Saints news

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

I have a much different perspective on the qb issue than you. When you haven't had a franchise qb in nearly a quarter century I think it is useful to look back at ask oneself why opportunities were missed when they were available. As I have said on prior posts teams that don't have a franchise qb need to be more aggressive and pro-active in addressing that issue than teams that already have an established qb. Not willing to consider what you could have done as well as review what you have done in my mind  is missing out on a useful learning tool that applies to all fields of endeavor. 

You are the king of hindsight. You look back at every draft, cherry pick the top guy and say that we could have had him. We also could have had Hackenberg or Pat White. It doesn’t work that way. Hindsight is the absolute worst way to evaluate a draft because it isn’t realistic. No team has ever been able to draft with hindsight. I form an opinion on what I’d do going in and stick with it. Everyone has hits and misses. The Bills did exactly what I wanted last year and it has worked out well. 

[YoloinOhio]

And we have a trap game thread from a Saints message board 

http://saintsreport.com/forums/f2/bills-game-375381/#.WgMTImhOmEc

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

You are the king of hindsight. You look back at every draft, cherry pick the top guy and say that we could have had him. We also could have had Hackenberg or Pat White. It doesn’t work that way. Hindsight is the absolute worst way to evaluate a draft because it isn’t realistic. No team has ever been able to draft with hindsight. I form an opinion on what I’d do going in and stick with it. Everyone has hits and misses. The Bills did exactly what I wanted last year and it has worked out well. 

Do you want to know the best way to evaluate how a team drafts? Look at its record. When a team hasn't been in the playoffs for a generation in a system that is designed for parity then there is something fundamentally wrong. Until there is a commitment made to address the most important position in the game then the action on the periphery means little. The Bills have had more than their share of opportunities to make a consequential decision and resolve a major problem. They passed when reasonable opportunities existed.

 

I don't understand why you often bring up Hackenberg or Pat White or others bring up Manuel. Good scouting is good scouting and bad scouting is bad scouting. There are teams that do it well and there are teams that don't. Referring to bad evaluations as a reason why not to do something avoids the fact that good evaluations are the solutions to problems. When you don't act because of a fear of failure then you are stymying yourself. When you pursue success and fail then the next response should be try again. 

[Captain Murica]

Quote

Hey BAY BAY!!! Hall-of-Famer     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,797

This will be a tough game for Saints. This is the kind of game you just run the rock all day. Keep McCoy and Tyrod on the sideline. It will be raining, chilly, and wind blowing. If Saints come away with the W they will earn it. BLO have a good team and the elements mke it even worse. This is the game Ingram get his gris gris going so SP can trust him with the rock.  Close game at Archard Park. High...44* /20%chance of rain Saints...27 Bills...23

 

This made me LOL. Don't know why, but I enunciated it as Arch-Ard Park, even added a southern twang.  

 

 

This one was good as well. 

 

Quote

Saint Ace Super Forum Fanatic     Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Natchitoches, LA Age: 28 Posts: 5,022

The Bills are about as good as the Bears. Saints win if they don't beat themselves. __________________

 

 

He does realize they should have lost to the bears if Zach Miller didn't literally almost snap his leg off right ?

 

I always liked Brees but you can say the same thing about the Saints that people say about the Bills, who have they beat? 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Captain Murica

[Kelly the Dog]

5 hours ago, JohnC said:

Do you want to know the best way to evaluate how a team drafts? Look at its record. When a team hasn't been in the playoffs for a generation in a system that is designed for parity then there is something fundamentally wrong. Until there is a commitment made to address the most important position in the game then the action on the periphery means little. The Bills have had more than their share of opportunities to make a consequential decision and resolve a major problem. They passed when reasonable opportunities existed.

 

I don't understand why you often bring up Hackenberg or Pat White or others bring up Manuel. Good scouting is good scouting and bad scouting is bad scouting. There are teams that do it well and there are teams that don't. Referring to bad evaluations as a reason why not to do something avoids the fact that good evaluations are the solutions to problems. When you don't act because of a fear of failure then you are stymying yourself. When you pursue success and fail then the next response should be try again. 

Good scouting is not good scouting. Name a team that drafted two very good quarterbacks in a row. 

[JohnC]

53 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Good scouting is not good scouting. Name a team that drafted two very good quarterbacks in a row. 

I don't understand your point?. What does drafting two good qbs have to do with my comments when for nearly a quarter century the Bills haven't drafted a good qb in any round, let alone the first round. (note: The Packers drafted Rodgers when they had Favre, a HOF qb. And KC drafted Maomes with a trade up with us when they already had a competent franchise qb in Alex Smith.) The point I have made in a number of posts is that this franchise has had a number of opportunities to draft good prospects that were available in rounds lower than the first. Russell Wilson and Cousins come to mind. Ask the Rams if it was worth it to take a risk and draft Goff in an expensive draft deal? Ask the Eagles if it was worth it for them in another  expensive deal to draft Wentz? Ask the Texans if was worth it to trade up for Watson, a prospect who was available for us?

 

Kirby and others point out that there are no quaranties when drafting a qb. I'm well aware of that. But the reality is that there are no quaranties when drafting for any position. If an organization is going to take a risk then it isn't unreasonable to do it for a position that when properly addressed literally changes the fate of an organization in a positive manner. The Bills have been out of the playoffs for a generation, and still counting. Maintaining the status quo maintains the dispiriting and numbing status quo. What else can you expect? 

Edited November 8, 2017 by JohnC

[BillsFanMike]

On 11/4/2017 at 1:45 PM, BuffaloMatt said:

I'm just getting over the Jets game. I take a crumb of good news.

MMMmmmm crumbs. 

[Kirby Jackson]

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

Do you want to know the best way to evaluate how a team drafts? Look at its record. When a team hasn't been in the playoffs for a generation in a system that is designed for parity then there is something fundamentally wrong. Until there is a commitment made to address the most important position in the game then the action on the periphery means little. The Bills have had more than their share of opportunities to make a consequential decision and resolve a major problem. They passed when reasonable opportunities existed.

 

I don't understand why you often bring up Hackenberg or Pat White or others bring up Manuel. Good scouting is good scouting and bad scouting is bad scouting. There are teams that do it well and there are teams that don't. Referring to bad evaluations as a reason why not to do something avoids the fact that good evaluations are the solutions to problems. When you don't act because of a fear of failure then you are stymying yourself. When you pursue success and fail then the next response should be try again. 

They’ve drafted QBs at a similar rate as other teams. Those numbers have been on here multiple times. 

 

It has nothing to do with good scouting and bad scouting!! Every team has hits and misses. You name a team and I can give you a great pick and a terrible pick. I bring up Hackenberg & White because statistically you are more likely to end up with them than you are Carr. You need to evaluate an entire class and figure out how many were good and how many bad. If there are 10 QBs drafted in a draft and 1 is a franchise guy there was a 10% chance that you got the franchise guy. When you talk about drafts you point to that 1 guy and say “we should have taken him.” While that may be true you were 9 times as likely to not get a franchise guy. That doesn’t mean that you don’t swing but you need to stop evaluating drafts by isolating the best guy and saying “we could have had him.” It’s the “you can find Tom Brady in the 6th” approach. It is a numbers game. About 1/2 of the top 5 picks that are QBs become franchise guys. That’s the place to shoot. The goal isn’t to get “a” guy it is to get “the” guy. 

[Kelly the Dog]

7 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I don't understand your point?. What does drafting two good qbs have to do with my comments when for nearly a quarter century the Bills haven't drafted a good qb in any round, let alone the first round. (note: The Packers drafted Rodgers when they had Favre, a HOF qb. And KC drafted Maomes with a trade up with us when they already had a competent franchise qb in Alex Smith.) The point I have made in a number of posts is that this franchise has had a number of opportunities to draft good prospects that were available in rounds lower than the first. Russell Wilson and Cousins come to mind. Ask the Rams if it was worth it to take a risk and draft Goff in an expensive draft deal? Ask the Eagles if it was worth it for them in another  expensive deal to draft Wentz? Ask the Texans if was worth it to trade up for Watson, a prospect who was available for us?

 

Kirby and others point out that there are no quaranties when drafting a qb. I'm well aware of that. But the reality is that there are no quaranties when drafting for any position. If an organization is going to take a risk then it isn't unreasonable to do it for a position that when properly addressed literally changes the fate of an organization in a positive manner. The Bills have been out of the playoffs for a generation, and still counting. Maintaining the status quo maintains the dispiriting and numbing status quo. What else can you expect? 

Because Kirby rightfully said you were cherry picking good QBs drafted in hindsight. And a lot of it is luck. And your response to that was no, good drafting is good drafting. So I said if that were true, how come no one ever drafts two good ones in a row.  

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

9 hours ago, JohnC said:

Do you want to know the best way to evaluate how a team drafts? Look at its record. When a team hasn't been in the playoffs for a generation in a system that is designed for parity then there is something fundamentally wrong. Until there is a commitment made to address the most important position in the game then the action on the periphery means little. The Bills have had more than their share of opportunities to make a consequential decision and resolve a major problem. They passed when reasonable opportunities existed.

 

I don't understand why you often bring up Hackenberg or Pat White or others bring up Manuel. Good scouting is good scouting and bad scouting is bad scouting. There are teams that do it well and there are teams that don't. Referring to bad evaluations as a reason why not to do something avoids the fact that good evaluations are the solutions to problems. When you don't act because of a fear of failure then you are stymying yourself. When you pursue success and fail then the next response should be try again. 

 

Since 2000 the Bills have signed Rob Johnson, Flutie, Bledsoe, Fitz, to name most but not all drafted Losman, Edwards, Manual. They've tried many different things and none have worked out well.  Does that mean they have terrible scouts?   Yup I guess you're right, but if bad scouting is based on drafting QB's then just about every team in the league has terrible scouting .

 

3 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Good scouting is not good scouting. Name a team that drafted two very good quarterbacks in a row. 

Which was what Kelly's point was. If it's so easy to find these gems, teams with good scouts would have drafted multiple good ones.  But it's not it's mostly just luck.  Some years having the #1 overall pick might yield a good one, some years that doesn't even help.

 

Then there's the cry you'll here from some "If Beane" can't find a franchise QB, then he needs to be fired"  Then we can bring in some assistant GM from some other team who has failed at drafting QB's.

 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

They’ve drafted QBs at a similar rate as other teams. Those numbers have been on here multiple times. 

 

It has nothing to do with good scouting and bad scouting!! Every team has hits and misses. You name a team and I can give you a great pick and a terrible pick. I bring up Hackenberg & White because statistically you are more likely to end up with them than you are Carr. You need to evaluate an entire class and figure out how many were good and how many bad. If there are 10 QBs drafted in a draft and 1 is a franchise guy there was a 10% chance that you got the franchise guy. When you talk about drafts you point to that 1 guy and say “we should have taken him.” While that may be true you were 9 times as likely to not get a franchise guy. That doesn’t mean that you don’t swing but you need to stop evaluating drafts by isolating the best guy and saying “we could have had him.” It’s the “you can find Tom Brady in the 6th” approach. It is a numbers game. About 1/2 of the top 5 picks that are QBs become franchise guys. That’s the place to shoot. The goal isn’t to get “a” guy it is to get “the” guy. 

The problem I have with your stance and others such as Kelly's is that you are pursuing the ideal. That's where I unalterably differ with you and others. Watson wasn't an ideal prospect---he was a good prospect. Carr wasn't a perfect prospect who had to be taken at the top of the first round. He was a good prospect who could have been attained with a trade down. This is a franchise that hasn't meaningfully been competitive for more than a generation. A large reason for that indistinguishable record is because it hasn't had a good franchise qb since its last glory days, almost a quarter century ago. 

 

So what is your response to such systematic mediocrity? It's hard. Of course it is hard. No one is saying otherwise. But if you don't make a commitment to take action other than some feeble long shot pick such as Peterman then this team is going to continue to be a meandering team that remains on the fringes. 

 

The irony is not lost on me that in an interview after his firing Whaley was asked what he would have differently if he could do it over. His response was he would be more aggressive in his pursuit of a qb. Give me a freaking break!!!!

Edited November 9, 2017 by JohnC

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

worried/concerned?

 

Feelindabrees Rookie   Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 52	Im Worried about this game, real tough running game from the Bills. They have Db's that can play in Space and a Qb that can break contain.. It will provide a true test for our guys this year. When we win it will provide great confidence for our team especially on the road. Im excited to watch this game.
	1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.

[Captain Murica]

10 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

worried/concerned?

 

Feelindabrees Rookie   Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 52	Im Worried about this game, real tough running game from the Bills. They have Db's that can play in Space and a Qb that can break contain.. It will provide a true test for our guys this year. When we win it will provide great confidence for our team especially on the road. Im excited to watch this game.
	1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.

 

The way they are talking on their board it reminds me of the Falcons board before our game in week 4. 

 

Hopefully the same result happens. 

[Kirby Jackson]

49 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The problem I have with your stance and others such as Kelly's is that you are pursuing the ideal. That's where I unalterably differ with you and others. Watson wasn't an ideal prospect---he was a good prospect. Carr wasn't a perfect prospect who had to be taken at the top of the first round. He was a good prospect who could have been attained with a trade down. This is a franchise that hasn't meaningfully been competitive for more than a generation. A large reason for that indistinguishable record is because it hasn't had a good franchise qb since its last glory days, almost a quarter century ago. 

 

So what is your response to such systematic mediocrity? It's hard. Of course it is hard. No one is saying otherwise. But if you don't make a commitment to take action other than some feeble long shot pick such as Peterman then this team is going to continue to be a meandering team that remains on the fringes. 

 

The irony is not lost on me that in an interview after his firing Whaley was asked what he would have differently if he could do it over. His response was he would be more aggressive in his pursuit of a qb. Give me a freaking break!!!!

Watson was the 2nd QB taken!! He looks good but there are questions abound with everyone else. Again, you immediately go to the best guy while ignoring those before and after. It is all hindsight again. Johnny Manziel was a good prospect that you could have had in a trade down as well. EJ was the same and had in a trade down.

 

I am all for taking a shot but we need to understand that you are less likely to upgrade than you are to downgrade. That’s not debatable and the numbers bear that out. If you are good dumping Tyrod and adding Watson you have to be just as happy to dump Tyrod and add EJ. That is statistically the much more likely scenario. It may be worth the gamble but I am taking every possible step to maximize the chance of Watson and minimize the chance of EJ. No one is against taking a shot but don’t point to the 10% as the reasoning.

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Watson was the 2nd QB taken!! He looks good but there are questions abound with everyone else. Again, you immediately go to the best guy while ignoring those before and after. It is all hindsight again. Johnny Manziel was a good prospect that you could have had in a trade down as well. EJ was the same and had in a trade down.

 

I am all for taking a shot but we need to understand that you are less likely to upgrade than you are to downgrade. That’s not debatable and the numbers bear that out. If you are good dumping Tyrod and adding Watson you have to be just as happy to dump Tyrod and add EJ. That is statistically the much more likely scenario. It may be worth the gamble but I am taking every possible step to maximize the chance of Watson and minimize the chance of EJ. No one is against taking a shot but don’t point to the 10% as the reasoning.

You are not characterizing my position accurately. I'm not suggesting dumping Taylor after the selection of a upper-tier qb prospect. The Chiefs didn't cut Alex Smith after they drafted Mahomes. So why are you assuming that my position is by selecting a qb with a high round pick I'm requiring that Taylor be dispatched? This is the NFL. You are not guaranteed a job, you compete for a job. The best time to draft a qb is when you have a reasonable qb in place so you don't have to force the issue of playing a prospect before he is ready. 

 

Please don't bring up the selection of EJ in response to anything I have said regarding the position. It means absolutely nothing other that it is a demonstration of a alarming inability to evaluate players, regardless of position. Manuel was a fourth round caliber of prospect drafted in the first round by a clueless organization. Again, please don't bring up Maniziel with respect to anything that I have said regarding  to my position. Selecting him in the first round was a foolish decision by a laughable organization demonstrating the definition of stupidity. The problem with the selection was not that he was taken but that he was taken with a first round pick. 

 

Our fundamental difference is while you  believe TT is a viable franchise qb, I don't. I consider him to be at best an adequate bridge qb. I strongly believe that there are more than a few very good prospects in this draft that should be available, especially with our ability to parlay some of our acquired extra picks. The Bills have had a history of letting opportunities pass by. What has it gotten us? Talking about the next draft and the next draft and the next draft etc. It's an entrenched futility that I have little tolerance for. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Watson wasn't an ideal prospect---he was a good prospect. Carr wasn't a perfect prospect who had to be taken at the top of the first round. He was a good prospect who could have been attained with a trade down. 

 

Sure and Carr could have done as well as his brother. And Watson could be another Ryan Leaf.  In fact he still may be, 6 games doesn't exactly define a career. So yeah you can get guys without having the #1 overall pick, but they could just as easily be a bust.  No one knows.  And how was picking Carr or Watson any different than the picks of Losman and EJ?  They just didn't work out, but in foresight (as opposed to hindsight) they were just as good of a pick.  Maybe slightly higher than they should have went, but not by a huge amount.

[Buffalo716]

6 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Good scouting is not good scouting. Name a team that drafted two very good quarterbacks in a row. 

 

Well the Patriots drafted Bledsoe to Brady

 

and packers traded for Favre and drafted Rodgers so that doesn't fit your mold

 

not many 

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

Well the Patriots drafted Bledsoe to Brady

 

and packers traded for Favre and drafted Rodgers so that doesn't fit your mold

 

not many 

 

 

No. The Patriots drafted Michael Bishop between Bledsoe and Brady.

 

The Packers didnt draft Favre as you said. But after getting Favre they drafted Mark Brunell who was pretty good. Then Jay Barker. Then Kyle Wacholtz. Then Ron McAda. Then Matt Hasselback. Then Aaron Brooks. Then Craig Nall. Before Aaron Rodgers.

[Buffalo716]

1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said:

No. The Patriots drafted Michael Bishop between Bledsoe and Brady.

 

The Packers didnt draft Favre as you said. But after getting Favre they drafted Mark Brunell who was pretty good. Then Jay Barker. Then Kyle Wacholtz. Then Ron McAda. Then Matt Hasselback. Then Aaron Brooks. Then Craig Nall. Before Aaron Rodgers.

 

I get that point but they did have back to back franchise QBs 

 

its not like they had a host of QBs between starting Bledsoe and Brady

 

Bledsoe was the starter , got hurt , and Brady took over

 

that counts as back to back in my book

[Kelly the Dog]

1 minute ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

I get that point but they did have back to back franchise QBs 

 

its not like they had a host of QBs between starting Bledsoe and Brady

 

Bledsoe was the starter , got hurt , and Brady took over

 

that counts as back to back in my book

Sure. But it wasnt because of great scouting and brilliant drafting, which is what we were talking about.