Whaley admits what we've suspected - Bills in QB Purgatory

[John from Riverside]

Behind Leo, Graham, Gilmore and Robey? He's depth.

Jesus you wont back off of a position even when you know your wrong

[NoSaint]

Behind Leo, Graham, Gilmore and Robey? He's depth.

 

He didn't replace any DB's.

Weird to include what appears to be a starting safety on your list of corners.

 

Yes, I think he was expected to at worst split nickel reps day 1 and allow us to move graham to starting safety. No need to be disingenuous here. You often make good posts but then you dig in on arguments stubbornly and try to twist the truth and it hurts your credibility.

[FireChan]

Weird to include what appears to be a starting safety on your list of corners.

 

Yes, I think he was expected to at worst split nickel reps day 1 and allow us to move graham to starting safety. No need to be disingenuous here. You often make good posts but then you dig in on arguments stubbornly and try to twist the truth and it hurts your credibility.

No, I don't dig in, I just don't change the story to fit the events. No one at the time of the draft said, "we really need a day one contributor at DB." It was not a need, or at least a pressing one. Then we drafted a DB, and the story changed to make it seem like a great pick at a position we needed or something. It wasn't. It still isn't. Just because he's a Bill and McKelvin got hurt doesn't change that.

 

With McKelvin healthy, Darby maybe sees 15% of defensive snaps.

clarification on your point please

That is not what he said......

What did he say then John?

[NoSaint]

No, I don't dig in, I just don't change the story to fit the events. No one at the time of the draft said, "we really need a day one contributor at DB." It was not a need, or at least a pressing one. Then we drafted a DB, and the story changed to make it seem like a great pick at a position we needed or something. It wasn't. It still isn't. Just because he's a Bill and McKelvin got hurt doesn't change that.

 

With McKelvin healthy, Darby maybe sees 15% of defensive snaps.

 

What did he say then John?

Safety was pretty universally on our list of needs. Darby allowed the team to move graham there and in the process filled both the short term need of an extra corner that can play press coverage. Many here from day 1 outlined the obvious was the dominos fell with the pick. And here it is proving obviously fruitful. Remind me how often teams spend a season with all their corners healthy?

[Hot Buffalo Wings]

We should have traded for Carson Palmer in 2013. Why did we end up with Kolb?

[Rob's House]

 

Gamblers fallacy-- your chances of acquiring a franchise QB do not, in fact, increase with every QB you take, as each pick is independent of the one prior. The answer is simply not "hey, let's draft as many Quarterbacks as we can, maybe one will stick." What IS the answer is solid scouting, and building a proper environment for a young QB to step into. Believe it or not, there are other positions that have to be addressed on an NFL team.. I do realize that the QB is the most important piece.

 

Pray tell, how was Carr's rookie season any better than EJ's? I will give you Bridgewater-- I was also of the opinion that the Bills should have traded up to take him but NOT because I felt that taking another QB would increase our chances of hitting. It's quite possible that Bridgewater could regress, or he could take the next step. Tough to say after one year.

That's patently false. The second pick doesn't have a better chance of hitting than the first one did, but there's a better chance that 1 of the 2 hits than 1 of 1 hitting.

 

Your theory would be like saying you're just as likely to roll a 6 with 1 roll of the dice as you would with 2 rolls because each roll is independent of the other.

[FireChan]

Safety was pretty universally on our list of needs. Darby allowed the team to move graham there and in the process filled both the short term need of an extra corner that can play press coverage. Many here from day 1 outlined the obvious was the dominos fell with the pick. And here it is proving obviously fruitful. Remind me how often teams spend a season with all their corners healthy?

I don't know why you keep bringing up injuries, when it so clearly demonstrates that you need "depth" to fill in for injured players. Arguing against yourself, really.

That's patently false. The second pick doesn't have a better chance of hitting than the first one did, but there's a better chance that 1 of the 2 hits than 1 of 1 hitting.

 

Your theory would be like saying you're just as likely to roll a 6 with 1 roll of the dice as you would with 2 rolls because each roll is independent of the other.

Yeah, he used that wrong.

[John from Riverside]

No, I don't dig in, I just don't change the story to fit the events. No one at the time of the draft said, "we really need a day one contributor at DB." It was not a need, or at least a pressing one. Then we drafted a DB, and the story changed to make it seem like a great pick at a position we needed or something. It wasn't. It still isn't. Just because he's a Bill and McKelvin got hurt doesn't change that.

 

With McKelvin healthy, Darby maybe sees 15% of defensive snaps.

What did he say then John?

Correct me if I am wrong.....but was or was not Leodis coming off of an injury.....forget the fact that he is carrying too high of a cap with Marcel coming up for a contract.....Leodis has in fact had injury issues......issues that are still plaging him.

 

Now....you could say "oh but we have Graham".......but we really dont because we lost Searcy and Graham is moving to Safety

 

And as far as the Whaley thing....you know as well as I do is that Doug was simply saying we were not gonna be bad enough to pick HIGH enough to have our pick of the QBs........it has nothing to do with the current QBs on the roster...none

[FireChan]

Correct me if I am wrong.....but was or was not Leodis coming off of an injury.....forget the fact that he is carrying too high of a cap with Marcel coming up for a contract.....Leodis has in fact had injury issues......issues that are still plaging him.

 

Now....you could say "oh but we have Graham".......but we really dont because we lost Searcy and Graham is moving to Safety

 

And as far as the Whaley thing....you know as well as I do is that Doug was simply saying we were not gonna be bad enough to pick HIGH enough to have our pick of the QBs........it has nothing to do with the current QBs on the roster...none

Why would we pick a high first round QB if we had good one on the roster? Think about it.

 

Again, what do they call players that are utilized when another gets hurt? It's not width...it'll come to me.

Edited August 6, 2015 by FireChan

[John from Riverside]

I don't know why you keep bringing up injuries, when it so clearly demonstrates that you need "depth" to fill in for injured players. Arguing against yourself, really.

Yeah, he used that wrong.

 

God this is ridiculous...not sure why im doing this......

 

THis has nothing do with depth for a injured player.....if Leodis does not return to form......Darby is not depth.......For all we know Leodis could end up being a cut

Why would we pick a high first round QB if we had good one on the roster? Think about it.

 

Again, what do they call players that are utilized when another gets hurt? It's not width...it'll come to me.

Your twisting it...once again your twisting what Whaley said.....keep in mind this has nothing to do with YOUR evaluation of the QB situation....this has to do with what Whaley specificially said in that piece

[FireChan]

God this is ridiculous...not sure why im doing this......

 

THis has nothing do with depth for a injured player.....if Leodis does not return to form......Darby is not depth.......For all we know Leodis could end up being a cut

Your twisting it...once again your twisting what Whaley said.....keep in mind this has nothing to do with YOUR evaluation of the QB situation....this has to do with what Whaley specificially said in that piece

If McCoy gets kidnapped, Karlos is not depth.

 

Why does it matter where we can draft QB's? Explain that to me.

[NoSaint]

I don't know why you keep bringing up injuries, when it so clearly demonstrates that you need "depth" to fill in for injured players. Arguing against yourself, really

A nice side step from DB being a need with only 1 starter at safety.

 

And of course a position that rolls 4 guys onto the field often and 3 the majority of the time isn't just depth in case of injury to have 4 quality players (of which he's the 3rd best).

 

You seem to be confusing depth with rotational and package players. You also are forgetting that he was likely to start at some point this year and is from draft day likely penciled in as a starter from day 1 next year. All practical non-luxury team building.

 

But you've dug those heels in and are likely to respond with another side step, and some shaky deflections

[John from Riverside]

If McCoy gets kidnapped, Karlos is not depth.

 

Why does it matter where we can draft QB's? Explain that to me.

This bait a switch stuff in your posts.....come on

 

Corners are one of the KEY ingredients in Rex Ryans defensive system.....and you need several of them......

 

There is usually ONE running back on the field at a time......we brought in a top 5 running back......FJ sits behind him......we have so many RB's somebody is gonna get cut

 

That is why Karlos is depth.....the amount of that position that plays in a game plus the players already on the team

 

Corner and Running back is NOT a good comparison for this

[FireChan]

A nice side step from DB being a need with only 1 starter at safety.

 

And of course a position that rolls 4 guys onto the field often and 3 the majority of the time isn't just depth in case of injury to have 4 quality players (of which he's the 3rd best).

 

You seem to be confusing depth with rotational and package players. You also are forgetting that he was likely to start at some point this year and is from draft day likely penciled in as a starter from day 1 next year. All practical non-luxury team building.

 

But you've dug those heels in and are likely to respond with another side step, and some shaky deflections

Why don't we define depth players then? Most of them will see the field one way or another. Is there no such thing as a depth player? Duke will likely rotate in, is he a starter or depth? Meeks may see a down week 6. What does he qualify as?

 

A day 1 starter next year is irrelevant, because we're talking about contributions this year.

 

The way I see it is you have your starters, as in the 11 you'll have on the field most of the time, and everyone else is depth. Some are good, some are okay, and some are bad. And barring injury, Darby is not one of those 11. Does that make sense?

This bait a switch stuff in your posts.....come on

 

Corners are one of the KEY ingredients in Rex Ryans defensive system.....and you need several of them......

 

There is usually ONE running back on the field at a time......we brought in a top 5 running back......FJ sits behind him......we have so many RB's somebody is gonna get cut

 

That is why Karlos is depth.....the amount of that position that plays in a game plus the players already on the team

 

Corner and Running back is NOT a good comparison for this

Let's compare WR then. Harvin/Woods/Watkins are our starters/major contributors. Goodwin is depth/minor contributor. And Goodwin = Darby.

[NoSaint]

Why don't we define depth players then? Most of them will see the field one way or another. Is there no such thing as a depth player? Duke will likely rotate in, is he a starter or depth? Meeks may see a down week 6. What does he qualify as?

 

A day 1 starter next year is irrelevant, because we're talking about contributions this year.

 

The way I see it is you have your starters, as in the 11 you'll have on the field most of the time, and everyone else is depth. Some are good, some are okay, and some are bad. And barring injury, Darby is not one of those 11. Does that make sense?

In a nickel package (the true base d for most teams) Darby is on the field as 3rd cb when all are healthy, in my opinion. So that would, I suppose, make him a starter in your book, despite me thinking he's rotational.

 

 

Defining depth?

3rd OT- depth

3rd rb - depth

3rd corner, or wr -- I don't chalk up as an in case of injury position. Those are heavy rotation players.

[FireChan]

In a nickel package (the true base d for most teams) Darby is on the field as 3rd cb when all are healthy, in my opinion. So that would, I suppose, make him a starter in your book, despite me thinking he's rotational.

 

 

Defining depth?

3rd OT- depth

3rd rb - depth

3rd corner, or wr -- I don't chalk up as an in case of injury position. Those are heavy rotation players.

Ah see, I have Robey still at nickel. Darby only on the field as outside CB behind McK and Gilmore. So a dime guy, rotational at best, but Rex uses a lot of 3 S packages, which means less Darby.

Edited August 6, 2015 by FireChan

[John from Riverside]

Why don't we define depth players then? Most of them will see the field one way or another. Is there no such thing as a depth player? Duke will likely rotate in, is he a starter or depth? Meeks may see a down week 6. What does he qualify as?

 

A day 1 starter next year is irrelevant, because we're talking about contributions this year.

 

The way I see it is you have your starters, as in the 11 you'll have on the field most of the time, and everyone else is depth. Some are good, some are okay, and some are bad. And barring injury, Darby is not one of those 11. Does that make sense?

Let's compare WR then. Harvin/Woods/Watkins are our starters/major contributors. Goodwin is depth/minor contributor. And Goodwin = Darby.

Give me back the shovel Chan.....I will do you a favor and hold it for you

 

Goodwin and Darby are also horrible comparison's.....

Ah see, I have Robey still at nickel. Darby only on the field as outside CB behind McK and Gilmore. So a dime guy, rotational at best, but Rex uses a lot of 3 S packages, which means less Darby.

Provided that McKelvin is actually healthy enough to play and still on the team......neither of which are a certainty....and before you call that hindsight keep in mind that McKelvin has been injured the LAST TWO YEARS and we went into that draft with McKelvin still rehabbing that foot.....a foot that was not ready for training camp

[FireChan]

Give me back the shovel Chan.....I will do you a favor and hold it for you

 

Goodwin and Darby are also horrible comparison's.....

Provided that McKelvin is actually healthy enough to play and still on the team......neither of which are a certainty....and before you call that hindsight keep in mind that McKelvin has been injured the LAST TWO YEARS and we went into that draft with McKelvin still rehabbing that foot.....a foot that was not ready for training camp

Darby hasn't seen a snap, how is it a horrible comparison?

 

Did we abandon the "why do 1st round picks for QB's matter" topic?

[truth on hold]

Making up for poor QB play with a complex running game (whatever that means) is a bogus concept IMO. You can say you're going to rely on your defense fine .... but don't kid yourself you can replace an elite QB with more running plays. Unfortunately this smacks of the failed Sanchez - Tebow substitute play with jets

Edited August 6, 2015 by JTSP

[snamsnoops]

Haven't read the whole thread, but does anyone consider Whaley's statement newsworthy?

Nope! Just came to read the over reactions.