Our QB problems start with our scouts

[dave mcbride]

I will say this though - I don't think John Guy has done diddly squat since being here.  I long for the days of DwighT Adams.

 

Charles

821266[/snapback]

john guy didn't replace dwight adams, who was a college personnel guy. guy replaced a.j. smith, who is markedly superior to him.

[Tcali]

What do all these QBs have in common?  The OL for each has sucked.  Fix the OL and you go a long way towards fixing the QB play.  Don't get me wrong, none of these guys are world-beaters but you'd be amazed at how a good OL can make an average/below average QB look serviceable.

 

Nah, let’s draft a 1st round QB next year instead!

820631[/snapback]

Drew and Brady had the same O line.

[generaLee83]

 

Nall : Again, we got him for free.  Reasonable salary.  Who knows how good he is; he's inexperienced, is in a new system (for him), new team, & he was hurt for much of preseason.

 

820551[/snapback]

 

 

Good post, Nall however is quite expensive for 3rd string. I could be completely wrong but I thought it was something in the area of 3 years 6 million. If so I would think that he is the highest paid 3rd stringer.

 

He must really suck bad if he's not even above Holcomb on the depth chart. I understand with his injury in the preseason and all he fell behind but how come he hasn't moved past him yet? Waste of money if you ask me.

 

Not that JP or Holcomb are going to win any awards any time soon either though.

 

Good post though.

[Lurker]

While I agree that we lost a lot of veteran scouting talent after Butler left (Dwight Adams, Buddy Nix, et al), I'd put much of the failure for our picks squarely on the shoulders of Tom "fanatasy football" Donahoe.

 

IMO, TD made picks with an eye toward making a splash ("Hey, I've heard of him!") with the national media and reinforcing his gunslinger/genius image to a much greater extent than the Polian/Butler war rooms. I think this was one of the big strikes against him in Ralph's mind and why he thought Marv's consenus-building approach would put OBD back on stable footing.

[MDH]

Drew and Brady had the same O line.

821440[/snapback]

 

Nobody claimed that a HoF QB can't hide some of the deficiencies of the OL (that's why they're HoF QBs). That being said, it's easier to fix the line than it is the find a all time great QB.

[Scraps]

While I agree that we lost a lot of veteran scouting talent after Butler left (Dwight Adams, Buddy Nix, et al), I'd put much of the failure for our picks squarely on the shoulders of Tom "fanatasy football" Donahoe. 

 

IMO, TD made picks with an eye toward making a splash ("Hey, I've heard of him!") with the national media and reinforcing his gunslinger/genius image to a much greater extent than the Polian/Butler war rooms.  I think this was one of the big strikes against him in Ralph's mind and why he thought Marv's consenus-building approach would put OBD back on stable footing.

821509[/snapback]

 

If this were true I would have expected Donahoe to have picked Kenyatta Walker instead of trading down to pick Nate Clements. He would have picked Bryant McKinnie or Dwight Freeney instead of Mike Williams.

[dave mcbride]

If this were true I would have expected Donahoe to have picked Kenyatta Walker instead of trading down to pick Nate Clements.  He would have picked Bryant McKinnie or Dwight Freeney instead of Mike Williams.

821533[/snapback]

i'm not sure what your point is. walker didn't turn out to be any good, but the bills never wanted him anyway -- they wanted marcus stroud, who was drafted one player before the bills picked. he's a superior player to clements, who has really declined (for no apparent reason) since the end of the 04 season.

 

as for 02, well, based on what you say, perhaps he should have bought into the hype.

 

you should know that i strongly believe that folks who think donohoe went for big splash picks and FA signings are essentially football illiterate. every team tries to sign up high profile players -- including the patriots, every freaking year -- mostly because high profile players are usually guys who have proven they can play. i know people will bring up the parrish pick, but i challenge anyone to name an offensive lineman or defensive lineman picked in between #56 and the end of the third round that year who has been more productive than parrish (i strongly suspect they can't).

 

all of this being said, i think donohoe sucked, and that he's a man of mediocre intelligence who got by on his martinet qualities. marv is two times smarter than him, although who knows whether he'll turn out to be a good gm. strategically, i thought the bills draft was stellar -- you start with defense. call me crazy, but i think you have to go back to the 99 draft to find this level of quality. however, the next draft will be the proof in the pudding. we'll see if he comes through.

[Lurker]

folks who think donohoe went for big splash picks and FA signings are essentially football illiterate.

821552[/snapback]

 

call me crazy

821552[/snapback]

 

I disagree with the first point, but wholeheartedly endorse the second.

[eSJayDee]

Good post, Nall however is quite expensive for 3rd string. I could be completely wrong but I thought it was something in the area of 3 years 6 million. If so I would think that he is the highest paid 3rd stringer.

 

When we brought him in, he wasn't earmarked for 3rd string, but yes I'll concede that he's probably one of the higher paid 3rd string QBs. But bear in mind that w/ the salary cap over $100m, that makes an AVERAGE salary over $1.8m.

 

I don't recall the specifics of his cnt (I would've guessed closer to $5m), but I would guess that we had to throw him at least a $1m SB, if not closer to $2m. So beyond that, it's certainly reasonable.

 

Also, i still think the hopes would be that come NEXT year, he's 2nd string.

[Dibs]

....I don't recall the specifics of his cnt.....

821613[/snapback]

 

 

[dave mcbride]

I disagree with the first point, but wholeheartedly endorse the second.

821610[/snapback]

it would be nice if you could back up your point, and to provide examples of other teams that didn't go for "big splash" signings and picks. you'll be hard pressed, because they all do.

 

as for butler/polian, you'll not find a more risky "big splash" deal than the ones they pulled off for cornelius bennett, corey simon, and rob johnson.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Could it be as simple as there aren't enough good QB's for 32 teams.

820569[/snapback]

 

That is the entire problem! There are 32 teams and about a dozen if that many good QB's. So teams are forced to take changes more at the QB position than anywhere else.

 

I think there are four groups of QB's in the league:

 

#1 - The dozen or so actual good ones.

 

#2 - Another bunch such as JP who are still early in their career. Some pan out but many don't. The ones who don't pan out go to group #3

 

#3 - These are the ones still young who don't work out, get cut, go to another team usually as a #2 now, and maybe get the chance down the road at a shot at #1 again. Some do work out the second time around, but again some don't. The ones who do work out move to group #1. Vinny T falls into tois group. The ones who don't move to group #4.

 

#4 - The ones who never work out and bounce from team to team. They play 15 years in the league wit ha half dozen or so teams, som years wit hmore sucess than others, but for the most part never do much of anything. Some may aregue Vinny T belongs in this group. Kelly Holcomb is another one in this group.

 

Why are there so few good ones?? I think it's due to the speed of the game and size of players. QB's just aren't able to make decisions today in the amount of time needed as the players are so much faster, defenses more complex than 30 years ago. Teams tran 12 months of the year to devise ways to create havoc and confusion. While defensively players and coaches work together to stop the other team, it all pretty much falls on the QB's shoulders for offensive success. So most of the QB's can't compute fast enough and look like failures. You need a QB with a computer in his head to replace his brain.

[Lurker]

it would be nice if you could back up your point, and to provide examples of other teams that didn't go for "big splash" signings and picks. you'll be hard pressed, because they all do.

821884[/snapback]

 

I thought the point of this thread was drafting prowess--not siging high-profile FA's, which you are correct about most teams doing and is a completely different animal.

 

Nineteen of Pittsburgh's 22 starters in Super Bowl XL were drafted by the Steelers (17) or signed as undrafted rookies (two). Baltimore, the Pats and Seattle have also had excellent drafts in recent years without much razzle dazzle.

 

Granted, it's easier to pick players from a position of strength than when you've got a lot of holes to fill. But these teams have hit on too many good young players to attribute it all to luck.

 

IMO, trying not to over-think the draft and picking players based on how well they fit into a team concept is a lot better approach than swinging for the fences by trading #1 picks, taking big risks on potential (RP), or doing things to get your name on SportsCenter.

[Dibs]

That is the entire problem!  There are 32 teams and about a dozen if that many good QB's.  So teams are forced to take changes more at the QB position than anywhere else.

 

I think there are four groups of QB's in the league:

 

#1 - The dozen or so actual good ones.

 

#2 - Another bunch such as JP who are still early in their career.  Some pan out but many don't.  The ones who don't pan out go to group #3

 

#3 - These are the ones still young who don't work out, get cut, go to another team usually as a #2 now, and maybe get the chance down the road at a shot at #1 again.  Some do work out the second time around, but again some don't.    The ones who do work out move to group #1.  Vinny T falls into tois group. The ones who don't move to group #4.

 

#4 - The ones who never work out and bounce from team to team.  They play 15 years in the league wit ha half dozen or so teams, som years wit hmore sucess than others, but for the most part never do much of anything.  Some may aregue Vinny T belongs in this group.  Kelly Holcomb is another one in this group.

 

Why are there so few good ones??  I think it's due to the speed of the game and size of players.  QB's just aren't able to make decisions today in the amount of time needed as the players are so much faster, defenses more complex than 30 years ago.  Teams tran 12 months of the year to devise ways to create havoc and confusion.  While defensively players and coaches work together to stop the other team, it all pretty much falls on the QB's shoulders for offensive success.  So most of the QB's can't compute fast enough and look like failures.  You need a QB with a computer in his head to replace his brain.

823010[/snapback]

#5 - The ones who look like they are from group #4 but in their later years.....the lights come on & they perform like champions for a few years until they get too old. Gannon is a top example.....even Testaverde fits this catagory(96 BAL, 98 NYJ).

[stuckincincy]

#5 - The ones who look like they are from group #4 but in their later years.....the lights come on & they perform like champions for a few years until they get too old.  Gannon is a top example.....even Testaverde fits this catagory(96 BAL, 98 NYJ).

823381[/snapback]

 

A good while back when he retired, I compared Testaverde's career stats to Bledsoe's.

 

Very similar.

 

I always liked Vinnie...a tough competitor who gave his best.