SoTier
-
Posts
5,593 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoTier
-
-
1 hour ago, HappyDays said:
Sure but EJ's career wouldn't have been saved if he had had a stronger arm. That's the problem with picking Allen. A strong arm isn't enough. We just have to hope he develops.
And therein is my problem with Allen: we traded up for somebody we have to hope develops. I would have been much more accepting of taking him at #12 than at #7. I just think that Beane has set the franchise back significantly unless Allen comes through and is at least as good as Flacco, Dalton or Tannehill.
-
2 hours ago, Mat68 said:
Neither were considered as highly of as Allen. They just were not.
Allen, like Losman and Manuel, is a project considered "raw", and the track record of first round "projects" is terrible. Few, if any, first round projects in the last 30 years or so have been successful. I'm not optimistic about him developing into a successful NFL QB.
-
6 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:
I have been on this wonderful board for many, many years. Now, I am reading these posts that are absolutely hating the Allen pick and it is hard to understand why. Almost every season, I was on this board blasting yet another idiotic first round pick by the Bills. For instance: A #8 (in a stacked draft) on an undersized Donte Whitner? How about a 1st on a half dead Willis McGahee? In 2008 we had a very poor OL. It was awful. We drafted Leotis McKelvin, passing up both Ryan Clady and Branden Albert.
I could go on and on but my point is that fans were generally supportive of these clearly stupid picks. Now, we finally use resources on a big, strong quarterback and most people seem to hate the kid. Why? Because he said stupid things when he was a toddler? Because he went to a small school?
After what seemed like forever, we took a chance on solidifying the most important position on the field. We moved up to make sure we landed a qb with a cannon arm. What is SO freaking bad?
I for one am glad that we did something smart (for a change) in round 1, and welcome this young man to Buffalo.
GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Apparently your "many years" don't include the JP Losman and EJ Manuel eras.
-
55 minutes ago, xsoldier54 said:
Trust me, if we hadn't traded up, both of those guys would have been gone. After we took Allen, it changed the rest of the 1st round as far as QB's go. Arizona traded up to get Rosen and I believe if Miami didn't take Allen, someone else would have traded up. I don't believe either one of those guys would have been there at 12. I could be wrong, but obviously the Bills thought the same thing.
What do you know about anything that I should "trust you" about anything? The top six picks went pretty much as I had expected all along, so my thoughts have more merit than yours. My thoughts are that if the Bills didn't panic, they miscalculated and paid more than they should have for Allen. IMO, Allen would have been there at #12. Even if Arizona had traded up, they would have taken Rosen anyways.
- The only 2 QBs went in the top 5, to Cleveland and Jests, making all the soothsayers claiming that 4 of the first 5 picks would be QBs look like fools. Darnold wasn't the #1 choice.
- The Giants went for Barkley rather than a QB, as anybody with half a brain or wasn't hyping QBs figured they would.
- Cleveland wanted too much for their #4, and with no takers, they went defense.
- Denver was never looking for another QB since they just signed Keenum and still have former first round pick Paxton Lynch on his rookie QB. They had worked out the outlines of a trade with the Bills earlier, but when they had the chance to grab Chub, they grabbed him.
- QB was about the ONLY position that Indy didn't need, and they grabbed blue chip guard Nelson.
Nobody knows how things would have turned out if the Bills hadn't traded up to #7, but it's very possible that if the Bills hadn't traded up, neither would Arizona. Contrary to the hype, there apparently weren't many teams other than Buffalo and Arizona really interested in trading up to take Allen or Rosen. The idea that Miami was interested in taking a QB was the same kind of nonsense that was spouted by the fools claiming Denver would take a QB since they have Tannehill. Contrary to the BS being spouted by the media mavens hyping QBs in the draft, his HC likes him a lot. He doesn't have "durability issues", either. He missed 3 games in 2016 and all of last season with a knee, but starting every one of Miami's games from 2012-2015. More importantly, the Carp have so many holes that they simply don't have the luxury of drafting a QB in the first round as "heir apparent" to an decent starting QB who's only been in the league 6 years.
-
31 minutes ago, NewEraBills said:
They'll probably make some moves. They really need to. WR and RT are areas I'd like to see them address.
I think the interior OL is a bigger concern than the tackles at this point. Luckily, interior OL are positions where it's relatively common for Day 3 picks to turn into decent or better players. I also think that the number of trades in the first round suggests that there may be limited top end talent in this draft, especially at some positions like OL, and teams went up and got the best ones early. Usually interior OLers (centers/guards) who actually go in the first round go in the 20s. Nelson went in the top ten and Price went in the top fifteen I think. A right tackle went in the top ten as well, which is not nearly as common as left tackles going high.
Apparently, none of this year's WRs were particularly well regarded, so maybe it's just as well that the Bills look to Day 3 or FA for help there.
-
IOW, the OP doesn't actually know anything more than anybody else posting here, and is relying on wishful thinking.
-
16 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
The are making every effort to do just that.
It seems that way to me, too, but I'm not all that worried about the having to settle for at #12 -- which seems to be the OP's gist -- if they pick outside the top five or even the top ten. I think only 2 teams drafting before them are just about guaranteed to take a QB: Brownies and Jests. If the Bills don't take a QB at #12 or sooner, my guess is that the guy they wanted went in the top four, and they don't like any of the other QBs enough to take one of them at #12 or higher.
-
23 hours ago, mattstev said:
What if everything goes against us and we miss the top 4 qbs or don't want to trade up for the one that's left. If we were not going to take a qb with our first pick this draft, what should we do?
Is there anyone else you would trade up for if they were sliding to 8-10, or who would you want to see drafted at 12.
I personally would love if Nelson were slipping to move up a couple picks and grab him. I don't think that's likely but there is a decent chance either he or one of the elite lb's (Edmunds, Smith) will fall a bit.
Trading up for a QB might not be the best thing, either, but trading up for a player at another position seems outright foolish unless it was for a consensus #1 pick who happens to be an edge rusher like Bruce Smith. If 4 or 5 QBs go in the top 11 (highly unlikely), the Bills should have a real chance to grab somebody like Smith or even Chubb or Nelson without moving up.
-
10 hours ago, Putin said:
I still believe McBeane will get something done , maybe not with the Giants but Cleveland @ 4 , or Colts/Denver is still a good possibility, all depends ( of course) on what happens with the first 3 picks ,
I'm not a great fan of moving up, and if Beane can't/won't move up, that's okay with me. I answered the specific question the OP asked: what if the Bills don't trade up and at #12 only have Allen, Jackson, and Rudolph on their board. That's gross incompetence IMO because a GM and his staff have to be prepared for virtually all plausible scenarios. Having 3 QBs go in the first 11 picks is a very plausible scenario. It's even plausible that 4 QBs could go in the first 11 picks. In either case, there are probably at least 2 or 3 blue chip prospects at other positions who fell because teams gambled on prospects who aren't nearly as good just because they want a first round QB. A team has to be prepared to take JJ Watt over Jake Locker or Blaine Gabbert if that's the way the draft works out.
-
On 4/22/2018 at 11:51 PM, Bakin said:
We have reached pick 12.
Only these 3 remain on our board.
You must pick one.
Who do you choose?
Fire Beane ... and maybe McDermott, too. At #12, a team needs to have more options for that pick than 1 position, especially when 1 of those options is a 2nd or 3rd rounder.
-
11 hours ago, Carter said:
A successful GM doesn’t trade away his pro bowl caliber, play-off reaching QB without a plan in place. We have an agreement.
We are moving up. No question about it. Guaranteed.
No other options.
This draft will be very telling how long beane and Bald Ginger last. If they fail this draft, they will both be gone in ‘19 after the usually 3 years.
Until we land our franchise qb, I suspect beane is still sabotaging our roster and he won’t last here in Buffalo.
One of the stupider posts I've seen on TBD in a while.
-
8 hours ago, KD in CA said:
Oh yeah, forgot that. People love to bash him but I always thought Schaub was a decent QB. Better than anyone who's played for the Bills in many years.
Certainly better than Losman. If you're going to end up with a modestly successful QB (Matt Schaub or Tyrod Taylor), better to take him in the third or sixth round than in the first round, especially if you trade up to get him.
-
4 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:
Ok then. Let's look at all of the Florida, Florida State, Notre Dame, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Miami, Penn State, LSU, and Michigan QBs since 1970 who really made it at the NFL level. They are storied programs, and they all generally produced one great qb max. Where Darnold went to school is MEANINGLESS. It is a truly weak inference.
You are totally missing my point. I'm not talking about whether schools produce QBs frequently or not, but how much hype -- publicity intended to boost a QB's draft stock -- the QBs from some schools get compared to other schools. Would Darnold be as highly regarded if he played for Miami of Ohio or Wisconsin or Boston College? IMO, I don't think he would be, but as I noted, he was being mentioned as a likely #1 pick as early as 2016.
-
11 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:
So now that there are these rumors, we are all going to start hating Sam Darnold now? Ginger USC quarterbacks never succeed! But he does believe in Jesus...how much money did his parents make last year?
Some fans have a distinct fear of success...I guess they don't want to be let down?
Some fans understand that it's hard to have success consistently when you have a QB who gives the ball away too often.
-
17 hours ago, dave mcbride said:
I suggest you list all of the great UCLA qbs not named Troy Aikman. And all of the great Oklahoma QBs. I did research on this, and the only two schools that stand out since the 1970 merger are Stanford and to a lesser extent Cal.
Aikman attended UCLA not USC, which was the team I referenced, and USC gets much more hype than UCLA.
More to the point, I specifically referenced the hype that's been a hallmark of USC QBs in "recent years, which 1989 certainly is not, and how USC QBs have not lived up to their hype when they got to the NFL. Palmer, Leinart, and Sanchez were all supposed to be "can't miss" prospects, at least according to their fans, but only Palmer had a decent NFL career. The hype surrounding Darnold has been even worse than the hype spewed out for Leinart and Sanchez ... and his flaws -- too many INTs and fumbles and poor mechanics -- are among the most frequent problems of QBs who fail to transition from college to the NFL.
-
2 minutes ago, PastorMKC said:
Hue Jackson is NOT picking this QB that's why It's b/t Darnold/ Allen Dorsey Likes both and he is Picking ...
I imagine that Hue Jackson had his fill watching DeShone Kizer regularly throw completions to the other team last season. Since I like the Brownies, I hope they leave Darnold and Allen to the Jests and take Rosen (and his concussions) while leaving Mayfield to the Bills.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:
And I'll be happy. Almost as happy as if it were Baker Mayfield.
No link, but he just said it on Good Morning Football on NFL Network. Lately I think he's been one of the more reliably dialed in guys out there.
Take it for what it's worth, less than a week from making that pick.
I put Darnold just above Allen. If he's there at 12, maybe the Bills take him, but if Roquan Smith was still there, I'd take Smith over him, and maybe use #22 on Jackson. If Jackson's gone, I'd consider Rudolph in the 2nd.
1 hour ago, kdiggz said:interceptions and fumbles don't bother anybody? how about the wonky throwing motion and poor footwork in the pocket? not worth trading all of those extra picks over someone like Rosen. would be a very poor decision based on where we are picking in this draft. if we were picking #1 and we had our choice then fine you can talk yourself into him maybe but the extra picks make it not worth it value-wise. Rosen is the best QB in the draft and he will be available at 5
These are all red flags for me. I'd only trade up to take Mayfield or maybe Rosen (primarily because of his concussion history).
36 minutes ago, NewEra said:But you have to look at every aspect of a player. Being able to suit up on Sunday’s being #1. I don’t know that Rosen will be injury prone, but he’s not off to a good start. Concussions, slighter frame and shoulder problems are part of his equation. McD has stated that he really likes a QB that can throw on the move outside of the pocket. Darnold is much better in that respect than Rosen.
I agree, rosen is currently the best qB in this class and I’d be VERY happy if we landed him....but there are other factors other than just playing QB.
Some of the most notable QB busts in recent years had no problem "being able to suit up on Sundays", but they sure had problems producing completions and TDs for their teams (not always so much for their opponents). I'm thinking of guys like Mark Sanchez, Christian Ponder, Blaine Gabbert, and even EJ Manuel.
2 minutes ago, mannc said:Well, there are a few, but my point is USC is infamous for producing overhyped busts who stink as soon as they are removed from the Trojan bubble. It’s happened often enough that I doubt it’s a coincidence.
The link among the recent USC QB's is the USC hype machine. Darnold has been hyped since 2016 when his fans tried to paint him as the next Andrew Luck despite his shortcomings which include being turn over prone and having poor mechanics, which might be tolerable faults in a kid taken after the first round but not in a supposed "blue chip" first rounder. Darnold hasn't been able to fix either of those faults since, so why would he be able to fix them in the pros?
FTR, since 2003, USC has produced 3 QBs who have been drafted in the first round: Carson Palmer #1 in 2003, Matt Leinart at #10 in 2006, and Mark Sanchez at #5 in 2009. Prior to 2003, USC last produced a first round QB in 1991 when Todd Marinovich went #24th. While Palmer has been successful, he probably hasn't had quite the kind of career that he was expected to have as the #1 pick. Leinart and Sanchez were definitely overhyped busts.
-
On 4/19/2018 at 8:43 AM, DriveFor1Outta5 said:
True, but welders and nurses are blue collar workers. Ironic that you use them as an example while stating that blue calling workers rarely exist, and you call them ignorant. I’m not trying to discount your opinion or be abrasive. I just felt the need to point out that you talking about a class below what’s considering blue collar. The idea there are few blue collar workers remaining is a joke. We will need truckers, nurses, welders, construction workers, plumbers, etc well into the future. It seems trendy to say that blue collar work is dead (when it really isn’t), and that everyone will need to become a computer guy. Politicians have already paid the price for discounting and diminishing the power of blue collar Americans.
Believe what you want. Most Hollywood actresses look like rural Wal Mart shoppers without their makeup and plastic surgery imo.
Somebody posted a whiney post about how horrible things were in Buffalo, and I responded by listing some of the reasons that I thought it was likely that poster made the claims that he/she/it did. Those claims had nothing to do with whether an individual worked blue collar, pink collar or white collar, and everything to do with attitude because I have several well educated friends/acquaintances who whine exactly the same way. You can believe the politicians claiming that you don't post-secondary education/training for success if you want, but remember that 99% of those spewing that BS have college degrees or more themselves, and you can bet that they aren't counseling THEIR kids that they don't need to get at least a two year degree.
The future belongs to the educated and the skilled whether you like it or not -- and that's been true since the mid-19th century and the rise of the Industrial Revolution, and there's no turning the clock back. It's no longer enough to learn to do a job a certain way because the new technologies and methodologies are changing constantly. The days of working in the same place doing the same thing for the 30 or 40 years of your working life are long gone. The pace of technological innovation is now growing by geometrical proportions, and that pace is only going to increase. It's estimated that in twenty years, most jobs will be in fields/industries that don't even exist today. Feel free to dig in your heels and choose to "go your own way", just don't come around me whining about how bad things are when you get left behind.
-
13 hours ago, DriveFor1Outta5 said:
How elitist ? You must be in the SoTier as research for your sociology dissertation.
Dude, I wrote my research in American history so long ago that you were probably weren't even a sparkle in your parents' eyes at the time but that's neither here nor there.
There is nothing particularly "elitist" about getting off your ass and getting a welding certificate or nursing degree rather than perpetually whining about how "there are no jobs in Buffalo" or "there are no jobs in WNY". There are plenty of jobs in and around the city and around WNY, although not so many for the unskilled and poorly educated because a lot of those jobs have been replaced by computer-controlled/assisted technology. That's a fact of modern economic life throughout the country, not just in NYS.
-
2 hours ago, Carter said:
Buffalo was blue collar when it actually had factory jobs. Now their color is rusted just like the factories.
Buffalo is a no collar town or a any collar you can get town because the economy is terrible and has been for 2 generations. That’s on the locals. Where is your pride of your city? Too much flouride in the water, or just lazy?
It seems to me that your bitter little rant encompasses the typical blue collar lament wailed by individuals who ...
- haven't lived in Buffalo for a while or live in one of the backward neighborhoods still stuck in a time-warp because the residents refuse to accept change
- have never lived in Buffalo and get all their info about what's going on here from their grandfathers and their retired cronies who all live in Florida
- are under-educated individuals with limited academic credentials and/or no or outdated job skills
- refuse to help themselves by going back to school to make up for their deficient educations or job skills
- want to be able to do mindless assembly line jobs that pay well and then retire with comfy pensions like their fathers and grandfathers did
- are embittered because they think people in administrative, educational, medical, managerial jobs are overpaid and consider only blue collar work to be "real work"
- are embittered because they don't like technological and social change
- are embittered old fogeys who think the "good old days" were so much better because white American males didn't have to compete with or "kowtow" to women, gays, Blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, and numerous other "foreigners" like they do today.
Buffalo has changed tremendously in the last decade. It's not the same city that it was even in 2005 or 2006. A lot of new people have moved in who aren't weighed down with the baggage of the past, and they're turning the city around ... and a lot of locals who aren't prepared to board the new fast moving train don't like it much. I suspect you and yours are among them.
-
1
-
1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:
No, actually it hasn't worked.
They got lucky with Kelly once, and aside from that their lack of aggressiveness to draft the position has been nothing short of unmitigated failure. They traded up in 2004 only after being unwilling to give up the bounty that Jacksonville wanted to move down from the 9 slot, which would have allowed them to take Roethlisberger. Instead they waited and took Lee Evans at 13.
They drafted Manuel in 2013 after trading back...and I maintain that it was the right thing to do. More than 50% of the franchise QBs in the NFL were drafted in the top 5; the other half come from the remaining 250 picks...the odds are much, much higher of getting a franchise guy in the top 5. Playing it passive and waiting doesn't often work out.
This team has tried the "let's see who nobody else wants" approach for 50+ years; it's time to try the "we found our guy, now let's go get him" approach.
That they didn't trade up says, again, that the fault was in not picking the right QB; they failed to recognize the qualities that would make him a significantly better pick than Losman. Furthermore, If they had stayed put in 2004, they would have been in a position to take Rodgers the next year (Bledsoe was still their starter so they could have waited). They could have also taken Cutler in 2006 who while not all that great a QB was certainly better than Losman, Edwards, Fitzpatrick, Manuel, and Orton.
You ignored my statements that they chose to pass on both Flacco and Wilson when they drafted in those rounds with both QBs still on the board.
Trading back for Manuel only mitigates the stupidity of picking a QB in the first round just to placate fans and put butts in the seats, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bills should have passed on a QB in the first round completely in 2013. They could have taken Bridgewater or Carr in 2014 and been much better off. Once again, the Bills picked the wrong guy, and whether they stayed where they were or traded back, it would have made no difference. They lost out on useful QBs in order to grab a bust. That's the real story of the Bills' QB woes.
-
11 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:
I don’t really understand why some people have a problem with what the Jets did...is it jealousy? Because if you ask me, I would love it if the Bills were in their spot...they are guaranteed to get one of the top 3 QBs... isn’t that we would want as Bills fans? That’s why I don’t get the bashing of the Jets for trading to 3.
Well, if your aim is to take a first round qb to placate fans and sell tix, then there's nothing wrong with it. You can't miss. If your aim is to build a winning team, however, it could be a costly mistake. What if neither Cleveland nor the Giants take QBs? Wow, great the Jests get first crack at the QBs, but since they had the sixth pick anyways, how are they all that much better off picking at 3 rather than 6. Indy wasn't taking a QB. The Browns aren't taking two. So, that leaves Denver, which doesn't seem likely to draft a QB with both Keenum and Lynch on the roster. So, the Jest gave up a lot to get the same or slightly better choice than they would have had if they stayed put ... and they don't control their destiny any more at #3 than they would have at #4. They bought into the "4 QBs are going to go in the top 5" hype being spewed by the media mavens and got played by the Colts.
That's not even dealing with the bigger issue of picking the right QB in a draft class that simply has a lot of flawed prospects rather than only 1 or 2 outstanding ones.
-
18 minutes ago, Captain Murica said:
What type of flower is that, Leotus?
Just messing, its Leodis.
I thought it looked odd, but drafthistory.com has him as "Leotis" so I thought I had it wrong!
-
57 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:
That test is a load of crap.
Ryan Fitzpatrick 48
Blaine Gabbert 42
Alex Smith 40
Eli Manning 39
Colin Kaepernick 37
Andrew luck 37
Manziel 32
Peyton 28
Ryan Leaf 27
Dan Marino 15
Donovan McNabb 14
The test gives an indication of whether or not the player can learn an NFL playbook. It's not much of an indicator of whether a particular player can read a defense or recognize a blitz.
In case you don't realize or forgot, Fitzpatrick graduated from Harvard (not attended, graduated) which might be rightly called "an anti-football factory". Harvard and the other Ivy League schools don't give athletic scholarships but scholarships for financial need and for merit. I believe that Harvard's endowment is so large that most of its students get free tuition, except, perhaps, for students who parents are multimillionaires, so competition to get in is fierce. This probably wasn't quite the case when Fitzpatrick was admitted, but it has never been easy for non-legacy students to be admitted there. (Non-legacy = students who don't have a sibling, parent, grandparent who is an alumnus.)
What I Don't Understand About Fan Reaction to Allen
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
What, exactly, makes Allen a "generational talent"? He's got size, a big arm, and some mobility. Whoopty-doo. So did any number of collegiate QBs who failed in the NFL. It takes more than that, and Allen hasn't demonstrated that he's got more.
As all three have demonstrated in their careers, they are decent NFL QBs who can take their teams to the playoffs with the right personnel around them and can even win the Super Bowl in the right circumstances, but they're not in the same class as Rodgers or Brees or even guys like Roethlisberger or Stafford.
Actually, I believe that the Carp did make the playoffs in 2015 or 2016 BTW.