SoTier

Frankly, I don't want the Bills drafting a QB just to placate the idiot fan base. They did that all during Ralph Wilson's ownership, and the result was a few years of almost winning it all bookended by seemingly endless years of mediocrity or worse. I want the Bills drafting to build a winning team. If they don't like the QBs in this draft enough to pay a ransom for any of them, that's fine with me. Use the picks to build the rest of the team, which they'll have to do sooner or later anyways. Another ASSUMPTION without any kind of proof. Actually, only Trubiskey was considered a true first round prospect. Both Mahomes and Watson had significant question marks that made them less than great prospects. If they were that great, they'd have gone in the top 5. That they went in the first round doesn't change the evaluations; it just proves that two teams were desperate enough to gamble a lot reaching for very risky prospects. BTW, will you be around if the the Bills "go hard at a QB" who turns out to be a Joey Harrington or Vince Young? About half of all QBs taken after the #1 pick bust.

You ASSUMED they traded back to get a QB even though Beane wasn't even the GM yet. You know what you get when you ASSUME, dude.

Since 2000 ... 2004 ... the Bills traded up to get JP Losman 2005 ... the Redskins traded up to get Jason Campbell (yeah, he was a bust ... if he hadn't been a first rounder, teams wouldn't have started him) 2009 ... the Jests traded up to take Mark "Butt Fumble" Sanchez and the Bucs traded up to take Josh Freeman 2012 ... the Redskins traded up to take Robert Griffin III Sanchez was a #5 pick and Griffin was taken at #2. Lots of fans make the excuse for Griffin that his injury wrecked his career but the reality is that he never mastered any of the skills QBs need in order to be successful. He tried to continue to play the way he did as a rookie, and he couldn't do that physically any more. His inability to master the cerebral aspects of being a QB doomed Griffin more than his injury.

PFF's methodology for rating OL play is seriously flawed. I don't know what their problem is, whether it is how they determine blocking assignments or how they define sacks, pressures, success etc or how much weight they give various elements in their algorithm, but something is off because their ratings don't often match the results on the field. PFF rated all of the Bills starting OLers last season as average or better IIRC. They rated the Bills OL as a top ten unit. That simply wasn't true. The OL was not better in giving Taylor time to throw or opening holes for Shady in 2017 than it had been in 2016, and they were only an average OL in 2016. All of the OLers except Ducasse struggled with the new blocking scheme in the first half of the season, and it was reflected in generally poor individual performances. It was in the second half of the season that the OLers started playing better. Ducasse has never, ever been anything but a backup -- and not always a particularly good one -- over the course of his 8 year NFL career. Then he comes to Buffalo and suddenly becomes a starter and helps elevate an average OL missing its starting LT to top ten in the league. If Ducasse were a young player on only his second team, that scenario might be at least plausible but it says to me that the stat boys at PFF are full of excrement. Newhouse has experience playing both tackle positions, which is a good depth player for a team to have. As long as he's a backup and not a regular starter, he'd make a good signing. Fans should worry if he were penciled in as the starting RT.

The 1970s, huh? Had to really stretch to find that choice tidbit. When was the last time the Green Bay Packers drafted a QB in the top ten? At least 25 years ago because they got Rodgers at #24 and they traded for Favre who was a second rounder. When was the last time the Pittsburgh Steelers drafted a QB in the top ten? I'm guessing it was back about 1970 when they took Terry Bradshaw because Roethlisberger was taken at #11. Oh, yeah, and the Stillers went to the SB with Neil O'Donnell IIRC, and they won playoff games with the likes of Bubby Brister and Kordell Stewart. The Vikings have been a playoff team far more often than the Bills since 1970, and they haven't taken a top ten QB in decades. The last first rounder I remember them taking was Trent Edwards-clone Christian Ponder in 2011.

This is what is concerning about this year's crop of QBs: there's no truly outstanding prospect. These QBs should have sorted themselves out in some kind of more or less static order this late in the game but that hasn't happened. Darnold appears to be a lukewarm choice as the best of a rather warty lot, all of whom have serious concerns. That suggests that these QBs are more the products of hype than of solid performance. Trading a lot of picks to get one of them may not be the best idea. The Minnesota Vikings say "hi". In case you didn't notice, the Vikes almost went to the Super Bowl with an UDFA QB signed as a backup. Meanwhile, some teams with franchise QBs sucked or were mediocre like Baltimore, Cincinnati, Detroit, Oakland, San Diego, Tampa Bay, and Tennessee. It takes more than a QB to win football games. Moreover, in recent years, there have been a significant number of "second tier" prospects that have turned out to be decent starters or better when given the same/similar opportunities usually only accorded first rounders: Andy Dalton, Tyrod Taylor, Russell Wilson, Kirk Cousins, Derek Carr, and Dak Prescott. I didn't include Nick Foles because he only had one great season, but maybe in the right system he could be one again, so he might be still another second tier prospect who worked out. The Bills aren't doomed if they don't get one of the top QBs in this draft. It's not like there won't be a new crop of college QBs next year, and sometimes good things come to those who wait ... like the Patriots gambling a sixth round pick on Tom Brady in 2000 or Packers scooping up Aaron Rodgers late in the 2005 draft or Seattle grabbing Russell Wilson in the 3rd round in 2012. What the Bills need to do is keep their eyes open for promising QBs even if they think they already have one on the roster (they could always get a better one) rather than ignore QBs in the draft until they feel the need to draft one in the first round to placate the fan base.

You know for a fact that the Bills deferred because McDermott "didn't trust the scouts & Whaley" despite the fact that the Bills took an OT and a WR in the 2nd round? Both Mahomes and Watson had serious enough flaws that made them risky picks even at #10, and since they've only started 8 between them, nobody knows whether either or both are keepers or busts.

First off, that wasn't the way the Bills operated under Ralph Wilson's ownership. Profit was always more important than winning. I think that after some fumbling around, the Pegulas seem to have decided that they want to build a winner. Commitment to winning means that the team's brain trust has to draft smart, including not picking a QB just to pick a QB. We don't know which QBs, if any, the Bills FO covet enough to move up. We assume that the Bills traded Glenn in order to move up to then trade up from there, but maybe they just traded Glenn because they liked the idea of picking 12th rather than 21st. You'd win. If you count Goff and Wentz as hits, there are 3 real successes from trade up including Eli currently. OTOH, teams that found their guys by staying put are NE (Brady), Pittsburgh (Roethisberger), Green Bay (Rodgers), Atlanta (Ryan), Detroit (Stafford), Carolina (Newton), Cincinatti (Dalton), Indy (Luck), Miami (Tannehill), Seattle (Wilson), Jacksonville (Bortles), Oakland (Carr), Tampa Bay (Winston), Tennessee (Mariota), and Dallas (Prescott). So, currently, 15 teams found their current starting QBs by drafting them when their picks came up. Only 3 traded up to draft their QBs. Maybe the Bills deferred because they didn't like the QBs available. Mahomes and Watson have made all of 8 starts in the NFL together. The jury is still out on them.

I don't think 2018 is even as good as 2012, much less 2004 or 1983. Lots of hype, not much substance, much like 2011. I don't think the pros think as much of these QBs as the draft mavens pretend because so many of the teams at the top of the draft have been willing to consider trading back. If these kids were as good as advertised, nobody would be interested in trading back.

The Jests MIGHT have the better QB. Historically, most draft classes have yielded 1 quality starting QB with occasional classes yielding a second decent starter. Most starting QBs, even supposed franchise QBs, resemble Jay Cutler, Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco or Ryan Tannehill more than they do future HOFers like Brees, Rivers or Rodgers. Obviously, a lot of Bills fans, especially the advocates of trading up at any cost, have failed to consider that about half of all first round QB prospects are more likely to bust than become franchise QBs by any reasonable definition. Adios. Arrividerci. Au revoir. Sayonara.

He had ONE.GOOD.YEAR. Chip Kelly came into the NFL in 2013 and was supposed to be the best thing since white bread, and Nick Foles came out of nowhere as a sophomore to be his poster boy ... until the DCs around the league figured out what Kelly was doing and how to stop it. Foles was lousy in Philly in 2014 as Kelly's smoke and mirrors game was stifled. He was traded to St Louis as part of the Sam Bradford trade and sucked. He turned up in KC in 2016 as a backup, and signed with Philly in 2017 as a backup. Foles has only had success in a certain kind of offense, one that features lots of read/pass options. In order for him to have success with Philly after Wentz went down, the coaches had to install and use plays that suited his style. That suggests he's probably unlikely to have long term success in the NFL as a starter. He is what he is: a good backup QB. What IF the QB they choose is a bust? The last time the Jests traded up into the top 5 to grab a "franchise QB" they picked Mark "Butt Fumble" Sanchez on whom they wasted about 6 years before they realized the dud they had. The Bills wasted 4 years on JP Losman and the opportunity to draft Aaron Rodgers while the Packers drafting at #24 the next year had him fall into their laps. What did Washington's trade up for RG III net them after 2012? Zilch. Good thing they spent that fourth rounder on a backup QB named Cousins or they'd really be up the creek. It's less about where a team drafts than about the team's staff being smart enough to "know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em". Except, a team has to know if they're actually getting Carson Wentz 2.0 or just Mark Sanchez 2.0 in a Carson Wentz mask. Rudolph in the 2nd round seems about right.

The only trade ups for QBs that have worked for more than a single season is the Giants trading for Eli. Philly might be another team to have success based on their miraculous 2018 season, but there's no denying that they have one of the most talented teams in the NFL AND one of the most innovative coaching staffs. The Rams might be a third successful trade up story but one great season from Goff doesn't make him a great QB. Lots of QBs had one great season before flaming out, including Josh Freeman, Colin Kaepernick, Brock Osweiler, Nick Foles, and RG III. All the other times teams traded up to grab first round QBs, the trades produced busts. That includes JP Losman in 2004, Jason Campbell in 2005, Mark Sanchez and Josh Freeman in 2009, and Robert Griffin III in 2012. It would be hilarious ... and sadly, entirely possible. The first round rated QBs in this class seem to be more pretenders than real deals. As more college teams abandon pro-style offenses, it gets harder to judge just what prospects can do. That makes first rounders riskier, and 2nd and 3rd rounders more likely to be hits if they're given the opportunity to play. Derek Carr is easily the best QB from the 2014 QB class. Mike Glennon is better than either of the 2013 QBs taken before him (Manuel and Geno). Russell Wilson is easily the best QB from 2012, and even Kirk Cousins has developed into at least as good a QB as Andrew Luck, who may have the most talent but hasn't developed as a pro as well as Wilson or Cousins.

Exactly this. I don't like any of the QBs in this draft enough to want the Bills to move up from 12 for him for what it will now cost to do it.

As far as I can tell, it's quantity over quality when it comes to the draft. That's for any position. If there's only 1 or 2 QBs or WRs or DTs who are graded as first rounders, then all the draft mavens label it a "lousy" draft for that position even if those 1 or 2 guys are the best prospects at their positions in the last decade. If there's 4 or 5 QBs given first round grades, it's a "great" draft for QBs even if none of them are all that great individually.

Usually it takes longer than 1 or 2 years to determine if a starting QB is the real deal unless they're a Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck. IMO, the jury's still out on exactly how good Bortles with 4 years of starting and Winston and Mariota with 3 years apiece really are. Wentz looks like the real deal but can he come back just as good from knee surgery? Goff made massive strides between his rookie and sophomore campaigns but can he continue to improve? The reality is that even with a top 3 pick, lightning still has to strike in order for a team to come out with a HOF caliber QB. Have Donovan McNabb (#2 in 1999), Michael Vick (#1 in 2001), Carson Palmer (#1 in 2003) and Alex Smith (#1 in 2005) had good enough careers to get into the HOF at some point? What about Matt Ryan (#3 in 2008), Matthew Stafford (#1 in 2009), Sam Bradford (#1 in 2010), Cam Newton (#1 in 2011) or Andrew Luck (#1 in 2012)? IMO, except for Ryan and Stafford, none of the others have been good enough. Now, Newton is still young and Luck is young and has been injured, but neither has quite lived up to the hype surrounding them when they were drafted. Well, sir, manure happens. I personally don't think that the pros are as hyped up by this crop of QBs as Bills fans are. If they were, none of the teams holding top 5 picks would even be thinking of trading out of those slots, much less actually doing so, so my guess is that there will be at least 2 or 3 of the top prospects available between picks 6-12. That doesn't mean that I would necessarily want the Bills to take one of them. I would rather the Bills not take a first round QB at all if they can't get to their first choice than waste even the #12 or #22 pick on a prospect that they don't really believe in just to placate the idiot fan base so that they buy tickets. That's how the Bills ended up with Losman and Manuel. Furthermore, the best prospects don't necessarily turn out to be the best QBs as Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Russell Wilson all demonstrate. Sometimes those second and third and sixth tier prospects can shine if given the opportunity ... and the top tier prospects fail despite being given every opportunity.

So, the Bills "clearly had a QB identified LAST YEAR" and started wheeling and dealing in order to get him as early as the 2017 draft? Is that the manure you're trying to shovel? Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot, and Zombies? The fact is that from the time the Bills started collecting draft capital with the 2017 draft and today, the FO has been entirely restructured from the GM down to the scouts. Virtually all of the pro and collegiate player personnel evaluation staff has been replaced, except maybe the admin assistants and janitors. Why would ANY evaluations of any player made by former employees continue to guide the current administration when it's pretty clear that the current administration has far different requirements and standards? The Bills started collecting draft capital because they need it to build a winning team, not because they're fanboys of some over-hyped college player.

They also have Patrick Lynch for 2 more years, maybe 3, on his rookie deal. I bet they move to reload their D (Fitzpatrick) or possibly OL (Nelson) at #5 if they don't trade down. I wouldn't be opposed to the Bills trading up to #5 for Mayfield. The Carp just redid Tannehill's contract, so he's not going anywhere for a while. They're out of the 2018 QB derby.

The problem is that in 2004, the Bills couldn't find a dance partner among the teams in the top 10 not named San Diego or NYG. Maybe they miscalculated the Steelers' interest in Roethlisberger (I rather doubt that) or maybe none of the other teams wanted to trade down or maybe they just didn't offer enough. Not being privy to what went on behind the scenes, I don't know why they didn't move up higher in the first round. I hope you realize that if they'd passed on Losman totally, they would have been infinitely better off. They could have taken Aaron Rodgers the next year or Jay Cutler in 2006 or even Joe Flacco in 2008. The lesson from 2004 isn't that a team shouldn't be afraid to trade up but that a team shouldn't be afraid to pass on a lesser QB prospect if they can't get the one they really want, which is 2004 was Roethlisberger.

Maybe the reason that the Bills traded down is because they didn't like either Mahomes or Watson enough to draft them at #10 rather than take the extra first. We don't know if ANY of the 2017 QBs will actually work out long term. Between them, Mahomes and Watson have a grand total of 8 NFL starts. Keep in mind that nobody really knows how highly NFL teams regard this year's college QB prospects. Remember, the voices claiming this is such a great QB class and that so-and-so is going to go #1 or #3 or whatever are all from fans and media personalities. Talking about collegiate QBs coming into the pros excites TV viewers, talking about DLers or OLers doing the same, not so much, but the teams have different agendas, and I don't think they have these QBs rated nearly as highly as the media. Personally, I think at least one and maybe two of the top 4 QBs will be available at #12. Jackson might even be available at #22. It's likely that most of the "QB needy" teams have the QBs ranked the same way, and that at least some of them have no interest in taking a first round QB who's not their top guy. I think a team like Denver is likely to pass on a QB with both Keenum and Lynch on their roster unless they get exactly who they want. I think that Cleveland might do the same. I have never been of the mind that the Giants were interested in any of the 2018 QBs. Eli is their guy, and they're looking to give him protection and weapons. If Cleveland doesn't take Barkley, Saquan will be in a Giants uni in 2018.

And, who is that, exactly? There is no "top guy". They all have serious flaws. I don't know if you're an idiot or not, but you are definitely attempting to rewrite history to fit your own agenda. Too bad that you and your friend don't remember that accepting "leftovers" in 2004 rather than chasing after a first round pretender would have yielded Matt Schaub. You both are hysterical babies ... and ignorant of what went down in 2004. 2004 had a bonafide consensus #1 pick in Elli Manning. Nobody else was even close, and that included all positions not just QBs. Consensus #1 picks hit at a much higher rate than do all over picks, including the guys taken at #2 or #3. In 2018, there isn't even a consensus on the best QB. That suggests that maybe all of them are pretenders or, more than likely, one will actually make a decent NFL starter and the rest will bust. Phillip Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger were both elite prospects significantly better than any of the QB prospects in 2018. That's the major difference between 2004 and 2018: the quality of the prospects. Losman was easily a better prospect than Jackson or Rudolph, and at least as good as Allen. Darnold, Rosen, and Mayfield are only marginally better prospects than Losman, and nowhere near as good as the top three from 2004. JP Losman would likely have been a second rounder in 2004 if the Bills hadn't traded up to grab him in the first round when Pittsburgh took Roethlisberger at #11. It was a move predicated on placating the fans who had worked themselves into a QB frenzy. If Donahoe had waited until the second round and taken Losman, or if he was gone, taken the "leftover" who turned out to be Matt Schaub, who was a decent starter (at least as good as a Dalton or Flacco or Tannehill if not better), the Bills would have had a shot at Aaron Rodgers in the 2005 draft. 2018 really resembles 2011 or 2012 more than it resembles 2004 when there were lots of QB prospects taken in the first round (4 in each draft) but only 3 had real success (Newton, Luck, Tannehill), although both of those drafts featured consensus #1 picks who, like Manning, were clearly much better prospects than the over-hyped pretenders whom teams wasted first rounders on (and Washington wasted a lot more than just that). Aside from the #1 consensus picks, the real quality in both 2011 and 2012 largely came from the "leftovers" or developmental guys who were drafted after the first round: Andy Dalton and Tyrod Taylor in 2011 and Russell Wilson, Kirk Cousins, and Nick Foles in 2012. Oh, yeah, and a real "leftover" among "leftovers", undrafted FA Case Keenum also came out of 2012. The Bills have been carefully building up a cache of draft picks that they could use to move up to get a QB prospect if one they like is available, but they don't seem likely to waste those picks drafting a QB that they don't really believe in just to draft a first round QB. That seemed to be the message from Beane's press conference. Making personnel moves primarily to pander to the fan base rather than to build a winning football team doesn't seem to be part of the Beane-McDermott regime's DNA, which is a sea change from the way the Bills operated in 2004. In reality, what you two are suggesting --- trading whatever it takes to move to the top of the draft board to take a QB, any QB with a lot of positive hype from the media draft mavens -- is EXACTLY what the Bills did in 2004 that got them Losman. I'm sorry that the Bills picked TJ Graham over Russell Wilson in 2012, but I'm sure not sorry that the Bills passed on Matt Leinart, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, and Brandon Weeden. Too bad they didn't do the same with Losman.

Bull manure. I'd take Drew Brees or Russell Wilson any day over the likes of Brock Osweiler and Mike Glennon. I'd take Wilson over Brees as well as over Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, or Carson Wentz, and he's not even 6 feet tall (5'10 or 5'11), because he's not only proven that he's a leader who can carry his team but he's also a lot younger than Brees. The only reason that Seattle isn't drafting in the top ten in April is because of Wilson.

The reports of Glenn having health problems are greatly exaggerated. He didn't have any issues until he injured his foot some time in second half of the 2016 season. The decision was made to give it time to heal rather than Glenn having surgery, and that wasted most of the 2017 season. Cordy's had successful surgery on the offending foot after being put on IR late last season, and should be good to go. Glenn is one of the top pass blocking LTs in the game, and he's a decent run blocker, too. He's a good teammate and a good citizen. The Bengals got a good deal.

I hit a deer on I86 about 15 years ago ... did about $5k damage to my car. Hitting a cow at highway speeds could be fatal not just to the bovine since Holsteins tend to be much taller and a lot heavier than a deer, and beefers are significantly heavier. Livestock wandering loose on the roadways is a major hazard of driving on back roads in rural Chautauqua and Cattaraugus Counties, especially in Amish country.

Nate Burleson said the same thing on Good Morning Football this am: Barkely at #1 and either OG Nelson or some other blue chip or trading out for more draft riches. Any number of NFL media analysts are predicting that the Browns are going to take Barkley with the #1 pick because they don't think that they like any of the QBs in this draft enough. Also Dorsey said a few weeks ago that the Browns were open to trading the #1 pick "for the right price". He wouldn't say that if the Browns had already predetermined that they were taking a specific QB at #1. They don't have to put up any "smokescreens".

I'm a Boomer but I have no problem with Millenials. Those that do are simply crotchety curmudgeons who forgot the stupid **** they did and said back in their wilder days.