the list of QBs whose teams lost the Super Bowl is a much less impressive-looking one than the list of the QBs on teams that won Super Bowls. That's not a coincidence.

[Mr. WEO]

Interesting that you compare Luck to Warner, and not Fiz. If anything, Fitz's career has been more like Warner's.

 

Not saying I disagree with you, but how do you know Fitz isn't continuing to improve? And if he is, you can't really declare that he won't be "elite" (to the extent he isn't already).

 

The choice the Bills have to make, and it's a damn tough one, is whether Fitz is continuing to improve, and his current stats are the new norm, or whether he is just "streaking" right now and will regress to his previous stats. You seem confident it's the latter. I wouldn't be so sure.

As fine a QB as Fitz is turning into, you miss EA's point by a mile. Fitz's skills are not that of Warner's. That's why he said that the Cards don't make it to the SB with Fitz.

 

Ponder? Sure, we could stockpile guys like Ponder and Brohm, but what would be the point? If this team was happy to roll the dice on Spiller (essentially a kick returner) as their first round pick, why would it not make sesen to roll the dice on a guy like Luck if he enters the draft? Is he worse than Ponder as a prospect? Of course not. SO why does it matter if we spend a first on a QB? Look at what we usually pick first.

[Coach Tuesday]

As fine a QB as Fitz is turning into, you miss EA's point by a mile. Fitz's skills are not that of Warner's. That's why he said that the Cards don't make it to the SB with Fitz.

 

Ponder? Sure, we could stockpile guys like Ponder and Brohm, but what would be the point? If this team was happy to roll the dice on Spiller (essentially a kick returner) as their first round pick, why would it not make sesen to roll the dice on a guy like Luck if he enters the draft? Is he worse than Ponder as a prospect? Of course not. SO why does it matter if we spend a first on a QB? Look at what we usually pick first.

 

If that's his point then he's really going out on a limb, because he's only comparing completion %, and Fitz's is still improving. Unless you happen to know Warner's completion percentage in college and in the Arena League, I don't know how you can be so sure about their differences.

[bizell]

. ..I still don't understand everyone's infatuation with Reggie Corner. I don't really ever recall him making a good play.