To all of the people who think we need to draft a Franchise QB

[Lenigmusx]

Bills don't keep enough of their good players

Free agency will NEVER be a factor as long as Ralph is owner

Take a look at the QBs on just about ALL the teams that have made the playoffs the last few years

This team has made the playoffs ONCE since JIM KELLY retired - ONCE

 

This team NEEDS a franchise QB more than any other team in the league and until they address it, they will continue to miss the playoffs year after year after year.

I don't care if this team misses the playoffs the next 2 years in a row as long as you can see they are building something. Get a QB any way possible and stockpile the lines.

Enough is enough already with this clueless organization.

Twice actually 1998 and 1999 the Flutie, Johnson era.

[ny33]

This team made a huge mistake by not drafting a QB and letting him develop in this last draft.

 

So you think we made a mistake in not drafting Gabbert, Locker, or Ponder- the three players we would have likely picked over Dareus? Gabbert looks terrible; Locker hasn't played enough to get an idea of his skills; and Ponder looks like he will be mediocre at best. Dalton is a great success story, and there is certainly a good argument that we should have selected him over Aaron Williams.

 

That being said, none of those QBs- even Dalton- will likely end up being much better than Fitzpatrick. I'd rather have Dareus, and we have a number of decent prospects to look at in the second round next year (Tannehill, primarily). As countless posters have said, we need to keep our free agents- particularly SJ- and draft help at OLB or WR before we can make a consensus judgement on the regime or Fitzpatrick. Give him Alshon Jeffery, or let him play with a lead, and we'll see what he can do.

[BobbyC81]

Thanks to both of you for your replies. But BuffaloBaumer I understand your frustration and share it. But do you honestly believe that this team can even develop a QB prospect right now? With Donald Jones as a 2 receiver and no defense? I know you would like to see the effort but if our overall talent doesn't improve I believe any drafted QB will fail. Let's draft Fitz a legit 2 receiver and some OLBs on D and see where it goes in my opinion

 

Surely this team would function better with a Brady under center but I'm glad you realize they don't grow on trees

 

With contact talks with Stevie Johnson having broken off, they could be looking for both #1 & #2 WRs.

[BringBackFlutie]

So you think we made a mistake in not drafting Gabbert, Locker, or Ponder- the three players we would have likely picked over Dareus? Gabbert looks terrible; Locker hasn't played enough to get an idea of his skills; and Ponder looks like he will be mediocre at best. Dalton is a great success story, and there is certainly a good argument that we should have selected him over Aaron Williams.

 

That being said, none of those QBs- even Dalton- will likely end up being much better than Fitzpatrick. I'd rather have Dareus, and we have a number of decent prospects to look at in the second round next year (Tannehill, primarily). As countless posters have said, we need to keep our free agents- particularly SJ- and draft help at OLB or WR before we can make a consensus judgement on the regime or Fitzpatrick. Give him Alshon Jeffery, or let him play with a lead, and we'll see what he can do.

 

This is a really well thought-out post. It's not fully pro-Fitzpatrick, but it's certainly not ignorant proclamation that a QB will solve all our problems- it's simply reasonable, and true. The options last year really weren't there. Not drafting a QB was smart last year because you're right: those QBs besides Newton will turn out to be just about Fitzpatrick-level. This year it still may not be a good option if the top-notch QBs are gone and we reach for mid-tier talent (essentially another Fitzpatrick). We learned that we NEED to continue to bolster our 3-4 defensive project and reduce the drops and confusion on offense. We'll have to wait and see, but I can tell you one thing- we'll be much better next year if all we have are depth, a DC, and a pass rusher.

Edited December 15, 2011 by BringBackFlutie

[BuffaloRebound]

WIth Ralph at the helm, we are a joke of a franchise. Not arguing about the difficulty in finding a franchise QB, but it is the only thing that can compensate for how poorly this organization is run.

[st. pete gogolak]

Your case has been made by others many times over the years. The problem with your theory is the underlying assumption that "gambling on a QB" will come at the expense of a slam-dunk elite pass-rusher or whoever. That is just not reality. The need for a good QB isn't why the Bills have foolishly drafted RB's and DB's in the first round. The best point you can make is that we could've had Demarcus Ware instead of trading up for Losman; but even that has more to do with a simple bad evaluation of talent.

 

 

This is becoming urban legend. Dallas used its own #1 pick to draft Ware. It used the pick from the Losman trade to draft the immortal Bobby Carpenter. Doesn't make the Losman trade any better but if the deal ended up being Losman for Ware then you can rank it up there with LaMonica for Art Powell.

[Orton's Arm]

Before I get started just wanted to say I've been reading these boards for awhile and I'm very happy to have found a place to discuss the Bills with fellow fans. I am in my mid 20s and have been following drafts closely since 1998. My conclusions about all the qbs drafted since 1998 lead me to believe that many of you are approaching this topic all wrong. Would a franchise QB slove a lot of our problems? You bet. But you've been asking the wrong question all along when defining a franchise QB. For bills fans the question should be how many QBS in the NFL today could come into Buffalo without any other on field changes and win football games. I count 6 since 1998. That's right only 6. Both Mannings, Rodgers, Brady, Big Ben and Brees. And two of those guys weren't even first rounders. So 4 first rounders in 13 years. Sure some of you may place a few more names in but not very many. What the bills need to do is increase talent across the board. After all take a look at the number of teams with iffy qbs in this years playoff hunt. Sanchez, Flacco, Smith, Tebow, Hasselbeck, Dalton. These guys are all asked to do little more than manage a ballgame, something Fitz would be more than capable of given good talent around him. Teams win games, that's how Hasselback and Grossman and Delhomme have made recent Super Bowls. And Guys like Cassel, Garrad, Jeff Garcia and Jake Plummef and Todf Collins have all been playoff qbs going back 5 or 6 years. No drafted QB will succeed in Buffalo as it is currently constructed. Fitz is good enough to win games if given adequate talent. Lets do that and then worry about a QB. Thanks for reading my first post happy to be on board

Welcome to these boards. It's nice to converse with fellow Bills fans! Glad to have you here.

 

You mentioned six elite quarterbacks in your post: both Mannings, Rodgers, Brady, Roethlisberger, and Brees. Those six quarterbacks have accounted for nine out of the last ten Super Bowl wins. An elite quarterback is a puzzle piece without which it's almost impossible to build a Super Bowl winner.

 

If your plan is to win the Super Bowl, you know you're going to need an elite quarterback sooner or later. Also, as you correctly pointed out, very few elite QBs enter the NFL over any given ten year period. I'd argue that roughly six elite QBs have entered the league over the last ten years. (I realize Peyton Manning was longer ago than ten years, but there are one or two other QBs who could be added to your list.) 6/10 = 0.6 elite QBs per year. When those 0.6 elite QBs per year are spread out across all 32 teams, it means that a typical team will acquire an elite QB about once every 50 years.

 

If you know that you almost have to have an elite QB to win the Super Bowl, and if a typical NFL team will add an elite QB about twice every century, then if you team has the chance to add an elite QB, it should . . . take some other player instead? I'm not quite following the logic here.

 

Of the six guys you mentioned, two were taken first overall, and another was taken in the top-12. Any team which has a record bad enough to be able to draft that high has a lot more problems than just quarterback! For example, the Colts went 1-15 in 1997. Suppose the Colts had said, "We have too many problems here for any QB to be successful. There's no need for us to draft a quarterback like Peyton Manning when the rest of our team is such a mess. We think we can sign a good stopgap QB for now, build the rest of the team, and get our franchise QB later." Had Polian employed this thought process, how many more opportunities would Polian have had to draft a QB of Peyton's caliber? Or, if the Colts didn't have a franchise QB, could they still have won the Super Bowl under Polian's watch?

 

The above is not merely a case of 20/20 hindsight. It's illustrative of how valuable a franchise QB truly is, how rare opportunities are to acquire one, and therefore how important it is to take full advantage of every single such opportunity which comes your way.

[BringBackFlutie]

Welcome to these boards. It's nice to converse with fellow Bills fans! Glad to have you here.

 

You mentioned six elite quarterbacks in your post: both Mannings, Rodgers, Brady, Roethlisberger, and Brees. Those six quarterbacks have accounted for nine out of the last ten Super Bowl wins. An elite quarterback is a puzzle piece without which it's almost impossible to build a Super Bowl winner.

 

If your plan is to win the Super Bowl, you know you're going to need an elite quarterback sooner or later. Also, as you correctly pointed out, very few elite QBs enter the NFL over any given ten year period. I'd argue that roughly six elite QBs have entered the league over the last ten years. (I realize Peyton Manning was longer ago than ten years, but there are one or two other QBs who could be added to your list.) 6/10 = 0.6 elite QBs per year. When those 0.6 elite QBs per year are spread out across all 32 teams, it means that a typical team will acquire an elite QB about once every 50 years.

 

If you know that you almost have to have an elite QB to win the Super Bowl, and if a typical NFL team will add an elite QB about twice every century, then if you team has the chance to add an elite QB, it should . . . take some other player instead? I'm not quite following the logic here.

 

Of the six guys you mentioned, two were taken first overall, and another was taken in the top-12. Any team which has a record bad enough to be able to draft that high has a lot more problems than just quarterback! For example, the Colts went 1-15 in 1997. Suppose the Colts had said, "We have too many problems here for any QB to be successful. There's no need for us to draft a quarterback like Peyton Manning when the rest of our team is such a mess. We think we can sign a good stopgap QB for now, build the rest of the team, and get our franchise QB later." Had Polian employed this thought process, how many more opportunities would Polian have had to draft a QB of Peyton's caliber? Or, if the Colts didn't have a franchise QB, could they still have won the Super Bowl under Polian's watch?

 

The above is not merely a case of 20/20 hindsight. It's illustrative of how valuable a franchise QB truly is, how rare opportunities are to acquire one, and therefore how important it is to take full advantage of every single such opportunity which comes your way.

 

 

Your argument is compelling... Granted, I suppose very few here have said DON'T take a franchise guy if he's there. Even Chan and Buddy said that last year. I doubt that view has changed, however, Chan said otherwise because it's not likely that franchise guy will be there. And, even still, you don't want to keep setting your team back (that can be bad for your rookie too- not many can bring a team from the ashes like Manning did), so you want to make sure he's sitting behind a guy like Fitzpatrick, and you eliminate the need to score 30 PPG.

Edited December 15, 2011 by BringBackFlutie

[robert cohen]

Before I get started just wanted to say I've been reading these boards for awhile and I'm very happy to have found a place to discuss the Bills with fellow fans. I am in my mid 20s and have been following drafts closely since 1998. My conclusions about all the qbs drafted since 1998 lead me to believe that many of you are approaching this topic all wrong. Would a franchise QB slove a lot of our problems? You bet. But you've been asking the wrong question all along when defining a franchise QB. For bills fans the question should be how many QBS in the NFL today could come into Buffalo without any other on field changes and win football games. I count 6 since 1998. That's right only 6. Both Mannings, Rodgers, Brady, Big Ben and Brees. And two of those guys weren't even first rounders. So 4 first rounders in 13 years. Sure some of you may place a few more names in but not very many. What the bills need to do is increase talent across the board. After all take a look at the number of teams with iffy qbs in this years playoff hunt. Sanchez, Flacco, Smith, Tebow, Hasselbeck, Dalton. These guys are all asked to do little more than manage a ballgame, something Fitz would be more than capable of given good talent around him. Teams win games, that's how Hasselback and Grossman and Delhomme have made recent Super Bowls. And Guys like Cassel, Garrad, Jeff Garcia and Jake Plummef and Todf Collins have all been playoff qbs going back 5 or 6 years. No drafted QB will succeed in Buffalo as it is currently constructed. Fitz is good enough to win games if given adequate talent. Lets do that and then worry about a QB. Thanks for reading my first post happy to be on board

u are off ur rocker if u think fitz is good enough... i'm so sick of hearing about fitz... the guy is a good backup at best.. hes useless as a starter.. any "plays" he made, ANY real NFL qb can make.. he will make a great coach one day cuz he understands the game and knows where to throw the ball, the problem is , he doesnt have the talent to be a starter.. all those guys u mentioned can make real NFL throws if given the time.. the only reason fitz had ANY success early this yr is cuz of gailey's system.. its VERY qb friendly. but once teams figured out he cant hit a deep ball, they started pressing our WR off line and all our dink and dump stuff stopped working.

DRAFT A F_ING QB IN 1ST ROUND

[ny33]

u are off ur rocker if u think fitz is good enough... i'm so sick of hearing about fitz... the guy is a good backup at best.. hes useless as a starter.. any "plays" he made, ANY real NFL qb can make.. he will make a great coach one day cuz he understands the game and knows where to throw the ball, the problem is , he doesnt have the talent to be a starter.. all those guys u mentioned can make real NFL throws if given the time.. the only reason fitz had ANY success early this yr is cuz of gailey's system.. its VERY qb friendly. but once teams figured out he cant hit a deep ball, they started pressing our WR off line and all our dink and dump stuff stopped working.

DRAFT A F_ING QB IN 1ST ROUND

 

That's interesting how you mention time, given that Fitzpatrick has had almost no time to throw the ball and let plays develop. On top of that, Sanchez makes as many mistakes as Fitzpatrick, and messes up quite a few throws. Also, besides the problems on the offensive line, our receiving corps has been decimated, and there's little talent besides SJ and Nelson (in a possession role). It's absolutely unfair to say that Fitzpatrick can't have the level of playoff success as a guy like Sanchez, Dilfer, or numerous other average QBs who have relied on great defense and a running game. Give Fitz another year, add some weapons around him, and improve the defense. If he can't make the playoffs with that, then draft a first round QB. It's amazing how impatient people are, as frustrating as this team can be to follow.

[Big Hurt]

I am starting to think we need a QB. I used to think it is more important to build the line. But I think if we have an accurate QB that can throw the ball deep, we will be able to win some games. With so many injures we have on this team, the QB position seems to be more important than ever.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Big Hurt

[All_Pro_Bills]

I think the debate over a franchise QB will rage on until the Bills actually find one. The discussion has been and continues to be a good and rational exchange of opinions and ideas. Do I think Fitz is a legitimate NFL QB? Yes, but I don't expect he'll ever play at or be considered elite.

 

IMO, the question is not whether you need to draft a franchise QB or not. Ultimately, the solution is consistently hitting on your #1 selection regardless of the position. In next year's draft I have my preferences about which position to address that might differ from what others express here (I think we need a franchise LT, then go OLB). But you've got to hit on the selection and the player needs to be a starter and contribute. That's been the Bills problem for over a decade. Most of their #1's have been a swing and a miss. You won't win in any league in any sport with a front office operation that cannot make good draft selections..

[Cheddar's Dad]

I think that it is possible to move to the 5th overall pick in Rd#1 if Buffalo loses out and certain teams currently above Buffalo win a game or two. If that happened Buffalo will be in a position to draft either the kid from SO. CA. if he declares or RD3. Buffalo may have to trade up a pick or two and spend a second rounder but, if so, I think they should do it.

 

This is a QB driven league. The best teams in it have the best QBs; Patriots, Saints, Steelers, Colts (with Manning) Giants, etc. This doesn't appear to be a good year for top flight outside LBs, certainly none that at the moment, would appear to qualify as a top ten pick. It could be argued that there are no OLBs that merit an early 2nd rd. pick. If Buffalo Picks 5 this year, we may not be in this position again for many years.

 

Buffalo could stand pat with Fitz and try to build around him but to do so, I think, would make Buffalo a team that may become good enough to make the playoffs but not quite good enough to win the SB. I think Buddy should seize the opportunity if available at #5 and get that franchise QB.

[Dopey]

I agree with this. The Pats are lower than they've been in 10 years and their defense might be the worst in the entire NFL.

 

On the other hand, I feel the Jets are only a few players away from being a Super Bowl contender.

I agree with you on the Jets, but that window is closing pretty fast. I think they have 2 yrs left after this one to win a Super Bowl.

[ny33]

I agree with you on the Jets, but that window is closing pretty fast. I think they have 2 yrs left after this one to win a Super Bowl.

 

This is why the Packers are so frightening. Most of their talent- Rodgers, the WRs besides Driver, and most of the front seven are young guys.

 

We're lucky that our divisional contenders have aging stars. We're lucky that the top teams in our division are aging quickly. If we get our team together, Buffalo has a great window coming up to start owning the division. Most of our talent, except Barnett, are young players, unlike the Patriots and Jets. That's not to say that either team doesn't have any quality young players; the Patriots obviously have Gronkowski, Hernandez, Mayo, and a few other guys; the Jets have a bunch of good youth talent, but likely will have to let some players go for salary cap reasons. By the time Brady retires, Buffalo has a great opportunity to be a, if not the, force in the division. That's a big if, obviously, but we are in great shape in the AFC East if we hit on our early picks in 2012 and 2013 and keep our talented players.

[reddogblitz]

I'm leaning in the direction of building around Fitz a little longer. He did very well when he had healthy WRs and Fred and the defense was playing a little better anyway. The biggest need on this team is DC and defense. Our offense when healthy is very good. We need depth there. Another RB, a couple of WRs, line depth, and re signing Chandler.

 

I understand the argument that you have to have a good QB to win the SB. But you also have to have a really team around him. For every Indianapolis that started with the QB, there are many failure stories of other teams that have done that. The Rams with Bradford. The Lions with Harrington. The Texans with Carr. Etc. Most of the teams that have these great franchise QBs were pretty good when they got them, like New Orleans and Green Bay and New England and the Stealers. The QB got them over the hump, not got them to the hump and then over. I'd prefer to go that route.

 

But really, BPA baby. The thing that this yea show us the most is that we need depth.

[corey g]

Thanks to everybody who made my first post a smash hit. I apperciate it. To the man who said a franchise QB comes along once every 50 years, I understand your point but I believe it only illustrates mine further. Firstly we have not had a top 2 overall choice in the era being discussed. So obtaining that can't miss prospect would have all too often required selling the farm so to speak. And for every Manning, there is a leaf, couch, Carr, Harrington, leinart, losman, or a Jamarcus Russell. First round failures outweigh successes and as another poster mentioned some of these successes are on to their 2nd teams. Why? Because the team that drafted them did not have a situation conducive to QB delevopment. Much like the Bills currently, A drafted QB may enter a situation where the top receiver on the team is David Nelson, and where the defense has more holes in it than Peter Weller in robocop. If we acquired a Peyton Manning then surely none of this matters. But what if we acquire a Sanchez type who needs time and talent around him to develop?The buffalo bills don't have the tools to develop that guy. We must give a future QB something to work with

[ny33]

I'm leaning in the direction of building around Fitz a little longer. He did very well when he had healthy WRs and Fred and the defense was playing a little better anyway. The biggest need on this team is DC and defense. Our offense when healthy is very good. We need depth there. Another RB, a couple of WRs, line depth, and re signing Chandler.

 

I understand the argument that you have to have a good QB to win the SB. But you also have to have a really team around him. For every Indianapolis that started with the QB, there are many failure stories of other teams that have done that. The Rams with Bradford. The Lions with Harrington. The Texans with Carr. Etc. Most of the teams that have these great franchise QBs were pretty good when they got them, like New Orleans and Green Bay and New England and the Stealers. The QB got them over the hump, not got them to the hump and then over. I'd prefer to go that route.

 

But really, BPA baby. The thing that this yea show us the most is that we need depth.

 

I believe David Carr would have been a good QB had he not been thrown into one of the most dangerous situations for a QB in history, surrounded by a team with absolutely no talent. That killed his confidence and, sadly, some of the hits he took probably caused some mental slowdown. Buffalo needs to keep building the defense and add some talent at WR. You don't give a QB who has had the best season in the recent history of the franchise a new contract then give up on him after just a year.

[xsoldier54]

Before I get started just wanted to say I've been reading these boards for awhile and I'm very happy to have found a place to discuss the Bills with fellow fans. I am in my mid 20s and have been following drafts closely since 1998. My conclusions about all the qbs drafted since 1998 lead me to believe that many of you are approaching this topic all wrong. Would a franchise QB slove a lot of our problems? You bet. But you've been asking the wrong question all along when defining a franchise QB. For bills fans the question should be how many QBS in the NFL today could come into Buffalo without any other on field changes and win football games. I count 6 since 1998. That's right only 6. Both Mannings, Rodgers, Brady, Big Ben and Brees. And two of those guys weren't even first rounders. So 4 first rounders in 13 years. Sure some of you may place a few more names in but not very many. What the bills need to do is increase talent across the board. After all take a look at the number of teams with iffy qbs in this years playoff hunt. Sanchez, Flacco, Smith, Tebow, Hasselbeck, Dalton. These guys are all asked to do little more than manage a ballgame, something Fitz would be more than capable of given good talent around him. Teams win games, that's how Hasselback and Grossman and Delhomme have made recent Super Bowls. And Guys like Cassel, Garrad, Jeff Garcia and Jake Plummef and Todf Collins have all been playoff qbs going back 5 or 6 years. No drafted QB will succeed in Buffalo as it is currently constructed. Fitz is good enough to win games if given adequate talent. Lets do that and then worry about a QB. Thanks for reading my first post happy to be on board

I agree that this team has a lot of holes, but I do not agree that Fitz is a competent QB. He routinely misses open receivers and is very erratic with his throws. This is not the mark of a QB that you can depend on to do the little things necessary to win games. Sorry, but I believe the Bills need to draft a QB and stop this charade.

Edited December 15, 2011 by xsoldier54

[BuffaloRebound]

Thanks to everybody who made my first post a smash hit. I apperciate it. To the man who said a franchise QB comes along once every 50 years, I understand your point but I believe it only illustrates mine further. Firstly we have not had a top 2 overall choice in the era being discussed. So obtaining that can't miss prospect would have all too often required selling the farm so to speak. And for every Manning, there is a leaf, couch, Carr, Harrington, leinart, losman, or a Jamarcus Russell. First round failures outweigh successes and as another poster mentioned some of these successes are on to their 2nd teams. Why? Because the team that drafted them did not have a situation conducive to QB delevopment. Much like the Bills currently, A drafted QB may enter a situation where the top receiver on the team is David Nelson, and where the defense has more holes in it than Peter Weller in robocop. If we acquired a Peyton Manning then surely none of this matters. But what if we acquire a Sanchez type who needs time and talent around him to develop?The buffalo bills don't have the tools to develop that guy. We must give a future QB something to work with

 

If selling the farm means trading picks that end up being Spiller, Troup, Maybin or a bunch of other guys that aren't successful here, I'll gladly do it. 2004 was the classic example. We didn't want to give up enough to move ahead of Pittsburgh and take Roethlisberger, who would have been the perfect QB for Buffalo. Who did those picks we cherished so much net us?