THE ROCKPILE REVIEW - The GM's QB Decision Tree

[Shaw66]

The Rockpile Review – by Shaw66

 

The GM’s QB Decision Tree

 

The discussion began even before the final whistle blew in the Bills’ playoff loss to Jacksonville:  Who should be the Bills’ QB for 2018 and beyond?  It’s a question that’s easy to ask but difficult to answer correctly. 

 

When Brandon Beane, Sean McDermott and Brian Doball talk about it, what do they talk about?   I don’t know; I’d love to be in that room, listening, but I’m not.

 

So I began to wonder how to go about finding the QB a team wants.  Here’s how I’d think about it:

 

1.  WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?

 

Even the first step in the process isn’t easy.  When will we stop looking for a QB because you have the guy you want?   Are you looking for a guy who will finish his career in the Hall of Fame?  That would be nice, certainly, but will you stop looking only when you have the HOF guy?  Or are you looking for a franchise QB, a guy who you will be happy to have as our starter until the end of his career, even if he doesn’t make the Hall of Fame?  Or are you looking for a guy who will be good enough for the next several years, who isn’t a true franchise guy and who you’ll be actively looking to replace? 

 

For me, I think of those categories like this:   A Hall of Fame guy is someone I expect to be among the top five QBs in the league, year after year.  The franchise guy is someone I expect to be among the top 10 QBs, year after year.  The good enough guy is someone I expect to be in the top 15 to 20 year after year.  

 

When you have a top 5 guy, every June your team is in the discussion about who’s winning the next Super Bowl.   When you have a top 10 guy, your team is in the June Super Bowl discussion if it looks like your team has the other pieces in place.   When you have a top 15 to 20 guy, your team is in the June Super Bowl discussion only if your team looks to have a top three defense.

 

What you’re looking for depends in part on your vision for the team:  what does the team look like that you’re trying to build?   And that vision has to be informed by your view of where the NFL is heading.  We’re witnessing the end, it seems, of the truly dominant Hall of Fame quarterbacks.  Will more QBs emerge to dominate like Brady, Manning, Brees, Ben and Rodgers?   Or will the future game be different?

 

So that’s the first question.  What are you looking for and how will you know you got him?

 

2.  HOW LONG ARE YOU WILLING TO WAIT TO GET THE GUY YOU WANT?

 

Obviously, you want him here as soon as possible.  Realistically, however, the answer to the second question varies depending on your answer to the first question.  If there are no top 5 QBs, or guys who are good bets to become top 5, available in free agency or the draft, you aren’t getting one this year.  If you’re just going to draft the best QB you can every year until one of them turns out to be top 5, you have to be prepared to wait a while.  

 

If you’re looking for a top 10 guy, the chances you’ll find the guy this year in free agency or the draft go up some.  Cousins, Keenum, Bridgewater, Bradford, maybe even Bortles could be available, and each of them conceivably could be your guy.  The guy may be in the draft too, maybe even two of them.  If you’re taking a free agent QB, you have a shot at having your guy playing at the level you want in 2018; if you draft him, he might do it from the first game, but it may take a year or two before he’s playing like a winner. 

 

3.  HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY THE GUY?

 

How long you’re willing to wait for your guy has some impact on how much you’re willing to spend, and vice versa.   Everything has a price, so if you want a Hall of Fame QB right now, it’s only a question of how much the Packers want for Rodgers. 

 

How much you’re willing to pay isn’t as easy to figure out as you might think.  In the case of a free agent QB, will you pay top dollar only if the guy is THE best QB in the league?   Or will you pay top dollar if he’s a top 5 QB, even if he isn’t the best?  I’m not sure there’s a right answer to the question, but my answer is that if I’m prepared to stop looking when I have a top 10 QB, and I’ll pay whatever the market demands to get him/keep him.  That’s what the Raiders did with Carr and that’s what the Lions did with Stafford.  In both cases, the team has the guy they think is good enough – if he comes top 5, great, but if he’s just the 8^th best QB in the league, they aren’t having second thoughts about how much it cost.  Teams only have second thoughts when they pay top dollar and the guy consistently falls out of the top 10.  Like Flacco.

 

If you’re drafting your QB of the future, what you’ll pay to get him is a different question.  The players’ collective bargaining agreement fixes what the guy’s salary will be.  The more important question is what you’re willing to pay to get into a position in the draft to have a good shot at getting the guy you want.   Of course, that depends on where you already are in the draft and how far you have to move to get the guy.  Will you trade this year’s first and second, this year’s first, second and next year’s first?   Will you trade two firsts this year if, like the Bills, you have two firsts? 

 

What you’re willing to spend can’t be decided in a vacuum.   The more you spend, in dollars or in draft capital, means you have that much less to spend on other players or another QB, if you happen to pick poorly this time around. 

 

4.  HOW DO YOU KNOW THE GUY YOU THINK YOU WANT IS ACTUALLY THE GUY?

 

Of course, that’s the big question:  How do you evaluate the guy before you pull the trigger?  There’s lots of data, especially on free agents.  But you know evaluating a guy is far more complicated than tracking completion percentage, touchdowns and yards per attempt.  There’s semi-objective data gained through film study, like reading defenses pre- and post-snap, decision making, etc.  There’s subjective data, like leadership skills, dedication, emotional stability for a stressful job.    

 

5.  WHAT’S YOUR CONTINGENCY PLAN?

 

What are you going to do if, despite our collective brilliance in answering all the other questions, the guy you pick turns out not to be the guy you thought he was?  Remarkably, the Redskins answered all the questions in one draft, with RG III and Cousins as the contingency plan.   It looked like RG III was the answer, then he wasn’t, and there on the bench was the backup plan.  Even so, the Redskins are looking like they’ll be trying to answer all these questions again in 2018. 

 

The Vikings miraculously stumbled into QBs, more by necessity than by planning.   They had to pay for Bradford when Bridgewater went down, because their answer to the question when do you need him? was “RIGHT NOW!”   Then they thought they had Bridgewater/Bradford to carry them in 2017 but brought in Keenum for insurance, because RIGHT NOW! still was the answer.  That move alone should put someone in the running for GM of the Year. 

 

One fundamental part of the contingency plan is never to stop drafting QBs.  Cassel, Hoyer, Mallett, Garropolo. 

 

 

What does all this mean for Beane, McDermott and Doball?   Damned if I know.  And it’s complicated by the presence of Taylor.   The guy’s top 20, so if top 20 is all you want, the QB questions are answered.  But if you want top 10, you have your work cut out for you.   Still, is Taylor part of your contingency plan?   Or is unloading Taylor part of the answer to how you’re going to find the money or picks to get the guy you really want?

 

It will be an interesting Spring.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

The Rockpile Review is written to share the passion we have for the Buffalo Bills. That passion was born in the Rockpile; its parents were everyday people of western New York who translated their dedication to a full day’s hard work and simple pleasures into love for a pro football team.

[Bob Chandler's Hands]

A virtual full solar eclipse of enlightenment. 

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, Bob Chandler's Hands said:

A virtual full solar eclipse of enlightenment. 

 

Tolstoy would have gotten to the point in a more concise manner. 

[Shaw66]

21 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Tolstoy would have gotten to the point in a more concise manner. 

Always flattering to be compared to Tolstoy.  

[TigerJ]

My only addition, Shaw, is that I think the Bills (or any team looking for "the guy" at QB needs to go into the search process with layers of contingencies, not just one contingency plan.  One poster asked, "What's plan C?"  There needs to be a plan B, C, and D, and maybe an E, F, and G.

Edited January 29, 2018 by TigerJ

[Shaw66]

9 minutes ago, TigerJ said:

My only addition, Shaw, is that I think the Bills (or any team looking for "the guy" at QB needs to go into the search process with layers of contingencies, not just one contingency plan.  One poster asked, "What's plan C?"  There needs to be a plan B, C, and D, and maybe an E, F, and G.

Right.   It's hopelessly complicated to sort through the plans. 

 

They aren't even plans in a lot of cases.   The possible scenarios are endless.   

 

Running the draft is a simple parallel example.    You can make plans for what you're going to do at 21 or 22, or in the second round, but until you see the draft unfold, you don't really know what you'll be looking at.  So I'd think they've talked about possibilities for weeks, and when the time comes, they look at where they are, they recall the various things they've talked about, and they make a decision.  

 

Huge decisions and so many uncertainties.  

[BadLandsMeanie]

49 minutes ago, Bob Chandler's Hands said:

A virtual full solar eclipse of enlightenment. 

If you made this quip up, you deserve a prize!

 

 

(Sorry Shaw but that was a Great zinger)

Edited January 29, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[Shaw66]

12 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

If you made this quip up, you deserve a prize!

 

 

(Sorry Shaw but that was a Great zinger)

I liked it, but I wasn't sure what it meant.   

 

I think what he meant is that he couldn't see anything in what I wrote, like it was totally dark out there. 

 

I got confused, however, because solar eclipses ARE enlightening, because there isn't total darkness during a total eclipse.  There's light, and in fact the light allows you to see things around you in ways that you don't see in normal sunlight.    So if that's what he meant, I'm really flattered.   I don't think that's what he meant. 

 

But I do admit, I liked it. 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Shaw66

[SoCal Deek]

Nice read Shaw

 

I'd submit that NO teams are happy with a QB that's consistently in the 15 to 20 range. Most teams are probably OK with the 10 to 15 range even if they don't admit it publicly. Obviously the better your QB, the more safe you feel.

 

With regards to trading players or picks...you always have to factor in that the team your trading picks fits into the same line of thinking as described in the paragraph above.

[BadLandsMeanie]

Indeed. Now you mention it, he may have been comparing your post to the achingly beautiful corona that shows around the dark black disc of the moon, lighting the way and giving hope in the darkness. :I 

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Indeed. Now you mention it, he may have been comparing your post to the achingly beautiful corona that shows around the dark black disc of the moon, lighting the way and giving hope in the darkness. :I 

I think I write this stuff just for your entertainment!

[Buddo]

10 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Indeed. Now you mention it, he may have been comparing your post to the achingly beautiful corona that shows around the dark black disc of the moon, lighting the way and giving hope in the darkness. :I 

 

But he probably wasn't

[Buddo]

And btw Shaw, the Tolstoy comment wasn't flattering, at all

 

I enjoyed the post anyway.

 

Because you talked about the generalities.

 

And not some pie in the sky plan that will involve someone specific, who somebody else will either sign in the first seconds of FA, or draft with one of the first few picks of the draft, where we have no realistic way of getting to.

 

The Bills have often seemed barely to have a 'plan B', let alone a 'plan C', and tbh, in certain areas, I'm not so sure this current FO is shaping up to be much different. All last year we were a 'run first' team, yet regularly only had two fit RBs on the roster, would be one example of that.

 

Amongst other imponderables, will be what $ a FA will want, and under what circumstances, in respect of how said FA views the team he is going to. I'd expect any potential QB FA to be looking long and hard at the O-Line he's got in front of him, before deciding where to go.

 

One thing I think will be happening, is that both the early parts of FA, and the Draft, will see some explosive movements, with teams running lots of interference in the aftermath.

 

Popcorn needs to be ready on both of those days.

 

[mjt328]

Unless a team already has the 10-Year Answer already on the roster, they need to make scouting quarterbacks the #1 priority in every draft.

It would probably be smart to draft one every year as well (unless you just don't think any in that class will be successful).

 

The worst thing that happens?  You end up with two good QBs, and have major trade bait down the road.

[Shaw66]

8 minutes ago, Buddo said:

And btw Shaw, the Tolstoy comment wasn't flattering, at all

 

I enjoyed the post anyway.

 

Because you talked about the generalities.

 

And not some pie in the sky plan that will involve someone specific, who somebody else will either sign in the first seconds of FA, or draft with one of the first few picks of the draft, where we have no realistic way of getting to.

 

The Bills have often seemed barely to have a 'plan B', let alone a 'plan C', and tbh, in certain areas, I'm not so sure this current FO is shaping up to be much different. All last year we were a 'run first' team, yet regularly only had two fit RBs on the roster, would be one example of that.

 

Amongst other imponderables, will be what $ a FA will want, and under what circumstances, in respect of how said FA views the team he is going to. I'd expect any potential QB FA to be looking long and hard at the O-Line he's got in front of him, before deciding where to go.

 

One thing I think will be happening, is that both the early parts of FA, and the Draft, will see some explosive movements, with teams running lots of interference in the aftermath.

 

Popcorn needs to be ready on both of those days.

 

Tolstoy, indeed!   Gotta have some fun with this stuff.

 

Interesting comments.   I think you're right about the springtime.   Just watching what Minnesota does will be fascinating.   Once they act, the wheels will be turning in a dozen NFL team offices.   And the draft seems to have several promising QB prospects, but a GM who bets the ranch on any one of them is also betting his job.  Every one of the QBs in the draft could crash and burn.  

 

I don't agree that QBs will be looking long and hard at olines.  I think the free agent QBs know the score:  very few teams have good olines, and the quality of the line on most teams changes dramatically from year to year.   Cousins will be looking for a six-year deal, and he'll be much more interesting in who the coach and GM is, because that's who's going to solve the oline problem, if there is one.   Bradford and Bridgewater would be looking for big deals, too.   Maybe even Keenum.  Foles right now probably wishes he'd taken a one-year deal in Philadelphia.  

 

I really think the big question is what is happening to the league?   I just wonder if a Peyton Manning makes his team a contender by his presence alone on a 2020 team like the real Peyton did in 2010.   The game is changing, and as it changes, the difference in value between a Manning and a Matt Ryan may be shrinking.  

2 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

Unless a team already has the 10-Year Answer already on the roster, they need to make scouting quarterbacks the #1 priority in every draft.

It would probably be smart to draft one every year as well (unless you just don't think any in that class will be successful).

 

The worst thing that happens?  You end up with two good QBs, and have major trade bait down the road.

I think you're right.   Not just scouting, but a commitment to actually taking one.  Not every year, but no less than every three years.   The Packers did it for years, the Pats have done it for over a decade.   Take one, groom him, let him go or trade him.   Just keep doing it.    Heck, the Pats spent a pick on Brady when they had Bledsoe, who was going to play at a high level for five or seven more years. 

[Bob Chandler's Hands]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I liked it, but I wasn't sure what it meant.   

 

I think what he meant is that he couldn't see anything in what I wrote, like it was totally dark out there. 

 

I got confused, however, because solar eclipses ARE enlightening, because there isn't total darkness during a total eclipse.  There's light, and in fact the light allows you to see things around you in ways that you don't see in normal sunlight.    So if that's what he meant, I'm really flattered.   I don't think that's what he meant. 

 

But I do admit, I liked it. 

 

 

Both interpretations are correct. Glad you liked it. 

1 hour ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

If you made this quip up, you deserve a prize!

I write all my own material. 

Thank you, I'm here all week. Make sure to tip your waitress on the way out. 

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

I think that McBeane have made themselves pretty clear in interviews that they think Top 20 Tyrod isn't what they are after. They have stopped short of outright dismissing him now because they don't need to. They want at least a Top 10 guy.

 

The train starts down the track to this interesting spring in 1 1/2 months. And, until FA and the league year start, it is all about familiarizing yourself with the different scenarios and formulating a strategy. I think they have some ideas already, but it is a very fluid situation and subject to change. These could be some of them JMO.

 

We don't know if the Bills have any interest in Kirk Cousins or even Case Keenum other than rumors. You (Shaw)in other threads, and I agree,  have made a very compelling case that there could indeed be a bridge from Bills to Cousins. Assuming something could get done is one path, this leads to many more draft options and no doubt creates one FA strategy. This IMHO is the easiest path, but in all probablity is less likely to occur than the second path below:

 

The second assumption might be that nothing works out with either FA QB deemed intriguing. The next viable strategy could well be a trade of some type and doing the requisite groundword on availability and cost. I think it is fair to say that trading draft capital, and potentially a great deal of it, is possible depending on how you view the QB. Andruw Luck would require alot, and could be that Top 10 guy if healthy, maybe even Top 5.....if available as some have speculated. Alex Smith, rumored to be available, would cost less, is arguably Top 15, perhaps some would say Top 10. There are of course others.

 

This leads me to a point, and that is, it's almost like the team strength required is inversely related to how good a QB you need. And, the more draft capital you give up, the less likely you can build a strong team. The point made in the article about Top 5, 10, 20 and needing a Top 3 defense is well taken. And, why I think, if they haven't reached it already, McBeane will end up making a strong push in FA for a QB. They realize that a situation with a ready made Top 10 guy, and the draft picks to strengthen the team around him is ideal. We have the cap space. A trade would deplete how much help the draft can provide and is less ideal.

 

If it gets to the point where we are getting to the draft and nothing has worked out trade- wise I believe this is the scariest scenario. To get a QB to start Day 1 in this draft will completely deplete any chance we have of getting other top players in the draft. This team is not in a position like Kansas City was last year to move up into the Top 10 and still have a strong team.

 

Too many holes, and an unknown rookie QB doesn't sound to me like Plan A for McBeane. Maybe its just wishful thinking on my part, but I think the Bills will have figured out their QB situation well before the draft. 

[SoCal Deek]

Horn Dog,

 

You touched on a critical element of the QB puzzle, and that is that all doesn't come together on the same day. The Bills are first going to try the Free Agency market to see who can be obtained at what cost. If that falls through then it's on to the Draft Option.  And, if the Draft falls through, then they might just have to settle for Plan C (a less favorable free agent and/or rookie then they were hoping for).

 

One thing is certain: The Bills are going to need help to get either a top flight Free Agent or a top flight Rookie. It takes a willing Seller to complete these kind of deals. I believe the Bills are a willing Buyer, but they're probably not a crazy Buyer.

 

 

[Punt75]

Great insights Shaw!  When you said  " Or will the future of the game be different " - - that's the story.  If you want a traditional pocket passer with accuracy and a rocket arm (Brady, Brees, Big Ben etc.) you've got to invest big money in the Offensive line.  The defensive players of today are too fast, too quick and too elusive  for average lineman to handle them.  The other option is a running, scrambling QB with decent throwing skills and then spending money on WR's with special skills.

[OldTimer1960]

If the plan is to ONLY settle for someone who is a candidate to be a HOFer, you are out of the game already.  This view, I vehemently disagree with.

 

Look at the likely HOFers who are currently playing- not one of them would have been considered as such on draft day - Rothilsberger, Brady, Brees, Rodgers.  Going back a bit further, Farve would not have fit that description either.

[Shaw66]

21 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Horn Dog,

 

You touched on a critical element of the QB puzzle, and that is that all doesn't come together on the same day. The Bills are first going to try the Free Agency market to see who can be obtained at what cost. If that falls through then it's on to the Draft Option.  And, if the Draft falls through, then they might just have to settle for Plan C (a less favorable free agent and/or rookie then they were hoping for).

 

One thing is certain: The Bills are going to need help to get either a top flight Free Agent or a top flight Rookie. It takes a willing Seller to complete these kind of deals. I believe the Bills are a willing Buyer, but they're probably not a crazy Buyer.

 

 

"not a crazy buyer."

 

In this realm, crazy is in the eye of the beholder.   If they make a big free agent move, there definitely will be some folks complaining that they paid too much.   Maybe me.   If they trade up, there will be people complaining they gave up too much, or took the wrong guy.  

 

Hard to know what's crazy.   If they trade two first round picks for Luck, crazy will be determined by how Luck plays over the next five years.  

1 minute ago, OldTimer1960 said:

If the plan is to ONLY settle for someone who is a candidate to be a HOFer, you are out of the game already.  This view, I vehemently disagree with.

 

Look at the likely HOFers who are currently playing- not one of them would have been considered as such on draft day - Rothilsberger, Brady, Brees, Rodgers.  Going back a bit further, Farve would not have fit that description either.

Peyton's the only one.

[MTBill]

6. What is your window of opportunity?

 

Do you have the supporting cast right now for a SB run, or are you 1, 2, or more years out?  This has to play into your strategy. I personally think 2020 is when a run will be more likely than 2019, regardless of who is QB.

 

7. Who is available?

 

You can't pick up someone who isn't available - so you have to look at the options you have and make the best of it.  I think who is out there in FA after other teams re-sign their own matters a lot - and ties in to who/how you draft.

 

8. Are you suffering from low self esteem?

 

I think balancing fan desires with media expectations play into decisions more than it should. Teams end up taking players in order to please people - should not do this, but it is done.

 

What do I sort of expect to see?

 

I think they are still doing evaluations.  They finished the season with an unexpected 1 week extension - then raced to the Senior Bowl after replacing the OC (which the timing was right for).  They are going to determine what they have - and what they don't have.  Hopefully Daboll is going to adapt to what he has to work with along with the potential for what can be replaced. The OL needs shoring up, we need a backup RB who can share the load, we need a deep threat WR to complement a ton of possession guys, probably need a TE as Clay is injury prone and we need the QB to run the offense you want to run (along with a backup QB).

 

I expect to see 'best rookie available' when it makes sense for a QB in the draft.  There are holes to fill on OL and the front 7.  We need another WR, RB and TE.  Too many to fill in one draft - even with the extra picks.  I really don't think Peterman is the boy for the job, maybe he'll prove me wrong.  He's only a 5th round guy - I'm not saying he's a bust the way others before him were.  I just don't think he is the guy.

[Maine-iac]

I think without Shurmur the Vikings and the success they've had with QB's there might not be a story.  It's very possible that the selection of Daboll will be as pivotal to the QB position and McDermott's future as any decision they make on QB's.  There is a bar.  A fairly low bar set with Taylor who everyone thinks is an awful QB.  The hope is that we get a QB and everything is fixed.  It will be interesting to see if this QB march paired with the what seems to be a fairly risk averse run first coaching staff is going to come out and wildly hurdle that low bar and create a passing attack that outscores a Tom Brady led Patriots team.

[Shaw66]

57 minutes ago, MTBill said:

6. What is your window of opportunity?

 

Do you have the supporting cast right now for a SB run, or are you 1, 2, or more years out?  This has to play into your strategy. I personally think 2020 is when a run will be more likely than 2019, regardless of who is QB.

 

                 

I've gotten to the point where I don't think this is a consideration.  Five out of six AFC teams in the playoffs this season weren't in the playoffs last season.   Teams turn over 25-35% of their rosters every year.  The Rams went from nowhere to the playoffs in a year.   Other than the Patriots, there are no dynasties.   

 

So if you're a QB under 30, you don't care all that much about how "close" the team is.   I think the agents are telling them to look for a team with the right environment, the desire to improve, quality management, etc.  And if you're a GM, you're expecting to be only a year away.   (Unless you work for the Browns.)   

[Domdab99]

Like your game recaps, but this was a whole lot of nothing. Hope you enjoyed writing it, though. 

[Shaw66]

7 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

Like your game recaps, but this was a whole lot of nothing. Hope you enjoyed writing it, though. 

Fair enough.  It's what I was thinking about, and to clarify my thoughts I wrote.   Once I wrote it, I figured I'd post.   My guess was that most people would react like you, but it seems like some people liked it.   I'm okay either way.  

 

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

"not a crazy buyer."

 

In this realm, crazy is in the eye of the beholder.   If they make a big free agent move, there definitely will be some folks complaining that they paid too much.   Maybe me.   If they trade up, there will be people complaining they gave up too much, or took the wrong guy.  

 

Hard to know what's crazy.   If they trade two first round picks for Luck, crazy will be determined by how Luck plays over the next five years.  

Peyton's the only one.

Shaw....with all due respect I think we'd get general consensus on what a 'crazy buyer' would look like.  Especially for a franchise that just got done using two first round picks on a WR who is no longer on the team. I simply cannot see the current leadership giving up their two first rounds picks, and as some have said, one of their seconds, or next years first, for EITHER a free agent or rookie.  I just don't think that's in their DNA right now.

[Shaw66]

30 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Shaw....with all due respect I think we'd get general consensus on what a 'crazy buyer' would look like.  Especially for a franchise that just got done using two first round picks on a WR who is no longer on the team. I simply cannot see the current leadership giving up their two first rounds picks, and as some have said, one of their seconds, or next years first, for EITHER a free agent or rookie.  I just don't think that's in their DNA right now.

Interesting.   I hadn't thought about it, but I think you're right, that they won't give up picks.  They have a system and a plan, and they have the discipline to stick to it.   And I think they're confident the Pegulas will give them the time to do what they think is necessary.    Having a winning season and making the playoffs secured that confidence.  

 

My sense of them, however, is that they would be willing to write a big check if there was a free agent QB they wanted.   They'll be patient building at all the other positions, trusting their system.   Can't be patient at QB, because the right QB, say a top 10 QB doesn't come along very often.  

 

So, yeah, we won't see any picks get traded to move up for any other position, and probably no big picks for a QB, either.   That says to me they will be aggressive buyers in the free agent market.   Just a guess. 

[stuvian]

The QB question for me is "What's the best we can do with the options in front of us that won't hurt the team long term". 

 

We know that the best veteran franchise QBs aren't available to us.

We know that this regime doesn't like paying guys more than they're worth just to keep them in Buffalo . 

We know this regime is building culture and doesn't like questionable attitudes or lax commitments.

We know that this regime is stockpiling draft picks and is not afraid to trade pricey veterans to do so. 

 

I don't see us splurging for a veteran QB and certainly not one that would cost us draft picks.

I don't see us mortgaging the farm to get into the top 5. We are an old team with many holes that need filling immediately.

 

I see us staying put for one of Mason Rudolph, Lamar Jackson or Josh Allen and signing a stable if unspectacular veteran QB (Alex Smith, Case Keenum, Nick Foles, Teddy Bridgewater, Bryan (please God, no) Hoyer, AJ McCarron). I'd like to see us make a play for Davis Webb on NYG.

[Thurman#1]

Tyrod's top 22 or 23, probably. 

 

And will cost $23 mill for a year. $18 mill this year and $5 mill dead money next. For a guy who will never be the guy who can play from the pocket that they have said they want. Against $8.6 mill dead cap this year and none next year if they cut him, and $7.6 mill dead cap this year and none next year if they trade him. 

 

I just don't think this is as difficult a decision as some seem to think.

 

As for what to do? I personally want them to do what they can do to trade up and get a guy early, assuming they think there's someone there they like. I want them to draft a guy who has a good shot at being a top ten guy. IMHO the difference between top ten and top five isn't very predictable beforehand, outside of the occasional Peyton Manning / Andrew Luck type guy. So if my guy turns out to be top five ... terrific, but don't hold off till there's a guy there who's predictably top five. That could be a wait for years.

 

And I'd love to see them get Cousins but I think you left off your decision tree their attitude towards money, which seems to be downright Patsian and Packian. And I don't mind that, it's the most likely way to achieve success in the long run. But I don't see them springing for Cousins, though I would. IMHO there's a chance though not a great one that they pick up Bridgewater or Alex Smith. I would like to see that. But the finances / trade price may well be prohibitive.

 

My best guess is a cheaper vet guy to be the bridge and transition into the QB mentor, a guy like Fitz or McCown.

 

Oh, and if they don't like what they're able to get early, I hope they deal one of this year's 1st round picks back to a crappy team for next year's 1st and some extra booty, like maybe a 3rd or 4th this year. That'd give us a shot at trading up next year.

 

I do agree that it's a complex decision with a lot of interesting junction points. I'm not smart enough to be anywhere near sure what they'll do.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I've gotten to the point where I don't think this is a consideration.  Five out of six AFC teams in the playoffs this season weren't in the playoffs last season.   Teams turn over 25-35% of their rosters every year.  The Rams went from nowhere to the playoffs in a year.   Other than the Patriots, there are no dynasties.   

 

So if you're a QB under 30, you don't care all that much about how "close" the team is.   I think the agents are telling them to look for a team with the right environment, the desire to improve, quality management, etc.  And if you're a GM, you're expecting to be only a year away.   (Unless you work for the Browns.)   

 

 

 

I disagree with this, personally. Not least with your facts. Five out of six AFC teams in the playoffs this season weren't in the playoffs last season? Pats, Steelers and Chiefs both years, yeah? The Steelers the last four years in a row and the Chiefs the last three.  I'd put the Steelers in as a dynasty, the Pack as long as Rodgers is healthy, which he generally is. Probably Atlanta and maybe Carolina. I'm guessing now that New Orleans has gotten past their cap squeeze that they're starting a little dynasty which should last till Brees retires, though I could certainly be wrong about that. There are a bunch of teams that have made the playoffs say four out of the last six years. You could even maybe throw in KC.

 

Yeah, you see turnover. But generally it's a team sneaking in as fodder, or for teams that really do make the transition from crap to creme, it's generally the result of three or four years of consistent hard work good personnel acquisition and continuity finally hitting a tipping point.

 

The Rams are a good example. They've been putting together an excellent defense for years now, they got their QB last year and had a year of development for him. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

I disagree with this, personally. Not least with your facts. Five out of six AFC teams in the playoffs this season weren't in the playoffs last season? Pats, Steelers and Chiefs both years, yeah? The Steelers the last four years in a row and the Chiefs the last three.  I'd put the Steelers in as a dynasty, the Pack as long as Rodgers is healthy, which he generally is. Probably Atlanta and maybe Carolina. I'm guessing now that New Orleans has gotten past their cap squeeze that they're starting a little dynasty which should last till Brees retires, though I could certainly be wrong about that. There are a bunch of teams that have made the playoffs say four out of the last six years. 

Sorry, it was 5 of 6 in the NFC. 

[Buffalo716]

I enjoyed reading that as always Shaw66

[Jasovon]

I have increasingly decided that the QB matters less than the Coach. Look at guys like Bortles and Goff, who did not impress under previous coaches then transform into playoff or even championship calibre starters under a new HC. I believe we have our HC for a long time in McDermott so i'm pretty happy that whoever we have under center (even if it is Taylor for another season) will be successful. 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Jasovon said:

I have increasingly decided that the QB matters less than the Coach. Look at guys like Bortles and Goff, who did not impress under previous coaches then transform into playoff or even championship calibre starters under a new HC. I believe we have our HC for a long time in McDermott so i'm pretty happy that whoever we have under center (even if it is Taylor for another season) will be successful. 

I just got done watching this video and reading the article, and then I saw your post.   

http://winning.jwmi.com/bill-belichick-leadership-rules-football/  It's 15 or 20 minutes of Belichick being interviewed about coaching.   It's fascinating.

 

I'm totally on board with you.  For the past year it's become clearer and clearer that it's about the coach much, much more than about the players.    It's clear when you listen to Belichick.   It's clear when you notice that, except for quarterbacks, the best players aren't winning more than the average players.   

 

I do think quarterback is different.   Yes, he matters less than the coach, but he's the one player who really matters.   I know, duh.    But that's why I wrote what I did.   I think there's a lot of work that goes into getting the right guy.   If you find the guy who you think is the right guy, you pay whatever it takes to get him.   Not true for any other position, but it's true at QB.   If you think he's the guy, you pay him and don't worry about it. 

 

I think it's Cousins.  And I think it's foolish to say he isn't worth what he will get.   It isn't about Cousins alone.   It's about whether he's the kind of QB that will succeed in a well-run football organization.

 

I think that because I think Belichick is McDermott's role model, and one of the things Belichick says in the video is that the thing that he values most is dependability.   He wants guys who are dependable, guys who come to work every day, study, work hard and then do what they've practiced.   It's a very military approach.   Belichick says his first season at the Patriots a first round pick showed up late for one of the first meetings, and Belichick was incredulous.   He looked at the guy and asked "what are you doing?"   What he meant was "we have jobs to do, every day, and you're not doing your job."   Dependable.   That's Cousins.

 

Belichick says Brady isn't the most talented athlete to play QB, but he's smart, works really hard.  He dependable.  And he keeps improving.   That's Cousins.   

 

Belichick talks about his players' personal lives, how important it is for them to know each other and care about each other.   They have team nights out, trivia contests, all of that, because Belichick wants them to know each other, to know about their families.   They don't have to like each other, but they have see each other as human beings.   To Belichick, their personal lives are important.  McDermott too.  Cousins gets all of that and can be the leader of a team that has core values like that.   

 

This is a total guess, but I'd guess that McDermott thinks Cousins is exactly what McDermott wants, because for McDermott it's about working hard, learning and dependability.   That's Cousins. 

[Jasovon]

50 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I just got done watching this video and reading the article, and then I saw your post.   

http://winning.jwmi.com/bill-belichick-leadership-rules-football/  It's 15 or 20 minutes of Belichick being interviewed about coaching.   It's fascinating.

 

I'm totally on board with you.  For the past year it's become clearer and clearer that it's about the coach much, much more than about the players.    It's clear when you listen to Belichick.   It's clear when you notice that, except for quarterbacks, the best players aren't winning more than the average players.   

 

I do think quarterback is different.   Yes, he matters less than the coach, but he's the one player who really matters.   I know, duh.    But that's why I wrote what I did.   I think there's a lot of work that goes into getting the right guy.   If you find the guy who you think is the right guy, you pay whatever it takes to get him.   Not true for any other position, but it's true at QB.   If you think he's the guy, you pay him and don't worry about it. 

 

I think it's Cousins.  And I think it's foolish to say he isn't worth what he will get.   It isn't about Cousins alone.   It's about whether he's the kind of QB that will succeed in a well-run football organization.

 

I think that because I think Belichick is McDermott's role model, and one of the things Belichick says in the video is that the thing that he values most is dependability.   He wants guys who are dependable, guys who come to work every day, study, work hard and then do what they've practiced.   It's a very military approach.   Belichick says his first season at the Patriots a first round pick showed up late for one of the first meetings, and Belichick was incredulous.   He looked at the guy and asked "what are you doing?"   What he meant was "we have jobs to do, every day, and you're not doing your job."   Dependable.   That's Cousins.

 

Belichick says Brady isn't the most talented athlete to play QB, but he's smart, works really hard.  He dependable.  And he keeps improving.   That's Cousins.   

 

Belichick talks about his players' personal lives, how important it is for them to know each other and care about each other.   They have team nights out, trivia contests, all of that, because Belichick wants them to know each other, to know about their families.   They don't have to like each other, but they have see each other as human beings.   To Belichick, their personal lives are important.  McDermott too.  Cousins gets all of that and can be the leader of a team that has core values like that.   

 

This is a total guess, but I'd guess that McDermott thinks Cousins is exactly what McDermott wants, because for McDermott it's about working hard, learning and dependability.   That's Cousins. 

Cousins is a McDermott type of guy and i would absolutely love it. There is a reason that teams like the Steelers never seem to live up to the hype and I think you have hit the nail on the head here with regards to values and effort, Big Ben is a great example of a QB that doesn't give it 100% and takes games for granted. 

 

If you can get a good QB Coach pairing then the sky really is the limit, we have 50% of that. 

[Shaw66]

9 minutes ago, Jasovon said:

Cousins is a McDermott type of guy and i would absolutely love it. There is a reason that teams like the Steelers never seem to live up to the hype and I think you have hit the nail on the head here with regards to values and effort, Big Ben is a great example of a QB that doesn't give it 100% and takes games for granted. 

 

If you can get a good QB Coach pairing then the sky really is the limit, we have 50% of that. 

Of course, no one knows for sure, but I think this is correct.  

[Bring it]

Shaw, how much if at all do you think the loss of E. Wood affects our chances of getting someone like Cousins?

 

Would you look to FA rather than the draft to fill the center position? How to pay for it?

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Bring it said:

Shaw, how much if at all do you think the loss of E. Wood affects our chances of getting someone like Cousins?

 

Would you look to FA rather than the draft to fill the center position? How to pay for it?

I wrote about this in another thread.   I think Wood retiring increases the likelihood that the Bills sign a free agent QB.    The retirement creates one more hole to fill.   The cheapest talent is in the draft and undrafted free agents, and when you need a lot of talent, you look for cheap talent.   

 

If you mean does it affect what Cousins is thinking, I think it does but not enough to change his mind.   Cousins is looking for the right situation long-term, not immediately.   He won't want to change teams again.   So it's much more important to him to land with the right coach and GM; if they're right, personnel issues will be dealt with soon enough.  

[Shaw66]

14 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Tyrod's top 22 or 23, probably. 

 

And will cost $23 mill for a year. $18 mill this year and $5 mill dead money next. For a guy who will never be the guy who can play from the pocket that they have said they want. Against $8.6 mill dead cap this year and none next year if they cut him, and $7.6 mill dead cap this year and none next year if they trade him. 

 

I just don't think this is as difficult a decision as some seem to think.

 

As for what to do? I personally want them to do what they can do to trade up and get a guy early, assuming they think there's someone there they like. I want them to draft a guy who has a good shot at being a top ten guy. IMHO the difference between top ten and top five isn't very predictable beforehand, outside of the occasional Peyton Manning / Andrew Luck type guy. So if my guy turns out to be top five ... terrific, but don't hold off till there's a guy there who's predictably top five. That could be a wait for years.

 

And I'd love to see them get Cousins but I think you left off your decision tree their attitude towards money, which seems to be downright Patsian and Packian. And I don't mind that, it's the most likely way to achieve success in the long run. But I don't see them springing for Cousins, though I would. IMHO there's a chance though not a great one that they pick up Bridgewater or Alex Smith. I would like to see that. But the finances / trade price may well be prohibitive.

 

My best guess is a cheaper vet guy to be the bridge and transition into the QB mentor, a guy like Fitz or McCown.

 

Oh, and if they don't like what they're able to get early, I hope they deal one of this year's 1st round picks back to a crappy team for next year's 1st and some extra booty, like maybe a 3rd or 4th this year. That'd give us a shot at trading up next year.

 

I do agree that it's a complex decision with a lot of interesting junction points. I'm not smart enough to be anywhere near sure what they'll do.

 

 

Hi Thurm.  Good to hear from you. 

 

First, I love Patsian and Packian.   Great words!!!

 

Second, you've gotten quite animated about Taylor, when he is at best remotely related to this thread.   But since you're on the subject, I've gotta say that if your cap numbers are correct, and I have no reason to think they aren't, then I agree completely that they need to cut him.   It seems completely clear that he isn't McDermott's guy for the future.  If it' costs $18 million in cap space to keep him and $8 to cut him, cut him or trade him and use the cap room to acquire the QB you want long term, if there is one.    But if all you're acquiring is a guy who's one or two year bridge, and if you have to pay that guy $10 million per, you haven't saved anything.   Taylor can be your bridge at $10 million a year just as easily as some other guy. 

 

But as I said, that's beside the point.   The Patsian/Packsian point is the point.   Dollar cost is clearly a part of the decision tree, but I talked about it more in terms of whether he's worth it rather than the question of institutional stinginess.   We haven't seen this new regime to know whether they'd be willing to open their wallets for a big-time contract, so we don't know.   However, the Patsian/Packian reference doesn't establish anything.   The Packers did write a big check to keep Rodgers - he has the fifth highest average salary among QBs.   Brady is lower, but even he is at $20 million.   We don't know how much the Pats would have paid Brady if he'd insisted on what he's worth.   He willingly gave up dollars to help the Pats acquire other talent.   

 

Not saying the Bills would break the bank for anyone.   Just saying I don't think we know what their attitude is about such things.