SoTier
-
Posts
5,926 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoTier
-
-
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.
-
7 hours ago, Gigs said:
I’d be surprised if 3 go in the 1st round. Every draft since 83 which had more than 2 hyped up QBs has been touted as the next “83 draft.”
Theres a way better chance only 1 or 2 go in the 1st. Also, there was 6 QBs taken in the first 35 picks of the 2011 draft, 4 in the 1st. Was that draft just as good as this, 2004 or 1983?
Tbh, Darnold and Rosen are the only ones worth picking. It would be great if 5 QBs went in the top 10 because that’s 5 good players who were passed down towards 12.
I can see 3 or 4 QBs going in the first round because, apparently like their fan bases, some NFL GMs seem to buy into the a significant amount of the hype and hysteria dished up by the media around the draft. I think that Cleveland's GMs prior to the current regime certainly did that. IMO, the Jests move up to #3 so early and without knowing which QBs will be available smacks of the same stupidity. You are correct in noting that except for 1983 and 2004, most years with 3, 4 or 5 QBs taken in the first round don't actually produce that many successful QBs, much less "franchise QBs" from those first rounders. The drafts since 1983 have seemed to yield 1 and sometimes 2 successful QBs from each draft whether there's 1 QB drafted in the first round or 4 or 5, and in the last few years, there seems to be more successful QBs coming out of the draft from the rounds after the first. The chances of actually getting a "franchise" quality QB (a top notch, long term starter who becomes the face of the franchise) is much less because not all drafts produce one. Between 1999 and 2014, the 2002, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2014 certainly failed to produce QBs who were good enough to be considered "franchise QBs" although some of those drafts produced successful QBs. Taking a Daunte Culpepper or Ryan Tannehill or Jay Cutler at 11 or 12 is okay, but taking a Todd Blackledge or Joey Harrington at #2 is painful. Trading up to get a bust like JP Losman is a disaster.
7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:There is absolutely no chance that only two go in round one. It is almost certain 3 go in the top 10.
Only if the Bills or some other team trade up will 3 go in the top 10 IMO. I don't see any of the teams in the top 10 except Cleveland and the Jests drafting a QB, including Denver which has Keenum as well as 2016 first rounder Paxton Lynch who was hurt most of last season.
5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:It is NOT a crap shoot. You have to evaluate them and then trust your evaluation skills.
5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:It's not a crap shoot. There are teams who consistently draft better than others. They have better scouts and better process. Nobody is going to hit on every pick but it is not some lottery either. Process wins and good evaluation wins.
The problem is that the evaluation skills that NFL teams use to judge draft QBs are woefully inadequate to enable teams to consistently pick good QBs in the draft, so yeah, it's a crap shoot. I can only think of 2 teams in the last 20 years that successfully transitioned directly from one franchise QB to another without missing a beat because they drafted his replacement: NE when Tom Brady replaced Drew Bledsoe and Green Bay when Aaron Rodgers replaced Brett Favre. The NY Jests transitioned from one successful QB, Vinnie Testaverde, to another successful QB, Chad Pennington, but I wouldn't rank either as "franchise QBs". Dallas may be a third team if
Deshaun WatsonDak Prescott turns out to be a franchise QB (replacing Tony Romo who was an UDFA).QBs who are #1 consensus picks seem to hit with regularity, but the percentage of successful QBs from the first round drops precipitously after #1, even for QBs drafted in the top 5 or top 10, and is depressingly low for QBs drafted in the bottom half of the first round. My guess is that the success rate for QBs in the first round is significantly lower than for most other positions except perhaps WR. That suggests to me that the evaluation criteria aren't measuring what needs to be measured, which are the very things that separate the Rivers, Rodgers, and Lucks etc from the Harringtons, Losmans, and Carrs. So, unless there's a QB who's the #1 consensus pick in the draft, it's pretty much a crap shoot.
-
17 hours ago, Chuck Wagon said:
I'm not a "I quit on the team guy".
That being said, if Beane sits on these picks and watches the Jets and Pats move in to take QBs, I quit.
Promises, promises, promises.
-
1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:
Vander Doodle will not last until 22. Smith probably won't last until 12.
If the QBs go as high as the media mavens predict they will, Smith will be available at 12. If the QBs don't go as high as predicted, then there will be 1 or 2 available for the Bills to pick -- if they want one of them, and they might not.
As I've said numerous times, we don't know how the Bills have the QBs rated. I don't think the Bills will move up for "a" QB as the Jests apparently are willing to do. I think if they're willing to trade up, it's for a specific QB, which means that they won't trade up before the team they have as a partner is on the clock and their guy is available. Of course, it may be that neither Cleveland nor Giants is interested in trading out of their spots except for far more than the Bills are willing to give. If they can't find a partner or their QB is off the board, then they're going to go BPA at another position, which certainly Smith would be.
Whatever the outcome, the Bills need to cross their Ts and dot their Is, and be prepared for contingencies since drafts seldom go the way the hypesters in the media claim it will.
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, Batman1876 said:
Who was the last team to make it in the playoffs and contend year in and year out without a franchise QB? We’ve had years with talented rosters and we lost games because our QB was not good.
Minnesota. Back in the late 1990s the Vikes went to the playoffs with Brad Johnson (1996 & 1997), Randall Cunningham (1998), Jeff George (1999), Daunte Culpepper (2000). Then they came back in the last decade to make the playoffs 5 out of the last 10 years despite not having an entrenched franchise QB in his prime: Gus Frerotte (2008), Favre (2009), Ponder (2012), Bridgewater (2015), and Keenum (2017).
Furthermore, the Bills 17 years of playoff drought wasn't because they lacked a franchise QB. They failed to make the playoffs for so long primarily because of poor FO decisions, from selecting HCs to drafting players to decisions about which FAs to keep and which FAs to sign. The Bills had a franchise QB in Drew Bledsoe from 2002-2004, and failed to make the playoffs. The only year where you actually argue that better QBing would have put them in the playoffs was in 2014 when Marrone dumped Manuel and went with retirement list refugee Kyle Orton who played rather poorly toward the end of the season. Through most of the drought, the team didn't have enough talent on the sidelines or on the field to even be a playoff contender.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, DougFlutie7 said:
The stupidity is overwhelming. A certain percentage of this fan base has been conditioned to not prioritize the QB position. The “so many holes to fill” crowd are so annoying and so wrong.
You're right about the stupidity. A certain percentage of this fan base has been conditioned to believe that QBs drafted in the top five can't bust. Todd Blackledge, Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Vince Young, JaMarcus Russell, Mark Sanchez, and Robert Griffin III all say "hi, fools".
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, BBills88 said:
If these rookies are as great as we want them to be than it doesn't matter as they will make the receivers look good. Many QB's have done it.
Name them.
-
18 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
Did they say that about Philly???
Philly was a talented team before the Eagles took a flyer on Chip Kelly, and he wasn't in charge long enough to do a total gut job on the team, so Philly already had a pretty talented team. Even so, the Eagles went 7-9 in Wentz's first season.
The Bills weren't all that talented before McDermott was hired, and he proceeded to get rid of more players, including young, talented players like Watkins, Darby, Dareus, etc. They also traded their starting QB and their starting LT, although Glenn was injured most of last season, and they lost C Eric Wood to injury/retirement. Through trades and FA, they've only replaced a few of the players they lost, so they still have massive needs at WR and on the OL plus LB.
Even if the Bills use only 1 draft pick on a QB and he develops into a quality starter, it's likely to still take them two or three years to return to the playoffs. If they give up all of their Day 1 and Day 2 picks and some 2019 picks, too, which is what some advocate, to trade up into the top five, they are going to be doomed to more than three years of no playoffs even if the QB they pick turns out to be a quality starter. Even greats like Brady, Brees, and Rodgers need protection and targets ... and defensive help so that they don't have to score 30+ points a game to win.
-
3 hours ago, MAJBobby said:
It is 100% a failure.
That is what this was about. Get the capital to make any move you want and need to secure a too QB this year.
That is why you passed on QBs last year.
So if you do not take your swing it is a failure
^^^
3 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:The plan was to draft a top QB this year. That plan may not work out. Plan B is a QB later in the round that may need more development. No first round QB as the OP stated ? That is absolutely a failure to address the situation with any kind of plan. I don't think this will happen, but it would clearly be a failure if it did.
So, you two are obviously either privy to what the Bills' FO office staff were thinking last year, or you're mind readers who've personally met with McDermott. So, why are you wasting your time and talent posting on a fan message board rather than trading on connections and/or talent to make some real $$$?
-
8 minutes ago, BillsfanAZ said:
I dont think it is a fireable offense if no team in the top 5 is willing to deal unless the Bills give away their whole draft this year or first and second next year. It isnt like Beane is sitting doing nothing. I am sure he will run all the trade demands by Pegula so they are on the same page. I think it would be more of a fireable offense if they move up into the second spot to get their guy and it turns out he isnt any good in a couple years.
Exactly this. Except for 2004 which was an outlier because of its quality, drafts with 4 QBs going in the first round since 2000 (2003, 2011, and 2012) have yielded only 4 hits among the 12 first rounders (Palmer, Newton, Luck, and Tannehill). Even the 3 successful first rounders from 2004 only raise that to 7/16 which is less than 50%, and the three successes from 2004 were significantly better prospects than the top guys this year.
3 minutes ago, Carter said:It would be apparent he is on the 3 year and out plan.
He must find a qb, his and McDermotts job depends on it.
What if there isn't one to be found??? Sorry, but drafting a QB in the first round doesn't guarantee that he'll be successful. Not only were both Losman and Manuel failures for the Bills but so were top ten picks David Carr, Joey Harrington, Byron Leftwich, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, JaMarcus Russell, Mark Sanchez, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, and Robert Griffin III for other teams.
6 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:That's a reasonable assessment , and would be fair criticism. They had choices last year and took option C.
Since Mahomes and Watson have played all of 8 NFL games combined, it's a bit early to declare them successes. Both of these players had significant question marks about how they would adapt to the pro game. Now, one or both may turn out great or really lousy. Come back in a couple of years to see if passing on either of them was a mistake.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, JohnBonhamRocks said:
then I'm done.
Promises, promises, promises ...
-
2
-
In Retrospect: How Did We Make Playoffs Last Year?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
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.