SoTier
-
Posts
5,592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoTier
-
-
10 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
...could care less if it was Rex who brought him here (I hate Rex).....the kid came and I believe he worked his tail off to become a starting QB......cannot find fault with his work ethic, public persona or anything negative regarding his teammates....unfortunately LIKE MANY, his shortcomings involved the mental aspect of the game at this level, which gives you the "luxury" of 5 scant seconds to process.....more fail versus succeed for that very reason.....yet the fecal little keyboard cowards hoped and prayed for his failure......did I want the kid to succeed?...why not?...it would benefit the club. but it didn't work out so on to Cleveland with my best wishes lad for a new start to reallize your lifelong NFL dream......to the detractors, fecal DOES sink...Bon Voyage......pathetic..........
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).
-
4 hours ago, Sig1Hunter said:
I'm not interested in arguing with you anymore. All you seem to care about is brow beating those of us that don't like Jackson, and trying to convince us that he will be great. It's tiresome, and irritating.
Pot meet kettle.
-
Just now, H2o said:
The comparison is in their ability to play QB and Watson is far superior throwing the football as is clearly evidenced even at the college level.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, H2o said:
Biased against the thought that Jackson is on Watson's level or that the two are comparable considering how much better of an actual QB Deshaun is? Yes, yes I am.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Reed83HOF said:
This would be awful if it is us btw...
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.
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:
And what QBs are coming out then?
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.
-
2 hours ago, FearLess Price said:
1. Totally. Weve been doing the same thing for 17 years at QB. We need to take a top prospect that isnt a project like cardale jones or NP.
2. You just told me back the same joke with different words.
3. I hope not. Allen sets us back a few years and still might bust out. If Denver signs Cousins i will bet you we trade up in the 1st.
#1: This is totally untrue. What the Bills had been doing since Bill Polian was fired back in the 1990s was putting making profits ahead of winning football games. After a poor start, it seems that the new ownership has committed to bringing winning football back to Buffalo. That means that the Bills aren't looking to "make do" with another cheap QB prospect as they had in the past, but the reality is that since they don't have the #1 pick (and aren't likely to be able to acquire it), they don't have their pick of whatever QB they want. The Bills may only like 1 of the top 4 or 5 QBs well enough to trade up for him, and if he's gone, what would you have them do then? Invest multiple first round picks in a QB that they view as a marginal first round prospect just to have a first round QB on the roster? Or draft a second tier QB prospect in the 2nd or 3rd round to be at least an upgrade over Peterman and maybe more if they get lucky?
FTR, Jones and Peterman were Day 3 projects. Nobody is suggesting that. The discussion here has been about Day 2 (rounds 2 and 3) QBs who might make good "backup plans" like Mike White. Second rounders Andy Dalton and Derek Carr and third rounder Russell Wilson were all good enough to start from Day 1 as rookies.
#3: I don't follow college football but everything I've read about Allen reminds me of JP Losman. He seems like the kind of marginal first round QB who has "bust" stamped on his forehead, and I'd prefer that the Bills pass on him even if he were available at #21.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, 707BillsFan said:
Thank goodness. Retiring in a few months...wife says I'm too young and keeps looking for side gigs for me. This will knock off Uber / Lyft driver off her list. Since it's not about the money and just getting out of the house, gotta work that $3 / hr isn't worth it.
If you like to do carpentry, you can consider volunteering for a local Habitat for Humanity project. Other volunteer opportunities include driving cancer patients to medical appointments for the American Cancer Association, working with the animals at your local humane society or rescues or driving for Meals on Wheels.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:
I am extremely happy they are covering all the bases. Refreshing isn't it.
Guys like White and Falk are not the "targets" BUT we pick #21, and until we get a trading partner the top 4 could be gone.
Not to mention maybe there is 1 or 2 out of the top 4-5 they already know they don't want.
Agreed. The chances of the Bills getting "their guy" at QB in 2018 seem to be pretty slim. Everything needs to fall perfectly, and that's a tall order, so they need to have contigency plans.
If you're going to pick a "consolation" QB, then do it in the 2nd or 3rd, not waste a 1st on a QB likely to be a backup or a low level starter. Maybe lightning strikes and you get a Russell Wilson or Drew Brees or even a Tom Brady. If not, it's relatively easy to part with a 2nd round disappointment and move on.
-
11 hours ago, MAJBobby said:
And another year of not addressing the most important position in football with a top end prospect. He is at best a 3rd round grade.
Already have one of him in the Roster. Peterman
If the Bills can't get the guy they want -- and that's very likely given where they sit in the draft -- it would be stupid to settle for a consolation prize QB that they really didn't like that much just to draft a first round QB. Why is the concept that drafting a first round QB just to draft one is a stupid move such a hard concept for you to grasp? Taking a Day 2 QB isn't ideal, but it's better than investing in a marginal first rounder or not taking a QB at all.
And Nathan Peterman is not a Mike White clone. White is a Day 2 prospect, and rounds 2 and 3 have yielded some decent QBs in recent years. Peterman is barely a Day 3 prospect, starting with his lack of an NFL arm.
-
I have no problem with the Bills deciding to use their first round picks on other positions and take a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round. That strategy worked great for Seattle in 2012, and pretty well for Cincinatti in 2011 and Oakland in 2014. With more and more colleges moving away from pro-style offenses, there seems to have been an uptick in the number QBs outside the first round who have some success. You can include Cousins and Prescott who both came out of the 4th round (Day 3) ... and perhaps include Foles and Keenum, too.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, jmc12290 said:
If the Bills never drafted a QB, they'd find a good QB?
Solid analysis.
That's not what I said at all. I said drafting a first round QB was risky, but that drafting a QB who was the #1 consensus pick was a pretty safe bet. I also said that trading up to draft a first round QB, especially in a year like 2018 where there's no clear consensus best QB, is even riskier. I also said that the Bills have drafted QBs in the first rounds in the last quarter century for the wrong reason: to put butts in the seats -- and that's cost them big time, primarily in the lost opportunities to draft QBs who could have actually helped them win games: Aaron Rodgers (2005), Jay Cutler (2006), Joe Flacco (2008), Teddy Bridgewater (2014), and Derek Carr (2014) -- all useful QBs who were better than Losman or Manuel. Keep in mind that when a team drafts a first round QB, they aren't going to draft another first round QB for about 4 years unless said QB is a bust like a JaMarcus Russell or Johnny Manziel.
1 hour ago, JMF2006 said:Don't you think they already have the analytics?
I don't see them forcing their hand for a player.
They have too many needs/holes to fill.
I hope you are right. Like the OP, I'm not opposed to trading up a few spots to take Mayfield, but I don't think it's possible for the Bills to get into the Top 4 short of sacrificing too much for a QB who's more likely to bust than not, which would likely be Rosen. If Jackson was available at #21, I'd take him (not at #22!). I don't know if I'd spend a first rounder on Allen or Rudolph.
16 minutes ago, Foxx said:right. because the team that just won the SuperBowl, traded up into the top 2, 2 years ago.
In case you missed it, that team was so good it overcame numerous injuries to key players, including their starting QB, and won the SB with a backup QB.
.
-
34 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
This statistical analysis means nothing. Assess individual players based on who they are and how their respective abilities translate to the NFL. No one is going to look at the past in order to determine whether any particular player is worthy of sacrificing additional draft capital.
While this is true, the reality is that the draft is such a crap shoot, even at the top, that trading up is probably not going to be a winning proposition for most teams that do it even for a QB. QBs who are the consensus #1 pick are about as close to "can't miss" picks as possible; they hit at about 80% since 2000. Even QBs drafted in positions 2-4 fail almost 50% of the time while QBs from 5-32 hit at about 25%. Except for Wentz, teams trading up for QBs outside the #1 pick have found duds instead of studs over the last 15 years, including JP Losman (2004), Mark Sanchez (2009), and Robert Griffin III.
This year there's not even a consensus #1 QB, so drafting a QB is even more dicey, and trading up is nothing but a crap shoot.
58 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:Stats are nice but we need to trade up for QB,he may bust but the top 3 guys are much better than the next 3 guys.
This is the attitude that has resulted in the Bills' failure to find a good QB for a quarter of a century. Drafting a QB in the first round just to draft one is a flawed strategy because sometimes there just isn't a good one available (EJ Manuel in 2013). Trading up to do that is even stupider (JP Losman in 2004). The Bills need to approach drafting a QB with the primary goal of winning football games, not to placate fans to sell tickets, which is what they've done in the past.
25 minutes ago, Green Lightning said:Tell that to Philadelphia and then ask yourself if Cleveland would have liked to had that trade back.
The Bills missed on a trade up in 2004, the Jests missed on a trade up in 2009, and Washington missed on a trade up in 2012.
20 minutes ago, Pbomb said:But if you hit with a top qb you are set for the next decade atleast. Some teams get lucky but if you have good scouting and a good gm it will raise your percentages to "hit".
Well, if I win the top prize in Powerball, I'm set for life, too.
-
1
-
-
These folks need to be in PA complaining about the fracking waste facility since that's where the facility would be located, and it would operate under PA environmental laws (such as they are) and possibly under federal environmental regs (good luck with getting those enforced by the current regime). FTR, PA law allows fracking waste to be stored in open ponds which practically guarantees that the fracking chemicals will either spill or leach into local water supplies. With that in mind, the waste treatment plant seems preferable to leaving it the way it currently is.
-
2 firsts or "2 firsts and maybe a little more" to get a chance at a non-QB? I wouldn't, not even for a pass rusher. Even to get a QB, I'd have to be guaranteed that my QB was there, so it would have to be when the trade partner was on the clock ... unless it was the #1 pick of course.
-
6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
Yea cos that is the choice.... Tyrod or Matt Moore.
Straw man alert.
Okay, then who would the Bills sign? It's easy to pretend that the Bills can upgrade the QB position with some cheap unnamed FA QB, but when you start putting names to "veteran FA QB", the picture looks very different. You don't like Moore or Henne, then what about Teddy Bridgewater? Mike Glennon? Josh McKown? AJ McCarron? Geno Smith? Trevor Siemian?
-
46 minutes ago, Commonsense said:
A guy that understands defenses, calls audibles, goes through his progressions, has a lot more value to a rookie QB than a guy like Taylor who goes into improv mode the majority of the game and doesn't understand the position in depth.
What Bill said about Beane and McD having no appetite for another Tyrod benching also carries some weight. It's an unnessecary distraction and Taylor's own comments last year fed that narrative.
The argument about Tyrod not being able to mentor a young QB because he's not a conventional QB is nonsense. As others have said, teaching young QBs is the job of coaches, and to paraphrase Brett Favre, who was at best unhelpful to Aaron Rodgers, "It's not my job."
Tyrod Taylor isn't Kurt Warner. He's also not Eli Manning. The reality is that if Nate Peterman had played better, benching Taylor for him would have never been an issue. If the rookie QB plays decently when given the opportunity, then it's a non-issue. It only becomes an issue if the rookie QB isn't good enough ... as JP Losman wasn't in 2005.
-
11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
Because I don't agree with it. The only questions the Bills should be asking themselves are:
1) which rookie in this class do we want;
2) how do we make sure we get them;
3) how do we create the best situation for that rookie.
To me Tyrod as your veteran is not doing #3. Now you still need a veteran... you just need one without the history, the baggage and the drama that the Tyrod Taylor in Buffalo story is.
How is having a Matt Moore or Chad Henne playing ahead of a rookie QB "creating the best situation for that rookie"? Are you suggesting that the Bills need to insure that the veteran QB on the roster is absolutely no threat to their "future franchise QB"? In that case, the Bills should just reprise 2013 and start the season with Peterman, the rookie QB, and a practice squad refugee. That guarantees that the rookie QB will be starting before mid-season and saves a ton of cap space to boot.
-
2 hours ago, BuffaloBud420 said:
Cant stand another year of garbage QB play from the Bills...and people getting exciting about signing a 30 year old corner is a joke. EJ Gaines is 10x the player.
Cry me a river.
1 hour ago, Reed83HOF said:Andrew BrandtVerified account @AndrewBrandt 53s54 seconds agoThe Glennon signing, like the Eagles/Bradford signing a year before, are cautionary tales for teams signing veterans and also considering 1st round QBs. Days of expensive placeholder quarterbacks are numbered.Well, the disaster that was the Bills in 2013-2014 is a cautionary tale for teams (and their fans) who think sending a veteran QB packing to save a few $$ because they plan on drafting a QB in the first round.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Pete said:
#1 New Jersey
#2 Mass
I live in CT so see my fair share of both- and they are horrible drivers.
I agree. I'm shocked that the major Interstates in this country aren't perpetually littered with the wreckage of Jerseyites who insist on cruising along in the left lane at or just below the speed limit.
-
10 hours ago, DC Tom said:
I would dispute the Druids. And the Mayans and Aztecs believed in a flat Earth...which is actually surprising, since Mayan astronomy was sufficiently advanced that they could have hypothesized the world was spherical.
Mea culpa. I mistakenly called the Stone Age people who built Stone Henge and the other stone circles scattered around Britain Druids, but they came much later. The recent theories about Stone Henge is that it was used in solstice celebrations.
Without assuming that the Earth was spherical, the ancient astronomers would have never been able to so accurately predict solstices and eclipses because they wouldn't be able to mesh their celestial observations, calculations, and predictions with any other model. It may have been that the priest castes saw the idea of a flat earth as being a metaphorical explanation for the masses, which is also similar to what happened in early Christianity.
9 hours ago, Reed83HOF said:Actually as an elective in graduate studies I enrolled and loved my Ancient Religions class. You should check out the Epic of Gilgamesh, it is an ancient Sumerian story that was written down around 2100BC when people actually had first learned to write...
A quick summary will basically break it down to the story of a singular God who talked to someone and told him to build a boat, put his animals on it and that it rained for 6 days and seven nights....Heard that old story before?
Most historians accept that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is an historical document which relates events that happened in the area of the Fertile Crescent before most of the people living in the region had written language (like the ancient Israelites). History isn't science, however.
SPECULATION: Here comes QB Derek Anderson
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Just say "NO!" to Derek Anderson!
