A Few Thoughts About The Game, in no particular order.....

[K-9]

I'm suggesting that the Bills should have made finding a suitable QB priority #1 ever since Kelly left, and that they haven't.

 

And I'm suggesting they've made it a priority and the results haven't been suitable.

 

I'm also suggesting that as much as you'd like Nix to throw good money after bad and take a flyer on a guy in the first round, he won't unless he's convinced that prospect really is the long term answer. That prospect has to be able to come in and start IMMEDIATELY while giving the team a BETTER chance to win.

 

That's a tall order. And history proves that.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Geno Smith's Arm]

And I'm suggesting they've made it a priority and the results haven't been suitable.

 

I'm also suggesting that as much as you'd like Nix to throw good money after bad and take a flyer on a guy in the first round, he won't unless he's convinced that prospect really is the long term answer. That prospect has to be able to come in and start IMMEDIATELY while giving the team a BETTER chance to win.

 

That's a tall order. And history proves that.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I'm not insistent that it be a 1st round pick, that is just the best place to find them. If you don't have one, you better be looking. They haven't drafted many QB's, considering how poor the play has been. What do you think they should have done? And what do you think they should do next?

[K-9]

I'm not insistent that it be a 1st round pick, that is just the best place to find them. If you don't have one, you better be looking. They haven't drafted many QB's, considering how poor the play has been. What do you think they should have done? And what do you think they should do next?

 

Oh, we definitely need an upgrade at QB. But I can't say what we should do next until I see where we end up, where we are drafting, and who's there when our turn comes.

 

I do know that Nix understands the difference between being a QB and being a passer. He's got a smart QB who's a poor passer that limits some offensive options. He's in a bind. The last thing he needs is a million dollar arm and a 10 cent head. He also knows that "everybody is robbing the same train" as he puts it, so drafting one is affected by what other teams do to jockey to get that guy.

 

There are just no easy answers without the benefit of hindsight. I just know that he'll take one IF he thinks that can be the guy. And it's NOT like Fitz's contract is an albatross so we are lucky that aspect doesn't enter into the equation.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Clippers of Nfl]

Why would Someone be a "genius" for calling spiller on a 1st and goal run up the middle, when you have other bigger, healthier backs on the bench?WHen I saw him get the call I hEld my breath and a few seconds later unfortunately exhaLed with a bunch of expletives. This "and if It worked he's a genius" card is over played Around here. If it worked he would have been lucky that's all

Maybe not genius. It's just a word Joe.

But if it would have been a right or left sweep or sideline run, it would have been at least a respectable call. Going up the middle with an injured dude was plain dumb.

 

Up the middle I would prefer Corey Mac in that scenario. But hey I'm just an average stupid fan of a stupid team.

 

Please dont cry die hard bufaflo fans cuz I'm one too.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Oh, we definitely need an upgrade at QB. But I can't say what we should do next until I see where we end up, where we are drafting, and who's there when our turn comes.

 

I do know that Nix understands the difference between being a QB and being a passer. He's got a smart QB who's a poor passer that limits some offensive options. He's in a bind. The last thing he needs is a million dollar arm and a 10 cent head. He also knows that "everybody is robbing the same train" as he puts it, so drafting one is affected by what other teams do to jockey to get that guy.

 

There are just no easy answers without the benefit of hindsight. I just know that he'll take one IF he thinks that can be the guy. And it's NOT like Fitz's contract is an albatross so we are lucky that aspect doesn't enter into the equation.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

So the last 20 years has just been "hard luck" for the Bills, in their efforts to find a suitable QB? I agree that it isn't easy to find one. I understand why they didn't try to start over with a rookie QB. They are stuck with Fitz, the only window for them to select a guy that would be expected to start right away was year one. But not getting a QB here is bad for the long term. That's been part of the problem, instability.

 

If I were a GM, I wouldn't be able to sleep until I had a QB I believed in. My main focus would be either finding one right away, or getting myself into position to get one. It shouldn't take more than 3 years to get a hold of a good PROSPECT.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Matthews' Bag

[Clippers of Nfl]

Drew Brees, Joe Flacco, Russell Wilson, Christian Ponder, Blaine Gabbert, Jake Locker, Andy Dalton. All guys from the upper part of the draft that were worthy of a Bills pick.

Ponder has been looking decent lately. You would not have typed his name last year. He was pathetic last year. For the same reason that all nfl experts had minnesota in the bottom 5 all summer long. I think he will eventually collapse later on.

Blaine Gabbert. His stupid last name says it all. He will not have a good nfl career either.

Jake Locker beat out an old Matt. He's still not good and he's injury prone.

 

I never get what i want. I wanted a pass rusher and i got maybin.

I really wanted that carolina lb luke kiechly. I think with that guy our defense would look a lot sweeter. (By no means am I calling Gilmore a bust)

 

I wish we had Al Pacino as our draft leader. He's a scary judge of talent.

[K-9]

Ponder has been looking decent lately. You would not have typed his name last year. He was pathetic last year. For the same reason that all nfl experts had minnesota in the bottom 5 all summer long. I think he will eventually collapse later on.

Blaine Gabbert. His stupid last name says it all. He will not have a good nfl career either.

Jake Locker beat out an old Matt. He's still not good and he's injury prone.

 

I never get what i want. I wanted a pass rusher and i got maybin.

I really wanted that carolina lb luke kiechly. I think with that guy our defense would look a lot sweeter. (By no means am I calling Gilmore a bust)

 

I wish we had Al Pacino as our draft leader. He's a scary judge of talent.

 

I like what I've seen of Gilmore, especially Sunday in what was our worst game EVER defensively.

 

That said, Wanny would have snapped up Keuchly if Carolina didn't. And he wouldn't EVER come off the field and cause Wanny to use that stupid "43 is the Mike" scheme.

 

Unless of course, Keuchly were issued number 43.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Some of the guys I posted won't turn out. The point is that they have to keep sifting for gold (silver or copper) because what they have is inadequate. Half-a**ed is nowhere. They are nowhere and I haven't seen enough sifting.

 

I forgot Matt Schaub.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Matthews' Bag

[Clippers of Nfl]

Some of the guys I posted won't turn out. The point is that they have to keep sifting for gold (silver or copper) because what the have is inadequate. Half-a**ed is nowhere. They are nowhere and I haven't seen enough sifting.

We all need to settle down a bit. We were on a major roll. If Cj didnt get hurt, it would have been us destroying the pats.

 

Cj will be back. Even dumb Chin has opened his eyes about spiller (hence the bad call on the goal line before half). Once cj returns to 100%, we start running over teams.

 

Our oline was great. Now it's just ok again. None of that matters, Cj is an all star.

[Orton's Arm]

I'll give you Flacco although he would have been scapegoated and run out of town because we didn't have the defense or OLine required to keep that team in games while he learned. But he would have been a better choice than McKelvin maybe even without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

 

Brees was simply not a logical choice at the time given our ongoing investment in Rob Johnson. GREAT hindsight pick, though.

 

I like Dalton's upside certainly, but I can see why Buddy chose a higher rated CB at a position of higher need at the time.

 

I have to laugh at the rest. Especially the three that were off the board AFTER we took Dareus and BEFORE we took A Williams. And Russell Wilson, while a compelling story, is about to lose his starting job if he doesn't have a good game against Carolina.

 

Just to be clear, are you suggesting the Bills should have taken any of Ponder, Gabbert, or Locker instead of Dareus? Or are you suggesting Nix is stupid for not trading assets to get back into the first round to take any of them, two of which he would have had to get back into the top 10 to select (Locker and Gabbert). That's not feasible or advisable.

 

I have it on pretty good authority that Chan was very high on Ponder and the Bills would have looked to take him by trading back into the LATE first round to get him. But Minny made it a moot point by selecting him way before anyone had him getting picked when they took him at 12.

 

So that leaves Flacco and perhaps Dalton as two woulda, shoulda, coulda hindsight picks. But I can certainly understand why they DIDN'T take either one given the state of the team at the time. Nobody had either pegged as that "10-15 year guy" that Nix has talked about so often in the past. Rest assured if/when that guy is there, Nix will take him.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

> Brees was simply not a logical choice at the time given our ongoing investment in Rob Johnson. GREAT hindsight pick, though.

 

Brees was more than just a great hindsight pick. He would have been a great pick based on the information available at the time.

 

By the time the 2001 draft rolled around, Rob Johnson had been a Buffalo Bill for three years. In his first two years as a Bill, he had a ridiculously good yards per attempt stat. But yards per attempt doesn't take sacks into account, and Johnson was a sack waiting to happen.

 

In the 2000 season--his third as a Bill--Johnson averaged just 6.9 yards per attempt --not much better than what Fitz has shown us these past few years. Also of concern was the fact that Johnson was sacked 49 times in 12 games. The sack waiting to happen thing was nothing new: back in '98, Johnson had been sacked 29 times in just 8 games (including 6 starts). Johnson was only sacked once in 1999; mostly because he spent almost all of that year on the bench.

 

Going into the 2001 draft, TD knew that in his three years as a Bill, Rob Johnson had failed to develop even the barest minimum of sack avoidance technique. Could Johnson have fixed that problem later in his career? Yes, it was a possibility. But it was very, very far from being a certainty. TD also knew that Drew Brees had established himself as a proven pocket passer at the college level. That's the kind of first round QB most likely to have success in the NFL.

 

Had TD been 90 - 95% sure Johnson would have worked out, then maybe one could justify passing on Drew Brees. But the data TD had about Johnson did not justify anywhere near that 90 - 95% level of confidence. If there's only a 20 - 30% chance of Johnson working out, why not give yourself another opportunity to make something good happen at the QB position? What's the worst that can happen? That you end up with two good QBs, and trade one away for draft picks? A Cutler-level QB is worth two first round picks in a trade. A Marshawn Lynch-level RB is worth a 4th + 6th rounder. It's much better to have to trade away a surplus of talent at the QB position than at the RB position!

Edited October 3, 2012 by Edwards' Arm

[K-9]

> Brees was simply not a logical choice at the time given our ongoing investment in Rob Johnson. GREAT hindsight pick, though.

 

Brees was more than just a great hindsight pick. He would have been a great pick based on the information available at the time.

 

By the time the 2001 draft rolled around, Rob Johnson had been a Buffalo Bill for three years. In his first two years as a Bill, he had a ridiculously good yards per attempt stat. But yards per attempt doesn't take sacks into account, and Johnson was a sack waiting to happen.

 

In the 2000 season--his third as a Bill--Johnson averaged just 6.9 yards per attempt --not much better than what Fitz has shown us these past few years. Also of concern was the fact that Johnson was sacked 49 times in 12 games. The sack waiting to happen thing was nothing new: back in '98, Johnson had been sacked 29 times in just 8 games (including 6 starts). Johnson was only sacked once in 1999; mostly because he spent almost all of that year on the bench.

 

Going into the 2001 draft, TD knew that in his three years as a Bill, Rob Johnson had failed to develop even the barest minimum of sack avoidance technique. Could Johnson have fixed that problem later in his career? Yes, it was a possibility. But it was very, very far from being a certainty. TD also knew that Drew Brees had established himself as a proven pocket passer at the college level. That's the kind of first round QB most likely to have success in the NFL.

 

Had TD been 90 - 95% sure Johnson would have worked out, then maybe one could justify passing on Drew Brees. But the data TD had about Johnson did not justify anywhere near that 90 - 95% level of confidence. If there's only a 20 - 30% chance of Johnson working out, why not give yourself another opportunity to make something good happen at the QB position? What's the worst that can happen? That you end up with two good QBs, and trade one away for draft picks? A Cutler-level QB is worth two first round picks in a trade. A Marshawn Lynch-level RB is worth a 4th + 6th rounder. It's much better to have to trade away a surplus of talent at the QB position than at the RB position!

 

This is what I mean about the need to consider EVERYTHING when judging the Bills' decision to bypass Drew Brees in the 2001 draft. That was Donahoe's and Gregg Williams' first season at the helm together. A new regime can't make a more powerful statement than to declare their handpicked starting QB and once and for all end the Flutie/Johnson QB controversy. Do you think for a minute when they made that decision a full two months before the draft, that they were going to encourage ANOTHER QB controversy and countermand their OWN decision by drafting another QB in the first round?

 

It doesn't matter if they were wrong or not. They had LEGITIMATE reasons not to draft Brees when, only three years earlier, they invested a top 10 draft pick and a record contract in Rob Johnson. Once he had the endorsement of the new regime, that was all she wrote on the subject of drafting a QB. And no amount of elegant statistic bending was going to convince them otherwise.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

This is what I mean about the need to consider EVERYTHING when judging the Bills' decision to bypass Drew Brees in the 2001 draft. That was Donahoe's and Gregg Williams' first season at the helm together. A new regime can't make a more powerful statement than to declare their handpicked starting QB and once and for all end the Flutie/Johnson QB controversy. Do you think for a minute when they made that decision a full two months before the draft, that they were going to encourage ANOTHER QB controversy and countermand their OWN decision by drafting another QB in the first round?

 

It doesn't matter if they were wrong or not. They had LEGITIMATE reasons not to draft Brees when, only three years earlier, they invested a top 10 draft pick and a record contract in Rob Johnson. Once he had the endorsement of the new regime, that was all she wrote on the subject of drafting a QB. And no amount of elegant statistic bending was going to convince them otherwise.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> This is what I mean about the need to consider EVERYTHING when judging the Bills' decision to bypass Drew Brees in the 2001 draft.

 

What you see as "considering everything" I see as an exercise in getting distracted from the core question. The core question here being: based on the data available as of the end of the 2000 season, what were the odds of Rob Johnson becoming a successful NFL QB?

 

> Do you think for a minute when they made that decision a full two months before the draft, that

> they were going to encourage ANOTHER QB controversy and countermand their OWN decision

> by drafting another QB in the first round?

 

Yes, that's exactly what they should have done. Their focus shouldn't have been on trying to eliminate the possibility of short term QB controversies, or on trying to justify their decision to go with Johnson over Flutie. For any decisions relating to the QB position, the only focus should have been on finding a long term answer. Period. Having Johnson + Brees on the roster gives you a better shot at finding that long term answer than having Johnson alone. This is especially true given the many (legitimate) concerns about Johnson.

 

> It doesn't matter if they were wrong or not.

 

What matters is whether the decision-making process they used maximized their probability of success, based on the data available at the time. Clearly, it did not. The things you wrote about in your post represent their probable rationale for having adopted a non-optimal decision-making process.

 

> They had LEGITIMATE reasons not to draft Brees when, only three years earlier, they invested a top 10 draft pick and a record contract in Rob Johnson.

 

Both the draft pick and the contract were sunk costs. The Bills shouldn't have made a decision based on sunk costs, or on the basis of the player they thought they were getting when they traded for Johnson in the first place. Their decision should have been made solely on the basis of the player they actually received.

 

> And no amount of elegant statistic bending was going to convince them otherwise.

 

Are you suggesting that my earlier statement--in which I pointed out Johnson took a lot of sacks--was an exercise in "elegant statistical bending"? If so, what point are you trying to make by applying that label?

[K-9]

...Are you suggesting that my earlier statement--in which I pointed out Johnson took a lot of sacks--was an exercise in "elegant statistical bending"? If so, what point are you trying to make by applying that label?

 

The point I'm making is that no amount of statistical justification, for or against the case to select Rob Johnson, could have been used to influence Tom Donahoe's decision one way or the other. You dismiss the emotional aspects entirely as if stats are the only drivers of decision making. Bottom line is, Tom Donahoe was PRECLUDED from selecting a QB in the first round of his first draft.

 

But if you're into a statistical analysis, I'd be interested in seeing some data on those QBs selected in the first round with careers similar to Brees and with superior physical measureables to boot. My hunch is that there are more failures than success stories over the years. GMs just don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and that's really all this exercise comes down to.

 

This has been beaten to death. You and others claim we've ignored the most important position. I disagree. There's a difference between being wrong about something and ignoring it. And we've been plenty wrong. I'd say that we not only didn't ignore it, we obsessed over it and panicked.

 

I'm glad Nix isn't that type of GM. He's got a game manager, he's building the surrounding cast, and when he has a chance to take that ONE guy, he will. He has repeated that on several occasions. He's not ignoring the position. He's just not panicking, reaching, and being stupid about it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Geno Smith's Arm]

The point I'm making is that no amount of statistical justification, for or against the case to select Rob Johnson, could have been used to influence Tom Donahoe's decision one way or the other. You dismiss the emotional aspects entirely as if stats are the only drivers of decision making. Bottom line is, Tom Donahoe was PRECLUDED from selecting a QB in the first round of his first draft.

 

But if you're into a statistical analysis, I'd be interested in seeing some data on those QBs selected in the first round with careers similar to Brees and with superior physical measureables to boot. My hunch is that there are more failures than success stories over the years. GMs just don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and that's really all this exercise comes down to.

 

This has been beaten to death. You and others claim we've ignored the most important position. I disagree. There's a difference between being wrong about something and ignoring it. And we've been plenty wrong. I'd say that we not only didn't ignore it, we obsessed over it and panicked.

 

I'm glad Nix isn't that type of GM. He's got a game manager, he's building the surrounding cast, and when he has a chance to take that ONE guy, he will. He has repeated that on several occasions. He's not ignoring the position. He's just not panicking, reaching, and being stupid about it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

However you want to spin it, however you want to over intellectualize, the fact remains that they haven't done enough. And they have had 20 years to find an answer.

[K-9]

However you want to spin it, however you want to over intellectualize, the fact remains that they haven't done enough. And they have had 20 years to find an answer.

 

You have a firm grasp of the obvious.

 

And there is no way that football can be "over intellectualized." It just isn't that complicated.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Geno Smith's Arm]

You have a firm grasp of the obvious.

 

And there is no way that football can be "over intellectualized." It just isn't that complicated.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

You are doing your best...

[K-9]

You are doing your best...

 

No, I'm just not ignoring the evidence that so many others do when they proclaim the Bills don't think QB is a priority and haven't done anything about addressing the position since Kelly retired.

 

I'm just presenting hard facts in the face of baseless accusations.

 

They've tried. And they've screwed the pooch with their decisions. You just see that they've screwed the pooch.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Geno Smith's Arm]

No, I'm just not ignoring the evidence that so many others do when they proclaim the Bills don't think QB is a priority and haven't done anything about addressing the position since Kelly retired.

 

I'm just presenting hard facts in the face of baseless accusations.

 

They've tried. And they've screwed the pooch with their decisions. You just see that they've screwed the pooch.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Yes, you are right they haven't "ignored" the position. You are absolutely CORRECT, the word "ignore" is being misused.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

The Green Bay Packers, with Brett Favre already established as their QB, have drafted 11 quarterbacks since 1994. Is that a hard enough fact for you? That is a team that is properly prioritizing the position. Their defense, or any other positions don't appear to have suffered for it, and they have been a successful team. They weren't even in desperate need of a QB, yet the put those resources toward the position.

 

Yes, the Bills have tried, and no they haven't ignored the position, but they haven't done enough. Maybe you need a firmer grasp of the obvious.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Matthews' Bag

[K-9]

The Green Bay Packers, with Brett Favre already established as their QB, have drafted 11 quarterbacks since 1994. Is that a hard enough fact for you? That is a team that is properly prioritizing the position. Their defense hasn't suffered for it, and they have been a successful team. They weren't even in desperate need of a QB, yet the put those resources toward the position.

 

Yes, the Bills have tried, and no they haven't ignored the position, but they haven't done enough. Maybe you need a firmer grasp of the obvious.

 

Yes, because QUANTITY always trumps QUALITY. Unless you consider the likes of these guys as quality QBs: Jay Barker, Kyle Wacholtz, Ron McAda and Ingle Martin. That's 4 out of the 11 drafted by GB that never took a snap in the league. Green Bay took late round flyers on these guys.

 

I'll cut to the chase: 1 out of the 11 has won them a ring (Rogers). Too bad we didn't have a #1 pick that year.

 

1 out of the 11, in addition to Rogers has had ANY modicum of success in the league (Hasselback).

 

So, that's 2 out of 11 success stories for all those draft picks spent on QBs. A whopping 18% success rate. Way to blaze a trail Green Bay Packers! Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting they were paying any more than lip service to the QB position by making these picks and that ANYONE other than Favre, whom they traded for and Rogers whom we had no chance at, is the reason for their success. So no, not even close to a hard enough fact for me.

 

Anyway, I thought we already agreed that the Bills haven't done enough? I never suggested otherwise. And it won't be enough until we get our franchise guy.

 

Perhaps you should loosen your grip a bit. You're hanging on too tight it seems. How far did you have to dig for this snippet of Green Bay Packers trivia? Sorry you wasted your time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited October 5, 2012 by K-9