Dr. Who

Ahh, maybe he's going to be our #2 RB.

Teams with aging franchise qbs are in WIN NOW mode. I doubt the roster as presently constructed is even a wild card contender. Fill the holes mentality is the usual Bills way of drafting for most of the last two decades. Hasn't produced a lot of wins. I have heard some experts claim Dennison's offense does not require a highly skilled qb. Well, Bucky Brooks said so on NFL Network yesterday. Personally, I want a highly skilled qb. I think franchise qb provides sustained, long-term winning. If you think Tyrod is going to be that, you obviously don't want a qb. I don't buy into the line that this is a weak qb class. I think it's a pretty good qb class, but they need a year of seasoning. As I think Tyrod is a bridge qb and nothing more, I'd like to have the developmental qb developing so the bridge actually goes somewhere. It's fine to disagree. It's not fine to act as if the opposing view has no plausible rationale behind it.

I don't think everyone is on the hate Whaley train. Those who dislike him are very vocal which exaggerates their number. The mitigating circumstances would be difficult for any GM to deal with. I like him, but if Leroi's big board is correct, I have my doubts that Whaley is the main force in deciding who we draft. I suspect qb would be a priority, not a smokescreen. Regardless, maybe my speculation is off-base; on balance, I think Whaley is actually slightly above average, so not the worst in the league.

I generally prefer animals to people. The fella would be off my board.

The new scheme, as I understood it, does not need shut down cornerbacks. It seems to me we are investing in a player whose skill set exceeds his value to our particular system. This is also a deep draft for cb by all accounts. If Leroi's board holds true, the pick will be wr Davis, I think, which is a reasonable choice, I suppose.

Apparently we are going to follow our proven track record with regards to the qb position.

To me, this is the same old draft cb, replace cb cycle. Depresses me. Yes, I accepted what everyone was saying. I was explaining to the fella who was laughing at my post.

Well, when I expressed skepticism last week, numerous long-time posters informed me he was legit.

Davis and Ross will be there at #10. No need to smokescreen for them. Thomas will be gone, Lattimore probably gone, Howard might be, but I would guess he's available. My understanding was that Lattimore is a skill set not prioritized in McDermott's system, btw. I still hope you are wrong and that they are serious about a qb. I also don't understand the use of Imo. If this is inside info, it's putatively factual, not an opinion.

I am under the impression that character is a big part of McD's criteria. I'd be surprised if he is on our draft board.

Bills are not forced to do anything here. They have the cap room to match. They might prefer the fifth round pick and more cap room. Either choice is plausible. The angst here is overwrought. Doug Whaley is so awful, the Pats* keep poaching our players. Wah, wah, wah.

I don't really care about recent history or the perceived quality of a draft class. Make your determinations on the basis of the individual.

I'd be tempted to draft him just because of his name. Bad Ju-Ju coming your way, etc.

Take him at #10. Qb class is much better than the consensus of media pundits and they will all go sooner than folks think.

Decent people can disagree without indulging lazy contempt. In addition, the nature of this thread does not invite argumentation, but simply assuming the superiority of one's view is begging the question.

Hey, I'm just telling you what the fella said since you asked. I've stated my preference for qb so many times I'm bored with it myself.

Yep, almost all those who want to wait because we have holes to fill are willing to sell the farm in 2018. I posted in another thread, btw, Greg Gabriel's April 14th mock has Watson to the Bears, Mahomes to the Jets, Trubisky to Bills. The qbs are going much earlier than many folks imagine.

Leroi said "We need an early run on QBs. If not, he will be there in the 2nd and we will pass on him. Imo" on April 12th in one of the Trubisky threads. He said elsewhere all the qb talk was smokescreen and that we had targeted five players. I cannot recollect precisely, but it was something like wr 2, te 1, cb 1, and de 1.

If they had "strong interest throughout the season," I'm figuring this means our scouts and GM made their interest clear. It would not be ridiculous for a player to ask that team what they thought about where he would be drafted. If I thought my floor was #10 in the first round, I might declare for the draft.

But could he hit a hospitality tent?

Imo, Tyrod on a cheap contract is a good scenario for drafting a young qb that needs a year or two to develop. I am not dismissing Cardale Jones, but I surmise he is a longshot to be a relevant NFL qb. So it seems rational to me to draft a qb with potential to become a franchise qb. I don't think it's Tyrod and I doubt it is Jones. What's the point of having a bridge qb without a developing qb to provide a "destination" for the bridge? All this, of course, presupposes there are qbs available in the draft who have that potential. Btw, Greg Gabriel's April 14 Mock draft has Watson going to the Bears, Mahomes the Jets, and Trubisky to the Bills.

I sure hope the new coaching staff gets it.

Mahomes Trubisky Watson Mike Williams Derek Barnett Caesura indicates a preference for qb. I did not include Hooker, Adams, or Thomas because I cannot see a realistic scenario where any of them are available.

I agree with the complex judgment paradigm. If it were easy, there wouldn't be so many mistakes.

I don't need any help getting my blood pressure to rise. It's bad enough reading this message board