BADOLBILZ Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 I hate it because it is a distinction without a difference. I don't think you need to spin the data, it is damning enough without trying to manufacture what their intentions were. Who was Detroits QB in 1983? Maybe the Bills were confident Kelly would be there? I also think in 2004 we would have drafted a QB other than Losman if he fell to us. Agree? I think the Bills might have selected Roethlisberger if he slipped to them. That is a "might". Roethlisberger was not a greater prospect than Jay Cutler.....and they passed on Cutler to select Donte. As for 1983.....my point is that the organization is not focused enough on their QB situation......and you are telling me that they were willing to risk missing on their target at QB to select a TE? I think the answer is that they really weren't sold on Kelly and they probably figured they would use their "found" pick on him instead. That is how they have operated with Ralph Wilson in the warroom for the past 50+ drafts.
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Would it have made a difference for the franchise if the Bills had taken Losman at #13 and passed on Lee Evans? Nope. Lee Evans had some decent years, but in the end he was just another WR. When it comes to impact, there are QB's and then there is every other position. They could have picked a QB with their first pick every year of the past decade and they wouldn't be any worse off than they are now........ having continually reached for perceived "needs'. Believe it or not, it can get worse than 7-9. Reaching for Losman at #13 most certainly would have been worse, and could well have resulted in reaching for another receiver in the future.
BuffaloinLA Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 Wasn't Jim Kelly a first rounder? The QB position has the greatest potential to impact a franchise. The Bills haven't drafted one with their first pick in any draft since 1960. Scott hates that point because it discounts trades or QB's taken later in the first round than the teams ACTUAL first pick But in comparison, in the last 40 years(by Edwards arm count), half of their first picks have either been RB's or CB's. How can you expect to have a consistently good franchise when you have consistently poor QB play.....................yet aren't willing to draft QB's with your premier pick......ever?
Recommended Posts