Maybe we should trade up

[mattsox]

Here is a pretty good piece on Bradford from NFL.com. Considering Luck looks every bit as good as Bradford did, it might be worth the sacrifice to move up.

 

 

St. Louis is playing for a playoff berth because of Bradford. Don't kid yourself into thinking the Rams would be here without him. He's more than validated himself as the top overall draft pick, and has re-confirmed the trend that quarterbacks drafted high can play right away -- and win.

 

Bradford has also shown that if a team has a good quarterback, the odds of success greatly increase. The NFC West, whose champion will post a record no better than 8-8, provides the glaring example.

 

Arizona: Quarterback issues, out of the playoff picture. San Francisco: Quarterback issues, out of the playoff picture. Seattle: Quarterback issues, but not so disruptive that it's out of playoff contention. Still, because of injuries, backup Charlie Whitehurst is expected to start the Seahawks' most important game of the season.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81d41692/article/bradfords-accelerated-success-has-raised-the-stakes-in-st-louis?module=HP_cp2

 

Trade up for what? Andrew Luck is not coming out of college. He's the only Player worth trading up for.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

You do realize that playing in the NFC West probably has more to do with Bradford playing for a playoff shot. His stats are no better, if not worse than Fitz. I wonder how "wonder boy" would do if his Rams played the Pats, Jets and Fins instead of the Cards, Niners and Seahawks?

 

PTR

Plus the RAMS addressed the trenches first and than brought on the QB same thing with Falcons. People just dont get it we DO NOT NEED a Qb at this time we have more glaring needs and issues on this team.

[bonechiller]

Plus the RAMS addressed the trenches first and than brought on the QB same thing with Falcons. People just dont get it we DO NOT NEED a Qb at this time we have more glaring needs and issues on this team.

 

 

AMEN! brother

[Amstel]

I agree with those of you that say its too steep of a price to pay. I doubt our first and second will get it done. We have too many needs at other positions. Besides, regardless of what people around the league and writers think there are no guarantees and Luck could turn out to just be an average or even below average QB at the next level. While thats not likely, trading away a bevy of draft picks to take that chance is not worth it....

 

I hope everyone has a Wonderful New Year!

[Thoner7]

Teams that have the dead-worst front 7 in the league two years running can't afford to trade all their top picks from two drafts for one guy, even if it's the QB they want. Forget about Luck, he'll be someone else's savior.

 

This.

 

I think differently than some people - unless more people share my view than I know. I believe if we traded our entire draft for the chance to land a player who would be one of the better QB's of the league for the next decade, then it would be a great deal for us - like the Ditka draft for Ricky Williams.

My reasoning is, you normally, in a good draft, land three starters and maybe two or three role players. But, we've had drafts where only three or four years later we see no one starting from them. So, if you had the chance to land what would be a star QB at the expense of one year's draft, then with F.A. and undrafted F.A.'s, you could still fill necessary upgrades while also getting the coveted QB.

 

So, with a team like Buffalo, which has been in dire need of a true Franchise QB - who, if capable, would immediately elevate us to respectability (although, we would still need to fix the defense) - had the chance to land a real good QB, then we should be willing to sacrifice anything to get him.

 

That presupposes our staff believes the QB is really destined for greatness. A great QB is worth going after no matter what. But, really, a great DE is, I'd say, even rarer. We have to weigh the real talent available. I wouldn't mind letting other teams go nuts over a few QB's while we grab the elite DE and OLB talent.

There are different forms of contenders - the Baltimore team of 2000? and the Saints of last year, for example. It is most important that our coaching staff knows what they are looking to assemble, what type of team they want. Once they know that, then getting the right pieces is much easier to justify.

 

We assume as fans that we can go out and land starters in the 1st, 2nd, and third rounds. But why? The Bills havent done that it over ten years?

 

Just look at teh 2007 Draft. Lynch, Pos, Edwards, Dwanye Wright, John Wendling, dereck Shouman, CJ Ahu You - only one player we selected is still on the team and most people dont think he is worth resigning. 2008 is almost as bad. McKelvin (average at best and the 5th best corner drafted in the first two rounds) Hardy, Ellis, Corner (not a bad dime package CB) Derek Fine Xaiver Omon, the onyl real hits we had were 7th rounders in SJ and Bell. 2009 we only got 3 players worht anythign and I was never a big fan of Byrd and still am not.

 

Its safe to say everyone over-values these draft picks. No one player would make us a championship caliber team for the next 15 years then Luck. In hindsight I would trade our entire 2007 and 2008 drafts from Luck minus two obsucre and the time 7th rounders. Id even throw in the entire 2006 draft minus KW for good measure.

[sllib olaffub]

I said earlier that trading whatever is necessary to land Andrew Luck would be smart - but, that isn't the only smart way to go about things. You could also pass on him and build the lines - so long as you picked the right guys. Any draft is a good draft if you pick the right players.

It isn't unreasonable to say, after looking back over some other teams drafts over the last decade, and ours, that you can find starters in any round, but you should expect starters up to rounds four or so. If you take all our slotted picks and all the undrafted's, then you are usually looking at like 15 rookies. 5 starters out of 15 would be nice. If the Bills added 5 QUALITY starters to our OL and D front 7, then we'd be looking at a playoff capable team. I'm of the opinion, if our guys are healthy, that we would be fine with adding a really good Tackle, (maybe a guard if we move Wood to center and if Ubrik or Hangartner wouldn't then take his place), a really big NT - if Troupe doesn't pan out, or if they're satisfied with K. Williams there, then a really nasty DE, a nasty OLB, and a good ILB. So, DE/NT, OLB, ILB, T, G - that is 5 starters. You add that much starting quality to our lines before F.A., and there is no reason we couldn't be a young, challenging team next year.

The real issue is whether or not our F.O. can pick stars with the early picks - the first three rounds should be starters, if not right away, then in a year or so, especially on a squad like ours.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I can only surmise that you haven't watched him play much this year.

 

I live in StL so get a lot of opportunity to watch him play. He's been solid to very impressive overall. The Rams definitely have a keeper. Good leadership, good poise. My impression is he gets more help from his receivers and TE as far as reaching for passes and hanging on but he's got two wide receivers up in the 8 drops category just as Fitz does so maybe that's just my impression

 

I think what Promo may be reacting to is the constant theme that Fitz isn't good enough, he's a career backup, we need to draft someone better.

 

Statistically:

Name (QB rank) Completions Yds/Game Gain/pass TD INT Sacks Rating

Fitzpatrick (18) 58% 231 6.8 23 15 24 82

S. Bradford (20) 61% 234 6.1 18 14 31 78

 

Fitz is better in every category but completion percentage (and wins). As we know, the Bills have come heartbreakingly close, enough that they could have 7-8 wins if things had just fallen a bit differently.

 

PTR point being because Bradford is a highly-touted rookie who was selected 1st overall, we see a lot of promise in him with somewhat worse statistical results that have us saying Fitz is only good enough to lose with and we need someone better. But Fitz is still a young QB in terms of starts, and historically later picks if they become successful, take a bit longer to do so than 1st round picks.

 

I think the heart of the perception is in the "W" column, not the draft position, myself.

I think if the Rams were 4-11 and headed home, people would be more critical of Bradford with exactly the same stats.

I think if the Bills had won 8 games, people would be more positive about Fitz with exactly the same stats. If the Bills had a winning record and were contending for a wild card slot, he'd be practically annointed by the same folks who say "not good enough, can't win a superbowl".

 

But that's just what I think.

[Terry Tate]

I think differently than some people - unless more people share my view than I know. I believe if we traded our entire draft for the chance to land a player who would be one of the better QB's of the league for the next decade, then it would be a great deal for us - like the Ditka draft for Ricky Williams.

My reasoning is, you normally, in a good draft, land three starters and maybe two or three role players. But, we've had drafts where only three or four years later we see no one starting from them. So, if you had the chance to land what would be a star QB at the expense of one year's draft, then with F.A. and undrafted F.A.'s, you could still fill necessary upgrades while also getting the coveted QB.

 

So, with a team like Buffalo, which has been in dire need of a true Franchise QB - who, if capable, would immediately elevate us to respectability (although, we would still need to fix the defense) - had the chance to land a real good QB, then we should be willing to sacrifice anything to get him.

 

That presupposes our staff believes the QB is really destined for greatness. A great QB is worth going after no matter what. But, really, a great DE is, I'd say, even rarer. We have to weigh the real talent available. I wouldn't mind letting other teams go nuts over a few QB's while we grab the elite DE and OLB talent.

There are different forms of contenders - the Baltimore team of 2000? and the Saints of last year, for example. It is most important that our coaching staff knows what they are looking to assemble, what type of team they want. Once they know that, then getting the right pieces is much easier to justify.

Not to pick on your post, just using it to respond to the thread in general. I'm not sure if you think this is a good idea or not, because you've listed some of the reasons I think it's a bad idea. Ditka's trade of his entire draft and the next year's top pick? He went three years there with losing seasons and got fired. You think there's some holes on defense? LOL, take a snapshot of the starting D and the starting O on the field. Then photoshop out the players who are not what would be considered solid, good, dependable starters with empty grass space, and you will get a visual of what the Bills are fielding every week. I'm not talking pro-bowlers, obviously - just good players. There's a lot of green out there, isn't there?

 

In my picture, Fitz is still on the field. Great? Nope, but IMHO not an empty space. You don't fill those empty spaces, you don't win. If you have all those empty spaces, and a good (not great) QB, you're not in a position to trade away your capability to fill them.

 

For some reason this discussion reminds me of shiny new expensive cars parked in front of crappy rentals or trailers.

[Chandler#81]

sllib olaffub, on 31 December 2010 - 02:47 AM, said:

 

I think differently than some people - unless more people share my view than I know. I believe if we traded our entire draft for the chance to land a player who would be one of the better QB's of the league for the next decade, then it would be a great deal for us - like the Ditka draft for Ricky Williams.

My reasoning is, you normally, in a good draft, land three starters and maybe two or three role players. But, we've had drafts where only three or four years later we see no one starting from them. So, if you had the chance to land what would be a star QB at the expense of one year's draft, then with F.A. and undrafted F.A.'s, you could still fill necessary upgrades while also getting the coveted QB.

 

So, with a team like Buffalo, which has been in dire need of a true Franchise QB - who, if capable, would immediately elevate us to respectability (although, we would still need to fix the defense) - had the chance to land a real good QB, then we should be willing to sacrifice anything to get him.

 

That presupposes our staff believes the QB is really destined for greatness. A great QB is worth going after no matter what. But, really, a great DE is, I'd say, even rarer. We have to weigh the real talent available. I wouldn't mind letting other teams go nuts over a few QB's while we grab the elite DE and OLB talent.

There are different forms of contenders - the Baltimore team of 2000? and the Saints of last year, for example. It is most important that our coaching staff knows what they are looking to assemble, what type of team they want. Once they know that, then getting the right pieces is much easier to justify.

 

 

Not to pick on your post, just using it to respond to the thread in general. I'm not sure if you think this is a good idea or not, because you've listed some of the reasons I think it's a bad idea. Ditka's trade of his entire draft and the next year's top pick? He went three years there with losing seasons and got fired. You think there's some holes on defense? LOL, take a snapshot of the starting D and the starting O on the field. Then photoshop out the players who are not what would be considered solid, good, dependable starters with empty grass space, and you will get a visual of what the Bills are fielding every week. I'm not talking pro-bowlers, obviously - just good players. There's a lot of green out there, isn't there?

 

In my picture, Fitz is still on the field. Great? Nope, but IMHO not an empty space. You don't fill those empty spaces, you don't win. If you have all those empty spaces, and a good (not great) QB, you're not in a position to trade away your capability to fill them.

 

For some reason this discussion reminds me of shiny new expensive cars parked in front of crappy rentals or trailers.

 

Fair enough, Terry. But to Slib's point, not only do we have a miserable history of early picks panning out, we have a nearly incredible history of developing late round picks and undrafted FA's. This anomoly has continued through 3 full coaching staffs -at least. Will Buddy's early picks this year pan out into long, productive careers? Too early to tell. But if he and OBD believe strongly that Luck is 'the chosen one', then nothing from recent history suggests trading all -or nearly all- our picks would have any more deleterious effect than the last 10 drafts..

[RuntheDamnBall]

Trade what?

 

Next years #1 and #2? That's what it might take to get Carolina to give up that pick.

 

Ain't happening unless you give up A TON. It's probably not even an option if he declares. Carolina is giddy about Luck.

Perhaps you can give us a tour of the Panthers' front office sometime. You obviously have some inside information or are an excellent journalist.

 

Newsflash: teams don't tip their hands much prior to the draft, especially when neither the college nor the pro season has even concluded. If nothing else you're surrendering a negotiating chip if you broadcast your plans.

[papazoid]

i'm ALL IN on trading up to get Andrew Luck...assuming he comes out.

 

make up any silly trade proposal of draft picks and/or players and i'll probably say yes (Kyle Williams is the only untouchable).

 

draft picks...let's say we stay 4th overall...i would swap picks and give next year's #1......i would swap picks and give this year's 2nd, 3rd AND 4th or more if needed. name any three players.....done !!

 

Andrew Luck is a FRANCHISE QB......those lost draft picks are simply salary cap slots that can be filled in Free Agency or signing undrafted players.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Exactly. Because his performance...or at least the perception of his performance....is colored by his draft position. He could take a dump at the 50 yard line and people would give him a standing O.

 

PTR

"He" could be substituted for Mark Sanchez, Vince Young (at one time, at least), etc, too. Neither of them are yet top-15 QBs, and they might never be. Their draft positions afford them the benefit of the doubt and, in the case of Sanchez and Bradford, the branding of "poise" when they aren't getting the job done. I like Bradford, but I think you're right.

 

If Luck declares we should do whatever it takes to get him. I would give First and second and next years first, he is that good. Considering how poorly we have drafted early we wouldn't miss a beat. Maybe we should trade our top 3 picks every year to stock up on 7th rnd draft picks and entice UDFA to come since we don't have any high picks.

So you'd give up the chance at three high-potential players who could aid this roster for one high-potential player, who might be the best of them?

 

Would you give up Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith and Thurman Thomas (two high round ones and a two) for John Elway?

[Chandler#81]

So you'd give up the chance at three high-potential players who could aid this roster for one high-potential player, who might be the best of them?

 

Would you give up Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith and Thurman Thomas (two high round ones and a two) for John Elway?

 

uh.. Yes!

 

Kelly, Smith & Thomas got us to 4 straight SB's. Elway, almost single-handedly, took Denver to 5 SB's, WINNING 2!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Here is a pretty good piece on Bradford from NFL.com. Considering Luck looks every bit as good as Bradford did, it might be worth the sacrifice to move up.

 

Thoner, the Bills have so many holes. We'd have to give up a ton to move up, wouldn't it set us back to the point where Luck would be Duck (lame) before we got a D and an OL to go with him?

 

And Carolina has way bigger QB troubles than we do. Granted, Clausen was pitched in over his head, but he isn't exactly lighting it up. And Brian St Pierre as his backup? The guy was sitting at home changing diapers.

 

IMHO the article you quote is a lot of hype. Bradford will be a quality QB and was worth the pick but keep in mind StL drafted #2 overall for 2 years b4 Bradford and in the top half of the round several years b4 that. IMO St Louis had made many improvements including 2nd year with a new HC's system in place and would be playing better with or without Bradford.

 

Bradford has played well, and the Rams would still be in 3rd place or worse in any other division in the NFL. How would we feel about that here, if we drafted #1, our rookie was #20 in the league, and we were no better than break-even in the W-L? Would we be annointing the Bills (and the rook) a success?

 

San Fran and 'Zona have problems that go way beyond QB IMO. Warner was far, far from the only quality player the Cardinals lost and 'Frisco's coaching just totally looked like a mess. I think SuperGuy could have moved in at QB there and they'd still suck.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[PromoTheRobot]

uh.. Yes!

 

Kelly, Smith & Thomas got us to 4 straight SB's. Elway, almost single-handedly, took Denver to 5 SB's, WINNING 2!

Right. Elway did it all by himself. He had no other good players with him and no D to speak of.

 

PTR

[Terry Tate]

uh.. Yes!

 

Kelly, Smith & Thomas got us to 4 straight SB's. Elway, almost single-handedly, took Denver to 5 SB's, WINNING 2!

Son of a biscuit - DON'T MAKE ME TURN THIS CAR AROUND!

[Chandler#81]

Son of a biscuit - DON'T MAKE ME TURN THIS CAR AROUND!

 

 

Spit my coffee on this one!

 

Yeah, I figured that post -while replying to RTDB's somewhat facitious post- would rile the masses. Of course Elway had other HOFer's on those teams, and only won once they had a running attack, but do we have any recent history to believe we'll strike gold with our first 3 picks in the upcoming draft?

 

Hope, nonetheless, springs eternal!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

For some reason this discussion reminds me of shiny new expensive cars parked in front of crappy rentals or trailers.

 

LOL! It does, doesn't it?

 

I copied the Bills depth charts off their web site and turned names white. There is a lot of white space.

 

Just curious who besides Williams (on D) and Fitz and Jackson (on O) you would leave?

 

I wound up with a lot more white space on D than on O and am wondering if that reflects talent or schemes.

 

PS love the screen name. You kill the joe, you make some mo!

[Hplarrm]

If Luck declares we should do whatever it takes to get him. I would give First and second and next years first, he is that good. Considering how poorly we have drafted early we wouldn't miss a beat. Maybe we should trade our top 3 picks every year to stock up on 7th rnd draft picks and entice UDFA to come since we don't have any high picks.

The key stat for Peyton Manning his rookie year to me is that he was the ONLY QB in the NFL to start every game. I think Luck is an extremely good player (though demonstrably not so great that various players from Locker to Mallett were thought of by many professionals as better players as recently as a few months ago- Luck is great but anyone who depicts him as being so head and shoulders above everyone else is simply choosing that depiction).

 

At any rate, my recollection is that Indy not only had spent significant resources like early draft picks on the OL but that this crew had substantially played together and begun to develop chemistry. When one added Manning's inherent play reading talent and his quick release to an already budding OL you had a player capable of taking the field.

 

I have no argument about how good Luck is or is not, but I think the pro-Luck arguers fall short in making a case that this OL is not at best a player and a half away from adequacy (at best- they need 1. an RT, 2. a swing guy who allows them to deal with the likelihood approaching fact that the days where all 5 OL players play all 5 games are gone, 3. chemistry to develop for a group which is going to have some significant changes over time but does have a starting base of 5 guys, and 5. has some theory and talent as to how to use the TE either primarily as an extra blocker OR as a receiver).

 

The Bills are well short of adequacy in this area and I see the picking of Luck (even more so if we have to trade draft choices to get him) as not only banking on one player to deliver, but sending him out without adequate primary protection to let him do his magic.

 

Drafting Luck might be getting an essential savior, but more likely if he is hurt and this team is short not only the position player we would have taken instead, but also the top tier player we sacrifice to get him is that more than likely drafting him secures Detroit Lion status for years to come for this team.

[Bob in STL]

You do realize that playing in the NFC West probably has more to do with Bradford playing for a playoff shot. His stats are no better, if not worse than Fitz. I wonder how "wonder boy" would do if his Rams played the Pats, Jets and Fins instead of the Cards, Niners and Seahawks?

 

PTR

 

 

Sure, he would have a tougher time in the AFC East but what I like about Bradford is more than stats. He has poise. He can lead and the players look to him. He can make the big throws downfield. He is accurate and is usually careful with the football. He has the things that you might not be able to teach a young QB (See Losman, Edwards, etc).

 

The kid is still learning but if you watch him you will see that he is impressive so far.