Bills Aren't Necessarily Searching for THE Best QB

[formerlyofCtown]

2 hours ago, Binghamton Beast said:

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

 

Gold? 

 

Silver?

 

Bronze?

 

They are all medals!

Or more than one is gold but also not everybody gets gold wedding bands.  Just as long as we have a successful marriage its good.

[formerlyofCtown]

46 minutes ago, Tyrod's friend said:

On the whole I agree with much of what you've said elsewhere ... but if that was all it took, to get 1 overall, then yes. 

Because if you are right, you are doubly right. You not only get that ONE guy at that ONE position, you also deny him to your divisional opponent and get presumably the next gen for your division at the time the Big Dawg is seeing a setting sun. With another 3 second round picks and coming off the second best 2017 draft, not to mention $100MM in cap space in 2019 ... it's playing chess instead of checkers.

But only, only to take the first QB off the docks. Its too much to pay for a 6' QB that grabs his crotch at #4 or #5. 

I Guarantee that would get you #1 but no one is going to give that.

[nedboy7]

3 hours ago, No Place To Hyde said:

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.

 

So he started games illegitimately? 

[Batman1876]

48 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I wish the draftniks would break down the QB by round results more thoughtfully than they do.

For one example is there any difference between results when a team takes a QB at 1 or 2 or 3 because they paid a kings ransom to get there, and those who just were at the that slot based on their record.

 

The challenge with this is that any data before 2011 is of limited use. That is the year the rookie wage scale came into being, before then your top 10 QB would also become one of the highest paid players in the league. It increased the risk of drafting a QB, you could end up spending 10% of your cap space on a QB who flunked out of the league 4 years before his guanteed  contract ended.  The rookie wage scale has made QBs more desirable as top draft picks, that is why we have seen more teams trading up into the top spots. 

[Foxx]

4 hours 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.  

[formerlyofCtown]

24 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

Everything is for sale for the right price.  

 

Cleaveland has pick #4.  They can give up #1 if they don't value the QB's the same as other teams.  They also traded for TT (I'm assuming as a bridge QB but you never know).

 

The Giants could end up with 3-5 extra picks in the first 3 rounds and possibly a pick or 2 next year if the bills decided to throw everything at them.  That's why they wouldn't sit tight at 2. They could basically get a new set of starters for a QB that will probably not even play unless he's lights out. 

 

If Eli is the problem and they don't replace him, they stockpile picks and can throw him under the bus in 2 years while they sit on a top pick next year and have another #1 pick to compliment him if we go that route.

It was a comment after the draft, not during or before.  Again, I remember hearing it on the radio and don't know exactly when it happened but it was after Whaley was gone.

Whaley was the GM during the draft.  you don't make the decision to trade down after the draft has already happened.  McD made the decision to trade down and get a QB and Pegs supported it.  Whaley liked Watson and Trubisky.  He wanted to trade up for Trubisky.  I think Pegs took one look at Watkins and went with McD.  Whaley had to go because he was not on the same page as McD.

[Batman1876]

Let’s say the Bills rank players on a 100 point scale. Let’s say they have the top QBs rated as 93,  91,91, 87,87. They have to ask what is the lowest number they would accept, what is the highest they could get and then get one that falls between those two points. 

[BuffaloBillyG]

16 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

So he started games illegitimately? 

Of of the definitions if illegitimate happens to be "not in accordance with accepted standards"

 

 

I would say 186 yards and just under a TD a game last year you be below the accepted standard...so yes. He started games illegitimately.

I

[Nihilarian]

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

Street and Smith was nowhere as near as good as PFW.   It was just a compilation of content from NFL beat reporters (i.e., Larry Felser-types).   PFW, on the other hand, had the all-time GOAT of draftnicks, Joel Buchsbaum--who was nearly on par with scouts/personnel evaluators in terms of the amount of film work he did.    Boy, I miss his draft guide, which I devoured every year around this time...

,

Oh man I agree and probably why I put so much into each players draft grade even if it's from the NFL network now. 

[BadLandsMeanie]

1 hour ago, Batman1876 said:

The challenge with this is that any data before 2011 is of limited use. That is the year the rookie wage scale came into being, before then your top 10 QB would also become one of the highest paid players in the league. It increased the risk of drafting a QB, you could end up spending 10% of your cap space on a QB who flunked out of the league 4 years before his guanteed  contract ended.  The rookie wage scale has made QBs more desirable as top draft picks, that is why we have seen more teams trading up into the top spots. 

Thank you Batman

2 hours ago, Tyrod's friend said:

I don't think there's enough of a sample to make a conclusion. Really the game changed in 2012 with the rookie cap change, and from where I sit, you're a bit nuts to draw any conclusions about 2 years of football. I mean ... does anyone here know if Watson or Wentz are going to return 100%? Wentz is a violent player and not every big QB gets to play as long as Big Ben. Mahomes hasn't thrown a truly meaningful pass yet.

So you have 2012-2015.  

Call back in 2021 and I think you can make a decision.

 

Thanks

[26CornerBlitz]

They aren't looking for the best QB?   Of course they are and that's a big reason why they accumulated so much draft capital.   2018 is the time for them to get their guy. 

Edited March 23, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[Nihilarian]

1 hour ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Whaley was the GM during the draft.  you don't make the decision to trade down after the draft has already happened.  McD made the decision to trade down and get a QB and Pegs supported it.  Whaley liked Watson and Trubisky.  He wanted to trade up for Trubisky.  I think Pegs took one look at Watkins and went with McD.  Whaley had to go because he was not on the same page as McD.

It wasn't just Whaley that went as it was him and the entire Buffalo Bills scouting staff. I heard stories about how bad those guys were at their jobs. I think they were all going to be fired long before the draft and it just made no sense to fire them until draft after the draft. 

 

I also don't think McD trusted them to properly evaluate QB talent after EJ. Plus, he might have wanted to see if he could make things work with Tyrod Taylor. 

 

 

 

On another note, this FO looks like they want Josh Rosen. http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/02/josh_rosen_to_the_buffalo_bills_is_what_ive_heard_repeatedly_says_eric_galko.html

 

 

[NoSaint]

6 hours 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.

 

Im not sure how you can tell a guy what he means to say. Especially when he uses an example of several guys that are better than Tyrod.

 

ignoring that - it’s a basic draft principal if targeting needs. You group guys into tiers and get the last guy in the tier that’s on the board before the cliff and next ledge.

 

Taking the first guy in the tier - worst value. Taking the last - best value.

 

as with any pick, you have to generally have your evaluations right for the premise to hold.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by NoSaint

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

Im not sure how you can tell a guy what he means to say. Especially when he uses an example of several guys that are better than Tyrod.

 

ignoring that - it’s a basic draft principal if targeting needs. You group guys into tiers and get the last guy in the tier that’s on the board before the cliff and next ledge.

 

Taking the first guy in the tier - worst value. Taking the last - best value.

 

as with any pick, you have to generally have your evaluations right for the premise to hold.

 

 

I think it's unlikely that 3-4 HoFers are in the class.  Some might be really good.  Some might be okay.  Some might be fringe guys.  I find that a more likely scenario.

 

You tier guys for sure, but if someone is in a tier all on their own, that's the guy I want.

Edited March 23, 2018 by jmc12290

[NoSaint]

1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

I think it's unlikely that 3-4 HoFers are in the class.  Some might be really good.  Some might be okay.  Some might be fringe guys.  I find that a more likely scenario.

 

You tier guys for sure, but if someone is in a tier all on their own, that's the guy I want.

 

I agree there are not likely 4 franchise guys, but the example he used was that great class. He clearly wasn’t saying get a Tyrod type.

 

Also agree that if one stands alone- let’s go get him (even if unlikely, try)

[RollBillsRoll]

 couple questions...

1) do teams look at the draft positions and returning players of teams in their divisions,  And does it play into draft strategy?  

 

2) if most on here believe the wr Corp and  oline will be subpar, is there a qb in the draft good enough to nullify that?  Didn't Eli threaten to sit out a year if the chargers drafted him because the supporting cast was not good enough? 

 

3) how far ahead do teams look when planning draftees?  Bama has a phenom sophomore, as does georgia, another great sophomore just transferred from Georgia to Washington. I'm sure several other college teams have potential Josh Rosens on their roster.  Does that play into a draft strategies this far in advance? 

 

This draft strategy is some interesting stuff! 

[bills11]

7 hours 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.  

Thats usually the case to an extent when trading up for quarterbacks..youre trying to determine how far you need to go to acquire a prospect..when the redskins went up to the 2 they did it because they were fine with luck or rg3...im assuming its why the jets are comfortable at 3..because im sure they would love to take darnold but even if hes not there they feel they can get josh allen or mayfield at 3 cus im not sure theyre looking at rosen because of his off the field and political musings

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

3 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Beane wasn't the GM.  From what I read Whaley wanted a QB.  He really liked Trubisky but McD vetoed it.

 

Good. He blows

[formerlyofCtown]

7 hours ago, Nihilarian said:

It wasn't just Whaley that went as it was him and the entire Buffalo Bills scouting staff. I heard stories about how bad those guys were at their jobs. I think they were all going to be fired long before the draft and it just made no sense to fire them until draft after the draft. 

 

I also don't think McD trusted them to properly evaluate QB talent after EJ. Plus, he might have wanted to see if he could make things work with Tyrod Taylor. 

 

 

 

On another note, this FO looks like they want Josh Rosen. http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/02/josh_rosen_to_the_buffalo_bills_is_what_ive_heard_repeatedly_says_eric_galko.html

 

 

They got a lot of good players for being bad at their job.

6 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

Good. He blows

A Patriot guy then.

[Thurman#1]

14 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

 

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.  

 

 

While I agree with the main point, I have to disagree with your use of the words "legitimate starters." They need more than that. Tyrod was a legitimate starter for us if that's what we wanted. Slightly below average but top 32. You need better than that. You need a guy in the top ten or twelve QBs.

 

If one or two guys are there, you think, it's very much worth trading up even if the cost is exorbitant, over getting a legitimate starter.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Thurman#1

[T master]

Any way you look at it one of the top 5 will fall to the Bills at 12 more than likely Jackson & or Rudolph will be there when the Bills pick if they sit where they are at & one may even be there later at 22 .

 

So they could get the number one LB at 12  which is a big need & still get a top 5 QB in the first round which would which would make the over all team better in both defense & offense for the near future & depending on how the QB developed possibly for years to come or it could be another player that could be used for a trade later ...

 

I believe McCaron affords them that flexibility !!

Edited March 23, 2018 by T master

[BadLandsMeanie]

9 hours ago, NoSaint said:

 

Im not sure how you can tell a guy what he means to say. Especially when he uses an example of several guys that are better than Tyrod.

 

ignoring that - it’s a basic draft principal if targeting needs. You group guys into tiers and get the last guy in the tier that’s on the board before the cliff and next ledge.

 

Taking the first guy in the tier - worst value. Taking the last - best value.

 

as with any pick, you have to generally have your evaluations right for the premise to hold.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

I think it's unlikely that 3-4 HoFers are in the class.  Some might be really good.  Some might be okay.  Some might be fringe guys.  I find that a more likely scenario.

 

You tier guys for sure, but if someone is in a tier all on their own, that's the guy I want.

I want to thank you 2 for having the courage to be upfront and honest.

 

Now I can admit that I too have shed many tiers over our quarterbacks.

[Nihilarian]

2 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

They got a lot of good players for being bad at their job.

 

 

A monkey throwing darts at the draft board could have done just as well. Simple go back and look over every draft year to see the talent missed and no quality QB. Those people failed to properly identify needs and the talent to fill those needs.

 

A WR for two first round picks and a fourth when the team didn't yet have an established franchise QB to throw to him was moronic. Even more so when just after the draft that year the FO came out and said they were still looking for that big, tall red zone target. 

 

Go back and look at the drafts for those years along with the free agent signings and then tell me a quality GM couldn't have done any better. 

 

[Foxx]

16 hours 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 problem with this thought process is that it is how you end up with a JP Losman. basically there are so many variables that go into the transition from college to the pro level that, outside of the consensus guys who are no brainers (even their amount of success is debatable), knowing exactly who will and won't succeed at the next level is nothing more than a crap shoot really. because of this reason, it makes the most sense to try and get the guy you think has the best chance to make that transition. 

 

several factors come into play in this decision though. you don't want to mortgage your future by selling out to move into position to get that guy. this is where reasoning plays it's role. whomever is in charge needs to weigh all the factors involved and determine whether or not it is worth the cost. if the cost is deemed to be cost prohibitive, then the next guy on the list comes into play and the deductive reasoning starts anew. so on and so forth. to just say that they don't want the best QB is ludacris, of course they want the best QB. the determining factor in getting that QB is a deductive process that is different for each of those responsible.

[Shaw66]

I didn't intend this thread to be a general QB discussion but seeing people valuing one QB or another made me to look at the Parcells QB requirements.  

 

Three year starter, graduate, over 60% completions, 30 starts, 23 wins, 2-1 td  to Int ratio.  

 

Mayfield and Rudolph. 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Shaw66

[Mojo44]

13 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

 

So he started games illegitimately? 

No, he just sucked real bad. The only quarterback statistic that matters is wins. The bills made the playoffs in spite of him. What was it, for the last five games he couldn’t even engineer a touchdown in the last quarter?No, he just sucked real bad. The only quarterback statistic that matters is wins. The bills made the playoffs in spite of him. What was it, for the last five games he couldn’t even engineer a touchdown in the last quarter.

 

I can’t believe that there is still a lingering narrative that Taylor was anything but horrible.

[BadLandsMeanie]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I didn't intend this thread to be a general QB discussion but seeing people valuing one QB or another made me to look at the Parcells QB requirements.  

 

Three year starter, graduate, over 60% completions, 30 starts, 23 wins, 2-1 td  to Int ratio.  

 

Mayfield and Rudolph. 

 

 

This is helpful thanks for looking that up Shaw.

 

I think maybe the criteria are harder to meet now because guys opt to come out in their junior year and maybe other changes to the college game. 

 

 

But still it is a nice way to cut through the noise of the draft and at least get some firm point of reference.

 

 

1 hour ago, Mojo44 said:

No, he just sucked real bad. The only quarterback statistic that matters is wins. The bills made the playoffs in spite of him. What was it, for the last five games he couldn’t even engineer a touchdown in the last quarter?No, he just sucked real bad. The only quarterback statistic that matters is wins. The bills made the playoffs in spite of him. What was it, for the last five games he couldn’t even engineer a touchdown in the last quarter.

 

I can’t believe that there is still a lingering narrative that Taylor was anything but horrible.

It is because we haven't had a legitimate starter here in 20 years or more. We don't even know what it looks like.

 

Jim Kelly was on the wane his last year or more. So basically between then and now we had Drew Bledsoe's first year that was legit. And everything else has just been hype out of the Bills and the press(on and off).

 

And when we get to see a top guy come in to play at the Ralph, we are too busy hating him to observe what he does.

 

So against that background Tyrod looked pretty good. You can't really blame people. Some of them have never seen a good starting QB in a Bills uniform in their entire life.

Edited March 23, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[Shaw66]

28 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

This is helpful thanks for looking that up Shaw.

 

I think maybe the criteria are harder to meet now because guys opt to come out in their junior year and maybe other changes to the college game. 

 

 

 

Yes, some guys come out early, but then again, their seasons are longer than they used to be.   A lot of these guys are playing 13-14 games a year now.  

 

AND - if the guy stays in college, gets a degree and starts for three seasons, that says something about the guy.   One reason Parcells had this three years starting rule, I'm sure, was that if don't have three seasons of film to watch on the guy, you really don't know enough about him to make a big investment.

 

Plus, Rosen had three years starting and didn't get to 23 wins.   He was injured a bit, but he have needed to go 6-0 or 6-1 in the games he missed to get to 23.  So he wasn't on pace to get where Parcells wanted him to be.   

 

Darnold, on the other hand, was blowing away the stats requirements, but only started for two seasons.   He's the kind of guy who looks so good, staying in school is more likely to hurt his draft stock, not help it.  

 

 

[26CornerBlitz]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I didn't intend this thread to be a general QB discussion but seeing people valuing one QB or another made me to look at the Parcells QB requirements.  

 

Three year starter, graduate, over 60% completions, 30 starts, 23 wins, 2-1 td  to Int ratio.  

 

Mayfield and Rudolph. 

 

Stats without context mean very little. 

[Shaw66]

8 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Stats without context mean very little. 

This is all discussion about how to approach the process.   

 

I think Parcells had a discipline.   He followed this rule to make a first cut of candidates.   If you asked him, he would agree, I think, that applying this discipline means that he will miss on some guys who didn't make this cut - that is, some guys that don't make the cut are going to succeed.   Parcells was okay with that, because the discipline was more about eliminating from consideration most of the guys who aren't going to make it.   That is, his criteria were intended to minimize mistakes.   

 

I heard a story once, true story, about a guy who was responsible for hiring in his company.   When he was asked how he selected candidates for a particular  job, he said he made two piles of resumes - one with history majors who played intercollegiate team sports, the other with everyone else.   Then he looked quickly through the everyone else pile to see if there was anyone there who might make it.   But he actually did just about all of his hiring out of the history major pile.   He did that because they had found over the years that those were the people who succeeded in that position.  When they hired good looking candidates from the other pile, they failed more often than succeeded.   Why history majors who played sports?   Because in the company, they worked in teams, and their business required big picture analysis.   History is a big picture discipline.   

 

I think Parcells was doing the same thing.   What he had learned, or his gut told him, was that guys who didn't meet the criteria tended to fail in the NFL at a significantly higher rate than the guys who did meet them.   

 

So, for example, Darnold doesn't meet them.   Does that mean he'll fail?   No, but if he succeeds in the NFL, it will mean he's an outlier.   Parcell's discipline says if you want to pick Darnold, you hae to realize you're betting on him being an outlier, which means the odds of his succeeding should be expected to be less than they would appear.  

 

It's all just a guide.   

 

[GoBills808]

20 hours 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.

 

 

 

If you're at 60% when you get it all in, over the long run you profit. 

[GreggTX]

I'd love to see us escape QB purgatory for the 1st time in 2 decades and I'm a defense-first guy.

[nedboy7]

5 hours ago, Mojo44 said:

No, he just sucked real bad. The only quarterback statistic that matters is wins. The bills made the playoffs in spite of him. What was it, for the last five games he couldn’t even engineer a touchdown in the last quarter?No, he just sucked real bad. The only quarterback statistic that matters is wins. The bills made the playoffs in spite of him. What was it, for the last five games he couldn’t even engineer a touchdown in the last quarter.

 

I can’t believe that there is still a lingering narrative that Taylor was anything but horrible.

 

So he made the playoffs. I still can’t believe the lack of appreciation as to what he brought to the team. But yeah go ahead and keep bashing. Show your class. 

[formerlyofCtown]

8 hours ago, Nihilarian said:

A monkey throwing darts at the draft board could have done just as well. Simple go back and look over every draft year to see the talent missed and no quality QB. Those people failed to properly identify needs and the talent to fill those needs.

 

A WR for two first round picks and a fourth when the team didn't yet have an established franchise QB to throw to him was moronic. Even more so when just after the draft that year the FO came out and said they were still looking for that big, tall red zone target. 

 

Go back and look at the drafts for those years along with the free agent signings and then tell me a quality GM couldn't have done any better. 

 

None of our other GMs did.  Player personnel was not a week point.  He had a lousy training staff and couldn't get along with coaches he didn't choose.  You are just another guy that evaluates with his emotions and not his head.

[formerlyofCtown]

9 hours ago, Nihilarian said:

A monkey throwing darts at the draft board could have done just as well. Simple go back and look over every draft year to see the talent missed and no quality QB. Those people failed to properly identify needs and the talent to fill those needs.

 

A WR for two first round picks and a fourth when the team didn't yet have an established franchise QB to throw to him was moronic. Even more so when just after the draft that year the FO came out and said they were still looking for that big, tall red zone target. 

 

Go back and look at the drafts for those years along with the free agent signings and then tell me a quality GM couldn't have done any better. 

 

I Have gone back and it is pretty impressive aside from QB which could be argued was Nix pick.  I'm not a closed minded individual and I'm not to proud to risk getting proven wrong.

[billsredneck1]

10 hours ago, T master said:

Any way you look at it one of the top 5 will fall to the Bills at 12 more than likely Jackson & or Rudolph will be there when the Bills pick if they sit where they are at & one may even be there later at 22 .

 

So they could get the number one LB at 12  which is a big need & still get a top 5 QB in the first round which would which would make the over all team better in both defense & offense for the near future & depending on how the QB developed possibly for years to come or it could be another player that could be used for a trade later ...

 

I believe McCaron affords them that flexibility !!

a.j could be....i think, will be a star!

[GreggTX]

I'm worried about this. All these top QB's have question marks and moving up to #2 will cost us dearly. I just keep thinking of the time the skins traded away all those picks for RG3. Think of all the solid players we could get for all those picks. Oh well, it's a passing-too-damn-much league now.

[Buffalo Boy]

On 3/22/2018 at 5:05 PM, Jobot said:

Point Blank Period!

Shouldn’t it be “ Point blank Exclamation point” with out any punctuation at the end or just “ Point Blank!” 

Point Blank Period!  ???

Who says that????

?

[billsredneck1]

7 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

This is all discussion about how to approach the process.   

 

I think Parcells had a discipline.   He followed this rule to make a first cut of candidates.   If you asked him, he would agree, I think, that applying this discipline means that he will miss on some guys who didn't make this cut - that is, some guys that don't make the cut are going to succeed.   Parcells was okay with that, because the discipline was more about eliminating from consideration most of the guys who aren't going to make it.   That is, his criteria were intended to minimize mistakes.   

 

I heard a story once, true story, about a guy who was responsible for hiring in his company.   When he was asked how he selected candidates for a particular  job, he said he made two piles of resumes - one with history majors who played intercollegiate team sports, the other with everyone else.   Then he looked quickly through the everyone else pile to see if there was anyone there who might make it.   But he actually did just about all of his hiring out of the history major pile.   He did that because they had found over the years that those were the people who succeeded in that position.  When they hired good looking candidates from the other pile, they failed more often than succeeded.   Why history majors who played sports?   Because in the company, they worked in teams, and their business required big picture analysis.   History is a big picture discipline.   

 

I think Parcells was doing the same thing.   What he had learned, or his gut told him, was that guys who didn't meet the criteria tended to fail in the NFL at a significantly higher rate than the guys who did meet them.   

 

So, for example, Darnold doesn't meet them.   Does that mean he'll fail?   No, but if he succeeds in the NFL, it will mean he's an outlier.   Parcell's discipline says if you want to pick Darnold, you hae to realize you're betting on him being an outlier, which means the odds of his succeeding should be expected to be less than they would appear.  

 

It's all just a guide.   

 

mayfield and mason check the boxes,,,,

[Buffalo Boy]

On 3/22/2018 at 5:41 PM, Batman1876 said:

Or how you end up with Phillip Rivers. 

Or Dan Marino 

On 3/22/2018 at 5:54 PM, 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

Unless three of them are making serious hay in this league, in which case it becomes the new ‘83 

On 3/22/2018 at 5:58 PM, PBLESS said:

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. 

That has clearly NOT been true in the recent past but “ so far” McBeane seems to be on the right path