What's Plan C for QB?

[SouthNYfan]

35 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

You are not going to convince the diehards that Peterman is a dud.  Hell, his own incompetence won't even convince some of them that he's not pro material.  If the Bills drafted him, they must have seen his "potential" because the Bills have demonstrated their unerring ability to find "QB diamonds in the rough".

 

Because there is no way you can call him a "dud" based on less than a game of time on the field.

His playing time outside of the chargers half was actually decent, including a must win game vs Indy in a blizzard.

 

I have no delusions about what he is, a 5th round project who should be a solid backup at worst, an average starter at best.

 

I definitely don't think we should bet the farm on him.

I definitely don't think we should just throw our have up and give up on him either.

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

I have no delusions about what he is, a 5th round project who should be a solid backup at worst, an average starter at best.

 

 

On what basis is that "at worst"? At worse he will be out of the league in 2018.  At worst he is not an NFL calibre player.  I fought this perception that somehow he was sure to end up a solid backup the moment he was drafted.... even Kirby thought that was likely back then.  Nathan Peterman is not a good enough Quarterback to be a success in the NFL.  He wasn't based on his college film and he isn't based on his games thus far.  A "solid backup" is not his worst case scenario.... it his his best case scenario.  

Edited January 29, 2018 by GunnerBill

[SouthNYfan]

4 hours ago, Zerovotlz said:

I don't think you will be seeing Luck traded, for all the reasons mentioned already....I think everyone will be surprised when Alex Smith ends up with the Colts.  If you are the Colts and you are waiting to see if Luck can or can't come back, are you really going to use that 3rd overall draft pick on a franchise QB?  Are you going run Jacoby Brissett back out there and try and sell tickets?  (yes McDaniels knows him)  ....they could trade for Smith and his one year of control.  That buys them time to evaluate Luck, or for Luck to get another surgery etc.  If Luck is finished, you could then sign Smith to an extension....it would be his team (something smith wants) and you are ok at QB for 4-5 years and can spend all of that time finding the next one.  Or, if Luck comes back and he's ready to go, you thank Smith for his time and trouble, he becomes a free agent and probably finds himself very much in demand still.  Indy could then trade out of 3 this year, load up on picks and go forward.  

 

As a Chiefs fan, It is entertaining reading all the different view points about what to do at QB for the Bills....lots of opinions.  My opinion is that you were in position at 10 last year and missed on Mahomes. (and maybe Watson) 

 

In my biased opinion, you could have taken Mahomes (or maybe Watson) at 10 last year instead of trading out.  Now you'll have to expend serious draft capital to move up to 3 or 4 to do essentially the same thing a year later......and you have to hope that whoever you take, is someone they think more highly of than they thought of Mahomes or Watson last year.  

 

I'm not saying it won't work out etc...but seems like quite a bit more involved and risky trying to move up now as opposed to staying in place last season.

 

I honestly hope you get something good and I'll be rooting for you and watching intently on draft day.

 

The colts aren't going to pay draft capital and $18 mil to Smith for a year.

They already owe luck $25 mil whether he plays this year or not 

If they draft a QB they have zero faith in luck's shoulder.

i don't disagree with anything else you said.

[GunnerBill]

4 hours ago, Zerovotlz said:

As a Chiefs fan, It is entertaining reading all the different view points about what to do at QB for the Bills....lots of opinions.  My opinion is that you were in position at 10 last year and missed on Mahomes. (and maybe Watson) 

 

In my biased opinion, you could have taken Mahomes (or maybe Watson) at 10 last year instead of trading out.  Now you'll have to expend serious draft capital to move up to 3 or 4 to do essentially the same thing a year later......and you have to hope that whoever you take, is someone they think more highly of than they thought of Mahomes or Watson last year.  

 

Swap Mahomes (or maybe Watson) for Watson (or maybe Mahomes) and I am right with you. 

 

I was pretty adamant all draft season last year that the Bills should race to the podium if Watson was there at #10 and that the TV talking heads were mainly talking out of another orifice when they questioned his ability to translate.  I was more circumspect on Mahomes (and still am) because technically there was a lot to clean up, but his ceiling is astronomical if he reaches it and I'd have preferred picking him at #10 than trading back.  

[SouthNYfan]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

On what basis is that "at worst"? At worse he will be out of the league in 2018.  At worst he is not an NFL calibre player.  I fought this perception that somehow he was sure to end up a solid backup the moment he was drafted.... even Kirby thought that was likely back then.  Nathan Peterman is not a good enough Quarterback to be a success in the NFL.  He wasn't based on his college film and he isn't based on his games thus far.  A "solid backup" is not his worst case scenario.... it his his best case scenario.  

 

Fair enough on his floor.

Cheap third stringer?

Expensive towel boy?

 

I still think it's too early for us to just cut bait with barely any real playing time to go on.

 

Let's not forget the rams benched kurt Warner after his 6 fumble game

 

(No I'm not saying he's Warner, I'm not an idiot, I'm saying that one game isn't worth cutting a guy over)

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Fair enough on his floor.

Cheap third stringer?

Expensive towel boy?

 

I still think it's too early for us to just cut bait with barely any real playing time to go on.

 

Let's not forget the rams benched kurt Warner after his 6 fumble game

 

(No I'm not saying he's Warner, I'm not an idiot, I'm saying that one game isn't worth cutting a guy over)

 

There is certainly a chance he is a cheap third stringer in 2018.  However his place on the roster will come down to his performances this summer and in pre-season.  If he doesn't show progression he may well be gone.  I tend to err on the side of him being on the 53 week 1.... but I think that will be as a 3rd QB which makes him at risk all year long when the Bills need to make moves at other positions.  

[SouthNYfan]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There is certainly a chance he is a cheap third stringer in 2018.  However his place on the roster will come down to his performances this summer and in pre-season.  If he doesn't show progression he may well be gone.  I tend to err on the side of him being on the 53 week 1.... but I think that will be as a 3rd QB which makes him at risk all year long when the Bills need to make moves at other positions.  

 

That's fair

[racketmaster]

If Darnold, Rosen and Mayfield go in top picks then I'm trading up for Allen. 

[Kirby Jackson]

8 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

No offense, but this is just plain wrong. Luck had a torn labrum, and it obviously wasn't an easily repairable one. He had his surgery over a year ago. He never recovered sufficiently to even play in a game this year. He started throwing, then shut it down because of pain. If he were a baseball pitcher with the same injury and spotty recovery, the majority expert opinion would be that he'll probably never be the same again. Here's just one of many articles on the subject:

http://twinsdaily.com/_/minnesota-twins-news/minnesota-twins/how-often-do-pitchers-recover-from-labrum-injuries-r4827

The pitcher featured in this article was the Twins closer, Glen Perkins. He went down with a labrum tear in June 2016. He made it back for 8 games last season, and it wasn't pretty: velocity down from 94-95 to right around 90 (and it's actually a couple mph worse than that since the way pitcher velocity is measured added a couple ticks between 2016 and 2017). That's just one example. You'll find many, many more. Here's an older article:  http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2004/05/labrum_it_nearly_killed_him.html  -

 

"The leading minds in baseball medicine are flummoxed by the labrum. Doctors can't agree on how to detect a tear, don't know the best way to fix one, and aren't sure why, almost without fail, a torn labrum will destroy a pitcher's career.

Leading baseball surgeon Dr. James Andrews estimates that 85 percent of pitchers make a full recovery after an ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction, aka the once risky Tommy John surgery. (USA Today has even called the surgery the "pitcher's best friend.") But if pitchers with torn labrums were horses, they'd be destroyed. Of the 36 major-league hurlers diagnosed with labrum tears in the last five years, only midlevel reliever Rocky Biddle has returned to his previous level. Think about that when your favorite pitcher comes down with labrum trouble: He has a 3 percent chance of becoming Rocky Biddle. More likely, he'll turn into Mike Harkey, Robert Person, or Jim Parque, pitchers who lost stamina and velocity—and a major-league career—when their labrums began to fray."

 

QBs are not pitchers - the stress on the throwing shoulder is far less, and they're not throwing 100 passes (not counting side sessions and warm ups) every 5th day over the course of six or seven months. And guys like Drew Brees (who obviously lost velocity after his labrum injury) learned to adjust and become better than before. Others with more minor surgery (Cam Newton) seemed not to miss a beat.  But Luck's case has already moved into the "serious cause for concern" category, and at this point, his prognosis will be far from clear by the time the Colts (or other suitors) will have to make a significant commitment to him. If I'm the Cards or Broncos GM, I'm willing (after getting all the information I can in March) to pull the trigger and deal for him. Those are teams that were perfectly competitive but held back by bad QB play, and they're otherwise still within their competitive window. If I'm Beane, I'm intrigued. The timing doesn't seem quite right for the Bills, but if Luck never makes it back you're probably straight into full rebuild mode by 2019, and that's not so different from where they are anyway. But if I'm the Colts, there's a huge opportunity cost in passing on a top QB draft pick, particularly since they're really in no place to contend right away.  Luck's value is greatly diminished right now, and the Colts would be idiots to assume the risk of his surgery just plain failing.

They aren’t going to sell low. It is virtually i

possible to find a franchise QB. Luck was considered the best QB prospect since Peyton. While he hasn’t been as good as advertised he’s proven to be a top 5-10 guy. Those guys don’t move. The Colts aren’t going to pass off the risk to someone else like the Dolphins did with Drew Brees. Luck is either healthy enough to play and remains the Colts starter (95% chance), is healthy enough to play but they realize that they are far away and auction him off for a massive haul (4% chance) or his career is over (1% chance). This isn’t a guy that you are going to swipe in and steal for a lowball offer. The Colts have not motivation to do that. 

22 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

On what basis is that "at worst"? At worse he will be out of the league in 2018.  At worst he is not an NFL calibre player.  I fought this perception that somehow he was sure to end up a solid backup the moment he was drafted.... even Kirby thought that was likely back then.  Nathan Peterman is not a good enough Quarterback to be a success in the NFL.  He wasn't based on his college film and he isn't based on his games thus far.  A "solid backup" is not his worst case scenario.... it his his best case scenario.  

This is true. I always envisioned him as a solid, cerebral backup. I have softened on that stance.

[SouthNYfan]

6 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

They aren’t going to sell low. It is virtually i

possible to find a franchise QB. Luck was considered the best QB prospect since Peyton. While he hasn’t been as good as advertised he’s proven to be a top 5-10 guy. Those guys don’t move. The Colts aren’t going to pass off the risk to someone else like the Dolphins did with Drew Brees. Luck is either healthy enough to play and remains the Colts starter (95% chance), is healthy enough to play but they realize that they are far away and auction him off for a massive haul (4% chance) or his career is over (1% chance). This isn’t a guy that you are going to swipe in and steal for a lowball offer. The Colts have not motivation to do that. 

This is true. I always envisioned him as a solid, cerebral backup. I have softened on that stance.

 

Where do you get a "95%" chance he's okay, and a 1% his career is over?

 

Labral tears are very, very bad.

Brees was a miracle, and even the MD said he was the most miraculous recovery he's ever seen, and was surprised he could throw again.

Luck's shoulder was in worse shape than Brees because he played an entire year, shredded or more, and has missed over a year since.

 

I wish him the best, but his shoulder is a live grenade.

[The Frankish Reich]

16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

They aren’t going to sell low. It is virtually i

possible to find a franchise QB. Luck was considered the best QB prospect since Peyton. While he hasn’t been as good as advertised he’s proven to be a top 5-10 guy. Those guys don’t move. The Colts aren’t going to pass off the risk to someone else like the Dolphins did with Drew Brees. Luck is either healthy enough to play and remains the Colts starter (95% chance), is healthy enough to play but they realize that they are far away and auction him off for a massive haul (4% chance) or his career is over (1% chance). This isn’t a guy that you are going to swipe in and steal for a lowball offer. The Colts have not motivation to do that. 

This is true. I always envisioned him as a solid, cerebral backup. I have softened on that stance.

But wrapped into your 95% scenario but not mentioned here is this:  he is healthy enough to play, but his skill set is significantly diminished. I think the realist would have to say some diminution in his arm strength is almost a given at this point. The question is how much, and whether his other skills (Brees again) are sufficient to counterbalance that.

[bobobonators]

21 hours ago, CircleTheWagons99 said:

TT should not be part of any plan, having him on the team next year is a mistake. I rather see a 3-13 year then watch TT for a full year again. He is hindering the development of the offense. 

 

But going 3-13 and watching a rookie QB that is clearly not yet ready throw 3INT every game wont hinder anything at all. 

 

Im in favor of moving on from TT but the original poster brings up a good point. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

For whatever it may be worth, our 2 2nd round picks are worth enough to get into the 28-32 range. We could, potentially, have 3 first round picks if the draft falls in a way that it is beneficial (i.e. Rudolph at 21, Smith/Vea/Edmunds at 22, Harrison Phillips at 28-32 range pick.)

[Kirby Jackson]

45 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Where do you get a "95%" chance he's okay, and a 1% his career is over?

 

Labral tears are very, very bad.

Brees was a miracle, and even the MD said he was the most miraculous recovery he's ever seen, and was surprised he could throw again.

Luck's shoulder was in worse shape than Brees because he played an entire year, shredded or more, and has missed over a year since.

 

I wish him the best, but his shoulder is a live grenade.

Feel free to adjust the percentages accordingly. The point is that they aren’t going to accept some lowball offer to get him off their hands. They are going to try to get him healthy to play. If they decide that he is healthy and they are far away they can put him on the block for a huge return considering all of the teams that need a QB. He can instantly turn half of the teams that would be interested into Super Bowl contenders (Bills, Jags, Broncos, Cardinals). If he isn’t healthy than no one is going to give up any assets to pay him that kind of money. It is an either or. A damaged Luck won’t be sold for a 2nd round pick. 

39 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

But wrapped into your 95% scenario but not mentioned here is this:  he is healthy enough to play, but his skill set is significantly diminished. I think the realist would have to say some diminution in his arm strength is almost a given at this point. The question is how much, and whether his other skills (Brees again) are sufficient to counterbalance that.

I don’t disagree that some of his skills may be diminished. The Colts are going to let it play out then to see. If he is 90% of the player that he was that’s still an upgrade from anyone available including Cousins. 

[SouthNYfan]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Feel free to adjust the percentages accordingly. The point is that they aren’t going to accept some lowball offer to get him off their hands. They are going to try to get him healthy to play. If they decide that he is healthy and they are far away they can put him on the block for a huge return considering all of the teams that need a QB. He can instantly turn half of the teams that would be interested into Super Bowl contenders (Bills, Jags, Broncos, Cardinals). If he isn’t healthy than no one is going to give up any assets to pay him that kind of money. It is an either or. A damaged Luck won’t be sold for a 2nd round pick. 

 

Agree completely.

I've been saying it for a while, I don't know why people think luck is an option.

If he's healthy he's untouchable

If he's not healthy, why want him?

[corta765]

Plan C is me because my first name is Craig. Get ready for 197 lbs and 5-11 of pure polish fury and fire! .... and really bad QB play

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

22 hours ago, Virgil said:

With a GM who may not want to give up the farm to trade up and a salary cap space that's needed with a huge amount of UFA's, what's the plan for if we aren't able to snag someone in FA or the draft who can compete for the starting job.

 

Let's just assume that the Bills want in on ALL top QB's available.  Cousins could easily go for a price tag outside of where we are willing to go.  Two of the three Qb's in Minnesota are likely to be retained, but it's very well possible that we don't land the leftover.  If they keep Keenum and Bridgewater, we may not even want Bradford.  

 

Then, let's say the Rosen, Mayfield, and Darnold all go in the top 3-5 picks and we couldn't get a deal done to move up.  

 

I don't think any of those scenario's are unrealistic at all.  So what then?  Do we actually keep Tyrod and get someone in the later rounds we hope develops and wait until next year when there is less QB competition?  

 

Basically, what would plan C need to include to make you optimistic about our offense next year if we can't land the top 3 guys at QB or FA QB's?

 

The timing all stinks otherwise Tyrod is plan c or even b. I don’t see any qb they draft this year being ready to start right away. 

 

I sincerely hope plan A is draft a rookie and sign a free agent bridge.  I’m not referring to cousins, smith or others. 

 

Foles, Keenum, AJ Mc, Bridgewater.

 

I’d consider a two year 50 Mil deal for Eli if the Giants scrap him as a solid bridge to his retirement and the new guys development 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

On what basis is that "at worst"? At worse he will be out of the league in 2018.  At worst he is not an NFL calibre player.  I fought this perception that somehow he was sure to end up a solid backup the moment he was drafted.... even Kirby thought that was likely back then.  Nathan Peterman is not a good enough Quarterback to be a success in the NFL.  He wasn't based on his college film and he isn't based on his games thus far.  A "solid backup" is not his worst case scenario.... it his his best case scenario.  

 

Totally agree.  When a QB from North Dakota State goes #2 in the draft, that means that the scouts are not only scouring the hinterlands, they aren't letting any potential Tom Bradys slip through the cracks like they may have done twenty years ago.  These days, a kid who goes in the late rounds is seriously lacking in the physical attributes necessary for an NFL QB, so he's not even a decent bet to make a "solid backup".

[SouthNYfan]

2 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Totally agree.  When a QB from North Dakota State goes #2 in the draft, that means that the scouts are not only scouring the hinterlands, they aren't letting any potential Tom Bradys slip through the cracks like they may have done twenty years ago.  These days, a kid who goes in the late rounds is seriously lacking in the physical attributes necessary for an NFL QB, so he's not even a decent bet to make a "solid backup".

 

So Russell Wilson?

He was recent and went late rounds

Or Dak?

 

Just saying.

 

Sometimes people slip through.

Even if they are the exception and not the rule.

 

(Peterman needs a lot of work and a miracle btw, and I'm not okay with hoping for a miracle btw)

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Totally agree.  When a QB from North Dakota State goes #2 in the draft, that means that the scouts are not only scouring the hinterlands, they aren't letting any potential Tom Bradys slip through the cracks like they may have done twenty years ago.  These days, a kid who goes in the late rounds is seriously lacking in the physical attributes necessary for an NFL QB, so he's not even a decent bet to make a "solid backup".

 

I don't think that's true at all.  Yes, scouts are scouring the hinterlands.  But NFL history has shown that big physical tools in college are only part of what it takes for NFL success.  Intelligence, processing/reaction speed, and even physical development play a role.  So does the quality of development a QB receives after he enters the league.

 

Despite best efforts, scouting is not an exact science.

 

That's why every year or two there's a Dak Prescott who plays better than 5 of the 7 QB drafted above him,  and why the success rate (defined pretty liberally) of top-5 picks is still only 50% overall.

 

Edit: not to be construed as disagreeing with Gunner about Peterman's floor being "out of the league".  And overall, QB drafted in the 5th round have something like a 5% success rate where "success" is defined as AJ McCarron.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan