jrober38

I don't like the Ridley bet. I think he goes later than expected. His test scores were terrible and I think Moore and Sutton offer more upside which is generally what teams target from 1st round wide receivers.

Brett Favre is literally the only guy from the past 28 years who applies. Now think of how many college QBs there have been over that time with a completion percentage of 56% in their final year who didn't make it. We're talking about dozens, possibly hundreds of QBs with that type of completion percentage who didn't make it in the NFL.

This is pure speculation. It doesn't happen all the time, but backup QBs with limited reps are fully capable of becoming quality NFL QBs. If the Bills had picks 1 and 4, I'd want us to pick two QBs and let them all compete. The cream will rise to the top. It always does in the NFL.

Right. But it dramatically increases your odds. "Do you not remember how the Giants beat the Pats (twice)? Remember the Broncos a couple of years ago? They won a Super Bowl with elite pass rush and terrible QB play." What am I missing here? You said they won with "elite pass rush" and "terrible QB play".

Eli Manning as a "terrible" QB the years they won seems like a serious stretch. Exactly. And I'd rather have two tickets with those odds and guarantee myself the outcome than one.

What exactly are you basing this off? It's never been done. How can anyone be convinced it won't work when there's zero precedent for it. Dude, first round picks are a lottery ticket too. The guy they pick #1 overall probably isn't going to work out. I don't see any harm in doubling down as a franchise who hasn't had a competent QB in over 25 years. If I'm flipping a coin, and I absolutely have to flip a "heads", I'd want 2 flips of the coin instead of 1.

You're moving the goal posts. You said there wouldn't be enough reps. That's obviously not true or else no QBs would get picked as developmental guys at the end of the draft. If lack or reps was a real thing, and you can't develop without reps, then picking QBs after the first couple rounds seems like a colossal waste. Jimmy Garoppolo is about to disagree with you.

If there aren't enough reps, why do any NFL teams draft developmental 3rd string QBs?

Why on earth would that happen? They don't think they can win the job?

The numbers say that it's really hard to "get it right". Having two really good pass rushers means nothing if they don't have a QB. They need to walk away with this draft with a franchise QB to build around for the next 10 years. Picking two elite QB prospects all but guarantees that happens.

Exactly. They might not wind up with an elite QB, but their odds would be better of having one really good guy if they pick two of them. If both work out, trade him for a king's ransom in 2 years.

If they're smart that's what they should do. Would double their chance of finding "the guy" and they still have plenty of other picks to improve the team with.

It's really hard to find a QB. The odds of making a bad decision are increased if you don't pick guys like Josh Allen in round 1.

We can make educated guesses. As the video lays out, there are no successful QBs in the NFL right now who finished college with a 56% completion rate their final season.

Please let this be true.

Bills fans get enamoured with the backup QB every year. Ryan Fitzpatrick, Brian Brohm, Jeff Tuel, Nathan Peterman, and now AJ McCarron. It's the same thing every year with a guy who supposedly "didn't get a chance" who is somehow going to get that chance and take it with us. Good thing it looks like we're going to draft someone in the 1st round with real pedigree this year and we don't have to talk about journeyman backups any longer.

I heard a great analogy where an analyst compared him to an NBA prospect when they came straight out of high school. It's purely a projection based off his athletic ability, and the odds are overwhelmingly that he won't work out, but in 3-4 years if everything goes right in his development you might have a total stud on your hands. He said in the NBA, that type of risk made sense because elite players are so valuable because they're on the court 80% of the time. He said in the NFL, where there are so many players on the roster and QBs are such a risk to begin with that he didn't think it made sense for him to be such a high pick.

The guy is all hype and no substance. He has no business being a top 5 pick. He's too raw and represents way too much risk.

I'm not giving a big, slow WR with multiple knee injuries a long term contract with any guaranteed money.

Locker wasn't turning the corner though. His final year he was 58% completions, 6.8 YPA and a QB Rating of 70 which by modern NFL standards his horrendous. I guess Cutler makes some sense. I don't think he ever had the accuracy problems Allen has. Cutler played on the worst team in the SEC against top defenses every year. Allen played in the Mountain West against horrible competition. I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. One guy played with bad players against bad players. The other played with bad players against the best players in college football.

I don't get how anyone can take a 2-3 year project, who is only going to be given 1 year to sit and learn, with a top 10 pick. Josh Allen isn't going to get enough time to sit and learn, and he's going to get a whole front office and coaching staff fired. Hopefully it's not ours. I like Beane and McDermott.

The worst case scenario would be trading up to #2 overall to pick Josh Allen.

I think he's Jake Locker/Kyle Boller with less mobility.

This isn't true. Josh Allen's floor is as low as EJ Manuel's.

It's never happened. With most "big boards" have 2, maybe 3 QBs in their top 30 or even 50 players, the idea that 6 QBs are going to go in the first 32 picks seems far fetched. The second tier QBs aren't as good as people think. I think the QBs are generally going to go later than expected.