SoTier

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.

Except for Favre and Manning, all these QBs were in their primes 30 years ago ... and even Favre's prime was about 20 years ago. What do Tee Martin, Mike McMahon, AJ Feeley, Randy Fasani, Brandon Doman, Craig Nall, Brian St Pierre, Craig Krenzel, Dan Orlovsky, Adrian McPherson, Ingle Martin, Omar Jacobs, Jeff Rowe, Troy Smith, John David Booty, Dennis Dixon, Josh Johnson, Erik Ainge, Rhett Bomar, Nate Davis, John Skelton, Jonathan Crompton, Ricky Stanzi, TJ Yates, Nathan Enderle, Aaron Murray, AJ McCarron? They're all the fifth round draft picks taken since 2000. There are a few who were backup QBs, some for even several years, but none of them came close to becoming even a low level starting QB. Most of these guys probably never even played in an NFL regular season game. You can yap all you want about "armchair GM season" but the reality is that Nate Peterman is a longshot to become even an NFL backup for several years.

Are you Nate Peterman's mom???

The history of the Bills through most of Ralph Wilson's ownership is marked mostly by a few instances of short-lived minor successes among season after season of losing. Wilson had early success with cast offs and cheap players in the mid 1960s in the AFL but that lasted only about 4 years. Wilson never gave up wanting to duplicate that success even though the changing circumstances in the NFL made it impossible to build a dominant team on a shoestring. As the war for talent between the NFL and AFL ramped up, the Bills continuously lost out. Even with the merger, the Bills struggled to bring in talent ... to the field, the sidelines, and the FO. Until relatively recently, ticket sales were a major source of revenue for NFL teams, and it was poor ticket sales that triggered the Bills for hiring better HCs and players. The Bills would hire a decent HC, he'd bring in some good players and win some games but the team never took the steps needed to get better. Then the HC coach would leave, and the team would sink back into losing. This happened with both Lou Saban in the 1970s and with Chuck Knox in the early 1980s (the Bills HC had control of the roster back then). The Bills' collapse after Knox left resulted in low ticket sales again, and prompted Wilson to bring in some better talent into the FO in the person of Bill Polian. Polian's proteges, John Butler and AJ Smith, kept the team winning for a few years after Polian left, but the Bills and especially Wilson, never really adapted to the salary cap. The team never invested in top talent where they could: FO and coaching staff. They missed on top draft choices because of poor scouting and decision making in the draft process. The choices of HC were mediocre at best. The result was "the Drought". I think that the changes that have occurred throughout the Bills organization since Pegula took over, especially in the FO -- from GM down to scouts and trainers -- suggests that the Pegulas are bringing a massive culture change to the Bills. Under Wilson, the Bills had only about 21 or 22 winning seasons under Wilson in their 54 years of existence, and only about 17 post season appearances, the bulk of those coming during the Polian-Butler era. In the 4 full seasons that the Pegulas have owned the team, the Bills have had 2 modest winning seasons and 1 playoff appearance.

There's also the real possibility that they just didn't like either Mahomes or Watson enough to draft one of them at #10. It's even possible that they may not think any of the QBs in this draft are worth the #12 pick much less trading up further. As others have said, we don't know how they have the QBs rated, and trading up to #12 might have actually been with the intention to have a shot at somebody like Roquan Smith. 2011 was supposed to be the QB draft to rival '83 and '04 ... the best QBs to come out of that draft were Cam Newton, Andy Dalton (2nd round), and Tyrod Taylor (6th round). Only in your dreams. None of the QBs in this class are so good that they stand out among their fellow top QB prospects, much less among all the prospects in the draft. One or two may turn out to be decent starting NFL QBs but it's doubtful that there's any even 1 HOFer much less 3 among them ... and that's true of all of the QB classes, large or small, except for 1983 and 2004.

Like the Bills finding JP Losman still on the board at #22 so they had to work a trade to "grab" him?

First off, this is NOT an "historical quarterback draft", and it's certainly NOT the best since 1983. It has a lot of prospects, every single one of whom has serious faults that could easily short circuit an NFL career. Even the draft mavens' favorite, Darnold, has serious issues with ball security. Others have questions about their accuracy, ball placement, footwork, etc. The more I find out about this crop, the more I'm convinced that the only 1 without big red flags is Mayfield, and he has shortcomings as well. This draft is more the product of media driven hype and desperation than real analysis. Plain and simple, drafting a QB in the first round or even in the top five, doesn't determine whether a QB prospect becomes a good/great NFL QB. A mediocre QB prospect remains mediocre whether he's taken in the first round or later in the draft. NONE of the QB prospects in 2018 are as good prospects as any of the top three QBs from 2004. NONE are as good as Newton or Luck. They are ALL much more like Leinart, Gabbert, Ponder, Tannehill, etc. FYI -- Historically, drafts featuring a bevy of first round QB prospects don't produce all that many successful NFL QBs. Again, these QB heavy drafts seem to be more the result of a combination of hype and desperation. The relatively recent phenomenon of successful QBs coming out of the draft from rounds after the first further supports the idea that hype and desperation play a bigger role in drafting QBs than it should. Six QBs were taken in 1983, including #1 pick John Elway. This was also the greatest QB draft ever, yielding 3 HOFers (Elway, Kelly, Marino) who were taken #1, #14, and #27 respectively. Ken O'Brien (#24) was also a decent starter for several years. Five QBs were taken in 1999, including the first three picks, but only Donovan McNabb became a "franchise QB" while Daunte Culpepper became a decent starter for about 6 seasons with Minnesota. The other 3 QBs , including #1 pick Tim Couch, were busts. Four QBs were taken in 1987, 2003, 2004, 2011, and 2012 for a total of 20 QBs: 87's only success was #1 pick Vinnie Testaverde who, like Alex Smith, found success later in his career with the New York Jests. Only Carson Palmer, another #1, was the only successful QB from 2003. 2004 was another historically great year with 3 future HOFers coming out of the first round -- Eli, Rivers, and Roethlisberger (#11) Four QBs came out of 2011, too, but only Cam Newton, #1, became a successful NFL QB. In 2012, four more QBs were taken, including the much heralded Andrew Luck at #1. The only other successful starter taken from the first round was Tannehill (#8) That's 14 successful NFL QBs out of 31 draft picks or about 45% success rate. Taking all drafts since 2000, the success rate for first round QBs is about 50%. If you take out the outlier truly great 1983 and 2004 drafts, which produced 7 successful QBs from 10 prospects, the success rate for the other years drops to around 33% .... 7 out of 21 picks. Of those 7 first rounders, 4 were the #1 picks, 1 was a top five pick, 1 was a top ten pick, and 1 was taken outside the top ten.

Polian was talking about the 2017 QB prospects, and he wasn't alone in not thinking that class wasn't very good. What this article does is undermine the posters claiming the Bills missed on their best chance to get a franchise QB in 2017 because McDermott didn't want to make that "big decision". More likely, the Bills just didn't like Watson or Mahomes enough to draft either in the first round. The same thing may happen in 2018 if the Bills like only 1 QB and he goes before #12 or if they don't like him enough to pay the cost to trade up. IMO, if the Bills trade up to #2 or #4 or #5, it will be on Draft Day to get a specific QB. If he's gone or they can't find a dance partner, I think they'll stay put. I don't think the Bills will settle for their 2nd or 3rd choice unless it's at #22.

This is the crux of the problem. Most drafts have 1 or 2 outstanding prospects that all the teams agree are top drawer ... and sometimes those "can't miss guys" do miss. The 2018 crop isn't jumbled because there are multiple great prospects but because all of the prospects have enough faults to make them all risky picks. One of them may be successful but it's more likely that most of them will fail. This crop is being pushed by agents' hype and teams' desperation.

Ya, something changed ... DCs figured out how to defend him.

I'm good with not going QB in the first round if that's what the FO decides for whatever reason. Taking a second tier prospect in the 2nd or even later might pay bigger dividends than reaching for an over-hyped flawed prospect in the first, especially if the Bills bolster the D, OL, and WRs with all those extra picks. Taking a QB later worked pretty well for Cinci in 2011, Seattle and Washington in 2012, and Oakland in 2014.

Actually, Pennington's arm strength wasn't an issue until he injured his shoulder early in his career. I'm not sure if the OP's comparisons are valid but certainly this year's QBs all have serious questions just how successful they'll be as pros. The more I find out about them, the more I hope the Bills don't trade up any further.

The OP's list is not accurate. Here are the QBs taken in first round by year between 2000 and 2014 from DraftHistory.com. The busts are bolded. 2000 #22 Chad Pennington* 2001 #1 Michael Vick 2002 #1 David Carr, #3 Joey Harrington, #32 Patrick Ramsey 2003 #1 Carson Palmer, #7 Byron Leftwich, #19 Kyle Boller, #22 Rex Grossman 2004 #1 Eli Manning, #4 Phillip Rivers, #11 Ben Roethlisberger, #22 JP Losman 2005 #1 Alex Smith, #24 Aaron Rodgers, #25 Jason Campbell 2006 #3 Vince Young, #10 Matt Leinart, #11 Jay Cutler 2007 #1 JaMarcus Russell, #22 Brady Quinn 2008 #3 Matt Ryan, #18 Joe Flacco 2009 #1 Matthew Stafford*, #5 Mark Sanchez, #17 Josh Freeman 2010 #1 Sam Bradford, #25 Tim Tebow 2011 #1 Cam Newton, #8 Jake Locker*, #10 Blaine Gabbert, #12 Christian Ponder 2012 #1 Andrew Luck*, #2 Robert Griffin III*, #8 Ryan Tannehill, #22 Brandon Weeden 2013 #16 EJ Manuel 2014 #3 Blake Bortles, #22 Johnny Manziel, #32 Teddy Bridgewater* * injuries may have compromised career Who on this list are consensus "franchise QBs" -- truly outstanding QBs who have been instrumental in making their teammates better; who have repeatedly shown the kind of leadership that enables teams to win close games, even coming from behind; and who have done that for more than a few years? I would argue that that list is pretty short: E Manning, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Ryan, and Stafford. Other excellent QBs a notch below the top QBs are Pennington, Vick, Palmer, Rivers, Newton, and Luck. Smith, Cutler, Flacco, Bradford, Tannehill, and Bortles are decent starting QBs but except for Flacco, all of them have been disappointments to the teams that drafted them. Flacco hasn't been the same QB who won the Super Bowl for more than just last season, so since then, he's been a disappointment, too. What these lists are missing are some of best QBs in the NFL because they weren't drafted in the first round at all! Consider ... 2000 6th round Tom Brady 2001 2nd round Drew Brees 2004 UDFA Tony Romo 2004 3rd Matt Schaub 2011 2nd Andy Dalton 2012 3rd Russell Wilson, 4th Kirk Cousins 2014 2nd Derek Carr There are also numerous later round QBs who were at least serviceable QBs like 3rd rounder Josh McCown, 4th rounders David Garrard and Kyle Orton, 5th rounder Mark Bulger, 6th rounders Matt Cassel and Tyrod Taylor, seventh rounder Ryan Fitzpatrick, and UDFA Case Keenum, which is more than one can say for many of the first round busts who didn't even make decent backups. The biggest fallacy getting bandied around on TBD is that if the Bills don't trade up to draft a QB prospect in the 2018, they're doomed to mediocrity or worse for the foreseeable future. In reality, numerous teams have found serviceable, even great QBs, after the first round. Is it as likely as finding one in the first round? Of course not because we all know the very best prospects go at the top of the draft no matter what position they play, and the best prospects have more success than marginal ones. Unfortunately, with QBs more than any other position, the opportunities for QBs who are not first round picks are severely limited. Most second or third or sixth round QBs don't ever get real shots at starting jobs. Among those who actually do, however, they seem to "hit" at least close to the same rate as first round picks taken outside the top five. Labeling successful QBs drafted outside the first round as "outliers" and dismissing them ignores the role opportunity, coaching, and support plays in ANY QB's success. Drafting a QB in the first round, even in the top five, doesn't guarantee that he'll be a franchise QB, and even if he has all the talent in the world, he needs nurturing. Consider this: Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson came into the NFL the same year, but Wilson went to a playoff team in search of a starting QB while Luck went to a team lacking talent on the field, along the sidelines, and in the FO. Luck has much more talent than Wilson but it's been largely wasted because of the lousy situation he's in in Indy. Some TBD posters need to remember this when they're tempted to hysteria over the Bills QB situation.

RIP. Where do I send the donation in lieu of flowers?

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.