SoTier
-
Posts
5,589 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoTier
-
-
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:
On what basis is that "at worst"? At worse he will be out of the league in 2018. At worst he is not an NFL calibre player. I fought this perception that somehow he was sure to end up a solid backup the moment he was drafted.... even Kirby thought that was likely back then. Nathan Peterman is not a good enough Quarterback to be a success in the NFL. He wasn't based on his college film and he isn't based on his games thus far. A "solid backup" is not his worst case scenario.... it his his best case scenario.
Totally agree. When a QB from North Dakota State goes #2 in the draft, that means that the scouts are not only scouring the hinterlands, they aren't letting any potential Tom Bradys slip through the cracks like they may have done twenty years ago. These days, a kid who goes in the late rounds is seriously lacking in the physical attributes necessary for an NFL QB, so he's not even a decent bet to make a "solid backup".
-
14 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:
They played with the same players. If you didn’t like the time that he had the same has to be the case for Taylor. Also, no one gets better from watching a guy!! Ha ha, that’s absurd.
The questions about Peterman coming out we’re in regards to accuracy, arm strength and how he handled pressure. When he has played in NFL games those issues have been magnified. He has been atrocious under pressure, he doesn’t have the arm strength or accuracy to fit the ball in tigh spots. So he completed 49% of the passes to his guys and over 10% to the other guys.
Obviously, no one knows what the future holds but he looks like the exact player scouts feared. That’s why he went in the 5th. Also, he was considered one of the most pro-ready. That was a pro for him. He wasn’t some raw prospect like Cardale that was 2 years away from being able to get on the field. Peterman is smart and can get through progressions. He was close to a finished product coming out. He’s just not very good and won’t be starting anywhere. 5th round QBs come and go in this league all of the time. Hell, the Saints used a top 75 pick on Garrett Grayson and cut him after 1 year. It isn’t insane at all to write off a guy that stinks.
You are not going to convince the diehards that Peterman is a dud. Hell, his own incompetence won't even convince some of them that he's not pro material. If the Bills drafted him, they must have seen his "potential" because the Bills have demonstrated their unerring ability to find "QB diamonds in the rough".
-
4 hours ago, Virgil said:
With a GM who may not want to give up the farm to trade up and a salary cap space that's needed with a huge amount of UFA's, what's the plan for if we aren't able to snag someone in FA or the draft who can compete for the starting job.
Let's just assume that the Bills want in on ALL top QB's available. Cousins could easily go for a price tag outside of where we are willing to go. Two of the three Qb's in Minnesota are likely to be retained, but it's very well possible that we don't land the leftover. If they keep Keenum and Bridgewater, we may not even want Bradford.
Then, let's say the Rosen, Mayfield, and Darnold all go in the top 3-5 picks and we couldn't get a deal done to move up.
I don't think any of those scenario's are unrealistic at all. So what then? Do we actually keep Tyrod and get someone in the later rounds we hope develops and wait until next year when there is less QB competition?
Basically, what would plan C need to include to make you optimistic about our offense next year if we can't land the top 3 guys at QB or FA QB's?
My guess is that Plan C is more likely than Plan A or Plan B simply based on the reality that there are limited options for the Bills to get another QB who might be an upgrade to Taylor. My plan C would be to keep Taylor because he's probably the best the Bills can do unless they get Cousins or Smith, and then draft a QB in Round 2 or 3 if there's one who looks like he would at least make a decent backup QB. The Bills need a backup better than Peterman; his only recommendation is that he's cheap.
-
On 1/24/2018 at 8:31 AM, BadLandsMeanie said:
This is a raw nerve for me, so please forgive.
Yes the Pats have done ok when Brady has not been able to go.
But that Pats have also been proactive about that, by drafting and grooming quarterbacks. That way they are ready when they need to be. So you can see that in a sense, the way the Patriots emphasize the importance of the Qb spot shows that they understand that coaching can only take you so far.
In contract with the Buffalo Bills. The Buffalo Bills have been impossibly stupid when it comes to that. Year after year, they had been unable to learn. The most very basic concept, that every schoolboy knows, which is that the QB is very important, the front office brass of the Buffalo Bills have been too moronic, too idiotic, too arrogant, too busy infighting to learn. They have instead rarely drafted a QB, because they have been empty headed drooling cretins of the very worst sort, which is the type of jackass imbecile who thinks he is smart.
Ok so yeah I have a raw nerve about that. Anyway maybe we will find out eventually how BC does with Brady, if Brady turns out not to be an immortal blood sucking vampire, which I am beginning to think he is. He has the personality for it.
How, exactly, have the Patriots been "proactive" in "drafting and grooming quarterbacks"? Since Belichick came to NE, he's only drafted backup QBs with the possible exception of Garoppolo. You're confusing the horsehoe Belichick had up his ass when he made Tom Brady the Patriots' sixth round pick in the 2000 draft with prescience. Matt Cassel was a sixth rounder, too. Brian Hoyer was an UDFA. Jacoby Brissette was a fourth rounder. Garoppolo was a second rounder, but you can count the number of second rounders who have developed into franchise QBs in the last two decades on the fingers of one hand and have digits left over. Neither Cassel nor Hoyer played as well for any other teams as they did for NE. Brisette isn't going to make Indy trade Andrew Luck even if his health was guaranteed. As for Garoppolo, he has indeed looked really good in his short time starting in SF but Osweiler looked good for most of the season when he subbed for Peyton, so the jury is still out on just how good he might be IMO.
Over the years the Patriots have drafted other backup QBs, including third rounder Ryan Mallett, but none of them has been any better than the scrubs that the Bills have drafted over the years. The Patriots have been better at finding QBs that fit their system, judging QB talent, and putting their QBs in positions to succeed if they get on the field. That Patriots' backup QBs have done well when asked to perform in place of Brady over the years but have failed to find any success as starters only supports the idea that it's coaching and the system that accounts for it rather than any formula or process for "drafting and grooming quarterbacks".
-
18 hours ago, Tatonka68 said:
All of the Bills mafia have a opinion of who the Bills should draft, but it is McDermott's call. He is looking for no red flags, a senior with "good grades" and a good character guy. So under these conditions these are the players that fit, Mason Rudolph Oklahoma St, Kurt Benkert Virginia, Mike White Western Kentucky and maybe Sam Darnold. He will never draft, in my opinion, Baker Mayfield, Sam Rosen, or Lamar Jackson. Josh Allen does not fit either but might be drafted anyhow. sorry to bust your bubble.
I certainly hope you're wrong because at the very top of the list should be "has the potential to be a great QB". By all accounts, EJ Manuel fit your criteria perfectly, but he missed on my criteria... and he was a bust. The Bills don't need a choirboy but a QB. If the kid has the right physical qualities, has his head on straight enough to keep out of trouble off the field and make good decisions on the field, and is a hard worker, I would certainly be po'd if the Bills passed on him for some lesser prospect because of the largely irrelevant criteria you cited.
-
I didn't bother to read all 6 pages of this thread but I do have 1 question, SaviorPeterman: are you and Dunkirk Don one and the same or are you his/her/its son/daughter/spawn? My inquiring mind wants to know!
-
I will probably tune in sporadically ... let's face it, even if the Eagles were up 3 scores to 2 minutes to play, the refs would find a way to help NE win.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:
It's not, because the coach, the coaching staff, and the offensive system is equally if not more important.
I think we should basically be operating under the belief that we have the coach in McDermott (good evidence of this based on this past season) along with the coaching staff and offensive system. Dabol had enough time with the Patriots and did some good things at Alabama last year with a QB who couldn't pass, so I think operating under this belief is reasonable.
We might not just be a QB away. But considering how successful the team was last year with relatively inferior talent especially compared to the other teams that got to the playoffs, I hope McBeane operate as though we're a QB away.
The only problem with this idea is that there may not be an upgrade QB available. This is why there are so many "QB needy" teams. Taylor might the best the Bills can do, and if that's true, then they need to face that squarely and not do what they did in 2013 when they cut Fitzpatrick and picked $$$ over wins. We'll never know, but it seems likely Marrone and Hackett could have gotten the Bills to the playoffs with Fitzpatrick. The 2014 team missed by tie-breakers IIRC, and one of their losses came when Orton ran out of bounds rather than trying for the EZ. Fitz wouldn't have done that.
-
14 minutes ago, ndirish1978 said:
I don't get returning to the well of "let's take a non-elite QB." We have gone that route since JK retired with the exception of Manuel and it has never worked.
I agree with this with a caveat.
QBs are basically two kinds: franchise QBs and everybody else -- a Ryan Fitzpatrick or a Tyrod Taylor or a Nick Foles, and generally, there's one franchise QB in a draft. A good year might yield a couple of franchise QBs, one of which is at the lower end of the franchise spectrum (Matt Schaub, Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco). A bad year like 2007 or 2013 yields no franchise QBs. Generally speaking, franchise QBs go in the Top 5 picks. Franchise QBs who come out of the bottom half of the first round are pretty rare, and about as likely as those who come out of later rounds: Chad Pennington (2000), Aaron Rodgers (2005) and Joe Flacco (2008). Scouting is pretty thorough these days, so there aren't a lot of top prospects QBs "slipping through the cracks" and falling to the 2nd half of the first or into the second or third round unless there are some extenuating circumstances.
My caveat is that if you're drafting a QB outside of the Top 5, unless it's truly a great QB draft ( like 2004) or a QB has some "extenuating circumstances", you're drafting an "everybody else". The question is, as a GM and a team, can you live with those "extenuating circumstances" if they come with an otherwise potentially great QB prospect? Tom Brady was a part time player because of athletic department politics. Drew Brees and Russell Wilson are short. Kirk Cousins is built more like a HS basketball player than a pro football player.
So, if Baker Mayfield, who is short and supposedly has some baggage, is available at 17, and the Bills traded up for him, I wouldn't be opposed to that because without those two negatives, he'd probably go much higher. I also wouldn't cry in my beer if they passed on him either.
32 minutes ago, ndirish1978 said:Touche. But we made him the first QB taken, so I figured I'd give them a point for apparently trying.
Actually, taking a QB in the first round who wasn't a first round talent ought to lose them at least one point IMO. They simply took a QB in the first round just to take a QB in the first round. FAIL!
21 minutes ago, dollars 2 donuts said:Man, if only we had just sweetened the pot to Jacksonville...scaredy-cats thinking there receiver was going to be gone if they traded with us.
...and, correct me if I am wrong...if we don't trade the following year's 1st round pick to move up for Losman we would have been able to pick up Aaron Rodgers at that spot?
Absolutely. The Bills would have had the 18th pick in 2005, and Rodgers, who had been expected to be the #1 pick and fell for some reason, wasn't taken until #24 by the Packers.
-
- The only 2 veteran QBs who might be available who are actually good are Cousins and Smith. Cousins might not be available and will be expensive. The Bills would have to trade for Smith, and they've been fleeced so many times by Andy Reid that I'd leery of him.
- Bradford can't stay healthy.
- Keenum had a great year, but Minny is loaded with talent on both sides of the ball, so it's impossible to predict what he'd do on any other team. The Vikes will probably keep him anyway.
- Since his big 2013 season, Foles has played 1 great game: the NFC Championship game for Philly, and he's under contract.
- All the rest are journeymen who at best are about on the same level as Taylor, and many not even that good.
-
13 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:
People will obviously see what they want to see. The offense was "tailored to Foles' strengths?" Curious to be tailoring your offense around your backup QB's talents. I thought the offense was tailored to the strengths of their actual starting QB, a QB known for his mobility .... yes, they changed things up a bit when Foles took over, which is probably part of the reason his first couple games weren't very impressive.
And I keep hearing "but Foles was benched for Case Keenum," as if Tyrod was never benched for .... the great Nathan Peterman.
You should have been looking in a mirror when you typed that first sentence since the announcers during the Eagles Vikings game made the very statement that after Wentz went down, the Eagles staff started tailoring the offense to fit Foles which was why he looked so much better the last two games he played than the previous ones: they had changed the offense. Foles looked good over a single season when he was in a run-and-gun style offense for a talented team that took NFL DCs by surprise for a while. He's looked good for a couple of games in an offense that's been altered to fit him on a team that's very talented on both sides of the ball. In between, Foles has failed to impress anybody, and that's why the Bills weren't interested in signing him.
Maybe instead of whining about the Bills sticking with Taylor as their starter, maybe you should really ask why the Bills didn't have somebody better than Peterman as their backup ... like Foles, who signed with Philly for backup QB money. The Bills could have signed Foles as Taylor's backup y'know rather than going with a fifth round rookie.
-
1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:
OK. you officially have Folesophobia. Or maybe Tyrodomania. So let’s ask the next diagnostic question: you are an NFL GM. You need a veteran QB. Assume both Foles and Tyrod are available as unrestricted free agents, and assume their respective agents have signaled that they will both sign 2 year deals on equivalent financial terms. Assume all other things are equal (you can factor in injury risk if you’d like, but no fair speculating that either one may have a hidden injury right now; assume both will be healthy at the time of signing). These are the only two choices. No “I’d draft someone/I’d trade for Alex Smith” responses allowed.
Which one do you sign?
A. Foles
B. Tyrod
And please justify your choice.
I want option C. Taylor with the Eagles offense backed up by the Eagles defense. Get a clue: Foles is playing in a QB friendly system that Pedersen and his staff have tailored to his strengths. He has one of the best if not the best OL in the NFL protecting him, a top notch running game, and good NFL quality receivers. Tyrod Taylor played in a system that didn't fit him behind an OL that struggled most of the season to protect the QB and open holes for the RBs. He had only 1 NFL quality WR, and only late in the season. Switch Foles and Taylor in 2017, and you'd be whining about why ever did we dump Taylor for Foles.
Whether you have a great QB or a crappy one, the guys around him are going to contribute to his success. It's a team game and you can't ignore that. In a better offensive system, Taylor has looked better with less talent (2015 and 2016) than Foles has looked except for 2013 under Chip Kelly and the last two games with Philly. Some really lousy QBs have managed to look good for a few games, so I'd go with Taylor.
-
14 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:
5 years, $27.5 million with certain incentives and "escalators" that could add another $11 million. So if he performs well, the top end is 38.5 million. And if he performs poorly, it is essentially voidable by the Eagles after 2 years.
Tyrod: 2 years, $30.5 million.
And he is obviously a better fit for the Dennison offense than Tyrod was. For those of you who'd say, "where we you when he was a free agent" - I was right here, suggesting that Foles was far and away the best "bridge" QB free agent out there ....
Does the phrase "you get what you pay for" ring a bell? That's backup QB money Philly shelled out for him, which for them, turned out to be well spent because Wentz got hurt. Foles is a nice backup QB but a pretty crappy long term starter. His NFL success as a starter didn't last as long as Chip Kelly's NFL coaching career.
Foles was mediocre in his last year in Philly, throwing 13 TDs and 10 INTs in 8 games as a starter in 2014. He was traded to SL and sucked there in 2015. He was an uninspiring backup to Alex Smith in KC in 2016 which was why he was a FA in 2017.
As for being a better fit for "the Dennison offense", why does it matter? Dennison was a crappy OC with little imagination and an inability/unwillingness to adjust to changing game situations. Good riddance.
-
3 hours ago, papazoid said:
I said offensive lineman....(tackles, guards & centers)
as far as Tackles only (left or right)....there are 10 on each of those years (2016 & 2017) better than Glenn.
he was healthy in 2016 and still didn't make the top 25 offensive lineman. on that list there were 7 left tackles.
my point is, cordy is being paid like the 2nd or 3rd best offensive lineman in the entire league. he will NEVER be that good. therefore, he is over paid.
Your arguments are simply bogus BS that's based on conveniently manipulated stats like lumping all offensive linemen together to make your point. Even lumping RTs and LTs together ignores the realities of the modern NFL where LTs much more highly valued -- paid -- than RTs, but carry on with proving your ignorance.
-
10 minutes ago, snamsnoops said:
i would argue that BBRRRUUCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! holds the bills goat!
Did you ever see OJ Simpson play? He was unbelievable. There is nobody in the league today -- not even Adrian Peterson -- who can do what he did with regularity. And he mostly played on pretty modestly talented teams in Buffalo. They had The Juice and his OL, the Electric Company, and not a whole lot more, especially on defense.
Bruce was a great player but he didn't carry the team the way that Simpson did. He had a lot of help on both sides of the ball.
-
23 hours ago, papazoid said:
ten highest cap hits:
OVERPAID - TT (18.0), Glenn (14.4), Hughes (10.4), Clay (9.0), Benjamin (8.5)
EARNING THEIR KEEP - shady (8.9), Richie (7.6), wood (8.6), hyde (6.8), poyer (3.4)
The only reason that Glenn is "overpaid" is because he was injured. When healthy, he's a top LT, and that's the going rate for one. Neither Clay nor Benjamin would be overpaid if the Bills had a 21st century passing game rather than one that seemed mired in the 1950s. Hopefully, Daboll will give them one.
15 hours ago, Dr. Who said:I would rather spend FA money bolstering OL and DL and try and get a young, cost controlled qb with franchise qb potential who can play for fifteen years. But see, I like Mayfield and I think you can get him without sacrificing all your draft capital to move up and get him; but you will have to move up, imo.
The issue is that you know what Cousins can do in the NFL. A team can at least make some educated guesses what they would need to add around him to make their team better. Nobody knows what that "young, cost controlled qb with franchise qb potential" will do. He could be a JP Losman or an EJ Mayfield. Worse yet, he could a Ryan Tannehill -- too good to just chuck but not quite good enough to win with -- that a team ends up paying big $$$ for "just in case".
13 hours ago, stuvian said:If any combination of Brady, Roethlisberger and Brees retire in the next year or two, Cousins becomes an elite QB by default. He's a far better and younger passer than Alex Smith. Yes, I still want the Bills to draft a young QB for once in their miserable history but Cousins would be the ideal bridge QB to mentor and keep us competitive
The Bills have drafted two young QBs in their recent miserable history -- Losman and Manuel -- which is why I don't want them to draft ANOTHER QB in the first round just to say that they drafted one. Unless they think he's the real deal, then they should pass and look for somebody on Day Two.
Also, Cousins would not be a bridge QB. He would probably be signed for 5 years or so, so there would be no way that the Bills would looking for another potential starting QB for 3 or 4 years. That would be the same as if they drafted a QB in the first round ... they wouldn't be looking for his replacement unless/until they were convinced he was a bust.
-
35 minutes ago, ddaryl said:
a much different situation as OJ was long gone from the BIlls and past his football career. he was a hollywood star at that point.
Pats had him on the roster and many Pats fans as well as the franchise defended him
much much much different scenarios IMO
but to me they are both just sad stories
However seeing a bunch of Bills fans get together to take a picture with OJ recently was disturbing
I think I can understand some of the reasons why these fans had the photo taken with Simpson but I wouldn't have joined them. I can't separate the player from the crimes he committed later. It's really sad for Bills fans that Simpson was the greatest player who EVER played for the Bills, but he's mostly remembered for being a murderer.
-
I think that the most important piece that the Bills need is an attitude adjustment that results in a commitment to winning football games, and I'm not sure if the new regime (ie, FO) has it. I don't think that they had it early in 2017, but maybe that changed when Beane was hired. We'll have to see. Until and unless the Bills commit to keeping as much of the talent they find and develop as they can afford, they aren't ever going to build up enough talent and depth to field a team good enough to win 11 or 12 games and get far into the playoffs.
The merry-go-round of continually drafting DBs, WRs, and RBs in the first and second rounds to replace the good ones that the Bills drafted, developed, and then sent packing rather than pay is the root cause of the 17 year playoff drought. If the Bills had paid Stephon Gilmore, they wouldn't have had to draft Tre White, and might have very well stayed at #10 and taken either Mahomes or Watson. If the Bills had kept Robert Woods or Marquise Goodwin, not only would they have had a much better WR corps in 2017, they wouldn't need to add another WR in 2018. I'm not saying that these specific moves were right or wrong, but the ugly reality is that they're very similar to moves that the Bills made repeatedly over the last 20 years and landed them in same spot they've been so often in the past: spending high draft picks to replace young starters who left via FA or trade rather than drafting to improve talent and depth.
-
14 hours ago, MDH said:
Of course he's not special. If he was special they would have paid him like he was. He's a top 10 QB but not in the tier of Brady, Rodgers and Brees. I don't think anybody is disputing that. That being said, he's much better than "slightly above average" that a poster above wants to paint him as.
I don't know if he's worth the contract he's going to get but he's one of the best QBs in the league and you can defiantly win with him if the other pieces are in place. Granted, as mentioned in the article, a huge contract my prohibit having the cash to put the rest of the team around him.
This is spot on. He's at least as good as Smith, Dalton, and Flacco, and definitely better than supposed "franchise QBs" like Tannehill, Mariota, and some other former first round picks. Like all QBs, he needs at least a decent team around him, and he hasn't had that in Washington. Phillip Rivers hasn't led the Chargers to a playoff win in like 8 or 9 years, and has only one win in a playoff game in his career. Is that all on him? What about Matthew Stafford's failure to get the Lions into the playoffs with regularity?
-
1
-
-
On 1/18/2018 at 10:47 AM, kdiggz said:
Rosen is the best pocket passer since Andrew Luck. he is a real deal #1 pick but his white priviledge attitude rubs people the wrong way. Darnold is also a top 15 player in this draft but has some things to work on. Allen some would argue is a #1 type prospect just based on his rare size and arm strength. the best arm since JeMarcuss Russel, but it takes more than a big arm to be a QB imo. I'd put those 3 at the top. Mayfield obviously had a great college career but if Drew Brees and Russel Wilson don't exist I don't think anyone is talking about him as a top 15 pick. Guys like him were always typically day 2 picks. he can be successful, it's just more of a risk than what you typically see out of top 10 players chosen. if you are picking him that high then you are saying this is my franchise QB for the next 10 yrs. his size is a real concern. Drew Brees was a 2nd rounder as a result. Russel Wilson was a 3rd rounder. Jackson and Rudolph are day 2 type projects that will get pushed high into the 1st round because they are QB's and teams are desperate. both may be gone before we pick. so 6 QB's taken before we even pick is very possible! i'd only say 3 are worth the picks though, but that's how it goes with QB's!
Very well said.
On 1/18/2018 at 1:07 PM, DrDawkinstein said:In all fairness to accuracy stats, I spent most of 2012-2013 beating the Geno Smith drum because he was in a passing offense and had something sick like a 70% completion percentage... and look where that got me/him.
I'll give you that Losman was forcing the issue. But we traded down in 2013, so I cant agree we forced it.
And additionally, I'd say our biggest mistake was not forcing it enough in 2004, and not doing what it took to convince Houston to trade with us so we could land Rothlisberger.
Neither Losman nor Manuel should have been drafted in the first round, and most likely both would have been available in the 2nd round, and if they weren't, well, no great loss since the Bills could have taken Matt Schaub in 2004 or just passed on a QB entirely in 2013 because none of the prospects was very good. In both drafts, the Bills were determined to draft a QB in the first round in order to sell tickets, and that's what they did. That is absolutely "forcing the issue" whether they traded up or traded down to get one.
The Bills get no brownie points from me for taking a Day Two prospect in the first round even if they traded down and added an extra pick because that crappy prospect drafted in the first round prevented the team from going after better QB prospects like Bridgewater and Carr because they had Manuel ... just like they couldn't draft Rodgers in 2005 because they'd given up that first rounder for Losman.
-
1
-
-
On 1/11/2018 at 9:33 PM, Brianmoorman4jesus said:
I don’t want another short QB. Unless somehow it’s Drew Brees, I want a normal height QB. I’m tired of having to only check a few of the boxes. I want an all around good player at the position for a change. It’s been damn near 30 years here...Let’s make a move at some point.
Like Glennon or Osweiler? Are you aware that Russell Wilson, who's shorter than Brees, was responsible for some insane amount of Seattle's offense success this season? Like 85-90% of their scoring? As I said in another thread, it's not how tall or short a QB is, it's how he plays. I wouldn't want the Bills to trade up more than a few spots for Mayfield (say, from 21 to 15 at most) but if he's still available at 21, they should take him. He would be better at 21 than Rudolph or Jackson.
-
14 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:
I will jump on and day yes to RGIII
Prior to his injury he was very good
He had a promising career derailed after one of the best rookie seasons ever by a QB.
Nick foles after his "breakout year" was a huge risk after being subpar in college, subpar his first partial season, so no I wouldn't for him.
Ryan Leaf ? Before the draft sure. After watching him in the NFL? Nope.
*Also leaf started 2-0 not 4-0. He also looked terrible in those starts.a Should get your stats right before arguing, unless you're counting preseason, in that case, say so."
This sounds like the same excuse some still spout about Trent Edwards, "he was really good until that hit in the Arizona game..." The fact is that RG III's game wasn't actually sustainable in the NFL because he didn't have/never developed most of the skills that an NFL QB needs to be better than mediocre, such as reading defenses, pocket presence, etc. In college and as a rookie, he could get by with just using his physical ability but as NFL DCs developed "a book" on him, he got worse and worse. That's not something unique to RG III. It's the same thing that befell both Kaepernick and Osweiler among others, which is why posters are saying "you need to see success over a longer period to judge a QB". It's why I'm not annointing DeShon Watson as a great QB so far .... a 7 or 10 game sample simply isn't enough.
If you roll back to the end of 2016, who was supposedly the best QB in the Class of 2016? Dak Prescott, hands down. Fast forward to 2017, and it's clear that Carson Wentz is head and shoulders the best so far but Jared Goff is now at least in the picture while there are some real question marks developing around Prescott because of how well he didn't play in 2017.
-
21 hours ago, Magox said:
Have we not learned from the Sammy Watkins debacle?
Possibly the worst GM move that the Bills have made on draft day in decades.
I do not want to package two firsts unless it's a QB.
The Bills traded their 2005 first rounder, their 2004 second, and a fifth rounder to get Dallas' 2004 first rounder to pick JP Losman, who not only turned out to be a bust, but lost them the opportunity to draft Aaron Rodgers the next year. THAT was easily "the worst GM move that the Bills have made on draft day in decades."
-
18 hours ago, Koko78 said:
Does no one remember the lesson of Rob Johnson? Beware going after a guy with a short track record.
I believe that Matt Flynn was another backup QB who parlayed one late season start with GB into a big pay day, too.
Not to mention Colin Kaepernick who looked so good at the end of 2012 that the Niners not only signed him to a fat contract but sent Alex Smith off to KC.
Then there's Brock Osweiler ...
What's Plan C for QB?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Wilson went in round 3. That's not "late rounds". It's Day 2 ... and Wilson's physical limitation was his height, or more precisely, his lack of it. If he'd been 6'2 or so, he'd have gone in the Top 5. NFL GMs want big, tall QBs so they take chances on lesser prospects like Osweiler (6'7 or 6'8) early but leave short guys like Brees or Wilson or slightly built guys like Cousins to languish.