SoTier

No, it doesn't. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion around the league that the Bills are angling for a first round QB in the draft, so any veteran QB who signs here has to accept that he's here for a placeholder for that young QB. Backup QBs with aspirations to be starters don't want anything to do with the Bills; they're going to be interested in signing with teams where they have better opportunities to become starters. Think of Ryan Fitzpatrick signing first with the Bills and then with the Jests.

EJ Manuel. Blaine Gabbert, and Christian Ponder all have NFL practice and preseason experience plus they have significant NFL regular season experience, too. Whoopty-doo.

What "talent" are the Bills "watching ... walk away"? Get a grip, dude! If AJ McCarron was such a great talent, he'd have been drafted higher than the fifth round. The Bills are looking for a modest veteran FA QB to serve, at best, as a placeholder for a season or part of one before they turn the reins over to the young QB they traded up for in 2018. "Veteran" means a player with more than 3 games of NFL experience. Somebody like Hoyer is adequate, and better than some others whose names have been bandied about.

What the hell is the fascination with AJ McCarron????? He's started 3 NFL games and played in 11 games, total, in 4 NFL seasons. He's attempted all of 133 passes. At best, he's a replacement for Peterman as as backup QB but a "bridge QB" he's a joke ...

If I were the Browns GM, I wouldn't do it. If I really loved one of the QBs, I'd take him at #1 and possibly consider trading #4 for the right price. If I wasn't in love with one of the QBs, then I'd take Barkley at #1 and the QB I liked best of the ones left at #4 (all 4 could be available if the Giants and Colts pass on QBs and don't trade away their picks).

If you think the Bills had one of the top ten best OLs in the NFL in 2017, you obviously watched Bills game with your beer goggles on. PFF is clueless in its statistical evaluation of OLs. They totally lacked consistency, they failed way too often to provide adequate holes for the RBs, and they were saved from giving up many more sacks by having a QB with ultimate escapability. Furthermore, the only reason that this unit improved in the second half of the season was because it played so poorly in the first half.

It's not funny. It's reprehensible that the OP would proffer such an idea even as a joke.

Good LTs don't come cheap! Moreover, while Dawkins played well for a rookie, he certainly didn't play well enough to be considered one of the better LTs in the league -- and there's no guarantee that he will even play as well in 2018 as he did in 2017. It's just not QBs who can look great before defenders get their numbers. As for how "well" the Bills OL did without Cordy Glenn last year, consider how many times Shady was stopped for 0 or minus yards (I think he may have led the league in those) and how often the pass rushers were in the backfield almost before Taylor got the ball.

I can see the Browns taking Barkley at #1 (to get ahead of the Giants) and then using #4 on a QB, meaning neither Cleveland pick would be available for trade. Too many trade up advocates seem not to understand that a team cannot trade up if the teams at the top aren't willing to trade down. In both 2011 and 2012, there was no way that either Carolina or Indy were going to trade out of the #1 pick no matter how much another team offered them.

How, exactly, is McCarron a "viable answer" to anything? He was a fifth round draft pick who hasn't started/played in a dozen games in his career, so he's more like the legendary franchise saviors like Rob Johnson and Matt Flynn.

No, it's not a reprise of 1983. It's also not a reprise of the next best QB class of 2004. Both of those classes had consensus #1 prospects who were clearly superior to all the other prospects (Elway in '83 and Eli in '04), including being pro-ready. They also had at least one other pro-ready QB prospect (Marino in '83 and Roethlisberger in '04). Because most of the top propsects played in pro-style collegiate offenses, there were many fewer question marks about the prospects in '83 and in '04, and still teams managed to find first round busts like Blackledge and Losman. All of the 2018 top QBs come with serious questions about how they'll adapt to the NFL. These is no consensus "best prospect" likely to go #1 or at least first among the QBs. Most have not played in pro-style offenses, so there are all kinds of questions about how these kids will adapt to the style and complexities of the pro game. None are nearly as pro-ready as the top QBs from 1983 or 2004. Additionally, most of the top QBs seem to also have mechanical or technical flaws that are probably going to have to be "fixed" if they're going to have real shots at NFL success. IMO, 2018 is more like 2011 than 1983 or 2004: probably 1 bonafide top prospect (Newton) and a flock of pretenders (Locker, Gabbert, Ponder) being pushed by hype machines courtesy of self-styled "draft experts", 24/7 sports networks, and social media.

Famous last words. 2011 and 2012 were both supposed to be "QB rich drafts", too, except that they really weren't when NFL reality bit. 2011 had 4 QBs taken in the first 12 picks, but only #1 pick Cam Newton wasn't a bust ... and he's a good NFL starting QB but not a great one. The only other successful NFL QBs from 2011 were 2nd rounder Andy Dalton and 6th rounder Tyrod Taylor. This success rate is pretty much par for most drafts in terms of successful QBs since 2000. 2012 also had 4 QBs taken in the first round, 3 in the first 8. Andrew Luck as the supposed "greatest prospect ever" at #1 has been somewhat of a disappointment in living up to his expectations, and he's been hurt the past season plus. If his shoulder prevents him from playing again, then he will definitely not be the best QB from 2012. Robert Griffin III had a good rookie season in an offense that was tailored to him, but he was injured and never regained his rookie season form, which was mostly, IMO and contrary to legend, because he didn't/couldn't develop or master the skills a successful NFL QB needs. Ryan Tannehill has been a fairly successful NFL QB but as rumors persist that Miami is looking to upgrade the position, that suggests he's been a disappointment not unlike Jay Cutler who was Denver's pick at #11 in 2006 -- too good to jettison but not quite good enough. Brandon Weeden was a bust. The real value in 2012 came in the rounds after the first. Seattle hit the jackpot with Russell Wilson, easily the most successful QB from that draft, and definitely the epitome of a franchise QB who "carries" his team. Kirk Cousins came out of the 4th round in that draft, and "super sub" Nick Foles became a "legend in his own time" with his 2017 playoff heroics. Any semblance of success that Washington has had since 2013 has come from the arm of Kirk Cousins BTW. The lesson from both these drafts is that contrary to myth, the world doesn't necessarily end if a team doesn't "mortgage the future" to trade up in a supposedly "QB rich draft". I disagree with this primarily because the risk in a trade up is magnified by the number and quality of the picks given up. Swapping first round picks and throwing in one or two additional picks is much less risky than swapping a higher first for 2 firsts and additional Day 2 picks (rounds 2 or 3), and both are infinitely more risky than already having the target pick (say #2 or #3).

Well, this is one train I'll miss. While a great arm doesn't guarantee QB success, lacking an NFL caliber arm pretty much guarantees QB failure as a starter. Well, I suppose "played well" depends your definition of "played well".

If Glenn isn't healthy, then the Bills won't be able to trade him. I fail to understand how so many posters here think that other teams are going to trade for a player who can't play. I pretty much wholeheartedly agree with this. The only part I disagree with is your assumption that Dawkins could take a step back if he doesn't have competition. I don't think it's a question of having competition so much as about the fact that lots of good rookies fail to get any better or even regress ... mostly because opposing coaches and players figure them out. If Glenn is healthy, he's a better LT than Dawkins, so he should stay on the left side while Dawkins moves over to the right, giving the Bills a pair of good/decent bookend OTs. A better RT than Justin Mills can improve the play at RG, too, whether that is Miller or another player. FTR, a solid OL improves QB play no matter who is under center. Glenn plays LT significantly better than Dawkins. Don't confuse a Dawkins playing the position well "for a rookie" with playing the position well period.

It was a dumb idea then, and it hasn't improved any.

Just say "NO!" to Derek Anderson!

Very well said!

For David Ogden Stiers fans, WGN is running a MASH marathon featuring the "best of DOS" beginning tonight at 7 pm and again tomorrow (not sure of the time).

Pot meet kettle.

Big armed college QBs who busted in the NFL are a dime a dozen. If the only thing that determined QB successful in the NFL was passing ability, it wouldn't be so hard to find good ones.

I hate to rain on your parade, dude, but it's a bit early in the game to declare Watson a good NFL QB since he played only 7 games in the NFL, and the Bills are in the market for a good NFL QB. How either Watson or Jackson did in college means nothing in the NFL. It's entirely possible that Watson turns out to be one of the numerous first year QBs who shine in the first year as starters only to crash and burn as DCs figure them out ... or not. Jackson could very well turn out to be a much better NFL QB than Watson ... or they could both prove to be bests.

Didn't our very own Aaron Maybin wow Skeletor and Russ at the 2009 Combine? We all know how that turned out. Just say no to smurfs on defense in the first round ... and maybe the second as well.

I agree. Foles had a phenomenal season in 2013, but crashed and burned just like the rest of Chip Kelly's offense the next season. He was uninspiring in his stints elsewhere since then, and really looked mediocre after taking over for Wentz until the Super Bowl. In the right situation (ie, a loaded offense and brilliant coaching like Philly has), Foles is probably a pretty good QB but the Bills simply don't have the talent that the Eagles do, so I think he'd really struggle here. That's also why I'm leery about Keenum but at least Keenum just costs some $$$ not potential talent. I'd prefer the Bills pass on both and draft a QB, even if they have to settle for a second tier guy on Day 2.

Maybe he looked even shorter next to Allen, so the other teams lost interest in him and he'll slide to where the Bills have a realistic shot to trade up for him. NFL guys really don't like short QBs which is why they all passed on Russell Wilson to chase after Brock Osweiler. Mayfield seems to be a real gamer who will do whatever he needs to do to win ... and he seems to play clutch, too. Big guys who can chuck the ball a mile when they're wearing shorts and/or red jerseys are a dime a dozen. Potential NFL QBs, not nearly so plentiful. Mayfield is the only one of this crop of QBs I'd trade up myself.

IMO, it doesn't matter. If you can't get the QB you like/want, then you pass and try again the next year. If you take a first round QB, you are basically prevented from taking another first round QB in the next four years whether he's a hit or a miss, so make the right pick. Only in rare cases (like Manziel) is a team going to give up on a first round QB within a year or two.