SoTier

If the Bills draft Josh Allen, I will remain skeptical that he can become a good NFL QB, even as a Bill, until he proves he is one. Sorry, IMO, NFL GMs and scouts put way too much emphasis on size, arm strength, and athleticism when they should be trying to figure out what's between QBs' ears. I'm more impressed by a QB who demonstrates leadership, a will to win (see Brady, Thomas), good decision making, the ability to process what he sees quickly and accurately, and learns from his mistakes than a guy who can throw the ball 70 yards in the air. For physical traits, I want to see a QB who can put the ball where he wants it to go, who has "touch" on the ball so that so that the receiver can catch it, and who has decent mechanics. I'm not sold on Allen because I don't think that he possesses the traits I think are most important.

I think those are good definitions, although, like in almost everything, there are exceptions. I can think of two recent QBs who are exceptions: Andy Dalton in 2011 and Russell Wilson in 2012. Both were good enough to start from the get-go so they definitely weren't "projects" although their draft positions put them there. For Dalton, you really have to wonder how the geniuses that are supposed to be NFL scouts and GMs could have picked Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, and Christian Ponder ahead of him. Of course, Wilson's problem was that he's short, less than 6' and maybe not even 5'11", and NFL GMs are notoriously prejudiced against height-impaired QBs. Aside from Brett Favre, Drew Brees, Dalton, Wilson, and Derek Carr (whom I forgot originally) there haven't been too many Day 2 "projects" who've made the grade, although they've been more successful, as a group, than the first round "projects". Garoppolo might be one, but fewer than 10 starts is simply not enough games to judge him. I can't think of any others from rounds 2 or 3 who proved themselves decent starting QBs for multiple seasons. All the other non-first round QBs to succeed in the NFL in the last 20 years were "winning lottery tickets" -- from Brady and Romo to Cousins and Keenum.

How do you know that drafting a first round QB was the Bills' "plan" since last year? Acquiring draft capital is NEVER a bad idea, especially with a new regime that has clear ideas about how to build a winning roster, and many players who didn't fit their requirements. Your claim is nothing but fantasy in your first-round QB obsessed brain. FTR, It couldn't have been a "plan" because Beane wasn't even hired then, and McDermott was too busy with his new responsibilities as HC and the 2017 draft to worry about the 2018 draft. Only QB obsessed fans would believe that teams determine that they're going to draft a first QB in a draft more than a year away when they don't even know who will be available. The Bills traded back because they didn't like any of the players left on the board at #10 in 2017 enough to take them there, including Mahomes and Watson. The Bills traded Watkins because they didn't think they could sign him and wanted to get something for him, and they traded Dareus because he and McDermott didn't seem to work well together as well as the fact that Dareus hadn't been playing well. Furthermore, any draft is unpredictable, and drafts never go the way all these supposed "draft experts" in the media claim it will unless there's an Andrew Luck available. Drafts don't always even go the way teams expect them to, either. Teams trade up and/or reach in every draft. Every competent FO needs to have a contingency plan that includes "what if A is gone?" and "what if B (who was expected to be gone in the top 5) is available at 12?" Should the Bills pass on Barkley if he fell to #12 for Mason Rudolph just because they need a QB? That, sir, is a Tom Donahoe or Marv Levy/Dick Jauron type move.

I totally agree although I don't like to question the FO's moves short term. I love Barkley and think he is a better RB prospect than any of the QBs are QB prospects, but I sure don't want the Bills trading up to get him. I would only want the Bills to trade up for a QB, only into the 5-10 range, and that QB better be named Mayfield or Rosen and not Allen or Darnold.

I think that this question determines the results of the general question about "project QBs who DID reach potential". If you define a "developmental QB" as a QB who was an UDFA or QBs drafted after the first round, then you'll get a lot of examples compared to limiting your definition to "first round QBs who were projects". I think you would have to go back thirty or forty years to find any examples of first round "projects" who were actually successful because there simply aren't any in the last twenty. Pretty much, first round "projects" in the last 20 years have all failed. I also don't think that going to a "small school" = "project". Ben Roethlisberger was not a "project" despite going to Miami of Ohio (not the U!). Neither was Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco or Carson Wentz. All of these QBs were impressive QBs even if they played in lower regarded Div 1 (or even Div II schools in Flacco's case) programs. JP Losman wasn't nearly as impressive at Tulane as Roethlisberger, Ryan, Flacco or Wentz, and Josh Allen wasn't at Wyoming, either.

Six in the top 30? Six in the top 8? Four in the top 5. Somebody thinks 8 in the first round. Really? ROTFLMAO. Only in the hype machines of the Jason LaCanforas and other media mavens and in the wet dreams of Bills fans. IMO, only 4 go in the entire first round (that's 32 picks), probably only 2 or 3 in the top twelve because I don't think the pros really think as highly of these QBs as the media claims they do. I really don't think that even teams desperate for a QB will use a first round pick on Mason Rudolph, although sometimes teams do stupid **** in the draft on owners' orders or to put butts in the seats as witness Tim Tebow, EJ Manuel, and Johnny Manziel all going in the first round. Hopefully, the Bills learned their lesson the last two times out.

IMO, there will be 1 or 2 of the top four QBs available at #12, but whether the Bills like their choice(s) at that point is the big question. If they don't, then I would like them to go BPA. Keep in mind that if 4 QBs go in the top 11, then there will be some blue chippers available at #12, so the Bills can get one of those. In 2011, with 3 QBs gone in the top 10, the Texans scooped up JJ Watt at #11 while the Jags wasted #10 on Blaine Gabbert and the Vikes spent #12 on Christian Ponder. RIP. Where do I send the flowers?

Or maybe some people just aren't as enamored of a turn over prone QB from USC as are the media mavens who keep hyping him as their "hands down #1 pick". That includes me. I don't see what's so special about Darnold. I don't want a QB who "just wins" but one who leads his team to wins. Every time I've watched Mayfield, I'm reminded of watching Russell Wilson at Wisconsin, so he's my pick.

Another day, another too-stupid-to-be-true-but-unfortunately-isn't thread.

Both Flacco and Dalton have benefited immensely with their teams having been loaded with talent on both sides of the ball when they were drafted. They are both successful starters -- and Flacco especially so -- but they need to have strong support around them. When their teams were loaded with talent, they looked much better than more recently when their teams have lost a considerable amount of that original talent. They aren't busts, but neither are they likely to be future HOFers based on their careers so far -- and neither was a top five pick nor did their teams trade away a cartload of draft picks/players to get them (although the Ravens did do some horse trading of picks to wind up picking at #18 in 2008). When a player gets drafted at the top of the draft, especially the top five, fans expect him to be a star, a "difference maker". Look at how Bills fans viewed Sammy Watkins. Solid player, top ten at his position, occasional Pro Bowl appearances = disappointment, especially for a QB. I think if you claim you wouldn't be disappointed with a Flacco/Dalton level QB at #2, #4 or #5, then you're lying to others as well as to yourself.

All four AFCE teams won't get new starters for 2018 unless Brady gets injured and whatever rookie QB the Jests draft beats out Josh McCown. The Bills will have a new starter because Taylor is gone, and Miami will have Tannehill as their starter rather than Cutler. Only the Jests and Bills are likely to draft a QB in the first round, though.

I disagree if the Bills trade up into the top five and only get a Dalton/Flacco type QB. If they stay where they are and get a Dalton/Flacco type QB at #12 or #22, then that's okay. A QB taken in the top 5 who can do no better, over his career, than an Andy Dalton or Joe Flacco would be a big disappointment. To get to the top five, the Bills would have to give up a lot of potential talent. IMO, neither Dalton or Flacco would have had much success at all if they had not come into situations where there was lots of talent surrounding them. The Bills don't have the talent at present to support much QB success, so they would need to use some of the draft capital they've collected to improve the team to support any QB they draft.

I think the Beane administration can withstand missing on a QB if they stand pat and miss on a QB or even if they don't a first round QB at all, especially if all of the top four QBs turn out to be busts or in the Cutler/Tannehill/Bortles level (which is much more likely than all four being at that level or better). I think trading up for a QB and missing will be a fatal move because they will not only not have a franchise QB but will have lost out on a lot of potential talent.

Who's to say that McCarron isn't an epic bust as a starter? I mean, he's played in only a handful of games, so who knows if he's Kurt Warner or Brock Osweiller? Some QBs are so crappy that even the best coaching in the world isn't going to help him much. How could that be possible since Taylor is no longer a Bill? /sarcasm off That, of course, is simply not in the realm of possibility for the many fans who want to trade up no matter the cost, although it's more likely that only 1 if any of the top 4 QBs will be successful than that more than 1 of them will be successful. He traded away Donovan McNabb to keep Kevin Kolb who is best remembered for being made of glass, but that only obscures the fact that Kolb, when healthy, sucked and eventually lost his starting job to Michael Vick. You may have annointed Andy Reid a football god but he's not even close to being Belichick's little bro.

Chiefs' worst case scenario: Mahomes sucks ala Matt Leinart or Mark Sanchez or Blaine Gabbert.

Apparently not. Only trading a truckload of high draft picks to gamble on an overhyped collegiate QB will get the Bills close to a Super Bowl ... after all, Philadelphia just did it.

^^^^ I just love, absolutely love, the revisionist historians who disguise themselves as Bills fans. Your ilk constantly pretend that a) the Bills didn't "bet the farm" trying to get a top notch QB during the drought and that b) not getting a "franchise QB" resulted in the Bills' 17 year playoff drought. You conveniently ignored the fact in 2002, the Bills traded their 2003 first round pick to acquire QB Drew Bledsoe from NE. In 2004, the Bills TRADED UP (from the second round back into the first) to take JP Losman. In 2013, the Bills took EJ Manuel in the first round. Bledsoe wasn't a bust in any sense of the word. His career stats, including his 2002 season when he set the Bills passing yards record, are border line HOF. The Bills didn't make the playoffs during his 3 seasons with the Bills because they didn't have a good enough team around him. Then the Bills FO swapped him out in order to start JP Losman, who was so unready to be the starter in 2005 that he was eventually benched for Kelly Holcomb. After a decent season in 2006, the Bills "brain trust" swapped him out for the cheaper, risk-adverse Trent Edwards, who aside from 5 decent games at the start of 2008 turned out to be an ineffective QB that only an incompetent HC like Dick Jauron could start ahead of even Ryan Fitzpatrick. As for Manuel, he was clearly drafted so that the Bills could placate their fans and put butts in the seats by drafting -- and starting -- a first round QB when the future of the franchise was up in the air. The 2013 QB class simply sucked, and no QB deserved to be taken in the first round. That's the price that's paid because the Bills had a market "genius" running the team. The Broncos drafted Paxton Lynch at #21 in 2016. He didn't show much as a rookie (neither did Goff nor the 2017 first rounders Trubisky and Mahomes), and he was injured in much of 2017, so the jury is still out on him. Lynch is likely to be a bust, simply because only about 25% of QBs drafted in the bottom of the first round are successful, but the Broncos trading up to draft him higher wouldn't have changed a single thing about the Broncos to the present except that they would have had fewer rookies in 2017.

Well, in 2002, 2007, 2010, and 2013, getting "the best QB in the class" wouldn't get you more than a backup at best. NFL teams aren't looking for gold in backyards. They're looking for gold in the places that have produced gold in the past, and their top prospects, the first round QBs, still only hit about half the time ... and that's with the QBs taken at #1 hitting at about 80%. QBs taken between #2 and #32 only hit a little more than four times out of ten. That's pretty discouraging odds. Now, some teams luck out and find their franchise QBs but most don't because even among the 50% QBs that are "successes" there are going to be several who are only decent starters at best. I would agree with the author that the NFL isn't very good at evaluating QB prospects.

What about the Chiefs? Mahomes hasn't proven anything yet. Goff sucked as a rookie. He had an excellent sophomore year but if he fails to continue to progress, he certainly won't be the first or last first round QB to do so. What happens if Mahomes or Goff or both turn out to be busts? Worse yet, what if one or both turn out to be an Alex Smith or Jay Cutler or Blake Bortles -- "second tier QBs"? Given that first round QBs taken in the top ten other than the #1 consensus pick have only about 50% chance of even being a successful "second tier QB", giving up multiple first rounders and other picks to move into the top ten is reckless. If the QB turns out to be an Eli Manning, then the cost is forgiven. If the QB turns out to be a Mark Sanchez ...

The last time the Jests had a bonafide franchise QB was Lyndon Johnson was POTUS and I was in HS. By all means, the Jests should be a team that the Bills choose to emulate. NOT.

Ummm ... if the Bills cut McCoy, Hughes, and Clay, they will need to replace them as well. That's why the "we can fix everything in 2019 because we have tons of cap space" scenario doesn't fly ... players ARE going to have to be replaced because of retirement, injury, trade, cuts, etc., and vets are ALWAYS much more expensive than rookies of the same quality.

First round QBs in the last 20 years only hit the threshold of "successful starter for five or six years" (that's NOT "franchise QB" territory) only about 50% of the time. That's a QB on the level of Smith, Cutler, Flacco, Dalton, Tannehill, etc. Franchise QBs like Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Ryan etc come along much less frequently, not even at the rate of 1 a draft. The reason so few QBs from the 2nd or 3rd rounds don't succeed very often is that most aren't given real opportunities to be starters. In recent years, teams have found successful QBs and even franchise QBs when they've given them real opportunities: Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson, Derek Carr, Dak Prescott, etc. I disagree that this year is anything special when it comes to QBs. I think it's more like 2011 with tons of hype hiding iffy prospects. There will probably 1 decent/good starting QB from the draft like there is from most drafts. I do agree that Allen is a bust waiting to happen. Maybe he'll be great ... but let somebody else take that sucker bet.

You are going to "implode" because you believe that all the media mavens and draftniks predicting that the first three picks will be QBs and four of the top five picks will be QBs. I suppose you also buy into the hype that the colleges will stop producing QBs after 2018 so the Bills better grab one while they can no matter what the cost. You may believe the hype but I don't think teams at the top of the draft would have much interest in trading back as they shown or hinted at if the pros thought as highly of these kids as the media keeps claiming they do. I think Cleveland will take a QB at either #1 or #4 and the Jests will take another at #3 but I'm not seeing any of the other teams drafting between 5 and 11 doing so. The Giants will ride Eli a few years more; I think that they want Barkley. The Broncos have Keenum and still have Paxton on his rookie contract. Miami is NOT looking for Tannehill's replacement in the first round of this draft (Tannehill was drafted in 2012 NOT 2002!) when they have lots of holes to fill on both sides of the ball. Unless somebody trades up into the top ten, I think the Bills will have a shot at a choice of two or three when their turn comes at #12, although maybe they only like one of the top four or five, and he's already gone. In that case, dude, taking a LB like Smith if he's still available would make sense. Draft a developmental guy on the 2nd day if there's one there you like. Drafting a first round QB you don't think is that good just to placate idiot fans and put butts in the seats gets you EJ Manuel and Johnny Manziel. Well, that would be the end of the world ...

I don't believe that the Bills are "okay" with more than 1 QB at any specific draft slot because they have all the QBs in a definite rank order. I think they have only 1 QB they're willing to trade up to get. If they don't trade up to get that QB and he were to fall to #12, they would still take him over whomever they had slotted as the QB they would take at #12 because they believe he's a better prospect.

Actually, the Seahawks had their best teams in Russell Wilson's first three seasons when they weren't QB-centric, but were primarily a running team with a strong defense. When they became utterly QB-centric in 2017, they failed to make the playoffs. IMO, pro football has been QB-dependent since the 1960s with the rise of the AFL which emphasized scoring over defense. It has become increasingly QB centric since the merger, but I think that the rise of fantasy football in recent decades has put unreasonable emphasis on putting up impressive stats rather than on winning games. It used to be that QBs used to be judged on whether their teams won or lost and whether they made the playoffs and won playoff games. Stats were secondary. That's all been turned on its head. A QB like Tyrod Taylor is a "lousy" QB because he didn't put up big passing stats while starting for the Bills, although he played for a team with a run first philosophy with an average pass blocking OL and receivers at best. OTOH, Kirk Cousins is the star of FA because he played in a heavy pass first offense that allowed him to put up big numbers despite the fact that the Redskins have exactly the same record as the Bills over the last 3 seasons (2015-2017: 24 wins, 24 losses, 1 9-7 record, 1 playoff appearance, 0 playoff wins). Meanwhile, Phillip Rivers has a record of 18-30 over the last 3 seasons with 1 9-7 record but 0 playoff appearances. In fact, Rivers has exactly 1 more playoff win than either Taylor or Cousins despite having played in 6 playoff games in his entire 14 year career, and that win came in 2007. San Diego has made the playoffs only once in the last 7 years, but many of the same fans who dump on Taylor don't criticize Rivers for his consistent lack of clutch play when the playoffs/playoff games have been on the line over the years. Instead, they make excuses for him even when he throws INTs by the basketful (Rivers has thrown double digit INTs 10 times, including leading the league in INTs in 2014 and 2016).