SoTier

If he's as good as advertised, then his height won't matter. It hasn't held Brees or Wilson back. It didn't hold Flutie back, either. The only red flag on Mayfield really is his height. Of course, being really tall didn't do much for Mike Glennon or Brock Osweiler.

It seems to me that the definition of a "franchise QB" is much like Justice Potter Stewart's view of pornography ... paraphrased: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

^^^ By your definition, SoCalDeek, Ryan Tannehill is a franchise QB and Blake Bortles will likely become one after 2018 barring some unforeseen circumstance simply because they were first round picks and their teams had no one better. Neither one is a "bad QB" on the level of a Joey Harrington, JaMarcus Russell or EJ Manuel, but neither has been "good enough" to truly secure the starting position since rumors persist that Miami is looking to replace Tannehill, and Bortles had to fight in training camp in 2017 to keep his job as starter. I sure wouldn't consider either a franchise QB at this point, although they're probably both decent starters. BTW, Mark Sanchez started for four years for the Jests and even received a contract extension after his second or third season. If the Jests hadn't had a major regime change that resulted in them sacking their GM and HC (every Bills fan's fave, Rex Ryan) after the 2012 season, Sanchez would have undoubtedly been the Jests' starter in 2013 as well. So, yeah, sometimes teams do keep a bad QB as a starter years longer than they should simply because they have too much invested in them or they can't find anybody better.

No, we won't because he's not really leaving. Maybe it was that Russell kid that Seattle drafted in the third round about 5 years ago ... after all, the Seahags didn't make the playoffs last season, so it must have been because their short QB played lousy.

Promises, promises, promises. Too bad you won't keep them. Guaranteed, if the Bills draft any QB in 2018, if he becomes even a modest success, you'll be here singing his praises, and if the Bills draft somebody other than your faves, you'll be here with "I told you sos". Of course, if the Bills draft one of your faves and he sucks, you'll whine and complain and claim they should have taken whatever 2018 QB might happen to actually turn out to be a success. BTW, Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, JP Losman, Ryan Fitzpatrick, EJ Manuel, and Kyle Orton were neither "undersized" nor "running QBs" ... and they all "sucked" according to the Bills faithful such as yourself although to be truthful, Bledsoe didn't suck at all.

I didn't include any QBs drafted after 2014 because I don't think they've had enough time to prove themselves one way or another. (FTR, I always want QBs to have at least 3 seasons of starting). I also didn't include Mariota and Trubisky. Yeah, Wentz looks good and makes Philly look great to trade up to get him, but he has to come back from his knee, and he also needs to continue to improve his game. However, Mariota remains a modest success at best. If a team had traded a fortune of picks to move up to draft him, would they think they got their money's worth? Even if you include both Mariota and Wentz, that's all of 5 successes, some only modest, out of 9 QBs or 56%. That's only slightly better than the percentage for all first round QBs. Of course, 10 of the 12 QBs taken #1 between 2000 and 2016 have had at least modest success, for 83%, so my premise remains correct: it's only the statistical success of the #1 picks that makes the "top five" QBs look like such statistical good bets. As always, whether to take a QB or not, and especially whether to trade up or not, doesn't depend upon statistics but on individuals. If the QB the Bills want is available and they trade up to get him on draft day, that's okay. If they trade up to any position except #1 before the draft, that's stupid.

Well, I think you better prepare for the Bills to draft another first round QB bust even if they trade up into #2. Only 3 of the 7 QBs taken between #2 and #5 since 2000 have been even modestly successful (Phillip Rivers, Matt Ryan, and Blake Bortles). Most drafts don't produce more than 1 starting QB no matter how many first round QBs are taken, and some of those are at best, only decent starters (think Bortles or Tannehill) while others come out of rounds below the first. Since 2000, only 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2014 have produced decent starting QBs. The only drafts since 2000 that had 2 top QBs come out of the first round were 2004, 2005, 2008, 2012)

Where did I say that the Bills shouldn't grab the QB they want? I was specifically arguing against the posters claiming the Bills need to trade up into the top five to grab a QB, literally, any QB the media mavens claim is a top QB prospect because top five QBs are statistically more successful than other first round QBs. That's simply untrue. Only QBs taken as #1 picks are statistically better than other first round QBs, and lumping the QBs taken between #2-#5 with them makes "top five QBs" look much more statistically successful. It's not the risk of taking a QB in the top five that's risky. It's trading up into the top five to get that QB is what is truly risky because of the cost. The sample size of teams that did this between 2000-2014 are very tiny, about 3 trades: the Giants swapping Eli for Rivers and picks in 2004; the Jets trading up for Mark Sanchez in 2009; and the Redskins trading up for Robert Griffin III in 2012. If either or both Goff and Wentz turn into franchise QBs, it will totally change the statistics simply because of the tiny sample size.

This is the red flag for me with these QBs. Most of them have serious flaws, and not minor ones. Darnold has issues with turn overs, and many analysts think he needs to sit for a year. Rosen lacks mobility and has already had 2 concussions ... that's a time bomb. Allen has big questions about his accuracy, and he will definitely need to sit for a year in most analysts' opinion. Mayfield is the only one who doesn't have obvious question marks but he's shorter than the pros would like. Jackson is probably another project, plus he has issues with accuracy and style as well. The odds for a top five QB being even modestly successful are not significantly better than for all QBs taken in the first round. The QBs who have been taken with the #1 pick since 2000 have hit at about 80%. The QBs picked from #2-#5 don't even hit at a 50% rate. The high success rates for the #1 picks make the success rate for #2-#5 seem much higher than it really is. Of the 10 #1s, 8 were at least modestly successful. Of the 7 QBs taken between #2-#5, only 3 have been modestly successful. Since 2000, these QBs were drafted in the Top Five: 2001 - #1 Michael Vick 2002 - #1 David Carr 2002 - #3 Joey Harrington 2003 - #1 Carson Palmer 2004 - #1 Eli Manning 2004 - #4 Phillip Rivers 2005 - #1 Alex Smith 2006 - #3 Vince Young 2007 - #1 JaMarcus Russell 2008 - #3 Matt Ryan 2009 - #1 Matthew Stafford 2009 - #5 Mark Sanchez 2010 - #1 Sam Bradford 2011 - #1 Cam Newton 2012 - #1 Andrew Luck 2012 - #2 Robert Griffin III 2014 - #3 Blake Bortles

Why didn't you just resurrect the previous thread that you started on this very same topic last week since you've essentially made the same arguments almost verbatim? In response to your recycled arguments about top QBs, I'll recycle my original reply.

Cry me a river. IMO, missing on Allen and Darnold is no great loss, and I like Mayfield better than any of those three. Even Jackson would be acceptable at 12 or 22. Besides, it's not like I have any control of anything.

Just for you ... F the draft and F this yea's "great draft for QB's" ... and especially F the idiots who think the NFL season is simply a prelude to the NFL draft. BTW 89% of Bills posters who voted on your poll agree with me. ROTFL.

Why is that? If you draft a player in the top ten who isn't nearly as good a prospect as others still available, you've reached for him. That's what the Bills did in 2006 when they took Donte Whitner because they needed a strong safety while DT Haloti Ngata was still on the board ... and then they traded back into the first to take bust DT John McCargo. The Bills did the same thing again in 2009 when they wasted the 11th overall pick on Aaron Maybin with Brian Orakpo still available. If the Bills hadn't traded back into the first round to take Losman in 2004, he would have probably been available in the 2nd, and if he wasn't, they could have taken Schaub or just pass on a QB and take one in 2005 ... and Aaron Rodgers would have been available at #18. One of the big reasons for the playoff drought was that the Bills were constantly drafting DBs, WRs, and RBs and then disposing of their first round picks when their rookie contracts were finished. They then used first and second round picks to replace them, so they had few high draft picks to invest in other positions. The Bills didn't draft for BPA or even for need during the playoff drought. They drafted to improve the bottom line, which is why the two QBs they did draft sucked ... they were both reaches that the Bills drafted in the first round because first round rookie QBs guarantee better ticket sales.

he 2013 is only rare because there was only 1 QB was taken in the first round, and he was a bust. Usually there's more than 1 QB taken in the first round. All of the first round QBs failing is uncommon but not unheard of. -- Since 2000, only 1 QB was taken in 2000, 2001, and 2013. -- All of the first round QBs turning out as busts happened in 2002 (3), 2007 (2), and 2013 (1). 2014 might also join the club if Bortles doesn't step up and Bridgewater can't successfully come back from his devastating injury. The sad fact is that whether a draft produces 1 first rounder or 4, generally only 1 or 2 QBs from each draft finds as much success as a Jay Cutler or Ryan Tannehill, and some of those successful QBs come from rounds other than the first.

Absolutely true. Yes, they were ... and they were drooling for the likes of Leinart, Quinn, Gabbert, Ponder, Locker, etc too. Just because some media "experts" claim to like some collegiate QB prospect, there will be fans acting like that QB is the second coming of Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck ... and glossing over serious faults.

Denver still has Paxton Lynch for at least 2 years. Miami just extended Tannehill with a team friendly pact, so I don't see them adding a first round QB since they've created lots of holes this off season -- unless there's serious questions about Tannehill's recovery which haven't surfaced yet. Arizona might go QB but they seem to prefer acquiring veteran QBs than shooting their wads on first round rookies. Maybe drafting Matt Leinart made them gun shy.

I'm with jrober on this. This is just media hype just like the predictions that all four of the top QBs will go in the top five picks or that six QBs are likely to go in the first round. Just because media mavens haven't heard about a lot of collegiate QBs doesn't mean that NFL scouts haven't seen some younger QBs they like.

This seems to be part of the QB hype machine pushed by the sports media to keep interest -- and anxiety -- among football fans high. Since 2000, most drafts have only produced 1 decent NFL starting QB (at least on a Cutler-Flacco-Dalton-Tannehill level) from the first round. Occasionally, drafts have produced no quality starters or multiple starters. In some drafts, especially recently, teams have found starting QBs after the first round. I really don't think NFL scouting departments are paying much attention to 2019 prospects at present, either. They have enough on their plates getting their 2018 draft boards put together to be worrying about 2019.

Except for Favre and Manning, all these QBs were in their primes 30 years ago ... and even Favre's prime was about 20 years ago. What do Tee Martin, Mike McMahon, AJ Feeley, Randy Fasani, Brandon Doman, Craig Nall, Brian St Pierre, Craig Krenzel, Dan Orlovsky, Adrian McPherson, Ingle Martin, Omar Jacobs, Jeff Rowe, Troy Smith, John David Booty, Dennis Dixon, Josh Johnson, Erik Ainge, Rhett Bomar, Nate Davis, John Skelton, Jonathan Crompton, Ricky Stanzi, TJ Yates, Nathan Enderle, Aaron Murray, AJ McCarron? They're all the fifth round draft picks taken since 2000. There are a few who were backup QBs, some for even several years, but none of them came close to becoming even a low level starting QB. Most of these guys probably never even played in an NFL regular season game. You can yap all you want about "armchair GM season" but the reality is that Nate Peterman is a longshot to become even an NFL backup for several years.

Are you Nate Peterman's mom???

The history of the Bills through most of Ralph Wilson's ownership is marked mostly by a few instances of short-lived minor successes among season after season of losing. Wilson had early success with cast offs and cheap players in the mid 1960s in the AFL but that lasted only about 4 years. Wilson never gave up wanting to duplicate that success even though the changing circumstances in the NFL made it impossible to build a dominant team on a shoestring. As the war for talent between the NFL and AFL ramped up, the Bills continuously lost out. Even with the merger, the Bills struggled to bring in talent ... to the field, the sidelines, and the FO. Until relatively recently, ticket sales were a major source of revenue for NFL teams, and it was poor ticket sales that triggered the Bills for hiring better HCs and players. The Bills would hire a decent HC, he'd bring in some good players and win some games but the team never took the steps needed to get better. Then the HC coach would leave, and the team would sink back into losing. This happened with both Lou Saban in the 1970s and with Chuck Knox in the early 1980s (the Bills HC had control of the roster back then). The Bills' collapse after Knox left resulted in low ticket sales again, and prompted Wilson to bring in some better talent into the FO in the person of Bill Polian. Polian's proteges, John Butler and AJ Smith, kept the team winning for a few years after Polian left, but the Bills and especially Wilson, never really adapted to the salary cap. The team never invested in top talent where they could: FO and coaching staff. They missed on top draft choices because of poor scouting and decision making in the draft process. The choices of HC were mediocre at best. The result was "the Drought". I think that the changes that have occurred throughout the Bills organization since Pegula took over, especially in the FO -- from GM down to scouts and trainers -- suggests that the Pegulas are bringing a massive culture change to the Bills. Under Wilson, the Bills had only about 21 or 22 winning seasons under Wilson in their 54 years of existence, and only about 17 post season appearances, the bulk of those coming during the Polian-Butler era. In the 4 full seasons that the Pegulas have owned the team, the Bills have had 2 modest winning seasons and 1 playoff appearance.

There's also the real possibility that they just didn't like either Mahomes or Watson enough to draft one of them at #10. It's even possible that they may not think any of the QBs in this draft are worth the #12 pick much less trading up further. As others have said, we don't know how they have the QBs rated, and trading up to #12 might have actually been with the intention to have a shot at somebody like Roquan Smith. 2011 was supposed to be the QB draft to rival '83 and '04 ... the best QBs to come out of that draft were Cam Newton, Andy Dalton (2nd round), and Tyrod Taylor (6th round). Only in your dreams. None of the QBs in this class are so good that they stand out among their fellow top QB prospects, much less among all the prospects in the draft. One or two may turn out to be decent starting NFL QBs but it's doubtful that there's any even 1 HOFer much less 3 among them ... and that's true of all of the QB classes, large or small, except for 1983 and 2004.

Like the Bills finding JP Losman still on the board at #22 so they had to work a trade to "grab" him?

First off, this is NOT an "historical quarterback draft", and it's certainly NOT the best since 1983. It has a lot of prospects, every single one of whom has serious faults that could easily short circuit an NFL career. Even the draft mavens' favorite, Darnold, has serious issues with ball security. Others have questions about their accuracy, ball placement, footwork, etc. The more I find out about this crop, the more I'm convinced that the only 1 without big red flags is Mayfield, and he has shortcomings as well. This draft is more the product of media driven hype and desperation than real analysis. Plain and simple, drafting a QB in the first round or even in the top five, doesn't determine whether a QB prospect becomes a good/great NFL QB. A mediocre QB prospect remains mediocre whether he's taken in the first round or later in the draft. NONE of the QB prospects in 2018 are as good prospects as any of the top three QBs from 2004. NONE are as good as Newton or Luck. They are ALL much more like Leinart, Gabbert, Ponder, Tannehill, etc. FYI -- Historically, drafts featuring a bevy of first round QB prospects don't produce all that many successful NFL QBs. Again, these QB heavy drafts seem to be more the result of a combination of hype and desperation. The relatively recent phenomenon of successful QBs coming out of the draft from rounds after the first further supports the idea that hype and desperation play a bigger role in drafting QBs than it should. Six QBs were taken in 1983, including #1 pick John Elway. This was also the greatest QB draft ever, yielding 3 HOFers (Elway, Kelly, Marino) who were taken #1, #14, and #27 respectively. Ken O'Brien (#24) was also a decent starter for several years. Five QBs were taken in 1999, including the first three picks, but only Donovan McNabb became a "franchise QB" while Daunte Culpepper became a decent starter for about 6 seasons with Minnesota. The other 3 QBs , including #1 pick Tim Couch, were busts. Four QBs were taken in 1987, 2003, 2004, 2011, and 2012 for a total of 20 QBs: 87's only success was #1 pick Vinnie Testaverde who, like Alex Smith, found success later in his career with the New York Jests. Only Carson Palmer, another #1, was the only successful QB from 2003. 2004 was another historically great year with 3 future HOFers coming out of the first round -- Eli, Rivers, and Roethlisberger (#11) Four QBs came out of 2011, too, but only Cam Newton, #1, became a successful NFL QB. In 2012, four more QBs were taken, including the much heralded Andrew Luck at #1. The only other successful starter taken from the first round was Tannehill (#8) That's 14 successful NFL QBs out of 31 draft picks or about 45% success rate. Taking all drafts since 2000, the success rate for first round QBs is about 50%. If you take out the outlier truly great 1983 and 2004 drafts, which produced 7 successful QBs from 10 prospects, the success rate for the other years drops to around 33% .... 7 out of 21 picks. Of those 7 first rounders, 4 were the #1 picks, 1 was a top five pick, 1 was a top ten pick, and 1 was taken outside the top ten.

Polian was talking about the 2017 QB prospects, and he wasn't alone in not thinking that class wasn't very good. What this article does is undermine the posters claiming the Bills missed on their best chance to get a franchise QB in 2017 because McDermott didn't want to make that "big decision". More likely, the Bills just didn't like Watson or Mahomes enough to draft either in the first round. The same thing may happen in 2018 if the Bills like only 1 QB and he goes before #12 or if they don't like him enough to pay the cost to trade up. IMO, if the Bills trade up to #2 or #4 or #5, it will be on Draft Day to get a specific QB. If he's gone or they can't find a dance partner, I think they'll stay put. I don't think the Bills will settle for their 2nd or 3rd choice unless it's at #22.