Interesting fact about QB's drafted by round since Brady

[X-Era]

After Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round in the 2000 draft, how many QB's drafted after that, and outside of the 1st round, made the playoffs as a starter?

Answer: 3

Drew Brees, the 32 pick, which is a 1st round pick now.
David Garrard, picked 108 overall in the 4th, went to the playoffs as a starter in the 2007 season.
Matt Cassel went this year for KC.

So in the 10 years since Brady was drafted in the 6th round, only 3 QB's have been drafted outside of the 1st round and have taken the team to the playoffs as the starter.

Out of 98 QB picks outside of round 1 since 2000, only 3 have done it.

* Starter- started greater than 8 regular season games in that year.

Edit----- Include Tony Romo who was undrafted in 2003- also made he playoffs which makes it 4% unless we want to add all the undrafted QB's since 2000 to the mix that haven't made the playoffs.

[PTI]

This is great thing to share and to try and let people know we have to pick a QB and really invest a lot of time in picking the right one.

[Raptor]

IMO its hard enough to find a QB in the first round let alone any time after that

Im at the point where either your all in or your not. If we dont use our first or early 2nd(this year since its practically a first) on a QB then to me using a draft pick on a QB after that is pretty much a waste of a draft pick

[X-Era]

IMO its hard enough to find a QB in the first round let alone any time after that

Im at the point where either your all in or your not. If we dont use our first or early 2nd(this year since its practically a first) on a QB then to me using a draft pick on a QB after that is pretty much a waste of a draft pickUsing this data, it sure seems to be.

BTW, Fitzpatrick was drafted since 2000.

[mrbojanglezs]

what about matt cassel?

[X-Era]

what about matt cassel?The Pats missed the playoffs in 08. They went this year (KC), He was a 7th rounder, I stand corrected...

so 3 out of 98 picks.

[YardRat]

Hasselbeck was a 6th rounder in '98.

Why cut off at 2000 w/Brady if a guy is still active?

[YardRat]

The Pats missed the playoffs that year.

The Chiefs made it this year, though.

[X-Era]

The Chiefs made it this year, though.I fixed it.

3% in 10 years is not a good rate.

[YardRat]

Hell, with Brees, Brady, Cassell, and Hasselbeck that's 33% just in this season's playoffs alone.

[cgbm]

perfect thread and perfect responses.

i refer all questions to my sig.

[X-Era]

Hell, with Brees, Brady, Cassell, and Hasselbeck that's 33% just in this season's playoffs alone.And only Brees and Cassell were drafted outside of round 1 since 2000. And Brees was drafted at the 32 pick, which is a 1st rounder now.

[Don't Panic]

The Pats missed the playoffs that year.

...but he made it with the Chiefs this year.

X - this is a very telling statistic about the importance of getting a QB early in the draft. There is no arguing that. However, what I think a lot of people need to come to grips with is that there is not a QB who has really proven themselves of being a bona fide #3 pick in this year's draft. Combine that with the fact that we have an at least average starter in Fitz, and it becomes pretty obvious that drafting a QB in this draft is not a logical option... at least in the 1st round.

I think the most likely option is to take one with our 2nd if a guy is there that OBD really likes. That is entirely possible if we get to the 20s and a couple of the top-rated QBs are still on the board. I can't see any of the playoff teams grabbing a QB outside of maybe Seattle, so there may be a guy that fits the criteria when our pick rolls around in round 2. The only obstacle may be New England, who will almost certainly be fielding offers for that first pick of the 2nd round. A team may fall in love with one of the QBs left and snag him in the time between round 1 and 2. That could keep us from getting our guy, and may push off the search until next year. If that's the case, so be it.

As for our #3 pick, I just can't see ignoring what should be a sure thing at a position of need for us aside from QB. I think that is the direction OBD will end up going in when it is all said and done.

[YardRat]

perfect thread and perfect responses.

i refer all questions to my sig.

I fixed your sig for you.

a decent qb can win a fluke super bowl. but a franchise defense makes a perennial powerhouse.

[X-Era]

I fixed your sig for you.

a decent qb can win a fluke super bowl. but a franchise defense makes a perennial powerhouse. Your percentage on us actually obtaining a "franchise" defense?

[X-Era]

...but he made it with the Chiefs this year.

X - this is a very telling statistic about the importance of getting a QB early in the draft. There is no arguing that. However, what I think a lot of people need to come to grips with is that there is not a QB who has really proven themselves of being a bona fide #3 pick in this year's draft. Combine that with the fact that we have an at least average starter in Fitz, and it becomes pretty obvious that drafting a QB in this draft is not a logical option... at least in the 1st round.

I think the most likely option is to take one with our 2nd if a guy is there that OBD really likes. That is entirely possible if we get to the 20s and a couple of the top-rated QBs are still on the board. I can't see any of the playoff teams grabbing a QB outside of maybe Seattle, so there may be a guy that fits the criteria when our pick rolls around in round 2. The only obstacle may be New England, who will almost certainly be fielding offers for that first pick of the 2nd round. A team may fall in love with one of the QBs left and snag him in the time between round 1 and 2. That could keep us from getting our guy, and may push off the search until next year. If that's the case, so be it.

As for our #3 pick, I just can't see ignoring what should be a sure thing at a position of need for us aside from QB. I think that is the direction OBD will end up going in when it is all said and done.

Simple question. How do you come to the conclusion that no QB is worthy of the 3 pick?

[cgbm]

I fixed your sig for you.

a decent qb can win a fluke super bowl. but a franchise defense makes a perennial powerhouse.

name that defense that does it without a qb

i can name some without the d

seattle
indy
philly
kc - arguable

the only team that you could argue that did it without a qb is chicago. who played well down the stretch.

a defense helps alot and makes a huge diff. but a qb is a quick one pick fix potentially and a d can be addressed through fa easier

[X-Era]

name that defense that does it without a qb

i can name some without the d

seattle
indy
philly
kc - arguable

the only team that you could argue that did it without a qb is chicago. who played well down the stretch.

a defense helps alot and makes a huge diff. but a qb is a quick one pick fix potentially and a d can be addressed through fa easier

And Chicago has Cutler, a 1st rounder that many here wanted to trade for.

[kingJofNYC]

There isn't a QB in this draft that I would take with a 1st round pick, or at least @ #3. All of these potential QBs need to sit for at least a year, maybe longer, before they're ready for prime time.

[better days]

Now tell us how many QB's picked in the 1st rnd since Brady has been drafted have never made the playoffs.

I can think of one off the top of my head, J.P. Losman.

[YardRat]

Your percentage on us actually obtaining a "franchise" defense?

Probably equal, or better, than us getting a franchise QB especially this year.

I went through the drafts back through 2000, first round QB's, and our definition of franchise QB's must definitely be different because I don't find too many in that group.

OUTRIGHT BUSTS OR JUST NOT FRANCHISE
Pennington
Carr
Harrington
Ramsey
Palmer
Leftwhich
Boller
Grossman
Losman
Smith
Campbell
Young
Leinart
Cutler
Russell
Quinn
Flacco
Tebow

TOO YOUNG TO JUDGE
Ryan
Stafford
Sanchez
Freeman
Bradford

MAYBE
Vick - Can he repeat next season?
Palmer - No.
E.Manning
Rivers - What's San Diego won?

FRANCHISE
Big Ben
Rodgers (and honestly, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt...he just won his first playoff game this season after all)

Both in this year's Super Bowl? Yes, but let's not forget their teams each led their respective conferences in fewest defensive points allowed also.

Granted, an argument could be made for the 'maybe's' (especially Rivers, IMO) but then again...Vick's never won anything, neither has Palmer, and who's to say E.Manning isn't just another 'fluke' that cgbm refers to in his sig? Maybe even Flacco, but let's not kid ourselves...Baltimore goes as their defense goes.

[mikemac2001]

Simple question. How do you come to the conclusion that no QB is worthy of the 3 pick?


how do you come to the conclusion one is?

o wait its a ****ing opinion on a ****ing message board

[kingJofNYC]

First round QBs since 2000

Pennington
Vick
Carr/Harrington/Ramsey
Palmer/Leftwich/Boller/Grossman
Manning/Rivers/BigBen/Losman
A.Smith/Rodgers/Campbell
Young/Leinart/Cutler
Russell/Quinn
Ryan/Flacco
Stafford/Sanchez/Freeman

Left '10 out for now.

Some of these guys made the playoffs in spite of their play, some are already washed up. Obviously the bust factor is bigger when you factor rounds 2-7 vs 1, but man some of these QBs, even with their playoff appearances, are straight ass.

Edit: ****, yardrat beat me to it. All that wasted time! LOL

Edit 2: BigB/Eli/Rivers/Rodgers and probably Vick (he's been legit when he's actually been in the league. Palmer and Pennington are two injury prone guys that are nearing the end or at the end, Palmer was great before his injury. Flacco's a meat head, but he shows flashes.

[mrbojanglezs]

conclusion:

drafting qbs is ****ing hard

[X-Era]

Now tell us how many QB's picked in the 1st rnd since Brady has been drafted have never made the playoffs.

I can think of one off the top of my head, J.P. Losman.OK.

Vick -yes
Grossman- Yes
Leftwich- yes
Palmer- yes
Eli Manning- yes
Philip Rivers- yes
Ben Roeth- yes
Rodgers- yes
Jason Campbell- yes (2007)
Cutler- yes
Vince Young- yes (2007)
Flacco- Yes
Ryan- yes
Sanchez- yes

So out of 14 out of 26 QB's taken in round 1 have made the playoffs as a starter since 2000... that's 53.8%

[Prov401]

IMO, the only QB coming out of this year's draft that is possibly worthy of the number 3 pick is Cam Newton and that is absolutely it.

I say possibly because he still has some workouts coming up as well as the combine. He needs to show that he can take snaps from under center and still be productive running the play called. If this kid wows people these next 2 months, he will be drafted high.

Only thing is, I have a good feeling that if he performs well... Carolina will not pass him up. So I'm fairly confident our 1st round pick won't be a QB. JMO.

[Goobylal]

Hasselbeck was a 6th rounder in '98.

Why cut off at 2000 w/Brady if a guy is still active?
Exactly. Why use Brady/2000? What about Warner? Delhomme? Romo? Fiedler? Gannon? Probably a half dozen other QBs?

[X-Era]

Probably equal, or better, than us getting a franchise QB especially this year.

I went through the drafts back through 2000, first round QB's, and our definition of franchise QB's must definitely be different because I don't find too many in that group.

OUTRIGHT BUSTS OR JUST NOT FRANCHISE
Pennington
Carr
Harrington
Ramsey
Palmer
Leftwhich
Boller
Grossman
Losman
Smith
Campbell
Young
Leinart
Cutler
Russell
Quinn
Flacco
Tebow

TOO YOUNG TO JUDGE
Ryan
Stafford
Sanchez
Freeman
Bradford

MAYBE
Vick - Can he repeat next season?
Palmer - No.
E.Manning
Rivers - What's San Diego won?

FRANCHISE
Big Ben
Rodgers (and honestly, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt...he just won his first playoff game this season after all)

Both in this year's Super Bowl? Yes, but let's not forget their teams each led their respective conferences in fewest defensive points allowed also.

Granted, an argument could be made for the 'maybe's' (especially Rivers, IMO) but then again...Vick's never won anything, neither has Palmer, and who's to say E.Manning isn't just another 'fluke' that cgbm refers to in his sig? Maybe even Flacco, but let's not kid ourselves...Baltimore goes as their defense goes.

7 of the QB's you list as busts or not franchise took their teams to the playoffs.

2 of the 6 you list as too young to judge took their teams to the playoffs.

All 4 you list as maybe's have taken their teams to the playoffs.

And your equal or better claim for getting a franchise defense gives no data. We are a long way off from it and much more than one player away IMO.

[kingJofNYC]

So out of 14 out of 26 QB's taken in round 1 have made the playoffs as a starter since 2000... that's 53.8%

Some of those "playoff" QBs, including one SB QB, are/were ass.

[X-Era]

how do you come to the conclusion one is?

o wait its a ****ing opinion on a ****ing message board

1) I don't think I did.

2) I watch as many games as I can and form my opinion on that

But you dodged how you form yours.

[X-Era]

Some of those "playoff" QBs, including one SB QB, are/were ass.OK.... ????

[kingJofNYC]

What about Romo? Add him to the OP, undrafted.

[X-Era]

Exactly. Why use Brady/2000? What about Warner? Delhomme? Romo? Fiedler? Gannon? Probably a half dozen other QBs?Because everyone likes to use Brady as the reference for drafting a QB later. Yet only 3 have done it since 2000. The others were all before that.

[X-Era]

What about Romo? Add him to the OP, undrafted.He's undrafted but fine.

Now were up to 4%... Still isn't even close to 53+%

[mikemac2001]

1) I don't think I did.

2) I watch as many games as I can and form my opinion on that

But you dodged how you form yours.


never said we should or shouldn't so i don't need to dodge ****.

also yes u have by creating a post saying only 3 qbs drafted outside of the first round in the last ten years have led there team to playoffs.


u stated it by creating the post and challenging any one who disagreed

my feelings are fitz is not the answer long term thats for sure....but if they go D this year i am ok with that

look at the top teams this year they also had a solid d (for the most part)

if they believe QB is there guy then take them but i am not going to throw peoples opinions out just because i watch a lot of football games.

[kingJofNYC]

He's undrafted but fine.

Now were up to 4%... Still isn't even close to 53+%

Well, hopefully we're lucky enough to draft the next Campbell, Grossman, or Leftwich. Playoffs here we come.

[X-Era]

never said we should or shouldn't so i don't need to dodge ****.

also yes u have by creating a post saying only 3 qbs drafted outside of the first round in the last ten years have led there team to playoffs.


u stated it by creating the post and challenging any one who disagreed

my feelings are fitz is not the answer long term thats for sure....but if they go D this year i am ok with that

look at the top teams this year they also had a solid d (for the most part)

if they believe QB is there guy then take them but i am not going to throw peoples opinions out just because i watch a lot of football games.I don't disagree with you as much as you may think I do.

1) I have no issue with the Bills taking a D player at 3 if that's what they do. I only am challenging those that claim they know, right here and now, that there is no QB worthy of the pick. And I also would have no problem with them taking a QB at 3 if they think one is worthy.

2) I stated the facts. Many of us here have been shown "facts" about the 26-27-60 rule. This is simply another piece of data which seems to say you better get a 1st round QB to get your best chance of going to the playoffs.

3) Many here form their opinions on a players worth based in part or primarily by what they read that player to be worth. Mid-season, none of the QB's were ranked top 15 by hardly any of the popular draft outlets. Yet now, most have at least 1 and usually 2 being worthy of a top 15 pick. It raises the question, do we trust what they say or not? If we do, at least one of the QB prospects is worthy of a top 15 pick. Furthermore, usually one is worthy of a top 10 pick on most sites.

[jpdex12]

IMO its hard enough to find a QB in the first round let alone any time after that

Im at the point where either your all in or your not. If we dont use our first or early 2nd(this year since its practically a first) on a QB then to me using a draft pick on a QB after that is pretty much a waste of a draft pick

There's no point in wasting a first round pick this year on a QB when none of them are worth a first round pick. Next year will be a better year, Luck, Landry Jones and Matt Barclay to name three that I'd take over any of the QB's in this year's draft!

[PTI]

If there is a guy that has potential, take him at #3 as the QB. Keep in mind, this coaching staff and GM from this draft took guys that barely played as rookies anyway (this is for those people who say no QB is worth it).

[Don't Panic]

Simple question. How do you come to the conclusion that no QB is worthy of the 3 pick?

Fair enough... I assume the only real considerations are Newton and Gabbert. If I'm taking a QB at #3, I don't want there to be any glaring questions. With both of these guys, there are questions. Newton had a great year, but there are too many questions marks off the field for me. If we were picking ten picks later, I'd consider it. Gabbert has a great skill set as well, but he has never done it in a pro-style system. That is a big risk in my book. If Luck was there, I'd be all for it. But these two, or any others, don't strike that sense of confidence in me.

If Locker slips to #34, then I think we have our guy. Otherwise, I think we address the many other concerns and ride out Fitz for another year (which we most likely would be doing with a rookie anyway).

[X-Era]

There's no point in wasting a first round pick this year on a QB when none of them are worth a first round pick. Next year will be a better year, Luck, Landry Jones and Matt Barclay to name three that I'd take over any of the QB's in this year's draft!Luck will go number 1 overall, are you prepared to trade your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to get him? Landry may or may not go in the 1st. Barkley will be a junior and is far from being a given in the 1st.

That's a lot to bank on for next year.

[mikemac2001]

Luck will go number 1 overall, are you prepared to trade your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to get him? Landry may or may not go in the 1st. Barkley will be a junior and is far from being a given in the 1st.

That's a lot to bank on for next year.


i think gabbert might be a good QB i am unsure but the 2 games i watched one being the Nebraska game

i wasnt really impressed but ive only watched him twice....

but i feel the only qb worth the 3rd pick would be newton because of what he could be.

[X-Era]

Fair enough... I assume the only real considerations are Newton and Gabbert. If I'm taking a QB at #3, I don't want there to be any glaring questions. With both of these guys, there are questions. Newton had a great year, but there are too many questions marks off the field for me. If we were picking ten picks later, I'd consider it. Gabbert has a great skill set as well, but he has never done it in a pro-style system. That is a big risk in my book. If Luck was there, I'd be all for it. But these two, or any others, don't strike that sense of confidence in me.

If Locker slips to #34, then I think we have our guy. Otherwise, I think we address the many other concerns and ride out Fitz for another year (which we most likely would be doing with a rookie anyway).I encourage anyone who thinks that the post-season stuff doesn't matter to listen to Nix's own comments:

http://www.buffalobills.com/media-lounge/videos/Bills-Focus-Buddy-Nix-1-on-1/18e14493-81e1-42b9-b42e-5f413c79afa2

At QB, teams care way more about the character of the player.

I simply want the teams to make the call on the worth of these players.

[X-Era]

i think gabbert might be a good QB i am unsure but the 2 games i watched one being the Nebraska game

i wasnt really impressed but ive only watched him twice....

but i feel the only qb worth the 3rd pick would be newton because of what he could be.On Gabbert watch a bit more. Watch the Oklahoma game among others.

[Ickybaluky]

The Chiefs made it this year, though.

The Chiefs traded the 34th pick in the draft for Cassel.

[Joe Fo Sho]

perfect thread and perfect responses.

i refer all questions to my sig.

What the **** is a fluke Super Bowl?

[Don't Panic]

I simply want the teams to make the call on the worth of these players.

As do I. I'm projecting what I think they'll do... which is pass on Gabbert and Newton at #3 and either look at a guy in the 2nd, go late round, or stand pat at QB and wait until next year.

[jamze132]

I'm not sure any QB is worthy of the #3 pick. I would say Cam Newton is the safe bet there but it's going to be hard to pass up Bowers if he's there.

[cgbm]

What the **** is a fluke Super Bowl?

FLUKE super bowl = the ravens with trent dilfer, the bucs with brad johnson,

my point is they pulled it off ONCE with good defenses but cant reproduce with the same top tier defense because they had no franchize QB

[TacklingDummy]

With the 2nd pick in the 2012 NFL Draft the Buffalo Bills select Quarterback Matt Barkley out of USC.*

*The Bills will win a meaningless game during the season and will lose the Luck sweepstakes.

[cgbm]

With the 2nd pick in the 2012 NFL Draft the Buffalo Bills select Quarterback Matt Barkley out of USC.*

*The Bills will win a meaningless game during the season and will lose the Luck sweepstakes.

you may be right. but im sick of waiting for a qb. we need one and we need one now

[trapezeus]

bills fans, by and large, were patient last year. they recognized that it'd take time.

Now there seems to be some break that this is the year that we'll be good.

If the bills ramp up their defense first, they give their first round QB next year more time to excel quickly. Take a qb now (when there are questionable 1st round talents this year) and you'll find yourselfin Losman redux.

The stat may be true that 3% of non 1st roudners get to the playoffs, but you should probably look at that stat with the number of first round busts and come to some conclusion on how important it is to get the right guy and give him everything he needs to succeed.

a lot of those talented first round qb's needed a good defense early in their career so that they could figure it all out.

[cgbm]

bills fans, by and large, were patient last year. they recognized that it'd take time.

Now there seems to be some break that this is the year that we'll be good.

If the bills ramp up their defense first, they give their first round QB next year more time to excel quickly. Take a qb now (when there are questionable 1st round talents this year) and you'll find yourselfin Losman redux.

The stat may be true that 3% of non 1st roudners get to the playoffs, but you should probably look at that stat with the number of first round busts and come to some conclusion on how important it is to get the right guy and give him everything he needs to succeed.

a lot of those talented first round qb's needed a good defense early in their career so that they could figure it all out.

i can hear that. your right that there is not alot of depth at qb in this years draft. but with the top guy potentially being ours. i think it may be worth it to take him.

people question his integrity. but honestly if that is the only issue with our qb then i will be happy.
nobody questions his skills at all. he is huge with a great arm and awesome legs. he won in college including the nat champ. and he also shows large commitment to the game.
those are all way bigger things in my mind then his integrity.

if he needs help with that, he can come to this board and we can help him stay on track.

[better days]

Luck will go number 1 overall, are you prepared to trade your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to get him? Landry may or may not go in the 1st. Barkley will be a junior and is far from being a given in the 1st.

That's a lot to bank on for next year.

How do you know Luck will go #1 next year? A lot can happen in a years time. He will have a New HC & new players on his team. Maybe he does not play as well as he did this year or maybe he gets injured or maybe some other QB overtakes him. #1 was a lock for Luck THIS YEAR. Next year, not so much, at least at this point.

[cgbm]

How do you know Luck will go #1 next year? A lot can happen in a years time. He will have a New HC & new players on his team. Maybe he does not play as well as he did this year or maybe he gets injured or maybe some other QB overtakes him. #1 was a lock for Luck THIS YEAR. Next year, not so much, at least at this point.

why would we argue whats if's that arent likely to happen?

i see this post turning into another long line of questions about persentages of qbs that flop their junior year. or drop draft stock afer a number 1 season.

lets argue him next year?

[better days]

why would we argue whats if's that arent likely to happen?

i see this post turning into another long line of questions about persentages of qbs that flop their junior year. or drop draft stock afer a number 1 season.

lets argue him next year?

I'm not looking to start that kind of debate, I'm just saying nobody knows what the future holds.

[Beebe's Kid]

The percentage will go up when Fitz makes the playoffs next year, which will be his first full year as a starter.

The Buffalo Bills, defying the odds since 1960.

[Beebe's Kid]

why would we argue whats if's that arent likely to happen?

i see this post turning into another long line of questions about persentages of qbs that flop their junior year. or drop draft stock afer a number 1 season.

lets argue him next year?

That's what Jake Locker is saying? Why argue? Just pick him!

[cgbm]

That's what Jake Locker is saying? Why argue? Just pick him!

VERY VERY good point.

kinda funny. seems like all his hype was over the USC game and since then he hasnt done squat.

andrew luck may be a little different because he has done it continuously but you may be right.

[Nighthawk]

After Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round in the 2000 draft, how many QB's drafted after that, and outside of the 1st round, made the playoffs as a starter?

Answer: 3

Drew Brees, the 32 pick, which is a 1st round pick now.
David Garrard, picked 108 overall in the 4th, went to the playoffs as a starter in the 2007 season.
Matt Cassel went this year for KC.

So in the 10 years since Brady was drafted in the 6th round, only 3 QB's have been drafted outside of the 1st round and have taken the team to the playoffs as the starter.

Out of 98 QB picks outside of round 1 since 2000, only 3 have done it.

* Starter- started greater than 8 regular season games in that year.

Edit----- Include Tony Romo who was undrafted in 2003- also made he playoffs which makes it 4% unless we want to add all the undrafted QB's since 2000 to the mix that haven't made the playoffs.

But, the rule says...

[PTI]

The percentage will go up when Fitz makes the playoffs next year, which will be his first full year as a starter.

The Buffalo Bills, defying the odds since 1960.
Fitz ha the 20th most starts in the NFL over the last 3 years. He has had 3 years in a row of extended play and proved to be a below average starter. The year after Fitz the Bengals were 10-6 and won the division (regardless of what happened this year with them). The numbers don't lie, he just is not that good. Bills need a QB now.

[cgbm]

Fitz ha the 20th most starts in the NFL over the last 3 years. He has had 3 years in a row of extended play and proved to be a below average starter. The year after Fitz the Bengals were 10-6 and won the division (regardless of what happened this year with them). The numbers don't lie, he just is not that good. Bills need a QB now.

BINGO. although i dont know if i should agree with you being that your rep is so low. haha

fitz is not and will not ever be a good qb. he make horrible decisions or lack there of.

[trapezeus]

i can hear that. your right that there is not alot of depth at qb in this years draft. but with the top guy potentially being ours. i think it may be worth it to take him.

people question his integrity. but honestly if that is the only issue with our qb then i will be happy.
nobody questions his skills at all. he is huge with a great arm and awesome legs. he won in college including the nat champ. and he also shows large commitment to the game.
those are all way bigger things in my mind then his integrity.

if he needs help with that, he can come to this board and we can help him stay on track.

i question both to be honest

talent wise: he did well in a college system. can he make that jump?

integrity matters: if he was willing to make a couple hundred thousand because of his name and raw talent, what's he going to do when he gets millions in up front cash? Will he be willing to put in the work to become a top flight QB. Running isn't going to get it done. Having a one read offense will not get it done. Being athletic alone does not breed success. I can't comment on if he is or isn't the right guy. but hte guys who interview him and get gut feelings have to be right on it. If they say cam is the guy, i'll have to go with it.

There are plenty of warning signs that says cam at 3 is a disaster in the making.

[cgbm]

i question both to be honest

talent wise: he did well in a college system. can he make that jump?

integrity matters: if he was willing to make a couple hundred thousand because of his name and raw talent, what's he going to do when he gets millions in up front cash? Will he be willing to put in the work to become a top flight QB. Running isn't going to get it done. Having a one read offense will not get it done. Being athletic alone does not breed success. I can't comment on if he is or isn't the right guy. but hte guys who interview him and get gut feelings have to be right on it. If they say cam is the guy, i'll have to go with it.

There are plenty of warning signs that says cam at 3 is a disaster in the making.

wasnt it his dad that was trying to make the money, some debate it but all investigations lead to it being his dad.

hes done the work so far to become the top QB and from his new media workouts and off season commitment, i have no reason t question that.

i dont see how he is a one read offense. if you mean by the run? he isnt only a running qb he threw for 30 td's with 7 int, and has a great arm. if you mean that he can only play against one style d, i disagree again, he played alot of games this year against alot of teams with different d styles. including a team from oregan with a tottaly different style than any team from the south (AND WON).

can he make the transition? i dont know, but honestly how can you. he meets the rule if you count all his college experiense (with an *) but makes it. and anytime your drafting a qb, you never know if he will boom or bust to an extent.

[ddaryl]

fitz is not and will not ever be a good qb. he make horrible decisions or lack there of.


BS.. he actually made many right decisions. he read D's, made adjustments well, and extended more dirves for this franchine then we have seen since Bledsoes 1st season as a Bill.

His accuracy is suspect at times, and his arm is marginal, and yes we can improve at the position. BUT no Fitz for the most part actually makes good decisions. Does he make the occasional bad one.. yes, but not many QB's don't.

[cgbm]

BS.. he actually made many right decisions. he read D's, made adjustments well, and extended more dirves for this franchine then we have seen since Bledsoes 1st season as a Bill.

His accuracy is suspect at times, and his arm is marginal, and yes we can improve at the position. BUT no Fitz for the most part actually makes good decisions. Does he make the occasional bad one.. yes, but not many QB's don't.

Ok so he is a bad qb and sounds like your admitting it. Thats the only point im trying to make.

[X-Era]

bills fans, by and large, were patient last year. they recognized that it'd take time.

Now there seems to be some break that this is the year that we'll be good.

If the bills ramp up their defense first, they give their first round QB next year more time to excel quickly. Take a qb now (when there are questionable 1st round talents this year) and you'll find yourselfin Losman redux.

The stat may be true that 3% of non 1st roudners get to the playoffs, but you should probably look at that stat with the number of first round busts and come to some conclusion on how important it is to get the right guy and give him everything he needs to succeed.

a lot of those talented first round qb's needed a good defense early in their career so that they could figure it all out.Two issues:

1) Your plan assumes we can build an above average defense this off-season

2) Your plan still means starting the rookie day one because it's likely that Fitz won't resign for less than starter money and he simply isn't worth it. Especially when we have to draft and sign a high round replacement. Too much money in two QB's at that point.

And again, the assumption here is that drafting a QB at 3 kills our ability to upgrade the defense and that just isn't the case. If you miss out on say Bowers, that's one player, we still have the rest of the draft and all of free agency to recover.

[Ingtar33]

FLUKE super bowl = the ravens with trent dilfer, the bucs with brad johnson,

my point is they pulled it off ONCE with good defenses but cant reproduce with the same top tier defense because they had no franchize QB

Brad Johnson had about 5 years in the middle of his career (including the superbowl year) where he was elite. He threw for 4000 yards, 24 tds and 13 ints. He still holds the nfl record for most consecutive seasons with 60% completions (13), threw for about 30,000 yards and was a career 82.5 QBR

He was no scrub. His career numbers jive eerily close to Jim Kelly and Donovan McNabb; which isn't bad for a 9th rounder.


Setting that aside there is some massive statistical confusion on this thread topic.

1) exceptions are not a rule. When 100 QBs get taken in 10 years from rounds 2-7 and only 3 or 4 of them make the playoffs (not even talking about whether that QB is any good) you have a remarkable list of abject failure. Unless you plan to dedicate your next 3 drafts to taking QBs in every pick from 2-7, you'll NEVER find another QB in those rounds unless you get very lucky.

2) It doesn't matter if 2 or 3 of the best 5 or 10 QBs in the league currently were in rounds 2-7. Again, those are the exception to the statistics. Just because one of the 3 best players in the NFL was a 6th rounder doesn't mean we'll ever see another 6th round quarterback to match Tom Brady. Statistics don't work that way.

3) Finding a starting QB in round 1 and 2 is far more statistically likely then in ANY other round in the draft, by a long shot. Finding a great QB in round 1 is far more statistically likely then finding one in any other round of the draft. The Ryan Leafs and other busts in the first round hurt, but they come far less likely then a bust in round 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. If you have a 50% chance to hit on a star in round 1 or a 4% chance in round 6, i know which crap shoot i'm taking.

[X-Era]

Brad Johnson had about 5 years in the middle of his career (including the superbowl year) where he was elite. He threw for 4000 yards, 24 tds and 13 ints. He still holds the nfl record for most consecutive seasons with 60% completions (13), threw for about 30,000 yards and was a career 82.5 QBR

He was no scrub. His career numbers jive eerily close to Jim Kelly and Donovan McNabb; which isn't bad for a 9th rounder.


Setting that aside there is some massive statistical confusion on this thread topic.

1) exceptions are not a rule. When 100 QBs get taken in 10 years from rounds 2-7 and only 3 or 4 of them make the playoffs (not even talking about whether that QB is any good) you have a remarkable list of abject failure. Unless you plan to dedicate your next 3 drafts to taking QBs in every pick from 2-7, you'll NEVER find another QB in those rounds unless you get very lucky.

2) It doesn't matter if 2 or 3 of the best 5 or 10 QBs in the league currently were in rounds 2-7. Again, those are the exception to the statistics. Just because one of the 3 best players in the NFL was a 6th rounder doesn't mean we'll ever see another 6th round quarterback to match Tom Brady. Statistics don't work that way.

3) Finding a starting QB in round 1 and 2 is far more statistically likely then in ANY other round in the draft, by a long shot. Finding a great QB in round 1 is far more statistically likely then finding one in any other round of the draft. The Ryan Leafs and other busts in the first round hurt, but they come far less likely then a bust in round 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. If you have a 50% chance to hit on a star in round 1 or a 4% chance in round 6, i know which crap shoot i'm taking.

I agree but round 2 also falls into the 4% stat. Only 1 QB from round 2 has taken his team to the playoffs in the past 10 drafts, that's Brees and it was the 32 pick which is now a 1st rounder.

[cgbm]

Brad Johnson had about 5 years in the middle of his career (including the superbowl year) where he was elite. He threw for 4000 yards, 24 tds and 13 ints. He still holds the nfl record for most consecutive seasons with 60% completions (13), threw for about 30,000 yards and was a career 82.5 QBR

He was no scrub. His career numbers jive eerily close to Jim Kelly and Donovan McNabb; which isn't bad for a 9th rounder.


Setting that aside there is some massive statistical confusion on this thread topic.

1) exceptions are not a rule. When 100 QBs get taken in 10 years from rounds 2-7 and only 3 or 4 of them make the playoffs (not even talking about whether that QB is any good) you have a remarkable list of abject failure. Unless you plan to dedicate your next 3 drafts to taking QBs in every pick from 2-7, you'll NEVER find another QB in those rounds unless you get very lucky.

2) It doesn't matter if 2 or 3 of the best 5 or 10 QBs in the league currently were in rounds 2-7. Again, those are the exception to the statistics. Just because one of the 3 best players in the NFL was a 6th rounder doesn't mean we'll ever see another 6th round quarterback to match Tom Brady. Statistics don't work that way.

3) Finding a starting QB in round 1 and 2 is far more statistically likely then in ANY other round in the draft, by a long shot. Finding a great QB in round 1 is far more statistically likely then finding one in any other round of the draft. The Ryan Leafs and other busts in the first round hurt, but they come far less likely then a bust in round 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. If you have a 50% chance to hit on a star in round 1 or a 4% chance in round 6, i know which crap shoot i'm taking.

Well you get the point about my sig right?

Te rest just proves what imsaying. The bills MUST get a round 1 qb thats what im trying to say. And cam may be the only one worth 3

[better days]

wasnt it his dad that was trying to make the money, some debate it but all investigations lead to it being his dad.

hes done the work so far to become the top QB and from his new media workouts and off season commitment, i have no reason t question that.

i dont see how he is a one read offense. if you mean by the run? he isnt only a running qb he threw for 30 td's with 7 int, and has a great arm. if you mean that he can only play against one style d, i disagree again, he played alot of games this year against alot of teams with different d styles. including a team from oregan with a tottaly different style than any team from the south (AND WON).

can he make the transition? i dont know, but honestly how can you. he meets the rule if you count all his college experiense (with an *) but makes it. and anytime your drafting a qb, you never know if he will boom or bust to an extent.

There is NO WAY you can count Jr. college the same as D1 College football, not even D2. Aside from the talent level, most you those kids are 17-19 years old. 99% of Jr. College players would be sitting on a bench in D2 let alone D1.

He was in a one read offense in that if his primary receiver is not open, he takes off & runs. Worked great in College but won't in the NFL.

[cgbm]

There is NO WAY you can count Jr. college the same as D1 College football, not even D2. Aside from the talent level, most you those kids are 17-19 years old. 99% of Jr. College players would be sitting on a bench in D2 let alone D1.

He was in a one read offense in that if his primary receiver is not open, he takes off & runs. Worked great in College but won't in the NFL.

We have already addressed the take off and run theory. And that is just not true. He had three wr's with good numbers. And he spread the ball well. Watch some games. Nobody can argue his play.

The junco play argument is a valid one. The two dont compare your right.

The fact is. His play is great. Its the off field stuff that may need to be looked at

[unpaid_bills]

couldn't you sum this up as 'We need a better QB" the last good Bills teams we had a hall of fame QB and supporting cast. Its not that difficult to figure out you need a Top QB. Every year there are "Busts" in Round 1. I personally dont think there is a franchise QB this year some may disagree. The Bills cant afford to miss on another high pick. Whomever we take at #3 needs to be an immediate IMPACT starter.

[YardRat]

Brad Johnson had about 5 years in the middle of his career (including the superbowl year) where he was elite. He threw for 4000 yards, 24 tds and 13 ints. He still holds the nfl record for most consecutive seasons with 60% completions (13), threw for about 30,000 yards and was a career 82.5 QBR

He was no scrub. His career numbers jive eerily close to Jim Kelly and Donovan McNabb; which isn't bad for a 9th rounder.


Setting that aside there is some massive statistical confusion on this thread topic.

1) exceptions are not a rule. When 100 QBs get taken in 10 years from rounds 2-7 and only 3 or 4 of them make the playoffs (not even talking about whether that QB is any good) you have a remarkable list of abject failure. Unless you plan to dedicate your next 3 drafts to taking QBs in every pick from 2-7, you'll NEVER find another QB in those rounds unless you get very lucky.

2) It doesn't matter if 2 or 3 of the best 5 or 10 QBs in the league currently were in rounds 2-7. Again, those are the exception to the statistics. Just because one of the 3 best players in the NFL was a 6th rounder doesn't mean we'll ever see another 6th round quarterback to match Tom Brady. Statistics don't work that way.

3) Finding a starting QB in round 1 and 2 is far more statistically likely then in ANY other round in the draft, by a long shot. Finding a great QB in round 1 is far more statistically likely then finding one in any other round of the draft. The Ryan Leafs and other busts in the first round hurt, but they come far less likely then a bust in round 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. If you have a 50% chance to hit on a star in round 1 or a 4% chance in round 6, i know which crap shoot i'm taking.

IMO the discussion isn't about where to draft a QB, but when.

This team is way too early in it's development to take a chance on a first round QB, especially when most would be perceived to be not 'worth the value' at #3.

Build the lines. Strengthen the defense. Priorities 1 and 2. Then take the shot at the high-rounder who may turn into 'the man' under center. Not the other way around, because it's the half-assed, shiny-new-toy approach to attempted success that more often than not ends up in failure.

[cgbm]

IMO the discussion isn't about where to draft a QB, but when.

This team is way too early in it's development to take a chance on a first round QB, especially when most would be perceived to be not 'worth the value' at #3.

Build the lines. Strengthen the defense. Priorities 1 and 2. Then take the shot at the high-rounder who may turn into 'the man' under center. Not the other way around, because it's the half-assed, shiny-new-toy approach to attempted success that more often than not ends up in failure.

Well i disagree with you but i guess theres no sence in agruing that since we have been starting the day i joined

[better days]

We have already addressed the take off and run theory. And that is just not true. He had three wr's with good numbers. And he spread the ball well. Watch some games. Nobody can argue his play.

The junco play argument is a valid one. The two dont compare your right.

The fact is. His play is great. Its the off field stuff that may need to be looked at

While all three receivers may have good numbers, no single receiver is the primary receiver on every play.

[cgbm]

While all three receivers may have good numbers, no single receiver is the primary receiver on every play.

Not to beat a dead horse but fine ill say it again.

That is true. But for you to know that he used only the primary reciever you would have to have seen alot of his games, known who was the primary reciever on every play, and then see if he threw to that player or not.

Im willing to say that your prolly not that dillegent of an auburn fan?

Correct me if im wrong.

And either way, theres an old saying... Dont fix it unless its broken. And it sure wasnt broken. And he deff spread the ball around with those stats

[ejsmith]

You know what makes me sick about this thread??? The *****ING Patriots drafted both Brady and Cassell. Remember when the Bills were good at drafting?? What was that like 20 years ago?? Sigh.

[Philagape]

And either way, theres an old saying... Dont fix it unless its broken. And it sure wasnt broken. And he deff spread the ball around with those stats

He spread it around, or the playbook spread it around?

Doing what works is good for his college success, but if it was indeed a one-read offense, that doesn't prepare him well for the NFL.

[Philagape]

Here's what Charlie Casserly says about Newton (just to post something from a real football guy, not a mom's-basement draftnik):


Casserly said that Newton will face challenges reading defenses, which is a common challenge for many signal callers coming into the NFL.

“The thing you have with him, like a lot of the quarterbacks, is a simplistic offense,” Casserly said. There’s one read, almost all the time, and that’s it.”

.....

“I think he’s a project, I think he’s going to take time,” said Casserly. “You’ve got to find out how intelligent this guy is in learning a system. That’s not a knock on him, they don’t ask him to do that in his offense.”

http://realredskins.com/2011/01/casserly-on-newton/

[cgbm]

Here's what Charlie Casserly says about Newton (just to post something from a real football guy, not a mom's-basement draftnik):



http://realredskins.com/2011/01/casserly-on-newton/

Ok. I cant argue that. But he also is saying that all qb's deal with that coming into the nfl. I think of course he will be a project and need work. But who wouldnt be. He is a great player with alot of upside. IN THE POSITION WE NEED MOST. And finally were in a position to get one. I say take him. But im not in the front office and cant make that decision.

[Philagape]

Ok. I cant argue that. But he also is saying that all qb's deal with that coming into the nfl. I think of course he will be a project and need work. But who wouldnt be. He is a great player with alot of upside. IN THE POSITION WE NEED MOST. And finally were in a position to get one. I say take him. But im not in the front office and cant make that decision.

He didn't say all, he said "a lot." And "a lot" of college QBs aren't suited for the NFL.

And as I said in another thread, you can't go into a draft pick saying it MUST be a certain position. The pick must be based on the player's worthiness.

[cgbm]

He didn't say all, he said "a lot." And "a lot" of college QBs aren't suited for the NFL.

And as I said in another thread, you can't go into a draft pick saying it MUST be a certain position. The pick must be based on the player's worthiness.

Yes it does. You draft to suit your needs as a team. Thats the whole point. To get player to fill a void you have. And right now QB is our biggest.

A.J. green is worthy. Should we get him?

[better days]

Yes it does. You draft to suit your needs as a team. Thats the whole point. To get player to fill a void you have. And right now QB is our biggest.

A.J. green is worthy. Should we get him?

I in no way want a WR at #3 but it would be better to take a GREAT WR than a scrub at another position. I have said before, I think there is another player worthy of the pick that the Bills could use there, but I would be happy if the Bills traded down a little with a team that coveted Green.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

There's no point in wasting a first round pick this year on a QB when none of them are worth a first round pick. Next year will be a better year, Luck, Landry Jones and Matt Barclay to name three that I'd take over any of the QB's in this year's draft!
That's what they say EVERY year. Then they do the Jake Locker and drop off the map while some Cameron Newton character comes out of nowhere. That doesn't even factor in the Brian Brohms and Brady Quinns of the world who completely flame out the moment they're drafted. Next year will be better! Next year will be better! Except when it comes, and it turns out not to be the case.

[cgbm]

I in no way want a WR at #3 but it would be better to take a GREAT WR than a scrub at another position. I have said before, I think there is another player worthy of the pick that the Bills could use there, but I would be happy if the Bills traded down a little with a team that coveted Green.

Im not saying we should get green. Read the quote in my post.

And Cam Newton is not a scrub by any means.

Im not to opposed to trading down a long as we get a qb. In the first round. Im good with newton or gabbert. But i like the dual threat in cam

[Philagape]

Yes it does. You draft to suit your needs as a team. Thats the whole point. To get player to fill a void you have. And right now QB is our biggest.

A.J. green is worthy. Should we get him?

If he's head and shoulders above any other prospect, yes.

Needs break ties between players of similar value. The point of the draft is to get the best players. It's a long-term building tool, not a quick fix.

What if, in the Bills' judgment, a franchise QB just isn't available this year?

[cgbm]

If he's head and shoulders above any other prospect, yes.

Needs break ties between players of similar value. The point of the draft is to get the best players. It's a long-term building tool, not a quick fix.

What if, in the Bills' judgment, a franchise QB just isn't available this year?

Hahaha we should take A.J if hes head and shoulders huh? Theres no help for you.

Long term building tool is right. IN NEEDED POSITIONS. We wont ever get better (record) if we have 7 pro bowl WR's and RB's.

If in the bills judgement they say that then then they wont draft him and we will still be sitting here chatting.

And x_era will be devestated to not be able to ruin another career

[Nighthawk]

When you're drafting at #3...the difference between the players are very minor. That being the case, you ALWAYS draft for need and best player at a need position. BPA is fairy tale that works for teams that are already good...at some point you have to draft for need or you will end up like the Bills and never filling holes.

[Philagape]

at some point you have to draft for need or you will end up like the Bills and never filling holes.

The Bills have drafted for need for years. It was the Jauron Way.

[X-Era]

If he's head and shoulders above any other prospect, yes.

Needs break ties between players of similar value. The point of the draft is to get the best players. It's a long-term building tool, not a quick fix.

What if, in the Bills' judgment, a franchise QB just isn't available this year?

I would say they could look at a project such as Kaepernick. Brohm is a FA which only leaves Levi Brown. We really have no solid backup.

[X-Era]

Hahaha we should take A.J if hes head and shoulders huh? Theres no help for you.

Long term building tool is right. IN NEEDED POSITIONS. We wont ever get better (record) if we have 7 pro bowl WR's and RB's.

If in the bills judgement they say that then then they wont draft him and we will still be sitting here chatting.

And x_era will be devestated to not be able to ruin another career
I will only be devastated when we have a solid defense and still can't win games or go to the playoffs. Skipping a QB and going with Fitz long term (beyond this year) could work, I just think it's unlikely.

Or maybe I could just go with Fitz-Era and force the situation. :up:

[cgbm]

I will only be devastated when we have a solid defense and still can't win games or go to the playoffs. Skipping a QB and going with Fitz long term (beyond this year) could work, I just think it's unlikely.

Or maybe I could just go with Fitz-Era and force the situation. :up:

Please do it

[better days]

The Bills have drafted for need for years. It was the Jauron Way.

This is a fallacy. The Bills needed Ngata much more than ANOTHER DB.

[better days]

Im not saying we should get green. Read the quote in my post.

And Cam Newton is not a scrub by any means.

Im not to opposed to trading down a long as we get a qb. In the first round. Im good with newton or gabbert. But i like the dual threat in cam

You said Green was worthy & asked if the Bills should take him, I replied to that. I was not refering to any player in particular as a scrub.

If the Bills want to go all in & gamble on Newton or any other QB at #3, I'm on board, I just hope they are LUCKY.

[Philagape]

This is a fallacy. The Bills needed Ngata much more than ANOTHER DB.

Not in Dick's judgment; why else would he reach so badly? For the defense they were installing, it was supposed to be the key piece.

They went into that pick thinking MUST BE SAFETY MUST BE SAFETY MUST BE SAFETY. Just like a few people now are thinking MUST BE QB MUST BE QB MUST BE QB

[PTI]

Here is one more for the exception to the rule QB's winning the Super Bowl.

Trent Dilfer never took another snap for the Ravens after the Super Bowl. Take a guess why? Dilfer was not a complete scrub, but the Ravens replaced him with Elvis Grbac who had a great season the year prior in KC. About Brad Johnson, he was out the year after the Super Bowl, not good enough, replaced by Brian Griese. If Johnson was more consistent or better the Bucs win more than 1 Super Bowl.

[better days]

Here is one more for the exception to the rule QB's winning the Super Bowl.

Trent Dilfer never took another snap for the Ravens after the Super Bowl. Take a guess why? Dilfer was not a complete scrub, but the Ravens replaced him with Elvis Grbac who had a great season the year prior in KC. About Brad Johnson, he was out the year after the Super Bowl, not good enough, replaced by Brian Griese. If Johnson was more consistent or better the Bucs win more than 1 Super Bowl.

The Bucs lost a number of players after winning the Super Bowl as well as coaches. That is the reason they did not win any more Super Bowls.

The Glazers put all their resources into buying & funding that stupid soccer team in England & went cheap on the Bucs.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

Trent Dilfer never took another snap for the Ravens after the Super Bowl. Take a guess why? Dilfer was not a complete scrub, but the Ravens replaced him with Elvis Grbac who had a great season the year prior in KC.
For what it's worth, pretty much everybody in Baltimore thought letting him go was a mistake.

[cgbm]

You said Green was worthy & asked if the Bills should take him, I replied to that. I was not refering to any player in particular as a scrub.

If the Bills want to go all in & gamble on Newton or any other QB at #3, I'm on board, I just hope they are LUCKY.

i was responding to the original statment that drafts should be about players worthiness.

i said aj green is worthy should we get him.

because he is awesome but we dont need him.

i was being facisious.

[cgbm]

The Bucs lost a number of players after winning the Super Bowl as well as coaches. That is the reason they did not win any more Super Bowls.

The Glazers put all their resources into buying & funding that stupid soccer team in England & went cheap on the Bucs.

hahaha. that is why it is being said that they were the exception to the rule that won with a good d but no qb. your missing the point.

[cgbm]

For what it's worth, pretty much everybody in Baltimore thought letting him go was a mistake.

well turns out pretty much everyone in baltimore was wrong cuz he went to the browns and retired soon after.

[YardRat]

hahaha. that is why it is being said that they were the exception to the rule that won with a good d but no qb. your missing the point.

But they aren't. Defense wins championships...that's a truism, not a rumor.

Run through the Super Bowl history, and ask yourself "Which one would I rather have? The winning team's QB, or their defense?"

[G Wolly]

You can take the next 100 first round QBs, but they won't mean **** unless they're brought up in the right system where they can succeed.

I still don't believe the draft position matters as much as how they're coached.

[Ingtar33]

well turns out pretty much everyone in baltimore was wrong cuz he went to the browns and retired soon after.


um... no.

Baltimore didn't win another Superbowl (Grbac was largely seen as a huge mistake)... and he went to Seattle, where he was signed to back up Matt Hasselbeck; then stole the starting job from him, until two injuries effectively ended his career as a starting qb.

after a few years with Seattle (4) he bounced around to the Browns (started 1 year) then the 49ers before retiring.

he retired 8 years after winning the superbowl.


and defense generally does win championships... look at the list of teams which won the superbowl with the top 5 defenses in the league for that season, and the list of teams which won the superbowl with one of the top 5 offenses.

take out all the teams that had both, and you'll see almost no "offensive" teams on the list, and a great deal of defensive teams.

List of Superbowl Winners with a top offense not a top defense

~2009 New Orleans*
~2006 Indianapolis
~1998 Broncos
~1994 49ers*
~1976 Raiders
~1970 Colts*

The winners with a * had a higher ranked defense their their opponent. Only the Colts, Broncos and Raiders won a superbowl with a top ranked offense and bottom ranked defense, against a better defensive team. The broncos are sort of an exception as their defense was 8th ranked that year... yet the falcons had the 4th ranked defense; unlike the others on that list, their defense was respectable... if not elite.

to give you an idea of how useful a top ranked defense is...

35 of the 42 superbowl winners had a defense ranked in the top 5 in either scoring or yards (83%)... 18 were the number 1 defense in the league (42%)


-Sidenote: this year features the no.1 defense vs the no.2 defense... the offenses are ranked 12th and 10th

[Nighthawk]

The Bills have drafted for need for years. It was the Jauron Way.

Oh, so taking CB's all the time was filling needs? Sorry, your statement is not true.

[Philagape]

Oh, so taking CB's all the time was filling needs? Sorry, your statement is not true.

Whitner isn't a CB. McCargo isn't a CB. Hardy isn't a CB. Poz isn't a CB. Lynch isn't a CB. Maybin isn't a CB. They were all need picks.

During the Jauron years, 5 of the Bills' 34 picks were CBs; two of them were in the last round, with only one, McKelvin, in the first two rounds. That's not "all the time."

Anything in this post not true?

[Nighthawk]

Whitner isn't a CB. McCargo isn't a CB. Hardy isn't a CB. Poz isn't a CB. Lynch isn't a CB. Maybin isn't a CB. They were all need picks.

During the Jauron years, 5 of the Bills' 34 picks were CBs; two of them were in the last round, with only one, McKelvin, in the first two rounds. That's not "all the time."

Anything in this post not true?

Just because they missed on the picks, does not mean that you should not address need first, if the difference in players is close. BPA will not make your team better if you don't fill your holes. Yes, you have to pick the right players and that is ultimately the problem with the Bills, but I don't agree that you should pick BPA...the Spiller pick is a classic example of this.

[Philagape]

Just because they missed on the picks, does not mean that you should not address need first, if the difference in players is close. BPA will not make your team better if you don't fill your holes. Yes, you have to pick the right players and that is ultimately the problem with the Bills, but I don't agree that you should pick BPA...the Spiller pick is a classic example of this.

Well if they had drafted BPA they could have had Ngata, Mangold, Revis, Orakpo, DeSean Jackson, etc. Would the team not be better now?

(Orakpo and Jackson would have been the same position, but even then the Bills drafted for specific attributes -- Maybin's speed, Hardy's size -- that gave them the edge)

In another thread someone said taking a defensive player first this year will not "make your team good quick." I think that's the heart of the debate. The purpose of the draft is not to "make your team good quick." It's not to plug holes for the upcoming season. It's a long-term building process. You draft players for hopefully their whole careers, not for just the upcoming season. And draft picks can't be justly evaluated until 2-3 years later, including Spiller.

[Nighthawk]

Well if they had drafted BPA they could have had Ngata, Mangold, Revis, Orakpo, DeSean Jackson, etc. Would the team not be better now?

(Orakpo and Jackson would have been the same position, but even then the Bills drafted for specific attributes -- Maybin's speed, Hardy's size -- that gave them the edge)

In another thread someone said taking a defensive player first this year will not "make your team good quick." I think that's the heart of the debate. The purpose of the draft is not to "make your team good quick." It's not to plug holes for the upcoming season. It's a long-term building process. You draft players for hopefully their whole careers, not for just the upcoming season. And draft picks can't be justly evaluated until 2-3 years later, including Spiller.

They took the wrong players...and Ngata was a need position, so was Orakpo...they took the wrong players at need positions...you're making my point for me.

[Philagape]

They took the wrong players...and Ngata was a need position, so was Orakpo...they took the wrong players at need positions...you're making my point for me.

They took Whitner over Ngata because they prioritized their needs and drafted accordingly. They took a lesser player because of the position he played. That's what I'm arguing against.

And as I said, they took Maybin over Orakpo because they prioritized by a needed attribute.

For teams like the Bills, drafting BPA will also address a need most of the time. Just not necessarily by priority.

[YardRat]

and defense generally does win championships... look at the list of teams which won the superbowl with the top 5 defenses in the league for that season, and the list of teams which won the superbowl with one of the top 5 offenses.

take out all the teams that had both, and you'll see almost no "offensive" teams on the list, and a great deal of defensive teams.

List of Superbowl Winners with a top offense not a top defense

~2009 New Orleans*
~2006 Indianapolis
~1998 Broncos
~1994 49ers*
~1976 Raiders
~1970 Colts*

The winners with a * had a higher ranked defense their their opponent. Only the Colts, Broncos and Raiders won a superbowl with a top ranked offense and bottom ranked defense, against a better defensive team. The broncos are sort of an exception as their defense was 8th ranked that year... yet the falcons had the 4th ranked defense; unlike the others on that list, their defense was respectable... if not elite.

to give you an idea of how useful a top ranked defense is...

35 of the 42 superbowl winners had a defense ranked in the top 5 in either scoring or yards (83%)... 18 were the number 1 defense in the league (42%)


-Sidenote: this year features the no.1 defense vs the no.2 defense... the offenses are ranked 12th and 10th

Bingo.

[PTI]

The NFL is drastically different than it was even 10 years. You need a good offense or else you are in trouble, and you have no chance to win at all.

[X-Era]

um... no.

Baltimore didn't win another Superbowl (Grbac was largely seen as a huge mistake)... and he went to Seattle, where he was signed to back up Matt Hasselbeck; then stole the starting job from him, until two injuries effectively ended his career as a starting qb.

after a few years with Seattle (4) he bounced around to the Browns (started 1 year) then the 49ers before retiring.

he retired 8 years after winning the superbowl.


and defense generally does win championships... look at the list of teams which won the superbowl with the top 5 defenses in the league for that season, and the list of teams which won the superbowl with one of the top 5 offenses.

take out all the teams that had both, and you'll see almost no "offensive" teams on the list, and a great deal of defensive teams.

List of Superbowl Winners with a top offense not a top defense

~2009 New Orleans*
~2006 Indianapolis
~1998 Broncos
~1994 49ers*
~1976 Raiders
~1970 Colts*

The winners with a * had a higher ranked defense their their opponent. Only the Colts, Broncos and Raiders won a superbowl with a top ranked offense and bottom ranked defense, against a better defensive team. The broncos are sort of an exception as their defense was 8th ranked that year... yet the falcons had the 4th ranked defense; unlike the others on that list, their defense was respectable... if not elite.

to give you an idea of how useful a top ranked defense is...

35 of the 42 superbowl winners had a defense ranked in the top 5 in either scoring or yards (83%)... 18 were the number 1 defense in the league (42%)


-Sidenote: this year features the no.1 defense vs the no.2 defense... the offenses are ranked 12th and 10thI think you have said, in two separate posts, one pro defense, and one pro 1st round QB, what I have been saying... we need both.

And I will further say that we should not go hell bent after one and ignore the other. This year we have a pick to net the top QB in the draft most likely. We can potentially answer that long term need. And, we have enough depth in the draft to significantly upgrade the defense as well. Add in free agency which can also help on defense and we can make huge strides toward building a quality team.

[Ingtar33]

I think you have said, in two separate posts, one pro defense, and one pro 1st round QB, what I have been saying... we need both.

And I will further say that we should not go hell bent after one and ignore the other. This year we have a pick to net the top QB in the draft most likely. We can potentially answer that long term need. And, we have enough depth in the draft to significantly upgrade the defense as well. Add in free agency which can also help on defense and we can make huge strides toward building a quality team.


yep. we do need both. which is why we need to be positive we're getting Aaron Rogers, Payton Manning or Tom Brady if we go with QB and pass on a Clay Mathews Jr.

I just don't see that QB in this draft. so assuming there is a defensive stud available, that's where i'd like us to go.

[X-Era]

yep. we do need both. which is why we need to be positive we're getting Aaron Rogers, Payton Manning or Tom Brady if we go with QB and pass on a Clay Mathews Jr.

I just don't see that QB in this draft. so assuming there is a defensive stud available, that's where i'd like us to go.I may not agree, but I can understand your take.