Polian critical of Bills not drafting a QB

[BillsVet]

Earlier this off-season Whaley erred in using the word "blame" to describe the drafting of Manuel and part of me wonders if they're gun-shy after that decision.

 

QB's typically define the success or failure of a GM's tenure, but not taking one affords a personnel guy more time. This wasn't a draft that'll go down for QB depth in the later rounds, IMO, but we do know not taking a shot means you're guaranteed to fail.

 

The fan spin-doctors can do their usual thing of conflating the issue and protecting OBD, but neither Whaley nor Nix have figured out the position. Worse, they've only taken one swing and it's looking more and more like a bust.

Edited May 3, 2015 by BillsVet

[1billsfan]

Earlier this off-season Whaley erred in using the word "blame" to describe the drafting of Manuel and part of me wonders if they're gun-shy after that decision.

 

QB's typically define the success or failure of a GM's tenure, but not taking one affords a personnel guy more time. This wasn't a draft that'll go down for QB depth in the later rounds, IMO, but we do know not taking a shot means you're guaranteed to fail.

 

The fan spin-doctors can do their usual thing of conflating the issue and protecting OBD, but neither Whaley nor Nix have figured out the position. Worse, they've only taken one swing and it's looking more and more like a bust.

 

EJ Manuel's development was cut after two straight bad games way back in week five of the 2014 season. Fans can guess what would have happened, but we don't know for sure what he would've done the rest of 2014. He had two good games and two bad games. So everything since then has just been nothing but talk without anything real or tangible seen on the field. I really think that with the time on the bench last year to settle himself down and now this year with everything surrounding Manuel, that it will be kind of hard for him to fail this year. If he does fail then Whaley can swiftly move on to solve the problem with a clear mind.

 

Whaley knows he's set as the Bills GM regardless of whether Manuel succeeds or fails this year. So at least there will be team continuity and I'm sure he will next go the free agent or trade route for a veteran QB who's got a name and reputation of NFL success.

[dave mcbride]

thats very different imo. The packers have been able to draft QBs to be disciples. The Bills would be drafting QBs to be saviors. The only "QB needy" team to take one of the "next tier" QBs this year was NYJ and that's because they only had 2 QBs, and had to use a 4th rd pick to do it. The others will play behind established starters, two of them future hall of famers. The packers and bills could not have two more different Qb situations over the last 20 years. Saying we should copy their backup Qb drafting philosophy is like copying NE's RB philosophy. They have luxuries we do not, because we don't have a future HOF qb at the helm.

GB can draft as many QBs as they want but they've had 2 starters in 20 yrs.

As I said many times though, he wasn't talking about drafting guy for a 2-3 yr project on day 3 like the packers did. He was referring to drafting a guy to compete for the job today, like the Jets did.if cook had declared this year, Kiper or one of those guys said he would have been a top 15 pick. I'm glad he went back though because he only had 1 1/2 yrs experience as a starter. And because we have a 1st rd pick next yr

I hear you, but the Packers' philosophy is just better. Since 1992, they have drafter 12 qbs not including Favre (who they traded a pick for while Favre was essentially a rookie). Some have had solid to good careers too - Hasselback, Brunell, and Aaron Brooks (who had seome decent seasons). They have also consistently turned those qb picks into more and better picks through trades too. I won't be surprised if that happens to Hundley.

 

Going back to 1987, the Bills have drafted five, and that includes Levi Brown. Rob Johnson was arguably a "pick," although he had more years under his belt than Favre. The Bledsoe they traded for was past his prime.

 

12 vs. 5 is a big disparity, and through it all the Packers have actually been set at the position! Basically, they recognize its importance more than the Bills do and know how utilize qbs they've drafted as resources.

[Rockinon]

I don't think there is a QB in this entire draft capable enough to beat out what we have on our roster. I also think Polian is getting old and is losing his touch.

[Rubes]

The oddest part about the Polian view is that he spent quite a bit of effort towards the end of the draft debating why it was perfectly fine that the Browns didn't draft a QB. He talked at length about how it was a sound philosophy for them to build a strong running team while they wait next time for the franchise QB.

 

Weird.

[dave mcbride]

I don't think there is a QB in this entire draft capable enough to beat out what we have on our roster. I also think Polian is getting old and is losing his touch.

Good teams that manage for the future realize that qbs will always be valuable commodities on the trade front. The pats are another good example; they've drafted 9 qbs since just 1999.

[Lurker]

I hear you, but the Packers' philosophy is just better.

Yes, I heartily endorses having two HOF quarterbacks lead the team over an uninterrupted 23-year period as well.

 

Sign me up...

[Wayne Cubed]

Good teams that manage for the future realize that qbs will always be valuable commodities on the trade front. The pats are another good example; they've drafted 9 qbs since just 1999.

 

You're pointing to teams that have the luxury of being set at the QB position. What about the Browns? They've selected 8, since 1999, non of them have been solutions for them at the position. The Jest have selected 8 since 2000, the best of that group? Chad Pennington? Mark Sanchez? Still haven't found the guy.

[dave mcbride]

You're pointing to teams that have the luxury of being set at the QB position. What about the Browns? They've selected 8, since 1999, non of them have been solutions for them at the position. The Jest have selected 8 since 2000, the best of that group? Chad Pennington? Mark Sanchez? Still haven't found the guy.

I think you're missing my point. Certain teams that just happen to be models for how a team should be run prioritize the position more than others do. The bills are one of those teams that fails and fails to address it, and when their latest young qb busts, they have no one waiting in the wings and have to metaphorically throw a hail mary and trade for one or overdraft. The pats lose brady, and cassel steps in and plays well. Favre never got hurt, but if he had they would have been ok with hasselback or brunell. Christ, matt flynn played incredibly well in their system.

 

The point is to keep trying and to always maintain a laser focus on the position regardless of who your starter is (eg, jimmy garrapolo). As for the Jets, i think Pennington had a chance to be great but the shoulder injury just ruined his career. Before that, he was playing at a near-elite level. He gutted it out through smarts after the injury, but he couldn't make the throws anymore. Still, he was good when healthy.

Edited May 3, 2015 by dave mcbride

[Wayne Cubed]

I think you're missing my point. Certain teams that just happen to be models for how a team should be run prioritize the position more than others do. The bills are one of those teams that fails and fails to address it, and when their latest young qb busts, they have no one waiting in the wings and have to metaphorically throw a hail mary and trade for one or overdraft. The pats lose brady, and cassel steps in and plays well. Favre never got hurt, but if he had they would have been ok with hasselback or brunell. Christ, matt flynn played incredibly well in their system.

 

The point is to keep trying and to always maintain a laser focus on the position regardless of who your starter is (eg, jimmy garrapolo). As for the Jets, i think Pennington had a chance to be great but the shoulder injury just ruined his career. Before that, he was playing at a near-elite level. He gutted it out through smarts after the injury, but he couldn't make the throws anymore. Still, he was good when healthy.

 

No i get your point, but you're pointing to teams that have had solidified QB's at their position. They have the luxury of taking a risk, if you can call it that, on a QB. What harm will it do if they are wrong? None. You said that Green Bay has selected 12 QB's and 3 have turned out ok, I'd strike Brooks from that list but add Rogers. That's 9 QB's selected that failed. Did they have any effect on the team? No. They could have had 11 picks fail and it wouldn't have had an effect. That's the luxury they have.

[PromoTheRobot]

im trying not to beat a dead horse but there weren't any russell wilsons in that draft. He dropped because of height, not because he was a "project." He was a 1st rd talent who was considered short. I can continue to criticize a former FO and coaching staff for not taking him 4 years ago but that's nothing to do with this year's class. Imo.

We missed out on the chance to draft our future QB to complain about.

[dave mcbride]

No i get your point, but you're pointing to teams that have had solidified QB's at their position. They have the luxury of taking a risk, if you can call it that, on a QB. What harm will it do if they are wrong? None. You said that Green Bay has selected 12 QB's and 3 have turned out ok, I'd strike Brooks from that list but add Rogers. That's 9 QB's selected that failed. Did they have any effect on the team? No. They could have had 11 picks fail and it wouldn't have had an effect. That's the luxury they have.

What harm would it do a team like bills to draft more qbs? It seems obvious to me that not having good ones should force a team to put every effort into finding one through the draft. It's the opposite of a risk for a team without a settled qb situation to beat the bushes in the draft for more of them, knowing that .333 batting average is likely. The more you take, the more likely you are to find one. Everyone brings up russell wilson, but they should: the bills actually LIKED him but didn't want to overdraft. The result was tj graham. They apparently loved brees too, but thought nate clements was more important.

Edited May 3, 2015 by dave mcbride

[1billsfan]

What harm would it do a team like bills to draft more qbs? It seems obvious to me that not having good ones should force a team to put every effort into finding one through the draft. It's the opposite of a risk for a team without a settled qb situation to beat the bushes in the draft for more of them, knowing that .333 batting average is likely. The more you take, the more likely you are to find one. Everyone brings up russell wilson, but they should: the bills actually LIKED him but didn't want to overdraft. The result was tj graham. They apparently loved brees too, but thought nate clements was more important.

 

It's not about drafting QBs every year it's about the Bills out smarting themselves.

 

They never should have drafted Losman with Bledsoe still on the team. The Bills would have had Aaron Rogers in the next draft if they just let Bledsoe play out his last season.

 

They never should have drafted TJ Graham thinking Russell Wilson would fall to them in the 4th.

 

Currently, it wouldn't have been smart to overdraft Grayson in the 2nd or Petty in the 3rd because the Bills taking them there creates an unnecessary QB controversy with one of these two rookie QBs who need to sit at least a year. The Jets will no doubt have a QB controversy now with the drafting of Petty. It won't be as loud because he was taken in the 4th round, but the Jets have now tied their future at the position to a guy who's a bigger project than Manuel was. I'm much more comfortable with what the Bills did by seeing if their QBs fell to them, but if they didn't not create the drama on a team that is laser focused to make the playoffs. The Bills will find their QB next year if Manuel can't get it done. Buffalo is a very attractive destination now. They may even be able to trade for Brees given that they took Grayson this year.

Edited May 3, 2015 by 1billsfan

[Kelly the Dog]

I hear you, but the Packers' philosophy is just better. Since 1992, they have drafter 12 qbs not including Favre (who they traded a pick for while Favre was essentially a rookie). Some have had solid to good careers too - Hasselback, Brunell, and Aaron Brooks (who had seome decent seasons). They have also consistently turned those qb picks into more and better picks through trades too. I won't be surprised if that happens to Hundley.

Going back to 1987, the Bills have drafted five, and that includes Levi Brown. Rob Johnson was arguably a "pick," although he had more years under his belt than Favre. The Bledsoe they traded for was past his prime.

12 vs. 5 is a big disparity, and through it all the Packers have actually been set at the position! Basically, they recognize its importance more than the Bills do and know how utilize qbs they've drafted as resources.

How do you possibly give the Packers credit for drafting three QBs 20 years ago that never played for them? In retrospect that was more of a wasted pick even if they turn out good for other teams.

[Bills Fan of St Augustine]

I think they did all right. Draft a press, cover corner with speed and a physical OG who plays with an attitude in first two picks works for me provided we play the smash-mouth bully style professed thus far. I like to think the three OL kids drafted next year progress nicely with better coaching and scheme. RB is same way. Need someone to run hard and bang while holding onto the ball. Bryce is gone. Williams and the rest are special teams bound and look to fit the bill(s) nicely. No QBs worthwhile after the 4th round. Besides, we have too many already. If the JT experiment is over, maybe we bring in an UFA for a look and a ride on the taxi.

[C.Biscuit97]

Polian is right. We definitely missed out on the next Curtis painter or Jim Sorgi. That way if one player gets hurt on our team, a backup can step in and we won't go from making the playoffs every year to 2-14.

 

I will be forever grateful for Polian for the 90s. But he inherited Jim Kelly and draft 2 Qbs with top 5 picks, Peyton and Collins. He was lucky to be in very fortunate situations. A lot easier to find a qb in the top 5 than later in the draft. He never did.

We missed out on the chance to draft our future QB to complain about.

And that is an important point. It's funny how some fans act like they are willing to develop Qbs. Fans would want to rush a guy like Petty or Hundley on the field this year. Then when they struggle, they would want to get rid of them. Most fans have no patience for the process of development a qb.

 

In today's NFL, you could never have an Aaron Rodgers situation again. Fans aren't patient enough and would want him on the field sooner than later.

[dave mcbride]

How do you possibly give the Packers credit for drafting three QBs 20 years ago that never played for them? In retrospect that was more of a wasted pick even if they turn out good for other teams.

How do you possibly give the Packers credit for drafting three QBs 20 years ago that never played for them? In retrospect that was more of a wasted pick even if they turn out good for other teams.

?? -- It's a percentage play. Not everyone is going to pan out. Most won't, and you can say that for every position. But hardly ever taking qbs is surely not the best way to landing one that's actually good. It's basic math.

[Kelly the Dog]

?? -- It's a percentage play. Not everyone is going to pan out. Most won't, and you can say that for every position. But hardly ever taking qbs is surely not the best way to landing one that's actually good. It's basic math.

Not one of the 20 or so guys they used that strategy did anything for them. They made a trade for Favre they didn't draft the year before. And they made a wise pick of a QB that luckily fell to them they didn't think they would have a chance for and wouldn't have drafted a different QB had Rodgers been taken before.

[bigK14094]

Of course the real reason the Bills did not take a QB is that Whaley is still invested in EJ Manuel. When the organization gets over that, another will be drafted. I would have like Petty......to bad.

And, as I now count the numbers, if one QB gets hurt....and it has happened every year for us recently, then Tuel makes the team again (or practice squad) dumb dumb dumb....

[blzrul]

Meh. He had a chance to have a say in the matter. Now it's just his opinion, and he's entitled to it.