What if the Bills drafted Rothlisberger?

[GG]

Given your strong pronouncement that the Steelers were a much much better team with RoboQB, I decided to take your advice and look at the results when he was out.

 

The results were:

 

RoboQB was out 3 games.

 

In those games the Steelers got 2 Ws and 1 L

 

When he came back the Steelers got 2 Ls and 1 W.

 

OK, on the face of it the results were clearly not "much much better" with RoboQB than without him.  In fact they were clearly worse.  However, though in the end Ws and Ls are the true measure of a team, there are some details which merit a deeper look.

 

In the 3 games without Big Ben we saw:

 

1. @ GB W 20-10 - The article Pitts website describes the Curtain winning comfortably on the road with back-up QB Batch going 9/16 and this over 50% not racking up a lot of yards and his performance being workmanlike at best.  The teams big problem was a failure to move the ball on 3rd down.  Cowher gave the typical good cop/bad cop assessment of Batch praising him for the back-up playing QB on the road to a W (though certainly against a bad team IMHO).

 

It's hard to seem much real difference in Robo v. Batch's prescence here unless there is some style point you want to make from watching the game (which I did not) that you can make a reasonable case that Robo's prescence makes the team much much better.

 

.....

594979[/snapback]

 

 

Shall we take a little stroll down memory lane?

[CoachChuckDickerson]

ATT COM COM% YARDS TD INT

230 401 57.4 2468 19 10

 

Anybody know what these stats are?

 

JP Losman's senior year.

[Kelly the Dog]

ATT  COM  COM%  YARDS  TD  INT

230  401            57.4      2468    19  10 

 

Anybody know what these stats are?

 

JP Losman's senior year.

595050[/snapback]

On a bad team in a program that may have folded and completely disappeared without him.

[Lori]

One more thing to note here: if that trade up had happened, the Bills would have Big Ben... but they'd also have Moulds/Josh Reed starting at WR, since they wouldn't have drafted Lee Evans.

 

Anyone remember how the offense looked with Moulds/Reed starting in 2003?

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Shall we take a little stroll down memory lane?

595036[/snapback]

 

Exactly.

 

It was for exactly this reason that one should not rely totally on stats, that I also looked into the reports from an outlet that should be pretty pro-RoboQB (the Steelers site) to see how they presented the actual game occurences.

 

I also made it clear that I had not seen the actual games and invited anyone who had seen the games and thus need not rely on stats or someone else's position to explain why the stats do not tell the story,

 

In this case, both the stats and the non-objective (but should be kind to Big Ben) article observation describe the same thing,

 

There was not a large variation in play or perfornance regardless of whether Pitts employed their 1st, 2nd or 3rd string QB. To the extent there was a variation in performance, it seems better explained by the quality of the opponent rather than a difference in QB performance. However, I did not see the games and if anyone who did has an explanation counter to these stats and descriptions I am all eyes.

 

The major relevant point I did not explore is that when one considers RoboQB's and JP's performance over their entire careers or over all of 2005 I think a stronger case can be made that the Bills would be better off with Robo than JP. However, mu point addresses specifically the criteria set in the post I was answering "if you look at the difference in Pitts performance in games with and without Big Ben they did much much better with him than without him,

 

This is a different point than one about whether the Bills should have traded up for Robo rather than traded away future considerations for JP. If you really want to intelligently consider this point then one needs to bring into consideration of:

 

1. How would Big Ben have done with this OL and team versus how he did with Pitts?

 

2. How would RoboQB dones with a year on the bench behind Bledsoe rather than winning games last year with Pitts and getting the hard but valuable lessons from sucking big time in last year's AFC title game.

 

3. A zillion other factors which make this a total what if question.

 

It seems rediculous to me that you seem to demand that folks only consider the reality of seeing the games (either in person or on TV) rather than making a stat based case when this whole thing is all about what if non reality in the first place.

 

At any rate, my points do not rely on any one thing alone (ie stats) but also specifically site a 2nd party description of the actual game which should be quite charitable in how they treat Big Ben. I am as clear as I can be about that perspective having limitations which I hope folks will respond to with specifics that confirm or deny these stats and descriptions.

 

Instead I think your reply goes even further off into la-la land by not providing any specific insights or references.

 

I'm the first to admit I am a stat hound and rely perhaps too much on them (actually the second as my wife would quickly point out my love for football generally and its stats are a sickness which she puts up with because she like some other undefined thing about me).

 

However, my heavy use of stats has made me quite aware of their limitations and the facts that relying on stats alone) or what you see on TV alone, or what you see at the game alone, or in fact anything alone will likely lead you to incorrect conclusions.

[GG]

Exactly.

 

It was for exactly this reason that one should not rely totally on stats, that I also looked into the reports from an outlet that should be pretty pro-RoboQB (the Steelers site) to see how they presented the actual game occurences.

 

595075[/snapback]

 

Exactly, what?

 

If you meant to include a balanced appraisal of Ben, why did you leave out the loss to Jags earlier in the season? That would make Pitt 2-2 in games without Ben, and 9-3 in games with him. Slightly a different take than saying that Steelers were 2-1 in games without him, and 1-2 in games when he came back.

 

I watched that Pitt-GB game, and that's precisely why I started the topic. Pitt's O looked horrible throughout the day, and the victory was giftwrapped by the frequent Favre brain farts during the 2005 season. GB's defense had no respect for Batch, and Pitt's offense was correspondignly pathetic. I don't think that Whisenhunt's dedication to the run would suddenly stop when he faced the fearsome 2005 Green Bay defense.

 

Pitt going 2-1 in that 3 game stretch without Ben had more to do with an opportunistic schedule that had them facing GB, Cle & Balt, and not Indy, Cincy & Chi in the three games afterward. If the those 3 games were reversed, there's a good chance Pitt doesn't even make the playoffs.

[ganesh]

I disagree,,,,the Steelers did not make Roethlisbeger into the player he is today.  He makes the Steelers a much, much better team.  Just look at them when he's out.  They are not nearly as good.  Their offense under Batch and Maddox was laughable.  Big Ben was awesome in college and several of us were begging TD to do anything to draft him.

594899[/snapback]

 

Same works other way too...When Smith their starting LT was out for 3-4

weeks with Big Ben in, they still lost 3 of those 4.....Goes to show you need

to build a team....

[ganesh]

In TD's defense he tried hard to trade up, Houston would not budge because they wanted Dunta Robinson and knew the Jets would take him then. Any price to move higher would have been VERY steep and we would have all been crucifying him about it.

594917[/snapback]

 

It is Jacksonville who really screwed us......and screwed themselves in the

process.....They picked REggie Williams at that spot instead of trading it

with the Bills and getting additional pick (a extra 1st rounder from the

next year).....But they chose to screw us and still go ahead and select...

The worst was they could have still drafted Reggie WIlliams at the Bills

spot.....And reggie williams has done squat for them in 2 years.....

[The Dean]

This article is another in a long line that illustrate my main criticism of Jerry Sullivan. He's clueless when it comes to football. He has no feel for the game. He may be a decent writer and it is claimed that he knows his NBA. NFL football? Not so much.

[CoachChuckDickerson]

It is Jacksonville who really screwed us......and screwed themselves in the

process.....They picked REggie Williams at that spot instead of trading it

with the Bills and getting additional pick (a extra 1st rounder from the

next year).....But they chose to screw us and still go ahead and select...

The worst was they could have still drafted Reggie WIlliams at the Bills

spot.....And reggie williams has done squat for them in 2 years.....

595115[/snapback]

 

Did the Bills seriously try to make a deal to move up? I don't remember hearing anything about it.

[tennesseeboy]

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060205/1019136.asp

 

Jerry Sullivan's article dives into the "what if" pool, asking how the Bills would be different if we had been able to draft Ben Rothlisberger instead of JP Losman.

 

This article makes the insinuation that if only we had Rothlisberger, we'd be playing in the Super Bowl, or at least making the playoffs.  Don't let little details like the O-line, running back, defensive support, coaching and play calling get in the way.  We all know that QB's win and lose games all by themselves.

 

If Ben Rothlisberger were playing for the Bills, he'd be getting the same treatment that JP Losman is getting now.  We'd be a losing football team, and Big Ben would be labelled a bust.

 

PTR

594892[/snapback]

Actually Ben is not the scrambler JP is. He'd have been on his ass even more than JP and it would have been EVEN MORE OBVIOUS that we don't have an offensive line. If we had Friggin SAMMY BAUGH or JOE NAMATH or JOE MONTANA it would have made ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE We need to address our offensive line problem. We don't know whether JP is any good or not and won't until we do that.

[drnykterstein]

I agree PTR, I fully agree.

Robo-ben will show his true colors over the next few seasons. Though he is descent, he can't carry a team by himself.

[1gap2gap]

No O-line means no QB would have done well with our team. Look at the Packers. No O-line means no O-line. So drafting Rothlesburger would not have made a difference.

[Orton's Arm]

The over-addiction of fans to wanting a marquee QB and the disastrous decisions made by the Bills braintrust as they try to get another Jim Kelly:

4. TD made what I consider (IMHO) a good move in getting Bledsoe instead of Jeff Blake or Chris Chandler, but made a horrendous move in extending him when he should have just called his good 02/horrendous 03 a wash for the Bills.

It really has been the continual fruitless and foolish search for the next Jimbo which has kiiled this team's production.

594987[/snapback]

 

Let's dissect this post. On the one hand, you suggest the Bills and their fans should abandon the search for the next Kelly. On the other, you say that it was a "good move" to trade away a first round pick for just one good year of Bledsoe play. Don't you realize that teams like Indy or Pittsburgh that have found their franchise QBs can go ten years or more without investing a first-day draft pick in the position? That teams like that aren't stuck comparing the Blake starting QB option with trading away a first round pick for a guy with little left in the tank?

 

Unfortunately, the Bills have tried quick fixes to get the problem solved. Kelly was a first round pick. So what do the Bills try to do to replace him? First, they try a second round pick with Todd Collins. Then they trade away a third round pick for Billy Joe Hobart. Next it's a first and fourth rounder traded away for Rob Johnson. After that, it's a first round pick traded away for Bledsoe.

 

It finally dawns on someone at One Bills Drive that, if Jim Kelly was a Buffalo Bills draft pick in the first round, they should maybe, um, use a draft pick on a QB in the first round. But once again they tried to do this on the cheap: instead of paying Houston whatever price they wanted for Roethlisberger, the Bills decided to spend a later first round pick on a guy who had a smaller chance of working out.

 

Fix something the right way, and you only need to fix it once. Try a Band-Aid solution, and you'll fix the problem again and again and again. At QB, the Bills have chosen the latter route. That's why there is no proven successor to Jim Kelly.

[Orton's Arm]

One more thing to note here: if that trade up had happened, the Bills would have Big Ben... but they'd also have Moulds/Josh Reed starting at WR, since they wouldn't have drafted Lee Evans.

 

Anyone remember how the offense looked with Moulds/Reed starting in 2003?

595073[/snapback]

Parrish and Evans have similar measurables. A 2005 receiving corps consisting of Moulds, Parrish, and Reed would have been respectable. In any case, the Bills traded away their 2nd and 5th round picks in 2004, plus their first round pick in 2005 to get Losman. Let's say Houston really wanted to rob us, and so demanded our first round picks in 2004 + 2005 for Roethlisberger. That would still leave the Bills an extra 2nd and 5th round pick with which to address the receiving corps or the OL.

[IowaBill]

Let's dissect this post. On the one hand, you suggest the Bills and their fans should abandon the search for the next Kelly. On the other, you say that it was a "good move" to trade away a first round pick for just one good year of Bledsoe play. Don't you realize that teams like Indy or Pittsburgh that have found their franchise QBs can go ten years or more without investing a first-day draft pick in the position? That teams like that aren't stuck comparing the Blake starting QB option with trading away a first round pick for a guy with little left in the tank?

 

Unfortunately, the Bills have tried quick fixes to get the problem solved. Kelly was a first round pick. So what do the Bills try to do to replace him? First, they try a second round pick with Todd Collins. Then they trade away a third round pick for Billy Joe Hobart. Next it's a first and fourth rounder traded away for Rob Johnson. After that, it's a first round pick traded away for Bledsoe.

 

It finally dawns on someone at One Bills Drive that, if Jim Kelly was a Buffalo Bills draft pick in the first round, they should maybe, um, use a draft pick on a QB in the first round. But once again they tried to do this on the cheap: instead of paying Houston whatever price they wanted for Roethlisberger, the Bills decided to spend a later first round pick on a guy who had a smaller chance of working out.

 

Fix something the right way, and you only need to fix it once. Try a Band-Aid solution, and you'll fix the problem again and again and again. At QB, the Bills have chosen the latter route. That's why there is no proven successor to Jim Kelly.

596767[/snapback]

 

I am not sure picking a QB in the earlier picks of the first round is the "right" way either. If you would agree that a QB of dan marino's caliber would be a reasonable succesor to jim Kelly, then your agrument fails somewaht as both Tony Easona nd Todd Blackledge were picked prior to Dan Marino in the year of the "great QB draft" Furtherin the Bills previous search for a starting QB, they picked Joe Ferguson in either the second or third round, one could argue a QB of his caliber would be a worthwhile succesor to Jim Kelly. I don't know if the Bills have been taking a Band Aid approach to finding Kelly's successor, but I am pretty sure a search using a high first round pick as the primary method may not have yielded any better results than what we have seen thus far.

[Orton's Arm]

I am not sure picking a QB in the earlier picks of the first round is the "right" way either.  If you would agree that a QB of dan marino's caliber would be a reasonable succesor to jim Kelly, then your agrument fails somewaht as both Tony Easona nd Todd Blackledge were picked prior to Dan Marino in the year of the "great QB draft"  Furtherin the Bills previous search for a starting QB, they picked Joe Ferguson in either the second or third round, one could argue a QB of his caliber would be a worthwhile succesor to Jim Kelly.  I don't know if the Bills have been taking a Band Aid approach to finding Kelly's successor, but I am pretty sure a search using a high first round pick as the primary method may not have yielded any better results than what we have seen thus far.

596778[/snapback]

You bring up some good points. Clearly, there's a chance any given pick, no matter where in the draft he was taken, and no matter what position he plays, can be a bust. So no strategy is guaranteed to be successful. You just have to calculate probabilities. On average, players taken earlier tend to have more successful careers than those taken later.

 

If TD was talking with Houston about trading up, he had to believe Roethlisberger had a better shot of being a successful QB than Losman did. Otherwise, why take Roethlisberger at 10 when you can take Losman at 23? TD's refusal to pay Houston's price is why I feel a Band-Aid approach was used.

 

And that's too bad, because an outstanding QB can really keep your team competitive for a long time. John Elway, taken first overall, helped get his team to five Super Bowls, including two wins. Joe Montana earned four Super Bowl rings for his team.

 

Some say an outstanding defense is better than an outstanding passing game. These people point to teams like the '85 Bears and the 2000 Ravens as examples of champions who didn't have elite QB play. But it's hard to keep a defense elite year after year. The Ravens had the best defense of the late '90s/2000s, but have only one Super Bowl ring to show for it. The '85 Bears likewise only earned one ring. Teams that go to the Super Bowl multiple times in a decade--the '70s Steelers, the '80s 49ers, the '80s/'90s Broncos, the '90s Cowboys and Bills, the 2000s' Patriots--tend to have guys at or near the Hall of Fame level playing QB. That's why it's usually a mistake to try to pinch pennies on your QB. It's one thing to select a QB in the third round that you're really sold on (which the '49ers did with Montana). It's another to select a QB late in the first round, because the guy you really wanted (Roethlisberger) proved to be too expensive.

[obie_wan]

The difference between Losman and Roethlisberger is that the Steelers are a much better team with Roethlisberger as opposed to Maddox, while the same can't be said of Losman versus Holcomb. I really do wish TD had paid whatever price Houston was demanding, because the Bills haven't had a QB since Jim Kelly. If Houston wanted a CB that badly, we could have given them our first round pick plus Nate Clements.

594943[/snapback]

 

 

 

Can't believe Houston would not have swapped 1sts and taken our 2nd and a #5 to move down 3 spots. TD could have thrown in next years #1 instead of the 2 which would have been comparable to teh JP trade.

 

Teflon Tom was just smarter than everyone because JP was the best QB in the draft. He wanted the glory for his team of molding an unprepared turd into an NFL QB. No need to move up for the better prepared QB.

[kdharge]

You guys do realize that his Q.B. rating was a 22.8 for the Superbowl. Thw difference is plain and simple Dick Lebeau his schemes single handly stop the 3 highest scoring teams in the NFL away from home no less.

[Orton's Arm]

You guys do realize that his Q.B. rating was a 22.8 for the Superbowl. Thw difference is plain and simple Dick Lebeau his schemes single handly stop the 3 highest scoring teams in the NFL away from home no less.

596810[/snapback]

Yes, but his rating was 98.6 for the year. It's true he didn't win the game for them, but his dominant play in the regular season and the playoffs is a big reason why the Steelers got there in the first place.

 

I'm pretty sure some of Jim Kelly's Super Bowl passer ratings weren't all that good, but I don't know anyone is using that to say we wasted a draft pick on the guy.