SoTier
-
Posts
5,948 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoTier
-
-
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.
-
9 hours ago, aristocrat said:
Jesus. If our oc can’t run a system that makes aj look competent what’s he gonna do with a high prize rookie? So what you’re saying is our front office can’t draft and get guys that fit our system? That star and Murphy aren’t guys that will play well? If they can’t find draft picks in the second and third I’d say it’s a good chance according to you they draft the wrong qb right?
Who's to say that McCarron isn't an epic bust as a starter? I mean, he's played in only a handful of games, so who knows if he's Kurt Warner or Brock Osweiller? Some QBs are so crappy that even the best coaching in the world isn't going to help him much.
8 hours ago, NewEraBills said:This is a rebuild man. The offense has the chance to be worse than last year. Imagine that
How could that be possible since Taylor is no longer a Bill? /sarcasm off
8 hours ago, nedboy7 said:worst case scenario is we trade everything for another bust. By far. That doesn’t mean we don’t hit our frencheyes. It’s just the worst case scenario.
That, of course, is simply not in the realm of possibility for the many fans who want to trade up no matter the cost, although it's more likely that only 1 if any of the top 4 QBs will be successful than that more than 1 of them will be successful.
18 minutes ago, Foxx said:yeah, i dunno. i don't think Andy Reid would have traded away Alex Smith if Mahomes was gonna suck. he might not light the world on fire but he definately won't suck.
He traded away Donovan McNabb to keep Kevin Kolb who is best remembered for being made of glass, but that only obscures the fact that Kolb, when healthy, sucked and eventually lost his starting job to Michael Vick. You may have annointed Andy Reid a football god but he's not even close to being Belichick's little bro.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
Chiefs' worst case scenario. Mahomes blows out his knee on the 1st day of camp.
Chiefs' worst case scenario: Mahomes sucks ala Matt Leinart or Mark Sanchez or Blaine Gabbert.
-
5 hours ago, RochesterRob said:
So there is more than one way to cut the cake (win a SB)?
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.
-
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.
Would you be pissed if the Bills traded up and drafted Barkley?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
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.