Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Fairley will not be there at #3 now that Luck is staying in.

 

I do like Marcell Dareus.

 

I don't think the Bills would regret taking the first QB in the draft.

 

Then focus on defense with picks 2-4.

Edited by Why So Serious?
Posted

With how bad this OL is, the worst thing the Bills could do is rush their QB of the future into the lineup. As much as I have been ranting that Fitz isn't the answer at QB for the Bills, he certainly isn't the team's biggest problem. And more to the point, he offers the Bills a great opportunity to draft their franchise QB and let him develop on the sidelines for a season or two like Rodgers and Rivers.

I understand exactly what you're saying and agree an upgrade at QB needs to be addressed, at some point. But the implication is this team drafts yet another 1st rounder that rides the bench and contributes nothing on the field in year 1. Given the Bills situation IMO, that's unacceptable. This team can't stop the run, can't pressure the QB, and the offensive line needs upgrades at the tackle position (and others mentioned TE) to even be considered competitive next season.

 

The defensive front 7 is dreadful and a few potential elite players that can assist in resolving the problem are staring you right in the face at the top of round 1.

Posted

I understand exactly what you're saying and agree an upgrade at QB needs to be addressed, at some point. But the implication is this team drafts yet another 1st rounder that rides the bench and contributes nothing on the field in year 1. Given the Bills situation IMO, that's unacceptable. This team can't stop the run, can't pressure the QB, and the offensive line needs upgrades at the tackle position (and others mentioned TE) to even be considered competitive next season.

 

The defensive front 7 is dreadful and a few potential elite players that can assist in resolving the problem are staring you right in the face at the top of round 1.

We are in disagreement over two points: First is the notion that this team CAN be competitive in 2011. I think that depends on your definition of competitive. For me, that means contend for not only a playoff spot, but a title. The Bills, no matter what they do this off season, will not be in that category. You feel otherwise, and for all our sakes I hope you're right.

 

But the second point is that I believe it is infinitely more difficult to find a franchise QB than it is to find a Pro Bowl caliber OT, OG, TE, DL, DE, CB, WR, LB etc, etc. That being true (and I think you'd agree that it is), then drafting one in the first round and having him sit a year or two is not the same as drafting a DE and having him sit a year.

 

I personally don't know anything about the QBs coming out other than Luck -- who it seems is not coming out anymore. So the only thing I can do is trust the Bills' front office (scary thought) to grade this class accurately. And if they pull the trigger on a QB at 3, then I have to give them the benefit of the doubt that he is a franchise caliber guy.

 

Basically, I'm saying that this team can win games with Fitz so an immediate upgrade is not needed. I'd be just as happy if the first 5 rounds were spent finding defensive playmakers. But, if they take a QB at 3, I'll also be very excited.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I really don't want to over-spend on a "consolation prize" QB at 3. The gap

between Luck and the rest of the pretenders at QB is huge. Luck is smart,

talented and a leader groomed by an NFL QB father and played in a pro-style

offense. None of the other guys fits that profile at all.

 

What he said

 

As for the argument of having Fitzpatrick "groom" one of these guys for a

year or two - does that really ever pan out? How did that work out for

the guy Jim Kelly, Dan Marino or John Elway "groomed"? I can't think of

many (any?) QBs that benefitted significantly from "learning" under a

mentor. I think that they either "have" or "don't" the ability to play

at the NFL level. They have to be born leaders and be able to visually

process information very quickly to make quick decisions. They have to

be tough and dedicated and smart.

 

Aaron Rodgers and Philip Rivers both spent a couple years on the bench behind strong starters and played well when they started.

Did they play better than they would have if they started as rookies?

We can't ever take an individual QB and "do the experiment" so who knows.

 

NE doing the experiment with Matt Cassel and GB with Matt Flynn of taking a late rounder and "grooming" him.

 

I can't recall the Kelly-era Bills, Marino-era Dolphins, or Elway-era Broncos picking a guy to "groom".

Bills had veteran Frank Reich and the 3rd guy, AVP, was never a threat to push him out in skill level and probably got few reps.

 

If part of your point is it's a risky strategy to use a high 1st round pick to draft a "developmental prospect" be he DL LB or QB, I agree.

 

This thread is evidence why taking a QB in the first is not a detriment to building a solid defense.

 

If you say so. I don't get that from it at all. Maybe part of the difference lies in semantics? I would agree it's certainly possible to draft solid, defensive contributors who will improve the Bill's D in the later rounds. I'd even say it's more likely to get a solid DL than a solid QB in the later rounds - there are 7 DL per team but only 1 QB.

 

I'm not so clear there are all these bone-crusher difference makers waiting there. Are we trying to improve our D or build a championship-caliber team with our early pick (that we hope won't be repeated too often)?

Posted

I agree but only if its luck or newton other than that I want fairly or bowers there fing studs

Newton is no good, those little runs for 3 or 4 yards up the middle he does in college on 3rd downs wont fly in the NFL and he reminds me too much like J. Russell a big piece of crap and when he gets paid will not show up. Fairly will be gone and I wasn't impressed at all with Bowers the three times i saw him play this year.

×
×
  • Create New...