OldTimer1960

+1

I believe that there traits that are more important than others, yet are more difficult to judge than others. I do not claim to be a pro scout, I often even say so in my posts. I think that the question I have with Smith is why wasn't he able to elevate his team more this year? He (based on what I am reading and saw in, admittedly limited, viewing) didn't show great leadership and ability to "right the ship" when things started going badly for his team. FWIW, I like that Smith is smart, well spoken and a hard worker by all accounts I've seen. I just hear too many questions to think that he is a better selection than one of the higher rated players at other positions that will be available to the Bills at the 8th pick.

Huh? Locker and Ponder are open to debate still, but I think it is pretty clear that Tebow, Clausen and Sanchez were not worth the early picks spent on them. I don't see how these mistakes suggest that it is a good idea to draft Geno Smith early. Just because some folks pay over market value for some assets, does not mean that it is a good investment.

This is NOT a compelling argument to draft Smith. To argue that Smith would have been drafted ahead of Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, Tebow, Clausen and Sanchez is ZERO reason to take Smith with the 8th pick in this draft. Would ANY of those players make the Bills a playoff contender? I don't think it is a stretch to say no. Now, if you want to argue that Geno Smith will, almost by himself, make this team a playoff contender, then there is a case to be made to pick Geno Smith with the 8th pick.

Except that he would be playing against much better opposition than he faced at Syracuse.

I am not sure that I understand. Are you saying that the "hit" or "miss" rate wasn't a factor in determining which teams were good and which teams were consistently bad? It seems to me, that it would be a huge factor. Further, in addition to the luck of who is available when you are picking high, I wonder if some of the discrepancies with regard to positions selected are related to the evolution of the game. As the passing game becomes more important, DBs, DEs and rush LBs would logically seem to become more important. It may be that the "old guard" talent evaluators were slow to realize this and failed to adjust as quickly as the rest of the league. Also, I suspect that what position is drafted early depends on just how bad a team is. For example, the most basic and safe offense is a running game. If a team's defense is so awful against the run that opponents can generally win with a basic/safe run, run, run offense, then that (bad) team has little choice but to try to bolster their run D (eg by drafting run stopping DL or LBs). It isn't until that team can at least put up some resistance against the opponents' run game that pass rush and DBs really enter the equation.

The profile of LBs is changing as the game becomes more and more pass happy. While Scott is smaller than the run-stopping LBs of a few years ago, he is a pretty good fit in a league where teams pass a lot more than they used to.

Very interesting analysis. I do wonder how the available talent to teams picking in the top of the draft affects their selections (should be obvious). I would suggest that some of the differences between dumbass and average/SB teams is the luck of the draw of who was available when they were picking early. While I am not prepared to prove it statistically, I am fairly certain that not all drafts are created equal - indeed, I believe that drafts vary by a lot in terms of the quality/quantity of the top talent and what positions they play. I'd bet that some of the "dumbass" teams are victims of circumstances and some of the SB teams were lucky recipients of drafting high when a slam-dunk obvious pick at an important position was available.

I'm with you. If the Bills don't like any of the QBs in this draft as much as they like Daniels and Daniels comes cheap, then no harm in seeing what he's got. I know some want a QB in the draft because "anyone has to be better than Fitz", but to me that isn't sufficient reason to cut Fitz and spend a high pick on one of those guys. The Bills must think a rookie in the 1st or 2nd has a significant chance of being a good starter in order to justify expending such a high pick. With the 8th pick, the Bills should be able to get a very good starter at some position. In round 2, you hope to get a good long-term starter at some position. No justification for selecting a QB with either pick if they don't think he'll be a good enough starter to get them into playoff contention no matter how frustrated folks are with Fitz. It might just be that there are no good QB alternatives this year. I leave that to the pro scouts to figure out.

I know that this is obvious, but it depends on how much better the OL prospect is than the prospects available at positions of need. I certainly agree that LB, WR and QB are greater needs. However, if the Bills' scout don't think there is a good starting QB (this year or in the future) available and they don't like the WRs/LBs (and the top LBs have lots of questions Jones: neck health, Ogletree: off field issues, Dion Jordan: size/strength, Moore: big questions about strength...), then I can't fault them for strengthening a position of lesser need.

I think it is possible that the few sacks allowed were more of a function of the very short passing game and Fitz getting rid of the ball very quickly than it was an indication that the Bills' OL was that great at pass blocking. While I am not arguing that the Bills' OL was awful, I am suggesting that they knew that they had limited talent at RT and perhaps RG and they masked it with quick passes. For at least a suggestion of evidence for this theory, I point to the number of starters that missed games due to injury (including RT, RG, C) and the continued "success" pass blocking. The fact that Fitz has limitations regarding medium and deep throws also played into the quick passing attack. However, IMHO, if the Bills were to get a QB with a stronger arm/better mid-deep accuracy, the OL might get exposed when trying to pass block for longer. I'd be all on-board for a very good OT, especially if Levitre leaves in free agency. Lots of things to consider when projecting FA and draft, but I could definitely see a case for a top OT in the draft....

If they opt not to resign Levitre, I would hope that the reason would be to use the money that would have been spent on Levitre on a FA (or more) for other positions. I wouldn't like to think that they just wouldn't spend that money at all.

$3M or $7M this year, either way it isn't in the upper tier of QB pay by a long-shot. I think that many here are over-board in their criticism of the "HUGE" contract that the Bills signed Fitz to. Fitz' contract places him on the lower end of pay for starting QBs - about commensurate with his production. Now, if one wants to quibble that he is still over-paid, I wouldn't argue, but the Bills had a strategy to build the rest of the team (with focus on D) and "live' with Fitz until a better option could be had. Of course, the D hasn't played to the level expected, but I do think that there is a good level of talent there to be harvested by better coaching. While Levitre is a very good player, he is going to command $8+M per year on the open market. You can't just shell out that kind of jack without considering what else you could buy for a similar of just a bit higher price. What if they could get 2 decent starting LBs for that same price? What if they could get a very good starting RT for 25% more? Would either of those options be better than re-signing Levitre? To be clear, I think Levitre has done everything that they've asked at a high level. He deserves to make a very good buck in FA. Whether he is the Bills' best option this year is open for debate.

My belief is that there is not a high-probability-of-success QB in this draft, so I could be aligned with this sort of plan. I *might* consider Matt Barkley at #8 in round one, but I see that as a gamble. I am not at all sold on Geno Smith. I suspect that one of the following will be available when the Bills pick in round 2: Ryan Nassib, EJ Manuel, Tyler Wilson. IMHO, each is worthy of consideration there. I am not sure if I'd prefer Matt Moore to one of those, but I suppose that they could sign Moore and still pick one of those 3. Regarding a trade down, it usually is worth considering. However, if they have convinced themselves that they don't need to "reach" for a QB in round 1, they should be able to get a very good player at another position with the 8th pick.

Brandon Myers - or any other FA TE or any other TE in this year's draft? Myers hasn't proven a lot except that he can catch a pretty good number of passes in a year on a bad team that was frequently coming from behind and had fast, but not very good, WRs. I wouldn't be opposed to signing Myers, but not for a ton of money. It could be argued that he is an "ascending" player, but I would not bet the farm on his one good year.

Stop. Do you really expect them to announce their plans to the press before they have come to fruition? If they did that, there would be a LOT of folks on here complaining that they were country-bumpkins who couldn't "play the game". Just because they told some reporters that they were still evaluating their plans, doesn't mean that they don't have a good idea what they want to do. Further, it is no surprise that Fitz and his agent have not exactly played along with what the Bills might have proposed. Before someone queues "They way over-paid Fitz -those morons", they had some indications that they had an adequate starting QB and opted to pay him middling money to lock him up so that they could focus on building talent in other areas (primarily defense). While the defense didn't perform well as a whole, I think it would be difficult to argue that there isn't MUCH better talent on D than there was 3 years ago. For those who say Fitz is WAY over-paid: I would argue that he is a bottom-third of the league starting QB. I suspect that his salary is commensurate. What is Joe Flacco making now? Something like $20M per season in comparison with Fitz' $7M?

Man, that is a tough criteria to judge one of 53 players on. 3 sacks in one game is impressive. Was it his fault that the offense was completely inept that day? Football is a "system" game and a team is only as good as the whole system (all the players together). To single out Mario Williams' impressive game and say it "wasn't good enough" because the rest of the team couldn't play up to his standard that day is questionable. I don't understand the mentality that is prevalent here that wants to say that all of the players are horrible and that it is as simple as "wins and losses". We all know that the bottom line is wins and losses, but that doesn't mean that all of the players are horrible or had horrible days when the team loses. To some extent, I get the frustration that the Bills paid WIlliams a huge sum of money to come in and help turn the team around, so expectations were high. However, to truly expect one player to turn an entire team around - no matter how much he is paid - is really questionable. I agree that WIlliams disappointed early in the year, but after he had his wrist surgery, he played quite well (IMHO). NFL football is a very violent and physical game. Injuries can and do affect players performances. Only Kelvin Sheppard was drafted as high as the 3rd round. Bradham (4th), Carder (5th?), White (6th), Moats (5th?) and Battan (6th) were all long-shots to contribute much. If you don't believe me, go back 2-3 years and look at the players drafted by most teams in the 4th round on. I know that if you look at all 32 picks in each of those rounds, you might find a good starter, but on-balance, most 4th round picks on are lucky to stick around 3-4 years in the league.

That was an excellent article. It is very difficult to determine who has the right intangibles plus at least enough physical talent, but it is so important. As the article says: many of the top QBs aren't the ones with the strongest arms, best height/weight, fastest, etc. It is the guys that have the drive, leadership, quick decision making, ability to decipher defenses AND yet have enough physical skills to thrive. Who are those guys in this draft class? Barkley?, Nassib?, Wilson????

The multi-million dollar question is whether any of the QBs in the draft are better than backups or low-end starters. If not, then spending the 8th pick on one of them is too rich. I agree that Ryan Fitzpatrick is not good enough to lead the Bills deep into the playoffs, even with a very good supporting cast. I just don't know if any of the QBs in the draft are so significantly better that they are worth a high pick.

Agree and disagree. I agree with your point about matching skills with team - it is very important. However, I think the issue with this year's crop of QBs is that they are considered lacking in one or more areas necessary for success in the NFL. Now, I am not saying that a player can't be good at the NFL level with some limitations, but the more limitations a QB has, the more constrained the offense and lower probability of success. (The following are based on what I have read and seen, not statements of fact since I am not a scout and even professional scouts are not perfect): Geno Smith - is actually pretty undersized for a QB at 208 pounds and has quite small hands. Concerns exist around how forceful a leader he is and his ability to rally his team when down. Tyler Wilson - Shorter than ideal, not particularly stoutly build, either at 210ish pounds. Ryan Nassib - Shorter than ideal, not very mobile/fast, debates about his arm strength (but it looks solid to me). Matt Barkley - Shorter than ideal, not strongly built, shoulder injury concerns, questions about his arm strength. EJ Manuel - Best set of physical characteristics, but questions about his throwing motion and consistency. I haven't touched on difficult to evaluate skills such as reading defenses, making quick decisions/knowing where to go with the ball, performing under pass rush pressure etc. Were it not for questions about Barkley's arm strength, I think he'd be a very good prospect. (I know, I know USC QBs "suck"... To that I ask: tell me what other great QB has come out of Pitt since Dan Marino in 83? How about all of the "great" Miami QBs after Jim Kelly?) Will one or more of the above become good starting QBs in the NFL? I don't know, but I think the questions that come with each are enough to make me question taking one of them early in round 1. If I had to bet, based on what I've read and my biases about what makes a good QB, I'd say the best prospects are (about the same level): Barkley, Nassib and Wilson.

Oh, that is classic Monty Python, my friend!

I don't remember Kelly dropping to late in round 1. Matt Flynn and Kirk Cousins are not answers as good starting QBs (or it seems unlikely to me that they are)

This vague "analytics" is far more than comparing stat line summaries. A couple of differences between Newton and Smith: 1. Newton took his team to the National Championship in his one and only year in D1 (not counting his freshman year when he lost out to Tebow at Fla) Smith faded after a hot start and his team lost 5 games in a row (or close to that) and they lost to an unspectacular SU team in their bowl game 2. Newton is considerably bigger/stronger than Smith 3. Newton has a bigger "presence" 4. Smith supposedly has the edge in dedication/work habits 5. Smith does not come with the off-field baggage that Newton did.

It also may be that there are no very good QB prospects. There is also very definitely a gray area. No question that the Bills need to get a much better QB In order to be a contender, but it isn't very clear to me which, if any, of the available prospects are good enough to get the Bills into true contention. I'll admit that it might not be difficult to find someone that is a bit better than the Bills' current QB, but they need a major upgrade - especially if it is going to cost their 1st or 2nd pick (less concerned with gambling the 2nd)

To an extent, you are right. However, do recognize that there ARE evaluations that teams do of QBs and some of the "clowns" in the media were in the league and did that for a living - so they have some credibility. I definitely agree that if a team in need of a QB thinks a particular player has a good probability of being a good starting NFLQB, then they should take him with their 1st pick, no question. However, I think what we have this year is a bunch of QBs who are judged to have only a moderate chance of becoming a good starter in the league. Then the question becomes how much are you willing to bet that one of these guys will pan out? Maybe the 8th overall pick is too much to bet - depends on the professional scout's judgement of the probability of success.