Watkins trade revisited

[Kirby Jackson]

Collins was 20 drafts ago, that's why I said 19.

 

I get the RJ and DB moves

 

My point is simple, get the right QB whatever it takes, then build the rest of the team.

 

I can't imagine Manuel or Orton or Tuel hoisting the Lombardi trophy, and if they can't, where is this team heading except to the land of mediocrity.

 

Sammy looks like he'll be great, but to what end ?

 

Get the QB.

Everyone wants a franchise QB. To your point, I don't see Dalton, Ryan, Stafford, Cutler, Bradford, Tannehill, etc... hoisting the Lombardi either. Outside of the QBs that have won a SB (Brady, Ben, Rodgers, Brees, Manning, Manning, Flacco, Wilson) the only other guys that I can picture winning are Kaepernick and Rivers (I like Cam too but his team isn't good). I can't picture Romo, Foles or Ryan. Even if you count all of that guys you are still looking at 1/2 the league that has a franchise QB.

 

If you have 16 teams looking every year you find teams reaching and convincing themselves that EJ, Ponder, Locker, Geno, Tannehill, etc... are franchise guys. You don't keep drafting Locker's because you have EJ. If the right guy isn't there you can't pull the trigger. We are as good an example as anyone on that topic.

[GA BILLS FAN]

Everyone wants a franchise QB. To your point, I don't see Dalton, Ryan, Stafford, Cutler, Bradford, Tannehill, etc... hoisting the Lombardi either. Outside of the QBs that have won a SB (Brady, Ben, Rodgers, Brees, Manning, Manning, Flacco, Wilson) the only other guys that I can picture winning are Kaepernick and Rivers (I like Cam too but his team isn't good). I can't picture Romo, Foles or Ryan. Even if you count all of that guys you are still looking at 1/2 the league that has a franchise QB.

 

If you have 16 teams looking every year you find teams reaching and convincing themselves that EJ, Ponder, Locker, Geno, Tannehill, etc... are franchise guys. You don't keep drafting Locker's because you have EJ. If the right guy isn't there you can't pull the trigger. We are as good an example as anyone on that topic.

Your forgot Luck.

 

I would also disagree with you on Ryan, Newton, Stafford, Romo and Cutler. I think all of them on Seattle last year, win the SB.

 

I know it's not easy, but, I'd rather the Bills make it a point to use a 1 or 2 on a QB every other year until they find one. That philosophy would have had them drafting Dalton, Kaepernick -- it would also have them drafting some duds, but I'll take that over only using a top draft pick once a decade.

 

I just know the ceiling for this team and franchise is way below Super Bowl until we get one. Do you all agree with that ?

Edited October 23, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN

[Kirby Jackson]

Your forgot Luck.

 

I would also disagree with you on Ryan, Newton, Stafford, Romo and Cutler. I think all of them on Seattle last year, win the SB.

 

I know it's not easy, but, I'd rather the Bills make it a point to use a 1 or 2 on a QB every other year until they find one. That philosophy would have had them drafting Dalton, Kaepernick -- it would also have them drafting some duds, but I'll take that over only using a top draft pick once a decade.

 

I just know the ceiling for this team and franchise is way below Super Bowl until we get one. Do you all agree with that ?

I did forget Luck. He can definitely win.

 

I think that you need a franchise guy to get to the Super Bowl. I just think that there are other ways to get one. Denver got Manning in FA, Brees in FA, Favre in Minnesota, Alex Smith via trade, Wilson, Brady, And Romo late in the draft, etc... All that I have argued is that with the current talent this team will be playing a veteran. Whether it is Orton, Bradford or even Cutler remains to be seen.

 

You can only have a guy play QB that is out there. The Bills couldn't have Andrew Luck or Stafford or Ryan or Eli or Cam or Rivers, etc... You can only have the guy that you had a shot at. They may have missed some chances (ie Russell Wilson) but it's not like they squandered lots of opportunities to get their franchise guy. They just got the wrong guys (Johnson, Bledsoe, Losman, EJ). If the right guy is there I am all for it but I am not for taking the wrong guy again.

[NoSaint]

I did forget Luck. He can definitely win.

 

I think that you need a franchise guy to get to the Super Bowl. I just think that there are other ways to get one. Denver got Manning in FA, Brees in FA, Favre in Minnesota, Alex Smith via trade, Wilson, Brady, And Romo late in the draft, etc... All that I have argued is that with the current talent this team will be playing a veteran. Whether it is Orton, Bradford or even Cutler remains to be seen.

 

You can only have a guy play QB that is out there. The Bills couldn't have Andrew Luck or Stafford or Ryan or Eli or Cam or Rivers, etc... You can only have the guy that you had a shot at. They may have missed some chances (ie Russell Wilson) but it's not like they squandered lots of opportunities to get their franchise guy. They just got the wrong guys (Johnson, Bledsoe, Losman, EJ). If the right guy is there I am all for it but I am not for taking the wrong guy again.

 

I'll also say an ortin could get to A super bowl, but it would take some luck and not be a year in and year out contender.

[JohnC]

Everyone wants a franchise QB. To your point, I don't see Dalton, Ryan, Stafford, Cutler, Bradford, Tannehill, etc... hoisting the Lombardi either. Outside of the QBs that have won a SB (Brady, Ben, Rodgers, Brees, Manning, Manning, Flacco, Wilson) the only other guys that I can picture winning are Kaepernick and Rivers (I like Cam too but his team isn't good). I can't picture Romo, Foles or Ryan. Even if you count all of that guys you are still looking at 1/2 the league that has a franchise QB.

 

If you have 16 teams looking every year you find teams reaching and convincing themselves that EJ, Ponder, Locker, Geno, Tannehill, etc... are franchise guys. You don't keep drafting Locker's because you have EJ. If the right guy isn't there you can't pull the trigger. We are as good an example as anyone on that topic.

 

I think you are establishing a too lofty standard in qbs for qb starved teams. I would gladly take a Foles or Ryan caliber qb. Although the Ravens and most teams didn't rate Flacco as an elite prospect (if I recall correctly they traded down and then back up to get Flacco at a lower first round spot) he was still a qb that you can compete at a high level with. When you have a good and not necessarily great qb you have to build your team with different areas of strength, such as defense, the OL and a good running game.

 

The difference for the Cowboys this year is that they have an elite OL (three consecutive first round OL picks or 3 out of 4 draft years?) that has allowed Romo to tone down his wild act and establish an impressive running game. Not only does that help the offense but it helps the defense by keeping it off the field more.

 

The point I'm stressing is that there are a variety of ways to build a roster that will enable you to be a serious team despite not having a dominant qb. Orton, who is at best is a below average starter, has demonstrated that if you get competent qbing you dramatically elevate the team compared to when it had bad qbing.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

I think you are establishing a too lofty standard in qbs for qb starved teams. I would gladly take a Foles or Ryan caliber qb. Although the Ravens and most teams didn't rate Flacco as an elite prospect (if I recall correctly they traded down and then back up to get Flacco at a lower first round spot) he was still a qb that you can compete at a high level with. When you have a good and not necessarily great qb you have to build your team with different areas of strength, such as defense, the OL and a good running game.

 

The difference for the Cowboys this year is that they have an elite OL (three consecutive first round OL picks or 3 out of 4 draft years?) that has allowed Romo to tone down his wild act and establish an impressive running game. Not only does that help the offense but it helps the defense by keeping it off the field more.

 

The point I'm stressing is that there are a variety of ways to build a roster that will enable you to be a serious team despite not having a dominant qb. Orton, who is at best is a below average starter, has demonstrated that if you get competent qbing you dramatically elevate the team compared to when it had bad qbing.

You and I are in total agreement. I was responding to the top end QB or bust mentality. The reality is only about 1/3 of the league can have that. They don't grow on trees. Edited October 24, 2014 by Kirby Jackson

[Orton's Arm]

I think you are establishing a too lofty standard in qbs for qb starved teams. I would gladly take a Foles or Ryan caliber qb. Although the Ravens and most teams didn't rate Flacco as an elite prospect (if I recall correctly they traded down and then back up to get Flacco at a lower first round spot) he was still a qb that you can compete at a high level with. When you have a good and not necessarily great qb you have to build your team with different areas of strength, such as defense, the OL and a good running game.

 

The difference for the Cowboys this year is that they have an elite OL (three consecutive first round OL picks or 3 out of 4 draft years?) that has allowed Romo to tone down his wild act and establish an impressive running game. Not only does that help the offense but it helps the defense by keeping it off the field more.

 

The point I'm stressing is that there are a variety of ways to build a roster that will enable you to be a serious team despite not having a dominant qb. Orton, who is at best is a below average starter, has demonstrated that if you get competent qbing you dramatically elevate the team compared to when it had bad qbing.

 

> Orton, who is at best is a below average starter . . .

 

Orton is currently ranked 16th in air yards per attempt. If you were to divide quarterbacks into top-10, bottom-10, and middle-10, he'd be among the middle-10. That's not spectacular. But you can win a Super Bowl with that, as long as you're very strong at the non-quarterback positions. Unfortunately, the Bills have key weaknesses on the offensive line, defensive secondary, and coaching staff. In the presence of those weaknesses, it will be very difficult for the team to compensate for the fact that Orton isn't a franchise QB. Don't get me wrong: this team will get its share of regular season victories. But if it makes it to the postseason, it will be exposed by someone better.

[thebandit27]

You and I are in total agreement. I was responding to the top end QB or bust mentality. The reality is only about 1/3 of the league can have that. They don't grow on trees.

 

I was discussing this with a friend yesterday, and we came up with the following definitions for QBs:

 

Elite - The best of the best, who (a) have proven it over a long period of time, and (b) continue to be the best of the best on a game-by-game basis today. As of today, the only 3 guys that fit into this category are P. Manning, Rodgers, and Brees.

 

Franchise - The QBs you can envision winning a Superbowl with as your starter. Long list here (16) - Brady, Dalton, Flacco, Roethlisberger, Luck, Rivers, Wilson, Kaepernick, Palmer, Stafford, Cutler, Newton, Ryan, E. Manning, Foles, Romo

 

So that makes 19 "franchise" QBs if you go by that definition. Obviously there will be some debate as to players that should or shouldn't be on either of the two lists above; I think your point stands about there being anywhere from 12 to 16 teams looking for a franchise guy every year.

 

As a side note, here are the guys I put as possible franchise guys that either aren't there yet or have the ability and haven't proven their worth:

 

Tannehill, Hoyer, A. Smith, S. Bradford

 

The rest of the guys are total wild cards IMO.

[JohnC]

> Orton, who is at best is a below average starter . . .

 

Orton is currently ranked 16th in air yards per attempt. If you were to divide quarterbacks into top-10, bottom-10, and middle-10, he'd be among the middle-10. That's not spectacular. But you can win a Super Bowl with that, as long as you're very strong at the non-quarterback positions. Unfortunately, the Bills have key weaknesses on the offensive line, defensive secondary, and coaching staff. In the presence of those weaknesses, it will be very difficult for the team to compensate for the fact that Orton isn't a franchise QB. Don't get me wrong: this team will get its share of regular season victories. But if it makes it to the postseason, it will be exposed by someone better.

 

I agree wtih your assessment of the team that it has a variety of flaws. Very often people over assess teams because of their strengths. But as the Bills have demonstrated that when a team has significant vulnerabilities it will be constantly explointed by the opposition. Brady undressing Duke Williams was an example of that an our OL being regularly overwhelmed is another obvious example.

 

My view of Orton is that he is average at best. But without even resorting to statistics the aesthetics of his game compared to EJ's game is dramatically different in a positive sense.

[GA BILLS FAN]

 

 

I was discussing this with a friend yesterday, and we came up with the following definitions for QBs:

 

Elite - The best of the best, who (a) have proven it over a long period of time, and (b) continue to be the best of the best on a game-by-game basis today. As of today, the only 3 guys that fit into this category are P. Manning, Rodgers, and Brees.

 

Franchise - The QBs you can envision winning a Superbowl with as your starter. Long list here (16) - Brady, Dalton, Flacco, Roethlisberger, Luck, Rivers, Wilson, Kaepernick, Palmer, Stafford, Cutler, Newton, Ryan, E. Manning, Foles, Romo

 

So that makes 19 "franchise" QBs if you go by that definition. Obviously there will be some debate as to players that should or shouldn't be on either of the two lists above; I think your point stands about there being anywhere from 12 to 16 teams looking for a franchise guy every year.

 

As a side note, here are the guys I put as possible franchise guys that either aren't there yet or have the ability and haven't proven their worth:

 

Tannehill, Hoyer, A. Smith, S. Bradford

 

The rest of the guys are total wild cards IMO.

 

I have same list of 19.

 

I'd probably split the groups a bit differently:

 

Elite+ (your Elite definition plus I'd add comment that they continue to be game changers every week)

Elite minus (won SB before, can win again, but are not game in and game out game changers)- Brady, Roethlisberger, Wilson, E Manning, Flacco)

Franchise: the rest of your 19

 

The special exception I'd have would be for Luck, I'd probably move him into Elite minus, simply because he is that good

 

 

That leaves 11 teams.

 

It astounds me that we've been in that last category since Kelly left !! --- that's over 20 years

 

Circling back to the OP, that is why I struggle so much with the Watkins trade --- losing that 1st next year eats at me every day -- I get that there are no guarantees with the pick that we'd land a franchise QB, I just feel until we have one of those "19", we are playing for 7-9, 8-8 or 9-7 and if we are lucky we pop a 10-6 in there, but no chance for a SB !!

 

 

 

[mannc]

 

 

I was discussing this with a friend yesterday, and we came up with the following definitions for QBs:

 

Elite - The best of the best, who (a) have proven it over a long period of time, and (b) continue to be the best of the best on a game-by-game basis today. As of today, the only 3 guys that fit into this category are P. Manning, Rodgers, and Brees.

 

Franchise - The QBs you can envision winning a Superbowl with as your starter. Long list here (16) - Brady, Dalton, Flacco, Roethlisberger, Luck, Rivers, Wilson, Kaepernick, Palmer, Stafford, Cutler, Newton, Ryan, E. Manning, Foles, Romo

 

So that makes 19 "franchise" QBs if you go by that definition. Obviously there will be some debate as to players that should or shouldn't be on either of the two lists above; I think your point stands about there being anywhere from 12 to 16 teams looking for a franchise guy every year.

 

As a side note, here are the guys I put as possible franchise guys that either aren't there yet or have the ability and haven't proven their worth:

 

Tannehill, Hoyer, A. Smith, S. Bradford

 

The rest of the guys are total wild cards IMO.

To not have Brady among the "elite" sort of undermines your rankings. If he had the weapons Manning had right now, he would be literally unstoppable. And I would take Alex Smith over Cutler (and probably Palmer too) 7 days a week. Edited October 24, 2014 by mannc

[thebandit27]

To not have Brady among the "elite" sort of undermines your rankings. If he had the weapons Manning had right now, he would be literally unstoppable. And I would take Alex Smith over Cutler (and probably Palmer too) 7 days a week.

 

I strongly disagree...I think he's fallen off a bit the last 2 years. To me, it was very noticeable in the AFC Championship game. There was a stark difference in the way Manning was throwing the ball versus the way Brady was throwing the ball. I think you'll see the same as December and January roll around this year as well.

 

Also, while I do give some credence to the weapons question, I also think that the QB makes the WRs far more often than the other way around. Remember, Brady won Superbowls with David Givens, David Patten, and Deion Branch; he never won a thing with Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Chad Ochojohnson.

[26CornerBlitz]

Watkins surge gaining attention

Bills WR Sammy Watkins surge in production the last three weeks is garnering more and more national attention. His breakout game last week, which was capped with the game-winning touchdown catch with a second left on the game clock has only increased his gravitational pull on the media. Breaking down the improvements of his game from college however, is not something that many are qualified to do. Former Bills safety Matt Bowen is and he does so in this breakdown of Watkins.

[Tyrod's Tailor]

I strongly disagree...I think he's fallen off a bit the last 2 years. To me, it was very noticeable in the AFC Championship game. There was a stark difference in the way Manning was throwing the ball versus the way Brady was throwing the ball. I think you'll see the same as December and January roll around this year as well.

 

Also, while I do give some credence to the weapons question, I also think that the QB makes the WRs far more often than the other way around. Remember, Brady won Superbowls with David Givens, David Patten, Deion Branch and Matt Walsh; he never won a thing with Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Chad Ochojohnson.

 

Fixed.

[SoFFacet]

Brady won Superbowls with David Givens, David Patten, and Deion Branch; he never won a thing with Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Chad Ochojohnson.

 

The best offenses the Patriots have ever had were the ones with Moss and Welker. Losing to the Giants in the SB doesn't change that.

[thebandit27]

The best offenses the Patriots have ever had were the ones with Moss and Welker. Losing to the Giants in the SB doesn't change that.

 

Some might argue that the best offense the Patriots had might have put up more than 14 and 16 points against the Giants in either Superbowl...either way, it doesn't change my point that the QB makes the WRs far more often than the converse being true, which by itself is merely a sidebar to the original discussion.

[Augie]

That stinker of a game Brady had a few weeks ago was unlike anything I've ever seen from him. (I only saw part of the second half.) It reminded me a bit of when Kelly and Marino reached the end. It was not only mortal, it was downright ugly. Brady's certainly not fully there yet, but that was encouraging to me.

[SoFFacet]

Some might argue that the best offense the Patriots had might have put up more than 14 and 16 points against the Giants in either Superbowl

 

And they would be misguided. Running into a great defense in the last game in doesn't change what a team accomplished during the rest of the season. Look at Denver last year.

 

either way, it doesn't change my point that the QB makes the WRs far more often than the converse being true

 

"More often" by definition concedes that the opposite is sometimes true. So the statement holds almost no analytic value by itself, and you have to look at the cases individually. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that Brady can't throw the seam to Sanders, the screen to DT, or any of the other common (and frankly easy) throws that are in Denver's current offense.

 

In any case this is a silly distinction to make. Every position on the team synergizes in both directions with other positions.

Edited October 24, 2014 by SoFFacet

[thebandit27]

And they would be misguided. Running into a great defense in the last game in doesn't change what a team accomplished during the rest of the season. Look at Denver last year.

 

I never said that it did.

 

"More often" by definition concedes that the opposite is sometimes true. So the statement holds almost no analytic value by itself, and you have to look at the cases individually. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that Brady can't throw the seam to Sanders, the screen to DT, or any of the other common (and frankly easy) throws that are in Denver's current offense.

 

In any case this is a silly distinction to make. Every position on the team synergizes in both directions with other positions.

 

If it's your opinion that Brady's relative decline over the past 1-1/2 seasons results from his lack of WRs, that's fine. I don't agree.

 

The original sidebar discussion was about elite QBs and whether or not Brady belongs there. It's my opinion that he no longer does, and that it has nothing to do with his WRs. When he was among the elite, he could win with guys like Givens/Patten/Branch. That's no longer the case.

[mannc]

 

 

I never said that it did.

 

 

 

If it's your opinion that Brady's relative decline over the past 1-1/2 seasons results from his lack of WRs, that's fine. I don't agree.

 

The original sidebar discussion was about elite QBs and whether or not Brady belongs there. It's my opinion that he no longer does, and that it has nothing to do with his WRs. When he was among the elite, he could win with guys like Givens/Patten/Branch. That's no longer the case.

You keep saying that Brady "can't win" with the current non-elite receivers he is throwing to, but the Pats now sit at 5-2 and just last year they made it to the AFC Championship game. I defy you to point to a single throw that he made against the Bills two weeks ago that demonstrated even the slightest decline in Brady's ability to play QB in the NFL. You also have not mentioned Brady's offensive line, which is as poor as its ever been, especially compared to Denver's. Manning was completely unmolested last night.