The quarterback of the future

[K Gun Special]

I looked at the list, don't see where it actually listed their draft round selection, but do recall many of the names were high draft picks.

 

Not sure that list actually supports your argument or mine as there are many of the same names on repeatedly. That's my point, there aren't enough good QB's to go around and the odds of getting one aren't very high. When you look at the lists of busts you'll also see a number of teams had multiple selections, Detroit, Cinncy, San Diego, and Seattle. That's why they were terrible for so many years, they keep taking a shot only to fail repeatedly. Can you fail with any other position player, sure, but it's not as likely to set you back years a a QB does. You almost have to give a QB four or five years to figure out if he gets it or not. Some may get it sorted out a little sooner (see Trent Edwards)

 

I'd also take everything from before the mid 80's and throw it out because it was a different game back then. I recall when I was a kid, almost every team had a decent QB, and if you didn't you could draft one. If it took five years for him to develop, not a problem, you'd just build the team around him. Your other postion players weren't going any where, there was no free agency. Now you need sucess within a couple of years, or the cycle keeps repeating.

 

Why is it so hard for QB's to do well? Here's my take on it. The game has got too fast, players too big, there are too many coaches on a team that spend hours planning how to stop the other team. While it's a team game, whe nthe offesne comes to the line it's all on te QB to figfure out what to do in a split second. The QB doesn't have a chance, the deck is stacked against him. Once is a great while and getting less frequent, the guy comes along who can look across the line and figure things out fast enough, and also has the physical skills to get it done. Fitz has the mental part down, it's the physical part that is slowing him up.

 

You want to improve the level of QB play in the NFL, limit the number of coaches teams can have, limit the hours of practice and meetings, eliminate all off season work other the fitness and strengthening. Don't all any off season studying of play books, require all players to turn them in after the last game and they don't get them back until June 1st. Will that improve the overall game? Not sure, but would give the QB a fighting chance.

 

So I'm all for drafting the QB 1st round if you can promise me he'll be the next great QB. Unfortunately odds are in his favor of joining the list of busts.

 

 

I can assure you they are all 1st rounders with the exception on two years.

 

You do see a lot of the same names, that's true, but that's kinda the point. The best dominate the rest try to emulate.

 

I didn't mean to sound like i was disagreeing with your post. It is really hard to find a franchise QB and very few of them exist. I think history shows they are found in the 1st round with the occasional diamond in the rough.

 

There are some promising young QBs out there, see Bradford, who arent winning yet but really look like they are headed in the right direction.

 

Fitz has been around for a while, and Bills fans are ecstatic bc he has avg stats and bc its better than we've had in forever so he looks like the second coming.

[CodeMonkey]

Does that stat include how many times he hit a WR right in the hands and they dropped it (Evans, Johnson, etc)?

 

Or does it include BOTH well thrown Touchdown passes on the opening drive that 1. Johnson couldnt drag his toe on, and 2. Johnson simply jumped 2 seconds too early for?

I think everyone here respects what Fitz has done this season, particularly given the rest of the talent on the team.

But he truly is just not accurate enough to be a consistent top QB at this level. He has brass balls for sure and tries to make throws not many other starting QBs would even attempt, and he has completed more than his fair share of those this season. But eventually you are going to run into DBs that do not have stone hands and they are going to catch your bad passes. Up until yesterday Fitz has been blessed by playing against stone hands DBs. Yesterday he paid the full price. Fitz has 15 INTs this partial season. He could very easily have made Eli Mannings INT number of 24 look like all star material.

 

Fitz is a very good backup in my opinion and is capable to run the offense during the rebuild (God knows he can take a beating). But to take the next step, we need a starting QB.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I looked at the list, don't see where it actually listed their draft round selection, but do recall many of the names were high draft picks.

 

There was a post at the start of the season attempting to break down superbowl QB by draft round selection etcetera (she says modestly)

 

Superbowl Quarterback

 

I only counted QB the same number of times they were drafted (1x)

 

It's true that it's rare to find a superbowl without a 1st round QB playing

It's also true it's not rare to find a superbowl with a late round QB playing (and winning)

 

Enjoy!

 

Returning to the thread: I have nothing against drafting a QB in the 1st round if we think he's the next Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers.

My quarrel is with the philosophy I seem to see expressed here that all we need is an elite QB and we'll be on our way with everything else unchanged.

That's BS and even funnier when accompanied by the implication that folks who don't think an elite QB should be our #1 draft priority "don't understand the game"

 

We aren't going anywhere except home in January until we fix the run game and put a better RT and TE on offense

[K Gun Special]

There was a post at the start of the season attempting to break down superbowl QB by draft round selection etcetera (she says modestly)

 

Superbowl Quarterback

 

I only counted QB the same number of times they were drafted (1x)

 

It's true that it's rare to find a superbowl without a 1st round QB playing

It's also true it's not rare to find a superbowl with a late round QB playing (and winning)

 

Enjoy!

 

Returning to the thread: I have nothing against drafting a QB in the 1st round if we think he's the next Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers.

My quarrel is with the philosophy I seem to see expressed here that all we need is an elite QB and we'll be on our way with everything else unchanged.

That's BS and even funnier when accompanied by the implication that folks who don't think an elite QB should be our #1 draft priority "don't understand the game"

 

We aren't going anywhere except home in January until we fix the run game and put a better RT and TE on offense

 

 

i think your post is a little inconsistent internally, if im reading it the way you meant it. You acknowledge that pretty much only a first round QB will get you to the super bowl but we wont go anywhere until we do other stuff?

 

I think the arguments on this board are 1) get a premier QB vs 2) draft lineman first -- both are fair arguments to be sure.

 

The problem seems to be the people in camp 2) especially believe doing only that will solve the majority of our problems.

 

The Bills in the 90's had a lot of different lineman (yes not the best example) but always had Kelly, you can be very successful with a OK line and great QB much more than the other way around.

[Dorkington]

I was sold on Fitzpatrick up until this last game.

 

Now I think we need to go back to searching for a replacement.

 

He's too inconsistent. We need someone who is accurate, and performs well week in, week out.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Well actually #2 would likely solve the MAJORITY of the problems. Would you still have ONE BIG problem left? Likely yes, but many issues like stopping the run, rushing the passer which would make secondary much better, better run blocking which could lead to less pressure on Fitz, and better pass blocking could be solved by using all 7 draft picks on front seven defensively and maybe drafting a RT

 

Agree you can do much better with a great QB. Finding one is the tough part. Or more likely the lucky part.

 

Over the past ten years which team has done better, Balt or Indy? Balt had a great defense, good position players, but a weak QB. Now they have a pretty good QB thought wouldn't call him elite. so lets see how they do. Indy has had a great elite QB, but at the end of ten years, both have one SB win to show for it.

 

Balt has still done pretty well for itself over the years without the QB.

 

I guess my point is having a good solid team, OK QB you can compete every year, maybe win it once, maybe not. Or you can have the elite QB, and still have done no better overall. Both team have been to the playoff or in contention most years. Or you can be NE and win more than anyone, but that I credit to BB. I may not like him, but he does do better than anyone else it seems.

 

Eli Manning won a SB. At this point, is he much better than Fitz? Basically all of those elite QB, boil down to a handful of teams, Peyton, TB, Warner, and Rothesburger

 

i think your post is a little inconsistent internally, if im reading it the way you meant it. You acknowledge that pretty much only a first round QB will get you to the super bowl but we wont go anywhere until we do other stuff?

 

I think the arguments on this board are 1) get a premier QB vs 2) draft lineman first -- both are fair arguments to be sure.

 

The problem seems to be the people in camp 2) especially believe doing only that will solve the majority of our problems.

 

The Bills in the 90's had a lot of different lineman (yes not the best example) but always had Kelly, you can be very successful with a OK line and great QB much more than the other way around.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Ed_Roch

[Koufax]

I was sold on Fitzpatrick up until this last game.

 

Now I think we need to go back to searching for a replacement.

 

He's too inconsistent. We need someone who is accurate, and performs well week in, week out.

 

If you make your assessment based on one game either way, I think you do so in error.

 

That said, I am really happy with Fitz, but know he is not our QB of the future long term, and likely will not win a Super Bowl. As a four time AFC champion (by fan proxy), I am not really interested in anything else as an ultimate goal. I am very happy with Fitz at QB in 2011, and even 2012 if necessary, and starting our next playoff game when we finally make it. I don't see a QB in the draft who will outperform him for next year (although I think we should keep evaluating the guys that are there). If there is someone who Chan likes enough to study under him this year and be our QB of the future, I am happy taking him anywhere from round 1 this draft to round 3 next draft. We will be a better football team next year, and possibly even a good one, but don't have much of a chance at being great.

 

Fitz allows us to be patient with our selection and grooming of our next QB. If we got Luck and he was ready to start in September, great...Fitz is a great backup. If we get the next Rivers or Palmer and they sit a full year, great. If Mallett is our Big Ben, great. If Locker is Chan's project and takes a while to be ready great. What Fitz gives us as a rebuilding team is choices and patience. What we don't have to do is pick someone because we "need" a QB. We can find the right player in the right round in the next draft or two, and not weaken our team by reaching for someone who is not likely to be great.

[Dorkington]

If you make your assessment based on one game either way, I think you do so in error.

 

That said, I am really happy with Fitz, but know he is not our QB of the future long term, and likely will not win a Super Bowl. As a four time AFC champion (by fan proxy), I am not really interested in anything else as an ultimate goal. I am very happy with Fitz at QB in 2011, and even 2012 if necessary, and starting our next playoff game when we finally make it. I don't see a QB in the draft who will outperform him for next year (although I think we should keep evaluating the guys that are there). If there is someone who Chan likes enough to study under him this year and be our QB of the future, I am happy taking him anywhere from round 1 this draft to round 3 next draft. We will be a better football team next year, and possibly even a good one, but don't have much of a chance at being great.

 

Fitz allows us to be patient with our selection and grooming of our next QB. If we got Luck and he was ready to start in September, great...Fitz is a great backup. If we get the next Rivers or Palmer and they sit a full year, great. If Mallett is our Big Ben, great. If Locker is Chan's project and takes a while to be ready great. What Fitz gives us as a rebuilding team is choices and patience. What we don't have to do is pick someone because we "need" a QB. We can find the right player in the right round in the next draft or two, and not weaken our team by reaching for someone who is not likely to be great.

 

I was barely sold on him entering the Patriots game.

 

I felt the Patriots game was very important to this team. We had a lot of close games this year, and some victories against lesser teams. I felt we needed to have strong performances from our "on the cusp" players, regardless of outcome, to feel confident that we have some quality.

 

But, all of our guys failed in big ways. Fitz... I love him, I really do... he plays with balls of steel. Unfortunately, he's too mistake prone to really do much for this team.

 

Do I think we should draft a QB with our first pick? Nope. But I also don't think we should settle on Fitz as our guy for the next 5+ years.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I think everyone here respects what Fitz has done this season, particularly given the rest of the talent on the team.

But he truly is just not accurate enough to be a consistent top QB at this level. He has brass balls for sure and tries to make throws not many other starting QBs would even attempt, and he has completed more than his fair share of those this season. But eventually you are going to run into DBs that do not have stone hands and they are going to catch your bad passes. Up until yesterday Fitz has been blessed by playing against stone hands DBs. Yesterday he paid the full price. Fitz has 15 INTs this partial season. He could very easily have made Eli Mannings INT number of 24 look like all star material.

 

Fitz is a very good backup in my opinion and is capable to run the offense during the rebuild (God knows he can take a beating). But to take the next step, we need a starting QB.

 

Monkey, really respect your viewpoint. I also think you and others underestimate the impact the OL and the "sync" with the WR have on accuracy.

Examples:

-Matty "Ice" 2nd year in the league: OL was struggling, 58% completion percentage, 14 INTs. Drafted high for a C and G in 2009, "fixed" Ryan.

-Payton Manning 1st year: 57% completion percentage, 28 INT to 26 TD. Next year changed the right side of the line, sure-handed "checkdown" in Edgerrin James, Manning INT dropped almost in half and completion percentage up to 62%.

-Drew Brees 1st 3 years in the league w/ SD: 58% completion percentage, 29 TD and 31 INTs.

 

Context (OL, WR, system) have a huge impact on QB performance.

When has Fitz ever had the chance off-season to get in sync with his WR and a quality OL ahead of him?

Is he the Bills QB of the future, can't say, I would like to see both the above before making up my mind.

 

Speaking of Brees, Holy Hand Grenade batman, if last night is even close to representative of NO OL play no wonder he's thrown 22 picks this year.

The stats say he was sacked once, how he avoided 6 sacks I have no idea. He had Falcon Red flying him around the backfield all game long.

Threw 2 stupid picks. There's a fine line between being a gamer who makes stuff happen and pushing too hard. Win and all is forgiven.

[BillsVet]

It's funny to see people argue against taking a QB because at one time, there was a huge bust and that precludes a team from going QB in Round 1. When you have superior scouting, teams tend to not make those mistakes like Buffalo has with their first round picks. If people avoided making decisions because there was some risk, nothing would be accomplished. Same principle applies here in that a good staff and GM know who to avoid and who to select. That said, taking Andrew Luck is a calculated risk that appears to be as sure a thing at QB in a long time.

 

Either way, Ryan Fitzpatrick is a stop-gap type who remains best served as a backup.

[K Gun Special]

Monkey, really respect your viewpoint. I also think you and others underestimate the impact the OL and the "sync" with the WR have on accuracy.

Examples:

-Matty "Ice" 2nd year in the league: OL was struggling, 58% completion percentage, 14 INTs. Drafted high for a C and G in 2009, "fixed" Ryan.

-Payton Manning 1st year: 57% completion percentage, 28 INT to 26 TD. Next year changed the right side of the line, sure-handed "checkdown" in Edgerrin James, Manning INT dropped almost in half and completion percentage up to 62%.

-Drew Brees 1st 3 years in the league w/ SD: 58% completion percentage, 29 TD and 31 INTs.

 

Context (OL, WR, system) have a huge impact on QB performance.

When has Fitz ever had the chance off-season to get in sync with his WR and a quality OL ahead of him?

Is he the Bills QB of the future, can't say, I would like to see both the above before making up my mind.

 

Speaking of Brees, Holy Hand Grenade batman, if last night is even close to representative of NO OL play no wonder he's thrown 22 picks this year.

The stats say he was sacked once, how he avoided 6 sacks I have no idea. He had Falcon Red flying him around the backfield all game long.

Threw 2 stupid picks. There's a fine line between being a gamer who makes stuff happen and pushing too hard. Win and all is forgiven.

 

 

Great post.

 

THose guys continued to do well even after their repsective OL and WR changed multiple times.

 

 

QB drives success in the NFL. Theres just no way around it. And those guys you mentioned were blue chip prospects out of college.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

i think your post is a little inconsistent internally, if im reading it the way you meant it.

You acknowledge that pretty much only a first round QB will get you to the super bowl but we wont go anywhere until we do other stuff?

 

No, I'm sorry if what I wrote was confusing.

 

I do not acknowledge "pretty much only a 1st round QB will get you to the SB" because facts do not support that.

The facts say that plenty of teams make it to the Superbowl without a 1st round QB

 

It's been a point previously made that most Superbowls have a 1st round QB playing in them.

That's absolutely true -- AND it doesn't follow that you need a 1st round QB to get to the SB

It's equally true that it's not that uncommon for a team to make it to the SB without a 1st round QB leading them (if you count 3rd round on, almost 50%)

 

Clearer now?

 

I think the arguments on this board are 1) get a premier QB vs 2) draft lineman first -- both are fair arguments to be sure.

 

The problem seems to be the people in camp 2) especially believe doing only that will solve the majority of our problems.

 

Absolutely agree and appreciate acknowledgment that BOTH are fair arguments.

 

I would say the problem seems to be that the people in camp 1) especially believe doing only that will solve all our problems

Bradford taking the Rams from 1-15 to the playoffs cited as a justification - ignoring that the Rams drafted for the lines with high draft picks for 3 yrs b4 Bradford and that this is their 2nd year with HC Spag (time to learn the system). Is Bradford good, yep. Would he be having the year he's having without good lines on both sides of the ball and a good system (and even then -- they'd be what, 3rd in any other division in the NFC?)

 

I'm not sure how good or bad or accurate or inaccurate Fitz is yet. I'd like to see him with quality line and TE before making up my mind.

Watching MNF last night, I do think Bills fans have somewhat forgotten what to expect of a true quality WR

We might need a QB upgrade, not sure.

 

I do believe without other upgrades, any "Franchise QB" we draft will look like poor Carson Palmer or maybe Ben Roeth in 2006 after he lost Randle El and his blocking TE.

 

The Bills in the 90's had a lot of different lineman (yes not the best example) but always had Kelly, you can be very successful with a OK line and great QB much more than the other way around.

 

Yeah, not the best example. The Bills in the SB years in the '90s had some quality, quality, line. In the late 90's when the line deteriorated, Kelly became a bit of a Pick O Matic.

 

I'll put out my opinion, which is "neither of the above". We may have to agree to disagree, that'd be fine:

 

What really drives long term success for a team is sufficient talent IN A GREAT SYSTEM (part of what makes a system great is talent identification and player development). I'll offer you two examples:

1. NE. 2008. Brady goes down with broken leg. Cassel takes over. 11-5, won division. Next year Cassel goes to KC, has something like 58% copmletion percentage and throws equal numbers of INTs and picks (16). In NE, the system is so strong and so engrained, even the QB became kind of a FRU (field replaceable unit). Don't bet the rent that if Brady goes down in the playoffs, Belichek doesn't have someone capable of winning behind him.

2. SF. Winning record from 1981 to 1998. Two QB, one of whom was a "BUST!" after two 2-14 records and completion percentages 52-53% with TB. (BTW his completion percentage sucked when he got the chance to start a few games for SF early on, too).

 

Where I am with the Bills is worried about whether we really have the right system in place to be successful (FO and coaches)

I've seen good things from Chan, and also "WTF?" offensive gamecalling and puzzling defensive schemes.

I've seen good things from Nix, and also "WTF?" stuff like Green signing as RT, Kelsey extension, and so forth.

 

Sorry it's so long, and thanks for your response!