OldTimer1960

Are you implying that Taylor would be willing to sign a "small" starting QB contract now (like the one the Bills gave Fitzpatrick - it was "half-in"/show us and we'll give you a bigger raise)? I think Taylor might like his chances of showing improvement this year and earning a much bigger long-term deal after the season. I don't think the Bills have seen enough to pay him close enough to what he might earn with a big year, so there could be an impasse. For the Bills part, if they don't sign him now and he plays really well the first half of the year, they will work to pay him what he will have earned, before he hits free agency. I don't think he wants to sign a low-level-starter contract now and I don't think he will be so mad at the Bills for "not believing in him" that he won't sign a big contract with them - if he earns it. I think if Taylor shows well early next season, the Bills will be fine with paying him a big deal.

He is quite outside of the normal physical parameters for a 3-4 DL. Shorter, lighter and much less stout than a "standard" 3-4 DL, especially at NT. Given that the current coaching staff is for the most part committed to a specific scheme, drafting a talented DL that doesn't fit there scheme would be a bad idea. I'd like to believe that they could take a talented player like Day and find a way to use him, but I don't think that is how this staff operates. I think they believe in their scheme, even if it means taking a "differently-talented" player that better matches what they want to do on defense. I don't mean to sound too down on this topic, because you sort of have to run some sort of scheme - narrow or more broad, still you are looking for specific talents to fill the roles in that scheme. Pete Carroll had his vision of what defensive scheme he wanted to run and he brought in players to fit it - and they have been very successful. BB in NE has feasted on players that other teams didn't want, but fit his scheme.

Your percentages of a hit per pitch go down with later picks.

This is an important perspective. Many here think it is only the Bills who miss on first round picks - pointing to EJ Manuel as some kind of egregious error that no other team would have made. The hit rate drops quickly after the first round,too. IIRC, there is only about a 25% chance of getting a good starter by round 3.

I am with you up to the stud LB preference. I don't see a good LB option that will be available to the Bills at pick 19. Darron Lee and Leonard Floyd look to be under powered options and Reggie Ragland looks like a run-down player only - and a run down player who was out lifted by several DBs at the combine. I am not saying that these LBs might not become ok starters, but I'm not seeing dominant players here. I am seeing some potentially very good DTs that could be available at the 19th pick. Of the LBs, I like Floyd the least - I can remember many of these tall lanky supposed speed rushers that would provide defenses a lot of flexibility who never panned out - think Maybin, Barkeveous Mingo, Deon Jordan etc. I could see Ragland being a valuable run stopper and, possibly, Lee being a good coverage LB, but I'd rather take spend a high pick on a solid big-man on the DL like Jarren Reed, A'shawn Robinson, Sheldon Rankins, etc

Yep - Brady, Manning, Brees - not one of them close in physical ability to Jones, yet they are sure HOFers.

They may be trying to do a long term deal with Glenn and they still need to sign draft picks and undrafted FAs

Wait, when has Joique Bell played for Rex?

Kerley is OK and we could NOT pay Hogan anywhere near $4M/year - though I did like Hogan. Still, a little concerned that the universe of candidates for any opening seems to include only those with connections to Rex.

I meant Darron Lee

I am afraid of both LBs Darron Lee and Leonard Floyd as both are may be under powered for NFL.

I am afraid of both LBs Darren Reed and Leonard Floyd as both are under powered for NFL.

Well, I guess that we'll disagree on this. My recollection is that the option offense was the dominant college offense of the 70s. Colleges run gimmick offenses like the option and spread because there is a lack of pro-style QBs. If there were enough pro-style QBs to go around, then I think more college programs would run pro-style offenses.

I am struggling to get on-board with a WR in round 1. The only one I would like is Treadwell for his size, production, hands and blocking ability. Even with him, I have reservations about investing too much in the WR position - especially with a not-sure-thing QB going into next season. I still like Robert Woods' receiving and blocking ability.

While I agree that LB is a need position, I am not groovin' on the prospects that may be available this year. Lee from Ohio State is a pumped up Safety, Ragland is big, but not particularly strong if you believe BP reps mean much - plenty of DBs out-lifted him. The Georgia OLB doesn't interest me as an undersized guy who gained weight for the combine. I'd look later than Round 1 for a LB prospect with, what I expect to be, much better DT and DL prospects available.

And I disagree here, too. How many QBs that used to run the triple option in college had any significant experience dropping back to pass from center? To me, the major competences required to be a great NFL QB are: 1. The ability to see the field and make good quick decisions on where to go with the ball 2. The accuracy required to deliver the ball to a spot where the receiver can catch it without getting killed and with the opportunity to gain yards after the catch. This is very closely tied to "throwing to a spot", "throwing a guy open" and "giving the receiver an opportunity to make a play". 3. Adequate arm strength and athletic ability Not many of the above can be readily developed. 1 & 2 are very difficult to judge in college QBs, as the ones that are on good teams have the best receivers and are generally under not much pressure because they have great OLs. There are a TON of QBs who looked great in college waiting 5 minutes behind an impenetrable OL and selecting among 3 or more receivers that are wide-open - but lots of those guys failed in the NFL. Thing is, it is hard/nearly impossible to tell which of those QBs will be able to make quicker decisions and have the accuracy under pressure to succeed in the NFL.

Well done and this is what I and others have been trying to say. There is a very limited number of people on the planet that have the ability to be good or better NFL QBs. If it were as simple as "draft someone and develop them for 3-4 years, then every team would have a great QB. If it was as simple as "draft one and let him take his lumps as a starter while getting better for 3-4 years - then every team would have one. It isn't as simple as the NFL has a win-now culture and won't wait for guys to develop. It isn't as simple as blaming the college schemes - today's spread offenses in college are BETTER for QB development than the triple option run by many colleges in years past. The premise that there are fewer good NFL QBs today than in years past is flat false

I don't think this is much different than it has always been. There have never been enough good starting QBs for all teams to have one. There are a few more teams than there used to be (not many, I think Tampa and Seattle was the last expansion). Certainly, rules changes make the differences more glaring today, but look at the top rated passers from some other eras: 1980 Passer Rating1.Brian Sipe*+ · CLE91.42.Ron Jaworski* · PHI91.03.Vince Ferragamo · RAM89.74.Steve Bartkowski* · ATL88.25.Joe Montana · SFO87.86.Dan Fouts* · SDG84.77.Gary Danielson · DET82.48.Archie Manning · NOR81.89.Danny White · DAL80.710.Craig Morton · DEN77.8 1975cPasser Rating1.Ken Anderson* · CIN93.92.Fran Tarkenton*+ · MIN91.83.Len Dawson · KAN90.04.Bert Jones · BAL89.15.Terry Bradshaw* · PIT88.06.Bob Griese · MIA86.67.Joe Ferguson · BUF81.38.Roger Staubach* · DAL78.59.Billy Kilmer · WAS77.210.Mike Livingston · KAN74.2 1985 Passer Rating1.Ken O'Brien* · NYJ96.22.Boomer Esiason · CIN93.23.Joe Montana* · SFO91.34.Dan Fouts* · SDG88.15.Dan Marino*+ · MIA84.16.Bill Kenney · KAN83.67.Jim McMahon* · CHI82.68.Dieter Brock · RAM82.09.Danny White · DAL80.610.Neil Lomax · STL79.5 Those periods had some very good QBs, some "OK" QBs and some really bad ones - just like today. Just looking at 1980, the only 2 that fit the great QB category were Montana and Fouts, I don't think Steve Bartkowski or Archie Manning were all-time greats and neither was able to single handedly elevate their teams. When names like Ron Jawarski, Vince Ferragamo, Gary Danielson, Mike Livingston, Bill Kenney, and Dieter Brock were among league-leaders in passer rating, you can see that there might be more great QBs today than in times past. Of course, some eras have more very good QBs and other eras fewer, but there has never been a time when a lot of teams were not looking to get much better at QB. Ah, you just beat me to a similar post. Some of those guys were truly awful. I remember having the distinct displeasure of watching Bruce Mathison with the Bills. On that list I might say: Great: Elway, Moon, Marino, Fouts Good-Very Good: McMahon, Esiason, Kosak (for a short time), Simms, Lomax Middling: Dickey, O'Brien, Kramer, Krieg, Theismann Teams Wishing They Had Better: Archer, Mathison, Hipple, Pagel, Kenney, Eason, Dave Wilson, Jaworski, Mark Malone, Marc Wilson, Brock

I struggle with calling late round picks "developmental". In some rare cases a late round pick may have all of the size and athletic ability that a higher pick has, but they may need to get stronger, may have played at a low level of competition or have to change positions. In those cases, I think the term developmental prospect applies. But, in the majority of cases, players are drafted later because they lack some important quality: height, weight, speed, quickness - etc. in those cases, it doesn't seem to me that developmental applies. Sure, some of these guys find ways to overcome their limitations, but not many. The term developmental seems to imply that all a player needs is some coaching and they will become as good as a high round pick. I think this term is particularly abused with regard to QBs. "Let's just draft a developmental QB in the 5th round and give him time to learn. By year three he will be great!" Really, in most cases, by year 3 that guy is out of the league or bouncing around from team to team trying to be a 3rd stringer - still having those same limitations that made him a low round pick to begin with.

I am not a Cardale Jones fan at all. With all of his obvious physical talent, if he could not even earn and maintain the starting job in college, then there must be some significant deficiencies that exist. Further, it would be difficult to justify spending even a 3rd round pick on a guy who started only 10 games in his college career. If he is available in round 5, I might start considering him then. Physical talent is only part of the requirements. If that was all it took to succeed, then JP Losmqn and EJ Manuel would have been successful.

Broken down old man

Yes, they have a need, but what OT that will be available will be worthwhile? I could live with Conklin, but don't really love Taylor Decker. I am struggling to think of Spriggs as a 1st rounder despite his very good combine performance. Who would be worth that pick? I could live with solid starter that isn't spectacular. For those old enough to remember, could Spriggs be this year's John Fina? Fina was an under-powered athletic OT who became an OK starter for a number of years. He was the target of a lot of fan's anger, but he wasn't nearly as bad as his critics suggested.

I agree. There are a lot of guys that can look good in college when playing behind a dominant OL with 5 minutes to choose which of 3 wide open receivers to throw to. You can't predict which of those guys can process information quickly enough to thrive under pressure and can throw to receivers who are barely open.

Him or his teammate Kevin Dodd. I am enamored with some of the DTs including Andrew Billings and Sheldon Rankins. Billings would be the beast NT that could free Darius to penetrate while Billings took up blockers. Rankins and Darius together with their penetrating ability could wreak a lot of havoc from the inside in a 4-3 or shifted 3-4.

Of the prospects, I'd probably cut Hackenberg the most slack because he was constantly under duress on an under-manned Penn State team that had lost many scholarships. Still, in spite of those lost scholarships, Penn State likely still had a lot more talent than most college teams - just not elite talent.