OldTimer1960

Fergy was a good starting QB and was as tough as the day is long. I would say he was probably the 3rd best QB in franchise history behind Jim Kelly and Jack Kemp.

I think this is most true for QBs because teams reach for them due to their desperate need for them. However, I think the success rate for other positions is probably lower than many people really believe. For example, from 1992-2011 30% of #1 overall picks (very first pick in the draft) were starters in the league for < 3 years. Over that same period only 57% of top-10 picks started for 5 or more years in the league - a lot lower than most probably would have thought. The link below is to draftmetrics.com and shows data for draft picks from 1992-2011 - fun thing to look at and pretty eye-opening. http://www.draftmetrics.com/files/draftposition19922011.pdf

I am with you, but I think this poor success rate has more to do with the lack of really good NFL-calibre QBs and team's desperation to find them. I am more in the camp of spending the 8th pick on a player at another position besides QB that is expected to have a higher probability of success than the available QBs, BUT it might be that you really do have accept the low success rate and keep trying until you find one. It might be analogous to a "7 point shot" in basketball - one way way beyond the 3 point line - low percentage of making it, but if you do you score big.

I agree that there are QB prospects that could be considered equivalent prospects to those that you listed. My argument is that those players were drafted much higher than they were expected to be (at least by most information we fans are privy to) and at this point, the jury is still out on all of them. I am not saying that none of them will turn out to be good QBs, but it isn't looking positive at this point for most on that list. If you agree with my premise (that most on that list are struggling), then it is at least questionable to use their high draft positions to justify following suit. I am not completely against taking a QB in round 1, but I am not sold on any of them. Thankfully, for the team and fans I am not in position to make those decisions.

I like option 2 the best, except I'd put Glenn at RT and let Chris Hairston battle with whoever else they have to play the open OG spot. Get a guy who you have a high degree of confidence will improve your team. Improve the pass and run blocking, feed Spiller and Jackson the ball and when you do throw, at least whomever the QB is will have time to do so.

That isn't my view at all. If they think that there is a QB in this draft who will be a good-very good starter in the future, I would be thrilled to wait. But, in the NFL now QBs get tossed to the curb after 3 years if they are not good already. How long do you wait on a guy to "get it" when you aren't certain that he ever will?

If the point is to take someone whom they think can be competitive, but not great, then I agree. But where does that get them? Maybe 9-7, but not much chance of being a championship contender? To be clear, I am not totally against them taking a QB in the first or second round. I just want to believe that if they do, that they aren't just settling or taking a wild shot on someone when they could draft a higher-probability-of-success player at another position with the 8th overall selection. To take your point of view for a moment: If you had a strong conviction that the Bills could draft a perfect clone of Alex Smith or Andy Dalton at the 8th spot, would you do it? I would not if I knew it was Alex Smith - Andy Dalton would give me cause to consider it, but he still might be that middle of the road guy that is never quite good enough.

Jake Locker: 56% 10 TDs, 11 INTs Christian Ponder: 62% 18 TDs, 12 INTs - this is pretty decent, but he had the GREATEST rushing performance in NFL history to open up the passing game Brandon Weeden: 57%, 14 TDs, 17 INTs - Browns are so unsold that they are considering picking another QB high. Blaine Gabbert: 58% 9 TDs, 6 INTs Ryan Fitzpatrick: 61% 24 TDs, 16 INTs My point isn't to trash any of these QBs - one or more of them might improve, but most were not even as good as Fitz was last year. I would want better than that if I were to invest the 8th overall pick in the draft.

I think Tannehill looked OK last year,but based on what you have seen from Gabbert, Locker, Ponder (2 years each) and Weeden - do you want any of them?

If they were to draft Bray in round 3/4 and no other QB, I don't think that necessarily says that they are "all in" on Kolb. It might (likely would IMHO) mean that they just didn't think any of the QBs in the draft are prospects that justified 1st or 2nd round picks - that is, they see them all as long-shots to be good starters in the NFL. If they don't draft a QB early, I don't think the correct conclusion is that they think Kolb is the answer. Interesting view. Most analysts/scouts that I've read think that the talent pool is very shallow at QB. Don't confuse no top prospects with a deep pool of good prospects. This might be the worst set of QB prospects in a long time. I agree that there are a handful of QB prospects with some redeeming qualities including Barkley, Smith, Manuel, Nassib and maybe Wilson. BUT none of them have the "whole skillset" this year (at least based on everything I've read and seen).

I agree that his college production suggests that he is "fast enough". I don't know that he faked an injury, but it is suspicious that he didn't run at the combine, pulled up lame when realizing he was running really slowly. The biggest red flag for me will be if he doesn't run again before the draft. If he can run faster - significantly faster, then he should be chomping at the bit to do so and prove that there is no athletic reason not to believe that he can carry his college production to the NFL. As it stands now, I'd be very concerned drafting him in round 1. His 40 time was nearly a full 0.2 seconds slower than 300lb OT Lane Johnson. While I agree that pass rushing isn't necessarily about running 40 yard dashes, it is concerning that he might not have speed on his side when going against a blocker who out-weighs him by 60 lbs.

I think the Colts' entire "strategy" was that they got lucky and were able to draft Andrew Luck. Without him, they would still be horrible. Also, don't be surprised if the Colts come crashing back down to earth this year without the emotional rallying point they had last year in Chuck Pagano's health issue.

Geno Smith in the first would bum me out, but I probably wouldn't jump off a building. I like some of the things about Smith including that he is reportedly smart, by most accounts a hard worker, has a good arm and is athletic enough to make some plays with his feet. Yet (just my opinion), it seems that he should have been able to do more with his team. With 2 highly regarded NFL prospects playing WR and Smith at QB, West Virginia lost 5 games in a row and was 2-6 in their last 8 games (including their bowl loss to a less talented Syracuse team). Smith has the physical talent to be a good starting QB, but I am not seeing how he was able to elevate his team to success. I know that the team's defense was quite weak, but at least according to many here, a good QB can overcome a lack of talent in other areas of the team.

Be suspicious that he was really hurt. Perhaps he didn't run at the combine because he knew he wasn't fast. He HAD to run sometime, so he did at his pro day. He may have thought that his best chance was to feign injury while doing his run. To be clear, I do think that his productivity in the SEC speaks loudly, but not doubt the lack of speed shown has to be considered to some degree. I suspect he really is that "slow", so (to me) it seems that you better be able to tell from his game tape just how he was able to be as productive as he was in the SEC without having superior speed. Then it would be important to figure out how that will project to the NFL. We are really talking about more than hundreths of a second - actually an order of magnitude more. Von Miller was very productive in college and relied on his speed - but he ran something like a 4.4 at around 230 lbs. He is only about 10 lbs smaller than Jarvis Jones and ran nearly a half a second faster. That is the difference between some WRs and some OL. Again, does that automatically mean that Jarvis Jones won't be productive in the NFL? No, but it is something that a team needs to consider and understand. It does add risk in projecting Jones to the NFL.

He is great on Saturdays with two tremendous WRs against PAC-10 defenses. I agree that he has a "good head and shoulders". However, there is at least some legitimate concern that his arm might not be good enough to thrive in the NFL. Note that I did not say that his arm might not be "elite", but if he doesn't have at least adequate arm strength, he will have limited success in the NFL. I thought Chad Pennington would have been a top-eschelon NFL QB if he had a tad bit better arm - but he didn't and he was just middle-of-the-road who his team was always trying to replace.

Fluker is interesting, but don't they already "have him" in Cordy Glenn? I could see Lane Johnson to play LT and move Glenn to RT - then I think they'd have both good run and pass blocking. I am not a fan of Tyler Bray. He didn't light it up with two outstanding WRs in college. It is hard for me to project success for him in the NFL where he'll face better competition with likely less at WR than he had at Tennessee.

Ideally, a QB is top priority, however I don't think any of the QB crop have a high enough probability of being a good NFL starter to bother with in round 1 (round 2 and the risk/reward might be favorable). OLB is the next highest priority (IMHO). I think that Dion Jordan and Barkevious Mingo are viable high-end options, but I wouldn't take Jarvis Jones in round 1. If Dee Milliner is available, then I think they should take him. He and Gilmore could be a very very good pair. I LOVE the idea of Lane Johnson at LT and moving Glenn to RT. Create a very good OL and whomever the QB is has a chance and should help the run game (which should be the emphasis of the offense). I don't think Cordarelle Patterson or Ziggy Ansah have enough of a track record to risk taking that high. I think that the safety position is in good hands with Byrd and Searcy with the possibility that Aaron Williams could be a very good safety and beat out Searcy. No ILB interests me in round 1. No TE interests me in round 1, though could *possibly* like Tyler Eifert - but they need to believe he is the next Antonio Gates/Tony Gonzales to pick him that high. I could get behind a top DT, but I think they are set at the position with Dareus, Kyle Williams, Alex Carrington and recent signee Alan Branch. A long-shot, I know, but Torrell Troup could also contribute if healthy. If they LOVE a DE like Warner, I'd be OK with it, but think we are OK there. While I really like Chance Warmack and Jonathan Cooper, I think it is too high to take a OG here. I'd rather get the T (see above) and move Chris Hairston to OG. However, if they think that Warmack or Cooper REALLY would improve the running game for Spiller and Jackson, I could support that pick No RB in round 1,2, but maybe 3 on as Freddy is getting on in years.... Just my view. Note, IF they think that any of the QBs are a good gamble to become top starters, then by all means take him (whomever they think he is). I am not one who would hate Nassib, Manuel or Wilson, but would rather take whomever is left in round 2.

I think it is his age combined with his salary expectations that is the problem. If he was willing to play for pay commensurate with his declined (or perceived declined) skill level, then he'd have a job already. Teams can't afford to pay for his past-productivity in the salary cap age.

I think the Bills are looking at him as a possible 2nd round pick. It would not surprise me if he were available then. I know the arguments about how productive he was in the SEC - and that is very important. However, 4.95 in the 40 for a 6'2" 242 lb OLB who you are going to ask to rush the passer in the 3-4 is a big red flag for early in round 1. Yes, he might be productive in the NFL in spite of his speed, but then again he might not. I think it is too big of a risk for a high round 1 pick (just my $.02 worth) and I think many teams will feel the same way. I know about Terrell Suggs, but he was nearly 2" and 20 lbs heavier. In round 2, I would think the risk/reward given his productivity, would be in favor of taking him. This is similar to a highly productive college WR running a 4.7 40. Now, I know of at least one exception in that regard (Anquan Boldin), but the majority don't pan out in the NFL.

If you follow enough drafts, this is far more common than you might expect. It isn't just the "dumb Bills" who miss on early draft picks and it isn't just the "dumb" team, either. All teams miss on early picks, just ask the Broncos how happy they are that they traded back into round 1 for TIm Tebow.

THANK YOU. You are right on. The exception does not disprove a general rule.

I do not understand the aversion to corners by some on this board. Corner is a very important position, especially in the current pass-happy NFL. I understand that it appears that they misfired on Aaron Williams, but I wouldn't give up on him yet as he might be a better player at safety. Beyond that, they have drafted Stephon Gilmore in the first recently, but not a lot of other corners high in the recent past.

What is the definition of a franchise QB? Is it someone from this draft who be given a couple years as a starter, but fail to prove himself (as it looks like Blaine Gabbert is doing)? Is it someone who is an adequate middle of the NFL starter for 5 or more years? (Think someone like Matt Hasselback in his prime) Or is it that rare QB who starts for 5+ years and you are not thinking about trying to find someone better (ex: Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers...)

Relax man, nobody is attacking you. I was simply saying that just picking a QB in round 1 is not sufficient to become a good team. There are bad teams with good QBs and as you point out, there are very few good teams that don't have good QBs. You have to pick a good QB and my only disagreement with your post is that I think you need to look critically at the QB prospects rather than "just taking a shot" on one every year until you get it right. I could even buy into that philosophy, but with later picks. First round picks are very valuable. An argument can be made that you should stretch the value argument to slant towards the QB position, but that doesn't mean that you should take a QB early if you don't think they have a good chance of becoming a good starter. By all means, if the Bills think there is a QB that is likely to be a good or better starter in the NFL, I think they should take that guy at 8.

thanks for checking in ` skies are always very gray here. What would you propose they do, if you don't like what they could have done and won't like what they will do?