SoTier
-
Posts
5,910 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoTier
-
-
10 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
That is the point right there.
First round picks are a gamble. People act like only if you pick a QB are you gambling.
If you have to gamble why not gamble on a player who can make a night and day difference?
And it doesn't even have to stop with the busts. None of our first round picks, none of them, not one, has made any difference at all in making us a top notch team.
But you guys who just want to keep doing the same thing the Bills have done for so long that i am literally growing old watching them do it, I just can't wrap my head around that. Sorry but there is just no way.
^^^^
10 hours ago, Putin said:It worked great in the past for us didn’t it ?
We kept drafting CB’s you can never have enough of those , RB I don’t want to even go there , DL ( A Maybin ) and OL ( Mike Williams you can’t miss ! Only the QB position is a crapshoot !!
while Brady year after year whooping our @$$ winning the division and 5 SB’s ,
Now all we need is for the Jets to get their franchise QB and stick to us ( without K-Y )
for another decade ,
I just love, absolutely love, the revisionist historians who disguise themselves as Bills fans. Your ilk constantly pretend that a) the Bills didn't "bet the farm" trying to get a top notch QB during the drought and that b) not getting a "franchise QB" resulted in the Bills' 17 year playoff drought. You conveniently ignored the fact in 2002, the Bills traded their 2003 first round pick to acquire QB Drew Bledsoe from NE. In 2004, the Bills TRADED UP (from the second round back into the first) to take JP Losman. In 2013, the Bills took EJ Manuel in the first round.
Bledsoe wasn't a bust in any sense of the word. His career stats, including his 2002 season when he set the Bills passing yards record, are border line HOF. The Bills didn't make the playoffs during his 3 seasons with the Bills because they didn't have a good enough team around him. Then the Bills FO swapped him out in order to start JP Losman, who was so unready to be the starter in 2005 that he was eventually benched for Kelly Holcomb.
After a decent season in 2006, the Bills "brain trust" swapped him out for the cheaper, risk-adverse Trent Edwards, who aside from 5 decent games at the start of 2008 turned out to be an ineffective QB that only an incompetent HC like Dick Jauron could start ahead of even Ryan Fitzpatrick.
As for Manuel, he was clearly drafted so that the Bills could placate their fans and put butts in the seats by drafting -- and starting -- a first round QB when the future of the franchise was up in the air. The 2013 QB class simply sucked, and no QB deserved to be taken in the first round. That's the price that's paid because the Bills had a market "genius" running the team.
10 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:Where were the manning lead broncos before manning? Where are they now, after him? Picking 5th overall.
It takes some mental gymnastics to turn that around to mean that it is best to put QB on the back burner.
Anyway I will stop now we will never agree.
The Broncos drafted Paxton Lynch at #21 in 2016. He didn't show much as a rookie (neither did Goff nor the 2017 first rounders Trubisky and Mahomes), and he was injured in much of 2017, so the jury is still out on him. Lynch is likely to be a bust, simply because only about 25% of QBs drafted in the bottom of the first round are successful, but the Broncos trading up to draft him higher wouldn't have changed a single thing about the Broncos to the present except that they would have had fewer rookies in 2017.
-
5 hours ago, DCOrange said:
On the flipside, for the sake of Part 1 of this article, in which the argument is simply "Is he the best QB in the class or is he not?", I'd argue that Allen is one of like 3 guys that has a legitimate chance of being the best in this year's class.
Well, in 2002, 2007, 2010, and 2013, getting "the best QB in the class" wouldn't get you more than a backup at best.
55 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:Agreed. How can the author assess that the NFL is bad at assessing QB talent or that they just find all there are. If there was another league where NFL QBs that washed out went and shined, or another league that selected all the good ones, then he'd have a point.
It'd be like saying people are just not very good at finding gold in their back yard.
NFL teams aren't looking for gold in backyards. They're looking for gold in the places that have produced gold in the past, and their top prospects, the first round QBs, still only hit about half the time ... and that's with the QBs taken at #1 hitting at about 80%. QBs taken between #2 and #32 only hit a little more than four times out of ten. That's pretty discouraging odds. Now, some teams luck out and find their franchise QBs but most don't because even among the 50% QBs that are "successes" there are going to be several who are only decent starters at best. I would agree with the author that the NFL isn't very good at evaluating QB prospects.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
OK shall we continue. Chiefs
Rams went away from a second Tier Prospect to and traded up for Goff.
What about the Chiefs? Mahomes hasn't proven anything yet.
Goff sucked as a rookie. He had an excellent sophomore year but if he fails to continue to progress, he certainly won't be the first or last first round QB to do so.
What happens if Mahomes or Goff or both turn out to be busts? Worse yet, what if one or both turn out to be an Alex Smith or Jay Cutler or Blake Bortles -- "second tier QBs"?
Given that first round QBs taken in the top ten other than the #1 consensus pick have only about 50% chance of even being a successful "second tier QB", giving up multiple first rounders and other picks to move into the top ten is reckless. If the QB turns out to be an Eli Manning, then the cost is forgiven. If the QB turns out to be a Mark Sanchez ...
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
What three first rounders you are talking about???? Most packages I see Bills are giving up 12, 22, and a 2019 pick. Getting back the 2nd OVERALL. So where is the 3 first rounders again?
And settling at the most important position has worked so well for the Bills
You see what Jets are about to do????? CUT a second tier QB prospect because they went up to go get a TOP END QB prospect
The last time the Jests had a bonafide franchise QB was Lyndon Johnson was POTUS and I was in HS. By all means, the Jests should be a team that the Bills choose to emulate. NOT.
-
15 hours ago, Doc Brown said:
Is that with us cutting McCoy, Hughes, and Clay (we could try and trade them to possibly pick up some draft picks)? We'll also need to decide what to do with Benjamin. If our rookie QB lives up to the hype we could easily cut AJ and save 5 million. So that's about 23 million extra we could save to start to address those positions.
Ummm ... if the Bills cut McCoy, Hughes, and Clay, they will need to replace them as well. That's why the "we can fix everything in 2019 because we have tons of cap space" scenario doesn't fly ... players ARE going to have to be replaced because of retirement, injury, trade, cuts, etc., and vets are ALWAYS much more expensive than rookies of the same quality.
-
22 hours ago, What a Tuel said:
1st round QBs hit at a much higher rate than any of the other rounds combined, because they are evaluated to be the best prospects.
So if we don't want to take that chance, then what's the plan? Wait until we get a top 3 pick naturally? Doesn't that mean losing anyway? You guys keep thinking we will run or luck into a QB at some point, but its been 18 years. Come to terms with the fact that it isn't going to happen. We need to reach out and take one, and hopefully Beane is the right GM to identify the QB that will be a success.
First round QBs in the last 20 years only hit the threshold of "successful starter for five or six years" (that's NOT "franchise QB" territory) only about 50% of the time. That's a QB on the level of Smith, Cutler, Flacco, Dalton, Tannehill, etc. Franchise QBs like Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Ryan etc come along much less frequently, not even at the rate of 1 a draft.
The reason so few QBs from the 2nd or 3rd rounds don't succeed very often is that most aren't given real opportunities to be starters. In recent years, teams have found successful QBs and even franchise QBs when they've given them real opportunities: Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson, Derek Carr, Dak Prescott, etc.
9 hours ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:I agree with the premise not all these guys will be great but there has been special yrs like 2004 where 3 out of 3 turned out to be all franchise guys . Losman was a reach that yr shouldn't have gone in the 1st rd.
The Bills need to be careful and not buy into the Allen hype he's the trap in this scenario. I wonder how much of the guys on your list where drafted high based on physical tools most if not all those guys bust.
I disagree that this year is anything special when it comes to QBs. I think it's more like 2011 with tons of hype hiding iffy prospects. There will probably 1 decent/good starting QB from the draft like there is from most drafts.
I do agree that Allen is a bust waiting to happen. Maybe he'll be great ... but let somebody else take that sucker bet.
-
On 4/6/2018 at 4:13 PM, Fadingpain said:
After all this QB talk, watch! We will stay where we are, not move up, and draft a LB or something.
Bills Nation will implode, other than a handful of nut jobs who think that is a good move.
You are going to "implode" because you believe that all the media mavens and draftniks predicting that the first three picks will be QBs and four of the top five picks will be QBs. I suppose you also buy into the hype that the colleges will stop producing QBs after 2018 so the Bills better grab one while they can no matter what the cost. You may believe the hype but I don't think teams at the top of the draft would have much interest in trading back as they shown or hinted at if the pros thought as highly of these kids as the media keeps claiming they do.
I think Cleveland will take a QB at either #1 or #4 and the Jests will take another at #3 but I'm not seeing any of the other teams drafting between 5 and 11 doing so. The Giants will ride Eli a few years more; I think that they want Barkley. The Broncos have Keenum and still have Paxton on his rookie contract. Miami is NOT looking for Tannehill's replacement in the first round of this draft (Tannehill was drafted in 2012 NOT 2002!) when they have lots of holes to fill on both sides of the ball. Unless somebody trades up into the top ten, I think the Bills will have a shot at a choice of two or three when their turn comes at #12, although maybe they only like one of the top four or five, and he's already gone. In that case, dude, taking a LB like Smith if he's still available would make sense. Draft a developmental guy on the 2nd day if there's one there you like. Drafting a first round QB you don't think is that good just to placate idiot fans and put butts in the seats gets you EJ Manuel and Johnny Manziel.
On 4/6/2018 at 9:16 PM, ganesh said:ESPN will tear into us and give a F on every draft grade...Rodak will term us as 1-15 team...NFL Network will call us out for not using the two 1st rounders and compare us with NE on how they maneuvered the draft with their 2 1st rd picks and got their Franchise QB of the future...We will be criticized for drafting the two guys who tore their ACL and Menascus during private workouts as our two 1st rounders !!!!!!
Well, that would be the end of the world ...
-
I don't believe that the Bills are "okay" with more than 1 QB at any specific draft slot because they have all the QBs in a definite rank order. I think they have only 1 QB they're willing to trade up to get. If they don't trade up to get that QB and he were to fall to #12, they would still take him over whomever they had slotted as the QB they would take at #12 because they believe he's a better prospect.
-
On 4/4/2018 at 12:03 PM, jmc12290 said:
Ignorant opinion.
The Seahawks, Broncos, Pats and Eagles all played vastly different styles of offense, defense and philosophy in the last 6 Superbowls.
Actually, the Seahawks had their best teams in Russell Wilson's first three seasons when they weren't QB-centric, but were primarily a running team with a strong defense. When they became utterly QB-centric in 2017, they failed to make the playoffs.
IMO, pro football has been QB-dependent since the 1960s with the rise of the AFL which emphasized scoring over defense. It has become increasingly QB centric since the merger, but I think that the rise of fantasy football in recent decades has put unreasonable emphasis on putting up impressive stats rather than on winning games. It used to be that QBs used to be judged on whether their teams won or lost and whether they made the playoffs and won playoff games. Stats were secondary. That's all been turned on its head.
A QB like Tyrod Taylor is a "lousy" QB because he didn't put up big passing stats while starting for the Bills, although he played for a team with a run first philosophy with an average pass blocking OL and receivers at best. OTOH, Kirk Cousins is the star of FA because he played in a heavy pass first offense that allowed him to put up big numbers despite the fact that the Redskins have exactly the same record as the Bills over the last 3 seasons (2015-2017: 24 wins, 24 losses, 1 9-7 record, 1 playoff appearance, 0 playoff wins).
Meanwhile, Phillip Rivers has a record of 18-30 over the last 3 seasons with 1 9-7 record but 0 playoff appearances. In fact, Rivers has exactly 1 more playoff win than either Taylor or Cousins despite having played in 6 playoff games in his entire 14 year career, and that win came in 2007. San Diego has made the playoffs only once in the last 7 years, but many of the same fans who dump on Taylor don't criticize Rivers for his consistent lack of clutch play when the playoffs/playoff games have been on the line over the years. Instead, they make excuses for him even when he throws INTs by the basketful (Rivers has thrown double digit INTs 10 times, including leading the league in INTs in 2014 and 2016).
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, aceman_16 said:
The bigger question should be "how did we NOT make it the previous 17 years? "
This. My answer is that the Bills spent the previous 17 years more interested in putting butts in the seats than in winning football games. The previous FO and HCs simply weren't good enough, except perhaps for Marrone.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:
That post implies a team must absolutely agree with the crowd. What if the Bills believed in say Jackson AND Rudolph? It doesn't have to be one of them, I'm just using them as an example. What if they just as strongly believed that at least one of them will be there at 12? Should they still trade up to 2, lose all of those picks and take Rudolph there?
Exactly this. In 2016, the Rams and Eagles were able to trade up ONLY because the top two teams were again the Bucs and Titans, both of which drafted QBs at #1 and #2 in 2015. In 2012, Washington was able to trade up to #2 only because the Rams had drafted Sam Bradford in 2010. Neither the Panthers nor the Colts even considered trading back in 2011 or 2012.
Fast forward to 2018 ... Cleveland, which has no QB, and the Giants, which has a 37 year old QB, have both hinted that they might trade out of the #1 or #2 spots. Indy, which has a young franchise QB who might be healthy or might not, already traded out of #3. That's an indication that maybe the pros don't think as much of the top QBs as the media.
-
22 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:
But we dont have what those teams had. And it still takes a lot of luck to make those work.
Oh, you mean a dedication to winning? A smart HC? A good FO that makes personnel decisions based on drafting/signing/re-signing talented players to help the team win rather than just put butts in the seats? Why can't the Bills have those things?
20 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:Whaley's biggest issue with the trade up was that it was for a WR, and additionally in a WR-heavy draft.
We're talking QB here. In just the last few drafts look at the moves the Eagles, Rams, Bears, Texans, and Chiefs have made to land a QB. And when teams arent trading up, QBs are still going immediately, like Winston, Mariota, Luck, and Newton.
That's what we need to go get. Otherwise, it's just more of the same. 2nd tier guy who we hope manages the game while we rely on the running game and defense. That's how we get 17 more years of drought.
You are buying into the media's hype that all four of the top QBs are going in the top five. My guess is that the pros don't see it that way. If they did, NONE of the teams in the top five except Cleveland which has 2 top five picks, would be interested in trading back. Instead, it's like they're all at least sort of interested in trading back. That says that the pros aren't nearly as enamored of these QBs as the media talking heads and fans are.
26 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:Sure, I'll clarify since you obviously dont understand.
No, I'm saying identifying the top Franchise QB prospects and doing what it takes to get one is the best path. Those prospects (assuming there is more than 1, but probably not more than 3) are all going to go early. If that means trading a handful of picks to get to #2 and securing a top tier prospect, then so be it. Not "recklessly" trading to get a media darling. Trading the assets we spent the last year acquiring just so we could secure a top prospect.
Where as staying at #12 and taking a 2nd tier guy that early is definitely a reach.
That's NOT what you've been saying in this thread. You've been constantly saying "do anything to get into the top five and draft a QB". Whenever somebody calls you on it, you claim you're not doing that, but then you come right back and say the same thing in your next reply to a post.
11 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:Them being flawed certainly played into it, but jsut further proves my point. McD wasnt going to trust Whaley to pick the best of the flawed QBs, nor was he going to tie his HC career to Whaley's pick, nor was he going to saddle the incoming GM with Whaley's pick. If there was a franchise-QB prospect he would have gone long before we picked at #10 anyways. Point is, McD wasnt taking a QB in the 1st last year, for a number of reasons so we dont know anything about his true ability to pick QBs.
The bolded being the ultimate point I was making there to someone who said they dont trust his ability to pick QBs.
If McDermott is running the draft and the team, why would he CARE about "saddling" a GM-to-be-named-later with his choice of QB? If he likes the QB, what the GM likes or dislikes would be immaterial. That's why the idea that McDermott didn't draft a QB last year because they were planning on changing GMs is nonsensical.
-
21 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:
Last year's draft has nothing to do with McD's ability to pick QBs. There was no logical reason for him to go after a QB last year, knowing "Whaley and Co." were about to be fired. Why would McD trust Whaley's QB scouting? Why would McD saddle his incoming GM with someone else's QB pick?
Made much more sense to trust Whaley on things like DB and LB and even OL and wait on QB until this year.
I dont agree with trading up just to get A guy either. They need to identify THE guy(s) and go get him.
You don't pass on a future franchise QB when you have a chance to get one. That the Bills didn't pick a QB in the first round with 2 available says that they didn't think either Mahomes or Watson was likely to be one rather than that McDermott passed on a first round QB because of FO politics. Plain and simple, Mahomes and Watson were flawed prospects ... as are some of this year's highly touted media favorites.
-
21 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:
That's a passive, play-not-to-lose approach that's setting you up for a reach.
I just want to be clear here. Staying at #12 and picking QB is automatically a "reach" but recklessly trading away high draft picks to move up to the top five in order to grab one of the media mavens' darlings who isn't even a good pick in the top ten isn't? Is that what you're saying?
-
1 hour ago, Zerovotlz said:
This thread is basically what I joined this place for.....this exact same thread exists on KC boards everywhere for the last 2 decades. So many fans always arguing we had "holes to fill" ....You all probably recall that KC was in the playoffs all the damn time from 1990 to about 2006. All we ever did was fill holes. And our organization was actually good at that. Many good drafts and free agent finds to fill out rosters. A long long line of great RB's in that time. Some super offensive lines. Pro Bowl pass rushers, and defensive backs...and always making playoffs......and always losing in the playoffs. Lost to Marino twice. Manning twice. Elway, Roethlisberger twice, JIM KELLY, Luck, Brady......I am not that smart, but it doesn't seem like a coincidence that Elvis Grbac, and Chaz Bono....Damon Huard, Matt Cassel etc would find themselves on the losing team in playoff games vs THOSE GUYS. When you try and make the argument that you can win without a QB, it is worthwhile to look at the teams that pulled it off. The 2000 Ravens being an example...had great drafts for 3 years or so in a row (very hard to do and very unlikely) and added some great free agent pieces to that team (Shannon Sharpe, Rod Woodson) ...and got game manager play out of Dilfer....AND everything fell just right for ONE SEASON. If you want to use all your draft picks to fill holes and try and duplicate the 2000 ravens..knock yourselves out. Kansas City tried it for decades that way, and even when you are reasonably successful at roster building...you have NOTHING wihtout a QB...you have a lottery ticket hoping that ONE season you were the ultimate roster building badass and everything comes together ONE time for that trophy. GOOD LUCK!
Expanding on my point. KC went 13-3 with Steve Bono, they switched out to Elvis Grbac and went 13-3 a couple seasons later. They switched out to Trent Green and went 13-3 again a couple more seasons later. That was all sandwiched in between a bunch of 11-5, 10-6, 12-4 ETC. You give me a roster with the best 52 NON QB in football and I can go 13-3 several times. You give me Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady...an in his prime Jim Kelly...and I will find 52 football players to fill out my roster and win championships.
How many playoff games have Phillip Rivers or Matthew Stafford won? Jim Kelly and Dan Marino won 0 championships between them. Aaron Rodgers has won only 1 championship as has Drew Brees. Peyton Manning won only 1 championship with Indy, Andrew Luck none. If you think that just drafting a "franchise QB" and "filling out the roster" is enough to win championships, guess again.
Of course, that presupposes the QB the team drafts in the first round actually becomes a "franchise QB" rather a JP Losman, Mark Sanchez, Matt Leinart, Christian Ponder, Jake Locker or EJ Manuel.
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:I was talking about the specific argument that their defense was in place and ours isn't. It's certainly true that they had a more complete offensive line in place but I don't think our is as disastrous as some do. It really played well down the stretch last year and it would benefit from a Quarterback capable of getting the ball out on time and not holding it for long enough to complete the whole box set of the Sopranos.
The Bills OL is in no way comparable to Philly's, and it didn't play "really well down the stretch". It played much better in the second half of the season compared to how it played early in the season, but that's not saying much because the OL really sucked early. Moreover, the center position has been weakened because Groy, who couldn't displace Wood as a starter, has now inherited the starting spot.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, blacklabel said:
Exactly this. Bills are consistently mentioned as one of the most likely teams to move up but I keep seeing all sorts of mocks and speculation articles saying the Cardinals will jump up or whoever, and now the Pats... with #23 and #31 are gonna fly up the board and take a QB who won't see the field for at least a year. Meanwhile, they (Pats) have plenty of other spots to fill.
This isn't about the media "disrespecting" the Bills or anything like that. It's just pointing out how asinine they can be. "Gonna be tough for the Bills, but watch out now, here come the Pats, they've offered the Giants pick #23 and a half-eaten Snickers (shared between Tommy and Billy themselves!) for EVERY SINGLE Giants pick for the next 14 years. Oh, and would ya look at that, just because teams respect the Pats so much, the Browns have gifted them with picks #1 and #4, just because!"
Blech. Anyone seriously thinking the Pats are gonna find their way into the top two or three picks can get da fook oot.
It's just part of the hype and hysteria that the media cultivates around the NFL draft to increase clicks or ratings ... and it obviously works judging from numerous responses.
-
28 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:
I understand your point. I just am a believer, no matter how bad the team/employer was....never throw them under the bus especially when you're trying to get back in.
Speak the political talk.
It's called not burning your bridges. Some people never learn that.
-
44 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:
Why would he say this? He supposedly has desire to get back to the NFL and now he throws the organization he played for under the bus.
It's worse than that IMO. He's shirking all responsibility for his own conduct. A mature adult would admit that he f'd up, and would promise that he'd try to do better if he got another chance. It's also not his fault that he did whatever drugs he did, either, amirite?
-
1 hour ago, MarkyMannn said:
a QB takes you to the Super Bowl. A DT doesn't. And AD is great too
Would you rather have Tre White or Deshaun Watson?
How many Super Bowls have the San Diego Chargers participated in since they drafted Phillip Rivers? What about the Detroit Lions?
I'd take Tre White because I know he's proven himself. The history of the NFL is cluttered with all the flash-in-the-pan rookie QBs who looked good for part of a season.
1 hour ago, klos63 said:If they win a super bowl before that happens, then the strategy worked. Cap will be up a lot in the next few seasons, rosters change all the time. As long as you don't sign someone and then get rid of them with lot's of dead space on the books, teams should be able to manage. If I'm a Ram's fan, I'm pumped for the next few seasons.
Isn't the cap dependent upon the amount of $$$ the NFL gets from its TV contracts, as per the last CBA? There were numerous articles in 2017 about the networks taking significant losses on games because of lowered ratings. That suggests that the television money may not increase significantly if at all in the next contract, and the cap won't be able to increase -- and might even decrease -- unless the CBA is changed.
-
3 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
Yup. They have a sub .500 record in 6 seasons to show for it, a 35 year old free agent rental and a decimated roster.
#BETTHEFARM can’t miss
Things would have been much worse without Cousins, though. He was just about the only thing the Skins have had for the last few years.
-
1 minute ago, No Place To Hyde said:
Ahhh Baltimore. Sooner or later we knew your franchise roots would show...and you would slowly but surely morph into the Browns.
Actually, the Raven's Browns roots are the winning branch of the Cleveland Browns family. They are the descendents of the original Cleveland Browns of the All American Conference, Jim Brown, NFL Champion Browns.
The current Cleveland Browns are the adopted children who have the name but not the DNA.
-
1 minute ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
Ahhhhh yes. RG3....
Redskins receive: 2012 first-rounder (No. 2: QB Robert Griffin III)
Rams receive: 2012 first-rounder (No. 6: Traded to Cowboys), 2012 second-round selection (No. 39: CB Janoris Jenkins), 2013 first-rounder (No. 22: Traded to Falcons), 2014 first-rounder (No. 2: OT Greg Robinson)good times for ‘skins fans.
Good thing the Deadskins wasted that 2012 fourth rounder on that skinny kid named Cousins.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, MJS said:
Good for him. I've always felt bad for him. Forced to play injured and never recovered. He lost all confidence. Hope he makes a comeback.
Griffin's problem has been that he never adjusted to the pro game. Even if he'd never been injured, he would have failed once defenses figured him out. It's the very same reason so many young QBs light up the league for a season or two and then crash and burn.
-
2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
Either you mean Dak Prescott or the Texans and Cowboys have merged.
Mea culpa. Dak Prescott. Thanks.
Don’t bet the farm on at the QB roulette table
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Apparently not. Only trading a truckload of high draft picks to gamble on an overhyped collegiate QB will get the Bills close to a Super Bowl ... after all, Philadelphia just did it.