Defending TD

[Orton's Arm]

Interesting thoughts, though I see some psychological tics are hard to shake. I love the subjunctive: "TD needed a quarterback, and I wouldn't have minded him using an early draft pick on a young one." Well, he did use such a pick. Does this mean you did not mind? Or do not mind? Or are not out of your mind? 

 

As for why he waited until 2004 to draft a young QB, two words: Drew Bledsoe. Although it is hard for us to remember/admit it, there were big hopes that DB solved the QB problem for several years to come. Some may claim to have known all along, but it was not until midway through 2003 that it was clear the time to draft a QB was sooner rather than later...

761485[/snapback]

What I was getting at is that, given the Bills' need for a quarterback, I don't have a problem with the general concept of using a high draft pick to get one. My problems with the Losman pick aren't germaine to this discussion, and in any case they have nothing to do with the general concept of taking a quarterback in the first round.

 

It made no sense for the Bills to trade for Bledsoe. TD had basically gutted the roster he'd inherited from Butler; including young players like Antowain Smith and Travares Tillman who would go on to be productive elsewhere. As a result of this gutting, the Bills went 3-13 in 2001. Why would a 3-13 team see the need to trade away a first round pick for a "now" player like Bledsoe? Bledsoe takes significantly longer to read the field than Tom Brady. Without an offensive line, how much long-term success could TD realistically have expected Bledsoe to have had?

 

Bledsoe was close enough to the twilight of his career, and his game was flawed enough, that nobody else wanted to trade a quarterback for him. Think about that. There had to have been teams which were quite good, except for the absence of a good quarterback. If you thought you were a player away from a chance at the Super Bowl, it might well make sense to trade away a first round pick for a short-term but very good answer. Obviously, nobody felt that way about Bledsoe. And if the GM of a 3-13 team felt he was a player away from the chance at a Super Bowl, he was dreaming.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

It made no sense for the Bills to trade for Bledsoe.  TD had basically gutted the roster he'd inherited from Butler; including young players like Antowain Smith and Travares Tillman who would go on to be productive elsewhere.  As a result of this gutting, the Bills went 3-13 in 2001.  Why would a 3-13 team see the need to trade away a first round pick for a "now" player like Bledsoe?  Bledsoe takes significantly longer to read the field than Tom Brady.  Without an offensive line, how much long-term success could TD realistically have expected Bledsoe to have had? 

 

Bledsoe was close enough to the twilight of his career, and his game was flawed enough, that nobody else wanted to trade a quarterback for him.  Think about that.  There had to have been teams which were quite good, except for the absence of a good quarterback.  If you thought you were a player away from a chance at the Super Bowl, it might well make sense to trade away a first round pick for a short-term but very good answer.  Obviously, nobody felt that way about Bledsoe.  And if the GM of a 3-13 team felt he was a player away from the chance at a Super Bowl, he was dreaming.

761531[/snapback]

 

 

We are in agreement there, that Bledsoe turned out to be a cruel dream, but just because we see it that way now does not mean that everyone saw things that way in 2002. I am not defending TD by any means, but I have little patience with those who assume that they are smarter than people in the past just because they happen to know what happened next. It is always easier to be smart in retrospect, once the returns are in. I had my doubts about DB all along, but have to say that the trade looked pretty good when the Bills were 5-3 and getting ready to face the 3-5 Pats at home. Afterward, well, that is another story...

[daquixers_is_back]

What I was getting at is that, given the Bills' need for a quarterback, I don't have a problem with the general concept of using a high draft pick to get one.  My problems with the Losman pick aren't germaine to this discussion, and in any case they have nothing to do with the general concept of taking a quarterback in the first round.

 

It made no sense for the Bills to trade for Bledsoe.  TD had basically gutted the roster he'd inherited from Butler; including young players like Antowain Smith and Travares Tillman who would go on to be productive elsewhere.  As a result of this gutting, the Bills went 3-13 in 2001.  Why would a 3-13 team see the need to trade away a first round pick for a "now" player like Bledsoe?  Bledsoe takes significantly longer to read the field than Tom Brady.  Without an offensive line, how much long-term success could TD realistically have expected Bledsoe to have had? 

 

Bledsoe was close enough to the twilight of his career, and his game was flawed enough, that nobody else wanted to trade a quarterback for him.  Think about that.  There had to have been teams which were quite good, except for the absence of a good quarterback.  If you thought you were a player away from a chance at the Super Bowl, it might well make sense to trade away a first round pick for a short-term but very good answer.  Obviously, nobody felt that way about Bledsoe.  And if the GM of a 3-13 team felt he was a player away from the chance at a Super Bowl, he was dreaming.

761531[/snapback]

 

Well the Cowboys seem to like Bledsoe:

 

3639 yards, 23 TD's, and 17 INT's ... 83.7 QB rating

 

And when was Antowain Smith productive??? In the past 4 years he has only average about 700 yards a year for 3-4 TD's ...

[Orton's Arm]

We are in agreement there, that Bledsoe turned out to be a cruel dream, but just because we see it that way now does not mean that everyone saw things that way in 2002. I am not defending TD by any means, but I have little patience with those who assume that they are smarter than people in the past just because they happen to know what happened next. It is always easier to be smart in retrospect, once the returns are in. I had my doubts about DB all along, but have to say that the trade looked pretty good when the Bills were 5-3 and getting ready to face the 3-5 Pats at home. Afterward, well, that is another story...

761653[/snapback]

This wasn't just a case of 20/20 hindsight. I opposed the Bledsoe deal before it happened. I admit I had a change of heart during the first half of 2002 when the Bills were winning all those games. But ultimately, my before-the-fact instincts proved to be correct. You don't exactly have to be a genius to figure out a 3-13 team shouldn't trade away a first round pick for a guy whose best days are behind him.

[Orton's Arm]

And when was Antowain Smith productive??? In the past 4 years he has only average about 700 yards a year for 3-4 TD's ...

761658[/snapback]

Since 2001, Antowain Smith has rushed for 3949 yards and a 3.9 yards per carry average. Travis Henry rushed for 4184 yards over the past five years, and a 4.0 yards per carry average. Travis Henry had 808 receiving yards the past five years, as opposed to 742 receiving yards for Antowain Smith.

 

In his 1024 carries the last five years, Antowain Smith had 11 fumbles, including 9 lost. In his 1051 carries the last five years, Travis Henry had 25 fumbles, including 14 lost. Not only was Antowain Smith better at holding onto the football, he was better at blitz pickup. Overall, Antowain Smith has contributed at least as much to his teams over the past five years as Travis Henry has. This is why the Travis Henry pick should have been invested in the offensive line instead.

[HudsonValleyBillsFan]

Excellent post.

Talent evluation is not where TD failed as gm of the bills

 

I can buy all the parts to a race car...but I have no idea how to put them together and build a winner.

 

Getting talent is half the battle, maybe even less than half.  Making it work is the hard part, and that's where Ol' Whitey gets a big fat freakin' F!!!!  Marv Levy is the master.  All those media douchebags making fun of his age are only showing how little they understand about the sport they cover.

 

PTR

760436[/snapback]

[Pyrite Gal]

What I was getting at is that, given the Bills' need for a quarterback, I don't have a problem with the general concept of using a high draft pick to get one.  My problems with the Losman pick aren't germaine to this discussion, and in any case they have nothing to do with the general concept of taking a quarterback in the first round.

 

It made no sense for the Bills to trade for Bledsoe.  TD had basically gutted the roster he'd inherited from Butler; including young players like Antowain Smith and Travares Tillman who would go on to be productive elsewhere.  As a result of this gutting, the Bills went 3-13 in 2001.  Why would a 3-13 team see the need to trade away a first round pick for a "now" player like Bledsoe?  Bledsoe takes significantly longer to read the field than Tom Brady.  Without an offensive line, how much long-term success could TD realistically have expected Bledsoe to have had? 

 

Bledsoe was close enough to the twilight of his career, and his game was flawed enough, that nobody else wanted to trade a quarterback for him.  Think about that.  There had to have been teams which were quite good, except for the absence of a good quarterback.  If you thought you were a player away from a chance at the Super Bowl, it might well make sense to trade away a first round pick for a short-term but very good answer.  Obviously, nobody felt that way about Bledsoe.  And if the GM of a 3-13 team felt he was a player away from the chance at a Super Bowl, he was dreaming.

761531[/snapback]

 

I disagree in that the Bledsoe deal was a good one for the Bills to make at the time hich in retrospect was a wash after 2 years. The stupid thing TD did was to extend the Bledsoe deal by resigning him and creating an even bigger investment and cap hit for him. He then added insult to injury by cutting him causing maximum damage from a dumb extension.

 

The Bledsoe deal had these benefits when it was made in 2002:

 

1. Like it or not we needed a starting QB after we had to make a choice forthe 2001 season of cuttinh ome of the two QB's we were paying a huge combined cap hit of over $10 million for (the combined annual cap hits of the RJ salary and distributed bonus plus the cap hit of the Flutie salary and distributed bonus after we were forced by cap limitations to extend his deal and convert base salary we owed him into bonus we could distribute_. Flutie had proved to be a better QB than RJ leading us to playoff berths in the 98 and 99 seasons, but he clearly was on the backside of his career and it was doubtful RJ could surive a season as he was injury prone, butt since the 2001 season was likely to be a lost cause anyway paying to make sure there would be no realization of the RJ upside was the smart football move.

 

2002 found us with confirmation of RJ's injury prone nature (yeah surprise) and we needed a starting QN or else we would have to go with AVP who proved to be a gamer when RJ went down in 2001 but as long as teams prepared for him he could be fooled by complex coverages and beaten.

 

Our FA choices at QB were pretty much the often injured Chris Chandler and lifetime back-up Rodney Peete )or someone similar) given the quality of how was available and what we could pay in cap room.

 

This was the context of the Bledsoe choice if you think someone else was a better choice then please name them. The Bledsoe trade did several things:

 

2. It gave us a player capable of starting in the NFL though due to his limitations he could not QB a team to a playoff berth except under limited specific circumstances:

 

A. Bledsoe had definite strengths (a rocket arm, a big body which generally besides the lung collapse hit could stand up to a lot of abuse- believe me gettomg repetitively ssacked as a Bill all season was punishing buy he started every game for us while he was here getting pounded, a ton of experience from his years in the NFL) but also clear weaknesses (well into the backside of his career and he had demonstrated he could use that exerience make the SB implementing a gameplan from genius guidance if Parcells and even win a must win game in the 2001 run under the genius guidance of BB and the Pats but if he had to think and improvide beyond the programing of others he was brain dead, he could not escape sacks). Hpwever, as seen when he was programmed by Parcells, BB and even Clements Bledsoe could perform adequately at QB though he could never carry a team on his own shoulders deep into the playoffs.

 

B. TC for example demonstrated with his handling of Bledsoe in 2004 that you could greatly decrease the number of sacks he took by being a bit more diverse than the pass-happy Kevin Kildrive in calling plays, by limiting Bledsoe;s abuility to audible out of the few runs you might call and doing things like running Bledsoe more on draw plays to force LBs and rushers from selling out to sack Bledsoe by running angles and stay at home to stop a 5-10 yard gain which Bledsoe could stumble and get if the middle of the field was abandoned.

 

C. The D and the ST needed to carry the team along with the adequate but not outstanding and occaisionally stinky QB work of Bledsoe. All three of these units taking turns leading the way was a key to the win streak in 04. In the final game after ST screw-ups like NC fumbling and Lindell missing a chipshot and the D getting shreded by Wiilie Parker and getting scored on by Maddox, Bledsoe demonstrated he did not have the talent to carry the team with other team leaders also falling a part.

 

However, as we see with Dallas getting a winning record with Bledsoe at QN and being talked about as a playoff likely team with Bledsoe at QB his team is capable of winning (even the 04 Bills) if Bledsoe is not required to peform at high capability all the time )he cannot do this) but if the demand is for him to simply be adequate and good a few times because the D and ST are solid a team with him at QB can win and if the oddly shaped ball bounces the right way maybe even make the playoffs.

 

3. The move was a very positive one in 2002 as we nearly set an NFL record with Bledsoe QBing the team to 8-8 from a 3-13 record. As said above this did not happen because he was an individual savior, but because other players were acquired like Fletcher on D and whathisname the kicker for TB who shared the improvement because Bledsoe is good enough to be a part of this but not good enough to do this on his own,, However, with BFL catching up with Killdrive's game, GW proving to have lttle game sense and a variety of other problems he was horrendous in 2003. This would have easily been a wash with one good year and one bad year with YD pulling off replacement of the draft choice given up with a pick which became WM (ome might argue that the Bills would have had two first-rounders if they had not traded for Bledsoe, who knows exactly how things would be different if they were different, but my guess is that the missing 1st was a big reason why TD took the risks of an unusal tag of Peerless and then held out for a 1st for AT rather than taking a later pick which still would have been a big win for the Bills.

 

I think it overvalues the draft to think that the first given up for Bledsoe was a big a big cost. If the 1st was Peyton Manning yes it was, but if the first was Ryan Leaf no it was not. Good players have to come from somewhere and good players get drafted. However it is simply incorrect to automatically assign some value to a pick as though we definitiely gave up Manning to get Bledsoe. In fact the draft is simply a crapshoot and in the real world we not only got the first choice back but we got the bonus of Bledsoe's great 2002 at no cost since we gave up a future pick.

 

4. Though it is not on the field directly, the trade was a huge benefit for the Bills because this team was spinning down the toilet in terms of local support after the bruising DF/RJ battle and a 3-13 season. Yet the trade for Bledsoe in and of itself instantly helped the team's bottom line as over 10,000 folks turned out on a winter's day for the welcome Drew bash at the Ralph. How many 3-13 teams can get this klind of turnout and the trade was the verhicle if not the reason why hope came to ticket holders and ultimately butts in the seats.

 

Trading for Bledsoe was a wash on the field, but bevame a killer for the Bills as TD resigned him and then cut him looking for some QN savior. To not recognize the benefits of the trade and the fact it was a wash is another symptom of the QN addiction that led from alph miscalculating how long Jimbo would last, to overeaching to draft TC and trade for Hobert, and then set up a situation where we ended up with so much cap money committed to the QB position we could not afford vets for the ST and young Porter failed to stay in his lane on the Homerun Throw up.

[Orton's Arm]

The trade for Bledsoe may have motivated TD to get that first round pick back via the Peerless Price deal.  In addition, the Bledsoe deal had the following benefits:

 

1. The Bills needed a quarterback, and Bledsoe was a better option than a Chris Chandler or Rodney Peete. 

 

2.A. There are good qualities to Bledsoe: a rocket arm, the ability to take a lot of punishment and keep on playing.  He also had clear weaknesses: an inability to escape sacks, inability to think on his feet or do well outside a structured environment, etc. 

 

2.B. In 2004, Tom Clements showed that by being clever, an offensive coordinator can get more than usual out of Bledsoe.

 

2.C. While Bledsoe can't win very many games on his own, he can be good enough when you've got good defense and special teams.

 

3. Bledsoe sure did well in 2002.  And you don't really know whether the pick traded away for him was worth anything, because it might have been a Ryan Leaf.

 

4. The Bledsoe trade helped shore up local support for the Bills.

 

On the other hand, you wrote the following (a non-Cliff's notes quote)

[bledsoe's] team is capable of winning . . . if Bledsoe is not required to peform at high capability all the time (he cannot do this) but if the demand is for him to simply be adequate and good a few times

 

Let me get this straight: TD traded away a first round pick for a quarterback who could only give the team a few short years. Moreover, you can't really expect more from said quarterback than to "be adequate and good a few times." This long-term value-challenged quarterback went to a rebuilding team incapable of achieving anything meaningful over the short term. This deal wasn't a wash in football terms. It was an absolute disaster that set the team back significantly.

 

When TD got here, the Bills had too few young, talented players, and too many overpaid, underperforming veterans. When he left, there wasn't much young talent here, and the Bills had too many overpaid, underperforming veterans. The short-term thinking implicit in the Bledsoe deal is a major reason why TD failed to build a significantly better foundation than the one Butler had left him.

[Bill from NYC]

Let me get this straight: TD traded away a first round pick for a quarterback who could only give the team a few short years.  Moreover, you can't really expect more from said quarterback than to "be adequate and good a few times."  This long-term value-challenged quarterback went to a rebuilding team incapable of achieving anything meaningful over the short term.  This deal wasn't a wash in football terms.  It was an absolute disaster that set the team back significantly.

 

When TD got here, the Bills had too few young, talented players, and too many overpaid, underperforming veterans.  When he left, there wasn't much young talent here, and the Bills had too many overpaid, underperforming veterans.  The short-term thinking implicit in the Bledsoe deal is a major reason why TD failed to build a significantly better foundation than the one Butler had left him.

761855[/snapback]

 

The 1st round pick that TD gave away was for the FOLLOWING season. He used the 4th that year to take Mike Williams, and followed it up with Josh Reed.

Drew was then, and is now a capable qb, something we didn't have at the time and are hoping to finally have now.

Mike Williams was the worst, and most costly blunder. That is why Drew is playing for Bill Parcells and Williams is out of football, perhaps forever.

[Orton's Arm]

The 1st round pick that TD gave away was for the FOLLOWING season. He used the 4th that year to take Mike Williams, and followed it up with Josh Reed.

Drew was then, and is now a capable qb, something we didn't have at the time and are hoping to finally have now.

Mike Williams was the worst, and most costly blunder. That is why Drew is playing for Bill Parcells and Williams is out of football, perhaps forever.

761974[/snapback]

Every GM will have first round busts, so I'm not going to be too harsh about the Mike Williams pick. In my eyes, the real problem with TD was his decision to use 8 picks in the first two rounds on offensive skill position players, while using just one such pick on the offensive line.

 

Your opinion of Bledsoe at this stage of his career is significantly higher than mine. Bledsoe's career passer rating is 77.3, as opposed to 79.9 for Kelly Holcomb. The usual objection to this is that passer rating puts too much emphasis on completion percentage, which helps a dump-off quarterback like Holcomb more than a downfield passer like Bledsoe. Fine. Let's look at yards per pass attempt instead. For his career, Bledsoe has averaged 6.64 yards per pass attempt, as compared to 6.67 yards per attempt for Kelly Holcomb.

 

During his years with the Bills, Bledsoe averaged 6.58 yards per pass attempt, as opposed to 6.56 yards per attempt for Holcomb with the Bills. The difference is that Holcomb never played behind Jennings or Tucker. Yes he played behind Mike Williams, Chris Villarrial, and Trey Teague, but all three of those guys were significantly hampered by injuries. If Bledsoe can only provide you with Holcomb-like production (and under much better circumstances than the ones Holcomb faced), why not just sign a Kelly Holcomb and save yourself a first round draft pick? The fact that draft pick went to the New England Patriots only made a bad situation worse.

[EC-Bills]

...

 

Your opinion of Bledsoe at this stage of his career is significantly higher than mine. Bledsoe's career passer rating is 77.3, as opposed to 79.9 for Kelly Holcomb.  The usual objection to this is that passer rating puts too much emphasis on completion percentage, which helps a dump-off quarterback like Holcomb more than a downfield passer like Bledsoe.  Fine.  Let's look at yards per pass attempt instead.  For his career, Bledsoe has averaged 6.64 yards per pass attempt, as compared to 6.67 yards per attempt for Kelly Holcomb. 

 

...

762051[/snapback]

 

Comparing a career starter versuses a career backup, again?!?

[Bill from NYC]

Every GM will have first round busts, so I'm not going to be too harsh about the Mike Williams pick.  In my eyes, the real problem with TD was his decision to use 8 picks in the first two rounds on offensive skill position players, while using just one such pick on the offensive line.

 

Your opinion of Bledsoe at this stage of his career is significantly higher than mine. Bledsoe's career passer rating is 77.3, as opposed to 79.9 for Kelly Holcomb.  The usual objection to this is that passer rating puts too much emphasis on completion percentage, which helps a dump-off quarterback like Holcomb more than a downfield passer like Bledsoe.  Fine.  Let's look at yards per pass attempt instead.  For his career, Bledsoe has averaged 6.64 yards per pass attempt, as compared to 6.67 yards per attempt for Kelly Holcomb. 

 

During his years with the Bills, Bledsoe averaged 6.58 yards per pass attempt, as opposed to 6.56 yards per attempt for Holcomb with the Bills.  The difference is that Holcomb never played behind Jennings or Tucker.  Yes he played behind Mike Williams, Chris Villarrial, and Trey Teague, but all three of those guys were significantly hampered by injuries.  If Bledsoe can only provide you with Holcomb-like production (and under much better circumstances than the ones Holcomb faced), why not just sign a Kelly Holcomb and save yourself a first round draft pick?  The fact that draft pick went to the New England Patriots only made a bad situation worse.

762051[/snapback]

 

>>>>Every GM will have first round busts, so I'm not going to be too harsh about the Mike Williams pick.<<<<

 

LOL. OK, great. Give a "pass" on selecting a fat RT over 2 good LTs. Gotcha!

 

As far as the rest, you are using stats to prove that Holcomb is on a par with Bledsoe. You seem to have forgot these stats.

 

You might also want to take a look at this.

 

Holcomb otoh is a career backup. Why would you think this is the case? Was every coach and GM wrong in their assessment of his ability? Did they forget to check your misleading stats?

 

Look, I want the Bills to go aftet blockers as much as the next guy, if not 10 times more. Posters are already calling for Brady Quinn, so he too can step behind this line and get killed. Count me as one who is opposed to this.

That said, to give TD a pass on a fat RT, and punish him for going after a good (unlike Holcomb) quarterback makes little sense to me, unless you are simply trying to "win" some abstract argument.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

That said, to give TD a pass on a fat RT, and punish him for going after a good (unlike Holcomb) quarterback makes little sense to me, unless you are simply trying to "win" some abstract argument.

762060[/snapback]

 

 

Bill, I think you answered your own question. He appears to want to prove only that he was right, with no sense for the historical context and even less awareness of his own psychological tics.

[Orton's Arm]

>>>>Every GM will have first round busts, so I'm not going to be too harsh about the Mike Williams pick.<<<<

 

LOL. OK, great. Give a "pass" on selecting a fat RT over 2 good LTs. Gotcha!

I've seen pictures of Mike Williams back when he was in college, and he was a lot more lean and muscular looking than he's since become. That said, I agree that you don't pick a right tackle 4th overall. So there's some truth to your implication that TD should have been able to avoid the Mike Williams bust.

 

Bledsoe's been around the league a long time, which is why he's one of the all-time leaders in yardage. But the fact Bledsoe was producing more than Holcomb back in 1993 doesn't mean he was a more productive quarterback than Holcomb for the Buffalo Bills. You know who ranks ahead of Bledsoe on that all-time yardage chart? Vinny Testaverde. You don't see any GMs trading away first round picks for a washed-up Testaverde, do you? Nobody was that stupid. Nor were any GMs dumb enough to offer up a first round pick for a Bledsoe whose best days were behind him. No GMs that is, except one.

 

Bledsoe has a big name. I'll give him that. But he no longer has the big-time production to go along with that name. Compare Bledsoe to Peyton Manning. Manning has a career yards per attempt of 7.66, and a career passer rating of 93.5. Bledsoe's career yards per attempt is 6.64, and his career passer rating is 77.3. Do you think these stats are misleading? I sure don't--they point to a real difference in the quality of the two quarterbacks. If Bledsoe had more to offer the Bills than Holcomb did, you'd expect to see that difference in the stats.

 

The career yardage stats you cited do show that overall, Bledsoe has had a more distinguished career than has Holcomb. If you can produce at level X for 13 years, you've done more than a player who produces at level X for just a few years. But even though Bledsoe had earned the bigger name over the course of his long career, it doesn't mean he was a more productive quarterback for the Bills than was Holcomb. Had it not been for that blown pass interference call on Eric Moulds, Kelly Holcomb would probably have led the Bills to a win over the New England Patriots, in their own stadium, in a game not involving Milloy-based emotional disruption. Could you honestly envision Bledsoe doing the same thing? I can't. The vision that comes to my head is a Bledsoe on the sidelines with utter sadness and defeat written all over his face. The Holcomb/Bledsoe stats I cited earlier aren't misleading--they point to the fact Holcomb gave us at least as good a chance to beat the Patriots as Bledsoe did. And if you can beat the Patriots, you can beat anyone.

[Orton's Arm]

Comparing a career starter versuses a career backup, again?!?   

762054[/snapback]

For most of his career, Doug Flutie was unable to be a starter for an NFL team. Do you feel this fact invalidates his stats when he finally did become a starter?

[Pyrite Gal]

Let me get this straight: TD traded away a first round pick for a quarterback who could only give the team a few short years.  Moreover, you can't really expect more from said quarterback than to "be adequate and good a few times."  This long-term value-challenged quarterback went to a rebuilding team incapable of achieving anything meaningful over the short term.  This deal wasn't a wash in football terms.  It was an absolute disaster that set the team back significantly.

 

When TD got here, the Bills had too few young, talented players, and too many overpaid, underperforming veterans.  When he left, there wasn't much young talent here, and the Bills had too many overpaid, underperforming veterans.  The short-term thinking implicit in the Bledsoe deal is a major reason why TD failed to build a significantly better foundation than the one Butler had left him.

761855[/snapback]

 

 

Yeah, generally you seem to get my interpretation of the situation (trading a draft pick for a QB with definite strengths and limitations that however you judge those strengths and limitations add to Bledsoe not being a long-term answer at all.

 

I think where our perspective may differ is that :

 

1. You have long opposed msking the above bargain with the devil because you feel that we should have used our resources for young talented players and long term thinking and not for Bledsoe.

 

2. I on the other hand say, yeah you are right in a perfect world, but the problem is the world is not perfect. In hindsight the Bledsoe deal ended up being a wash for the Bills (a good 2002 and a horrible 2003. However, in the real world with its imperfect limitations, this was about the best outcome which could have been achieved given:

 

The Bills had made a series of horrible mistakes at QB as we sought the next Jim Kelly to be our savior. These mistakes led to:

 

A. Not moving to replace Jimbo soon enough as Ralph/Butler clearly thought as shown by the handshake deal to reward Jimbo in his next contract that he would be good enough to be the Bills QB for years.

B. Overeaching for TC and rushing him along when he needed time to develop (if he ever did).

C. Overeaching to acquire Hobert

D. Panicking and setting up a situation where contractually they owed an enormous cap hit for the QB position to BOTH DF and RJ.

E. Panicking again and resigning Bledsoe and spending resources on JP.

 

It actually has been the Bills foolishly trying to both get an alleged savior QB for the future AND get a short-term fix AND stupidly paying through the nose for both things to the detriment of team building which has cost us.

 

Ironically, he two moves which have worked (somewhat) in the last 6 or so years have been their investment in short-term fix QBs (DF in 98 and 99- Bledsoe in 2002). The problems are they have made stupid contract choices they did not have to make which ended up with them allocating too much money to the QB positions (allocating $ to the QB position in DF/RJ and extending Bledsoe.

 

DF and Bledsoe are fine QBs to get as long as they are cheap for the initil cost and then you can structure a pay for play deal. If you cannot then let them go. The mistake we m,ade was allocating big bucks to get them AND big bucks to a young talented player at the same time. This attempt did not work as a personnel choice for RJ and JP thus far have not paid off.

 

The DF deal worked as far as it went and then we cut him loose which was fine. The Bledsoe deal started off well but TD did not cut him loose when he should have.

 

I do not think it was a bad deal tp make for eother vet as they were both relatively cheap initial acquisitions to make as DF's deal was all about pay him only if he produces and the Pats absorbed a lot of the intial cost for Bledsoe. Under these conditions both deals were good.

 

As far as trying to get young talent, the RJ deal did not work out as he was talente but injury prone. The one thing I would not have done and spoke out against it when the deal was done was giving him the bonus before we knew for sure he could play.

 

Some would argue he would have walked unless we did a deal upfront. I think we could have waited to see how he did for as much as half a season to see if he did well. I think we could have happily paid him more bucks if he had done well and his leverage would have been higher but more bucks would have gotten. Instead what would have happened is that his injuries would have likely occured and we eiither pay him less to keep him or cut him lose.

 

The JP deal. we'll see but this would seem to be just the kind of investment in young talent you are endorsing.

[Bill from NYC]

I've seen pictures of Mike Williams back when he was in college, and he was a lot more lean and muscular looking than he's since become.  That said, I agree that you don't pick a right tackle 4th overall.  So there's some truth to your implication that TD should have been able to avoid the Mike Williams bust.

 

Bledsoe's been around the league a long time, which is why he's one of the all-time leaders in yardage.  But the fact Bledsoe was producing more than Holcomb back in 1993 doesn't mean he was a more productive quarterback than Holcomb for the Buffalo Bills.  You know who ranks ahead of Bledsoe on that all-time yardage chart?  Vinny Testaverde.  You don't see any GMs trading away first round picks for a washed-up Testaverde, do you?  Nobody was that stupid.  Nor were any GMs dumb enough to offer up a first round pick for a Bledsoe whose best days were behind him.  No GMs that is, except one.

 

Bledsoe has a big name.  I'll give him that.  But he no longer has the big-time production to go along with that name.  Compare Bledsoe to Peyton Manning.  Manning has a career yards per attempt of 7.66, and a career passer rating of 93.5.  Bledsoe's career yards per attempt is 6.64, and his career passer rating is 77.3.  Do you think these stats are misleading?  I sure don't--they point to a real difference in the quality of the two quarterbacks.  If Bledsoe had more to offer the Bills than Holcomb did, you'd expect to see that difference in the stats.

 

The career yardage stats you cited do show that overall, Bledsoe has had a more distinguished career than has Holcomb.  If you can produce at level X for 13 years, you've done more than a player who produces at level X for just a few years.  But even though Bledsoe had earned the bigger name over the course of his long career, it doesn't mean he was a more productive quarterback for the Bills than was Holcomb.  Had it not been for that blown pass interference call on Eric Moulds, Kelly Holcomb would probably have led the Bills to a win over the New England Patriots, in their own stadium, in a game not involving Milloy-based emotional disruption.  Could you honestly envision Bledsoe doing the same thing?  I can't.  The vision that comes to my head is a Bledsoe on the sidelines with utter sadness and defeat written all over his face.  The Holcomb/Bledsoe stats I cited earlier aren't misleading--they point to the fact Holcomb gave us at least as good a chance to beat the Patriots as Bledsoe did.  And if you can beat the Patriots, you can beat anyone.

762083[/snapback]

 

Testaverde you say? Correct you are. He has approx. 1700 more career yayds than Drew; this in SIX MORE SEASONS, whereas Drew was drafted in 93; Vinny T. in 87.

Who would be stupid enough to want him? Bill Parcells signed him in 1998, and was 30 minutes away from a superbowl appearance (the jests had the lead at the half).

Yes, longevity is a big factor in terms of yardage compilation, but Bledsoe is clearly in a class above V.T.

 

Holcomb otoh has thrown for all of 37 touchdown passes in his career. Drew threw 43 in the last 2 seasons, both behind beat up lines.

 

You can certainly try, but imo it is not possible to compare the ability of these qbs. One has a shot for Canton, like it or not. The other might even be traded away from a 5-11 team, like it or not.

 

Oh, and thanks for the football conversation.

[Orton's Arm]

The Bills had made a series of horrible mistakes at QB as we sought the next Jim Kelly to be our savior.  These mistakes led to:

 

A. Not moving to replace Jimbo soon enough as Ralph/Butler clearly thought as shown by the handshake deal to reward Jimbo in his next contract that he would be good enough to be the Bills QB for years.

B. Overeaching for TC and rushing him along when he needed time to develop (if he ever did).

C. Overeaching to acquire Hobert

D. Panicking and setting up a situation where contractually they owed an enormous cap hit for the QB position to BOTH DF and RJ.

E. Panicking again and resigning Bledsoe and spending resources on JP.

The mistakes you've described are the result of a lack of discipline. Some years the quarterback prospects are better than others, both in the draft and in free agency. If you decide you want the best available quarterback right now, you might end up signing a Billy Joe Hobart, or trading away a first round pick for a declining veteran. A better general manager would be more patient, focusing his scarce first round draft picks on whichever players could offer the most long-term potential to the team. He'd know that eventually, a good quarterback prospect would come along in the draft, or would be available in free agency. Take Kurt Warner. After having been released by the Rams, Warner has never averaged fewer than 7.23 yards per pass attempt, nor a qb rating lower than 85.8. Does that make Warner a more productive quarterback than Bledsoe at this stage of his career? Absolutely.

 

I'm not aware of any Warner-like quarterbacks who were available in 2002. On the other hand, if your team goes 3-13, there are many problems beyond just quarterback. If the right answer isn't available at quarterback--which it may not have been--you take the disciplined approach by using your draft choices on problems which you can solve now. You wait for later before making a major investment in the quarterback position, when a quarterback worthy of such an investment shows up.

[GG]

Overall, Antowain Smith has contributed at least as much to his teams over the past five years as Travis Henry has.  This is why the Travis Henry pick should have been invested in the offensive line instead.

761709[/snapback]

 

You would figure that the benefit of hindsight would cure some people. Antowain Smith was a unidimensional back, who fit in very well with NE's play, since they just needed a RB who could simply pound away yardage to waste the clock. He was not a key cog in their offense, and most of his production came after halftime (usually in 4Q).

 

Compare that to Bills' move to West Coast offense and the need for a multi-purpose back, which Smith was not the man.

 

Lastly, let's pull a wish list of out of thin air and scream that the OL had been ignored.

 

OLs that were selected within 1 round of when Henry was selected

 

Mike Gandy

Kareem McKenzie

Casey Rabach

Jonas Jennings

Kenyatta Jones

 

Hall of Famers, all ...

[Bill from NYC]

>>>> Take Kurt Warner. After having been released by the Rams, Warner has never averaged fewer than 7.23 yards per pass attempt, nor a qb rating lower than 85.8. Does that make Warner a more productive quarterback than Bledsoe at this stage of his career? Absolutely.<<<<

 

Warner flat out sucks. Since 2002, Warner has tossed 21 TDs and 25 ints. Drew threw for more TDs in 05. Warner is more productive than Bledsoe? Congrats, you have reached the stage of absurd.