Bills Aren't Necessarily Searching for THE Best QB

[Shaw66]

I was thinking about the challenge of deciding on who's the best QB in the draft when it occurred to me that isn't necessarily the objective.

 

I mean, sure, you always want to take the best player available, and sure, the Bills will rank the QB prospects 1 to 20 or whatever.   But what matters most when you take a QB is to get one who's going to be a really good NFL QB.   If you could choose among Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger, what history tells us is that one may have better career than the others, but if you got one you were in good shape.   

 

The same may be true this year.   Everyone seems to have a favorite, be it Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield or Allen.   Which one of those you get is less important than if you get one of the guys in that group (or outside that group, for that matter) who turns out to be successful.   

 

Why does this matter?   Because it informs the Bills in deciding whether and how far to trade up.   If they think five QBs in this class are likely to have significant success, then they probably can sit at 12 and get a good QB.   If they think it's only four look likely, then they can sit at 12 but have to be prepared to deal quickly once a couple of guys fall off the board.   If they think it's three, they'd better start lining up a trade partner in the top 5 or better.   If they think it's two or only one, then maybe they have to move to plan B.  

 

The point is, there's no sense in trading up if you think there are five legitimate starters in the class.   Yes, you can trade up and get a better starter, but but the cost is prohibitive.   

 

I'll be surprised if the Bills trade up before round 1 begins.   I think they go into round 1 knowing the general outlines of deals they'd make with two or three teams, and then they wait to see how the first couple of picks go.  

Edited March 22, 2018 by Shaw66

[BringBackOrton]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

I was thinking about the challenge of deciding on who's the best QB in the draft when it occurred to me that isn't necessarily the objective.

 

I mean, sure, you always want to take the best player available, and sure, the Bills will rank the QB prospects 1 to 20 or whatever.   But what matters most when you take a QB is to get one who's going to be a really good NFL QB.   If you could choose among Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger, what history tells us is that one may have better career than the others, but if you got one you were in good shape.   

 

The same may be true this year.   Everyone seems to have a favorite, be it Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield or Allen.   Which one of those you get is less important than if you get one of the guys in that group (or outside that group, for that matter) who turns out to be successful.   

 

Why does this matter?   Because it informs the Bills in deciding whether and how far to trade up.   If they think five QBs in this class are likely to have significant success, then they probably can sit at 12 and get a good QB.   If they think it's only four look likely, then they can sit at 12 but have to be prepared to deal quickly once a couple of guys fall off the board.   If they think it's three, they'd better start lining up a trade partner in the top 5 or better.   If they think it's two or only one, then maybe they have to move to plan B.  

 

The point is, there's no sense in trading up if you think there are five legitimate starters in the class.   Yes, you can trade up and get a better starter, but but the cost is prohibitive.   

 

I'll be surprised if the Bills trade up before round 1 begins.   I think they go into round 1 knowing the general outlines of deals they'd make with two or three teams, and then they wait to see how the first couple of picks go.  

Legitimate starters mean guys like Taylor.

 

There's ABSOLUTELY sense in trading up to take which QB you believe has the best chance of franchisedom.  Point blank, period.

[fansince88]

5 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Legitimate starters mean guys like Taylor.

 

There's ABSOLUTELY sense in trading up to take which QB you believe has the best chance of franchisedom.  Point blank, period.

Except perhaps they dont think they need to pick a qb in 1st. Point blank, period. 

[BringBackOrton]

Just now, fansince88 said:

Except perhaps they dont think they need to pick a qb in 1st. Point blank, period. 

Well, there aren't awards for being wrong.

[fansince88]

1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

Well, there aren't awards for being wrong.

My point is we dont know what they plan. All we know is what we know. We know that last year they felt they needed to upgrade from TT. This year we dont know what their plan is except it doesnt include TT.

Edited March 22, 2018 by fansince88

[Doc]

They'll take the guy they really want and not reach for one.  And I doubt they think there are 5 franchise guys in this draft. 

[billspro]

I do believe Darnold is good enough to warrant moving up to number 1. I would be willing to trade 4 1st round selections for Darnold because I think he is a franchise guy. 

[BuffaloBillyG]

14 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Legitimate starters mean guys like Taylor.

 

There's ABSOLUTELY sense in trading up to take which QB you believe has the best chance of franchisedom.  Point blank, period.

Taylor was never a legitimate starter in Buffalo.

 

And really the only ones that can make sense of their draft board and if a jump is needed are the Bills. All depends on who they value the most. If they want Rosen and on their board he's far and away the best...yes trade up. If they have someone like Mayfield high they can see how the draft plays out and make a smaller jump possibly. If they have Lamar Jackson high they can sit at 12 and likely get him while keeping all their picks.

 

Whatever they decide to do one thing is certain. More people than not on here will complain and say it was a stupid move while half hoping the guy selected fails so they can keep crying out how they are so smart.

 

Point blank, period.

[jr1]

I hope they don't draft a QB for the entertainment on the forum

[gobills1212]

24 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I was thinking about the challenge of deciding on who's the best QB in the draft when it occurred to me that isn't necessarily the objective.

 

I mean, sure, you always want to take the best player available, and sure, the Bills will rank the QB prospects 1 to 20 or whatever.   But what matters most when you take a QB is to get one who's going to be a really good NFL QB.   If you could choose among Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger, what history tells us is that one may have better career than the others, but if you got one you were in good shape.   

 

The same may be true this year.   Everyone seems to have a favorite, be it Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield or Allen.   Which one of those you get is less important than if you get one of the guys in that group (or outside that group, for that matter) who turns out to be successful.   

 

Why does this matter?   Because it informs the Bills in deciding whether and how far to trade up.   If they think five QBs in this class are likely to have significant success, then they probably can sit at 12 and get a good QB.   If they think it's only four look likely, then they can sit at 12 but have to be prepared to deal quickly once a couple of guys fall off the board.   If they think it's three, they'd better start lining up a trade partner in the top 5 or better.   If they think it's two or only one, then maybe they have to move to plan B.  

 

The point is, there's no sense in trading up if you think there are five legitimate starters in the class.   Yes, you can trade up and get a better starter, but but the cost is prohibitive.   

 

I'll be surprised if the Bills trade up before round 1 begins.   I think they go into round 1 knowing the general outlines of deals they'd make with two or three teams, and then they wait to see how the first couple of picks go.  

This kind of bastardises the whole 'get the guy you love' thing. That, to me, is how you end up w a jp losman

[RochesterRob]

2 minutes ago, billspro said:

I do believe Darnold is good enough to warrant moving up to number 1. I would be willing to trade 4 1st round selections for Darnold because I think he is a franchise guy. 

  2018 - 2 1st's

 

  2019 - 1 1st

 

  2020 - 1 1st

 

  That is what you are talking and no thanks to that.  That is assuming they don't discount this year's pick at 22 and ask us for more to sweeten it.  

27 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I was thinking about the challenge of deciding on who's the best QB in the draft when it occurred to me that isn't necessarily the objective.

 

I mean, sure, you always want to take the best player available, and sure, the Bills will rank the QB prospects 1 to 20 or whatever.   But what matters most when you take a QB is to get one who's going to be a really good NFL QB.   If you could choose among Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger, what history tells us is that one may have better career than the others, but if you got one you were in good shape.   

 

The same may be true this year.   Everyone seems to have a favorite, be it Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield or Allen.   Which one of those you get is less important than if you get one of the guys in that group (or outside that group, for that matter) who turns out to be successful.   

 

Why does this matter?   Because it informs the Bills in deciding whether and how far to trade up.   If they think five QBs in this class are likely to have significant success, then they probably can sit at 12 and get a good QB.   If they think it's only four look likely, then they can sit at 12 but have to be prepared to deal quickly once a couple of guys fall off the board.   If they think it's three, they'd better start lining up a trade partner in the top 5 or better.   If they think it's two or only one, then maybe they have to move to plan B.  

 

The point is, there's no sense in trading up if you think there are five legitimate starters in the class.   Yes, you can trade up and get a better starter, but but the cost is prohibitive.   

 

I'll be surprised if the Bills trade up before round 1 begins.   I think they go into round 1 knowing the general outlines of deals they'd make with two or three teams, and then they wait to see how the first couple of picks go.  

  There has been plenty of these threads and you can dress them differently but the tone is pretty much the same.  People want to believe that there is a magical process to find a player and no doubt the pro's have a few secrets in that regard but it should be said there is no magic that is going to help us.  Which is to say such magic does not exist.  If the Bills move up and grab a guy then I will support it although I will not be happy about using multiple picks.  Something tells me that there is no one QB prospect that stands above the others.  

[yungmack]

While none of the QBs in the draft are Sure Things, Darnold is the closest to it. He's head and shoulders above all the other QBs, Rosen and Mayfield included. He'd be the only one worth paying a very stiff price to move up for. But the only way the Bills could guarantee that price would get them Darnold is to trade for the first pick. And there's not a chance that Haslam makes that deal. And if by some strange reason the Browns pass on him, the Giants are going to take him by all reports.

[Jobot]

Point Blank Period!

[BadLandsMeanie]

You are in Las Vegas at the blackjack tables and based on the cards you have and the ones you have seen out you believe that you have a 60% chance to win and a 40% chance to lose this hand. 

 

Do you bet your entire bankroll, and hitchhike home if you lose?

 

Or do you bet part of your fund and then steadily play the odds using your skill to assure that you have the advantage over time? 

 

Both approaches have merit but the more steady pace evens out the randomness of betting it all on a one shot advantage.

 

I think the player who bets it all on big shots, will eventually wind up hitchhiking home. And the player who consistently and steadily plays his advantage while allowing for losses, will make his living at playing blackjack.

 

I think McBean is the steady player and so I agree with the OP.

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

You are in Las Vegas at the blackjack tables and based on the cards you have and the ones you have seen out you believe that you have a 60% chance to win and a 40% chance to lose this hand. 

 

Do you bet your entire bankroll, and hitchhike home if you lose?

 

Or do you bet part of your fund and then steadily play the odds using your skill to assure that you have the advantage over time? 

 

Both approaches have merit but the more steady pace evens out the randomness of betting it all on a one shot advantage.

 

I think the player who bets it all on big shots, will eventually wind up hitchhiking home. And the player who consistently and steadily plays his advantage while allowing for losses, will make his living at playing blackjack.

 

I think McBean is the steady player and so I agree with the OP.

 

 

 

Nice analogy.  I have that sense about them as well, though I am somewhat more inclined to gamble.

[The Wiz]

50 minutes ago, fansince88 said:

My point is we dont know what they plan. All we know is what we know. We know that last year they felt they needed to upgrade from TT. This year we dont know what their plan is except it doesnt include TT.

I would have to look but I recall someone on WGR said that the reason they traded back last year when they could have grabbed Mahomes was because they were going to address QB in 2018.  I don't know if it was directly from McBeane or just wgr speculation but they acted like it was a "done deal" that they would be trying to draft their future starting QB.

 

 

Unless of course they meant AJ or it was just making it look like they had a plan but they didn't.  Who knows?

Edited March 22, 2018 by The Wiz

[fansince88]

9 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

I would have to look but I recall someone on WGR said that the reason they traded back last year when they could have grabbed Mahomes was because they were going to address QB in 2018.  I don't know if it was directly from McBeane or just wgr speculation but they acted like it was a "done deal" that they would be trying to draft their future starting QB.

 

 

Unless of course they meant AJ or it was just making it look like they had a plan but they didn't.  Who knows?

Well, Beane wasnt here and McD was supposedly calling the shots. Hard to say. 

[Lurker]

54 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

The same may be true this year.   Everyone seems to have a favorite, be it Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield or Allen.   Which one of those you get is less important than if you get one of the guys in that group (or outside that group, for that matter) who turns out to be successful.   

 

Interesting point.   

 

Even though Allen may be a notch (or two) below Rosen, Darnold and Mayfield, he may be more 'value-able' to the Bills if they can get him at #12 and use the rest of the picks to build a very good team.    Giving up those prospective players to land Rosen or Darnold might result in a better QB but lesser team--one that might not win as many games in the next 3-4 years, a time frame McBeane likely is most interested in from a contractual/career perspective (rather than the next 10-12 years, if Rosen/Darnold actually were to deliver HOF-type performance)...

[The Wiz]

2 minutes ago, fansince88 said:

Well, Beane wasnt here and McD was supposedly calling the shots. Hard to say. 

True but I think it was later on after the draft that it was said and could have been either one of them.  Again, I'm not sure if it was WGR saying it based on comments that one of them made or one of them actually said it but I get the feeling that they were planning on getting through TT's contract last year and then addressing it this year in the draft/FA.

 

Again, who knows?

 

 

[Nihilarian]

12 minutes ago, yungmack said:

While none of the QBs in the draft are Sure Things, Darnold is the closest to it. He's head and shoulders above all the other QBs, Rosen and Mayfield included. He'd be the only one worth paying a very stiff price to move up for. But the only way the Bills could guarantee that price would get them Darnold is to trade for the first pick. And there's not a chance that Haslam makes that deal. And if by some strange reason the Browns pass on him, the Giants are going to take him by all reports.

I agree with this and I think the only reason for trade talks is if the Browns and Giants don't want Darnold as their #1 guy.  Then and only then it would make some semblance of sense to trade the farm for that elite QB.

 

Darnold at 7.0 which is what they graded Wentz at. All the other QB's grade pretty close with Rosen at 6.1, Allen & Mayfield at 6.0. Jackson at 5.9 and Rudolph at 5.6. Like the 1983 draft, I think we could see six QB's go in the first round. Of all those 83 QBs, #1 Elway, #7 Blackledge, #14 Kelly, #15 Eason, #24 O'Brien, #28, Marino. Only one was a bum, 2 were starters and three were HoFes. 

 

What the difference between this year and past years is that this GM/scouting dept finally knows what they are doing and aren't just grabbing for straws like the team did with JP Losman to fill a need. What the team also needs to do that they failed at in past years is to truly develop a young QB. If they get Darnold I could see starting him day one and all the rest all need time to develop.

 

I wouldn't be unhappy should the team not move up if Darnold is already gone. Then take one of the top four at #12 if one should drop and if not take BPA at #12 and Mason Rudolph at #22. 

 

What's interesting to me is why the Pittsburgh Steelers have so much interest in Rudolph. 

[fansince88]

4 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

True but I think it was later on after the draft that it was said and could have been either one of them.  Again, I'm not sure if it was WGR saying it based on comments that one of them made or one of them actually said it but I get the feeling that they were planning on getting through TT's contract last year and then addressing it this year in the draft/FA.

 

Again, who knows?

 

 

I do remember the constant barrage of questions about the extra picks. I also remember Beane and McD saying that was a possibility although I think they expected Nate to be lightning in a bottle. I also think they are considering another off season with Nate and a later draft. Who knows really. No leakage with this group at all

Edited March 22, 2018 by fansince88

[Beast]

This is like.....what difference does it make?

 

Gold? 

 

Silver?

 

Bronze?

 

They are all medals!

[xRUSHx]

1 hour ago, fansince88 said:

My point is we dont know what they plan. All we know is what we know. We know that last year they felt they needed to upgrade from TT. This year we dont know what their plan is except it doesnt include TT.

So far the plan is dumping players to replace players. Dumping some other teams backup QB to sign another teams backup QB. Sounds exactly like the last few staffs plan.

[BadLandsMeanie]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Nice analogy.  I have that sense about them as well, though I am somewhat more inclined to gamble.

 

Well emotionally I would trade it all for a fairly decent chance at a QB.

 

But rationally I know that the Bills problem isn't that they refused to take  a big gamble on a QB. It is that they habitually refused to take any reasonable gamble on a QB except for every ten years or so.

[Batman1876]

53 minutes ago, gobills1212 said:

This kind of bastardises the whole 'get the guy you love' thing. That, to me, is how you end up w a jp losman

Or how you end up with Phillip Rivers. 

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Interesting point.   

 

Even though Allen may be a notch (or two) below Rosen, Darnold and Mayfield, he may be more 'value-able' to the Bills if they can get him at #12 and use the rest of the picks to build a very good team.    Giving up those prospective players to land Rosen or Darnold might result in a better QB but lesser team--one that might not win as many games in the next 3-4 years, a time frame McBeane likely is most interested in from a contractual/career perspective (rather than the next 10-12 years, if Rosen/Darnold actually were to deliver HOF-type performance)...

A couple of people say Darnold is THE franchise QB in the draft, head and shoulders above the others.  

 

Okay, let's suppose after all their analysis the Bills conclude Darnold is the next Peyton Manning and Rosen is the next Drew Brees.   Manning went number 1, Drew Brees went 32nd.  Do you trade all the way to top of the draft to get Darnold or play your cards to preserve draft capital and take Rosen?   I think if those were the facts, you take Rosen, but I think it's an interesting question. 

[Batman1876]

30 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

You are in Las Vegas at the blackjack tables and based on the cards you have and the ones you have seen out you believe that you have a 60% chance to win and a 40% chance to lose this hand. 

 

Do you bet your entire bankroll, and hitchhike home if you lose?

 

Or do you bet part of your fund and then steadily play the odds using your skill to assure that you have the advantage over time? 

 

Both approaches have merit but the more steady pace evens out the randomness of betting it all on a one shot advantage.

 

I think the player who bets it all on big shots, will eventually wind up hitchhiking home. And the player who consistently and steadily plays his advantage while allowing for losses, will make his living at playing blackjack.

 

I think McBean is the steady player and so I agree with the OP.

 

 

 

This analogy leaves out the ticking clock. You don’t get to stay at the table forever. Each try at a QB takes time and if Time runs out you lose just as badly as if you busted. 

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

34 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

You are in Las Vegas at the blackjack tables and based on the cards you have and the ones you have seen out you believe that you have a 60% chance to win and a 40% chance to lose this hand. 

 

Do you bet your entire bankroll, and hitchhike home if you lose?

 

Or do you bet part of your fund and then steadily play the odds using your skill to assure that you have the advantage over time? 

 

Both approaches have merit but the more steady pace evens out the randomness of betting it all on a one shot advantage.

 

I think the player who bets it all on big shots, will eventually wind up hitchhiking home. And the player who consistently and steadily plays his advantage while allowing for losses, will make his living at playing blackjack.

 

I think McBean is the steady player and so I agree with the OP.

 

 

 

No its actually not like that at all. The franchise isn't going out of business if the draft doesn't work out. We will still play again, being wrong or unlucky in the draft isn't a death sentence. It has happened before and your analogy is just more hyperbole.

Edited March 22, 2018 by horned dogs

[Batman1876]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

A couple of people say Darnold is THE franchise QB in the draft, head and shoulders above the others.  

 

Okay, let's suppose after all their analysis the Bills conclude Darnold is the next Peyton Manning and Rosen is the next Drew Brees.   Manning went number 1, Drew Brees went 32nd.  Do you trade all the way to top of the draft to get Darnold or play your cards to preserve draft capital and take Rosen?   I think if those were the facts, you take Rosen, but I think it's an interesting question. 

But the odds of success change. The real question is would you rather trade up for a 50% chance of manning or pick up a 20% chance of Brees by waiting until a later pick. 

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I was thinking about the challenge of deciding on who's the best QB in the draft when it occurred to me that isn't necessarily the objective.

 

I mean, sure, you always want to take the best player available, and sure, the Bills will rank the QB prospects 1 to 20 or whatever.   But what matters most when you take a QB is to get one who's going to be a really good NFL QB.   If you could choose among Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger, what history tells us is that one may have better career than the others, but if you got one you were in good shape.   

 

The same may be true this year.   Everyone seems to have a favorite, be it Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield or Allen.   Which one of those you get is less important than if you get one of the guys in that group (or outside that group, for that matter) who turns out to be successful.   

 

Why does this matter?   Because it informs the Bills in deciding whether and how far to trade up.   If they think five QBs in this class are likely to have significant success, then they probably can sit at 12 and get a good QB.   If they think it's only four look likely, then they can sit at 12 but have to be prepared to deal quickly once a couple of guys fall off the board.   If they think it's three, they'd better start lining up a trade partner in the top 5 or better.   If they think it's two or only one, then maybe they have to move to plan B.  

 

The point is, there's no sense in trading up if you think there are five legitimate starters in the class.   Yes, you can trade up and get a better starter, but but the cost is prohibitive.   

 

I'll be surprised if the Bills trade up before round 1 begins.   I think they go into round 1 knowing the general outlines of deals they'd make with two or three teams, and then they wait to see how the first couple of picks go.  

 

The reason why everyone has a different favorite is because all of them have flaws and each team has different ideas on which ones they can live with and which ones they can't.

 

5 years from now this will be looked back at as the most over hyped QB class in NFL history

Edited March 22, 2018 by matter2003

[RochesterRob]

18 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:

I agree with this and I think the only reason for trade talks is if the Browns and Giants don't want Darnold as their #1 guy.  Then and only then it would make some semblance of sense to trade the farm for that elite QB.

 

Darnold at 7.0 which is what they graded Wentz at. All the other QB's grade pretty close with Rosen at 6.1, Allen & Mayfield at 6.0. Jackson at 5.9 and Rudolph at 5.6. Like the 1983 draft, I think we could see six QB's go in the first round. Of all those 83 QBs, #1 Elway, #7 Blackledge, #14 Kelly, #15 Eason, #24 O'Brien, #28, Marino. Only one was a bum, 2 were starters and three were HoFes. 

 

What the difference between this year and past years is that this GM/scouting dept finally knows what they are doing and aren't just grabbing for straws like the team did with JP Losman to fill a need. What the team also needs to do that they failed at in past years is to truly develop a young QB. If they get Darnold I could see starting him day one and all the rest all need time to develop.

 

I wouldn't be unhappy should the team not move up if Darnold is already gone. Then take one of the top four at #12 if one should drop and if not take BPA at #12 and Mason Rudolph at #22. 

 

What's interesting to me is why the Pittsburgh Steelers have so much interest in Rudolph. 

  Eason's SB appearance was during my college years and the people I knew from Boston thought that the SB vs the Bears got in his head and was never the same confidence-wise afterward.  The Steeler's are due for Bubby Brister and Neil O"Donnell part 2.

[papazoid]

2 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

The reason why everyone has a different favorite is because all of them have flaws and each team has different ideas on which ones they can live with and which ones they can't.

 

5 years from now this will be looked back at as the most over hyped QB class in NFL history

 

or another super class like 1983....elway, Kelly, marino

[jimmy10]

55 minutes ago, jr1 said:

I hope they don't draft a QB for the entertainment on the forum

 

Book it man, first night of the draft, this place will M E L T  D O W N no matter what what happens. 

 

I see a certain logic to @Shaw66‘s thinking. Can’t-miss, slam-dunk QBs are pretty rare in the draft. And even those can fail spectacularly (see: Leaf, Ryan). So much of it is about the coaching, the scheme, and the pieces around him. Would Tom Brady, a sixth round backup from Michigan, be the supposed GOAT if he wasn’t paired up with Belichick? 

 

So while, yes, you want to find the most objectively talented players you can, you also need to consider all of those countless other variables when picking a QB.

 

We all know every team’s QB board this year starts with names like Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield, etc... But there’s probably not very many teams who rank them in the same order. Why? Because each team does it’s best job to analyze the QBs as players, as people and as pieces of the puzzle. Not just who has the best release or five step drop, but who’s got the best intellect, head on their shoulders, etc. 

 

Teams are handing millions of dollars to 22-year olds, so they very rightly do their homework on those people. They arrive at the best conclusion for their own situation, and make the best choice they can. 

 

All I can do is trust that our front office knows what it’s doing and makes one of the good choices this year. None of us can pretend to know how the careers of any of these players will unfold. 

[PBLESS]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  2018 - 2 1st's

 

  2019 - 1 1st

 

  2020 - 1 1st

 

  That is what you are talking and no thanks to that.  That is assuming they don't discount this year's pick at 22 and ask us for more to sweeten it.  

  There has been plenty of these threads and you can dress them differently but the tone is pretty much the same.  People want to believe that there is a magical process to find a player and no doubt the pro's have a few secrets in that regard but it should be said there is no magic that is going to help us.  Which is to say such magic does not exist.  If the Bills move up and grab a guy then I will support it although I will not be happy about using multiple picks.  Something tells me that there is no one QB prospect that stands above the others.  

I'm in total agreement. While i'm aware that everyone posting on this board is an experienced watcher, scout, excoach, whatever, I can't help believing that between the Bills group of scouts, the GM, asst. coaches, head coach  and alliances with other coaches, I HAVE to believe they have a better chance of making the correct choice than we on this forum. 

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I'm hoping Mayfield drops to 4 and we don't have to pay a kings ransom to get him.

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, papazoid said:

 

or another super class like 1983....elway, Kelly, marino

I dont see that...none of these guys is rated anything CLOSE to that level coming out.  That's a joke comparing this group to that one

Edited March 22, 2018 by matter2003

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

But the odds of success change. The real question is would you rather trade up for a 50% chance of manning or pick up a 20% chance of Brees by waiting until a later pick. 

That's true.  And that's where Meanie's Las Vegas analogy begins to make some sense.    When do you go all in?   

 

And it's more complicated than that.   Just because you know there's a 50% chance you're getting Manning doesn't mean you trade your entire draft for the next three seasons to get him.   There's a limit to how much draft capital you ought to spend to take that chance.   So, for example, it was a less difficult decision for the Jets to move to 3 than it was for the Bills.   But the point is still the same - if you need a quarterback, and if you see more than one that look like good bets, it isn't necessarily the case that you should spend what itakes to bet on the one you think is better.  

 

I'm not saying it's easy to decide.   Just saying it isn't even obvious what the objective is.  

 

 

[RochesterRob]

2 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

I dont see that...none of these guys is rated anything CLOSE to that level coming out.

  Even '83 was tricky for the guys who actually had to do the picking.  Blackledge was the top rated QB by more than a couple of draft magazines.  Remember that in 1983 there was nothing close to the media coverage that the draft receives today.  You had a few magazines and ESPN where Kiper was still more a curiosity than a revered "expert."  

[HappyDays]

I agree Shaw. When you look at draft history going back to 2000 there is only 1 QB drafted at #2 or #3 that has firmly established themselves as a franchise QB (that would be Matt Ryan, and Wentz is trending in that direction which would make 2). I personally think it's a poor choice to use a bunch of draft picks on one QB with a statistically low chance of success. I'd rather take my shot at 12 or 22 and fill the rest of the team around him. Maybe that QB won't work out either, the odds are still against it, but at least it wpuldnt leave the whole team in a hole.

 

Then again I do keep thinking of 2004 when I think of this draft. We shouldn't focus too much on history when you're talking about a relatively small sample size of draft years. It may be that this is the first year in a while to produce multiple 1st round franchise QBs. I'm glad the decision isn't up to me.

Edited March 22, 2018 by HappyDays

[Punching Bag]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  2018 - 2 1st's

  2019 - 1 1st

  2020 - 1 1st

 

  That is what you are talking and no thanks to that.  That is assuming they don't discount this year's pick at 22 and ask us for more to sweeten it.  

 

No thanks. Many highly rated QBs are busts and it takes a long time to recover from a Ryan Leaf.