FireChan
-
Posts
14,609 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by FireChan
-
-
Yeah I'm not disagreeing there and obviously my rankings are as subjective as anyone else's, but for me, those guys are better based on what they've done on the field.
I'm sick of all this talk of Luck and his potential. Yeah, he has a ton of potential... doesn't mean he's going to achieve it.
That's true, but making it to the top 10 is a feat in itself. He had high expectations, but getting a top 10 QB is always nice.
-
You reading comprehension = BAD...
When did I ever say Luck isn't good?
Wow... you got all of that outta 2 words, huh?
Too funny how much people make interpretive leaps on what other people think and feel... but I guess it's to be expected...
First of all, you made the claim, you direct me to a link... but it's a baseless claim so obviously you won't find one...
Secondly...
Where do I rank Luck?
What did that list have him at? 6?
Right now, QBs I put ahead of Luck include (in no particular order and just spitting these off the top of my head) Brees, Brady, Ryan, Wilson, Rodgers, Rivers, Big Ben, and Newton.
Those are guys who I'd have ahead of him, so I guess I'd say if Luck were around #10, that'd be more reasonable.
Too funny...
Wait, are people debating Luck vs. Taylor?
This message board is a like a bad game of Telephone... except because it's all actually typed out, you can go back and read the posts and... ya know... not post something stupid like saying that people are arguing that Taylor is better than Luck when absolutely no one is arguing that.
I think that 7-10 group is a bit jumbled up and can go a lot of different ways.
-
Are you worried that I might no longer consider you the worst troll in the history of this forum?
You would appear to have a serious challenger.
I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. Being #2 was never my style. -
When one of the most thoughtful and well-reasoned posters in the long history of this forum has finally had enough, that is the kind of thing that really gets a moderator's attention.
You might want to keep an eye out for a very interesting PM you'll be receiving in the near future.....
Kinda ruins the purpose of a Private message, doesn't it?
-
The problem is every guy you take a shot on in the 1st round creates a hole on your roster. And filling that hole next year creates another hole.
Again, what holes have we filled with picks 6-32? Shaq Lawson at DE?
The reality is that if the Bills traded all their bad 1st round picks from the last decade for the next QB taken off the board in the same draft, they would be in the same boat now because not one of those QBs would have been a success (you MIGHT have a case with Flacco but I really doubt he wins a Super Bowl here with this coaching staff and roster at the time). Whereas if they traded all their bad 1st round picks for other players at other positions they would almost surely be better off now than they are.
This is two fallacies meshed together. There is zero reason to suspect that the Bills highest ranked QB when they were picking was the QB taken next. I cannot stress that enough. For all we know, Teddy and Carr were their #1 and #2 QB's in 2014. We just don't know. To say that they would make the same pick that another NFL team did is a speculative argument at best.
And then the second part. You say you the Bills should recognize they are not smarter than other teams, and that they couldn't have known what QB's were gonna be good, but they should know what other first round prospects are gonna be good? If this team had drafted Ngata and Orakpo instead of Whitner and Maybin, we still would not have had a franchise QB. Ergo, we still would not have found consistent success.
The problem with Bills drafting past isn't that they haven't taken enough QBs in the 1st round - when would a 1st round QB have saved our team at our draft positions? - it's that they have drafted poorly. The solution isn't to switch over to a strategy that haven't remotely worked out since 2008, it's to draft better players in the 1st round.
Again, this is the exact thing you argued against in regards to QB's. I could easily say, "just take better QB's." Same argument.
You ignored my list of QBs taken in that range because there isn't really a good rebuttal to it. QBs taken outside of the top 2 in the 1st round are traditionally bad. Since 2008 the ceiling of that range is Ryan Tannehill. If I'm taking a QB at 10 he has to be better than Tannehill, that's pretty much the floor of legit starting QBs. The only rebuttal you could have is that just because it hasn't worked out in a while doesn't mean it won't this time. Which is true. But there's something to this. There's something about QBs that have enough flaws to scare away the early teams, but also have some wow factor that convinces other teams to overlook the flaws. If a good CB falls to you in the draft it's not necessarily because teams above you didn't like him, it may be that there were just better CBs taken earlier. Not so with QBs most of the time. Anyone that slides to 10, like Manuel slid to 16, has some kind of major flaw unlikely to be corrected. This is shown in the data too.
I didn't ignore your list of QB's, I just believe it to be flawed for the reasons above. As much as you try to make Carr seem like Dak (he wasn't,,Carr was some folks' #2 QB that year), he was a borderline first round prospect. No one would have been surprised for him to go #30 overall. So to arbitrarily cut off the picks there is silly. As well as your "flaws" argument. Does anyone care that Carr had flaws coming out? Does anyone care about Dak? A guy either fixes them or he doesn't. Manuel is the perfect example about how taking a shot on a QB cost us virtually nothing. It cost us a first rounder in arguably the worst draft class of all time. It was irrelevant to the grand scheme of the franchise. The Manuel pick was about getting a guy who you think has or can acquire all the tools to be your 15+ year starter and I would never begrudge a GM for taking a shot on a guy like that when they don't have one.
All prospects fall because some other teams like other prospects more. Not sure what your point is there.
The Raiders would have been just as successful taking Carr in the 1st round, but the Cowboys would have been successful taking Prescott in the 1st round too. Hindsight like that isn't a reason to start taking any QB you like in the 1st round. The failure of drafting a bad QB in round 1 is twofold - you miss out on your QB, AND you miss out on a 1st round caliber player.
For the last time, Carr =/= Dak. Dak was a Brady-esque shot in the dark. Carr was a borderline first rounder QB that the Raiders got lucky to acquire. That's not hindsight, that's what happened.
If you're afraid of taking a QB because he might fail, you've already lost. And as for the "missing out on first round caliber players" the Bills again have taken one QB in the first since 2007 and they have 1 first round player drafted 6-32 on the roster in Shaq Lawson. So who have really missed out on by taking QB's?
-
Just remember guys fc would have Manziel top five on that list. Shows you his qb opinion Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well that's just not true. He's not in my top 100.
-
If you take this logic far enough you'll have 4th round QBs taken #1 overall. IMO part of being a smart GM is recognizing that you're not smarter than everyone else. There is an element of luck with the draft, and with QB it's far less than a 50/50 proposition. A real GENIUS would have taken Carr at 1, Wilson at 2, Prescott would be a top 5 pick at least. Since no one sees these prospects coming, it makes no sense to me that you would spend your QB lottery ticket in the 1st round since that's when your other lottery tickets are much more likely to cash in. If there's a QB worth the 10th pick that QB is also worth the 1st overall pick which means you'll have to trade up or already have it.
We don't have to be merely hypothetical about this. How many QBs taken in the 6-32 range end up working out? In reverse order: Paxton Lynch, Johnny Manziel, Teddy Bridgewater, EJ Manuel, Ryan Tannehill, Brandon Weeden, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder... Please make it stop. In 08 you have Flacco and of course 05 you have Rodgers. That's the success rate of the last 11 drafts.
But you're gonna try and tell me the Bills will be making some huge mistake by choosing to not add another name to this list? Come on. You're not smarter than everyone else. It takes a smart person to accept that.
I 100% agree with this statement but my conclusion is wildly different.
If the draft is a crapshoot, and usually only 1 QB per draft on average becomes a franchise tier guy, you absolutely need to take shots on guys you believe in. Derek Carr would've been successful taken a round earlier. So would've Dak. And Wilson.
If finding a franchise guy is dumb luck, then you need to buy some lotto tickets. And as much as folks bag on 1st round QB's who bust, let's look at Bills first rounders in the last 11 drafts who are on the roster in the 6-32 range. Shaq Lawson. That's it.
You need to take shots on QB's. Oakland didn't turn their franchise around because of Khalil Mack. They did it with Derek Carr. Luckily for them, they ended up with both. But I contend that if we reached on Carr at #8 in 2014, we would be the ones who made the postseason last year, not them. And while I understand your take of "then all QB's would be taken higher" taking an early second late first QB prospect in the top 10 ain't that crazy. It just really isn't.
-
Ridiculous!! If that trade happened they'd build a statue of Doug Whaley. Maybe they will throw in Kam Chancellor if we include Blake Annen?
Kujo and a 2nd.
-
I am 100% comfortable with my post stating "Unless you are in the armed forces and deployed overseas, you sound like a terrible father and husband. Probably a good employee though." What is ignorant about saying that parents shouldn't miss their kid's birthday unless they need to? Clearly you had no choice but to miss their birthdays. I would think that you of all people would appreciate the value of being there for your family, and would side with the guy who skipped a voluntary stretching workout to be with his family over something as inconsequential as football. Thanks for your service, regardless.
And for the record, if I disagree with Badol, Firechan and Billsvet, it tends to mean I am right.
Laugh out loud funny that you ended up with egg on your face.
-
QB can go very quick too. Peyton went from NFL record TD rates to NFL record INT rates in like a year and a half!
Yep, it's certainly well-documented.
Manning was really basically overnight. First 7 games in 2014 he threw 22 TD's to just 3 picks. Last 8? 17 TD's, 12 INT's.
-
I have always thought it was funny that you, who once accused Shady of only playing hard on nationally televised games, thinks his big personality would stoop to working in radio. If he goes the media route, which I agree is likely, it will be in front of a camera.
But it won't be before he turns 30.
BADOL just needs to stop doubling down. Shady played great last year. Yes, RB's hit walls suddenly moreso than any other position. Yes, RB's can go from great to out of the league in a blink of an eye. Yes, there's a decent chance that happens to Shady in the next 2 years. But why keep pushing it?
-
Taylor at #21... sounds right.
NFL starter, but not a top tier guy.
They do?
Link?
Luck is the most overrated QB in the NFL today. It's ridiculous the slack that guy has been given after having been touted "the greatest prospect since Peyton Manning."
No, I'm not saying Luck is a bad QB, I'm saying he's not a great QB, and certainly not an Elite QB. He might be one some day and he'll be given countless opportunities because of where he was drafted in the same way Sam Bradford has been given countless opportunities, but Andrew Luck is really just an above average NFL QB based on what he's done in the NFL.
I can't wait for the responses to that one...
Yeah, Matt Cassel's 1 snap against Indy in 2015 really blew those Colts out of the water!
Where do you rank Luck?
Also, they don't? Link?
-
Would depend on the full circumstances, kind of like terrorists not falling under Geneva convention. Is there a war with Syria?
Well I took Greggy's words at face value, so I was assuming those were the circumstances.
-
I fundamentally disagree with this but I'm guessing it's one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree on. I understand the mindset, but to me drafting any player in the 1st round that is off the team within 4 years is a horrible pick. Indefensible. Not an immediately fireable offense, and there's more leeway with QBs than any other position, but you just threw that pick away. Imagine if the Raiders had taken their favorite QB instead of Khalil Mack (maybe Manziel, or Blake Bortles in an alternate universe) and then passed on Derek Carr at the top of round 2. Forcing a pick isn't worth it. I say always select BPA in round 1. If you're that sure about a QB you should do everything you can to trade up. If you're not sure enough that you're willing to let another team draft them first, then you were never that sure to begin with and you might as well take a blue-chip prospect. Round 2 and onwards I have no qualms with overdrafting a QB. There's just too much value with top 10 picks for me to throw it away on a prayer. The Bills not only didn't trade up, they traded DOWN before selecting EJ. No confidence at all. I mean it's still better than staying put and drafting him but it was an utterly bizarre move that reeked of dysfunction and lack of direction.
No but they've said we should use a 1st round pick on one at all costs, even though the 1st round (especially at #10) is when blue chip players are available. The Jaguars missed out on an amazing 1st round draft class when they selected Blaine Gabbert in 2011. I mean who was the last QB taken later than #1 or #2 that ended up succeeding? Lately, more success has been found in the 2nd (Carr), 3rd (Wilson) and 4th (Prescott, Cousins). I think the Bills would be much much smarter to identify a QB they like in round 2 or later and grab a blue-chip player at #10, rather than losing out because they took a project QB with major development concerns (see: Manuel, EJ).
The flip side is imagine if the Raiders took Khalil Mack and Carr was gone by their next pick.
-
None.
There's zero evidence of infighting among the intelligence services, but there's plenty of evidence of blowback against Obama loyalists.
And getting back to Syria, yes I applaud the US military for blowing scum to smithereens. Obviously that means that I support the coming military state.
Please wake me when it arrives when you get back from the coronation.
Do you deny killing Syrians under the terms of a cease fire is a war crime?
-
The entire media is out to literally get Republicans, right?
No. You and I both know no one said that.
-
Sure, it's about me, lol. You guys always make it personal when your political points are indefensible. I'm still right, though.
You mean we're proven guilty? Is that what you mean? But I guess since the whole world is against Republicans, they never get a fair deal. They are really discriminated against. Sad
This is just shoddy work, even for you.
-
is he a great fit? i dont know much about defensive schemes, but i thought sherman's specialty was playing on an island / man, while mcd mostly runs zone
Safety help and cover 3. He'd be a much better fit than Gilmore.
If Darby returned to form, Hyde/Sherman/Darby/S would go from a mediocre group to very solid.
-
I said its SOUNDS LIKE. Maybe he’s deployed in the middle east. Maybe he volunteers for Drs. Without Borders. But he’s bragging about missing his kid’s and wife’s bday on a message board, absent any of the bolded, and absence that detail, he sounds like a bad husband/father.
Maybe he is.
Why would you call out somebody before you know? If he said, "actually, I spent the entirety of last year repairing cleft palates in Africa for free," you'd look like a total !@#$. And you'd have to apologize. But hey, keep on keeping on. If we were judging folks on what their posts "sound like," I'd say you sound like an ass.
-
That's not guaranteed in the scenario I gave. NE* missed the playoffs at 11-5 a few years back. Regardless, I get the feeling you'd change your tune after 2 or so 1 and done years. Then instead of I'd love to make the playoffs it would be I'd love to win a playoff game. My standards are probably too high, especially considering the team I root for, but if my team hasn't won a playoff game in 26 years I do not consider them successful.
There are degrees of success. You can't win a Superbowl or playoff game without first making the playoffs.
If you ask me if I'd be content with a playoff loss every year, the answer would be no. But make no mistake, I'd take the 99.9% chance of losing in the playoffs every year over never making it. Some teams win on just dumb luck or get streaky or what have you. But you can never, ever, ever get hot/lucky in the playoffs if you're golfing.
-
Distraction and confusion. That's the name of the game when it comes to fighting an information war... which we are most definitely witnessing right now.
Is the media being played or in on it?
I can say that truthfully, I've never been more inclined to believe in so called "conspiracy theories" more than right now. This seems to be the most tumultuous Presidency in my lifetime, and it's been 3 months.
-
What more context do you need? I'm as entitled you my opinion about his post are you are about your TT crusade.
You called him a terrible father and husband. You don't know the first thing about him. You honestly come off like a much worse person here.
It's really telling how quick you are to personally attack somebody. I'd just bow out if I was you.
-
I'm not even sure what's going on anymore.
-
Why not?
Because you have no context or knowledge of the situation. That generally leads to making yourself look like an ass. Exhibit A: your last handful of posts in this topic.
Tyrod Taylor's Highlights
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted