Breakout Season for Shaq Lawson in 2017?

[billsfan89]

If the D-line stays healthy I think that unit could be as good if not better than it was in 2014. Hughes, Dareus, Kyle, Lorax, Shaq, Ryan, and Washington could be an elite deep unit. Shaq's development is a huge part of the future of the Defense in general.

[BuffaloBillsMagic1]

Counting on Ragland to be the guy.

[JohnC]

I think it is important to note that Dak ALMOST lasted until that pick we took C. Jones with. The draft is a gamble....and had Dak lasted to that pick I think we would have selected him there (jmo)

 

That is not to say I dont think in the end it will have definately turned out badly

 

- I am a big fan of Reggie Ragland....people use the turn "throw back" like its some kind of derogatory term nowadays which I just dont understand....I was a big fan of Chris Spielman as well who was just one of those no nonsense knock the stuffing out of you made everyone around him play better by example run stuffing guys.......Ragland is like that except he covers better in short zones AND he has great size......if Ragland pans out it will be WELL WORTH the trade up.....if Lawson AND Ragland pan out Whaley comes out looking like a rose......if another guy pans out along with them (Like...for instance Kevin Seymore) then WHaley looks like GM of the year.

 

- If C. Jones turns out to be nothing more then a career backup....that is going to be ok to because it was a 4th round pick.

Well thought out response.

 

I agree with your assessment on Ragland. But where I disagree with your position is that by giving up the pick to move up to get Ragland (who might have been available without the maneuver) he lost the opportunity to select his higher rated qb. If the choice comes down to selecting Ragland and losing Prescott that is a losing proposition for a franchise that doesn't have a franchise qb on its roster. Even if Ragland was gone when our turn came up if Whaley stayed at his draft position he still should have come away with a good player.

 

My consistent criticism of Whaley is his passivity in addressing the qb position. This is a good example of it. He could have stayed in his draft position and selected his higher rated qb in the third round who turned out to be a very good qb. That lost opportunity was costly for the franchise.

 

Make no mistake Prescott would not have played as well with the Bills as he did with Dallas. They had the better team and especially because of their stellar OL he was placed in an excellent situation. The result of his gratuitous trading away of a draft pick for a LB is that he lost the opportunity to select a franchise qb for a team that hasn't had a legitimate franchise qb for over twenty years. This is a case where the GM not only outsmarted himself he also hurt the prospects for this meandering franchise.

[BadLandsMeanie]

What's the bar set at for a break out for him? 4 sacks, 12 games played? He can't suck more than he did last year.

Yeah that was my thought. Nowhere to go but up for him.

[P51]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he give up a pick to move up to draft Ragland that could have been used for Prescott who he favored over Cardale? I'm not anti-Ragland because I believe that he can be a good player for us. However, it seems to me that giving up a pick to move up for a player that might have been there without trading up at the expense of finally getting a good qb prospect on board was a costly deal for us.

 

As you noted hindsight is wonderful in making easy after the fact judgments. But the real challenge is playing things smartly in real time and not losing opportunities that exist in real time. The Bills have not had a legitimate franchise qb for over 20 years. The trade up deal was a lost opportunity to acquire a good qb prospect for this franchise and also for Whaley who is in a precarious position. Sometimes when you try to outsmart others the person you outsmart is yourself.

 

Your not wrong, they could have used that pick for Prescott. That pick they traded to the Bears and the two other picks the Bears had in the 4th could have also been used on Prescott and look at the Bears now... This is a multi-edged sword, Whaley clearly in last years draft was letting Rex do the grocery shopping, whether he was directed to by ownership or being a good GM for his coach IDK, but I do know Ragland was widely considered a 1st round talent at a de-valued position in de-valued type way athletically (although his physical limitations are exaggerated), but the trade up made alot of sense at the time, the Titans (w/2 picks), Raiders, Ravens, Packers, Saints (just signed T'eo) and Lions all had reasons to have added a ILB last year he very well could not have been there and looking at their rosters then and now, I think its a real possibility he would not have made it to Buffalos pick. Ragland in Rex's scheme is a perfect fit so they made the move up. So it made sense at the time, I was just hoping they wouldnt take Ragland in the 1st at 19, he was a good value in the 2nd round and was nfl.com's 2nd highest rated player after M. Jack available in the entire 2nd round starting with the 33rd pick. http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-round/dt-by-round-input:2

 

The kicker for me is if they had a 4th round grade on Prescott and liked him, why not take him in the 3rd? Because few had that high a grade on him including them, that is what IMO people should potentially be upset about, if they in fact liked him enough to want him in the 4th, why not take him in the 3rd? Why wait until the last pick of the 4th round to get a guy you have a 4th round grade (if they in fact did) on? That to me is more of an indictment on Whaley and Co. Washington was a good prospect and clearly IMO a Rex pick, but they COULD have had Dak in the 3rd and Rex COULD still have his job. Regardless, the Ragland trade made sense then and I think still does, his talent (who knows about the affect of the knee now) should still allow him to be a real factor in this D, if Javon Trotter can be a playmaker in this D, Ragland should be fine moving forward. They were in contract talks with Tyrod on an extension and he was under contract, they were looking to get developmental QB which is what everyone thougth Dak was, as well was Cardarele who many had rated higher than Dak and Whaley was praised for landing in the 4th by many pundits at the time.

 

Really the team was looking to develop a guy and didnt get Dak, instead got Jones, the trade took Dak off the board and they went with Jones who they may have rated higher than Dak at the time and Jones still has time to work out and in reality the trade did not affect their landing of a "good" QB prospect, Jones was talked about as a 1st or 2nd round prospect just a year before after the National Championship run at OSU. It affected their ability to get Dak in the 4th round. Which is always gamble anyways.

 

If they stayed at 49 and not traded 117 they could have had Dak, they could have had Dak at 19, 41, 49 and 80 as well. Every pick not spent on a QB is a wasted opportunity in that regards. I dont think it was Whaley trying to outsmart anyone, he was trying to get a 1st round talent on the roster at a position of need, with numerous QB options in the 4th round, I think he was banking on one of a couple being there at the end of the 4th and one was. Its hard for me to say this trade is a fail because Prescott worked out last year, the Jury is still out on Jones and Ragland tore his ACL in camp and was out for the year. They still drafted a QB last year and took a shot at the position. That shot still has a chance to make an impact.

 

In real time you are not granted the luxury of hindsight.

You're forgetting about the fourth round pick in 2016 that Whaley also gave away to move up for Ragland--a pick that could have been used on a certain QB.

 

True enough, they traded a 2016 - 4th and the 2017 - 4th for Ragland. They still picked a QB in the 4th round last year.

 

I find it hard to believe not only the Bills, but the Browns, Jets, 49ers, Bears and many other NFL teams passed on Dak too. Several times.

[JohnC]

 

Your not wrong, they could have used that pick for Prescott. That pick they traded to the Bears and the two other picks the Bears had in the 4th could have also been used on Prescott and look at the Bears now... This is a multi-edged sword, Whaley clearly in last years draft was letting Rex do the grocery shopping, whether he was directed to by ownership or being a good GM for his coach IDK, but I do know Ragland was widely considered a 1st round talent at a de-valued position in de-valued type way athletically (although his physical limitations are exaggerated), but the trade up made alot of sense at the time, the Titans (w/2 picks), Raiders, Ravens, Packers, Saints (just signed T'eo) and Lions all had reasons to have added a ILB last year he very well could not have been there and looking at their rosters then and now, I think its a real possibility he would not have made it to Buffalos pick. Ragland in Rex's scheme is a perfect fit so they made the move up. So it made sense at the time, I was just hoping they wouldnt take Ragland in the 1st at 19, he was a good value in the 2nd round and was nfl.com's 2nd highest rated player after M. Jack available in the entire 2nd round starting with the 33rd pick. http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-round/dt-by-round-input:2

 

The kicker for me is if they had a 4th round grade on Prescott and liked him, why not take him in the 3rd? Because few had that high a grade on him including them, that is what IMO people should potentially be upset about, if they in fact liked him enough to want him in the 4th, why not take him in the 3rd? Why wait until the last pick of the 4th round to get a guy you have a 4th round grade (if they in fact did) on? That to me is more of an indictment on Whaley and Co. Washington was a good prospect and clearly IMO a Rex pick, but they COULD have had Dak in the 3rd and Rex COULD still have his job. Regardless, the Ragland trade made sense then and I think still does, his talent (who knows about the affect of the knee now) should still allow him to be a real factor in this D, if Javon Trotter can be a playmaker in this D, Ragland should be fine moving forward. They were in contract talks with Tyrod on an extension and he was under contract, they were looking to get developmental QB which is what everyone thougth Dak was, as well was Cardarele who many had rated higher than Dak and Whaley was praised for landing in the 4th by many pundits at the time.

 

Really the team was looking to develop a guy and didnt get Dak, instead got Jones, the trade took Dak off the board and they went with Jones who they may have rated higher than Dak at the time and Jones still has time to work out and in reality the trade did not affect their landing of a "good" QB prospect, Jones was talked about as a 1st or 2nd round prospect just a year before after the National Championship run at OSU. It affected their ability to get Dak in the 4th round. Which is always gamble anyways.

 

If they stayed at 49 and not traded 117 they could have had Dak, they could have had Dak at 19, 41, 49 and 80 as well. Every pick not spent on a QB is a wasted opportunity in that regards. I dont think it was Whaley trying to outsmart anyone, he was trying to get a 1st round talent on the roster at a position of need, with numerous QB options in the 4th round, I think he was banking on one of a couple being there at the end of the 4th and one was. Its hard for me to say this trade is a fail because Prescott worked out last year, the Jury is still out on Jones and Ragland tore his ACL in camp and was out for the year. They still drafted a QB last year and took a shot at the position. That shot still has a chance to make an impact.

 

In real time you are not granted the luxury of hindsight.

 

True enough, they traded a 2016 - 4th and the 2017 - 4th for Ragland. They still picked a QB in the 4th round last year.

 

I find it hard to believe not only the Bills, but the Browns, Jets, 49ers, Bears and many other NFL teams passed on Dak too. Several times.

With respect to the highlighted segment whether you are in real time or not real time when you preside over an organization that hasn't had a franchise qb for more than 20 years then that pursuit for a qb should be a priority. This was not the only case where acting hesitantly instead of with purpose has resulted in this franchise to lose an opportunity that was available for us to secure the most important position on the field. Derek Carr, Bridgewater, Russell Wilson, Cousins were all available, some with trade downs, and could have been selected at reasonable locations. This organization passed. The Bills have not made the playoffs for 18 consecutive years. The primary factor is not having an adequate franchise qb.

 

Common sense dictates that a team that hasn't had a franchise qb for more than a generation should be a little more aggressive in pursuing a good qb when drafting. Dithering is not a positive trait to have when attempting to secure the most important position that determines success.

 

You can make all the excuses you want and creatively rationalize why this organization doesn't have a legitimate franchise qb. It doesn't change the reality. My tolerance for excuses and rationalizations have run out a long time ago.

[johnwalter]

i think adolf is the one to watch this year

[John from Riverside]

Well thought out response.

 

I agree with your assessment on Ragland. But where I disagree with your position is that by giving up the pick to move up to get Ragland (who might have been available without the maneuver) he lost the opportunity to select his higher rated qb. If the choice comes down to selecting Ragland and losing Prescott that is a losing proposition for a franchise that doesn't have a franchise qb on its roster. Even if Ragland was gone when our turn came up if Whaley stayed at his draft position he still should have come away with a good player.

 

My consistent criticism of Whaley is his passivity in addressing the qb position. This is a good example of it. He could have stayed in his draft position and selected his higher rated qb in the third round who turned out to be a very good qb. That lost opportunity was costly for the franchise.

 

Make no mistake Prescott would not have played as well with the Bills as he did with Dallas. They had the better team and especially because of their stellar OL he was placed in an excellent situation. The result of his gratuitous trading away of a draft pick for a LB is that he lost the opportunity to select a franchise qb for a team that hasn't had a legitimate franchise qb for over twenty years. This is a case where the GM not only outsmarted himself he also hurt the prospects for this meandering franchise.

Keep in mind the situation at the time......our LB core was in really bad shape....RR was the coach....and (once again imo) RR was looking for his MLB in the mold of David Harris. Preston Brown had just come off a lack luster season in his defense.

 

A choice had to be made there.....do they take what was considered the top MLB in the draft who had fallen into the 2nd round?....Do they allow some other team to draft him?

 

Also keep in mind TT had come off a 2014 season that had shown enough promise to give that big contract....this is all happening "back then" without the ability of 20 20 hindsight. A replacement for TT was probably not high on the list at the time......

[JohnC]

Keep in mind the situation at the time......our LB core was in really bad shape....RR was the coach....and (once again imo) RR was looking for his MLB in the mold of David Harris. Preston Brown had just come off a lack luster season in his defense.

 

A choice had to be made there.....do they take what was considered the top MLB in the draft who had fallen into the 2nd round?....Do they allow some other team to draft him?

 

Also keep in mind TT had come off a 2014 season that had shown enough promise to give that big contract....this is all happening "back then" without the ability of 20 20 hindsight. A replacement for TT was probably not high on the list at the time......

When a person such as Rex Ryan becomes the most influential person in assembling a roster the results are predictable. He left the Jets in shambles and he set our franchise back. With each failure in different cities he left pointing his porky finger at others for his glaring mistakes. Following his advice is like following the advice of Trump in how to behave diplomatically. The outcome is preordained before a word is spoken.

 

The main problem I have with your take (respectfully so) along with many others is that you are examining our roster and draft strategy with a patchwork approach to roster building. The Bills have done that for a long time and it has not worked, and will never work.

 

The major determination for success in this league is having a franchise qb. When a franchise has not had a legitimate starting qb for more than two decades and you don't make it a priority to secure that position then that is a formula for failure. Our historical record is a testament to that point.

 

Ragland was a good prospect. No one is arguing otherwise. But he wasn't good enough and he didn't play a position that merited gratuitously giving up picks that in this case could have finally solved our qb problem. Even if Whaley didn't move up to draft him who is to say that the player he would have selected at his drafting position could have been as good if not a better player.

 

You are mistaken if you are interpreting my position as simply being a hindsight judgment. It is not. The failure of this organization is its lack of resolve and attempts in its pursuit of a franchise qb. The opportunities have existed over the past number of years to select a good qb prospect, However, inexplicably to the point of irrationality the willingness to act has not happened.

 

No one is arguing that Ragland can't be a good player. What I'm arguing is that he wasn't good enough to forgo an opportunity to select a good prospect if the GM didn't gratuitously give up those picks.

 

This is not a "what if" hindsight point of view. This is a real time point of view that this bedraggled franchise has not been successful and much of it is due to not having a credible qb. And still there exits this less than energetic response by this sluggish organization to do what has to be done to make this failed business become a successful business! What are the odds that this dullard organization is going to use its first round pick on a player who in the long run will not do anything to change the dynamic of altering our floundering situation?

[John from Riverside]

When a person such as Rex Ryan becomes the most influential person in assembling a roster the results are predictable. He left the Jets in shambles and he set our franchise back. With each failure in different cities he left pointing his porky finger at others for his glaring mistakes. Following his advice is like following the advice of Trump in how to behave diplomatically. The outcome is preordained before a word is spoken.

 

The main problem I have with your take (respectfully so) along with many others is that you are examining our roster and draft strategy with a patchwork approach to roster building. The Bills have done that for a long time and it has not worked, and will never work.

 

The major determination for success in this league is having a franchise qb. When a franchise has not had a legitimate starting qb for more than two decades and you don't make it a priority to secure that position then that is a formula for failure. Our historical record is a testament to that point.

 

Ragland was a good prospect. No one is arguing otherwise. But he wasn't good enough and he didn't play a position that merited gratuitously giving up picks that in this case could have finally solved our qb problem. Even if Whaley didn't move up to draft him who is to say that the player he would have selected at his drafting position could have been as good if not a better player.

 

You are mistaken if you are interpreting my position as simply being a hindsight judgment. It is not. The failure of this organization is its lack of resolve and attempts in its pursuit of a franchise qb. The opportunities have existed over the past number of years to select a good qb prospect, However, inexplicably to the point of irrationality the willingness to act has not happened.

 

No one is arguing that Ragland can't be a good player. What I'm arguing is that he wasn't good enough to forgo an opportunity to select a good prospect if the GM didn't gratuitously give up those picks.

 

This is not a "what if" hindsight point of view. This is a real time point of view that this bedraggled franchise has not been successful and much of it is due to not having a credible qb. And still there exits this less than energetic response by this sluggish organization to do what has to be done to make this failed business become a successful business! What are the odds that this dullard organization is going to use its first round pick on a player who in the long run will not do anything to change the dynamic of altering our floundering situation?

Franchise qbs are impossible to find....what are there in the NFL.....5 of them out of 32 teams?

 

Think about this for a minute.....where have the jags been drafting over the past 5 years......are they ANY closer today to that franchise qb then we are?

[GunnerBill]

Franchise qbs are impossible to find....what are there in the NFL.....5 of them out of 32 teams?

 

No. There are 4 or 5 "elite" QBs. There are another 10 or so with franchise QBs. Matt Stafford, Joe Flacco, Derek Carr are all franchise QBs. Carr might make "elite" the other two are a level below that but still a level above the Smith, Taylor, Tannehill game managers.

[JohnC]

Franchise qbs are impossible to find....what are there in the NFL.....5 of them out of 32 teams?

 

Think about this for a minute.....where have the jags been drafting over the past 5 years......are they ANY closer today to that franchise qb then we are?

Your response falls in the category of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. A HOF caliber of qb falls in the impossible to find category. But that is not what I'm talking about here. The Bills have had plenty of opportunities to select a legitimate franchise qb and the organization decided to pass. Instead of giving up valuable picks to move up there were more than a few opportunities to trade down, acquire more picks, and still come away with a credible qb prospect.

 

Gunner has listed a few of them so there is no need for me to catalogue them. The bottom line is that the Bills have not had a credible franchise qb since the retirement of Jim Kelly over two decades ago. That is a disgrace and an embarrassment.