Bills Aren't Necessarily Searching for THE Best QB

[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