SoTier
-
Posts
5,010 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoTier
-
-
12 hours ago, jrober38 said:
If you separate it farther and take away the guys who went #1 overall, it's really freaking hard to find a QB unless you have the first pick.
Most of the "successes" in the 1-5 range were all guys who went #1.
Reality is that if we draft a QB this year, they're nothing more than a long shot of being successful. Odds are we'll be looking for someone again in 2-3 years.This. Go high or stay at home is the best way to get a QB. The number of #1 picks who have been busts over the last 16 years number just 2: 2002 - David Carr and 2007 - Ja'Marcus Russell. All the others have been at least modest successes: Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Alex Smith, Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, and Andrew Luck. Jameis Winston (2015) and Jared Goff (2016) appear likely to be at least modest successes, too.
I would add that being the consensus #1 pick in the entire draft regardless of position is important, too. I would only trade up to the #1 pick for that consensus #1 pick because that means he's the best prospect hands down. Of the successful #1 picks I listed, only Eli Manning and Alex Smith were not the best QBs in their draft class, and only Manning was a consensus #1 pick ... but he was in a generational QB draft class which will likely include 2 HOF QBs, and maybe 3.
There is no QB in the 2018 draft who is the consensus #1 pick. In fact, there's no consensus on who's even the best QB since all of them have significant flaws. It's not like 2011 or 2015 or 2016 where there were two outstanding QB prospects that were clearly superior to all the other prospects, regardless of position, but maybe not necessarily to each other. That makes 2018 the wrong year to trade up very far to get a QB. Giving up 1 draft pick to move up to grab a QB they really, really like might be an acceptable risk. Giving much more in this draft to move up for a first round QB is playing Russian roulette.
-
5 hours ago, whatdrought said:
Good job with leg work, but I think it's a little skewed because you're dealing with an very strong curve regarding the definition of success.
A first round pick has a completely different metric for success than a fifth round pick. You have to have some form of comparison to really make this work. For instance, you have both Taylor and Brady rated as 6th round successes... How is it fair to rate them the same when they have had such drastically different careers?
Also, the fact that you eliminated Bradford, while it makes sense, also skews the data because at the end of the day, he either is or is not a success. They don't give the pick back because he was injured.
This is really a great post because it opens the doors to conversations about these ideas, and if that was your intent then you nailed it. It's just up to us to investigate/discuss the data that you've presented.
Totally agree. What defines "success" is key, and it's very different for first round QBs than for fifth rounders. QBs taken after the first round are generally taken with limited expectations, ie, backups, and the lower round, the lower expectations. Guys like Cassel and Fitzpatrick who eventually make low level starters are probably "hits" whereas first round QBs like Leftwich or Sanchez who were also low level starters are probably "misses". It's why I wouldn't try to calculate/compare success rates for first rounds vs any other rounds except for limited criteria.
For me, the minimum definition of "success" for any QB would be minimally a decent starting QB on the level of a Cutler or Dalton or Tannelhill, somebody who is ranked among the top 15 QBs over several years, and occasionally making the Top 10 QB list. Of course that's a pretty low standard for first rounders, especially guys taken at the very top of the draft.
For first round QBs, I think anything less than being a "franchise QB" makes a QB a "disappointment" since the expectations for first rounders are so high. A franchise QB is usually included in the Top 10 QBs statistically. He also doesn't just put up stats but demonstrates leadership and "clutch" ability by making plays with some regularity when needed to win games rather than throwing INTs that contribute to losses. It's the intangible factors that separate Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan or Russell Wilson from Jay Cutler or Andy Dalton or Ryan Tannehill.
I also don't think QBs with less than 3 full years (48 games) should be called "hits" or "misses" unless they crash and burn early (Manziel).
4 hours ago, dneveu said:Yeah, I would agree.
Also - i think Mariota is kind of bad. For a #2 pick i expect something better than Tyrod Taylor.
Tannehill is the definition of meh. Winston doesn't impress me.
By my criteria, both Mariota and Winston are still in the "too early to be sure", but I do agree with your assessment of Mariota and Winston so far in their careers ... and I totally agree about Tannehill. He's one of those QBs who's too good to just let go but not good enough to win with consistently IMO. Bortles is another one like that, and I think those QBs are probably even worse than outright first rounders who are busts since teams are reluctant to walk away from first rounders unless they're clearly busts.
4 hours ago, Batman1876 said:Tannehill has started almost the same number of games as Pennington did. He has a higher touchdown rate and more yards per game but throws more interceptions and completes fewer passes. All in all they are similar statistically. As I sit here today I'd be happier with Winston or Mariota as my QB than Tannehill.
There's no comparison between Pennington and Tannehill. Pennington was a very good QB who was hardly a miss. His stats don't reflect his leadership or his clutch play, neither of which Tannehill has demonstrated to any significant degree. When Pennington was able to play full seasons, he took the Jests to the playoffs -- 2002, 2004, and 2006. Then when he signed with Miami in 2008, he took the Carp to the playoffs. Unfortunately, injuries, especially the one to his throwing shoulder, shortened his career by limiting his ability to throw.
-
2 hours ago, Rigotz said:
I've seen a lot of mock drafts that have us getting the fourth best or fifth best QB in the draft by staying at #21.
But that doesn't really seem realistic.
Lets look at the teams ahead of us:
1. Browns - Definitely need a QB
2. Giants - Definitely need a QB
5. Broncos - Definitely need a QB
6. Jets - Definitely need a QB
11. Dolphins - I could see them taking a QB (Tannehill is Meh)
12. Bengals - I could see them taking a QB (Dalton is Meh)
15. Cardinals - Definitely need a QB
17. Chargers - I could see them taking a QB (Rivers is old)
And lets not forget about the Saints and Steelers, who could trade up a few spots because Brees and Ben have what... 1-2 years left?
So ... that's 8 teams in front of us and 2 behind that probably need QBs.
Maybe Keenum / Cousins / Bridgewater fill two or three openings ... but ...
That doesn't exactly leave us with a top choice. What do you guys think?
Apparently you are of the "sky is falling" club.
Realistically, the Giants, Dolphins, Bengals or Chargers don't seem all that likely to draft QBs in the first round because they're already paying big $$$ for their starting QBs since adding a first round QB is likely to add $5-7 million for the rookie. Plus, they likely have many other needs more pressing than getting a young QB who isn't going to help them much in the near future ... or they don't like the QB prospects as much as they like other prospects.
I also can't see the Saints or Steelers trading up "a few spots" to get ahead of the Bills, either. QBs available outside of the top 12 spots have simply been too prone to failure for smart organizations to trade up to get them. Since 2000, only Chad Pennington, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco, and Teddy Bridgewater have been successful coming out of the bottom of the first round. A team would be better served to take a QB in the 2nd or 3rd than giving up more draft capital for a player likely to fail, and I think that most GMs understand that.
I think that Cousins ends up in Denver, with Jacksonville and maybe Arizona also possibilities, so I think it's entirely possible that one of the popular top prospects will be available when the Bills' turn comes up at #21. Then the question is whether the Bills like him enough to gamble or if they pass to take a player other than a QB that they like better.
-
1 hour ago, xRUSHx said:
IMO
Rosen........hit, franchise QB
Darnold.....hit, franchise QB
Mayfield....hit, franchise QB
Rudolph....hit, franchise QB
Allen.....miss.
Reminds me of Cutler type, very hot cold, will sit year one. Even after that year of sitting in the NFL the bust talk comes out after many see first hand his bad games even though his best games are great.
Ok QB but not a franchise QB you can rely on enough to be championship caliber.
Jackson....miss.
Has some real nice games running around but injuries because of being a runner first put him out of league. Sits year one. Starts a franchise type QB year 2 but ends out of league by end of 4 on IR.
White .....hit,miss.
Will take years before he ever gets a chance to start, could be a big hit after 2-3 years of development to end up a franchise worthy QB if all goes well for him.
Falk...... hit,miss.
Another guy that needs to sit 2-3 years to see what you have. Big development QBs are tough to call. Miss because of sitting so long for team drafting him but hit to second team.
Lauletta and Litton..... hit, miss
Development type, sit for first team good for second team as a backup or possible starter if all goes well for them.
This class isn't nearly as good as 1983 or 2004, the only two drafts since the merger to produce even three franchise QBs. IMO there's likely to be 1 franchise QB and maybe a decent starter who ranks maybe 10-15 among starting QBs ... that's about what comes out of most drafts whether there's 2 first round QBs or 4 first round QBs.
-
20 hours ago, JaCrispy said:
Only example I have is that the Rams traded up to #1 roughly a month before the draft two years ago. And then the Eagles trade d up to #2 shortly after the Rams....not sure if they have to wait til the start of the league year though.
Trading up for the #1 pick before the draft is very different than trading up for the #2 or #3 before the draft. Trading up for #1, you get your choice. For any other pick, you don't get your choice.
-
23 minutes ago, fridge said:
Brett Favre had a 50% INT rate his rookie year.
And Favre wasn't with Atlanta, the team that drafted him, the next year. BTW, Favre only threw 4 passes with 2 INTs.
Peterman threw 6 INTs in 52 passing attempts with 2 TDs including the wild card game.
-
1 hour ago, Kwai San said:
Dude - seriously? Did you not read or did you not comprehend the OP's post??? You confuse me. None of the names you mention had anywhere near the SOLID experience and DEMONSTRATED results that Groy has. Sorry for yelling but WTF!
Groy has more "SOLID experience and DEMONSTRATED results" than 2 Pro Bowl LGs (Ruben Brown, Richie Incognito) or a future HOF LT (Jason Peters) or one of the NFL's solid starting LTs (Cordy Glenn)? Really? Or were you referring to Langston Walker and/or Bennie Anderson? Walker was a starting OT for 4 of his 9 NFL seasons with Oakland and the Bills. Bennie Anderson was a five year NFL starter with Baltimore and the Bills.
Groy's "SOLID experience and DEMONSTRATED results" consists of playing in 41 games over 4 seasons, starting 11 of them. He started 7 games in 2016 and 1 game in 2017 for the Bills because Wood was injured. He's a backup who hasn't demonstrated that he can be a full time quality starter.
-
1 hour ago, Reed83HOF said:
I really want us to make a move and get a rookie QB. I was ok if we sucked this year and had an opportunity to pick higher (For BPA with our holes, pass rushing or QB would be ideal, but by far BPA) and I am also a fan of trading up for a guy, the caveat has always been and will always be - you have to do your homework and know for a fact that this is your guy; and believe it strongly enough to place your job on the line for it. It cannot be a panic move...
Rosen is one I would go and get, Darnold I am okay with and Mayfield as well. Outside of them, I wouldn't give up a ton to grab Lamar or Rudolph (very iffy on him) & I would run away from Allen too busty for me...
As long as it truly isn't this, I'd prefer the Bills draft a QB to signing a FA vet. They might as well just keep Taylor in that case because there's not much out there other than Cousins. They'd have to trade for Foles, and I'm not sure that he could have success with the Bills because of their holes on offense.
1 hour ago, nucci said:Then why have a GM?
To negotiate trades and other related personnel matters. I think that both NE and KC use the model where the HC has control of player personnel. The Bills have generally had the GM either equal/semi-subservient to the HC since Donahoe was fired after the 2005 season. Both Whaley and Nix selected players that fit what the HC wanted ... for good or bad, and mostly bad IMO since the 2013 draft.
-
4 hours ago, horned dogs said:
No way they can afford to draft a C/G in round 1.
It depends upon who's available. However unlikely, if Nelson is there at #21, you sprint to the podium to get him. There may be some others worth taking at #21 or #22, but a second rounder might work out well, too.
3 hours ago, FearLess Price said:Wow.
Hope we dont pass on a franchise QB for a Center....
Nah OBD isnt that stupid....
OBD passed on 2 potential franchise QBs to take a DB last year when they traded out of the #10 slot. I'm not saying they were wrong to do that, but I sure wouldn't want them trading up take the fourth or fifth best QB prospect in the draft. That's a recipe for disaster. I'm not sure if I'd want them to take any QB at #21 or #22, either ... the number of successful QBs to come out of the bottom of the first round since 2000 is really small. Off the top of my head, I think there's Chad Pennington, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco, and maybe, if he's truly healthy enough to play, Teddy Bridgewater. With QBs, it's basically, go high or stay home IMO, and my guess is that nobody at the top of the draft is likely to want to deal except maybe Cleveland.
1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:It still would not hurt to address interior OL via the draft as Incognito is getting long in the tooth and our depth is not fantastic. Probably a second day choice.
More precisely, the Bills depth is non-existent unless Glenn makes a full recovery and the Bills keep him, and Miller gets another chance at RG. Vlad Ducasse is a career backup.
1 hour ago, Captain Murica said:Anyone think it's a possibility Miller might get another shot? They're going back to more of a power run scheme.
I hope so. Ducasse didn't suddenly become starting guard material after 8 years in the league.
-
4 hours ago, Da webster guy said:
Seems like half the mock drafts now are projecting us to take a center. We already have a great backup center in Groy.
- Did not allow a sack all season in 2016 from 291 pass-blocking snaps.
- He started the final seven games of the season for us when Wood got hurt in 2016. Played very well, especially in the final two games of the season against tough defensive lines of Jets and Fins.
- Didn’t allow a sack all season, and surrendered just nine total pressures – seven across those final seven games.
- 6'5 inches and 325 lbs. 27 years old but not a lot of miles on him. Smart guy.
After being thrown into the fire — and not performing all too well — in that crazy Seahawks game that we would have won if we had an average kicker, Groy was a solid in both pass and run.
His strong play down the stretch was why we matched the two-year, $5 million offer from the Rams.
He will kickass in there.
Sorry, but I've heard this kind of thing so often over the years when the Bills replace a starter with a backup, especially on the OL, that I am exceedingly skeptical. Bennie "The Penalty" Anderson wasn't an adequate replacement for Pro Bowl LG Ruben Brown and Langston Walker and numerous other Never-Weres weren't replacements for All Pro LT Jason Peters. The Bills wasted about 4 years before they got around to replacing Brown, and another 3 or 4 years before they replaced Peters.
I hope Groy is a decent replacement for Wood but I'm not pinning my hopes on him. The Bills need to draft a center on Day 1 or Day 2 and then add a guard on Day 2 or Day 3. If this regime is committed to winning football games, then there can be no excuses for not bringing in some quality young OLers through the draft and keeping the good OLers they already have, ie Incognito, Glenn, and Dawkins.
-
33 minutes ago, Luxy312 said:
Nothing, and that's the point. Why pay someone else to be a placeholder for a couple of years, just for the sake of filling in a position with mediocre talent? Taylor, Bradford, Bridgewater, Henne, Stanton, McCown, etc. would all get a decent paycheck to be starters here. Why bother if they're not the future. For Peterman, he's under contract through 2020 and they can basically wait and see what they have with him.
Maybe because most people would think that winning "only" 8 or 9 games is better than losing 13 or 14?
Peterman doesn't have an NFL arm, so his ceiling has always been limited. He doesn't appear to be the supposedly "cerebral" and "pro ready" QB he was thought to be in college. In a perfect world, he wouldn't even be on the Bills roster on opening day. If he's their starter, it's going to be a long season for the faithful.
-
18 hours ago, LA Grant said:
Been saying this all year: I'd just like to see what Tyrod looks like with a season of consistent receivers, in a modern RPO offense, with a play caller that believes in him. I'd happily take Foles, but whoever is QB, I'd like to see the team able to provide those things. And Foles is the only QB on the market including rookies I'd want over Tyrod, but that's just me.
How many simple slants and quick inside/outside routes did we see in the SB versus how many did we run this year? It's the same routes constantly just in different formations. It's so simple for the QB, and with RPO, much simpler to read the defenses. Your throws are either there, or they aren't. So you either check at the line to hand-off, or you take a look then scramble. I only want Tyrod in the pocket if it's play action, otherwise, stay wide in shotgun. It seems so simple but watching the Bills you'd think it's alien.
The Bills pretty much have the personnel, minus a power RB and line depth -- if Benjamin, Zay, Clay, and Thompson can stay healthy and they can get into a rhythm with a simple offense. I am vaguely optimistic Brian Daboll will turn out to be in the mold of younger, more flexible, aggressive offensive mind like Doug Pederson, Frank Reich, Sean McVay, et al. Get your QB, keep it simple, then get aggressive. Imagine QB & Shady co-calling plays in no huddle K-Gun. Simple, fast, QB friendly, plays to our strengths.
This.
The real problem with the Bills offense last season was the OC. He not only forced Taylor into a system that didn't fit him, his insistence on changing the OL blocking scheme seriously compromised that unit's play as well; the OL never played consistently well all season. It didn't help that Dennison's 1950ish conservatism and the Bills lack of downfield speed enabled teams to disrespect their passing game.
17 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:Since he's under contract and they'll have $2.4M of dead cap to pay off whether he stays or goes (plus whatever they pay the replacement backup to whittle away at their cap savings) - I think the Eagles keep Foles at least until they are sure Wentz is 100% - probably just before training camp, possibly preseason
Then they hope for a contender who has a QB injury and will offer them something big
I could be wrong - the Eagles do have a tight cap situation and Foles 2018 $7M roster bonus and salary would help quite a ways, so they may be willing to pick up the phone and take offers.
As to why he wouldn't be a good fit for the Bills, a lot depends upon Daboll and the offseason. If he doesn't have WR to throw to and an OL that gives him time, don't expect success.
He's probably not a good fit for the Bills because the Bills don't have a good pass blocking OL and have a lousy WR corps ( in contrast, the Eagles have one of the best two OLs in the league and excellent receivers). Bringing Foles without major upgrades to those units is a recipe for being here in February, 2019 reading post after post whining about how disappointing Foles is.
-
3 hours ago, ndirish1978 said:
You should let the Eagles know that. No sense in trying to get Wentz because some guy on a message board named matter already said they won't be able to trade up and it's not smart.
3 hours ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:There is no greater need than QB, all those other pieces will fall into place after that. I like Matt Milano at LB, I think he could have a bright future, the secondary looks good, our WR core is far fetched since both Kelvin Benjamin and Zay Jones are a pretty good start but we'll just need that WR now who can take the top off a defense with his speed, runningback depth can be found everywhere, pass rush and OL need to be priority 1-2 after the QB is addressed imo.
Bull manure. So, how come the Saints have only made the playoffs in 6 of the 12 seasons that future HOFer Drew Brees has been with them? How come the Chargers have only made the playoffs once in the last 8 years despite having Phillip Rivers or the NY Giants only twice in the last 9 seasons despite having Eli Manning? It takes more than simply a QB, as the Indy Colts demonstrated the last 3 seasons even when Andrew Luck played.
Moreover, there is absolutely no guarantee that "all those other pieces will fall into place after that". It hasn't for GB in recent years ... Aaron Rodgers' excellence has simply hidden all of the Packers' flaws. Jameis Winston hasn't enabled TB to put together a winning team, and neither did Kirk Cousin in Washington. OTOH, both Minnesota and Philadelphia proved that stout defenses and good offensive personnel/coaching can make even backup QBs winners.
FYI -- how can you possibly claim that Zay Jones had a "pretty good start"? As of now, he looks like a bust.
3 hours ago, Reed83HOF said:McBeane basically agrees with what you said: "HOWEVER, I don't want them wasting all of this years draft capital on drafting a QB IF THEY ARENT sold that he is the guy."
I also will go out on a limb here and say that most other posters just don't want to go get a QB to just get one...
"I know many want a QB at all costs in this draft, but there has to be a guy there worth taking"
I'm pretty sure no one wants to trade up for EJ or Geno...
Well, maybe not "most" but certainly a significant number advocate just that position ... very emphatically. They've been agitating for the Bills to do whatever they have to do -- "tank" or trade up -- to take a QB since TC last summer when nobody had any idea what QBs would be in the 2018 draft. Even now, numerous posters advocate the Bills trading up to get a QB without having any specific QB in mind, even if he would be the fourth or fifth best QB prospect taken, so I think it's safe to say that many posters do advocate that the Bills "go get a QB to just get one..."
55 minutes ago, nucci said:Isn't Beane the GM?
It seems that he might be subordinate to McDermott when it comes to personnel decisions. As someone mentioned, McDermott had at least some if not most of the say in Beane's hiring.
-
2 hours ago, ProcessAccepted said:
Hate to break it to you but you need an O Line. The QB is very important but without a solid O Line you are wasting your time, just ask the Colts
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56397565/625636680.0.jpg)
Totally agree. Philly won the Super Bowl with a backup QB because their OL enabled them to run their offense. If the NE defenders had been in the Eagles backfield all game (like so many teams' defenders were in the Bills backfield all season), it's likely the outcome would have been different. Certainly Foles (and Wentz when he was healthy) wouldn't have looked so great.
The best thing the Bills can do is fix their OL ... for whoever is the QB in 2018 and for whenever they get a franchise QB. The best QB in the world can't do squat when he's on his back.
-
10 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:
QBs don't have win-loss records. Teams do. That stat is called "TEAM record in games started by this QB (Regular Season)"
Foles' third year in Philly - his second year under Shurmur - he was much worse than he'd been in his second year. Look at his TD/INT ratios, his yards per attempt, his yards per game, his INT percentages (insanely good 0.6% to bad 3.2%)
No question he played well the last three weeks. How well would he have played if teams had seen him all year? Dunno, but I'd guess not nearly as well. It'll be interesting going forward to see what he becomes.
The bolded part is what I'm leery of with Foles, too. DCs as well as many veteran defenders build up "books" on QBs based on film study. The more they see of a QB in a specific offense, the more likely they are to figure out how to stop him. With top QBs, that's not all that much of a problem because they're so good, but with lesser QBs, it becomes a problem because they're more limited. The "book" on Tyrod Taylor is to confine him to the pocket and make him throw the ball to his check down receivers by covering his wide outs because he won't throw throw them open -- and the Bills didn't have any WRs who could get separation this past season. Foles has very real limits to his game because he did struggle the second year in Philly as well as in his other stops. My guess is that if the Pats' defense could have taken away the RPOs, Foles wouldn't have looked nearly so good ... but Philly's great OL prevented that ... at least in the short term. If Belichick had more time and film, he probably would have figured out how to significantly limit Foles' effectiveness.
-
10 minutes ago, joesixpack said:
Always on the lookout for the #raysis eh?
Always the first to come to the defense of your buds, eh?
-
50 minutes ago, BuffaninATL said:
really good take, it is so important to make that distinction ......
That's what happens when the grammatically-impaired don't bother with capitalization or other "niceties" of the English language -- it can change the meaning of the sentence entirely. I had to read the sentence twice before I realized he meant Tre White.
-
So, after squeaking into the playoffs as a WC with a 9-7 record after 17 years of missing them, the Bills should declare 2017 a "success" and immediately begin rebuiliding? Seriously? One wildcard game does NOT make a dynasty any more than a couple of good games does NOT make a QB's career.
I agree with Bandit27. The Bills need to have a good draft, and they have enough picks to do that. They also need to be smart about their own vets, including keeping the ones that they can't truly upgrade with reasonable FA acquisitions, something the Bills have repeatedly failed to do over the years.
- IMO, the OL needs to be a priority on the offensive side since all offensive success is dependent upon that. They need to draft the best C or OG they can, hopefully on Day 1 but no later than Day 2. Philly's OL is considered one of the very best if not the best OL in the NFL, and they played like it on Sunday night. I'm not sure that Foles was even knocked down all game.
- If a QB the Bills truly like falls to them, I'm not opposed to them taking him, but I surely don't want them trading up to take the fourth or fifth best QB prospect or taking a QB at 21 or 22 simply to say they took a QB. They've tried both those routes before and got nothing but manure for their trouble. They have too many holes to fill to waste high draft picks on a QB who's ceiling is "backup QB". They can draft one of those on Day 2 or Day 3 if they want somebody better than Peterman (which I hope they do but they have bigger needs right now, so I wouldn't be upset if they didn't).
- The reality is that cutting Taylor will cost $8+ million in dead cap money, so that has to be figured into the cost of any FA QB the Bills consider. That seems likely to make Kirk Cousins prohibitively expensive for the Bills, even if Cousins passed on much more QB friendly situations in Denver or Minnesota to consider the Bills. Keenum is probably an upgrade but I can't see Minnesota letting him walk while keeping Bradford and Bridgewater with their very questionable knees. Most of the other potential FA QBs being mentioned are career backups, and not necessarily very good ones. IMO, unless they can truly upgrade the QB position through FA, which will cost big bucks, the Bills need to bite the bullet, keep Taylor even if they draft a first round QB, and give him a system that fits his talents better as well as a better WR corps. Spend the $ on the WRs, OLers, and a better RB than Tolbert.
- On defense, the Bills need to upgrade DT and LB. Another edge rusher would be nice, too. It generally takes 3-4 years to develop a DT, so FA might be a better bet than the draft unless there's a real stud available. Unfortunately, FA DTs are expensive, so wasting $$ on a FA QB who's not better than Taylor likely means that the Bills can't add a DT or edge rusher. LBs tend to be easier to find and develop, so the Bills should probably look to the draft to upgrade that position. The good news about the draft is that the Bills have so many holes that taking "best player available" when their turns come should be a no brainer.
-
1
-
9 hours ago, Rc2catch said:
To be fair.. he’s lights out. But hard to say that translates to another team. He made some nice throws the last few games.
A lot of Foles' success in the playoffs is because Pederson and his OC have modified the Eagles offense to fit what Foles does best as well as Doug Pederson's aggressive play calling. With a more conservative minded HC and an OC less willing to change to fit his QB, my guess is that Foles would struggle.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Maine-iac said:
Well I clearly remember two seasons where we just needed a better defense and lo and behold we get a better defense and playoffs .......... go figure. That's even with letting every single starting caliber receiver leave and the replacements all being injured. I've heard rumors of Cousins and even Luck on here and if you can get an upgrade who wouldn't want that? People forget though, we could do a lot worse.
Exactly this. IMO, the Bills QB position doesn't need to be fixed but upgraded. Cleveland and Denver are teams that need to fix their QB situations. If the Bills can't get a better QB than Taylor in FA, then they need to keep him. Cousins would be an upgrade. If Bradford were healthy and could stay that way, he would be, too, but staying healthy has been problematic for him since he was drafted. Keenum might be, but I'm thinking he doesn't leave Minnesota unless the Vikings sign Cousins. Who else is there on the FA market? Fitzpatrick and McKown might be available. Matt Moore, Chad Henne, Derek Anderson have been mentioned. Keep in mind that cutting Taylor will result in an $8+ million cap hit in 2018, which likely puts Cousins out of range and makes both Bradford and Keenum cost about the same against the cap as keeping Taylor.
Taylor/Cousins/Bradford/Keenum plus a first round QB would be an upgrade. Any of these same QBs plus a second round QB might be an upgrade if the rookie turned out to be at least a competent backup. A QB like Moore, Henne, or Anderson plus a first round QB would only be an upgrade if the rookie was good enough to win the starting job in TC.
-
Sorry, dudes, but when trashy QBs like Anderson, Moore or Henne are being talked about as possible Bills starters as "bridge QBs", Tyrod Taylor is looking better and better. The FA QB market is always slim pickin's because few teams let good ones, even good backups, leave. If the Bills cut Taylor and don't sign Cousins, they are simply reprising 2013 when they chose to save current $$ over winning football games either now or in the future.
-
6 hours ago, dezertbill said:
It should be interesting to see how the Bills are looked upon by FA WR's once they make a move at QB.
It's obvious having TT under center didn't make the Bills a WR destination. Only 1 receiver over the last three years has had more than 650 receiving yards with TT (Sammy 1047 in 2015). Stats for Robert Woods and Marquis Goodwin (when healthy) suffered and were ready to move on once their contract ended. This season WR didn't seem like a position Buffalo put a lot of weight into until the traded for K Benjamin this season.
2017 showed Beane they need talent behind center and at receiver. A bunch of no names just didn't cut it. Buffalo will replace TT with a guy who will average more than 180 yards per game. Hopefully that change will position Buffalo be a place where WR's feel their stats won't tank. Although I don't see the Bills breaking the bank at WR this off season, I do see them having more options in FA if they so choose once they find a more proficient passer. Not only this season, but beyond.
The obvious thing is that you rewrite history to fit your own prejudices.
-
On 2/1/2018 at 2:33 PM, 26CornerBlitz said:
I would not sacrifice any draft capital for an inconsistent mediocre bridge QB.
Calling Foles a "bridge QB" pre-supposes he's actually good enough to be a regular starting QB, which he hasn't demonstrated that he can be since his sophomore season.
-
9 minutes ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:
If Mayfield is there then to me that signifies buyer beware. I will not claim to know more than any coach or scout in the NFL. I also have not spoke to Mayfields coaches or Mayfield. I only base my opinion on what I watched against UGA. Mayfield is an emotional player. If Mayfield makes it out of the top 12 there is a reason. Just like there was for Loseman, Manuel, Barkley, Quinn....etc
I would be cautiously optimistic for a first round qb choice. I also know it doesn’t mean the answer to the question at QB has necessarily been solved.
If Mayfield falls, it's likely because he's shorter than desired, and most GMs like tall QBs. Of all the faults a first round QB can have, that's probably the one that's least important as both Drew Brees and Russell Wilson have proven.
QB success rate by draft position
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Exactly this. Maybe more star QBs would come out of other rounds if the QB position was such that more than 1 QB regularly played in games (such as DL rotations or RB substitutions) but that's not the nature of pro football. Most of the truly successful QBs who've come out of later rounds in the last 16 years were drafted lower for reasons really unrelated to their ability to play QB (ie, usually short or slightly built), and they benefited from being given real shots to start fairly early in their careers.