IMO - Bills will bring Fitzpatrick back

[Skooby]

How about us bringing Fitz back as back-up ?? It doesn't look like the Jets are going to re-sign him and he might be willing to take a relatively cheap deal, maybe $6 Million a year for 2-3 years. Then we can toss away our current trash (EJ) and have Fitz mentor C. Jones in the meantime to see if he can come around.

Right now, we have no back-up so this type of insurance when the coaches (Brothers) are on the hot-seat really has meaning for them. We remember last season when Tyrod went down ?? It cost us big-time & I don't Rex has that kind of time. We need a Frank Reich type of guy & Fitz could step in as needed, he's a smart guy.

[sukie]

Stop cutting the pills. Take full doses. You need the full prescribed dosage there, chief.

[stuckincincy]

How about us bringing Fitz back as back-up ?? It doesn't look like the Jets are going to re-sign him and he might be willing to take a relatively cheap deal, maybe $6 Million a year for 2-3 years. Then we can toss away our current trash (EJ) and have Fitz mentor C. Jones in the meantime to see if he can come around.

Right now, we have no back-up so this type of insurance when the coaches (Brothers) are on the hot-seat really has meaning for them. We remember last season when Tyrod went down ?? It cost us big-time & I don't Rex has that kind of time. We need a Frank Reich type of guy & Fitz could step in as needed, he's a smart guy.

He wants more dough:

..."Fitzpatrick is willing to accept a one-year deal from the Jets that would include $12 million in guaranteed money, a source informed of the offer told NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport. The only problem? The Jets aren't interested in signing the veteran quarterback to those terms, Rapoport reported.

The New York Daily News first reported Fitzpatrick's counteroffer.

As it stands, the Jets are hoping to sign Fitzpatrick to a three-year, $24 million contract that could rise to as much as $36 million with incentives. That offer, which would include $12 million in the first year, according to Rapoport, has been on the table since March."...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000666662/article/jets-arent-interested-in-ryan-fitzpatrick-counteroffer

[k-oneputt]

That's not happening. No way they pay him.
How about Nick Foles ? He is on his way out in LA. I'd rather have him backing up then putting EJ in there.

[Skooby]

That's not happening. No way they pay him.
How about Nick Foles ? He is on his way out in LA. I'd rather have him backing up then putting EJ in there.

Well there's an idea, we need someone and Rex is in a pinch if TT goes down again. If the Bills make the playoffs as a wildcard team, Rex & his brother have 3 years or more left. If they win the division (long-shot but possible), it's 5 years minimum.

[k-oneputt]

And if they need to turn to EJ again they will have sealed their fate.

[OpIv37]

Even if the Bills wanted him back, there is no way to get him under the cap.

[casdhf]

Ban

[OpIv37]

Even if the Bills wanted him back, there is no way to get him under the cap.

Everyone is just going to have to get over the fact that EJ is out back up. I don't like it either, but his salary is guaranteed, he knows the system and we don't have cap space for someone else.

This team drafted EJ in the first. They doubled down the following year when they spent two firsts on Sammy because a) a great WR is useless with no QB and b) that first could have been used to draft his replacement. Then last year, the FO spent a ton knowing they were hosing the cap for this year. It's an insane level of mismanagement, and because of it, we are stuck with EJ for another year.

[DesertFox24]

Drafting Sammy and spending last year had no effects on us keeping ej on this roster. He cost the exact same to cut or keep so you might as well keep him. The only thing I will concede is that he may have been our third qb but he would still be on this team no matter what.

[OpIv37]

Drafting Sammy and spending last year had no effects on us keeping ej on this roster. He cost the exact same to cut or keep so you might as well keep him. The only thing I will concede is that he may have been our third qb but he would still be on this team no matter what.

Trading our 2015 first round draft pick to draft Sammy cost us a potential opportunity to replace EJ in the first round of that draft. Would the Bills have done that? I don't know- maybe. But they took the option completely off the table when they traded the pick.

And the spending last year absolutely cost us the opportunity to replace EJ this year. If we had more cap space, we could eat his cap hit for a year and sign a better back-up. But we are too tight to the cap to eat dead space for a player who isn't here. Again, the FO left themselves no option.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Trading our 2015 first round draft pick to draft Sammy cost us a potential opportunity to replace EJ in the first round of that draft. Would the Bills have done that? I don't know- maybe. But they took the option completely off the table when they traded the pick.

We had the pick of any QB in the draft not named Mariota or Winston (who obviously went 1-2 overall) with our 2nd round pick. Garrett Grayson was the next QB taken and we almost could have had him with our 3rd round pick.

I dislike the Sammy trade as much as any, but it had zero affect on our ability to draft a QB in 2015.

[feldspar]

.

This team drafted EJ in the first. They doubled down the following year when they spent two firsts on Sammy because a) a great WR is useless with no QB and b) that first could have been used to draft his replacement.

Actually, that's not true at all.

After Winston and Mariota (who were taken 1st and 2nd overall), another QB was not taken until the third round last year. That was Garrett Grayson. Then you have Sean Mannion taken later in the 3rd, Bryce Petty in the 4th, Brett Hundley in the 6th, and Trevor Siemian in the 7th. Those are ALL the QBs drafted last year. All developmental flyers.

If by "draft EJ's replacement" in 2015 you mean getting a potential starter, you'd be plum out of luck. I assume that's what you are talking about if you are referring to a first-round draft choice. Would you actually draft any of those guys I mentioned in the first round that were available? I didn't think so. We had no shot at Mariota or Winston, remember. Everyone else was available to the Bills much later.

No, Tyrod Taylor turned out to be the best option the Bills could have went for IMO, or at least it seems that way at this point in time. Who else exactly would you have preferred that was realistically available during that stretch?

Hell, if you are talking about the 2015 draft, I'd prefer EJ Manuel as backup over all the other drafted QBs taken after the first two picks. That is not a ringing endorsement of EJ Manuel, but a reflection of who was available.


Then last year, the FO spent a ton knowing they were hosing the cap for this year. It's an insane level of mismanagement, and because of it, we are stuck with EJ for another year.

Again, who was available for the backup spot this offseason? Or even the starter spot? You act like QBs grow on trees. IMO, the best we could have done was a Matt Schaub, Brian Hoyer or Matt Moore (who probably would want to stay in Miami anyway). Any one of those guys would have been within Buffalo's salary cap range is the point.

I don't know what kind of fantasy land of chagrin you live in, but I don't see what QBs were available that would be too much better than what the Bills have now.

Enlighten me. What would YOU have done?

[OpIv37]

We had the pick of any QB in the draft not named Mariota or Winston (who obviously went 1-2 overall) with our 2nd round pick. Garrett Grayson was the next QB taken and we almost could have had him with our 3rd round pick.

I dislike the Sammy trade as much as any, but it had zero affect on our ability to draft a QB in 2015.

And the clairvoyant Bills knew this when they traded the pick a year earlier? Come on.

[Night Train]

IMO- Hot Dogs are NOT a sandwich. :down:

[OpIv37]

Actually, that's not true at all.

After Winston and Mariota (who were taken 1st and 2nd overall), another QB was not taken until the third round last year. That was Garrett Grayson. Then you have Sean Mannion taken later in the 3rd, Bryce Petty in the 4th, Brett Hundley in the 6th, and Trevor Siemian in the 7th. Those are ALL the QBs drafted last year. All developmental flyers.

If by "draft EJ's replacement" in 2015 you mean getting a potential starter, you'd be plum out of luck. I assume that's what you are talking about if you are referring to a first-round draft choice. Would you actually draft any of those guys I mentioned in the first round that were available? I didn't think so. We had no shot at Mariota or Winston, remember. Everyone else was available to the Bills much later.

No, Tyrod Taylor turned out to be the best option the Bills could have went for IMO, or at least it seems that way at this point in time. Who else exactly would you have preferred that was realistically available during that stretch?

Hell, if you are talking about the 2015 draft, I'd prefer EJ Manuel as backup over all the other drafted QBs taken after the first two picks. That is not a ringing endorsement of EJ Manuel, but a reflection of who was available.



Again, who was available for the backup spot this offseason? Or even the starter spot? You act like QBs grow on trees. IMO, the best we could have done was a Matt Schaub, Brian Hoyer or Matt Moore (who probably would want to stay in Miami anyway). Any one of those guys would have been within Buffalo's salary cap range is the point.

I don't know what kind of fantasy land of chagrin you live in, but I don't see what QBs were available that would be too much better than what the Bills have now.

Enlighten me. What would YOU have done?

Once again, the clairvoyant Bills somehow knew what the backup QB FA situation would have been in 2016?

They knew EJ was struggling. They knew Tyrod was a question mark. And they hosed the cap for 2016 knowing this.

In both instances, they made moves that took the option completely off the table a year in advance.

[feldspar]

Once again, the clairvoyant Bills somehow knew what the backup QB FA situation would have been in 2016?

They knew EJ was struggling. They knew Tyrod was a question mark. And they hosed the cap for 2016 knowing this.

In both instances, they made moves that took the option completely off the table a year in advance.

Way to dodge everything I said.

Forget about what actually happened. Are you complaining that the Bills got lucky or something? lOL, you HAVE to get lucky to get a quality QB, and I don't care WHO you are. Luck is a huge element in that.

Talk about clairvoyance. We Now have the benefit of hindsight. Say the Bills didn't pick EJ at all, and you were in charge of the entire team. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE TO GET A QB from the 2013 offseason until now? Gimme something, because now you have the benefit of hindsight. Seriously, I'd like to know. I'm not trying to come across as hostile.

[Joe Fo Sho]

And the clairvoyant Bills knew this when they traded the pick a year earlier? Come on.

Who cares if they knew it or not? The fact is that it didn't matter and your argument is pointless.


Bills do something bad - "What a bunch of idiots running this organization."

Bills do something good - "What a lucky bunch of idiots running this organization."

[OpIv37]

Way to dodge everything I said.

Forget about what actually happened. Are you complaining that the Bills got lucky or something? lOL, you HAVE to get lucky to get a quality QB, and I don't care WHO you are. Luck is a huge element in that.

Talk about clairvoyance. We Now have the benefit of hindsight. Say the Bills didn't pick EJ at all, and you were in charge of the entire team. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE TO GET A QB from the 2013 offseason until now? Gimme something, because now you have the benefit of hindsight. Seriously, I'd like to know. I'm not trying to come across as hostile.
Jesus Christ that would take a lot of time to figure out.

But it's not really about me. Clearly, what the team did didn't work and we are still paying the price for it.

[OpIv37]

Who cares if they knew it or not? The fact is that it didn't matter and your argument is pointless.


Bills do something bad - "What a bunch of idiots running this organization."

Bills do something good - "What a lucky bunch of idiots running this organization."

Yeah, who cares if they gamble the future and stick us with a useless QB for 4 years? I mean, clearly they know what they're doing. That's why the team wins so much.

[feldspar]

Jesus Christ that would take a lot of time to figure out.

But it's not really about me. Clearly, what the team did didn't work and we are still paying the price for it.

Well, clearly you think that there was an alternative plan as to what the team should have done at the QB position. A different more successful course of events with more effectual decision making...

What is it? I'd like to hear what they should have done, even with the benefit of hindsight. Start with the 2013 offseason until now.

If you can't come up with anything, I'll figure you're *****ing just to *****. Just blindly and unthinkingly lashing out...if you think they did the wrong thing, then it would logically follow that you would have some kind of an idea what the right thing should have been, no? This ain't rocket science. And with the benefit of hindsight, this should be pretty easy, I would think.

I'll wait right here...

[OpIv37]

Well, clearly you think that there was an alternative plan as to what the team should have done at the QB position. A different more successful course of events with more effectual decision making...

What is it? I'd like to hear what they should have done, even with the benefit of hindsight. Start with the 2013 offseason until now.

If you can't come up with anything, I'll figure you're *****ing just to *****. Just blindly and unthinkingly lashing out...if you think they did the wrong thing, then it would logically follow that you would have some kind of an idea what the right thing should have been, no? This ain't rocket science. And with the benefit of hindsight, this should be pretty easy, I would think.

I'll wait right here...
So, the FO ****s up and sticks us with a bad QB for four years, and you're making it about me. I'm not the reason we're losing. I'm not the reason why we don't have the cap to ditch EJ or why we have him in the first place.

I must have missed the line in the TOS that says "no matter how much the team loses, you may not criticize the FO without analyzing every move they made over the last 3 years and explaining what you would have done differently."

Here's a thought: instead of criticizing me for not appeasing you with some drawn out history of what the Bills should have done differently, you criticize the FO for getting it wrong yet again? This is a hobby for me. For them, it's their careers. It's practically their lives. You should be demanding better from them, not me.

[feldspar]

So, the FO ****s up and sticks us with a bad QB for four years, and you're making it about me. I'm not the reason we're losing. I'm not the reason why we don't have the cap to ditch EJ or why we have him in the first place.

I must have missed the line in the TOS that says "no matter how much the team loses, you may not criticize the FO without analyzing every move they made over the last 3 years and explaining what you would have done differently."

Here's a thought: instead of criticizing me for not appeasing you with some drawn out history of what the Bills should have done differently, you criticize the FO for getting it wrong yet again? This is a hobby for me. For them, it's their careers. It's practically their lives. You should be demanding better from them, not me.

You never have gotten the basic concept of a message board, old pal...or so it seems to me. I would think its's self-evident, but I guess I'll have to explain it to you like you are a child.

This is a message board. Your opinions ARE about you. My opinions are about me. We are having a conversation amongst people. If I wanted cold, hard facts I'll do some math or consult a computer.

Now, you say that IN YOUR OPINION that you think the Bills ****ed up the QB position. The premise was that the topic of conversation started with drafting EJ Manuel in 2013. Right so far? Stay with me...

OK. So I submit to you that even if the Bills do not currently have a sure-fire long-term answer at QB, that doesn't mean that they necessarily ****ed up. At the current time, they made the right moves based on what was realistically available to the in the market. That's my opinion. My opinion is about me. Are you starting to catch on?

So then I ask you to elaborate on your opinion, but you seem to have no answer...so you get defensive and backtrack as though your opinion has nothing to do with anything. And here comes the kicker...you do this even though the entire conversation has to do with opinion.

To be even more clear about the difference between fact and opinion???bear with me! we are almost there:

FACT: the Bills QB situation is still up in the air...at least that's the closest thing we can come to a fact
OPINION: if the QB situation is not resolved, then the Bills must have ****ed up

See, I don't agree with that opinion, and I already told you why. Then you stonewall the whole conversation.

If you don't want to talk about your opinions, then I don't understand why you would even bother starting conversations here. You don't really want to say anything.

[feldspar]

So, the FO ****s up and sticks us with a bad QB for four years, and you're making it about me. I'm not the reason we're losing. I'm not the reason why we don't have the cap to ditch EJ or why we have him in the first place.

I must have missed the line in the TOS that says "no matter how much the team loses, you may not criticize the FO without analyzing every move they made over the last 3 years and explaining what you would have done differently."

Here's a thought: instead of criticizing me for not appeasing you with some drawn out history of what the Bills should have done differently, you criticize the FO for getting it wrong yet again? This is a hobby for me. For them, it's their careers. It's practically their lives. You should be demanding better from them, not me.

You never have gotten the basic concept of a message board, old pal...or so it seems to me. I would think its's self-evident, but I guess I'll have to explain it to you like you are a child.

This is a message board. Your opinions ARE about you. My opinions are about me. We are having a conversation amongst people. If I wanted cold, hard facts I'll do some math or consult a computer.

Now, you say that IN YOUR OPINION that you think the Bills ****ed up the QB position. The premise was that the topic of conversation was to start with drafting EJ Manuel in 2013. Right so far? Stay with me...

OK. So I submit to you that even if the Bills do not currently have a sure-fire long-term answer at QB, that doesn't mean that they necessarily ****ed up. At the current time, they made the right moves based on what was realistically available to the in the market. That's my opinion. My opinion is about me. Are you starting to catch on?

So then I ask you to elaborate on your opinion, but you seem to have no answer...so you get defensive and backtrack as though your opinion has nothing to do with anything. And here comes the kicker...you do this even though the entire conversation has to do with opinion. Your opinion and my opinion...that's how people talk to one another quite frequently, especially in a debate. I gotta spell that out for you?

To be even more clear about the difference between fact and opinion???bear with me! we are almost there:

FACT: the Bills QB situation is still up in the air...at least that's the closest thing we can come to a fact
OPINION: if the QB situation is not resolved, then the Bills must have ****ed up in the past three or four years (forget about beyond that, as it's not part of the topic)

See, I don't agree with that opinion, and I already told you why. Then you stonewall the whole conversation. I think you can't support your opinion and need to fall back on "the Bills are a bad organization" tag line, which has absolutely zero substance in the context of the conversation. "It's not my fault?" Really? You're really going to say THAT? Who even suggested it was your fault?

If you don't want to talk about your opinions, then I don't understand why you would even bother starting conversations here. You don't really want to say anything.

[trapezeus]

the bills knew buddy screwed them into taking a qb because of the whole phone call issue. they had to part with fitz in a weak class. had they acknowledged that ej might not be that good and stuck to their spot at 9, they could have taken bridgewater or carr, who look a lot better the next year. and still saved face by saying, "we don't have a bonafide starter. and until someone shows themselves, we will keep taking qbs. and even when get one, we will continue to develop the position"

[YardRat]

I would take Fitz back in a heartbeat to back up Tyrod, but not for the amount of money he's looking for...no way, even if we did have the cap room to manage it.

[swiper]

Well, clearly you think that there was an alternative plan as to what the team should have done at the QB position. A different more successful course of events with more effectual decision making...

What is it? I'd like to hear what they should have done, even with the benefit of hindsight. Start with the 2013 offseason until now.

If you can't come up with anything, I'll figure you're *****ing just to *****. Just blindly and unthinkingly lashing out...if you think they did the wrong thing, then it would logically follow that you would have some kind of an idea what the right thing should have been, no? This ain't rocket science. And with the benefit of hindsight, this should be pretty easy, I would think.

I'll wait right here...

Well despite the fact you are not the most adroit clown in the litter,

The could have just kept Fitzpatrick, signed Marshall and Decker and save all those picks lost on Watkins by taking Bradham instead. Boom. Geniuses they would have been.

Couple that with the defense they HAD in place and add the McCoy move would have already had them in the play-offs.

[Albany,n.y.]

the bills knew buddy screwed them into taking a qb because of the whole phone call issue. they had to part with fitz in a weak class. had they acknowledged that ej might not be that good and stuck to their spot at 9, they could have taken bridgewater or carr, who look a lot better the next year. and still saved face by saying, "we don't have a bonafide starter. and until someone shows themselves, we will keep taking qbs. and even when get one, we will continue to develop the position"

It would have made more sense to have fired Nix the day the phone call was revealed, kept Fitz another year & drafted Bridgewater or Carr the next year. It wasn't a secret that EJ's QB class was one of the worst ever.

[Mace]

It would have made more sense to have fired Nix the day the phone call was revealed, kept Fitz another year & drafted Bridgewater or Carr the next year. It wasn't a secret that EJ's QB class was one of the worst ever.

Carr would have fit Marrone, but not Roman, and Bridgewater wasn't even as good as Taylor.

The same people who want the Bills to roll the dice on QB's, are upset when they do, ala Manuel and Jones.

I'm not sorry to keep bringing up the same point, 47 QB's have been drafted since 2013 (Manuel's year), at this point 5 of them are starters with varying levels of promise as yet still being varying levels of promise, with a combined record of 44-73 with one winning season among them all. They aren't lighting up the league all over the place.

[feldspar]

It would have made more sense to have fired Nix the day the phone call was revealed, kept Fitz another year & drafted Bridgewater or Carr the next year. It wasn't a secret that EJ's QB class was one of the worst ever.

The phone call never forced anyone's hand.

The Bills wanted to keep Fitz. They wanted to draft a QB and have him learn behind Fitz. Fitz wasn't on board...look what he's doing now with the Jets. That he'll probably get away with that tells you about the state of QBs in this league and how hard they are to get.

Anyway, since we didn't retain Fitz, we got Kolb instead. Kolb was supposed to start the year EJ did. The mistake was forcing a QB pick in that draft, but it happens all the time. At least we traded down and got value for the pick and did not stick with EJ for long...remember he was supposed to be the backup that year. Didn't last long the next...

EJ was just a blip on the radar...he didn't really cost us too much in time, money, or even draft picks. I still like the kid and will root for him if Tyrod goes down.

Seriously, though, I'd rather have Tyrod than Bridgewater right now...we'll see about Carr. I think I like Carr better than Bridgewater.

[justasportsfan]

So, the FO ****s up and sticks us with a bad QB for four years, and you're making it about me. I'm not the reason we're losing. I'm not the reason why we don't have the cap to ditch EJ or why we have him in the first place.

I must have missed the line in the TOS that says "no matter how much the team loses, you may not criticize the FO without analyzing every move they made over the last 3 years and explaining what you would have done differently."

Here's a thought: instead of criticizing me for not appeasing you with some drawn out history of what the Bills should have done differently, you criticize the FO for getting it wrong yet again? This is a hobby for me. For them, it's their careers. It's practically their lives. You should be demanding better from them, not me.

We talk about each others train on thought. What you post here gets to be talked about. Its not about you personally but what you put out here.

[Mahdi]

That's not happening. No way they pay him.
How about Nick Foles ? He is on his way out in LA. I'd rather have him backing up then putting EJ in there.

Would be great pick up...

[Arm of Harm]

Way to dodge everything I said.

Forget about what actually happened. Are you complaining that the Bills got lucky or something? lOL, you HAVE to get lucky to get a quality QB, and I don't care WHO you are. Luck is a huge element in that.

Talk about clairvoyance. We Now have the benefit of hindsight. Say the Bills didn't pick EJ at all, and you were in charge of the entire team. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE TO GET A QB from the 2013 offseason until now? Gimme something, because now you have the benefit of hindsight. Seriously, I'd like to know. I'm not trying to come across as hostile.

In hindsight, what should the Bills have done to get a QB, from 2013 until now? That's an easy question! :)

In 2014, the Raiders used a second round pick on QB Derek Carr. Carr struggled as a rookie. But Car's drives amounted to about 4,000 passing yards during his second year. Also during that second year (2015 season), he averaged 7.0 yards per pass attempt, while throwing 32 TDs to just 13 INTs. His play in 2015 was good enough he was named an alternate to the Pro Bowl. After just two years in the league, he's thrown 53 TD passes. In NFL history, only Dan Marino threw more than 53 TD passes during his first two seasons.

The Bills should have drafted Carr during the late first round of the 2014 draft. That could have been accomplished by trading down from their spot in the first, or by trading up from their spot in the second.

[Mace]

The Bills should have drafted Carr during the late first round of the 2014 draft. That could have been accomplished by trading down from their spot in the first, or by trading up from their spot in the second.


47 QB's have been drafted since 2013 (Manuel's year), at this point 5 of them are starters with varying levels of promise as yet still being varying levels of promise, with a combined record of 44-73 with one winning season among them all.

Wasn't Carr, he's 10-22. Maybe next year ?

[Arm of Harm]

Wasn't Carr, he's 10-22. Maybe next year ?

The Raiders went 3-13 during Carr's rookie year, and 7-9 in his second season. They're on the cusp of achieving a winning record, but came up just a little bit short in 2015. My guess is that the Raiders will have a winning season in 2016, but we'll see.

[swiper]

The Raiders went 3-13 during Carr's rookie year, and 7-9 in his second season. They're on the cusp of achieving a winning record, but came up just a little bit short in 2015. My guess is that the Raiders will have a winning season in 2016, but we'll see.

Carr clearly showing the development that Whaley tried to convince Bills fans that Manuel would show.

[OpIv37]

You never have gotten the basic concept of a message board, old pal...or so it seems to me. I would think its's self-evident, but I guess I'll have to explain it to you like you are a child.

This is a message board. Your opinions ARE about you. My opinions are about me. We are having a conversation amongst people. If I wanted cold, hard facts I'll do some math or consult a computer.

Now, you say that IN YOUR OPINION that you think the Bills ****ed up the QB position. The premise was that the topic of conversation started with drafting EJ Manuel in 2013. Right so far? Stay with me...

OK. So I submit to you that even if the Bills do not currently have a sure-fire long-term answer at QB, that doesn't mean that they necessarily ****ed up. At the current time, they made the right moves based on what was realistically available to the in the market. That's my opinion. My opinion is about me. Are you starting to catch on?

So then I ask you to elaborate on your opinion, but you seem to have no answer...so you get defensive and backtrack as though your opinion has nothing to do with anything. And here comes the kicker...you do this even though the entire conversation has to do with opinion.

To be even more clear about the difference between fact and opinion???bear with me! we are almost there:

FACT: the Bills QB situation is still up in the air...at least that's the closest thing we can come to a fact
OPINION: if the QB situation is not resolved, then the Bills must have ****ed up

See, I don't agree with that opinion, and I already told you why. Then you stonewall the whole conversation.

If you don't want to talk about your opinions, then I don't understand why you would even bother starting conversations here. You don't really want to say anything.

My opinion is that we ****ed up the QB position, and given that EJ is our only option as a back up right now, it's really not much of a stretch. It doesn't require me to go back 3 years, see who was available via the draft, consider what was known about those players 3 years ago vs now, and come up with an alternative plan just to appease you. EJ is our only option and he's proven that he's not good enough. The FO got it wrong.

Your opinion is that they took the only options available at that time. I disagree because first of all, many other teams have better QB situations than us. Granted, not all of the options those teams had were available to us, but it's hard to keep buying this "they did the best they could at the time" crap when other teams are constantly doing so much better than us. Second, "they did the best they could at the time" removes all accountability. "The Bills don't really suck- they just didn't have good options." Come on, really? As usual around here, nobody sucks. We don't have bad management or lack talented players- it's just bad circumstances!

[Skooby]

My opinion is that we ****ed up the QB position, and given that EJ is our only option as a back up right now, it's really not much of a stretch. It doesn't require me to go back 3 years, see who was available via the draft, consider what was known about those players 3 years ago vs now, and come up with an alternative plan just to appease you. EJ is our only option and he's proven that he's not good enough. The FO got it wrong.

Your opinion is that they took the only options available at that time. I disagree because first of all, many other teams have better QB situations than us. Granted, not all of the options those teams had were available to us, but it's hard to keep buying this "they did the best they could at the time" crap when other teams are constantly doing so much better than us. Second, "they did the best they could at the time" removes all accountability. "The Bills don't really suck- they just didn't have good options." Come on, really? As usual around here, nobody sucks. We don't have bad management or lack talented players- it's just bad circumstances!

If TT lights it up this season, then what's your next area of concern ?

[Mace]

If TT lights it up this season, then what's your next area of concern ?

Backup QB.

[OpIv37]

If TT lights it up this season, then what's your next area of concern ?

If Tyrod goes down, we have no chance to win. Zero. Every team suffers if they lose their starting QB for any significant time, but the better teams have a back up that can at least hold down the fort for a game or two during a short term injury. We don't even have that.

[Skooby]

If Tyrod goes down, we have no chance to win. Zero. Every team suffers if they lose their starting QB for any significant time, but the better teams have a back up that can at least hold down the fort for a game or two during a short term injury. We don't even have that.


Backup QB.

So all of sudden the realization of the crazy ideas of bringing in a real back-up some reasonable, Fitz or someone to help as needed. EJ wrecked our season with his 4 INT's in minutes, a complete melt-down we couldn't reasonably overcome.

Help is needed, big time.

[OpIv37]

So all of sudden the realization of the crazy ideas of bringing in a real back-up some reasonable, Fitz or someone to help as needed. EJ wrecked our season with his 4 INT's in minutes, a complete melt-down we couldn't reasonably overcome.

Help is needed, big time.

I completely agree with you that it's needed. I just don't see how it's actually going to happen. EJ's salary is guaranteed. He counts the same against the cap if we keep him or cut him, and this team is too tight against the cap to afford to pay a guy who isn't on the roster anymore. Plus, EJ knows the system because he played in it last year. And there aren't many upgrades available at this point.

[YardRat]

If Tyrod goes down, we have no chance to win. Zero. Every team suffers if they lose their starting QB for any significant time, but the better teams have a back up that can at least hold down the fort for a game or two during a short term injury. We don't even have that.

The better teams have a defense, and ideally a better than average offensive line, that can 'hold down the fort' and not put all of the pressure on the back-up.

[Skooby]

The better teams have a defense, and ideally a better than average offensive line, that can 'hold down the fort' and not put all of the pressure on the back-up.

Since we had the #1 running game in the NFL, EJ has zero excuses for that collapse.

[Skooby]

I completely agree with you that it's needed. I just don't see how it's actually going to happen. EJ's salary is guaranteed. He counts the same against the cap if we keep him or cut him, and this team is too tight against the cap to afford to pay a guy who isn't on the roster anymore. Plus, EJ knows the system because he played in it last year. And there aren't many upgrades available at this point.

I don't either but believe me is becoming not worth a roster spot.

[BertSquirtgum]

How about us bringing Fitz back as back-up ?? It doesn't look like the Jets are going to re-sign him and he might be willing to take a relatively cheap deal, maybe $6 Million a year for 2-3 years. Then we can toss away our current trash (EJ) and have Fitz mentor C. Jones in the meantime to see if he can come around.

Right now, we have no back-up so this type of insurance when the coaches (Brothers) are on the hot-seat really has meaning for them. We remember last season when Tyrod went down ?? It cost us big-time & I don't Rex has that kind of time. We need a Frank Reich type of guy & Fitz could step in as needed, he's a smart guy.

Drugs are bad. MMM-kay.

[Skooby]

Drugs are bad. MMM-kay.

When are veteran QB arrives and EJ is gone, you'll be like wow was MMD right. This is going to happen soon enough, you heard it here first. EJ is worthless & his roster spot has more value than him.

[sukie]

When are veteran QB arrives and EJ is gone, you'll be like wow was MMD right. This is going to happen soon enough, you heard it here first. EJ is worthless & his roster spot has more value than him.
Pee in a cup, midstream please. For God's sake you really need your proper meds and stay away from the Flacca.

[Skooby]

Pee in a cup, midstream please. For God's sake you really need your proper meds and stay away from the Flacca.

Keep that attitude held strong, it suits you.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Since we had the #1 running game in the NFL, EJ has zero excuses for that collapse.

Tyrod accounted for almost 1/4 of our total rushing yards last season. Was Tyrod on the field contributing to those rushing statistics while EJ was at QB?

[Skooby]

Tyrod accounted for almost 1/4 of our total rushing yards last season. Was Tyrod on the field contributing to those rushing statistics while EJ was at QB?

Our O-line played fantastic last season, it was a mix of TT mobility and great O-line play. EJ is a train wreck, straight through. Anyone want EJ to start anytime soon or find a redeeming quality to get him on the field soon ??

Ok, since that's all cleared up.... WTF is wrong with some of you ?? You better hope we get a real back-up at QB, hopefully a Vet or journeyman. Right now, we have a raw draftee and a ******ed college hack.

[Arm of Harm]

Carr would have fit Marrone, but not Roman, and Bridgewater wasn't even as good as Taylor.

The same people who want the Bills to roll the dice on QB's, are upset when they do, ala Manuel and Jones.

I'm not sorry to keep bringing up the same point, 47 QB's have been drafted since 2013 (Manuel's year), at this point 5 of them are starters with varying levels of promise as yet still being varying levels of promise, with a combined record of 44-73 with one winning season among them all. They aren't lighting up the league all over the place.

You wrote that the same people who complain that the Bills don't bring in QBs also complain when they draft guys like Manuel and Jones. As one of those "same people," I'd like to respond to that.

A few years before Manuel was drafted, I looked at 40 years worth of Bills' drafting data. During that 40 year time, the Bills used 25% of their first picks of the draft on DBs, another 25% on RBs, and just 3.8% on QBs. (I figured that Rob Johnson counted as the Bills' first pick of the draft when they traded for him. I also counted Kelly as half of their first pick of the draft, even though technically the TE Hunter had been our first pick that year.)

The bottom line with all that is that if you look at long-term drafting trends, the team's actions demonstrated a far greater level of interest in the RB position and in what were often first-contract-and-out DBs, than in filling by far the most important position. Not coincidentally, the Bills lost far more games than they won during the 40 year period in question.

Now, as you pointed out, the Bills' front office is willing to use draft picks on QBs. But they gravitate towards exactly the kind of QBs they should be avoiding. Namely, guys with good physical tools, and very limited accomplishments as college pocket passers. Prototypical busts. That pattern does not suggest any more competence in the Bills' front office than we had back when the front office simply ignored the QB position in the first round in order to focus on RBs and DBs. A team which drafts "physical tools only" type QBs doesn't give itself that much better a chance of finding The Man than a team which doesn't use first round picks on QBs at all.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Our O-line played fantastic last season, it was a mix of TT mobility and great O-line play. EJ is a train wreck, straight through. Anyone want EJ to start anytime soon or find a redeeming quality to get him on the field soon ??

Ok, since that's all cleared up.... WTF is wrong with some of you ?? You better hope we get a real back-up at QB, hopefully a Vet or journeyman. Right now, we have a raw draftee and a ******ed college hack.

Nobody wants EJ to start. If you'd listen to people's arguments, you'd understand that.

The Bills had 20 rushes for 77 yards against the Jaguars. I'd hardly call that fantastic. Oh wait, if you count EJ's 38 rushing yards (which account for 33% of our rushing stats that game) that boosts it to 28 attempts for 115 yards. Weird how our rushing stats are crap again unless you count QB scrambles.

I'm not saying that EJ didn't blow that game for us, he obviously did. I'm not even saying that EJ is the best backup we could possibly have right now, I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that your argument that he had such a stellar o-line/run game during the Jags matchup is not logical. EJ had 336 of our 413 yards, which is over 81% of our offense. He didn't have much help that game from the running game. He also didn't help himself at all by protecting the ball, he accounted for all of our devastating turnovers.

[sukie]

Keep that attitude held strong, it suits you.
Joking, man.

[Historian]

Wasn't Carr, he's 10-22. Maybe next year ?

He beat us.

[Historian]

The bottom line with all that is that if you look at long-term drafting trends, the team's actions demonstrated a far greater level of interest in the RB position and in what were often first-contract-and-out DBs, than in filling by far the most important position. Not coincidentally, the Bills lost far more games than they won during the 40 year period in question.



Great post. I agree with all of it.

I understand the DBs, especially when you consider the QBs that they have had to defend against in the AFC East....Jones, Griese, Strock, Marino, Grogan, Esiason, Bledsoe, Manning, and Brady.

Hell, Marino alone would give a DC nightmares.

But I never understood the RBs, post Thurman.

Antowain was a 1000 yd back, but we drafted Henry. Henry was good, but we needed (an injured) McGahee. McGahee performed but we felt the need to draft Lynch. Gave up on Lynch for Spiller.

That I do not understand, and probably never will.

[Skooby]

You wrote that the same people who complain that the Bills don't bring in QBs also complain when they draft guys like Manuel and Jones. As one of those "same people," I'd like to respond to that.

A few years before Manuel was drafted, I looked at 40 years worth of Bills' drafting data. During that 40 year time, the Bills used 25% of their first picks of the draft on DBs, another 25% on RBs, and just 3.8% on QBs. (I figured that Rob Johnson counted as the Bills' first pick of the draft when they traded for him. I also counted Kelly as half of their first pick of the draft, even though technically the TE Hunter had been our first pick that year.)

The bottom line with all that is that if you look at long-term drafting trends, the team's actions demonstrated a far greater level of interest in the RB position and in what were often first-contract-and-out DBs, than in filling by far the most important position. Not coincidentally, the Bills lost far more games than they won during the 40 year period in question.

Now, as you pointed out, the Bills' front office is willing to use draft picks on QBs. But they gravitate towards exactly the kind of QBs they should be avoiding. Namely, guys with good physical tools, and very limited accomplishments as college pocket passers. Prototypical busts. That pattern does not suggest any more competence in the Bills' front office than we had back when the front office simply ignored the QB position in the first round in order to focus on RBs and DBs. A team which drafts "physical tools only" type QBs doesn't give itself that much better a chance of finding The Man than a team which doesn't use first round picks on QBs at all.

You are a brilliant poster, seriously this is really good and informative. Even when we drafted Jim Kelly, it took Trump BK'ing a different league to get him to Buffalo. Talk about the long road home, LOL.

[Skooby]

Joking, man.


It's cool, NP.

[Skooby]

Nobody wants EJ to start. If you'd listen to people's arguments, you'd understand that.

The Bills had 20 rushes for 77 yards against the Jaguars. I'd hardly call that fantastic. Oh wait, if you count EJ's 38 rushing yards (which account for 33% of our rushing stats that game) that boosts it to 28 attempts for 115 yards. Weird how our rushing stats are crap again unless you count QB scrambles.

I'm not saying that EJ didn't blow that game for us, he obviously did. I'm not even saying that EJ is the best backup we could possibly have right now, I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that your argument that he had such a stellar o-line/run game during the Jags matchup is not logical. EJ had 336 of our 413 yards, which is over 81% of our offense. He didn't have much help that game from the running game. He also didn't help himself at all by protecting the ball, he accounted for all of our devastating turnovers.

I'm using the whole season as a guide, not just that game (which you are correct about). We ran quite well all season & I really feel it has much to do with TT ability to bomb the ball / O-line play. There's no way for our opposing secondaries to easily "cheat up" if TT is in the game.

[Mr. Pink]

I'm using the whole season as a guide, not just that game (which you are correct about). We ran quite well all season & I really feel it has much to do with TT ability to bomb the ball / O-line play. There's no way for our opposing secondaries to easily "cheat up" if TT is in the game.

They ran as well as they did because QBs accounted for 632 rushing yards on 121 carries.

[Joe Fo Sho]

A few years before Manuel was drafted, I looked at 40 years worth of Bills' drafting data. During that 40 year time, the Bills used 25% of their first picks of the draft on DBs, another 25% on RBs, and just 3.8% on QBs. (I figured that Rob Johnson counted as the Bills' first pick of the draft when they traded for him. I also counted Kelly as half of their first pick of the draft, even though technically the TE Hunter had been our first pick that year.)

Did you count Losman (1st pick in 2005) and Bledsoe (1st pick in 2003)?

[Arm of Harm]

Did you count Losman (1st pick in 2005) and Bledsoe (1st pick in 2003)?

In 2004, the Bills' first pick of the draft was Lee Evans. Losman was also a first round pick in 2004. But he wasn't the Bills' first pick of the draft, because he'd been chosen well after Lee Evans. The Bills' first pick of the draft in 2004 was used on WR, not QB.

Back in 2002, the Bills traded away their first round pick of the 2003 draft for Drew Bledsoe. They gained a first round pick in the 2003 draft by trading away Peerless Price. (The Peerless pick was used on RB Willis McGahee.) The pick they traded away for Bledsoe was higher than the pick they gained by trading away Peerless.

Bledsoe was an aging veteran/known commodity when the Bills traded for him. There is a fundamental difference between drafting a player, and trading away a pick for an aging player well past the midpoint of his career. The former represents a serious attempt to find a long-term answer at QB. The latter is a quick fix. The two should never be conflated. That is why I did not count the first round pick we'd traded away for Bledsoe.

I did, however, count the first round pick we'd traded away for Rob Johnson. Why? Because Johnson was a young, relatively unproven player back when we'd traded for him. A young player has the advantage that, if he works out well, the vast majority of his career will benefit your team. That creates much higher upside than is the case when you trade away a pick for an aging veteran. The combination of Johnson's youth and the fact he was unproven at the NFL level meant that the Johnson trade was more like drafting a rookie QB, than it was like trading away a pick for an aging player such as Bledsoe.

[Joe Fo Sho]

In 2004, the Bills' first pick of the draft was Lee Evans. Losman was also a first round pick in 2004. But he wasn't the Bills' first pick of the draft, because he'd been chosen well after Lee Evans. The Bills' first pick of the draft in 2004 was used on WR, not QB.

Our 1st pick in 2005 was used in the trade to draft JP Losman. He should count according to your rules.


Back in 2002, the Bills traded away their first round pick of the 2003 draft for Drew Bledsoe. They gained a first round pick in the 2003 draft by trading away Peerless Price. (The Peerless pick was used on RB Willis McGahee.) The pick they traded away for Bledsoe was higher than the pick they gained by trading away Peerless.

Bledsoe was the 14th overall pick, Peerless got us the 23rd overall pick. Why does the Bledsoe pick not count as our 1st pick that year?. You can't say that Price was our first pick and then only count Kelly as a half pick. Besides, we could have taken Kelly with that 1st pick, there were no other QBs taken between Tony Hunter and Jim Kelly so what's the difference? There was actually only one player taken between Tony Hunter and Jim Kelly. If the Bills were worried that Hunter might be drafted by Lions, they were right to take him before Kelly. That doesn't make Kelly's selection any less important.

What's your take on Todd Collins? I understand that he wasn't our '1st selection' of the draft, but there were no QB's taken between our 1st round selection and our 2nd round selection when we got Collins. We could have taken Collins in the 1st and he would then count on your list, but you could argue that doing so would've been irresponsible. Just curious what your thoughts are on this. It makes it seem like there could be value with every draft pick, and if the QB value isn't there, you shouldn't take that player?


Bledsoe was an aging veteran/known commodity when the Bills traded for him. There is a fundamental difference between drafting a player, and trading away a pick for an aging player well past the midpoint of his career. The former represents a serious attempt to find a long-term answer at QB. The latter is a quick fix. The two should never be conflated. That is why I did not count the first round pick we'd traded away for Bledsoe.

What if we traded for Flacco right now? Would you consider him an aging veteran that wouldn't solve our QB problems? You wouldn't count him as effort put forward by the Bills front office to help the QB position? He's older now than Bledsoe was when we traded for him.


I did, however, count the first round pick we'd traded away for Rob Johnson. Why? Because Johnson was a young, relatively unproven player back when we'd traded for him. A young player has the advantage that, if he works out well, the vast majority of his career will benefit your team. That creates much higher upside than is the case when you trade away a pick for an aging veteran. The combination of Johnson's youth and the fact he was unproven at the NFL level meant that the Johnson trade was more like drafting a rookie QB, than it was like trading away a pick for an aging player such as Bledsoe.

I just think that you're cherry picking data to fit your narrative.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the Bills have handled the QB position well. They've actually been terrible, just the worst. But the 3.8% number that you throw out there is not right. Plus you compare it to the number of DBs selected, which is actually 4 positions...of which 7 can be on the field at one time. You're comparing the QB position to 1/3 (or more) of the defense. That just doesn't make sense to me.

By my logic, over the last 50 years, we've selected a QB with 5 of our 1st round picks which amounts to 10%. Now, for that number to actually mean anything, I'd have to compare it to other teams. That may not make any sense either because teams that have good QB's don't draft them high, the entire history of the common NFL draft is really a very small sample size to work with. For example, the 49ers have drafted 2 QB's in the first round in 50 years, Jim Drunkenmiller and Alex Smith, which puts them at 4%. Yet, they've been much more successful than we have at that position.

It's quality, not quantity. It's also not necessarily 1st round picks, the 49ers HOF QBs were not 1st round picks.

If you start the timeline the day Kelly retired, which is really all I care about, then it's 4 1st round picks in 20 years...20%. I still think this proves/shows nothing.

We could have taken Johnny Football, Brandon Weeden, Jake Locker, Tim Tebow, and Josh Freeman...but we'd still be sitting here in the same position we are today. Actually, we'd be in a significantly worse position.

[Mr. Pink]

In 2004, the Bills' first pick of the draft was Lee Evans. Losman was also a first round pick in 2004. But he wasn't the Bills' first pick of the draft, because he'd been chosen well after Lee Evans. The Bills' first pick of the draft in 2004 was used on WR, not QB.

Back in 2002, the Bills traded away their first round pick of the 2003 draft for Drew Bledsoe. They gained a first round pick in the 2003 draft by trading away Peerless Price. (The Peerless pick was used on RB Willis McGahee.) The pick they traded away for Bledsoe was higher than the pick they gained by trading away Peerless.

Bledsoe was an aging veteran/known commodity when the Bills traded for him. There is a fundamental difference between drafting a player, and trading away a pick for an aging player well past the midpoint of his career. The former represents a serious attempt to find a long-term answer at QB. The latter is a quick fix. The two should never be conflated. That is why I did not count the first round pick we'd traded away for Bledsoe.

I did, however, count the first round pick we'd traded away for Rob Johnson. Why? Because Johnson was a young, relatively unproven player back when we'd traded for him. A young player has the advantage that, if he works out well, the vast majority of his career will benefit your team. That creates much higher upside than is the case when you trade away a pick for an aging veteran. The combination of Johnson's youth and the fact he was unproven at the NFL level meant that the Johnson trade was more like drafting a rookie QB, than it was like trading away a pick for an aging player such as Bledsoe.

If you counted the pick traded away for Johnson, then you have to count the pick traded away to select Losman.

[Skooby]

They ran as well as they did because QBs accounted for 632 rushing yards on 121 carries.

If you take out all the QB rushes, we are near top 10 (every QB had some rushing yards so please don't bother). So please try again:


http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing

We were also #1 by about 6% more than the next team, which to be clear is a pretty good amount more.

[Skooby]

In 2004, the Bills' first pick of the draft was Lee Evans. Losman was also a first round pick in 2004. But he wasn't the Bills' first pick of the draft, because he'd been chosen well after Lee Evans. The Bills' first pick of the draft in 2004 was used on WR, not QB.

Back in 2002, the Bills traded away their first round pick of the 2003 draft for Drew Bledsoe. They gained a first round pick in the 2003 draft by trading away Peerless Price. (The Peerless pick was used on RB Willis McGahee.) The pick they traded away for Bledsoe was higher than the pick they gained by trading away Peerless.

Bledsoe was an aging veteran/known commodity when the Bills traded for him. There is a fundamental difference between drafting a player, and trading away a pick for an aging player well past the midpoint of his career. The former represents a serious attempt to find a long-term answer at QB. The latter is a quick fix. The two should never be conflated. That is why I did not count the first round pick we'd traded away for Bledsoe.

I did, however, count the first round pick we'd traded away for Rob Johnson. Why? Because Johnson was a young, relatively unproven player back when we'd traded for him. A young player has the advantage that, if he works out well, the vast majority of his career will benefit your team. That creates much higher upside than is the case when you trade away a pick for an aging veteran. The combination of Johnson's youth and the fact he was unproven at the NFL level meant that the Johnson trade was more like drafting a rookie QB, than it was like trading away a pick for an aging player such as Bledsoe.

Can you calculate what the average NFL team's % of QB's taken in the first round ?? With the Browns it's probably like 30%, LOL.

[Mr. Pink]

If you take out all the QB rushes, we are near top 10 (every QB had some rushing yards so please don't bother). So please try again:


http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing

We were also #1 by about 6% more than the next team, which to be clear is a pretty good amount more.

26% of the Bills rushing game is attributed to the QB position.

[Skooby]

26% of the Bills rushing game is attributed to the QB position.

What's the NFL average ??? Carolina was #2 and they made the big show, so what's your point ??

Cam Newton was #31 on the NFL rushing list, TT was #36:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/rushing/sort/rushingYards

[Mr. Pink]

What's the NFL average ??? Carolina was #2 and they made the big show, so what's your point ??

Denver was 17th in rushing and got a whopping 56 yards out of their QBs, 3%.

Carolina's percentage is even higher than the Bills at 28%. Then again Cam Newton lead the league in rushing yards by QB.

[Skooby]

Denver was 17th in rushing and got a whopping 56 yards out of their QBs, 3%.

Carolina's percentage is even higher than the Bills at 28%. Then again Cam Newton lead the league in rushing yards by QB.

So what does this mean ?? If we had a better defense (top 10 versus 28th), the Bills should of won more games ??

[Mr. Pink]

So what does this mean ?? If we had a better defense (top 10 versus 28th), the Bills should of won more games ??

It means the running game and run blocking wasn't as awesome as you'd like to believe it was.

Having Tyrod being able to take off when the play breaks down does add a different element that teams have to contend with so don't take me saying any of this as a negative overall on the team.

Honestly, if they had a QB who wasn't afraid of the middle of the field, they would have won more games. Cam Newton even with his league leading rushing totals, threw for 800 more yards and 15 more TDs than Taylor.

Look at the teams in the playoffs and then look at what their QBs did through the air. The Steelers threw for 4822 yards, Broncos 4216, Patriots 4812, Bengals 4104, Cardinals 4775, Redskins 4294, Seahawks 4061. Noticing an overall pattern? You can point to the outliers of the Vikings at 3200 or the Chiefs at 3500 but the majority of the playoff teams, who have continued success in this league are led by a QB who airs it out.

[Arm of Harm]

Our 1st pick in 2005 was used in the trade to draft JP Losman. He should count according to your rules.



Bledsoe was the 14th overall pick, Peerless got us the 23rd overall pick. Why does the Bledsoe pick not count as our 1st pick that year?. You can't say that Price was our first pick and then only count Kelly as a half pick. Besides, we could have taken Kelly with that 1st pick, there were no other QBs taken between Tony Hunter and Jim Kelly so what's the difference? There was actually only one player taken between Tony Hunter and Jim Kelly. If the Bills were worried that Hunter might be drafted by Lions, they were right to take him before Kelly. That doesn't make Kelly's selection any less important.

What's your take on Todd Collins? I understand that he wasn't our '1st selection' of the draft, but there were no QB's taken between our 1st round selection and our 2nd round selection when we got Collins. We could have taken Collins in the 1st and he would then count on your list, but you could argue that doing so would've been irresponsible. Just curious what your thoughts are on this. It makes it seem like there could be value with every draft pick, and if the QB value isn't there, you shouldn't take that player?



What if we traded for Flacco right now? Would you consider him an aging veteran that wouldn't solve our QB problems? You wouldn't count him as effort put forward by the Bills front office to help the QB position? He's older now than Bledsoe was when we traded for him.



I just think that you're cherry picking data to fit your narrative.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the Bills have handled the QB position well. They've actually been terrible, just the worst. But the 3.8% number that you throw out there is not right. Plus you compare it to the number of DBs selected, which is actually 4 positions...of which 7 can be on the field at one time. You're comparing the QB position to 1/3 (or more) of the defense. That just doesn't make sense to me.

By my logic, over the last 50 years, we've selected a QB with 5 of our 1st round picks which amounts to 10%. Now, for that number to actually mean anything, I'd have to compare it to other teams. That may not make any sense either because teams that have good QB's don't draft them high, the entire history of the common NFL draft is really a very small sample size to work with. For example, the 49ers have drafted 2 QB's in the first round in 50 years, Jim Drunkenmiller and Alex Smith, which puts them at 4%. Yet, they've been much more successful than we have at that position.

It's quality, not quantity. It's also not necessarily 1st round picks, the 49ers HOF QBs were not 1st round picks.

If you start the timeline the day Kelly retired, which is really all I care about, then it's 4 1st round picks in 20 years...20%. I still think this proves/shows nothing.

We could have taken Johnny Football, Brandon Weeden, Jake Locker, Tim Tebow, and Josh Freeman...but we'd still be sitting here in the same position we are today. Actually, we'd be in a significantly worse position.

Why does Bledsoe not count as our first draft pick that year? Because turning a draft pick into an aging player (Bledsoe) is not the same as using that draft pick on a rookie. When you use a draft pick on a rookie, you create the opportunity for success at that position for many years to come. But that upside comes with a risk: you're getting a player who's never played a down of football at the NFL level. With the Bledsoe trade, the Bills avoided both the risk (Bledsoe was proven) and the upside. Even in the best possible case scenario, the majority of Bledsoe's productive career would have been over and done before he'd been traded to the Bills.

Most analyses of "first picks of the draft" don't count Kelly at all, because Tony Hunter had been the Bills' first pick of the draft in 1983. I gave them the benefit of the doubt on this one, due to Hunter and Kelly having been picked almost back-to-back. (With only one non-Bills pick separating the two.) Whereas most regard the Bills' first pick of the '83 draft having been used on the TE Hunter, I regard it as a tie. With 50% of their first pick of that draft going to QB, and 50% going to a TE.

What's my take on Todd Collins? My take is that he was the Bills' second round selection that year, and that they'd used their first round selection on Ruben Brown, an OG. The fact that no QBs were chosen between Brown and Collins does not make Collins their first pick of the draft. As you pointed out, there are some years when it doesn't make sense to use your first pick of the draft on a QB, and 1995 was a good example of that for the Bills.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Why does Bledsoe not count as our first draft pick that year? Because turning a draft pick into an aging player (Bledsoe) is not the same as using that draft pick on a rookie. When you use a draft pick on a rookie, you create the opportunity for success at that position for many years to come. But that upside comes with a risk: you're getting a player who's never played a down of football at the NFL level. With the Bledsoe trade, the Bills avoided both the risk (Bledsoe was proven) and the upside.

Cherry picking.


Even in the best possible case scenario, the majority of Bledsoe's productive career would have been over and done before he'd been traded to the Bills.

Bledsoe had the best year of his career in his first year with Buffalo. Yet the Bills don't deserve credit for trying..


Most analyses of "first picks of the draft"

Where are these analyses? Who is analyzing teams 1st draft pick but being completely oblivious to their 1st round picks?


Most analyses of "first picks of the draft" don't count Kelly at all, because Tony Hunter had been the Bills' first pick of the draft in 1983. I gave them the benefit of the doubt on this one, due to Hunter and Kelly having been picked almost back-to-back. (With only one non-Bills pick separating the two.) Whereas most regard the Bills' first pick of the '83 draft having been used on the TE Hunter, I regard it as a tie. With 50% of their first pick of that draft going to QB, and 50% going to a TE.

What's my take on Todd Collins? My take is that he was the Bills' second round selection that year, and that they'd used their first round selection on Ruben Brown, an OG. The fact that no QBs were chosen between Brown and Collins does not make Collins their first pick of the draft. As you pointed out, there are some years when it doesn't make sense to use your first pick of the draft on a QB, and 1995 was a good example of that for the Bills.

The same logic is used with Hunter/Kelly that is used with Collins, only there are more drafted players in between. Using a 2nd round pick we were able to get better value, but it just doesn't show up on your list. It's classic statistical cherry picking 101. Use a bogus statistic without seeing logic/reason as to why the statistic is/isn't reasonable.

[Skooby]

Cherry picking.



Bledsoe had the best year of his career in his first year with Buffalo. Yet the Bills don't deserve credit for trying..



Where are these analyses? Who is analyzing teams 1st draft pick but being completely oblivious to their 1st round picks?



The same logic is used with Hunter/Kelly that is used with Collins, only there are more drafted players in between. Using a 2nd round pick we were able to get better value, but it just doesn't show up on your list. It's classic statistical cherry picking 101. Use a bogus statistic without seeing logic/reason as to why the statistic is/isn't reasonable.

We had a very easy schedule and Bledsoe has a field day with who we were playing, it's more how bad the opposing team's defenses were versus how good Bledsoe was playing. Pittsburgh had an good starting team and their second string defense stopped us at our house to eliminate us from playoff contention and everything on the line, that tells you something right there.

[Joe Fo Sho]

We had a very easy schedule and Bledsoe has a field day with who we were playing, it's more how bad the opposing team's defenses were versus how good Bledsoe was playing. Pittsburgh had an good starting team and their second string defense stopped us at our house to eliminate us from playoff contention and everything on the line, that tells you something right there.

This is great.

You use the 'opposing defense was terrible' argument to show that Bledsoe wasn't as good as his stats. Then in a dozen other threads here you bring up that the Bills had the top rushing defense in the league last year...conveniently forgetting that we had one of the easiest schedules in the NFL.

Whatever fits your narrative, I guess.

[YardRat]

This is great.

You use the 'opposing defense was terrible' argument to show that Bledsoe wasn't as good as his stats. Then in a dozen other threads here you bring up that the Bills had the top rushing defense in the league last year...conveniently forgetting that we had one of the easiest schedules in the NFL.

Whatever fits your narrative, I guess.


I think you mean offense, they were 16th against the run defensively.

[Joe Fo Sho]

I think you mean offense, they were 16th against the run defensively.

Whoops. Yes, I meant offense. Nobody should brag about any aspect of our defense last year.

[Mace]

I think you mean offense, they were 16th against the run defensively.

Yeah, well statistically speaking, I'm here to point out we could have been 15th if we'd held teams to less yards than the 15th ranked team, or even 14th if we'd held teams to less yards than the 15th and 14th ranked defenses. Theoretically you could take this as far as 1st with dramatically more favorable circumstances conducive to better statistics than the other 15 teams ahead of us.

I thought that was notable, Mr. Smart Stats Guy.

[stuckincincy]

Yeah, well statistically speaking, I'm here to point out we could have been 15th if we'd held teams to less yards than the 15th ranked team, or even 14th if we'd held teams to less yards than the 15th and 14th ranked defenses. Theoretically you could take this as far as 1st with dramatically more favorable circumstances conducive to better statistics than the other 15 teams ahead of us.

I thought that was notable, Mr. Smart Stats Guy.

All I know is that they've been taking the 5th for the past 16 years.

[Jake]

I don't see Fitz coming back. We have Tyrod, EJ and EJ 2.0 (Cardale Jones). The Bills are in QB heaven right now, or so they think.

[Arm of Harm]

Cherry picking.



Bledsoe had the best year of his career in his first year with Buffalo. Yet the Bills don't deserve credit for trying..



Where are these analyses? Who is analyzing teams 1st draft pick but being completely oblivious to their 1st round picks?



The same logic is used with Hunter/Kelly that is used with Collins, only there are more drafted players in between. Using a 2nd round pick we were able to get better value, but it just doesn't show up on your list. It's classic statistical cherry picking 101. Use a bogus statistic without seeing logic/reason as to why the statistic is/isn't reasonable.

The Bills absolutely do not deserve credit for "trying" with Bledsoe, because the Bledsoe trade did not represent an attempt to find a long-term answer at the QB position.

Todd Collins was neither a first round pick nor the Bills' first pick of the draft. A refusal to categorize him as a "first pick of the draft" is not statistical cherry picking. It is basic logic.

If you used a 6th round selection on a punter, and if no punters were picked between your first round pick and your selection in the sixth round, does this mean you used your first pick of the draft on a punter? No, of course it doesn't mean that. It means you didn't use your first pick of the draft on a punter, and that it wouldn't have made sense to have done so. The fact it wouldn't have made sense for the Bills to have used their first pick of the draft on Todd Collins doesn't mean he was their first pick of the draft.

[Arm of Harm]

If you counted the pick traded away for Johnson, then you have to count the pick traded away to select Losman.

With Losman, you have two choices. 1) Look at where he was actually drafted. 2) Look at what the Bills traded away to get the draft pick in question.

The Bills drafted Losman, so I chose option 1. Look at the pick itself, not what was traded away for the pick. Option 1 is always going to be simple and straightforward, at least when it's available. Whereas option 2 can create all sorts of complexity, depending on the trade. Maybe you acquire a first round pick by trading away veteran players. Or maybe you trade a top-5 pick for two picks later on in the first round. Or maybe you trade this year's picks for next year's, or vice versa. My rule of thumb is use option 1 if possible, option 2 only if necessary.

[Joe Fo Sho]

The Bills absolutely do not deserve credit for "trying" with Bledsoe, because the Bledsoe trade did not represent an attempt to find a long-term answer at the QB position.

Drew Bledsoe turned 30 just 2 months before we traded for him. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think we could have a starting caliber QB for 5 years. I guess if we don't get 15 years out of someone they're worthless. 47% of the starting QBs in the NFL last year were 30 years old or older, it's not a death sentence like other positions.


"Hey guys, we seem to be terrible at finding Kelly's replacement. Do you want to trade for a known quantity for a handful of years while we continue to search?"

"Nope, that's stupid. Let's just keep starting the same garbage at QB over and over again."


Todd Collins was neither a first round pick nor the Bills' first pick of the draft. A refusal to categorize him as a "first pick of the draft" is not statistical cherry picking. It is basic logic.

But don't you understand how a logical person should interpret it as the same thing in reality? It shows that the data your using is misleading. You only count Kelly as 1/2 point because he was taken TWO PICKS after our 1st selection. There's absolutely no difference. Not to mention how ridiculous it is that you don't count Losman. Losman cost the Bills their 1st selection in 2005 and their 2nd selection in 2004. There's no other way to interpret that, unless you choose to interpret it incorrectly. Losman deserves to count as our 1st selection in 2005.


If you used a 6th round selection on a punter, and if no punters were picked between your first round pick and your selection in the sixth round, does this mean you used your first pick of the draft on a punter? No, of course it doesn't mean that. It means you didn't use your first pick of the draft on a punter, and that it wouldn't have made sense to have done so. The fact it wouldn't have made sense for the Bills to have used their first pick of the draft on Todd Collins doesn't mean he was their first pick of the draft.

Right, you didn't use your 1st pick. That doesn't mean you didn't get the best punter available at the time when you had your 1st selection. If you choose to live in reality, you could say that we got a 1st selection caliber punter in the 6th round. Don't you see how '1st selection' doesn't mean much? It doesn't take into account the quality of the player that we would have selected. If we took a QB as our 1st selection, who would've been on the board in the 4th round, it should count as a negative thing.

I'm just saying, the data that you chose to consider is misleading and not representative of real life. You're giving the Bills 100% credit if they took a QB with their 1st pick, and 0% credit if they took one 10 picks after their 1st pick. That's a ridiculous set of data to be considering when it doesn't work like that in the real world.

[Joe Fo Sho]

With Losman, you have two choices. 1) Look at where he was actually drafted. 2) Look at what the Bills traded away to get the draft pick in question.

The Bills drafted Losman, so I chose option 1. Look at the pick itself, not what was traded away for the pick. Option 1 is always going to be simple and straightforward, at least when it's available. Whereas option 2 can create all sorts of complexity, depending on the trade.

Complexity? The Losman trade was anything but complex. At the beginning of the day, the Bills had a 2005 1 round pick and a 2004 2nd round pick. At the end of the day, they had a person named JP Losman and not a 2005 1st round pick or a 2004 2nd round pick. It's the kind of math you learn in elementary school.


My rule of thumb is use option 1 if possible, option 2 only if necessary.

"If option 1 fits my argument, I use that. If it doesn't, I use option 2."

[trapezeus]

When are veteran QB arrives and EJ is gone, you'll be like wow was MMD right. This is going to happen soon enough, you heard it here first. EJ is worthless & his roster spot has more value than him.

you keep saying this about roster spot value. but the issue is for a cap strapped team, you can't throw away dead money by cutting EJ

[trapezeus]

more to my point, having a reliable backup is the thing a good football team does. one that is established and has high hopes of being in the final game of the post season.

The bills aren't realistically built like that. their floor is to be a 2 win team and their ceiling is to be a playoff team. that's not pessimism. that's actually the line most of the bills FO and coaching staff say. so if you are close to the cap with such a pathetic goal of doing something every other team has done at least once in the last 16 years, you don't need a back up QB. you need a more competitive team. and the money available has to go to building that team. To bring in a journeyman and pay him, plus the dead money on EJ is fairly reckless.

[Skooby]

Drew Bledsoe turned 30 just 2 months before we traded for him. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think we could have a starting caliber QB for 5 years. I guess if we don't get 15 years out of someone they're worthless. 47% of the starting QBs in the NFL last year were 30 years old or older, it's not a death sentence like other positions.


"Hey guys, we seem to be terrible at finding Kelly's replacement. Do you want to trade for a known quantity for a handful of years while we continue to search?"

"Nope, that's stupid. Let's just keep starting the same garbage at QB over and over again."



But don't you understand how a logical person should interpret it as the same thing in reality? It shows that the data your using is misleading. You only count Kelly as 1/2 point because he was taken TWO PICKS after our 1st selection. There's absolutely no difference. Not to mention how ridiculous it is that you don't count Losman. Losman cost the Bills their 1st selection in 2005 and their 2nd selection in 2004. There's no other way to interpret that, unless you choose to interpret it incorrectly. Losman deserves to count as our 1st selection in 2005.



Right, you didn't use your 1st pick. That doesn't mean you didn't get the best punter available at the time when you had your 1st selection. If you choose to live in reality, you could say that we got a 1st selection caliber punter in the 6th round. Don't you see how '1st selection' doesn't mean much? It doesn't take into account the quality of the player that we would have selected. If we took a QB as our 1st selection, who would've been on the board in the 4th round, it should count as a negative thing.

I'm just saying, the data that you chose to consider is misleading and not representative of real life. You're giving the Bills 100% credit if they took a QB with their 1st pick, and 0% credit if they took one 10 picks after their 1st pick. That's a ridiculous set of data to be considering when it doesn't work like that in the real world.

Kelly showing up to Buffalo a few years after being drafted basically knocks out the 1/2 credit to me anyways, there was no guarantee of him coming to Buffalo and there was a major amount of apprehension on his part to even show up (which people always forget). Sure he's a local hero now but he was a ? / no show for a while.

[Skooby]

you keep saying this about roster spot value. but the issue is for a cap strapped team, you can't throw away dead money by cutting EJ

You can't throw away the season on a bad back-up QB playing in a few games as well.

[Skooby]

more to my point, having a reliable backup is the thing a good football team does. one that is established and has high hopes of being in the final game of the post season.

The bills aren't realistically built like that. their floor is to be a 2 win team and their ceiling is to be a playoff team. that's not pessimism. that's actually the line most of the bills FO and coaching staff say. so if you are close to the cap with such a pathetic goal of doing something every other team has done at least once in the last 16 years, you don't need a back up QB. you need a more competitive team. and the money available has to go to building that team. To bring in a journeyman and pay him, plus the dead money on EJ is fairly reckless.

I beg to differ, I think the Bills can make top 5 offense easily & our defense should be much better. That's a formula for 11 wins, maybe 12. I know that sounds homeristic but if Rex and crew put that together, there's some job security. Right now, we are one TT injury from 6 wins at best. That's a gulf that must be bridged, it's also well known by the management & scares that daylights out of them. You'll hear about it soon.

[trapezeus]

TT healthy, the team is a 6-7 win team. they can overachieve to 9-10 if everything goes their way. there is no leader on the team. when the d went sideways and then south, no one stood up and stopped it. maybe ed reed can help with that, but there has to be a player that takes than mantle, and no one has don e it yet.

maybe its coming. but this team is squarely a 7 win team in my opinion.

if TT goes down, I don't want to win 2 more games. I want to lose out. because TT won't be here next year, there will be no qb to realistically bank on. you want to be at the bottom of th league and not fighting for meaningless wins. you want to pic a qb without having to trade up to get him because that meas the won'tbuild the rest of the roster and we'll be looking at 21-22 yearsof no playoffs.

of all the teams we've had in the last 16 years, this isn't one to be excited about. last years had reasons to be optimistic because of the unknowns of a solid d and a d focsed coach. This year, they are what they've historically been. mediocre.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Kelly showing up to Buffalo a few years after being drafted basically knocks out the 1/2 credit to me anyways, there was no guarantee of him coming to Buffalo and there was a major amount of apprehension on his part to even show up (which people always forget). Sure he's a local hero now but he was a ? / no show for a while.

Yeah, the Bills front office deserves hardly any credit for Kelly. He only played here 11 years, they should have been thinking more long term than that. Plus, we waited until the 14th pick to take him. If they were at all serious about the QB position, they would have taken him at 12.

[Skooby]

Yeah, the Bills front office deserves hardly any credit for Kelly. He only played here 11 years, they should have been thinking more long term than that. Plus, we waited until the 14th pick to take him. If they were at all serious about the QB position, they would have taken him at 12.

That's not my point, Kelly coming to Buffalo was a lucky break and not an assured. You give them all the credit you want but we were lucky to have it break that way for us, not much luck since but lets praise the powers that be for one lucky break in decades.

[Skooby]

TT healthy, the team is a 6-7 win team. they can overachieve to 9-10 if everything goes their way. there is no leader on the team. when the d went sideways and then south, no one stood up and stopped it. maybe ed reed can help with that, but there has to be a player that takes than mantle, and no one has don e it yet.

maybe its coming. but this team is squarely a 7 win team in my opinion.

if TT goes down, I don't want to win 2 more games. I want to lose out. because TT won't be here next year, there will be no qb to realistically bank on. you want to be at the bottom of th league and not fighting for meaningless wins. you want to pic a qb without having to trade up to get him because that meas the won'tbuild the rest of the roster and we'll be looking at 21-22 yearsof no playoffs.

of all the teams we've had in the last 16 years, this isn't one to be excited about. last years had reasons to be optimistic because of the unknowns of a solid d and a d focsed coach. This year, they are what they've historically been. mediocre.

We can agree to disagree, I see quite a bit of offensive success possible and therefore a decent chance at a successful season. For the management & coaching, there's no real choice but that as well. Desperation makes for great motivation, you'll see soon.

[Joe Fo Sho]

That's not my point, Kelly coming to Buffalo was a lucky break and not an assured.

Yeah, who would've imagined that the USFL wouldn't be able to compete with the NFL? Only a lucky idiot no good front office.


You give them all the credit you want but we were lucky to have it break that way for us, not much luck since but lets praise the powers that be for one lucky break in decades.

How have I praised the Bills for how they've handled the QB position? Have you read anything I wrote? What about when I said this?


Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the Bills have handled the QB position well. They've actually been terrible, just the worst.

You should read some of this thread. Left to right, top to bottom if you forgot.

[Skooby]

Yeah, who would've imagined that the USFL wouldn't be able to compete with the NFL? Only a lucky idiot no good front office.



How have I praised the Bills for how they've handled the QB position? Have you read anything I wrote? What about when I said this?



You should read some of this thread. Left to right, top to bottom if you forgot.

So what your saying Jim Kelly was assured to come to Buffalo ?? How old are you ?

[Joe Fo Sho]

So what your saying Jim Kelly was assured to come to Buffalo ?? How old are you ?

Sigh...

There's risk involved with draft picks. Jim Kelly had risks, Bruce Smith had risks, Aaron Maybin had risks.

The front office was lucky that Jim came to Buffalo like they were unlucky that Maybin was worse than a bag of peckers.

[Arm of Harm]

Drew Bledsoe turned 30 just 2 months before we traded for him. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think we could have a starting caliber QB for 5 years. I guess if we don't get 15 years out of someone they're worthless. 47% of the starting QBs in the NFL last year were 30 years old or older, it's not a death sentence like other positions.


"Hey guys, we seem to be terrible at finding Kelly's replacement. Do you want to trade for a known quantity for a handful of years while we continue to search?"

"Nope, that's stupid. Let's just keep starting the same garbage at QB over and over again."



But don't you understand how a logical person should interpret it as the same thing in reality? It shows that the data your using is misleading. You only count Kelly as 1/2 point because he was taken TWO PICKS after our 1st selection. There's absolutely no difference. Not to mention how ridiculous it is that you don't count Losman. Losman cost the Bills their 1st selection in 2005 and their 2nd selection in 2004. There's no other way to interpret that, unless you choose to interpret it incorrectly. Losman deserves to count as our 1st selection in 2005.



Right, you didn't use your 1st pick. That doesn't mean you didn't get the best punter available at the time when you had your 1st selection. If you choose to live in reality, you could say that we got a 1st selection caliber punter in the 6th round. Don't you see how '1st selection' doesn't mean much? It doesn't take into account the quality of the player that we would have selected. If we took a QB as our 1st selection, who would've been on the board in the 4th round, it should count as a negative thing.

I'm just saying, the data that you chose to consider is misleading and not representative of real life. You're giving the Bills 100% credit if they took a QB with their 1st pick, and 0% credit if they took one 10 picks after their 1st pick. That's a ridiculous set of data to be considering when it doesn't work like that in the real world.

The Bills had at least three choices going into the 2002 season:
1) Rob Johnson
2) Trade away a first round pick for Drew Bledsoe
3) Suck it up for a year with Alex van Pelt

Of those options, the correct one was 3). Suck it up for a year with Alex van Pelt under center, go 1-15 or 0-16, and then use the first overall pick of the 2003 draft on Carson Palmer. But TD was not the type of guy willing to endure short-term pain (van Pelt) in exchange for a long-term gain (Palmer). TD always looked for the quick fix. For him, going into the 2002 season with van Pelt as his starting quarterback was simply not an option. Expending a first round pick on a short-term, stopgap, quick fix solution at the QB position is not the same as using your first pick of the draft to draft a quarterback. It's absurd to suggest the two should ever be conflated.

Todd Collins was neither a first round pick nor the Bills' first pick of the draft. In 1995, it wouldn't have made sense for the Bills to have used their first pick of the draft on Collins. That doesn't mean that Collins was their "first pick of the draft." Because I was willing to give the Bills an inch WRT the '83 draft, you seem absolutely determined to give them a mile with respect to Collins.

It should be fairly obvious to anyone that each team can have only one first pick of the draft per year. The 1983 draft is no exception. Your two choices for the '83 draft are to either a) award 100% of the credit to TE, or b) divide the credit up, with 50% going to TE and 50% going to QB. If you're looking at 40 years worth of draft data, there need to be exactly 40 first picks of the draft. You don't get to arbitrarily inflate that number according to your own whim. (Which is what you're doing both with regard to the '83 draft and with respect to Todd Collins.)

In 2004, the Bills had the opportunity to use their first pick of the draft on a QB. Doing so would have required them to trade up for Roethlisberger. However, TD thought that Houston's asking price for their draft pick was too high. So instead he opted to save on draft picks by drafting Lee Evans, then by drafting Losman later in the first round. TD's decision there reinforces, rather than undermines, my point that the Bills have not placed sufficient emphasis on the QB position on draft day. If you have a chance to draft a franchise QB, taking advantage of that opportunity is far more important than an attempt to save on picks.

[trapezeus]

I try to give every new regime a window of trust until they lose it. rex lost it in kc. and he was exposed as a guy who just says big things and has no idea how to accomplish them. he gets scared in the big moments and then apologizes for not being prepared. if you had to bet on a staff that had their stuff together and could do the impossible, this isn't the one you'd put money on .

[Skooby]

I try to give every new regime a window of trust until they lose it. rex lost it in kc. and he was exposed as a guy who just says big things and has no idea how to accomplish them. he gets scared in the big moments and then apologizes for not being prepared. if you had to bet on a staff that had their stuff together and could do the impossible, this isn't the one you'd put money on .



http://www.wkbw.com/sports/bills/no-playoffs-for-bills-if-so-jim-kelly-says-rex-ryan-probably-out-of-a-job

[Mr. Pink]

Kelly showing up to Buffalo a few years after being drafted basically knocks out the 1/2 credit to me anyways, there was no guarantee of him coming to Buffalo and there was a major amount of apprehension on his part to even show up (which people always forget). Sure he's a local hero now but he was a ? / no show for a while.

If the USFL never folded, Kelly would have never played a down for the Buffalo Bills.

[Joe Fo Sho]

The Bills had at least three choices going into the 2002 season:
1) Rob Johnson
2) Trade away a first round pick for Drew Bledsoe
3) Suck it up for a year with Alex van Pelt

Of those options, the correct one was 3).

But then they wouldn't have gotten any points on your little equation.


Todd Collins was neither a first round pick nor the Bills' first pick of the draft. In 1995, it wouldn't have made sense for the Bills to have used their first pick of the draft on Collins.

So how many other years would it not have been smart to use their 1st pick on a QB? Your formula doesn't give any credit to that information.

See how your formula discredits the Bills for doing this, yet you yourself say that they did the right thing by not selecting a QB? You don't see how that shows an issue with your list?


It should be fairly obvious to anyone that each team can have only one first pick of the draft per year.

It's also obvious that there are other ways to address the QB position besides using your 1st selection of the draft every year.


It should be fairly obvious to anyone that each team can have only one first pick of the draft per year. The 1983 draft is no exception. Your two choices for the '83 draft are to either a) award 100% of the credit to TE, or b) divide the credit up, with 50% going to TE and 50% going to QB.

Ha! Those are the only 2 choices? There's no other possible way to evaluate that scenario? Maybe you could even throw those percentages in the garbage where they belong and look at the situation objectively.


You don't get to arbitrarily inflate that number according to your own whim. (Which is what you're doing both with regard to the '83 draft and with respect to Todd Collins.)

I'm not arbitrarily inflating those numbers. I'm saying that the Todd Collins pick deserves more credit than 0. To think otherwise is absurd.


In 2004, the Bills had the opportunity to use their first pick of the draft on a QB. Doing so would have required them to trade up for Roethlisberger. However, TD thought that Houston's asking price for their draft pick was too high. So instead he opted to save on draft picks by drafting Lee Evans, then by drafting Losman later in the first round. TD's decision there reinforces, rather than undermines, my point that the Bills have not placed sufficient emphasis on the QB position on draft day. If you have a chance to draft a franchise QB, taking advantage of that opportunity is far more important than an attempt to save on picks.

It's fun to look at things in hindsight, isn't it? We should have done like the Browns did and trade up for Brady Quinn or what Washington did to get RGIII. That would have been way better, after all those guys were supposed to be franchise quarterbacks.

That still doesn't change the fact that we used our 1st selection in 2005 to draft JP Losman and how he belongs on your made up list.

[Arm of Harm]

But then they wouldn't have gotten any points on your little equation.



So how many other years would it not have been smart to use their 1st pick on a QB? Your formula doesn't give any credit to that information.

See how your formula discredits the Bills for doing this, yet you yourself say that they did the right thing by not selecting a QB? You don't see how that shows an issue with your list?

It's also obvious that there are other ways to address the QB position besides using your 1st selection of the draft every year.

Ha! Those are the only 2 choices? There's no other possible way to evaluate that scenario? Maybe you could even throw those percentages in the garbage where they belong and look at the situation objectively.

I'm not arbitrarily inflating those numbers. I'm saying that the Todd Collins pick deserves more credit than 0. To think otherwise is absurd.

It's fun to look at things in hindsight, isn't it? We should have done like the Browns did and trade up for Brady Quinn or what Washington did to get RGIII. That would have been way better, after all those guys were supposed to be franchise quarterbacks.

That still doesn't change the fact that we used our 1st selection in 2005 to draft JP Losman and how he belongs on your made up list.

During the 40 year period I looked at, the Bills used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs, and only 3.75% of their first picks of the draft on QBs. Yes, QB is only one position. But RB is only one position as well--and a far less valuable one at that. Given that we've had only one franchise QB in Bills' history, why not invest more draft power into looking for the next Jim Kelly than into guys like Antowain Smith, Travis Henry, Willis McGahee, Marshawn Lynch, C.J. Spiller, etc.? If you look only at first picks of the draft, the Bills have acted as though the RB position was seven times more important than the QB position. That's completely unacceptable, and a major reason why this franchise has no Super Bowl rings.

You point out there had been years--such as the Todd Collins year--when it wouldn't have made sense for the Bills to have used their first pick of the draft on a QB. Fine. But there were also years when it wouldn't have made sense for them to have used their first round pick on a RB.

Suppose that the Bills had used their first pick of the draft on whatever QB would have been the next off the board. Had they begun that in 2001, the result would have been the following:

2001: Drew Brees (Hall of Fame)
2002: Patrick Ramsey (decent backup)
2003: Kyle Boller (bust)
2004: JP Losman (bust)
2005: Aaron Rodgers (Hall of Fame)
2006: Matt Leinart (bust)
2007: Brady Quinn (bust)
2008: Joe Flacco (very solid starter)
2009: Josh Freeman (backup)
2010: Tim Tebow (bust)
2011: Jake Locker (bust)
2012: Brock Osweiler (backup)
2013: EJ Manuel (bust)

In the space of 13 years, the Bills would have drafted two Hall of Fame QBs, Joe Flacco, and a bunch of backups/busts. Of course, no team is going to draft only QBs with its first round picks--not for 13 consecutive years. But the Bills wouldn't have had to. During that period, they would have averaged one success (Brees, Rodgers, or Flacco) for every four attempts. Had they made four or more attempts during that period, they probably would have come away with a success.

Of course, that assumes basic proficiency at evaluating QB talent. That assumption is probably faulty. Any number of Bills' GMs--including our current one--would almost certainly have chosen Jason Campbell over Aaron Rodgers. (Campbell was drafted immediately after Rodgers.) The Bills' unwillingness to use first picks of the draft on QBs might actually be a logical response to their organizational inability to evaluate QB talent.

The Bills are currently being run by a guy who felt comfortable going "all in" on E.J. Manuel. We are no better at evaluating QB talent now than we'd been at any point during the 40 year period in question.

[Joe Fo Sho]

During the 40 year period I looked at, the Bills used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs, and only 3.75% of their first picks of the draft on QBs.

The point I'm trying to make is that your number is wrong (because it is) and that your data shows next to nothing (because it does).


Yes, QB is only one position. But RB is only one position as well--and a far less valuable one at that. Given that we've had only one franchise QB in Bills' history, why not invest more draft power into looking for the next Jim Kelly than into guys like Antowain Smith, Travis Henry, Willis McGahee, Marshawn Lynch, C.J. Spiller, etc.? If you look only at first picks of the draft, the Bills have acted as though the RB position was seven times more important than the QB position. That's completely unacceptable, and a major reason why this franchise has no Super Bowl rings.

You don't have to prove to me that the Bills have mishandled the QB position. I've already said how terrible they've been at it.


You point out there had been years--such as the Todd Collins year--when it wouldn't have made sense for the Bills to have used their first pick of the draft on a QB. Fine. But there were also years when it wouldn't have made sense for them to have used their first round pick on a RB.

Sure.


Suppose that the Bills had used their first pick of the draft on whatever QB would have been the next off the board. Had they begun that in 2001, the result would have been the following:

2001: Drew Brees (Hall of Fame)
2002: Patrick Ramsey (decent backup)
2003: Kyle Boller (bust)
2004: JP Losman (bust)
2005: Aaron Rodgers (Hall of Fame)
2006: Matt Leinart (bust)
2007: Brady Quinn (bust)
2008: Joe Flacco (very solid starter)
2009: Josh Freeman (backup)
2010: Tim Tebow (bust)
2011: Jake Locker (bust)
2012: Brock Osweiler (backup)
2013: EJ Manuel (bust)

In the space of 13 years, the Bills would have drafted two Hall of Fame QBs, Joe Flacco, and a bunch of backups/busts. Of course, no team is going to draft only QBs with its first round picks--not for 13 consecutive years. But the Bills wouldn't have had to. During that period, they would have averaged one success (Brees, Rodgers, or Flacco) for every four attempts. Had they made four or more attempts during that period, they probably would have come away with a success.

Of course, that assumes basic proficiency at evaluating QB talent. That assumption is probably faulty. Any number of Bills' GMs--including our current one--would almost certainly have chosen Jason Campbell over Aaron Rodgers. (Campbell was drafted immediately after Rodgers.) The Bills' unwillingness to use first picks of the draft on QBs might actually be a logical response to their organizational inability to evaluate QB talent.

Don't pretend like you think the Bills would have kept starting Brees after drafting Ramsey and Boller. Brees would've been thrown into the garbage after how he started his career. Probably because we wouldn't have given him a chance after having the worst draft strategy in the world of drafting a QB with our 1st pick every year.


The Bills are currently being run by a guy who felt comfortable going "all in" on E.J. Manuel. We are no better at evaluating QB talent now than we'd been at any point during the 40 year period in question.

How many years has Whaley been in charge of the draft? Who would you have suggested we drafted? Let's put your QB evaluation skills to the test.

[Arm of Harm]

The point I'm trying to make is that your number is wrong (because it is) and that your data shows next to nothing (because it does).

You don't have to prove to me that the Bills have mishandled the QB position. I've already said how terrible they've been at it.

Sure.

Don't pretend like you think the Bills would have kept starting Brees after drafting Ramsey and Boller. Brees would've been thrown into the garbage after how he started his career. Probably because we wouldn't have given him a chance after having the worst draft strategy in the world of drafting a QB with our 1st pick every year.

How many years has Whaley been in charge of the draft? Who would you have suggested we drafted? Let's put your QB evaluation skills to the test.

My number is accurate, and my data are correct. It does not appear you thought deeply about this subject before jumping in to criticize my methodology. I have found your comments on that matter unproductive and confused. Your sole contribution toward that portion of the discussion has been to obfuscate that which should be clear.

[Night Train]

Sooooooooo...where is Fitz ????

[Mace]

Sooooooooo...where is Fitz ????

Watching some TV before bed in Arizona.

[Joe Fo Sho]

My number is accurate, and my data are correct.

Your number is wrong and your data set shows little comprehension of real world analytics.

[Skooby]

Your number is wrong and your data set shows little comprehension of real world analytics.

Can you bless us with the corrected update versus a one line attempt to discredit ?

[Joe Fo Sho]

Can you bless us with the corrected update versus a one line attempt to discredit ?

There's much more than one line, as you can see if you read the whole thread. I'm not going to put effort into a response if they don't put effort into theirs. Hence the one line statement.

http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showthread.php/233314-IMO-Bills-will-bring-Fitzpatrick-back?p=4213562&viewfull=1#post4213562


By my logic, over the last 50 years, we've selected a QB with 5 of our 1st round picks which amounts to 10%. Now, for that number to actually mean anything, I'd have to compare it to other teams. That may not make any sense either because teams that have good QB's don't draft them high, the entire history of the common NFL draft is really a very small sample size to work with. For example, the 49ers have drafted 2 QB's in the first round in 50 years, Jim Drunkenmiller and Alex Smith, which puts them at 4%. Yet, they've been much more successful than we have at that position.

It's quality, not quantity. It's also not necessarily 1st round picks, the 49ers HOF QBs were not 1st round picks.

If you start the timeline the day Kelly retired, which is really all I care about, then it's 4 1st round picks in 20 years...20%. I still think this proves/shows nothing.

We could have taken Johnny Football, Brandon Weeden, Jake Locker, Tim Tebow, and Josh Freeman...but we'd still be sitting here in the same position we are today. Actually, we'd be in a significantly worse position.

The number should be higher, and the number means next to nothing. That's what I'm trying to say.

[Arm of Harm]

Can you bless us with the corrected update versus a one line attempt to discredit ?

Nothing Jo Fo Sho wrote on this subject is accurate, and his postings about it should be disregarded.

To illustrate why his methodology is fatally flawed, consider the following example. A team uses its first round pick on a DE, its 2nd round pick on an OG, a 3rd round pick on a RB. It uses a 6th round pick on a punter, a 7th rounder on a kicker, and a late 7th rounder on a long snapper.

How many of those players were first picks of the draft? Potentially all of them, at least if Jo Fo Sho's methodology is used. If there were no OGs picked between your first round pick and your 2nd, if there were no RBs picked between your first round pick and your third, and if you were the first team to draft a punter, kicker, and long snapper, then, based on Jo Fo Sho's methodology, all the draft picks I just described were your team's first pick of the draft! Your team used its first pick of the draft on a DE. And it used its first pick of the draft on an OG. And it used its first pick of the draft on a RB! In fact, it would have had a total of six first picks of the draft that year!

The absurdity of such a conclusion should be self-evident. That there can only be one "first pick of the draft" per team per year should also be self-evident. If my debate with him has been tiresome for me, I imagine it's been doubly so for those reading this thread. Jo Fo Sho seems aggressively determined not to understand this stuff, and I'm rapidly losing patience explaining it to him.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Nothing Jo Fo Sho wrote on this subject is accurate, and his postings about it should be disregarded.

To illustrate why his methodology is fatally flawed, consider the following example. A team uses its first round pick on a DE, its 2nd round pick on an OG, a 3rd round pick on a RB. It uses a 6th round pick on a punter, a 7th rounder on a kicker, and a late 7th rounder on a long snapper.

How many of those players were first picks of the draft? Potentially all of them, at least if Jo Fo Sho's methodology is used.

That's not at all what I'm saying and I'm not surprised you don't understand that.


If there were no OGs picked between your first round pick and your 2nd, if there were no RBs picked between your first round pick and your third, and if you were the first team to draft a punter, kicker, and long snapper, then, based on Jo Fo Sho's methodology, all the draft picks I just described were your team's first pick of the draft! Your team used its first pick of the draft on a DE. And it used its first pick of the draft on an OG. And it used its first pick of the draft on a RB! In fact, it would have had a total of six first picks of the draft that year!

I know, some things are difficult to comprehend when you don't want to.

The point is that you're logic of only using 1st selections when giving credit to the Bills for finding a solution at QB is ignorant. There are several years when selecting a QB at our pick would be wrong. Yet you hang on to this 3.8% number like it means something. It means nothing. Maybe try to compare it to other teams or show how a lower number is bad and a higher number means success.


The absurdity of such a conclusion should be self-evident. That there can only be one "first pick of the draft" per team per year should also be self-evident. If my debate with him has been tiresome for me, I imagine it's been doubly so for those reading this thread. Jo Fo Sho seems aggressively determined not to understand this stuff, and I'm rapidly losing patience explaining it to him.

Yet you still don't get the fact that Losman cost us our 1st pick in 2005.


I'm still waiting for you to find all of these analyses that you mentioned.


Most analyses of "first picks of the draft" don't count Kelly at all

Who is doing these analyses?


I'm rapidly losing patience explaining it to him.

I've got all day to help you understand it if that's what you need. I'm here to help.

[BertSquirtgum]

Can you bless us with the corrected update versus a one line attempt to discredit ?

So when are the Bills bringing Fitz back?

[trapezeus]

I tend to agree with arm of harm on this (vs Jo fo sho), but to really get some sense of useful methodology, it would be good to look at Pitt, NE, NYG, Greenbay and see how they managed their QB position. how were they drafting qb's when they had real qbs as starters. I don't know. that's why I ask. not to discredit anyone.

[Joe Fo Sho]

I tend to agree with arm of harm on this (vs Jo fo sho), but to really get some sense of useful methodology, it would be good to look at Pitt, NE, NYG, Greenbay and see how they managed their QB position. how were they drafting qb's when they had real qbs as starters. I don't know. that's why I ask. not to discredit anyone.

That's a good question. There are a ton of other factors that should be taken into account other than just looking at the 1st person selected during a certain draft class.

To look at this info, you actually have to define what counts and what doesn't count towards a teams effort to find a QB. That seems to be the point that we're arguing about.

In your opinion, should JP Losman count? Should Bledsoe? Manziel? Weeden? Quinn? Tebow? Bridgewater?

Why or why not? I'm genuinely interested in why anyone thinks they should or shouldn't count when analyzing the effort of a team to find a quarterback.

[trapezeus]

the bills have drafted when they've absolutely had no other choice. Bledsoe was failing and they kept going with it and then took losman. that is horrible. because now you have a project qb that is being pressured to start. your qb is stinking it up and in goes the shiny new toy and expectations are sky high. same thing happened with EJ. and because we have a history of finishing in the middle, we don't get a shot at top flight talent.

so the other thing is we don't have allstars grooming the next guy, we have a journeyman who is trying to stay in the hunt maybe looking out for a rookie. the onus is on the bills to say, "this is an important position and we have to evaluate each class. and for the players that we identify as the best of the qb class, how do we get our guy?"

that ultimately comes down to understanding how you trade up to get your guy, or if you take your guy vs BPA. you don't have to do it every year, but that is how you keep the stable fresh with good options. it eliminates the need to have to select in a weak class or get stuck with worst guy in a loaded class.

if you have TT as a viable starter, last year would have been the year to draft someone if you felt it was worth taking. because TT is there, and 2 Y to see how he does. It gives the new qb time to acclimate. taking one this year is not good. because if TT is gone, cardale is not a viable starter.

[Arm of Harm]

That's not at all what I'm saying and I'm not surprised you don't understand that.



That's exactly what you're saying, whether you realize it or not.

You argued that Todd Collins should count as the Bills' first pick of the draft, even though he was neither a first round pick nor the first player the Bills drafted that year. You pointed out that there were no QBs taken between Ruben Brown (the Bills' actual first pick of the draft that year) and Todd Collins.

If you use your first round pick on a DE and your second on an OG, then (according to your Todd Collins logic), that OG should count as your first pick of the draft, as long as nobody else drafted an OG between your first round pick and your second round pick. Likewise, if nobody else drafted a RB between your first round pick and your third round pick, then that RB you took in the third round should also count as your team's first pick of the draft, at least if your Todd Collins logic is used.

Based on your methodology, a 6th or 7th round pick can count as your "first pick of the draft," as long as your team was the first in the draft to take someone at that position. That punter you took in the 6th round counts as your team's "first pick of the draft," as long as nobody else drafted a punter before you did.

There are of course gaping holes in that logic. For example, you're acting as though the Bills had two "first picks of the draft" for the Todd Collins/Ruben Brown year, and two "first picks of the draft" for the Hunter/Kelly year. In the hypothetical example I gave, the team in question would (according to your Todd Collins logic) have had six first picks of the draft that year, including a late 7th rounder! The number of "first picks of the draft" shouldn't arbitrarily change from one year to the next. There should be exactly one first pick of the draft per team per year.

[Joe Fo Sho]

That's exactly what you're saying, whether you realize it or not.

You argued that Todd Collins should count as the Bills' first pick of the draft, even though he was neither a first round pick nor the first player the Bills drafted that year. You pointed out that there were no QBs taken between Ruben Brown (the Bills' actual first pick of the draft that year) and Todd Collins.

Let me try this again.

What I'm arguing is that your metric of '1st selection in the draft' is a terrible way to evaluate an organizations efforts to find a starting quarterback, since you don't consider any other factors at all.

With this metric, it only credits teams that take a QB with their first pick and penalizes teams that don't. That's it. That's all you're doing. It doesn't take into account the quality of QBs available, what the team needs are, types of offenses that fit a players style, or anything else of that nature.

My Todd Collins example was simply stating the Bills deserve credit for not drafting Collins in the 1st round, something you said as well, yet your metric penalizes them for doing so. That's one example of how your number of 3.8% should be taken with a grain of salt. Another simple example is JP Losman. Somehow you don't think he cost us our 1st pick in 2005. You count the trade for Rob Johnson, but don't count the trade for JP. That's odd. Bledsoe is another example.


If you use your first round pick on a DE and your second on an OG, then (according to your Todd Collins logic), that OG should count as your first pick of the draft, as long as nobody else drafted an OG between your first round pick and your second round pick. Likewise, if nobody else drafted a RB between your first round pick and your third round pick, then that RB you took in the third round should also count as your team's first pick of the draft, at least if your Todd Collins logic is used.

Based on your methodology, a 6th or 7th round pick can count as your "first pick of the draft," as long as your team was the first in the draft to take someone at that position. That punter you took in the 6th round counts as your team's "first pick of the draft," as long as nobody else drafted a punter before you did.

What I'm saying is the front office should be credited for not drafting those players that early. You think they should be penalized for it. What you're saying is that the Bills should have taken Collins in the 1st round, because it would have increased that 3.8% and shown that the Bills put more of an effort on drafting QBs.

So whose methodology has gaping holes?

[Arm of Harm]

Let me try this again.

What I'm arguing is that your metric of '1st selection in the draft' is a terrible way to evaluate an organizations efforts to find a starting quarterback, since you don't consider any other factors at all.

With this metric, it only credits teams that take a QB with their first pick and penalizes teams that don't. That's it. That's all you're doing. It doesn't take into account the quality of QBs available, what the team needs are, types of offenses that fit a players style, or anything else of that nature.

My Todd Collins example was simply stating the Bills deserve credit for not drafting Collins in the 1st round, something you said as well, yet your metric penalizes them for doing so. That's one example of how your number of 3.8% should be taken with a grain of salt. Another simple example is JP Losman. Somehow you don't think he cost us our 1st pick in 2005. You count the trade for Rob Johnson, but don't count the trade for JP. That's odd. Bledsoe is another example.



What I'm saying is the front office should be credited for not drafting those players that early. You think they should be penalized for it. What you're saying is that the Bills should have taken Collins in the 1st round, because it would have increased that 3.8% and shown that the Bills put more of an effort on drafting QBs.

So whose methodology has gaping holes?

The point of looking at 40 years worth of draft data isn't to quibble about every little thing. It's to see the big picture. The big picture is that the Bills have used 50% of their first picks of the draft on DBs and RBs, 3.8% on QBs, and 5% on OTs. (The two OTs were Mike Williams and John Fina.) You pointed out that my methodology doesn't take into account team needs, the quality of the players available, etc. All that is true--it doesn't. My data tell us what the Bills have done. The data, in themselves, do not tell us why.

In 2001, the Bills used their first round pick on Nate Clements instead of Drew Brees. In 2006, they used their first round pick on Donte Whitner instead of Jay Cutler. In 2008, the Bills used their first round pick on Leodis McKelvin instead of Joe Flacco. That's three times in ten years when the Bills chose a DB over a QB, even though the QB was the better football player.

It's easier to evaluate players at DB, RB, and LB than it is at QB. A team that has a lackluster talent evaluation department should emphasize RBs and DBs early in the draft, because those are the picks least likely to embarrass the front office or get someone fired. Granted, the GM will get fired eventually, because there's a limit to how long one can hide incompetence. But a fairly successful RB or DB can create the illusion of progress, and can allow the below-average GM to drag out his career longer than would otherwise have been the case.

[Joe Fo Sho]

The point of looking at 40 years worth of draft data isn't to quibble about every little thing. It's to see the big picture. The big picture is that the Bills have used 50% of their first picks of the draft on DBs and RBs, 3.8% on QBs, and 5% on OTs. (The two OTs were Mike Williams and John Fina.) You pointed out that my methodology doesn't take into account team needs, the quality of the players available, etc. All that is true--it doesn't. My data tell us what the Bills have done. The data, in themselves, do not tell us why.

In 2001, the Bills used their first round pick on Nate Clements instead of Drew Brees. In 2006, they used their first round pick on Donte Whitner instead of Jay Cutler. In 2008, the Bills used their first round pick on Leodis McKelvin instead of Joe Flacco. That's three times in ten years when the Bills chose a DB over a QB, even though the QB was the better football player.

Alright, well we can at least agree on the fact that the Bills haven't been the greatest at drafting, probably among the worst in the NFL during our playoff drought. We're just not going to agree on how each of us came to that conclusion.


It's easier to evaluate players at DB, RB, and LB than it is at QB. A team that has a lackluster talent evaluation department should emphasize RBs and DBs early in the draft, because those are the picks least likely to embarrass the front office or get someone fired. Granted, the GM will get fired eventually, because there's a limit to how long one can hide incompetence. But a fairly successful RB or DB can create the illusion of progress, and can allow the below-average GM to drag out his career longer than would otherwise have been the case.

This is a very good point that I had not considered.

[Arm of Harm]

Alright, well we can at least agree on the fact that the Bills haven't been the greatest at drafting, probably among the worst in the NFL during our playoff drought. We're just not going to agree on how each of us came to that conclusion.



This is a very good point that I had not considered.

There are a few things you and I see differently. And that's fine.

That said, I agree that the Bills have been among the NFL's worst teams at drafting during the playoff drought. It wouldn't shock me if they turned out to be the absolute worst team in the NFL at drafting during that period. But I think there are a few other teams--such as Cleveland--which also belong in that discussion. It would be interesting if someone with more time than me did an analysis to determine the best and worst teams at drafting during the period in question.

The question then becomes: why are the Bills bad at drafting, and what can they do to get good at it? My guess--and I could be wrong about this--is that the Bills are more of a "seat of their pants" organization--at least in comparison with better-run NFL teams. The Bills' front office isn't smart enough or competent enough to make the whole "seat of the pants" thing work--at least not with any level of consistency. The alternative to seat of the pants is implementing systems, organizational learning, etc. Ideally this should be an iterative process. If the scouting department makes a mistake--which it often does--there should be mechanisms in place to cause organizational learning to occur as a result of that error. The next time the organization faces that same decision, it should approach it in a more competent way.

Instead of that, the Bills seem to have used exactly the same process for evaluating E.J. Manuel that they'd used to evaluate J.P. Losman. There is no evidence of organizational learning having occurred. This seems very much like an organization doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over.

[mdcas22]

Everyone is just going to have to get over the fact that EJ is out back up. I don't like it either, but his salary is guaranteed, he knows the system and we don't have cap space for someone else.

This team drafted EJ in the first. They doubled down the following year when they spent two firsts on Sammy because a) a great WR is useless with no QB and b) that first could have been used to draft his replacement. Then last year, the FO spent a ton knowing they were hosing the cap for this year. It's an insane level of mismanagement, and because of it, we are stuck with EJ for another year.

eating a few million dollars wouldn't be the 1st time a team has done that. Id rather eat 5 million and have a better back up plan, there are a lot of QBs better than EJ coming off the bench and could be had for 1 mil a year.

[Skooby]

eating a few million dollars wouldn't be the 1st time a team has done that. Id rather eat 5 million and have a better back up plan, there are a lot of QBs better than EJ coming off the bench and could be had for 1 mil a year.

This will be case regardless of what the masses think, EJ is worthless and his roster spot has more value than him.

[feldspar]

there are a lot of QBs better than EJ coming off the bench and could be had for 1 mil a year.

Name some.

[mdcas22]

Name some.


Matt Hallesbeck

T,J Yates

Jimmy Clausen

Charlie Whithurst

[feldspar]

Matt Hallesbeck

T,J Yates

Jimmy Clausen

Charlie Whithurst

LOL...wow.

Matt Hasslebeck is the only one there worth a damn, and he's retired...never really available anyway.

Whitehurst, Clausen, and Yates are all still free agents. Nobody values them at all, apparently. Jimmy Clausen? Really? He's horrific. Yates or Whitehurst? c'mon, now. None of these guys are better than EJ, who is already familiar with the system and personnel.

Somebody will pick up EJ rather quickly next year to give him another chance at a backup role IMO, at least...that is if things remain as they are.

[Arm of Harm]

LOL...wow.

Matt Hasslebeck is the only one there worth a damn, and he's retired...never really available anyway.

Whitehurst, Clausen, and Yates are all still free agents. Nobody values them at all, apparently. Jimmy Clausen? Really? He's horrific. Yates or Whitehurst? c'mon, now. None of these guys are better than EJ, who is already familiar with the system and personnel.

Somebody will pick up EJ rather quickly next year to give him another chance at a backup role IMO, at least...that is if things remain as they are.

T.J. Yates is better than Manuel, and it isn't even close. If you have to choose between the two it's a no brainer.

Prior to the 2015 season Clausen would have generally been regarded as a significant step down from Manuel. In 2015 Clausen played horribly for the Bears. But later in 2015 he became a Raven, and played at about the same level you'd expect from Manuel. My personal guess is that neither Clausen nor Manuel will be in the league four years from now, and that Clausen's apparent improvement with the Ravens will prove transitory.

NFL.com believes that Whitehurst retired after the 2015 season, after having been in the NFL ten years. Perhaps he could be coaxed out of retirement. But he doesn't represent a long-term solution for backup quarterback.

I'd like to add Mike Glennon to this discussion. Unfortunately for us, he's still under contract with Tampa Bay. But he's no longer the starter, and I assume he'd be available for trade. By no means would I give up the farm for this guy. But would I trade away a fourth rounder for a long-term solution for backup QB? Absolutely! Glennon was far and away the best QB in his draft class, and could give the Bills a very solid option at backup QB for many years to come.

[Joe Fo Sho]

T.J. Yates is better than Manuel, and it isn't even close. If you have to choose between the two it's a no brainer.

Don't be ridiculous. They are at the very least comparable, look at their stats. I left out the player names, pick the one you'd rather have.


<tbody>
COMP
ATT
COMP %
YARDS
TDS
INTS


308
521
59.1
3371
19
15


132
227
58.1
1534
6
8

</tbody>


Prior to the 2015 season Clausen would have generally been regarded as a significant step down from Manuel. In 2015 Clausen played horribly for the Bears. But later in 2015 he became a Raven, and played at about the same level you'd expect from Manuel. My personal guess is that neither Clausen nor Manuel will be in the league four years from now, and that Clausen's apparent improvement with the Ravens will prove transitory.

NFL.com believes that Whitehurst retired after the 2015 season, after having been in the NFL ten years. Perhaps he could be coaxed out of retirement. But he doesn't represent a long-term solution for backup quarterback.

Clausen and Whitehurst would not be an improvement over Manuel, none of the 3 of them have done anything to prove they are capable backups.


I'd like to add Mike Glennon to this discussion. Unfortunately for us, he's still under contract with Tampa Bay. But he's no longer the starter, and I assume he'd be available for trade. By no means would I give up the farm for this guy. But would I trade away a fourth rounder for a long-term solution for backup QB? Absolutely! Glennon was far and away the best QB in his draft class, and could give the Bills a very solid option at backup QB for many years to come.

The last I heard, Glennon was going to cost a 2nd round pick. I don't think he's worth it, but who knows. That's a steep price for someone who will be a free agent at the end of this year.

[swiper]

Matt Hallesbeck

T,J Yates

Jimmy Clausen

Charlie Whithurst

LOL. I hate EJ Manuel with every bone in my body, but this is ridiculous. As Feldy says, Hasselback (the 2007 version) is the only one close on the list. But not the 2016 version. Matt Moore, maybe. And he resigned. And that is a very big maybe. In fact Travaris Jackson is the only one that I considered close and now that is off the table. Foles would be who I would prefer now.

[Skooby]

Don't be ridiculous. They are at the very least comparable, look at their stats. I left out the player names, pick the one you'd rather have.


<tbody>
COMP
ATT
COMP %
YARDS
TDS
INTS


308
521
59.1
3371
19
15


132
227
58.1
1534
6
8

</tbody>



Clausen and Whitehurst would not be an improvement over Manuel, none of the 3 of them have done anything to prove they are capable backups.



The last I heard, Glennon was going to cost a 2nd round pick. I don't think he's worth it, but who knows. That's a steep price for someone who will be a free agent at the end of this year.
FA like the Ryan boys if they don't make the playoffs this season.

[Mr. Pink]

This offensive line would get Glennon killed.

And he isn't even that good to begin with.

[Night Train]

I picture those who wants Fitz back as Linus yelling from the pumpkin patch " Oh great Pumpkin, where are you !!! ??? "

[Skooby]

I picture those who wants Fitz back as Linus yelling from the pumpkin patch " Oh great Pumpkin, where are you !!! ??? "
Then he fell asleep.

[HHURRICANE]

Fitzpatrick is a great pickup if your a playoff team who needs a solid back up. He would have saved the Cowboys season last year.

I don't see us as a playoff team.

[Skooby]

I don't see us as a playoff team.

Then you won't see Rex next season.

[feldspar]

Then you won't see Rex next season.

I don't believe that's a real thing, like its set in stone. Somebody said that about him and Whaley, and then it was repeated...and then Whaley was extended. It's all unsubstantiated and means nothing at this point. I don't believe that any strict ultimatum is on the table right now. That would be dumb, really, no matter what you think about anyone. It's not all black and white.

We'll have to see what happens this season before heading into that territory.

Bills fans are all hog-wild anymore, and some lost any sense.

[swiper]

Bills fans are all hog-wild anymore, and some lost any sense.

All the result of being the NFL team with the longest play-off drought. What is it now? 18 years?

[ghz in pittsburgh]

I don't see us as a playoff team.

I actually do. Sometimes you unwind yourself to propel you moving further ahead.

The much lauded 2014 defense was great. But I think that's reached the best it could be and in my opinion, overachieved due to Schwarz knowledge of NFCN.

That defense was built upon the probowl level performance of the D line (3 of the 4 went to pro-bowl), also the oldest group of the entire D. There is no other way to go but downwards from that point on.

2015 was a step back year. It exposed the rapid decline of the D line performance, but it also unearthed perhaps the most important jem in the form of Tyrod who could very well propel the Bills to the height they haven't been in the last 18 years. Say what you want about Rex's character and deficiency, if Tyrod (who Rex brought in) turns out to be that franchise QB we have been looking for, he's the most successful coach the Bills ever had after Levy.

[Arm of Harm]

Don't be ridiculous. They are at the very least comparable, look at their stats. I left out the player names, pick the one you'd rather have.


<tbody>
COMP
ATT
COMP %
YARDS
TDS
INTS


308
521
59.1
3371
19
15


132
227
58.1
1534
6
8

</tbody>



Clausen and Whitehurst would not be an improvement over Manuel, none of the 3 of them have done anything to prove they are capable backups.



The last I heard, Glennon was going to cost a 2nd round pick. I don't think he's worth it, but who knows. That's a steep price for someone who will be a free agent at the end of this year.


Nice table.

Normally one of the first stats I look at when evaluating QBs is yards per attempt. Trent Edwards averaged 6.5 yards per attempt over the course of his career. Tom Brady averaged 7.5. Seemingly small differences in YPA make a big difference! E.J. Manuel also has a career average of 6.5 yards per attempt. Yates' career average is 6.8.

Another statistic to look at is air yards per attempt (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/quarterback-air-yards/2015/). Air yards per attempt is basically the same as yards per attempt, except that QBs are not credited with YAC yards. Given that Manuel doesn't hit his receivers in stride, and doesn't do anything to help generate YAC yards, any stat which credits QBs for YAC yards merely confuses the issue. Below are the air yards per attempt stats for Manuel and Yates

2015
Manuel: 4.77
Yates: 4.53

2014
Manuel: 2.13
Yates: 9.0

2013
Manuel: 3.33
Yates: 3.18

Yates had a lot more passing attempts in 2015 than he had in 2014 or 2013. Of the stats he produced, the 4.53 air yards per attempt from 2015 is most meaningful. His best-in-the-NFL 9.0 air yards per attempt from 2014 is meaningless, because he only had four pass attempts that year. On the other hand, Manuel had the most pass attempts as a rookie, second-most in his second year as starter, and third-most in his third year. The 3.18 air yards per attempt he'd averaged as a rookie is therefore most meaningful. More meaningful than the 2.13 air yards per attempt he'd averaged as a second year player. The fact his air yards per attempt more than doubled between his second and third years is promising as far as it goes. On the other hand he didn't get many snaps his third year, and that improved air yards per attempt was accompanied by a flurry of turnovers. Bottom line is that you'd expect Yates to average 4 - 4.5 air yards per attempt, and Manuel to average 2.5 - 3.5 air yards per attempt.

[Skooby]

Nice table.

Normally one of the first stats I look at when evaluating QBs is yards per attempt. Trent Edwards averaged 6.5 yards per attempt over the course of his career. Tom Brady averaged 7.5. Seemingly small differences in YPA make a big difference! E.J. Manuel also has a career average of 6.5 yards per attempt. Yates' career average is 6.8.

Another statistic to look at is air yards per attempt (http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/quarterback-air-yards/2015/). Air yards per attempt is basically the same as yards per attempt, except that QBs are not credited with YAC yards. Given that Manuel doesn't hit his receivers in stride, and doesn't do anything to help generate YAC yards, any stat which credits QBs for YAC yards merely confuses the issue. Below are the air yards per attempt stats for Manuel and Yates

2015
Manuel: 4.77
Yates: 4.53

2014
Manuel: 2.13
Yates: 9.0

2013
Manuel: 3.33
Yates: 3.18

Yates had a lot more passing attempts in 2015 than he had in 2014 or 2013. Of the stats he produced, the 4.53 air yards per attempt from 2015 is most meaningful. His best-in-the-NFL 9.0 air yards per attempt from 2014 is meaningless, because he only had four pass attempts that year. On the other hand, Manuel had the most pass attempts as a rookie, second-most in his second year as starter, and third-most in his third year. The 3.18 air yards per attempt he'd averaged as a rookie is therefore most meaningful. More meaningful than the 2.13 air yards per attempt he'd averaged as a second year player. The fact his air yards per attempt more than doubled between his second and third years is promising as far as it goes. On the other hand he didn't get many snaps his third year, and that improved air yards per attempt was accompanied by a flurry of turnovers. Bottom line is that you'd expect Yates to average 4 - 4.5 air yards per attempt, and Manuel to average 2.5 - 3.5 air yards per attempt.

Tyrod Taylor had an Average of 8 yards last season, which we cannot easily replace or replicate. He's a franchise guy and we need a real back-up QB, we have nobody right now & the drop off is too huge:

http://www.nfl.com/player/tyrodtaylor/2495240/careerstats

TT was 5th in the NFL With the 8.0:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2015/leaders.htm

You probably recognize most of the names in the top 10, they all basically made the playoffs sans a few. The Bills also lead the league in rushing so everything being equal, our defense really screwed the pooch last season. We are going to win more games this year if TT stays healthy.

[Arm of Harm]

Tyrod Taylor had an Average of 8 yards last season, which we cannot easily replace or replicate. He's a franchise guy and we need a real back-up QB, we have nobody right now & the drop off is too huge:

http://www.nfl.com/player/tyrodtaylor/2495240/careerstats

TT was 5th in the NFL With the 8.0:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2015/leaders.htm

You probably recognize most of the names in the top 10, they all basically made the playoffs sans a few. The Bills also lead the league in rushing so everything being equal, our defense really screwed the pooch last season. We are going to win more games this year if TT stays healthy.

Matt Schaub has a career average of 7.6 yards per attempt. Compare that to Peyton Manning (7.7), Drew Brees (7.5), Tom Brady (7.4), or Aaron Rodgers (8.0). In his prime Schaub was a good quarterback and a solid starter. But he was never at or near the level of Manning, Brees, Brady, or Rodgers. So why is Schaub's yards per attempt stat making him look better than he really is?

The best answer I can come up with is the difference between a run-oriented team and a pass-oriented team. Take the Montana-era 49ers, for example. A typical team from that era would have used running plays for almost all its short yardage plays. But Walsh replaced a lot of running plays with short yardage passing plays. It was an effective strategy which resulted in a lot of wins for the 49ers. But it also reduced Montana's yards per pass attempt below what would have been the case, had he been asked to focus only on intermediate to deep passes. Montana's yards per pass didn't make him look as good as he actually was. But if you're a QB in a run-oriented offense, you can afford to focus mostly on the intermediate to deep passes which are so pivotal to a good yards per attempt stat. The QB for a run-oriented offense--a guy like Schaub--is going to have a yards per attempt stat which overstates how good he really is.

The Taylor/Roman offense was nothing if not run-oriented. Taylor's yards per attempt stat is good partially because he's good at throwing the deep ball. But it's also good because he was not asked to throw many short-to-intermediate passes. Like Matt Schaub, Taylor's yards per attempt stat overstates his actual level of play.

[Skooby]

Matt Schaub has a career average of 7.6 yards per attempt. Compare that to Peyton Manning (7.7), Drew Brees (7.5), Tom Brady (7.4), or Aaron Rodgers (8.0). In his prime Schaub was a good quarterback and a solid starter. But he was never at or near the level of Manning, Brees, Brady, or Rodgers. So why is Schaub's yards per attempt stat making him look better than he really is?

The best answer I can come up with is the difference between a run-oriented team and a pass-oriented team. Take the Montana-era 49ers, for example. A typical team from that era would have used running plays for almost all its short yardage plays. But Walsh replaced a lot of running plays with short yardage passing plays. It was an effective strategy which resulted in a lot of wins for the 49ers. But it also reduced Montana's yards per pass attempt below what would have been the case, had he been asked to focus only on intermediate to deep passes. Montana's yards per pass didn't make him look as good as he actually was. But if you're a QB in a run-oriented offense, you can afford to focus mostly on the intermediate to deep passes which are so pivotal to a good yards per attempt stat. The QB for a run-oriented offense--a guy like Schaub--is going to have a yards per attempt stat which overstates how good he really is.

The Taylor/Roman offense was nothing if not run-oriented. Taylor's yards per attempt stat is good partially because he's good at throwing the deep ball. But it's also good because he was not asked to throw many short-to-intermediate passes. Like Matt Schaub, Taylor's yards per attempt stat overstates his actual level of play.

Taylor was in his first season as a starter, so it's pretty hard to use all the great and compare them side by side and say look at this. Tyrod got himself out of trouble a lot and his mobility help save drives that might have otherwise stalled. This doesn't show up on the stat sheet except as yards rushed but he saved our tail many times last season. Taylor was also fairly wise with the ball as to not turn it over much via fumbles lost or INT. EJ got the ball and literally gave away the JAX game, if Tyrod plays in that game we win by 15 or more.

Tyrod is a gamer and he backs the defense up, unless he runs the ball. He also has been working on his touch game this off-season, so your going to see a whole different realm with him soon. I'm serious, this might get real interesting if he can get all the throws right. I wouldn't bet against him if he's healthy.

That all being said, we are going to need to get a backup QB ASAP. Right now, we'd be just as good to not have a QB lining up because there's nobody else on the team. EJ is not NFL material, it was just an all-around flub. He leaves FSU and they win a championship with a rookie QB, there was a team there that make him look decent. EJ was a decent college QB, that's where it all ends. He was lucky to get a first round draft contract, virtually a miracle.

[Arm of Harm]

Taylor was in his first season as a starter, so it's pretty hard to use all the great and compare them side by side and say look at this. Tyrod got himself out of trouble a lot and his mobility help save drives that might have otherwise stalled. This doesn't show up on the stat sheet except as yards rushed but he saved our tail many times last season. Taylor was also fairly wise with the ball as to not turn it over much via fumbles lost or INT. EJ got the ball and literally gave away the JAX game, if Tyrod plays in that game we win by 15 or more.

Tyrod is a gamer and he backs the defense up, unless he runs the ball. He also has been working on his touch game this off-season, so your going to see a whole different realm with him soon. I'm serious, this might get real interesting if he can get all the throws right. I wouldn't bet against him if he's healthy.

That all being said, we are going to need to get a backup QB ASAP. Right now, we'd be just as good to not have a QB lining up because there's nobody else on the team. EJ is not NFL material, it was just an all-around flub. He leaves FSU and they win a championship with a rookie QB, there was a team there that make him look decent. EJ was a decent college QB, that's where it all ends. He was lucky to get a first round draft contract, virtually a miracle.


I agree with what you've written about E.J. Manuel. Manuel was not a better player than Trent Edwards or J.P. Losman. Both Edwards and Losman were unable to hang onto NFL roster spots. I expect the same thing to happen to Manuel.

You also made a good point about Taylor's mobility. There have been a number of times when he used his legs to give the WRs more time to get open. That certainly provided a boost to the offense--a boost which may or may not have showed up on the stat sheet.

I too have read the articles about how Taylor is developing in the offseason. The problem with articles like that is that we've heard all this before, about previous Bills' quarterbacks. Quarterbacks who didn't pan out. I'm not dismissing the reports about Taylor's development, and it's quite possible that this time around the optimistic reports are true. But I personally will take a "wait and see" approach.

We should also keep in mind Greg Roman's ability to hide his QBs' weaknesses. Take Kaepernick for example. In his second year in the NFL, he averaged an astonishing 8.3 yards per attempt. Since then it's been all downhill. Below are his YPA stats:

2011 (rookie): 7.0
2012 (2nd year): 8.3
2013: 7.7
2014: 7.0
2015: 6.6 (for comparison, Losman's career average is 6.6)

You can see that Kaepernick has done worse without Roman's presence. Part of that is because there were throws that Roman didn't ask Kaepernick to make. Roman took some heat from the 49ers fan base for that. Some of them seemed to think Roman's understanding of offense was too basic to include those throws. After Roman's departure, the new OC asked Kaepernick to make those throws. At which point it became obvious he couldn't make them, and equally obvious that Roman had been hiding one of his QB's weaknesses. That's something to bear in mind when we consider all the throws Taylor isn't being asked to make.

The 2015 version of Taylor was a good fit for a team with a strong running game. If your running game is going well, you don't need your QB to carry you. But you do need a few big plays here and there, with escapability being a nice bonus. Taylor delivered that. Taylor was a good fit for the 2015 Bills, because we had a strong running game this past season. If the reports about his improvement are correct, and if he takes a substantial step up in 2016, then maybe he'll be able to carry a team--the way you'd expect from a franchise QB. If that happens, Whaley will probably wish he'd done a slightly better job of managing the salary cap. But his taking that step up is far from given, reports or no reports.

[Skooby]

I agree with what you've written about E.J. Manuel. Manuel was not a better player than Trent Edwards or J.P. Losman. Both Edwards and Losman were unable to hang onto NFL roster spots. I expect the same thing to happen to Manuel.

You also made a good point about Taylor's mobility. There have been a number of times when he used his legs to give the WRs more time to get open. That certainly provided a boost to the offense--a boost which may or may not have showed up on the stat sheet.

I too have read the articles about how Taylor is developing in the offseason. The problem with articles like that is that we've heard all this before, about previous Bills' quarterbacks. Quarterbacks who didn't pan out. I'm not dismissing the reports about Taylor's development, and it's quite possible that this time around the optimistic reports are true. But I personally will take a "wait and see" approach.

We should also keep in mind Greg Roman's ability to hide his QBs' weaknesses. Take Kaepernick for example. In his second year in the NFL, he averaged an astonishing 8.3 yards per attempt. Since then it's been all downhill. Below are his YPA stats:

2011 (rookie): 7.0
2012 (2nd year): 8.3
2013: 7.7
2014: 7.0
2015: 6.6 (for comparison, Losman's career average is 6.6)

You can see that Kaepernick has done worse without Roman's presence. Part of that is because there were throws that Roman didn't ask Kaepernick to make. Roman took some heat from the 49ers fan base for that. Some of them seemed to think Roman's understanding of offense was too basic to include those throws. After Roman's departure, the new OC asked Kaepernick to make those throws. At which point it became obvious he couldn't make them, and equally obvious that Roman had been hiding one of his QB's weaknesses. That's something to bear in mind when we consider all the throws Taylor isn't being asked to make.

The 2015 version of Taylor was a good fit for a team with a strong running game. If your running game is going well, you don't need your QB to carry you. But you do need a few big plays here and there, with escapability being a nice bonus. Taylor delivered that. Taylor was a good fit for the 2015 Bills, because we had a strong running game this past season. If the reports about his improvement are correct, and if he takes a substantial step up in 2016, then maybe he'll be able to carry a team--the way you'd expect from a franchise QB. If that happens, Whaley will probably wish he'd done a slightly better job of managing the salary cap. But his taking that step up is far from given, reports or no reports.

Excellent write up. Just a note that Colin didn't get 4 years behind a starter and had a great running game as well when he hit the scene, when that went away so did his stats (and they had film how to stop him as well).

[Mace]

Excellent write up. Just a note that Colin didn't get 4 years behind a starter and had a great running game as well when he hit the scene, when that went away so did his stats (and they had film how to stop him as well).

Also might want to note Harbaugh was running the passing game. Roman does running game. Always did, and always didn't do passing game, even when in college. Harbaugh.

[Skooby]

So Bills have interest in a Vet backup QB as mentioned by me a while ago, EJ gets cut and they keep CJ. EJ gone fellas, it's going to happen one way or the other. He's not starting again, Rex can't afford the losses.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JasonColeBR/status/758517919366148096

[Yasgur's Farm]

So Bills have interest in a Vet backup QB as mentioned by me a while ago, EJ gets cut and they keep CJ. EJ gone fellas, it's going to happen one way or the other. He's not starting again, Rex can't afford the losses.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JasonColeBR/status/758517919366148096Ironic that you make a gonna be statement in a failed gonna be thread... Bills have already said not interested BTW.

[Skooby]

Ironic that you make a gonna be statement in a failed gonna be thread... Bills have already said not interested BTW.

They are going to get a Veteran back-up, EJ is gone. EJ is the only failure.

[Yasgur's Farm]

:laughing:Whatever you say Skooby... All of your proclamations have proven to be gospel after all. :laughing: :lmao:

[justasportsfan]

Skoobs, you need to give this " my sources" news thing up. Youre making Pat Moran look legit

[Skooby]

Skoobs, you need to give this " my sources" news thing up. Youre making Pat Moran look legit

A Vet QB will be in Buffalo to back up TT, expect someone to get cut during camp and Bills will bring them in and up to speed as the season progresses. EJ is not considered anything but a JO who's roster spot is more valuable.

Bush (another Veteran) will be in Buffalo today, pending physical will be a Buffalo Bills player. So all the non-believers can Go F-yourselves.

[BertSquirtgum]

They are going to get a Veteran back-up, EJ is gone. EJ is the only failure.

You are so full of **** and so are your threads.

[Skooby]

You are so full of **** and so are your threads.

You betcha, watch out for the tornadoes in your Trailor Park.

[justasportsfan]

A Vet QB will be in Buffalo to back up TT, expect someone to get cut during camp and Bills will bring them in and up to speed as the season progresses. EJ is not considered anything but a JO who's roster spot is more valuable.

Bush (another Veteran) will be in Buffalo today, pending physical will be a Buffalo Bills player. So all the non-believers can Go F-yourselves.

I don't have a problem with you stating that Bush will eventually sign, but breaking the news that he ALREADY signed when you said he did is not accurately close.

[Mr. Pink]

EJ isn't going anywhere this year.

He'll be gone next year...TT might be too.

[Skooby]

I don't have a problem with you stating that Bush will eventually sign, but breaking the news that he ALREADY signed when you said he did is not accurately close.

You hear anything about negotiations anymore ?? They agreed and Bush said he was going to sign but needed a few personal days to get his affairs in order, you can't really fault a guy that has to dedicate that much of his life for needing a break. I told you that he planned to sign and they agreed to everything (physical should just be a formality).

So stop being a D***.

[BertSquirtgum]

You betcha, watch out for the tornadoes in your Trailor Park.

Tornadoes in new York? Nah son

[Joe Fo Sho]

You hear anything about negotiations anymore ?? They agreed and Bush said he was going to sign but needed a few personal days to get his affairs in order, you can't really fault a guy that has to dedicate that much of his life for needing a break. I told you that he planned to sign and they agreed to everything (physical should just be a formality).

So stop being a D***.

No you didn't. You said that he has signed. People have every right to fault you for the phrasing you used in your thread.


You'll hear about it soon, I got a text from a friend who said they worked out some small points and he's signed. Welcome to Buffalo Reggie !!!

http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showthread.php/233841-Reggie-Bush-just-signed

[Skooby]

Skoobs, you need to give this " my sources" news thing up. Youre making Pat Moran look legit

http://bleacherreport.com/reggie-bush

[Skooby]

No you didn't. You said that he has signed. People have every right to fault you for the phrasing you used in your thread.



http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showthread.php/233841-Reggie-Bush-just-signed

I told you he signed less a physical which got delayed until today, he had some things to handle. He wasn't going to fail the physical, Reggie is freaking ripped right now and I'm telling you this is going to better than most think here. They agreed to everything last week, not a detail changed. Until the physical is done, you can't sign one way or the other. Sorry to get so technical but everyone here figures people just show up and don't realize the devil's in the details. The details were over less a physical and he's signing to be a Buffalo Bills player, I welcomed him and some of you guys are like why isn't it announced.

Details... Physical.... Contract signed and complete. Read it below how it works:

La Can tweet:
Reeggie Bush expected to arrive in Buffalo this morning and sign with Bills pending results of a physical

[Joe Fo Sho]

I told you he signed less a physical which got delayed until today, he had some things to handle.

That's still not what you said originally. You should go back and look at your original post.

You also said this 5 days ago:


It should be announced today.

[k-oneputt]

Either way he received info, and it proved correct.

What's the big f deal ???

[Skooby]

That's still not what you said originally. You should go back and look at your original post.

You also said this 5 days ago:

They should have announce they agreed to terms, they almost always do that but they didn't. Did you hear of the terms changing ?? No and you won't, they agreed to do this last week. Reggie needed to get his house in order and I'm so sorry they had chosen not to say anything, like I have any control over that (LOL).

Folks get over yourselves, like isn't that hard and enjoy the early heads up and stop complaining.

[Skooby]

Either way he received info, and it proved correct.

What's the big f deal ???

Thank you. I still don't understand how everything isn't cool like you said, I got the scoop they agreed to all details pending physical to put ink on it. He's here and practicing tomorrow night, you guys should be impressed with him because he's a specimen. I was told he's in great shape, like ~field ready now.

[Mace]

I think Fitzpatrick is turning into the wolfman btw.

17812

[feldspar]

Thank you. I still don't understand how everything isn't cool like you said, I got the scoop they agreed to all details pending physical to put ink on it. He's here and practicing tomorrow night, you guys should be impressed with him because he's a specimen. I was told he's in great shape, like ~field ready now.

I was told that your "sources" don't mean jack squat.

[Skooby]

I was told that your "sources" don't mean jack squat.

Yeah I took that away from your other post about what I'm saying is worthless. Instead of arguing with you I'll just accept that I'm unappreciated by you, so get bent.

[Skooby]

So Bills have interest in a Vet backup QB as mentioned by me a while ago, EJ gets cut and they keep CJ. EJ gone fellas, it's going to happen one way or the other. He's not starting again, Rex can't afford the losses.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JasonColeBR/status/758517919366148096

We added a 4th QB, so let's see how the upcoming cuts go and I'll take my medicine if I'm wrong.

[feldspar]

Yeah I took that away from your other post about what I'm saying is worthless. Instead of arguing with you I'll just accept that I'm unappreciated by you, so get bent.

I'm already bent.

But read the first post in this thread, and reconcile that with how you never said the Bills will sign Fitzpatrick specifically in a different thread...not true. How many times are you going to contradict yourself or claim that you know things that you clearly don't?

[Skooby]

I'm already bent.

But read the first post in this thread, and reconcile that with how you never said the Bills will sign Fitzpatrick specifically in a different thread...not true. How many times are you going to contradict yourself or claim that you know things that you clearly don't?
IMO= In my opinion, so there's no one to blame but me. I'm here, I just think EJ is terrible.

[mdcas22]

anybody remember rg3 having to ride the pines so he wouldn't get hurt last year so the skins wouldn't have the 5th year option kick in? this is exactly where E'J is right now.

[Joe Fo Sho]

anybody remember rg3 having to ride the pines so he wouldn't get hurt last year so the skins wouldn't have the 5th year option kick in? this is exactly where E'J is right now.

Anything to backup that claim?

[stuckincincy]

Anything to backup that claim?

Common sense, I suppose.

He has zero pocket presence. Got sacked 5 times (!) in Friday's game vs. the Bucs. How do you suffer 5 sacks in a preseason game??? I'm glad CLE is on the BUF schedule.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Common sense, I suppose.

He has zero pocket presence. Got sacked 5 times (!) in Friday's game vs. the Bucs. How do you suffer 5 sacks in a preseason game??? I'm glad CLE is on the BUF schedule.

It's common sense that EJ has some sort of injury clause this year that puts the Bills on the hook for his 5th year option?

[stuckincincy]

It's common sense that EJ has some sort of injury clause this year that puts the Bills on the hook for his 5th year option?


I think we are at cross purposes here, Joe. I was writing about Griffin and his sacks.

Manual's contract ends this season AFAIK.

But this is me tonight... :boozer:

:kid:

[Mr. Cynical]

I'd pull Alex Van Pelt out of retirement before letting EJ back on the field. I mean, hey...AVP broke Marino's records in college, so....you know...

[Skooby]

I'd pull Alex Van Pelt out of retirement before letting EJ back on the field. I mean, hey...AVP broke Marino's records in college, so....you know...

Smartest thing you've ever wrote on here, EJ is a wasted roster spot.

[stuckincincy]

Smartest thing you've ever wrote on here, EJ is a wasted roster spot.

Seems so. But I don't see any options BUF has to replace him. He's not costly as cap numbers go, so that's not much of an issue.

Assuming Gay gets booted, along with Dareus being suspended, they can be in fair roster shape. At least as the numbers go.

[BertSquirtgum]

Ej is the greatest thing since sliced bread