MikeSpeed Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 I mentioned this before, but it went mostly unnoticed. So I thought I'd topic it to see if I can get more feedback. I've read many posts that want the Bills to draft a QB at #3 and then sit him for or year or 2. I can not believe we are in a position to do that. The #3 pick better be a starter day one, even if he is not completely ready. Ask any QB in the NFL, and they will tell you that they didn't really start learning the game until they got on the field. Also the veteran players will be questioning the FO for not giving them help NOW. The first interception Fitz throws and Bills nation will be calling for the back-up, and a QB controversy will ensue. A few posters have referenced the Aaron Rodgers and the Philip Rivers drafting as their reasoning. Both those situation were different than what the Bills are in. Green bay was a perennial playoff contender during the Favre years and could afford a luxury pick. Rodgers was drafted #24 in the first round not #3. It was also believed that Rodgers got no help from Favre while he was the back-up, so grooming was a non-factor. San Diego was disenchanted with Brees and would have preferred Rivers to start day one. Brees woke up that season and gave them no choice but to sit Rivers until Brees was traded. San Diego was not drafting Rivers to sit him though. Lastly it would be a PR and marketing nightmare to have a first round pick sitting on the bench again. I believe our situation is more like Atlanta's, the Rams, the Lions, and similar to the Jets when comparing recent drafts. The Bills do not have the talent level to have any luxury picks. For the record I do not believe we should draft a QB at #3 but if we do, he should be starting day one. Thanks for the time. I hope this spawns some discussion.
Dr. Trooth Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Anyone taken at #3 better be starting... and producing.
KD in CA Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Anyone taken at #3 better be starting... and producing. ....on the defensive line.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Sorry, but it's going to be situational. No success that a first year QB has had, or a QB who waited a couple years has had, will play into this. Every player is different and will develop at their own pace. Luckily, if we do draft a QB, we have Fitz who is more than capable of steering the ship until the new kid is ready. After what we saw on the field this year, do you think this team is really ready to throw a rookie QB onto the field and expect to "win right now"?
1B4IDie Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Yeah because letting #4 pick Philip Rivers sit was a huge mistake. They should have just let him start day 1 like Ryan Leaf. Since you can read Buddy Nix mind and know that they drafted Phillip Rivers to start him then you must know what Buddy Nix is going to do in this years' draft. Why don't you just spare us the anticipation and tell us what Buddy Nix is thinking now. What is the detriment to sitting a rookie QB for a year? Edited January 7, 2011 by Why So Serious?
CosmicBills Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 I mentioned this before, but it went mostly unnoticed. So I thought I'd topic it to see if I can get more feedback. I've read many posts that want the Bills to draft a QB at #3 and then sit him for or year or 2. I can not believe we are in a position to do that. The #3 pick better be a starter day one, even if he is not completely ready. Ask any QB in the NFL, and they will tell you that they didn't really start learning the game until they got on the field. Also the veteran players will be questioning the FO for not giving them help NOW. The first interception Fitz throws and Bills nation will be calling for the back-up, and a QB controversy will ensue. A few posters have referenced the Aaron Rodgers and the Philip Rivers drafting as their reasoning. Both those situation were different than what the Bills are in. Green bay was a perennial playoff contender during the Favre years and could afford a luxury pick. Rodgers was drafted #24 in the first round not #3. It was also believed that Rodgers got no help from Favre while he was the back-up, so grooming was a non-factor. San Diego was disenchanted with Brees and would have preferred Rivers to start day one. Brees woke up that season and gave them no choice but to sit Rivers until Brees was traded. San Diego was not drafting Rivers to sit him though. Lastly it would be a PR and marketing nightmare to have a first round pick sitting on the bench again. I believe our situation is more like Atlanta's, the Rams, the Lions, and similar to the Jets when comparing recent drafts. The Bills do not have the talent level to have any luxury picks. For the record I do not believe we should draft a QB at #3 but if we do, he should be starting day one. Thanks for the time. I hope this spawns some discussion. I'm sorry, but you're way off base with this logic. You're not seeing the big picture. You're assuming the Bills will be able to compete for a title in 2011. They won't. They will have to have an amazing off season and season to even compete for a wild card spot. This team has SO many holes, so many needs it's unrealistic to expect them to turn it around in one season. That being the case, there's absolutely no need to rush your Franchise QB into the fray and risk derailing his development or getting him injured. IF the Bills take a QB at 3 (or even in the second round) that they feel is their franchise QB (I don't know if there is one in this draft by the way), but there is absolutely NO need to start him this year. QB is a very different position than any other on the field. When you pick a QB that high, you have to protect him. Starting him behind this crap-tastic offensive line would get the guy killed and you run the risk of making him gunshy and ruining any chance of developing him. The posters who are arguing that they need to build the lines before drafting a QB are right in one sense -- in that you need a line to protect your investment to make it pay off. But they're not right in the sense that you have to get the OL before getting the QB. Truth is, finding a franchise QB is more difficult than finding a Pro Bowl caliber offensive tackle or guard. So, if there's a Franchise QB staring you in the face, you take him. End of story. That's the beauty of having Fitz. Fitz gives the Bills the freedom to do exactly that. The rational fans out there know that Fitz isn't anything more than a placeholder. And drafting a QB high and sitting him behind Fitz is a wise move (again, if they grade a QB worthy of being a franchise type guy). In fact, it's a necessary move. Even if he doesn't see the field in 2011. Any other position taken in rounds 1 or 2 in this draft however NEEDS to not only see the field, but be a play maker.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Yeah because letting #4 pick Philip Rivers sit was a huge mistake. They should have just let him start day 1 like Ryan Leaf. Since you can read Buddy Nix mind and know that they drafted Phillip Rivers to start him then you must know what Buddy Nix is going to do in this years' draft. Why don't you just spare us the anticipation and tell us what Buddy Nix is thinking now. What is the detriment to sitting a rookie QB for a year? The OP is under the incorrect impression that Nix and CO. are somehow going to right the ship in one offseason, and that we will be competing for the playoffs next year as long as we get production out of our rookies...
KD in CA Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 The OP is under the incorrect impression that Nix and CO. are somehow going to right the ship in one offseason, and that we will be competing for the playoffs next year as long as we get production out of our rookies... IIRC, the same people were under the same impression and saying the same things a year ago. So, how did that rookie production from the 2010 draft work out for everyone?
billsfreak Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 I mentioned this before, but it went mostly unnoticed. So I thought I'd topic it to see if I can get more feedback. I've read many posts that want the Bills to draft a QB at #3 and then sit him for or year or 2. I can not believe we are in a position to do that. The #3 pick better be a starter day one, even if he is not completely ready. Ask any QB in the NFL, and they will tell you that they didn't really start learning the game until they got on the field. Also the veteran players will be questioning the FO for not giving them help NOW. The first interception Fitz throws and Bills nation will be calling for the back-up, and a QB controversy will ensue. A few posters have referenced the Aaron Rodgers and the Philip Rivers drafting as their reasoning. Both those situation were different than what the Bills are in. Green bay was a perennial playoff contender during the Favre years and could afford a luxury pick. Rodgers was drafted #24 in the first round not #3. It was also believed that Rodgers got no help from Favre while he was the back-up, so grooming was a non-factor. San Diego was disenchanted with Brees and would have preferred Rivers to start day one. Brees woke up that season and gave them no choice but to sit Rivers until Brees was traded. San Diego was not drafting Rivers to sit him though. Lastly it would be a PR and marketing nightmare to have a first round pick sitting on the bench again. I believe our situation is more like Atlanta's, the Rams, the Lions, and similar to the Jets when comparing recent drafts. The Bills do not have the talent level to have any luxury picks. For the record I do not believe we should draft a QB at #3 but if we do, he should be starting day one. Thanks for the time. I hope this spawns some discussion. A quarterback drafted at #3 on a good team (obviously a team that traded up) should have him starting right out of the gate, but there is no such rush on a terrible team like ours. It is no harm to have him hang around for 7-10 games to learn the system and get the feel for the speed of the NFL on the sideline before you feed him to the wolves. If you put a rookie, epecially a pocket passer behind the line they have in Buffalo right now, he might not make it to his second or third season in one piece. Like I said in another post, just about any position if the guy is gonna make it in the NFL he can learn on the fly, the QB needs groomed and nurtured. Any other position you can tell within the first year or so if he is gonna suck (Maybin) but at QB not so much so (Manning had a zillion picks his rookie year).
MattyT Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 That's right! They can't afford to sit and groom the next great Bills QB! After all, they're just one or two players away from greatness.
Realist Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 If we grab a QB at #3, I want him to sit behind Fitz for a year or two. Now if we get a DL or LB, he should be starting.
RealityCheck Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 I'm sorry, but you're way off base with this logic. You're not seeing the big picture. You're assuming the Bills will be able to compete for a title in 2011. They won't. They will have to have an amazing off season and season to even compete for a wild card spot. This team has SO many holes, so many needs it's unrealistic to expect them to turn it around in one season. That being the case, there's absolutely no need to rush your Franchise QB into the fray and risk derailing his development or getting him injured. IF the Bills take a QB at 3 (or even in the second round) that they feel is their franchise QB (I don't know if there is one in this draft by the way), but there is absolutely NO need to start him this year. QB is a very different position than any other on the field. When you pick a QB that high, you have to protect him. Starting him behind this crap-tastic offensive line would get the guy killed and you run the risk of making him gunshy and ruining any chance of developing him. The posters who are arguing that they need to build the lines before drafting a QB are right in one sense -- in that you need a line to protect your investment to make it pay off. But they're not right in the sense that you have to get the OL before getting the QB. Truth is, finding a franchise QB is more difficult than finding a Pro Bowl caliber offensive tackle or guard. So, if there's a Franchise QB staring you in the face, you take him. End of story. That's the beauty of having Fitz. Fitz gives the Bills the freedom to do exactly that. The rational fans out there know that Fitz isn't anything more than a placeholder. And drafting a QB high and sitting him behind Fitz is a wise move (again, if they grade a QB worthy of being a franchise type guy). In fact, it's a necessary move. Even if he doesn't see the field in 2011. Any other position taken in rounds 1 or 2 in this draft however NEEDS to not only see the field, but be a play maker. Awesome points brother. It's like waiting till you have a great o-line before you draft a talent like Spiller. Who says that after building the o-line that a premier QB or RB will be available when we supposedly need him.
purple haze Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 I mentioned this before, but it went mostly unnoticed. So I thought I'd topic it to see if I can get more feedback. I've read many posts that want the Bills to draft a QB at #3 and then sit him for or year or 2. I can not believe we are in a position to do that. The #3 pick better be a starter day one, even if he is not completely ready. Ask any QB in the NFL, and they will tell you that they didn't really start learning the game until they got on the field. Also the veteran players will be questioning the FO for not giving them help NOW. The first interception Fitz throws and Bills nation will be calling for the back-up, and a QB controversy will ensue. A few posters have referenced the Aaron Rodgers and the Philip Rivers drafting as their reasoning. Both those situation were different than what the Bills are in. Green bay was a perennial playoff contender during the Favre years and could afford a luxury pick. Rodgers was drafted #24 in the first round not #3. It was also believed that Rodgers got no help from Favre while he was the back-up, so grooming was a non-factor. San Diego was disenchanted with Brees and would have preferred Rivers to start day one. Brees woke up that season and gave them no choice but to sit Rivers until Brees was traded. San Diego was not drafting Rivers to sit him though. Lastly it would be a PR and marketing nightmare to have a first round pick sitting on the bench again. I believe our situation is more like Atlanta's, the Rams, the Lions, and similar to the Jets when comparing recent drafts. The Bills do not have the talent level to have any luxury picks. For the record I do not believe we should draft a QB at #3 but if we do, he should be starting day one. Thanks for the time. I hope this spawns some discussion. Disagree. A team should play their QB when he is ready to play. Putting him in too soon could lead to a busted pick down the line. Fans have got to get out of this NOW NOW NOW mentality. An organization will be playing football years after they draft a player. The sooner they can play the better, but playing them when they are ready is a better operating procedure.
Orton's Arm Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 I mentioned this before, but it went mostly unnoticed. So I thought I'd topic it to see if I can get more feedback. I've read many posts that want the Bills to draft a QB at #3 and then sit him for or year or 2. I can not believe we are in a position to do that. The #3 pick better be a starter day one, even if he is not completely ready. Ask any QB in the NFL, and they will tell you that they didn't really start learning the game until they got on the field. Also the veteran players will be questioning the FO for not giving them help NOW. The first interception Fitz throws and Bills nation will be calling for the back-up, and a QB controversy will ensue. A few posters have referenced the Aaron Rodgers and the Philip Rivers drafting as their reasoning. Both those situation were different than what the Bills are in. Green bay was a perennial playoff contender during the Favre years and could afford a luxury pick. Rodgers was drafted #24 in the first round not #3. It was also believed that Rodgers got no help from Favre while he was the back-up, so grooming was a non-factor. San Diego was disenchanted with Brees and would have preferred Rivers to start day one. Brees woke up that season and gave them no choice but to sit Rivers until Brees was traded. San Diego was not drafting Rivers to sit him though. Lastly it would be a PR and marketing nightmare to have a first round pick sitting on the bench again. I believe our situation is more like Atlanta's, the Rams, the Lions, and similar to the Jets when comparing recent drafts. The Bills do not have the talent level to have any luxury picks. For the record I do not believe we should draft a QB at #3 but if we do, he should be starting day one. Thanks for the time. I hope this spawns some discussion. You seem to be defining a luxury pick as a player who won't start his rookie year. My definition is different: I think a pick is a luxury pick iff it's at a position where the Bills are already strong. (The Spiller pick comes to mind.) If you wanted to argue for an expanded definition of "luxury pick," you could include reaches such as Donte Whitner. You could even include luxuriously replacing good players in the primes of their careers. For example, the Bills drafted McKelvin as a replacement for Greer, instead of just giving Greer an extension. You could argue that the best Bills' DBs generally go first-contract-and-out, so any first round pick on a DB should be considered a luxury pick. But if the Bills don't have a franchise QB--which they don't--and if there's a franchise QB waiting for them at 3rd overall, drafting that QB would be the very opposite of a luxury pick. QB is the single most important position on the field; and the position where elite play produces the greatest impact in comparison with merely solid play.
Maddog69 Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 as Gailey himself said, the draft is not about 1 yr. It is about long term upgrades. If they take a QB at 3 and he sits for a year behind FItz, thats fine as long as he eventually becomes a great QB. Keep in mind, we have drafted in the top 11 picks for most of the last decade and most of those picks did not start immediately and produce anything.
C.Biscuit97 Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 IIRC, the same people were under the same impression and saying the same things a year ago. So, how did that rookie production from the 2010 draft work out for everyone? How did that Luck leaving school prediction work out for you?
Recommended Posts