Bufcomments Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Just to add to your very solid post: the Bills have had trouble signing top tier free agents. If you were a highly touted free agency, and if you cared about winning in addition to your paycheck, and if you had comparable offers from the Packers and the Bills, which team would you choose? The last time the Bills had top tier QB play was the first eight games of 2002. They were able to parlay those eight games of excellent quarterback play into the free agent signing of Takeo Spikes. How many Spikes-like free agents have the Bills signed since then? How much top tier quarterback play have they received since then? But the above paragraph is a merely secondary reason why the Bills should obtain a franchise quarterback in the upcoming draft if they possibly can. The Bills should start by deciding to do whatever it takes to win the Super Bowl. All their decisions should flow from that starting premise. Nine of the last ten Super Bowl winners have had a franchise quarterback. The tenth team was the Bucs of 2002, which had an elite defense and a QB who had a Pro Bowl year that year in the form of Brad Johnson. If you decide to do whatever it takes to win the Super Bowl, then you also have to do whatever it takes to get a franchise quarterback. Whatever it takes! Up to and including trading away the house for one player. Such a trade is not comparable to the Ricky Williams trade, because the impact of an elite running back is not comparable to the impact of an elite quarterback. Had Mike Ditka traded away all those picks and received Peyton Manning in return, he would look like an absolute genius. Even if a GM had paid double the Ricky Williams price, he would still have looked smart--as long as he'd received Peyton Manning in return! The Patriots defense just finished allowing the most passing yards in NFL history, and yet they are going to the playoffs. They have two of the three pieces in place needed to win the Super Bowl. (The three pieces being a franchise quarterback, a good offensive supporting cast, and a good defense.) Without even a semblance of that third piece they probably won't win the Super Bowl. But they are a team to be reckoned with this year. And if they put together a credible defense for next year, and if their offense stays on track, they'll be a very legitimate threat to win next year's Super Bowl. Of the three above-mentioned pieces, most can be broken down into smaller and more manageable components. A weakness in one area can be compensated for by strength elsewhere. For example, if your RDE is a good but not spectacular pass rusher, you can compensate by adding good pass rushers at OLB. If your #1 WR is competent but not outstanding, you can compensate by adding a good pass catching TE, a good #2 WR, or a RB who catches passes out of the backfield. The franchise QB piece is unique in that it must be added all in one lump, and also unique in that you cannot settle for anything less than elite. Merely being above average at that position is almost certain to exclude you from hoisting a Super Bowl trophy. There is no other position about which that can be said. There is a certain amount of randomness in talent acquisition. When the Bills first signed Fred Jackson as an UDFA, neither they nor anyone else realized they were getting one of the finest running backs in the NFL. More generally, teams will tend to look at large numbers of lower round draft picks and UDFAs each year, hoping that one or two of them will turn out to be something special. This kind of randomness is acceptable at almost every position, because strength at one position can be used to compensate for an average player at another. But this randomness is not acceptable at quarterback, because the Bills must have an elite quarterback to give themselves a realistic chance of winning the Super Bowl. All of this means that if the Bill have the chance to add an elite quarterback in this upcoming draft, they should take it. They should pay whatever price is required, and pay it with a smile. This makes so much sense. You cant attract the free agents without a franchise QB. Does J.Peppers go to Chi-town without Culter being there?? Does Welker, Moss, Ocho go to the Pats if Brady was not QB?? Does Sproles go to the Saints if Brees is not there? These are examples of what you very rightly pointed out and if the Bills thinks that a Bowe or Coslton or even V. Jackson would come here if Fitz was deemed the franchise? your kidding yourselfs. The aftereffects of trading up to get RG3 would not pay off this year because the D would still need help. But they would set themselfs up for for years of effective offense they would be able to outscore just about everybody. RG3- QB Jackson AND CJ RB's Stevie, Nelson, Roscoe, Hagen,Jones at WR Chandler TE. We would have some serious weapon for RG3 to work with. Plus he would not have to win games all by himself. If there was a yr to do it it would be this yr.
Hater Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 The NFL has changed, you have to a mobile QB because defensive players are faster than they have ever been To win in the NFL now you have to have a Franchise QB thats a fact, since 2004 with the exceptions of New England & New Orleans every winning Superbowl QB is a 1st Round pick & Brees would have been a 1st Round but slipped to the 2nd as the first pick of the 2nd round I keep seeing post that we need a WR or LB but there is always value player at those positions in the draft but its rare to find a Franchise QB in this day & age outside of the first that why trading up to get RG3 would be the smart move We need to start a email campaign to Ralph Wilson to try & trade up to get RG3 or pray we get the #1 pick next year because otherwise is 5-11 for the next 5 years
DocLawless Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I don't understand why everyone is talking about trading up for rg3 when andrew luck is on the board. Maybe the price would be high but if we were ever going to give up our much needed draft picks we would be better off getting luck than rg3 that's for sure. That is a real franchise qb. Look what he has done for stanford. The guy is winner. I know it's a long shot but I can dream. Colts have Peyton and need so many pieces besides a qb. They have more depth issues than us.
Orton's Arm Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 This makes so much sense. You cant attract the free agents without a franchise QB. Does J.Peppers go to Chi-town without Culter being there?? Does Welker, Moss, Ocho go to the Pats if Brady was not QB?? Does Sproles go to the Saints if Brees is not there? These are examples of what you very rightly pointed out and if the Bills thinks that a Bowe or Coslton or even V. Jackson would come here if Fitz was deemed the franchise? your kidding yourselfs. The aftereffects of trading up to get RG3 would not pay off this year because the D would still need help. But they would set themselfs up for for years of effective offense they would be able to outscore just about everybody. RG3- QB Jackson AND CJ RB's Stevie, Nelson, Roscoe, Hagen,Jones at WR Chandler TE. We would have some serious weapon for RG3 to work with. Plus he would not have to win games all by himself. If there was a yr to do it it would be this yr. Good post. I think you and I are on the same page about how an elite quarterback attracts top-tier free agents. If trading up for a franchise QB isn't an option in this draft--which it may not be--there is always what I'd call the "big brass ____" option. The Bills will not choose this option, even though they should. The objective of this option is to draft Barkley. To achieve this, the Bills would either trade away or release Ryan Fitzpatrick. Their starter for the year would be Tyler Thigpen. They would sign a Craig Nall or someone like that to be the backup. In addition, they should release McGee, Florence, and any other reasonably good but aging veterans they may have. The objective here is to create a roster which cannot go more than 2-14 at best, no matter what happens. At the same time, the Bills must not release any player who represents a long-term solution as a starter. Therefore, they should hold onto Fred Jackson, Stevie Johnson, and other players who are good, and young enough to help the team for the next several years to come. If the Bills went 0-16 or 1-15--as they almost certainly would with Thigpen under center--they would be in a position to draft Barkley, or whichever other franchise QB they felt was worthy of a top-2 pick. This method has the advantage of getting the Bills one of the three pillars they need to win the Super Bowl, without having to trade away a king's ransom. While a franchise quarterback is worth several kings' ransoms, it's better to get out of paying that price if at all possible. This strategy has the added advantage of putting the Bills in control of whether they get a franchise quarterback or not. (As opposed to having to rely on other teams' willingness to let the Bills trade up.) But like I mentioned earlier, the Bills will not do this. The thought process which would lead to the above conclusion isn't part of their institutional mindset. Instead, I expect them to continue to achieve records in the 5-11 - 9-7 range. With records like those, they will continue to be excluded from the elite franchise QB talent in the draft. Unable to draft a real quarterback, they will allow that hole on the roster to persist indefinitely, like an open sore. That open sore will linger on year after year. Every year it's there is another year the Bills will not win the Super Bowl.
Bufcomments Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Good post. I think you and I are on the same page about how an elite quarterback attracts top-tier free agents. If trading up for a franchise QB isn't an option in this draft--which it may not be--there is always what I'd call the "big brass ____" option. The Bills will not choose this option, even though they should. The objective of this option is to draft Barkley. To achieve this, the Bills would either trade away or release Ryan Fitzpatrick. Their starter for the year would be Tyler Thigpen. They would sign a Craig Nall or someone like that to be the backup. In addition, they should release McGee, Florence, and any other reasonably good but aging veterans they may have. The objective here is to create a roster which cannot go more than 2-14 at best, no matter what happens. At the same time, the Bills must not release any player who represents a long-term solution as a starter. Therefore, they should hold onto Fred Jackson, Stevie Johnson, and other players who are good, and young enough to help the team for the next several years to come. If the Bills went 0-16 or 1-15--as they almost certainly would with Thigpen under center--they would be in a position to draft Barkley, or whichever other franchise QB they felt was worthy of a top-2 pick. This method has the advantage of getting the Bills one of the three pillars they need to win the Super Bowl, without having to trade away a king's ransom. While a franchise quarterback is worth several kings' ransoms, it's better to get out of paying that price if at all possible. This strategy has the added advantage of putting the Bills in control of whether they get a franchise quarterback or not. (As opposed to having to rely on other teams' willingness to let the Bills trade up.) But like I mentioned earlier, the Bills will not do this. The thought process which would lead to the above conclusion isn't part of their institutional mindset. Instead, I expect them to continue to achieve records in the 5-11 - 9-7 range. With records like those, they will continue to be excluded from the elite franchise QB talent in the draft. Unable to draft a real quarterback, they will allow that hole on the roster to persist indefinitely, like an open sore. That open sore will linger on year after year. Every year it's there is another year the Bills will not win the Super Bowl. No the Bills wold not do the big brass option even thought I think Idny did something close to this lol Thigpen would make the Bills an even more of a passing team than they are now because Chan thinks he is a QB maker and the only way they get better is to throw and abandon the run. Actually we may go go 2-14 with Fitz the way he throws INt's. So it may happen that way too lol. joking ofcourse
Bills!Win! Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I'm pretty sure RGIII Will not make it past Minnesota.
1billsfan Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I'm pretty sure RGIII Will not make it past Minnesota. Luck and RG III will most certainly go #1 and #2. Someone will trade with the Rams to get whoever is there. So the Bills would end up having to trade up to the Rams spot to get one of the two. If the Bills offered the Rams three first rounders I would find it very hard to believe that the Vikings would offer the same because that would mean they used four first round picks on a franchise QB after not even knowing what they have in Ponder given that this was his rookie season.
Tcali Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 If its an option it has to be done...even though this team is in dire need of D front 7.
Hater Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I don't understand why everyone is talking about trading up for rg3 when andrew luck is on the board. Maybe the price would be high but if we were ever going to give up our much needed draft picks we would be better off getting luck than rg3 that's for sure. That is a real franchise qb. Look what he has done for stanford. The guy is winner. I know it's a long shot but I can dream. Colts have Peyton and need so many pieces besides a qb. They have more depth issues than us. Andrew Luck has Bust written all over him in my opinion, he reminds me of Jeff George not in his attitude. but lack of desire I watch him play & I didn't see that fire to win, like George he relied too much on his skills to win & without others around him he can't will his way to a win say like Tim Tebow But watch Robert Griffin III & you see magic Griffin had more tough games this season against Oklahoma,Texas,TCU,Oklahoma State & while Luck's only real tests was against Oregon & USC, it took 3 OT to beat USC & in luck was 1-3 vs Oregon the one win was because of Toby Gerhart & the last two Luck got blasted in both I could be wrong but I just don't see Luck as top QB I said the same thing about Blaine Gabbert & you can start to see he not working out
jjmac Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Haven't you heard? They won't need an OL or WRs with RG3. He'll do it all by himself. Just like Cam Newton?
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Luck and RG III will most certainly go #1 and #2. Someone will trade with the Rams to get whoever is there. Everyone sure the Rams interested in trading?
808 Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 or give up less and get bradford if the new rams HC chooses to go with rg3.
dave mcbride Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Tom Jackson is completely wrong! Fitz put up big numbers the first half of the season NOT just against the Pats and the extension was NOT done until about a month after the Pats game. Nice try on analysis, but completely wrong. Fitz did well the first half of the season until everyone went down. We have SOOOO many needs on this team that if you re-sign Stevie, get a decent number 2 and re-sign Chandler and Roscoe then you have the WR corps that Fitz had when he was AFC offensive player of the month and was doing well. He has played poorly a lot of the time but anybody would without a TE, w/o a legitimate WR. You realize many of Fitz's INTs this year and poor play was with the likes of Ruval Martin as your number one WR? Draft a guy in the 2nd round but other than that go defense, defense, defense. You can win with Fitz if he has a decent group of guys which he did not for the last half of the season. Completely wrong?!? I don't think so. The contractual negotiation process was set in motion after the Pats victory, that's for sure. It takes more than a day to iron out the details and reach an agreement. Dick Drawn is 100 percent correct here. Andrew Luck has Bust written all over him in my opinion, he reminds me of Jeff George not in his attitude. but lack of desire I watch him play & I didn't see that fire to win, like George he relied too much on his skills to win & without others around him he can't will his way to a win say like Tim Tebow But watch Robert Griffin III & you see magic Griffin had more tough games this season against Oklahoma,Texas,TCU,Oklahoma State & while Luck's only real tests was against Oregon & USC, it took 3 OT to beat USC & in luck was 1-3 vs Oregon the one win was because of Toby Gerhart & the last two Luck got blasted in both I could be wrong but I just don't see Luck as top QB I said the same thing about Blaine Gabbert & you can start to see he not working out Um, ... I think you're wrong. You're really holding it against him for beating a really, really good USC team in OT???? Jeez.
K-9 Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 ...Does Welker, Moss, Ocho go to the Pats if Brady was not QB??... Well, yes. They DO go to the Pats, regardless. They were all acquired via trade rather than FAgency. GO BILLS!!!
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 trade up with Jacksonville and draft Robert Griffin III... next year we have a double headed MONSTER of Freddy and CJ running the ball. Healthy wide receivers, and big Tight End's to throw under... most importantly, with RG3 our o-line will have less pressure as he can manipulate the pocket almost every play... defenses will have a field day trying to guard the multiple options we can run every down (opens up Brad Smith even more)... _________ Kyle Williams back, and Dareus with experience our d-line is back in bizz... Aaron Williams with experience and our secondary creates more turnovers (like we saw in the beginning of the year) _________ we had a great draft last year and can afford to trade up, not to mention the Lynch trade pick we can move... DO IT BILLS, DO IT! Better chance of them trading gabbart than RG3 if he falls that far.
CSBill Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 or give up less and get bradford if the new rams HC chooses to go with rg3. If the Rams wanted to trade Bradford, I'd do that. Would rather start fresh with RG3, but yeah, if they want to trade him, even better to get someone just as talented and with a few years experience now.
BADOLBILZ Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) No offense, but if we can't trust the Bills to make a correct personnel decision on a pass rusher or to develop a pass rusher properly when that's an obvious huge gap on the team, aren't we kind of doomed? If we're kind of doomed, does it really matter if we have a better QB or not? And if we can't trust the Bills to make a correct personnel decision on a pass rusher what makes us thing they would make one on a QB? Fitz puzzles me right now. He started out the game throwing 80% completions, >20 yds several times accurately, zipping the ball into tight quarters. He ended the game like sh**, making crappy decisions, poor accuracy. Yesterday's game was Fitz's season in a microcosm. The clique who say he's just not accurate, he just can't make throws, he lacks the physical tools, are clearly contradicted by some of his play. He does have that ability. He's also horrible at times, missing open receivers and throwing picks all over the place. The obvious question is: what is the difference? Does he lose it when he gets sacked a few times - maybe aggrevate an injury - but too much of a "tough guy" to say "hey I'm hurt, I cant make the throws" and come out? Is it that the D just starts keying on pressuring the QB 'cuz they figure out Gailey won't run once the team gets the least bit behind? Is it the receivers - losing Chandler and Stevie and throwing to Roosevelt, Hagan, and Martin, do they run routes differently than he expects and that throws him off? Or is he just flakier than a good pie crust and streakier than a poorly washed window? I still see pass rushers and some WR upgrades, possibly a huge NT if we're staying with 3-4, as the key needs. That's not 'cuz I think Fitz is an elite QB, just that until we fill in some huge holes elsewhere, I don't see the QB as the piece that makes "everything else fall in place". This year's playoffs are going to be very interesting. If the Superbowl is GB vs NE, I will consider your point to be proved and will place an order for crow. If, on the other hand, the 49ers play the Ravens in the Superbowl (or beat NE in the Superbowl, I will suggest that your viewpoint may need to be re-examined. The answer to the question about Fitz ...... he is inconsistent and it's because of the physical limitation of his throwing arm, which is mediocre. He's a gamer but he's not a gifted passer. He has to hurl his body into throws, which disrupts his mechanics and makes him wild. Does he make a beautiful throw over 20 yards occasionally? Yeah, but it is generally a struggle. The throw that separates the good arms from the weak is the deep out. Yesterday Fitz had Nelson wide open on a deep out on third and 18 and missed BADLY. It is a fairly routine throw for a QB with a good arm, but for Fitz it is simply a step back out of his range. That is a hindrance. As for what kind of team will win a Super Bowl.......you obviously can conceivably win both ways. It's just that recent history favors the offense. The Saints beat the Bears in the SB 5 years ago with the worst run defense in the NFL. The Saints beat the Colts two years ago in a SB featuring two less-than-imposing defenses. The Packers dominated the vaunted Steelers D in last years SB. The upstart all-offense Cards played the Steelers down to the wire 3 years ago. And those Steeler teams HAD a great QB. I'm not saying it can't happen because the Pats, GB and Saints defenses are truly putrid, but the fact is that it has been about 10 years since a defense-dominated team without a great QB has made much of a showing in the SB. I agree, it will be interesting to see but the field is not very inspiring. A bunch of beat up, reeling teams in the wild card round and not a very well rounded set of favorites. Edited January 3, 2012 by Dick Drawn
jad1 Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Unfortunately too many on this board have the same mindset. "Oh the pretty draft pics....the draft pics...they fill holes...we can't wager these valuable hole fillers." Here is a different spin - in 12 years, this team has meaningfully traded up twice (for Poz and McCargo). Neither instance was for a player that has the reward potential of a QB. We have drafted at the designated, pre-allocated spot easily 90% of the time. What have those pre-allocated, status quo ante, draft selections gotten this team in terms of wins and losses? In business, investments, and yes, even in sports, it's the risk takers who run the table. The yellow-bellied, intimidated, status quo bunch get walked on. Risk takers lose plenty too, but generally they experience either significant lows or significant successes because of the strategies' boom/bust arrangement. Interesting thing is, though, that their successes are sustained, and their lows can be as short-lived as the next calculated risk. Everyone else remains on this long-winded, protracted, sustained ebb or low-degree incline waiting for the right confluence of events to happen. The Bills did trade up to get JP Losman, who, I guess, is a QB.
BADOLBILZ Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 The Rams drafted Sam Bradford in 2010 and he looked pretty good in his rookie season. This year, opinion seems split between those who feel he had no OL and no WR thus should not be blamed for his bottom-five in the NFL QB performance, and those who feel that he should have figured out how to throw more than 6 TD (all season) and fewer than 6 picks all season despite having no OL and no WR. I was going somewhere with this....oh yeah. So the Rams pick at #2, and if their new coach agrees with the promise seen in Bradford when he was drafted #1 overall 2 yrs ago, they might be one of the few teams that we COULD work a deal with because they may feel they need extra picks more than they need RGIII. Thought: franchise Stevie and tout him to St Louis, heh heh Alternatively, if the Rams want RGIII, maybe we could work a trade for Sam Bradford, except of course once a QB looks mediocre, it shows he's a mediocre QB no matter what is going on around him. Alternatively, maybe a great QB drafted high isn't the only thing a team needs to build a winner? St Louisans do have the opportunity for a view on that point. As bad as the Bills have been for the past 12 years, the Rams have been worse in the past 5 years, averaging only 3 wins per season. Their roster is not as good as the Bills and as disappointed as people are in Chan's win-loss record he has certainly shown that he can coax good play out of shabby QB's in his career and gotten remarkable production out of OL who can't even make other teams and receivers that nobody wants. He is not without some merit as an offensive football coach. I would love to see what he could do with a player like RG3. And Bradford, hell yes I would take him as a consolation prize. They could keep both but I agree with your assessment that they will probably trade Bradford or the pick to improve their roster.
The Cincinnati Kid Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Oh Look! A shiny player in the Draft!!!!! Lets get him!!!!! He plays QB, where we already have a pretty good player, but this new guy, he'll fix the pass rush and the run D! Yup. Lets get him!!!!
Recommended Posts