PromoTheRobot Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Like the Redskins did with RG3 and Cousins. Don't trade up but take the QB that falls to you, plus a next-rung QB in a lower round like White or Lauletta? As a hedge against busting out our as an asset to deal later? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodneykm Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Yes, if the second had enough potential 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsredneck1 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 (edited) i would if it made sense...like if someone ne was going to take the next time they're up was there...or with one of the 2 5ths, like fergy. edit...actually i'd take that last pick and give it to denver for kelly. Edited February 9, 2018 by billsredneck1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spielman Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Yes, I would draft Jackson and Lauletta. Preferably in the 1st and 4th rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 No, to many other needs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 As long as they plan on addressing WR, LB, RB, OL and DL via free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 I think we have too many holes at this point to pull that off, but I wouldn't be upset if they paired Rudolph and either Mike White or Riley Ferguson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanbillsfan2206 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 1 minute ago, mead107 said: No, to many other needs 2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swnybillsfan Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 i would not be opposed to it, but we just took the flyer on peterman last year. i know he had that historic half, and hasn't exactly shown signs of being incredible. but i would consider him to be a project worth continuing. having said that, "we are always looking to improve our roster". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Thanks to the rookie wage scale, if Rudolph and Jackson were there at #21 and #22 I would take both of them in the 1st round. At best you'd develop two great quarterbacks and get some excellent compensation for one of them in a future trade. At worst they're both busts and we draft the top qb prospect next year. We still have two 2nd rounders to address other positions. In reality, we could easily pick one in the 1st and one in the later rounds like the OP suggested. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 I suppose. I was hoping that they acquired Alex Smith AND drafted a 1st round qb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 49 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said: Like the Redskins did with RG3 and Cousins. Don't trade up but take the QB that falls to you, plus a next-rung QB in a lower round like White or Lauletta? As a hedge against busting out our as an asset to deal later? Not unless the second QB was the BPA in the 6th or 7th round because the Bills have too many holes to waste picks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 It would depend on the ceiling of the 2nd qb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 19 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Thanks to the rookie wage scale, if Rudolph and Jackson were there at #21 and #22 I would take both of them in the 1st round. At best you'd develop two great quarterbacks and get some excellent compensation for one of them in a future trade. At worst they're both busts and we draft the top qb prospect next year. We still have two 2nd rounders to address other positions. In reality, we could easily pick one in the 1st and one in the later rounds like the OP suggested. This post is nonsense. How exactly does a team develop two great QBs at the same time? Are the QBs alternating snaps or games or what? And how would a team even know if both were busts after only one year if they were constantly being shuffled in and out of the line-up? I suppose you were one of those who declared Jared Goff a bust last season or have annointed DeShon Watson the greatest QB of all time based on his limited rookie season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 No for me, we have too many holes. I would still trade up and have a vet. I know that you are expending the same resources but you’d be getting a safer prospect. A QB at 21 and one in the 3rd or whatever isn’t increasing your odds of success as much as a better prospect is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: No for me, we have too many holes. I would still trade up and have a vet. I know that you are expending the same resources but you’d be getting a safer prospect. A QB at 21 and one in the 3rd or whatever isn’t increasing your odds of success as much as a better prospect is. Plus you aren’t rolling with peterman and two rookies... so they have to like him enough to move on from NP unless it’s a real late prospect that can go practice squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Wouldn''t be opposed to sitting tight and taking Rudolph or Jackson or other QB at 21 and then following up maybe as early as the 3rd with a Mike White or Kyle Lauletta. The implication being that they would think White or Lauletta was a significant upgrade over Peterman - if not, then no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, NoSaint said: Plus you aren’t rolling with peterman and two rookies... so they have to like him enough to move on from NP unless it’s a real late prospect that can go practice squad Peterman is still eligible for PS too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: No for me, we have too many holes. I would still trade up and have a vet. I know that you are expending the same resources but you’d be getting a safer prospect. A QB at 21 and one in the 3rd or whatever isn’t increasing your odds of success as much as a better prospect is. We have no bigger need than QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Peterman is still eligible for PS too! And I’m not a huge fan but I think McD is who knows about our knew oc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, NoSaint said: And I’m not a huge fan but I think McD is who knows about our knew oc Think he'd get poached if we sent him to the PS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manther Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said: Like the Redskins did with RG3 and Cousins. Don't trade up but take the QB that falls to you, plus a next-rung QB in a lower round like White or Lauletta? As a hedge against busting out our as an asset to deal later? IF we did that we would need to cut Peterman or have Peterman as the vet QB. I think all options are on the table and up for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, SoTier said: This post is nonsense. How exactly does a team develop two great QBs at the same time? Are the QBs alternating snaps or games or what? And how would a team even know if both were busts after only one year if they were constantly being shuffled in and out of the line-up? I suppose you were one of those who declared Jared Goff a bust last season or have annointed DeShon Watson the greatest QB of all time based on his limited rookie season. No. Watson could be the next RG3 or Vince Young. I know quarterbacks have struggled under Jeff Fisher so I was never willing to write Goff off after one year. As for drafting two QB's in the first round it never is going to happen, but it would be interesting as a hypothetical. You can develop two quarterbacks at the same time. Offensive coaches can multitask. Then there's a competition for starter like the Bills had in 2015 (that was a 3 way competition) so I'm guessing you'd split the reps with the 1st team. You'd have them both start preseason games and let the best man win the starting role. The backup learns from the bench. It's such a good QB class and franchise QB's are so hard to find that why not double your chances of finding your guy? I regret the one year comment as you're correct as it's difficult to determine if a QB is a bust after one year. Even the Chargers kept Ryan Leaf for three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 17 minutes ago, jmc12290 said: We have no bigger need than QB. You don’t draft 2 QBs. You use the resources to go get a QB. You must understand that? That’s why the Eagles, Rams, etc... trades up instead of staying put and taking whatever was left and another later. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadingpain Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Why not? I'm on board with drafting a QB or 2 every year until you find one that is good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 I am kind of with Kirby. I'd rather use picks to get up and take the one we want in the top 5 and sign a vet. However, if you get to your pick in round 4 and a QB you have a 2nd round grade on is still sitting there sticking out as the BPA then yes, do it. But it needs to be that level of obvious for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VirginiaMike Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 I think there are too many other needs that must be filled -- O-Line, LB, WR, D-Tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 yes - if the top guy you pick is lamar jackson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 they just drafted a QB last year 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Allan in MD Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 I'd draft White and the kid from Richmond. Sign McCown as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 7 minutes ago, jr1 said: they just drafted a QB last year Yea... I think the OP means 2 who can actually play.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayboy54 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 If they don't trade the King's Ransom to move up and get their guy, then yes. I'd draft one in the 21st or 22nd slot and another one in the 3rd or 4th. If, on the other hand, they feel strongly enough to move up, I'd live with Peterman as the backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Only if the QB fell to the 5th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Joshin' Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 No. Assuming you keep Peterman and draft one in the first, the 3rd QB needs to be a vet to provide short term starter capability and longer term mentoring. Not a good plan to go with 2 rookies and 1 second year QB, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socal-805 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Gugny said: As long as they plan on addressing WR, LB, RB, OL and DL via free agency. I wouldn't use more than a 3rd or 4th on WR, LB or RB. Spend you draft picks on OL and DL. They need O and D line rebuilt. You have nothing at DT, and at least 2 maybe 3 holes on OL. Until the Bills find a QB, who really cares about WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 41 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: You don’t draft 2 QBs. You use the resources to go get a QB. You must understand that? That’s why the Eagles, Rams, etc... trades up instead of staying put and taking whatever was left and another later. The Redskins traded up AND drafted 2 QB's. It's not binary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socal-805 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, Dalton said: No. Assuming you keep Peterman and draft one in the first, the 3rd QB needs to be a vet to provide short term starter capability and longer term mentoring. Not a good plan to go with 2 rookies and 1 second year QB, Yeah. Buffalo already tried that a few years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said: Like the Redskins did with RG3 and Cousins. Don't trade up but take the QB that falls to you, plus a next-rung QB in a lower round like White or Lauletta? As a hedge against busting out our as an asset to deal later? ..or the '89 Cowgirls with Aikman & Walsh....."1 and 1A" I think they called it........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, jmc12290 said: The Redskins traded up AND drafted 2 QB's. It's not binary. It happened once (that I can think of) and arguably the worst owner in sports was at the helm. Trade up and have a vet, that’s the best course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 18 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: It happened once (that I can think of) and arguably the worst owner in sports was at the helm. Trade up and have a vet, that’s the best course. The issue there if the stories are true is Shananhan wanted Cousins all along. The owner and GM wanted RGIII. In the end it kind of worked for Washington and they still found a way to balls it up. Just what they do. What about my very specific circumstances Kirbs.... you have traded up and taken say Rosen at #3 given up both 1s and a 2 to do it and then you are there mid 4th and the guy sticking out as the BPA by your board is a QB with a 2nd round grade... a full round higher than your next BPA - say the White kid. Very hypothetical I know but are you still saying "no"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts