SoTier
-
Posts
5,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoTier
-
-
2 minutes ago, PastorMKC said:
Hue Jackson is NOT picking this QB that's why It's b/t Darnold/ Allen Dorsey Likes both and he is Picking ...
I imagine that Hue Jackson had his fill watching DeShone Kizer regularly throw completions to the other team last season. Since I like the Brownies, I hope they leave Darnold and Allen to the Jests and take Rosen (and his concussions) while leaving Mayfield to the Bills.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:
And I'll be happy. Almost as happy as if it were Baker Mayfield.
No link, but he just said it on Good Morning Football on NFL Network. Lately I think he's been one of the more reliably dialed in guys out there.
Take it for what it's worth, less than a week from making that pick.
I put Darnold just above Allen. If he's there at 12, maybe the Bills take him, but if Roquan Smith was still there, I'd take Smith over him, and maybe use #22 on Jackson. If Jackson's gone, I'd consider Rudolph in the 2nd.
1 hour ago, kdiggz said:interceptions and fumbles don't bother anybody? how about the wonky throwing motion and poor footwork in the pocket? not worth trading all of those extra picks over someone like Rosen. would be a very poor decision based on where we are picking in this draft. if we were picking #1 and we had our choice then fine you can talk yourself into him maybe but the extra picks make it not worth it value-wise. Rosen is the best QB in the draft and he will be available at 5
These are all red flags for me. I'd only trade up to take Mayfield or maybe Rosen (primarily because of his concussion history).
36 minutes ago, NewEra said:But you have to look at every aspect of a player. Being able to suit up on Sunday’s being #1. I don’t know that Rosen will be injury prone, but he’s not off to a good start. Concussions, slighter frame and shoulder problems are part of his equation. McD has stated that he really likes a QB that can throw on the move outside of the pocket. Darnold is much better in that respect than Rosen.
I agree, rosen is currently the best qB in this class and I’d be VERY happy if we landed him....but there are other factors other than just playing QB.
Some of the most notable QB busts in recent years had no problem "being able to suit up on Sundays", but they sure had problems producing completions and TDs for their teams (not always so much for their opponents). I'm thinking of guys like Mark Sanchez, Christian Ponder, Blaine Gabbert, and even EJ Manuel.
2 minutes ago, mannc said:Well, there are a few, but my point is USC is infamous for producing overhyped busts who stink as soon as they are removed from the Trojan bubble. It’s happened often enough that I doubt it’s a coincidence.
The link among the recent USC QB's is the USC hype machine. Darnold has been hyped since 2016 when his fans tried to paint him as the next Andrew Luck despite his shortcomings which include being turn over prone and having poor mechanics, which might be tolerable faults in a kid taken after the first round but not in a supposed "blue chip" first rounder. Darnold hasn't been able to fix either of those faults since, so why would he be able to fix them in the pros?
FTR, since 2003, USC has produced 3 QBs who have been drafted in the first round: Carson Palmer #1 in 2003, Matt Leinart at #10 in 2006, and Mark Sanchez at #5 in 2009. Prior to 2003, USC last produced a first round QB in 1991 when Todd Marinovich went #24th. While Palmer has been successful, he probably hasn't had quite the kind of career that he was expected to have as the #1 pick. Leinart and Sanchez were definitely overhyped busts.
-
On 4/19/2018 at 8:43 AM, DriveFor1Outta5 said:
True, but welders and nurses are blue collar workers. Ironic that you use them as an example while stating that blue calling workers rarely exist, and you call them ignorant. I’m not trying to discount your opinion or be abrasive. I just felt the need to point out that you talking about a class below what’s considering blue collar. The idea there are few blue collar workers remaining is a joke. We will need truckers, nurses, welders, construction workers, plumbers, etc well into the future. It seems trendy to say that blue collar work is dead (when it really isn’t), and that everyone will need to become a computer guy. Politicians have already paid the price for discounting and diminishing the power of blue collar Americans.
Believe what you want. Most Hollywood actresses look like rural Wal Mart shoppers without their makeup and plastic surgery imo.
Somebody posted a whiney post about how horrible things were in Buffalo, and I responded by listing some of the reasons that I thought it was likely that poster made the claims that he/she/it did. Those claims had nothing to do with whether an individual worked blue collar, pink collar or white collar, and everything to do with attitude because I have several well educated friends/acquaintances who whine exactly the same way. You can believe the politicians claiming that you don't post-secondary education/training for success if you want, but remember that 99% of those spewing that BS have college degrees or more themselves, and you can bet that they aren't counseling THEIR kids that they don't need to get at least a two year degree.
The future belongs to the educated and the skilled whether you like it or not -- and that's been true since the mid-19th century and the rise of the Industrial Revolution, and there's no turning the clock back. It's no longer enough to learn to do a job a certain way because the new technologies and methodologies are changing constantly. The days of working in the same place doing the same thing for the 30 or 40 years of your working life are long gone. The pace of technological innovation is now growing by geometrical proportions, and that pace is only going to increase. It's estimated that in twenty years, most jobs will be in fields/industries that don't even exist today. Feel free to dig in your heels and choose to "go your own way", just don't come around me whining about how bad things are when you get left behind.
-
13 hours ago, DriveFor1Outta5 said:
How elitist ? You must be in the SoTier as research for your sociology dissertation.
Dude, I wrote my research in American history so long ago that you were probably weren't even a sparkle in your parents' eyes at the time but that's neither here nor there.
There is nothing particularly "elitist" about getting off your ass and getting a welding certificate or nursing degree rather than perpetually whining about how "there are no jobs in Buffalo" or "there are no jobs in WNY". There are plenty of jobs in and around the city and around WNY, although not so many for the unskilled and poorly educated because a lot of those jobs have been replaced by computer-controlled/assisted technology. That's a fact of modern economic life throughout the country, not just in NYS.
-
2 hours ago, Carter said:
Buffalo was blue collar when it actually had factory jobs. Now their color is rusted just like the factories.
Buffalo is a no collar town or a any collar you can get town because the economy is terrible and has been for 2 generations. That’s on the locals. Where is your pride of your city? Too much flouride in the water, or just lazy?
It seems to me that your bitter little rant encompasses the typical blue collar lament wailed by individuals who ...
- haven't lived in Buffalo for a while or live in one of the backward neighborhoods still stuck in a time-warp because the residents refuse to accept change
- have never lived in Buffalo and get all their info about what's going on here from their grandfathers and their retired cronies who all live in Florida
- are under-educated individuals with limited academic credentials and/or no or outdated job skills
- refuse to help themselves by going back to school to make up for their deficient educations or job skills
- want to be able to do mindless assembly line jobs that pay well and then retire with comfy pensions like their fathers and grandfathers did
- are embittered because they think people in administrative, educational, medical, managerial jobs are overpaid and consider only blue collar work to be "real work"
- are embittered because they don't like technological and social change
- are embittered old fogeys who think the "good old days" were so much better because white American males didn't have to compete with or "kowtow" to women, gays, Blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, and numerous other "foreigners" like they do today.
Buffalo has changed tremendously in the last decade. It's not the same city that it was even in 2005 or 2006. A lot of new people have moved in who aren't weighed down with the baggage of the past, and they're turning the city around ... and a lot of locals who aren't prepared to board the new fast moving train don't like it much. I suspect you and yours are among them.
-
1
-
1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:
No, actually it hasn't worked.
They got lucky with Kelly once, and aside from that their lack of aggressiveness to draft the position has been nothing short of unmitigated failure. They traded up in 2004 only after being unwilling to give up the bounty that Jacksonville wanted to move down from the 9 slot, which would have allowed them to take Roethlisberger. Instead they waited and took Lee Evans at 13.
They drafted Manuel in 2013 after trading back...and I maintain that it was the right thing to do. More than 50% of the franchise QBs in the NFL were drafted in the top 5; the other half come from the remaining 250 picks...the odds are much, much higher of getting a franchise guy in the top 5. Playing it passive and waiting doesn't often work out.
This team has tried the "let's see who nobody else wants" approach for 50+ years; it's time to try the "we found our guy, now let's go get him" approach.
That they didn't trade up says, again, that the fault was in not picking the right QB; they failed to recognize the qualities that would make him a significantly better pick than Losman. Furthermore, If they had stayed put in 2004, they would have been in a position to take Rodgers the next year (Bledsoe was still their starter so they could have waited). They could have also taken Cutler in 2006 who while not all that great a QB was certainly better than Losman, Edwards, Fitzpatrick, Manuel, and Orton.
You ignored my statements that they chose to pass on both Flacco and Wilson when they drafted in those rounds with both QBs still on the board.
Trading back for Manuel only mitigates the stupidity of picking a QB in the first round just to placate fans and put butts in the seats, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bills should have passed on a QB in the first round completely in 2013. They could have taken Bridgewater or Carr in 2014 and been much better off. Once again, the Bills picked the wrong guy, and whether they stayed where they were or traded back, it would have made no difference. They lost out on useful QBs in order to grab a bust. That's the real story of the Bills' QB woes.
-
11 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:
I don’t really understand why some people have a problem with what the Jets did...is it jealousy? Because if you ask me, I would love it if the Bills were in their spot...they are guaranteed to get one of the top 3 QBs... isn’t that we would want as Bills fans? That’s why I don’t get the bashing of the Jets for trading to 3.
Well, if your aim is to take a first round qb to placate fans and sell tix, then there's nothing wrong with it. You can't miss. If your aim is to build a winning team, however, it could be a costly mistake. What if neither Cleveland nor the Giants take QBs? Wow, great the Jests get first crack at the QBs, but since they had the sixth pick anyways, how are they all that much better off picking at 3 rather than 6. Indy wasn't taking a QB. The Browns aren't taking two. So, that leaves Denver, which doesn't seem likely to draft a QB with both Keenum and Lynch on the roster. So, the Jest gave up a lot to get the same or slightly better choice than they would have had if they stayed put ... and they don't control their destiny any more at #3 than they would have at #4. They bought into the "4 QBs are going to go in the top 5" hype being spewed by the media mavens and got played by the Colts.
That's not even dealing with the bigger issue of picking the right QB in a draft class that simply has a lot of flawed prospects rather than only 1 or 2 outstanding ones.
-
18 minutes ago, Captain Murica said:
What type of flower is that, Leotus?
Just messing, its Leodis.
I thought it looked odd, but drafthistory.com has him as "Leotis" so I thought I had it wrong!
-
57 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:
That test is a load of crap.
Ryan Fitzpatrick 48
Blaine Gabbert 42
Alex Smith 40
Eli Manning 39
Colin Kaepernick 37
Andrew luck 37
Manziel 32
Peyton 28
Ryan Leaf 27
Dan Marino 15
Donovan McNabb 14
The test gives an indication of whether or not the player can learn an NFL playbook. It's not much of an indicator of whether a particular player can read a defense or recognize a blitz.
In case you don't realize or forgot, Fitzpatrick graduated from Harvard (not attended, graduated) which might be rightly called "an anti-football factory". Harvard and the other Ivy League schools don't give athletic scholarships but scholarships for financial need and for merit. I believe that Harvard's endowment is so large that most of its students get free tuition, except, perhaps, for students who parents are multimillionaires, so competition to get in is fierce. This probably wasn't quite the case when Fitzpatrick was admitted, but it has never been easy for non-legacy students to be admitted there. (Non-legacy = students who don't have a sibling, parent, grandparent who is an alumnus.)
-
29 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:
Hey, it's worked for this team for the last half-century, right?
Well, actually it did. LOL. In 1983, the Bills had 2 first rounders. They stayed where they were and took Kelly with the second of those picks at #14. The one time they traded up (from the 2nd round back into the first) in 2004, they got the booby prize of JP Losman at #22. In 2013, determined to take a first round QB but not loving EJ Manuel or any of the other duds from that class, they traded back to 16, and Manuel was still there.
BTW, the Bills missed out on Aaron Rodgers because they took Losman the year before and didn't have a first rounder in 2005. They also had to take Leotus McKelvin at #11 in 2008 instead of grabbing Joe Flacco, and in 2012, they had to grab TJ Graham while Russell Wilson was still available. The Bills problems at QB over the years hasn't been that they didn't have opportunities to draft franchise QBs because they didn't trade up to get them, but that they repeatedly failed to pick the right player, except once, when they had future franchise QBs available.
Hopefully, the Beane/McDemott regime picks the right player, whether they trade up or stay at #12. Getting the right player seems to be a much more effective strategy than simply obtaining any player who plays a specific position of need, no matter how desperate that need.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, ddaryl said:
So basically we are moving up if the dominoes fall in place for everyone else.
Including the Bills. That's what you want, though, and that's how smart GMs operate. That's why these kind of trades happen on draft day when the team with the higher pick is on the clock. A team doesn't trade up just to get "a player" (well, maybe if they're the Jests they do), but "the player they want". What's the point of trading up if the guy you want is already gone?
Obviously, the Giants want a player that they think Cleveland might want, too. If Cleveland doesn't take him, then they aren't trading. If Cleveland doesn't, they open to a trade -- provided that Cleveland didn't take the player the Bills wanted.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
OK, you think of or define "project QB" a little differently than I do.
I would call a QB undrafted or drafted on Day 3 a "developmental prospect". You don't expect much out of him, and if he develops into a competent backup you're good.
If he develops into a starter, you've won the frickin' lottery.
Tom Brady was a winning lottery ticket. So was Romo.
To me a "project QB" is a guy with known developmental needs, that you draft in the 1st round or high 2nd round when you lack a starting QB and have expectations that this guy will be The Man for you. Others are right, Mahomes is the current developmental test case for this.
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.
-
On 4/16/2018 at 6:48 PM, DrDawkinstein said:
I dont think it's the right move to abandon your year long plan to get a franchise QB as a knee jerk reaction to losing a Guard. The time is now. Git'r'dun.
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.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, mannc said:
If they traded into the top 5 and took a RB, the entire front office should be fired on the spot. It’s not going to happen, though. Zero chance.
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.
-
On 4/17/2018 at 6:05 AM, Thurman#1 said:
It's really hard to define a project QB.
Isn't Drew Brees one? He sat for his first year behind Flutie while the Dougster was completing 56.4% of his passes and throwing 15 TDs and 18 INTs. I'd argue Cousins is a terrific example.
Isn't Romo one?
Is a project QB only a guy who has potential to be near-elite or a top ten guy if he develops? Or is it anyone who is thought to be able to start if he develops? Hard to say.
Favre? Dunno, maybe. The story is bizarre. Take a look:
https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/10/18/brett-favre-book-jeff-pearlman-atlanta-falcons-green-bay-packers
He certainly wasn't picked to start the first year. Miller was the established starter.
Isn't Brady one? No, nobody called him to be excellent but they thought he might be decent down the line. Isn't that developmental? I think it is, but it's reasonable to disagree.
I think Russell Wilson was drafted as a developmental guy but they found to their surprise and excitement he was ready right away.
What is a developmental QB? I'd say it's a guy who you think/hope can get a lot better with time and teaching. I think there are plenty of them over the years.
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
15 hours ago, BillsPride12 said:
If there is no way Beane can pull off a move to get us in a position to draft a Quarterback in Round 1, then what do you want to see us target in Round 1 next? I think if we can land Roquan Smith it would be a very good consolation prize to not bringing in a marquee QB. I'm sure McDermott would love to get his hands on a stub LB that can be the quarterback of the defense for years to come. If we don't get either QB or Smith then I will feel kind of disappointed.
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.
15 hours ago, Laughing Coffin said:I want to die
RIP. Where do I send the flowers?
-
1 hour ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:
It's feels like people are picking Rosen because he is the guy who is projecting to drop out of the top 5. I'm not saying I wouldn't be happy with Rosen but I think people are picking him because he has a higher probability of landing with the Bills.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
I see you would have been up in arms when the Chargers franchised Brees, and all about letting him walk to the Saints.
In Flacco's rookie season, the Ravens played for the conf. championship. In his first 5 years, they were playoffs every year including 2 conf. championship games and a SB win. While Flacco was certainly not carrying the team those years or lighting the league on fire, his QB play was extremely respectable. You could count on him for 60% completions, twice as many TDs as INTs after his 1st season, and generally 7 YPA. Good team guy, doesn't pout.
If you'd feel "big disappointment" with that, you're nuts.
Similar things to be said about Dalton - his team saw playoffs his first 5 years in the league, and his respectable QB play has been a big part of that. In his 3rd and 6th year he was been better than respectable, he's been good, Smith or Cousins like.
If you'd feel "big disappointment" with that, you're also nuts.
JMO.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Jasovon said:
depends on how bad we miss to be honest. If we get a guy like Andy Dalton or Joe Flacco they should be fine. Doesn't have to be a hall of famer, please remember that guys.
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.
Peter Schrager: somehow, some way, Sam Darnold is a Buffalo Bill
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by SoTier
Aikman attended UCLA not USC, which was the team I referenced, and USC gets much more hype than UCLA.
More to the point, I specifically referenced the hype that's been a hallmark of USC QBs in "recent years, which 1989 certainly is not, and how USC QBs have not lived up to their hype when they got to the NFL. Palmer, Leinart, and Sanchez were all supposed to be "can't miss" prospects, at least according to their fans, but only Palmer had a decent NFL career. The hype surrounding Darnold has been even worse than the hype spewed out for Leinart and Sanchez ... and his flaws -- too many INTs and fumbles and poor mechanics -- are among the most frequent problems of QBs who fail to transition from college to the NFL.