What should the Bills have done at QB

[Risin]

The Arm reminds me a little of Jerry Sullivan.  He can write OK and he can, on occasion, sound intelligent.  But he seems to have no feel for football.  It doesn't seem as though he gets the game...doesn't understand nuance and such.

 

Or, he could just be a troll pain-in-the-ass.

605210[/snapback]

 

 

Either way, he wins.

 

Some of you keep on debating with him, which makes him feel important.

 

hehe.

 

[The Dean]

Either way,  he wins.

 

Some of you keep on debating with him,  which makes him feel important.

 

hehe.

 

605213[/snapback]

 

 

You are correct, sir. I continualy warn others against it ("quick sand", I say) and then go and do it myself.

 

Why? Because I'm an IDIOT! And I'd like to think he just doesn't get it, when it's becomming clear, he's not trying.

 

One more thing...

[Risin]

You are correct, sir.  I continualy warn others against it ("quick sand", I say) and then go and do it myself. 

 

Why?  Because I'm an IDIOT!    And I'd like to think he just doesn't get it, when it's becomming clear, he's not trying.

 

One more thing...    

605216[/snapback]

 

 

haha.

 

You are far from an idiot though, friend.

 

I want to debate him also, but you can't debate someone who doesn't listen.

 

It's like debating with my 4 year-old.

[drnykterstein]

So.. uhm no one else thinks we should have gone with Shaub?

[The Dean]

So.. uhm no one else thinks we should have gone with Shaub?

605222[/snapback]

 

 

I thought Shaub had good potential as a mid-round pick...still do. but, I don't think Shaub would be the QB today on the Bills had we picked him. And I think JP has a world more potential and talent.

[Orton's Arm]

Why?  Because I'm an IDIOT!   

605216[/snapback]

Took you long enough to figure that out.

[Orton's Arm]

So.. uhm no one else thinks we should have gone with Shaub?

605222[/snapback]

Certainly using a 3rd round pick on Shaub would have been worlds better than using a first, second, and fifth round pick on Losman. It might not have been as good as trading up for Roethlisberger though.

[Orton's Arm]

I want to debate him also,  but you can't debate someone who doesn't listen.

 

It's like debating with my 4 year-old.

605218[/snapback]

This is your third post this thread putting me down. Are you trying to kiss up to the Dean or something?

[Risin]

This is your third post this thread putting me down. Are you trying to kiss up to the Dean or something?

605245[/snapback]

 

 

Nope dude.

 

Dean is a good guy. Always has been.

 

I'm sorry you feel I've put you down, I will stop.

 

I will keep my feelings to myself.

[Dan Gross]

So.. uhm no one else thinks we should have gone with Shaub?

605222[/snapback]

 

Well, if you had followed K-Dog's suggestions, you would have known that you weren't alone.

[Orton's Arm]

Nope dude.

 

Dean is a good guy.  Always has been.

 

I'm sorry you feel I've put you down,  I will stop.

 

I will keep my feelings to myself.

605327[/snapback]

You seem like a pretty decent guy after all.

[Orton's Arm]

So Maddox with Bettis as the "premiere back" (3.3 YPC) was worse than Roeth with the Staley/Bettis combo that averaged 4.0 YPC...with 11 more pass attempts per game in 2003....hmmmmmm....

605099[/snapback]

You make a good point. But Maddox's rating was 75 back in 2003, while Roethlisberger's was 98 in 2004. Even allowing for the dramatic improvement in the running game, a 23 point difference in the QB ratings is still substantial. And you also have to look at the fact that in the last two years, Maddox's rating has hovered in the high 50s, while Roethlisberger's has been in the high 90s. But I agree any QB will benefit from a strong OL and running game.

[drnykterstein]

Well, if you had followed K-Dog's suggestions, you would have known that you weren't alone.

605345[/snapback]

Odd.. I remember backreading.. guess I didn't do a very good job of it.

I take comfort in knowing I wasn't alone. I clamored for the buy even before the draft took place, and I stand by it 3 years later.

[34-78-83]

Kind of a strange argument to me, seeing that it sounds like the Bills wanted and tried to move up to take Ben, but couldn't. So why even include it as an option?

604888[/snapback]

 

Exactly

[The Jokeman]

Certainly using a 3rd round pick on Shaub would have been worlds better than using a first, second, and fifth round pick on Losman. It might not have been as good as trading up for Roethlisberger though.

605237[/snapback]

Let's say we did take Schaub. We could of used our 2nd on a DT like Tank Johnson or a G like Justin Smiley. Our 5th could of been used on a depth player like CB Jeff Shoate. Then we could of used our 1st Rounder in 2005 on a TE like Heath Miller of OT like Khalif Barnes etc. I always state that a draft is about getting the best collection of players and to me had we taken Shaub in Round 3 we would have a better overall draft in 2004 and 2005 than trading up for JP or trading even more to aquire Big Ben, as if we traded for him we wouldn't have Lee Evans.. Even though both aforementioned QBs are more talented than Shaub.

[Orton's Arm]

Let's say we did take Schaub. We could of used our 2nd on a DT like Tank Johnson or a G like Justin Smiley. Our 5th could of been used on a depth player like CB Jeff Shoate. Then we could of used our 1st Rounder in 2005 on a TE like Heath Miller of OT like Khalif Barnes etc. I always state that a draft is about getting the best collection of players and to me had we taken Shaub in Round 3 we would have a better overall draft in 2004 and 2005 than trading up for JP or trading even more to aquire Big Ben, as if we traded for him we wouldn't have Lee Evans.. Even though both aforementioned QBs are more talented than Shaub.

606116[/snapback]

You make a compelling case for the Shaub strategy. Given a reasonable percentage of those draft picks working out, your strategy would allow the Bills to be better off for the next several years. But with Roethlisberger, the Bills would have a very good QB for a very long time. Look how long John Elway hung around Denver before finally leading them to two Super Bowl wins. I'm not saying Roethlisberger will be as good as Elway. My point is the longer you can keep a very good QB in place, the more chances you get to get the rest of the team built to give you that ring.

 

You could make a strong case either way--Shaub or Roethlisberger.

[Pyrite Gal]

I like the idea of folks presenting other options for starters as I did not worry much about it as the time since it became pretty clear that despite his horrendous 2003 TD was going to stick with Bledsoe and unforutnately extend him.

 

Bledsoe was a great trade for us prior to the 2002 season as after a 3-13 season forced on us by cap hell, we desperately needed at least a .500 QB to replace the failed RJ and the cut Flutie. Our choices seem to be FAs like Chris Chandler and Jeff Blake.

 

Thus, getting Bledsoe for nothing for the 2002 season with the 2003 pick (which TD replaed with a phenomenal tagging and trading of PP was a great move to make when it was done. Unfortunately, Bledsoe was so bad as the GW team imploded in 2003 that overall he simply was a wash for the Bills if we had cut him then.

 

TD finally figured out that the extension was merely throwing good money after the wash, but the damage was done.

 

Though I never looked at the alternatives seriously enough to engage in the fantasy of what we should have done, I think the alternatives you present are interesting also:

 

1. I think if you keep Bledsoe as a starter you have to draft Losman. It was clear to me he probably was not going to lead this team to the playoffs in 04 (MM and Clements along with Bledsoe did an impressive job even coming close in 04), but he clearly was not the Bills QB of the future.

 

Giving away the resources needed to move up to get Rivers, Manning, or RoboQB would have been fatal for this team likely resulting in an 04 result which likely would have looked a lot like 05 did for us.

 

By trading the future consideration and a later pick for Losman the Bills at least gave themselves a shot at having a QB of the future from the draft an still got Evans who was a pivotal acquisition for this team.

 

I simply do not see option 1 as realistically possible because if you keep Bledsoe you almost have to trade for Losman as there was clearly no QB available worth a high pick in the 2005 draft.

 

2.I like Kelly Holcomg, but if his lengthy good career he has demonstrated that he is a great back-up capable of playing a great game here or there (even in the playoffs) but he has not demonstrated that he is consistent starter quality,

 

This year he showed for example that he is signficantly better than JP Losman was last year, but as he really failed to get much more than adequate play out of this O in his appearances for the Bills this year he demonstrated his limitations.

 

Beyond a good episode here and there he simply has not shown the consistency necessary to be an adequate starter. For example he showed some signs of life in the game against Cincy, but in the final game against the Jets (as he did in the final quarters against NE) he demonstrated he is not someone you want to count upon as more than being a great #2 QB on your team.

 

3. Warner is a rich man;s Kelly Holcomb. At least he is a has-been in comparisons to Holcomb likely being a never-will-b, but Warner's best days are behind him. His play is not worth the cap investment it takes to get him.

 

4. Trading up for RoboQB would likely have been the worse choice of these options. The Bills 04 team was not nearly as good or had the same benefits which helped RoboQB develop into a quality starter right from the beginning in Pitts.

 

If we had Big Ben as our our starter in 04, even though Big Ben as a total player or as a rookie QB is far better than Losman my guess is that 04 with Big Nen starting would have looked much like 05 with Losman starting. RoboQV has demonstrated that he is a far more talented player than JP. However, the rookie Big Ben demonstrated by his play thst a key to his success was that the powerful Pitts running game gave him the time to become a pro and could be depended upon to provide a stable base at the start of games, to convert crucial third downs and kill clock at the end of games. The line led by players of Faneca;s talent really allowed Big Ben to learn what a Hines Ward could do.

 

Certainly RoboQBs play was part of this success, but as he demonstrated with an interception filled poor performance in the playoff game against a great NE squad with a badly depleted secondary, he was still a rookie and could not be counted upon in crunch time.

 

If the Bills had RoboQB in 04 his development would have been set back a lot. Even Big Ben says a critical part of his development as a QB who proved capable of leading Pitts to an SB win this year was that he simply sucked against NE in the conference championship lst year and he swore it would not happen again.

 

If Big Ben had been the Bills QB in 04 it is diubtful to me he would have had this experience he had in 04 til 06 or later with the Bills.

 

Our running game would still have been in the midst of the upgrade from Henry to WM and the OL would still have been piss-poor even with the addition of another player through the draft. Add to that the team would be minus whatever they gave up in 04 to move up in the 04 draft and RoboQB would have been lucky not to suffer the same injury fate which cost JP gametime in 04.

 

5. I think they draft Losman, but the question would have been who would have been a better QB to groom him than Bledsoe was. Someone with Holvomb's temperatment and better than Bledsoe skills would have been the best choice but I'm not sure if that man existed. Bledsoe probably has the temperament to be a back-up as he proved to be once Brady took his job, but at the price we gave him to extend and start this was not doable.

 

Holcomb simply has not demonstrated the consistent success necessary to be counted upon to start as an NFL QB.

[Orton's Arm]

I like the idea of folks presenting other options for starters as I did not worry much about it as the time since it became pretty clear that despite his horrendous 2003 TD was going to stick with Bledsoe and unforutnately extend him.

606250[/snapback]

You make a number of good points, especially about how the price the Bills would have had to pay to move up to take Roethlisberger. I'll give you two scenarios of things the Bills could have done differently:

 

Scenario 1: Roethlisberger

 

In the 2004 draft, trade Nate Clements + Bills' first round pick for Houston's first round pick + their second round pick. Then do the following:

 

1. Roethlisberger

2. OL

2. OL

3. OL

4 - 7 best player available

 

The next year, the Bills could draft a speed WR like Roscoe Parrish (to make up for not having Lee Evans) and a CB to take the place of Nate. Bear in mind that the Bills would have had a 1st round pick in 2005 under this scenario.

 

How would the Roethlisberger price compare to the Losman price?

 

Roethlisberger's price: 1st round pick + part of Nate

Losman's price: 1st round pick + 2nd round pick + 5th round pick

 

Scenario 2: Draft Shaub

 

The guy would sit on the bench for a few years, so you could bring in a veteran like Warner or Holcomb, or you could just keep Bledsoe. Since Shaub only cost a 3rd round pick, this option would make your team strongest at the non-QB positions.

 

Shaub's price: 3rd round pick

Losman's price: 1st, 2nd, and 5th round picks

[drnykterstein]

You make a compelling case for the Shaub strategy. Given a reasonable percentage of those draft picks working out, your strategy would allow the Bills to be better off for the next several years. But with Roethlisberger, the Bills would have a very good QB for a very long time. Look how long John Elway hung around Denver before finally leading them to two Super Bowl wins. I'm not saying Roethlisberger will be as good as Elway. My point is the longer you can keep a very good QB in place, the more chances you get to get the rest of the team built to give you that ring.

 

You could make a strong case either way--Shaub or Roethlisberger.

606150[/snapback]

Maybe I should state two opinions I have, or perhaps three...

 

1. Ben R is overated. He's not too bad, but surely he does not carry that team and depends on a very strong defense and running game, as well as the likes of Hines Ward, and a great o-line.

 

2. I still feel like Shaub can be a starter, and a good one at that. One on the level of Delhome, Hasselback, or Plummer. Atlanta recognizes the talent, since they have turned down a few trade offers for him. And even that teams want to trade for him says a lot. If we took him we'd have been able to strengthen many other areas of our team and still have agood QB.

 

(perhaps the 3rd) I think Shaub is a better QB than Big Ben. At least if I was building a team I'd prefer Shaub over Ben.

[Risin]

I think Shaub is a better QB than Big Ben. At least if I was building a team I'd prefer Shaub over Ben.

606634[/snapback]

 

 

What in the world!

 

Are you serious?

 

I'm not a huge fan of Big Ben, but there is no way...