This is what I've been saying all along....

[Eric Moulds on my A**]

11 hours ago, mead107 said:

I am glad you think.  Thanks for letting us know what you think.   It is so important to make your own thread to let us know what you are thinking.  

Mom, thinking you could have put this in any one of the other threads about QBs

Mead how were your dreams last night? That thread was so riveting I could barely sleep.

Gumdrops and Lamar Jackson?

 

Advice given is sometimes exactly what we need to receive.

 

Feel me?

- The child with a fresh off the pedestal smile.

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Eric Moulds on my A**

[BillsFan17]

7 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

This isn't a fact, it's an opinion. A guess, really.

 

Nothing wrong with guessing, either, except when you start to write stuff like, "we're not trading up to #2," when actually you just don't know anymore than the rest of us do.

 

 

 

Only 3 of 7? Rivers, Ryan and Bortles? Wow, and here I thought Wentz was kinda OK. And maybe Mariota and Trubisky as well.

 

 

 

Yeah, but that group of picks wouldn't get us the #2. Or rather, that would be a huge bargain in terms of tradeups into the top five, a huge bargain.

12, 22, 53, 65 and next year's first is far from a bargain.

[Pete]

12 hours ago, Hebert19 said:

People thought Joey Harrington was a slam dunk too.  How did that turn out 

[mead107]

14 minutes ago, Eric Moulds on my A** said:

Mead how were your dreams last night? That thread was so riveting I could barely sleep.

Gumdrops and Lamar Jackson?

 

Advice given is sometimes exactly what we need to receive.

 

Feel me?

- The child with a fresh off the pedestal smile.

 

Riley Ferguson 

[Eric Moulds on my A**]

Just now, mead107 said:

Riley Ferguson 

Turd Ferg is a great fit for the Bills

[dlonce]

12 hours ago, H2o said:

We're not trading up to #2 because of the cost and I honestly don't believe we are trading up to #4 either. I don't think the Colts will swap with us unless we grossly overpay. So I think the 7 to 10 range is the most realistic. It will hinge on how the first 5 picks fall. If the Giants and Broncos pass on a QB that we want the move will be made. If the Giants and Broncos both take QB's then that means the top 4 guys are off of the board. Then we are likely stuck with a Jackson or a Rudolph ( @ that thought).

 

Whats the cost? No one really knows,it’s all assumption based on the Indy trade. The Jets were scared into that trade.

 

We may not trade up because the Giants might want to stay at 2.

[xRUSHx]

12 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Good there IS a significant difference in play from the top 3 QBs. 

 

Get to Two get your QB 

I agree 100%,

 

Sadly the way these QBs are being talked about we could have nothing left for one of the top 6 when we pick at 12 so IMO if OBD again sits on their hands waiting for one to fall the only thing that will fall is OBD again so in 2019 they could be looking again for a franchise worthy QB to use. I wonder if OBD will be trying to sign Tannahill in 2019 after Miami releases him. SMH if OBD doesn't get one of these prospects while Miami and the Jests have theirs from this draft the one we moved up to get just to fail because of the waiting for max value again.

[nedboy7]

It's like a mental ward on this board.  Frencheyes guyz!!! 

[Gugny]

"I think they have to decide how much of a difference is there between Lamar Jackson and Josh Allen, Sam Darnold, Baker Mayfield or Josh Rosen," Kiper said. 

 

That's a lot of words and names being used to effectively say nothing at all.

 

 

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

13 hours ago, mead107 said:

Tomorrow I am thinking that a thinking of thinking thread should be posted on every QB that the Bills might be thinking that they hope there thinking guys are thinking the trust is thinking clearly. 

 

Is this why you come here? Instead of simply not opening a certain thread, or backing out of it, you choose to go out of your way just to rag on the OP. How exactly is that any better of a contribution to the thread/board? So you think it's a useless thread...your posts in it are just as useless, so how are you any better? 

 

The OP gave his opinion, based off a

quote from Mel Kiper. No one forced you to read it. That's what a public forum is for, for us complete nobodies to share our opinions on a particular subject. That, of course, can include posts like yours, but they're completely unecessary. If the mods felt like this topic should be merged into whatever Kiper thread you're referring to, they will. Since they didn't, I suppose that they deem this thread worthy of being isolated. Maybe the OP could have simply posted his thoughts on that thread, but it would be buried there. And if that's the only way people should post, we'd end up having a "Mel Kiper" thread with 4,000 pages. I don't know about you, but definitely don't have time for all that. 

 

I happen to agree with what the OP posted. I have my opinions on the QB class, but nothing is guaranteed. It all comes down to how the first couple of picks shake out, and if the Bills FO believes there is a large enough gap between certain QBs.

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

Well said @Thurman#1

Edited March 29, 2018 by Drunken Pygmy Goat

[Thurman#1]

19 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

I didn't include any QBs drafted after 2014 because I don't think they've had enough time to prove themselves one way or another. (FTR, I always want QBs to have at least 3 seasons of starting).  I also didn't include Mariota and Trubisky.  Yeah, Wentz looks good and makes Philly look great to trade up to get him, but he has to come back from his knee, and he also needs to continue to improve his game.   However, Mariota remains a modest success at best.  If a team had traded a fortune of picks to move up to draft him, would they think they got their money's worth?  

 

Even if you include both Mariota and Wentz, that's all of 5 successes, some only modest, out of 9 QBs or 56%.  That's only slightly better than the percentage for all first round QBs.  Of course, 10 of the 12 QBs taken #1 between 2000 and 2016 have had at least modest success, for 83%, so my premise remains correct:   it's only the statistical success of the #1 picks that makes the "top five" QBs look like such statistical good bets.   

 

As always, whether to take a QB or not, and especially whether to trade up or not, doesn't depend upon statistics but on individuals.  If the QB the Bills want is available and they trade up to get him on draft day, that's okay.  If they trade up to any position except #1 before the draft, that's stupid.

 

  

 

 

56% is terrific, when it comes to franchise QBs. And dude, refusing to look at Wentz is ridiculous. The guy was an MVP candidate until his injury. Come on.

 

Not only that but when you can only look at seven players (eight, with Wentz), you can't tell squat. That's a statistically insignificant sample.

 

But again, ignoring that, 56% is damn good. It's not that far below the record for #1 overall picks and it's way above any other method for finding a franchise QB.