The Definitive Drew Poll #2: Who should have been the Bills QB in 2002?

[Ebenezer]

OK, to increase my research for next week's Up My Flagpole, now that you have voted on who you would have wanted to be the Bills QB in 2002, let's narrow it down to just the real choices.

Simply, vote above. If you say other, defend it! Simply, tell me who should have been the QB and why.

Have fun! Let's get it on! I will add other names as people bring them up.

[TypicalBill]

ryan leaf? :chuckle:

[Mr. Miyagi]

First of all, Eb, I think you kinda stole my idea for the thread. I expect full compensation on whatever ZBs you get for this thread. :)

The answer is obvious. Out of all those other 2nd string QBs other than Bledsoe, the clear choice is a big fat NO. Bledsoe was the best we could've gotten, and I will stick to that until the day I, uh I mean my dog, dies. :laughter:

Any questions?

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by BillsFanStuckInWisc
First of all, Eb, I think you kinda stole my idea for the thread. I expect full compensation on whatever ZBs you get for this thread. :)

The answer is obvious. Out of all those other 2nd string QBs other than Bledsoe, the clear choice is a big fat NO. Bledsoe was the best we could've gotten, and I will stick to that until the day I, uh I mean my dog, dies. :laughter:

Any questions?


I'll call it borrowed...and Judge has started a thread like this this week...and I did it once during the season...not totally new...

Just want to get some numbers and pin some people down...

[Ebenezer]

25 views and 6 votes...mmmmm....

[Judge]

I do not believe the Bills could have done any better than get Bledsoe last year. As he was made available at the price the Bills paid for him, he was by far the best available option.

Your list of other potential candidates highlights how much of a coup it was to get Bledsoe. Nobody approaches him.

Had the Bills NOT traded for him, I would have wanted to see a Jeff Blake (in at the salary he ultimately got, not for the $2 mil or whatever it was he wanted originally) a Jeff George, or to take a flyer on a Henry Burris out of the CFL to challenge AVP.

Thankfully I didn't need to wish for those possibilities!

[SABURZFAN]

i see that Wys hasn't voted yet.blake still has a goose egg.

[WG]

Wrong question. If the options were tossing $5M out the window, starting Van Pelt, and voluntarily giving our first round selection to the SB loser w/o getting Drew, then I suppose this is an easy poll.

But as I see it, the options were beefing up our DL to a monster level, keeping our first round pick, and picking up a QB who did just as well scoring wise on a game-by-game basis for a year or two until we got another!

So this simple one-dimensional analysis doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I do think we'd have won more games, simply by virtue of assuming that another QB wouldn't have tossed detrimental INTs costing us 6 games in 6 losses. Our D would have been much better, and we'd have now had a first round selection.

What on earth is so difficult about that position that I've held ever since this deal went down. It can't possibly be proven wrong since it will never happen. But the logic is tight!

Meanwhile, I get slammed continuously for harboring such a simple position. And please don't tell me I'm the one responsible for continuing this nonsense. It's everyone who won't let me rest in peace with that view whose slams only incite.

[Judge]

You still don't name a QB who meets your criteria Wys.

[LtBillsFan66]

Same answer as the other poll:

I would take Bledsoe in our situation over any other QB that was available in FA or in the draft. He is well worth a 1st round pick. I rank him in the top 10 QB is the league right now.

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
Wrong question. If the options were tossing $5M out the window, starting Van Pelt, and voluntarily giving our first round selection to the SB loser w/o getting Drew, then I suppose this is an easy poll.

But as I see it, the options were beefing up our DL to a monster level, keeping our first round pick, and picking up a QB who did just as well scoring wise on a game-by-game basis for a year or two until we got another!

So this simple one-dimensional analysis doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I do think we'd have won more games, simply by virtue of assuming that another QB wouldn't have tossed detrimental INTs costing us 6 games in 6 losses. Our D would have been much better, and we'd have now had a first round selection.

What on earth is so difficult about that position that I've held ever since this deal went down. It can't possibly be proven wrong since it will never happen. But the logic is tight!

Meanwhile, I get slammed continuously for harboring such a simple position. And please don't tell me I'm the one responsible for continuing this nonsense. It's everyone who won't let me rest in peace with that view whose slams only incite.

Answer the question...who would you want at QB??