SoTier

There are a lot of myths circulating among Bills fans concerning Ralph Wilson's affinity for the area as well as his role in keeping the Bills in Buffalo. I've become increasingly skeptical about how much truth actually underlies those myths as the years go by. One thing I do know is that Wilson repeatedly used the threat of moving the team to get very favorable lease terms for the stadium. He also wasn't interested in selling the team, so there's no way to know if there were any individuals or groups twenty or forty years ago that would have purchased it and kept it here. That there was no one who would have bought the team and kept it here is all based on assumptions not facts. BTW, after Wilson died and the team was sold, it has remained in Buffalo. Maybe that had something to do with how Wilson had things set up or maybe it's just that the Pegulas have their own affinity for the Buffalo area ... or maybe it was just a good business decision because there was no better place to move it. Very well said. BTW, saying that Wilson was a cheapskate owner is hardly "revisionist history". Commentators and fans have been saying that for years. I personally have been critical of how the Bills were run under Wilson for years. The bottom line has ALWAYS been more important than winning for Wilson and his minions, many of whom were his family and friends rather than competent football professionals. Many NFL owners pad their team payrolls with family and friends, but most don't put them in positions of real power as the Bills did with Littman. The evidence that the Bills weren't interested in spending on coaches is pretty plain, too. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Bills HCs were spectacularly awful with the exception of Lou Saban and Chuck Knox, both hired after dismal on field performances left tens of thousands of empty seats in Rich Stadium. Except for Chuck Knox, none had any kind of NFL success after leaving the Bills, either. Even Marv Levy didn't have impressive credentials when he was hired, and his hiring was considered "more of the same mediocrity". It's also the opinion of many fans and analysts that the Bills might even have a Lombardi or two if they had had better coaching, especially against the Giants. In a previous post in this thread, I outlined the repeated problems the Bills had in signing their first round draft picks even when these players had only limited options. Some of the old time sports reporters of the day like Larry Felser frequently criticized the Bills for drafting "players they could sign" rather than good players, which may be why so many top Bills draft picks sucked. It wasn't until the Polian era that the Bills started going BPA in any kind of meaningful way. Oh, yeah, and the parade of DBs and RBs drafting in the first round to replace DBs and RBs who left in FA or through trade in the last decade and a half of Wilson's ownership is simply more evidence that the Bills watched that bottom line more than their win-loss record. It's also historical fact is that during Wilson's 54 year tenure as owner, the Bills had only 19 winning seasons, and 10 of those came in the 14 years between 1986 and 2000 under Bill Polian and his protege, John Butler. Most of the Bills playoff appearances also occurred in this period. Since Butler left, the Bills had exactly 1 winning season and 0 playoff appearances in the last 13 years of Wilson's ownership. Since Pegula became owner, despite a poor choice of HC in Rex Ryan, the Bills have already had 2 winning seasons and 1 playoff appearance in 4 years.

Well, let's see ... OJ Simpson held out for months as a rookie. Tom Cousineau, one of the Bills #1 draft picks, preferred to play in the CFL rather than sign for the length of his career with the Bills. Jim Kelly chose to play in the USFL rather than sign with the Bills, and only signed with the Bills after the USFL went belly up. Another first round pick, LB Tom Ruud, also held out for months. Oh, yeah, and in the era of pre-unrestriced free agency as we know it today, even the best players were cheap, especially compared to the owners' profit. It took strikes in 1974 and 1982 as well as a lock out by the owners in 2011 in order for ordinary players to get better wages and benefits, and numerous court challenges that culminated in modern unrestricted free agency in 1992 that enabled the best players to have big pay days.

Exactly this. Ralph Wilson ran his team as a business with the goal of making money. Like many business owners, he watched his bottom closely. That doesn't mean that he wasn't a generous philanthropist in the tradition of other tough businessmen like John D Rockefeller or Henry Ford.

Good points, especially about the problems faced by tall QBs. People, including QBs, can and frequently do learn to control their tempers, especially as they mature. What QBs can't learn to do is process/translate what they see into action faster than they naturally do. They simply can't adjust to the speed of the pro game. It doesn't appear that QBs can significantly change/improve their throwing motions, their ball placement, or their ability to see the field, either. All of these things contribute far more to a QB's success or failure than whether he has a temper -- or whether he's only 6' tall rather than 6'2" or 6'8".

That's true, but that's like saying being black held back Satchel Paige because segregation in baseball forced him to play nearly all of his career in the Negro baseball leagues rather than in the majors (Satchel). Being black didn't affect how Paige played, just where he played and the length of his MLB career. Flutie's height was the same way. Flutie was absolutely great in the CFL, and he proved to be pretty good in the NFL in his very limited opportunities. He was certainly much better than the conventionally tall Rob Johnson. Personally, whether the Bills get him or not (I hope they do), I hope Mayfield tears up the league. Maybe having 3 great short QBs in the league at the same time would wake up these FO folks to realize that there's more to being a QB than simply size and arm strength!

Excuse me, but they did. Cleveland has drafted 3 or 4 QBs in the first round since 2005. The Bills drafted Losman in the first round in 2004 and then drafted EJ Manuel in 2013. They all busted. How come Miami has only made the playoffs once since they drafted Tannehill? How come the Chargers haven't made the playoffs in several years despite having Rivers? Y'know what the real common denominator is about teams breaking perpetual losing cycles? It's FO and coaching! The Vikings haven't had a bonafide top QB since Brett Favre retired, and yet they continue to make the playoffs. They made the playoffs with first round bust Christian Ponder as their QB. They went to the NFC Championship last year with their backup QB as their starter almost the entire season. YOU look at Philly and LAR. Goff was considered a likely bust off his play as a rookie. Despite having some decent talent, the Rams had sucked for years under Jeff Fisher. New FO, new coaching staff, and voila! the Rams are now the power in the NFC West. Wentz was decent as a rookie QB, but he really came into his own in 2017, but when he went down in November, almost everybody figured that the Eagles were done. They limped into the playoffs with a backup QB, but the Philly coaching staff worked with him and got him prepped for the playoffs -- and they created a masterful game plan to beat the Patriots. Without McVay and Pederson, it's likely Goff resembles Losman and Wentz resembles Tannehill more than they do the best looking young QBs to come into the league since 2012. It seems to me that the Bills have, for the first time since Bill Polian left, a FO and a coaching staff that's committed to winning. I don't think "tanking" for the slim chance of being able to pick a collegiate QB as their "savior" is in Beane and McDermott's DNA even if it's in yours. It's not in the DNA of any team that consistently wins and makes the post season and sometimes the Super Bowl. They play every game to win unless it's at the very end of the season, and they can't better their playoff slots. That's how NE plays the game. That's how Philly and Pittsburgh and Minnesota and Green Bay and Seattle and Carolina play the game. That's how the Bills need to play the game, too.

And what would be your suggestion for 2020 or 2021 or 2022 if all of the first round QBs in this draft bust, including the Bills #1 pick? Tank again? And again? In case you haven't noticed, perpetual losing too often becomes a cycle that's almost impossible to break as the Cleveland Browns (2005-?), Detroit Lions (2001-2009), Arizona Cardinals (1999-2006), Tampa Bay Bucs (1982-1996), Buffalo Bills (2005-2013) etc

If he's as good as advertised, then his height won't matter. It hasn't held Brees or Wilson back. It didn't hold Flutie back, either. The only red flag on Mayfield really is his height. Of course, being really tall didn't do much for Mike Glennon or Brock Osweiler.

It seems to me that the definition of a "franchise QB" is much like Justice Potter Stewart's view of pornography ... paraphrased: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

^^^ By your definition, SoCalDeek, Ryan Tannehill is a franchise QB and Blake Bortles will likely become one after 2018 barring some unforeseen circumstance simply because they were first round picks and their teams had no one better. Neither one is a "bad QB" on the level of a Joey Harrington, JaMarcus Russell or EJ Manuel, but neither has been "good enough" to truly secure the starting position since rumors persist that Miami is looking to replace Tannehill, and Bortles had to fight in training camp in 2017 to keep his job as starter. I sure wouldn't consider either a franchise QB at this point, although they're probably both decent starters. BTW, Mark Sanchez started for four years for the Jests and even received a contract extension after his second or third season. If the Jests hadn't had a major regime change that resulted in them sacking their GM and HC (every Bills fan's fave, Rex Ryan) after the 2012 season, Sanchez would have undoubtedly been the Jests' starter in 2013 as well. So, yeah, sometimes teams do keep a bad QB as a starter years longer than they should simply because they have too much invested in them or they can't find anybody better.

No, we won't because he's not really leaving. Maybe it was that Russell kid that Seattle drafted in the third round about 5 years ago ... after all, the Seahags didn't make the playoffs last season, so it must have been because their short QB played lousy.

Promises, promises, promises. Too bad you won't keep them. Guaranteed, if the Bills draft any QB in 2018, if he becomes even a modest success, you'll be here singing his praises, and if the Bills draft somebody other than your faves, you'll be here with "I told you sos". Of course, if the Bills draft one of your faves and he sucks, you'll whine and complain and claim they should have taken whatever 2018 QB might happen to actually turn out to be a success. BTW, Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, JP Losman, Ryan Fitzpatrick, EJ Manuel, and Kyle Orton were neither "undersized" nor "running QBs" ... and they all "sucked" according to the Bills faithful such as yourself although to be truthful, Bledsoe didn't suck at all.

I didn't include any QBs drafted after 2014 because I don't think they've had enough time to prove themselves one way or another. (FTR, I always want QBs to have at least 3 seasons of starting). I also didn't include Mariota and Trubisky. Yeah, Wentz looks good and makes Philly look great to trade up to get him, but he has to come back from his knee, and he also needs to continue to improve his game. However, Mariota remains a modest success at best. If a team had traded a fortune of picks to move up to draft him, would they think they got their money's worth? Even if you include both Mariota and Wentz, that's all of 5 successes, some only modest, out of 9 QBs or 56%. That's only slightly better than the percentage for all first round QBs. Of course, 10 of the 12 QBs taken #1 between 2000 and 2016 have had at least modest success, for 83%, so my premise remains correct: it's only the statistical success of the #1 picks that makes the "top five" QBs look like such statistical good bets. As always, whether to take a QB or not, and especially whether to trade up or not, doesn't depend upon statistics but on individuals. If the QB the Bills want is available and they trade up to get him on draft day, that's okay. If they trade up to any position except #1 before the draft, that's stupid.

Well, I think you better prepare for the Bills to draft another first round QB bust even if they trade up into #2. Only 3 of the 7 QBs taken between #2 and #5 since 2000 have been even modestly successful (Phillip Rivers, Matt Ryan, and Blake Bortles). Most drafts don't produce more than 1 starting QB no matter how many first round QBs are taken, and some of those are at best, only decent starters (think Bortles or Tannehill) while others come out of rounds below the first. Since 2000, only 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2014 have produced decent starting QBs. The only drafts since 2000 that had 2 top QBs come out of the first round were 2004, 2005, 2008, 2012)

Where did I say that the Bills shouldn't grab the QB they want? I was specifically arguing against the posters claiming the Bills need to trade up into the top five to grab a QB, literally, any QB the media mavens claim is a top QB prospect because top five QBs are statistically more successful than other first round QBs. That's simply untrue. Only QBs taken as #1 picks are statistically better than other first round QBs, and lumping the QBs taken between #2-#5 with them makes "top five QBs" look much more statistically successful. It's not the risk of taking a QB in the top five that's risky. It's trading up into the top five to get that QB is what is truly risky because of the cost. The sample size of teams that did this between 2000-2014 are very tiny, about 3 trades: the Giants swapping Eli for Rivers and picks in 2004; the Jets trading up for Mark Sanchez in 2009; and the Redskins trading up for Robert Griffin III in 2012. If either or both Goff and Wentz turn into franchise QBs, it will totally change the statistics simply because of the tiny sample size.

This is the red flag for me with these QBs. Most of them have serious flaws, and not minor ones. Darnold has issues with turn overs, and many analysts think he needs to sit for a year. Rosen lacks mobility and has already had 2 concussions ... that's a time bomb. Allen has big questions about his accuracy, and he will definitely need to sit for a year in most analysts' opinion. Mayfield is the only one who doesn't have obvious question marks but he's shorter than the pros would like. Jackson is probably another project, plus he has issues with accuracy and style as well. The odds for a top five QB being even modestly successful are not significantly better than for all QBs taken in the first round. The QBs who have been taken with the #1 pick since 2000 have hit at about 80%. The QBs picked from #2-#5 don't even hit at a 50% rate. The high success rates for the #1 picks make the success rate for #2-#5 seem much higher than it really is. Of the 10 #1s, 8 were at least modestly successful. Of the 7 QBs taken between #2-#5, only 3 have been modestly successful. Since 2000, these QBs were drafted in the Top Five: 2001 - #1 Michael Vick 2002 - #1 David Carr 2002 - #3 Joey Harrington 2003 - #1 Carson Palmer 2004 - #1 Eli Manning 2004 - #4 Phillip Rivers 2005 - #1 Alex Smith 2006 - #3 Vince Young 2007 - #1 JaMarcus Russell 2008 - #3 Matt Ryan 2009 - #1 Matthew Stafford 2009 - #5 Mark Sanchez 2010 - #1 Sam Bradford 2011 - #1 Cam Newton 2012 - #1 Andrew Luck 2012 - #2 Robert Griffin III 2014 - #3 Blake Bortles

Why didn't you just resurrect the previous thread that you started on this very same topic last week since you've essentially made the same arguments almost verbatim? In response to your recycled arguments about top QBs, I'll recycle my original reply.

Cry me a river. IMO, missing on Allen and Darnold is no great loss, and I like Mayfield better than any of those three. Even Jackson would be acceptable at 12 or 22. Besides, it's not like I have any control of anything.

Just for you ... F the draft and F this yea's "great draft for QB's" ... and especially F the idiots who think the NFL season is simply a prelude to the NFL draft. BTW 89% of Bills posters who voted on your poll agree with me. ROTFL.

Why is that? If you draft a player in the top ten who isn't nearly as good a prospect as others still available, you've reached for him. That's what the Bills did in 2006 when they took Donte Whitner because they needed a strong safety while DT Haloti Ngata was still on the board ... and then they traded back into the first to take bust DT John McCargo. The Bills did the same thing again in 2009 when they wasted the 11th overall pick on Aaron Maybin with Brian Orakpo still available. If the Bills hadn't traded back into the first round to take Losman in 2004, he would have probably been available in the 2nd, and if he wasn't, they could have taken Schaub or just pass on a QB and take one in 2005 ... and Aaron Rodgers would have been available at #18. One of the big reasons for the playoff drought was that the Bills were constantly drafting DBs, WRs, and RBs and then disposing of their first round picks when their rookie contracts were finished. They then used first and second round picks to replace them, so they had few high draft picks to invest in other positions. The Bills didn't draft for BPA or even for need during the playoff drought. They drafted to improve the bottom line, which is why the two QBs they did draft sucked ... they were both reaches that the Bills drafted in the first round because first round rookie QBs guarantee better ticket sales.

he 2013 is only rare because there was only 1 QB was taken in the first round, and he was a bust. Usually there's more than 1 QB taken in the first round. All of the first round QBs failing is uncommon but not unheard of. -- Since 2000, only 1 QB was taken in 2000, 2001, and 2013. -- All of the first round QBs turning out as busts happened in 2002 (3), 2007 (2), and 2013 (1). 2014 might also join the club if Bortles doesn't step up and Bridgewater can't successfully come back from his devastating injury. The sad fact is that whether a draft produces 1 first rounder or 4, generally only 1 or 2 QBs from each draft finds as much success as a Jay Cutler or Ryan Tannehill, and some of those successful QBs come from rounds other than the first.

Absolutely true. Yes, they were ... and they were drooling for the likes of Leinart, Quinn, Gabbert, Ponder, Locker, etc too. Just because some media "experts" claim to like some collegiate QB prospect, there will be fans acting like that QB is the second coming of Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck ... and glossing over serious faults.

Denver still has Paxton Lynch for at least 2 years. Miami just extended Tannehill with a team friendly pact, so I don't see them adding a first round QB since they've created lots of holes this off season -- unless there's serious questions about Tannehill's recovery which haven't surfaced yet. Arizona might go QB but they seem to prefer acquiring veteran QBs than shooting their wads on first round rookies. Maybe drafting Matt Leinart made them gun shy.

I'm with jrober on this. This is just media hype just like the predictions that all four of the top QBs will go in the top five picks or that six QBs are likely to go in the first round. Just because media mavens haven't heard about a lot of collegiate QBs doesn't mean that NFL scouts haven't seen some younger QBs they like.

This seems to be part of the QB hype machine pushed by the sports media to keep interest -- and anxiety -- among football fans high. Since 2000, most drafts have only produced 1 decent NFL starting QB (at least on a Cutler-Flacco-Dalton-Tannehill level) from the first round. Occasionally, drafts have produced no quality starters or multiple starters. In some drafts, especially recently, teams have found starting QBs after the first round. I really don't think NFL scouting departments are paying much attention to 2019 prospects at present, either. They have enough on their plates getting their 2018 draft boards put together to be worrying about 2019.