FireChan

The government had zero to do with the, but keep doing you, you shining star.

Perhaps I fail to see the "subtle threat" in this case.

He got 46%. Not even close? C'mon bro.

That's nothing new. When I was in school, even if you could do the math in your head, you had to show your work to actually get the grade. Now granted, that actually had some merit, but if you were a kid who didn't need to write out 10 steps because you could do 4 at a time in your head, it was annoying.

Explain.

It could be as simple as the owners telling him what to say.

Whaley said that they had no plans to trade SJ13. Days before he traded SJ13.

Something negative? He compared him to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor working for a New York magazine. FOS doesn't protect you from employers.

Do the right thing Dougie McDermott.

1.

Leodis, Byrd and Mario. Let's get the band back together.

Nice.

I say yes without knowing because Bandit says so.

good.

That's why you take another one, like I've said at least a thousand times. There is literally zero reason to not take a QB high the year after taking one high if you're not sure he's the guy. I don't care what "most teams do." Most teams are run by morons. QB matters more than any position in sports, you don't need a top 10 pick at safety to have a good defense. Your argument would imply that Jimmy Clausen costs the Panthers 3 years because they drafted Cam the year after even though he was clearly the truth. It's nonsense. You continue to spout drivel.

This argument makes no sense, no matter how many times you repoeat it. 2. There is no rule saying a QB requires 2-3 years. EJ didn't get 2 years. Clausen only got 1. 3. Once you draft a new QB, you reset the timer. Furthermore, your argument would say that having TT as our starter in 2015 and 2016 were 2 wasted years because we missed on EJ. I know you don't believe that. The EJ-TT timeline blows this nonsense out of the water. EJ got less than 2 years. TT got 2 years to see if he's the guy. That's 4 years at most, not 5. Furthermore, if the QB you find after a bust is "the guy" then his development years weren't a waste. Not to mention, I'm not sure what you're arguing we're wasting or setting back. Are we setting our Super Bowl window back 5 years even though we haven't made the postseason in 17 years? Yes, Alpha, you've stumbled on the fundamental truth that if you draft a QB and he turns out to suck, you have to draft another one. That's hardly groundbreaking. We all know. That doesn't mean don't take them.

All 32 teams are successful?

CC: Panthers and Colts, two horrible no good losing franchises.

That's true, but I still contend trading up to get a Mariota/Winston is next to impossible, whereas prospects like Goff/Wentz is a different story.

That would've been best case scenario, in hindsight.

Of course there is, I've never argued otherwise. In fact, that's my argument. My strategy gets EJ, yours gets Wentz? I mean, if you want to cherry pick, sure. But I could easily say my strategy gets Dak/Cousins, yours get Goff or RG3. You proposed "trading up for a guy they loved" which I already demonstrated does not happen for the Bills. Apparently Hack has developed quite a bit, so I'm reserving judgement on the Jets. Your argument that it hasn't worked yet holds little water when our strategy hasn't worked either. You don't have to spend "all" your assets taking QB's, just 1 per draft. Preferably in the first. Here's the list of starting QBs in the NFL: Palmer Ryan Flacco TT Cam Cutler Dalton Kessler/RG3 Dak Siemian Stafford Rodgers Osweiler Luck Bortles Smith Goff Tannehill Teddy/Bradford Brady Brees Manning Fitz/Geno Carr Wentz Big Ben Rivers Kaep Wilson Winston Mariota Cousins How many of those guys were targeted as guys that were "loved" and traded up to picks #1 or #2 for? Goff, Wentz, RG3. How many of those guys were targeted as guys that were "loved" with original picks #1 or #2? Mariota, Winston, Ryan, Stafford, Eli, Smith, Palmer, Cam, Luck, Bradford Please do not insult my intelligence by pretending it's easy as trading up to get a guy slated to be #1 or #2 overall. It's happened 3 times in recent memory, and they are arguably the 3 worst starting QB's today to go #1 or #2. I doubt that's a coincidence. And for the final piece of the puzzle, how many of those guys were "liked" but not loved and had shots taken on them? Brees, Carr, Cousins, Wilson, Big Ben, Geno, Fitz, Kaep, Teddy, Osweiler, Rodgers, Simeian, Dak, Flacco, Brady, Rivers, TT, Tanny. Some of them taken in the first round and decently high. Some not. Carr, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, Cousins, Ben, Teddy, Dak, Flacco are all guys that their respective teams did not love when they were drafted. And yet they have 6 Super Bowls between them. They were all taken by GMs who were taking shots at the most important position in the NFL. And it worked out for them. Sometimes it does not. Hell, a huge chunk of those QB's on that list suck. But you have to try, even if you don't immediately think the player is a surefire #1 overall caliber guy. Finally, you skipped my question that gets to the root of the issue. Why have the Bills not drafted a good QB? Do they suck at identifying them? Should they have realized what Dak and Carr would've been? How can you ask that when nobody would've expected that? Do we need to have the best QB evaluating team in the league to get one?

You're making the argument ridiculous. You don't take a guy you think will suck, but taking chances on guys is the only way to find one. You think it's as easy as "Trubisky is absolutely the guy and he's worth a king's ransom to get." It's not. That's not how Carr was found. Or Cousins. Or Dak. Dak easily could've been the next Geno, or EJ or whatever bust you want to name. But they took a risky QB they kinda liked (not loved, because you don't wait til the 4th to a QB you "love" as a franchise guy). It's just that simple. Waiting for a prospect you "love" to fall in your lap on draft day at the exact value you want him at is how you end up only taking 2 QB's in 5 years and only 1 in the first and no viable QBs on the horizon. If the Bills brass is warm on Watson and he's there at 10, I'd argue, hard, to take him. You'd say, "eh the Bills don't really have a #10 first round value on him, they should pass." That's how you end up with nobody. Say what you want about the Jets but are they are they a better team in the short term with Jone and Bell and whatever? Of course they are. They have a guy with foresight calling the shots and he's saying, "we aren't gonna get a #1 overall guy who is a sure fire prospect we love at QB, let's take some guys we like and see if they work out." Hackenburg vs a Ragland results in exactly no difference for us and them in 2016, except Hack has/had a shot to be a franchise QB. Ragland had a shot to be a rotational LB but his knee exploded and he was nothing. You can't sit there and tout that the draft is kind of a crap shoot and then turn around and say don't take shots on young QB prospects unless you love them. It's insanity. My argument is simply thus. Why do the Bills not have a good QB on the roster? Do they suck at identifying them? Should they have realized what Dak and Carr would've been? How can you ask that when nobody would've expected that? Do we need to have the best QB evaluating team in the league to get one? Or, maybe, do they struggle with taking enough shots?

Doesn't matter. Bell, Crowder and Jones aren't carrying that team to a SB. "Identify a guy" is an excuse to not take one. Dak wasn't taken because Dallas thought he was the guy. Neither was Cardale. Or Cousins. Or Carr.

Here's a tip. If you don't want someone to tell you to "!@#$ off" maybe actually do your job and represent them.

For the point I made, no. But it is pretty. I didn't make the chart, btw. They'll stumble upon a guy sooner or later by chance. We have a worse chance, because we don't take them. It's really simple.