Shaw66

I guess. My post was pretty innocuous I thought.

What's wrong with my posts?

Right. It's the talent of the leader and the character of the men.

I think it's much a more about coaching than players. The example I always give about two generals with armies of 100,000 soldiers. I don't care at all which general has the best soldier, or the ten best soldiers, or even the 100 best soldiers. I want the best general. Why is it that when Cordy Glen goes down, Dawkins steps in and does fine? Two reasons: (1), the difference in talent is miniscule. They're both big, strong guys in their physical primes. Compared to all of the men in the world their age, they are in the top one tenth of one percent and size and physical ability, and the difference between them isn't great. (2) They aren't asked to do things they can't. They're just asked to execute physical maneuvers efficiently and consistently. When you have good athletes, they all can do that IF they're taught properly and they haev the work ethic to become excellent at executing things that aren't beyond their abilities. Do you want the BEST offensive tackle? Sure, but that's icing the cake. Teams win with lots of average guys just - are you ready, all you Belichick fans? - doing their job. The coaches know what they want the players to to do, and they get them to do it consistently. Once you have decent NFL talent, it all about coaching and character.

Marcell Dareus is your answer. He was one of the five most talented guys in the league at his position, and McDermott didn't want him? Was he a felon? No. Was he a drug addict. No, at least not seriously. Did he put his teammates first? No. Did he do his job every play? No. Did he work every day to be as good as he can be? No. Did Chris Hogan have the right answer to all of those questions? Yes, and if McDermott had been the coach when Hogan was in Buffalo, Hogan would STILL be in Buffalo. Belichick wants guys with those traits, and McDermott does, too. I say it over and over. Talent is over-rated. (Again, we're excluding the QB here.) Do you need some guys with special talent here and there? Sure. But look at Hyde and Poyer. They're perfect examples. Those guys aren't outstanding safeties, not premier guys every team is drooling over. They are like most players in the league - in terms of talent, they were in the top 5 percent in college. In other words, they ALL have the size, speed and strength to play in the NFL. The question is what do they do with it? And what they do with it is a matter of character. Hogan has it, Dareus doesn't. Now, you can have a Mario Williams every once in a while who is SO outstanding that he can be great without the character McDermott is looking for, but there are very few of those guys. A good QB and 52 solid NFL-level players will win a lot of games for you. Yes, you say, but you can stand a few with less than perfrect character. Well, how good were the Bengals when they had 8 felons on the roster? Lotta talent, but they sucked. In his book GM, the Giants gm said you can have one prima donna on your team. When you have two, you're in trouble, when you have three you can't win. He said the Giants had three prima donnas - Strahan, Barber and someone else. Strahan came to an agreement with Coughlin and stopped being a prima donna, and they got rid of one of the other two. As soon as that happened, they won the Super Bowl. I'd love to hear McDermott on the subject, too. I'd like to know what he looks for. I'm sure he'll tell you he doesn't want guys who are problems. Saban will tell you the same thing, Belichick will. I heard Jim Calhoun say it about basketball. It's hard enough to win with good guys on your team; it's harder still if you have problems.

Sometimes I feel sorry for guys who post things like this and then get dumped on by everyone saying "that's ridiculous." Well, THAT'S RIDICULOUS! Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, consistently puts you in the playoffs from any position except an outstanding quarterback. Nobody. As in N-O-B-O-D-Y. Not Bruce Smith, not J.J. Watt, not Megatron, not Sammy Watkins (certainly not Sammy Watkins), not Troy Polamalu, not anybody. Now, if you're point is that there's nothing more to say about the QBs, I agree. But this year, for the first time in decades, the Bills are in position to get almost anyone they want in the draft AND there are good quarterbacks to be had. It's foolish to expect that people will stop talking about it.

Exactly zero Super Bowl rings on that list.

Not sure that's completely fair to Landry, but it certainly is an interesting circumstance to contemplate. Williams wasted a couple of years as a pro, but he turned it around. Landry changed the course of his career, for sure.

I think that's what I meant. McCarron is the best insurance Beane could buy for 2018 at a low price. But McCarron is not evidence that the Beane wants to trade up to #2 or anything else. He's just the guy who's gonna be the QB if the rookie, wherever he's drafted, doesn't step up to start. If it hadn't been McCarron, it would have been McCown or some other inexpensive recognizable name. It's almost as though Beane waited out the QB music chairs until there was only one guy left - didn't matter which it would be, only that it would be a guy left with no bargaining power.

Excellent, Logic. Just damn excellent. I've thought for a while that it's more likely that the Bills sit tight or trade up between 5 and 11 than it is that they make a deal with the Giants. It just seems to me that this is the Giants best chance to get the successor to Eli, and they aren't going to trade that chance just for a boatload of picks that won't be good enough to get them back up to the top of the draft next year. Especially if they trade with the Bills, because they know then that 1, 2 and 3 will be QBs, and that will leave the Giants with their fourth choice at QB instead of second. Beane is careful and deliberate. He isn't likely to blow all his draft capital in a deal with the Giants unless his absolute favorite, can't-miss QB is at #2, whoever that may be. (He may not even HAVE a can't-miss favorite.) If the McCarron deal signaled anything, it is that Beane was figuring he'd get his QB someplace after the #4 pick (or I suppose at #4 if the Browns want to deal) and that he's figuring that the QB he drafts in the first round should sit for a year. McCarron can get him through 2018. Plus, maybe McCarron turns out to be a surprise. But I hadn't thought about your point that by trading up 4-7 picks, Beane still can leave himself with a more or less full draft. I'd really like to know what went on at last year's draft. We don't really know who was in charge, but it's an interesting scenario to think that the Pegulas told Whaley to do what McDermott told him. Whaley probably already knew what was coming. In any case, passing on Mahomes and moving all the way back to 29 was a gutsy move. Getting White was a bonus, because the real prize was to set up Beane with two first round picks this year. Even though they turned out to be relatively late in the round, those picks set up Beane to make the other deals and get himself to where he is now. He has virtually every choice in front of him now - move to 2 if he wants to pay the price. Move to 5 through 11. Sit at 12. Heck, who knows? It's possible he'd even trade back a few picks from 12. Point is, he has the capital to do whatever he wants, and it all started because the Bills passed on Mahomes.

You're right, especially your first sentence. Frankly, I don't think there's anything to be read into their moves, either way. They felt like they needed to move Glenn, and the opportunity was to get a better draft choice. So they took it. That meant they could trade up more if it made sense, and it also meant they could get the middle linebacker they want. They could go either way. I keep remembering that McD said a month ago or more that the Bills aren't as far along as some people think. Sounded he was trying to control expectations for 2018. The McCarron signing and that statement can go both ways - "we're gonna have a rookie QB, and either he'll be a typical rookie or we'll go with McCarron. Either way, it'll take another year for us to get better."

A first, a second and a fifth, and they can have 'em.

Shady packaged with picks in deal with the Giants?

People fall inlove with the physical attributes. There's no convincing them otherwise, until they fail. The Raiders talked themselves out of every possible concern they might have had about Jamarcus Russell. I have a lot of confidence that McBeane are completely on top of this. If they take Allen it'll be because they know several things we don't know. I put some stock in the Wonderlic scores, and it's interesting that Allen had the highest of the QBs. Of course, Fitz was off the charts on the Wonderlic and he still threw every critical INT he could.

I keep saying I haven't studied any of these guys, but from what little I've seen and read, I'm also completely on board with Mayfield. Whenever I saw him, play over the past couple of years, I saw a flat-out winner. I like his fire, his competitiveness, his ability to find guys when he's flushed. Reports say he's the most accurate thrower in the group. Does he have an edge to him? Yes. So did Big Ben in his early years. Beane can deal with that. And I would suggest you not believe the reports that say he is 4th or 5th. I think he does too much too well for teams to miss the boat on him. If the Bills got him at 12 I'd be ecstatic, but I think they'll have to go up into the 5-6 range, and maybe that won't be enough. I think it's too expensive to trade with the Giants. Unless, of course, he is a Hall of Fame player.

By the way, I think you seriously misperceive McBeane on this one. Yes, they are Christians and they believe there is great value in that, but I don't think Christian is anywhere on their checklist. These guys are detail oriented and methodical. They can tell you without notes exactly what it is they are looking in a QB, and they will evaluate each guy against those criteria. They aren't taking a guy because he's a Christian, and they aren't not taking a guy because he's a Jew. They are way above that.

It's different when you have a Hall of Fame QB. You can draft a Garopolo or a Rodgers and sit him and work on him. The problem in that situation is what to do when you Hall of Fame quarterback doesn't want to retire on you schedule. Rodgers would have started as a rookie in Buffalo. Why? Because you have to play your best player, and he would have been the best QB in camp. It's inconceivable that the 2005 Bills would have drafted Rodgers in the first round and then told the fans he wasn't going to play for three years. Bills had NO ONE at QB by that time. Plus, it's inconceivable that Mr. Wilson would have paid him first round money to sit for three years.

I always defend the Manuel pick, although I agree with what you're saying about his passing. I defend the pick because if you're the GM of the Bills in that draft, you MUST take a QB, because you don't have one. So you evaluate the talent and make the best pick you can. Manuel probably was the best choice of the group available, and the plan, to have him sit for a season, was the right thing to do for him. Unfortunately, it didn't work out well, but the Bills had to take SOMEONE. Maybe they should have taken two, but the pickins were slim, for sure. I've always said the Bills didn't manage the QB situation horribly after Bledsoe, they just made bad picks. Moving up to take Losman was addressing the QB situation. Problem was their evaluation of him was wrong. And moving up cost them Aaron Rodgers in the draft the following year. Taking Edwards in the third was a good move, good planning for the position, and it seemed like it was working until his concussion. The biggest mistake was betting on Fitz. Well, betting on him made some sense, but not immediately drafting the next guy in line was the mistake. Just like they took Edwards when they thought Losman would be the guy, they should have taken someone when they gave Fitz his deal. And that someone was Russell Wilson. Because they didn't draft Fitzy's replacement, the Bills found them sevesin a situation where they were forced to draft someone, and that someone turned out to be Manuel.

The NFL doesn't do that because of cost. They'd have to expand the rosters or the practice squad, and if there'd have to be a way to protect a guy like Allen on the practice squad. And he'd want a lot of money. It is largely a sink or swim situation. Yes, they could work on a guy's mechanics like that, but the real skill, the decision making, is learned only on the field in real games. So the guy has to be good enough to get on the field to get that playing time. The fact is, if you've got it, you make it, and if you don't, you don't. People here often say well, if you put this guy in the right situation, he'll grow into the position. I think that's hogwash. I can't think of a QB who was a failure on his first team and then, under different coaching, miraculously blossomed. Maybe Kurt Warner is one. Most guys move on to their second team and look pretty much the same as they did with their first team. If the situation really changed the fortunes of QBs, there's be lots of stories about how this guy became a star with his second team. But, as usual, I agree with you. I wouldn't burn a first round pick on Allen, because he he's low probability. But his physical skill apparently are so spectacular that he may be worth taking as a project. He may very well go in the first round, and I doubt he fall past the second.

Got it. But, without really knowing, I'd say that in the college the opposite of what I said is true. In college you can have a high completion rate for a season or more and be inaccurate, but it's quite unlikely that an accurate college passer will have a low completion percentage. Maybe Stafford did, but by and large it's pretty easy to throw in college (relative to the pros), and accurate college passers should almost always have high completion percentages. So you wouldn't trade up for Allen, but it sounds like you'd love him at 12!

You've been an accuracy guy for as long as I can remember, and you've convinced me. But let's not go overboard. Completion percentage isn't a measure of accuracy, but to to say it has little to do with accuracy is, well, inaccurate. It may be true that some accurate throwers have low completion percentages for a game or maybe even a season. But virtually NO thrower with a high completion percentage for a season is inaccurate. You simple can't complete 60-65% of 500 passes if you're a fundamentally inaccurate passer. Completion percentage is the only common stat that correlates in some way with accuracy.

I don't get into these draft discussion very much because I'e never studied the QBs nearly enough to form an intelligent opinion. Some people say Allen will be great. Some say it's Darnold. Some say it's Rosen. Some say it's Mayfield. Some say Jackson. Some say Rudolph. One or more of those opinions will turn out to be correct, and several likely will turn out to be wrong, and there is no way to tell who's right from any of these discussions. However, I do think a few things: A lot of the metrics keep pointing to Mayfield. Doesn't mean he's the guy, but I'm sure none of the teams looking for a QB is overlooking him. There is only one reason Mayfield will fall in the draft, and it's the same reason any of these other guys may fall in the draft: teams with access to a lot of film, data, interviews, etc. will all decide that the guy has enough questions about him not to merit a pick in the top 5 or 10. Parcells and QBase put a lot of weight on QBs graduating from college, starting for three years, posting a lot of wins, as well as accuracy. For whatever reason, it's apparently the case that very few guys who started two years or less turn out to be great in the NFL. Newton has come closest, and Flacco is the only other one who's had any substantial success of any kind. I'm confused and frustrated, and like Logic, I'm finding it nerve-wracking waiting for the draft.

Did I disagree with what you said about strong arms? I didn't say anything about Josh Allen's accuracy, but keep on guessing.

You're right. But rober's fundamental point is true. The one thing that all the greats have is accuracy. Not big arms, not mobility, not size. What they all have is accuracy.

Brady, more than anything else, is accurate. And the QB in the draft who gets high grades in accuracy is Baker Mayfield.