Sal C: "Despite Roster Holes, Bills still need to be aggressive for QB"

[BillsVet]

11 hours ago, JOSH HUFF said:

Just because you pick a QB at #1 overall does not mean your getting an amazing QB.  Best QB's of all time in my opinion Brady & Montana and they were not first round draft picks. Favre was not a first round pick. Rodgers & Brees were mid to late first rounders.  Why toss all your picks at 1 player who could be a bust!  The best QB could be Falk or Mason who knows.  But saying we got a franchise guy because we picked a QB at number 1 or 2 overall, come on!!  How did JaMarcus Russel, Robert Griffen, & David Carr turn out?  Do you feel any of these guys are the next Peyton Manning?  If so, tell me why. 

 

Montana was drafted in 1979. Brady in 2000. While we're at it, how about Johnny U in the 9th round of the 1957 draft. Or Bart Starr in the 17th round in '56?

 

The past does not predict the future and those who abhor risks to gain security will themselves realize failure.

 

2 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

Sal is correct.

 

For nearly 60 years, this team has taken a single approach to the QB position that amounts to nothing more than "let's work with whoever nobody else wanted".

 

How has that worked out for them?

 

Amazingly, I still see plenty of posts on this board advocating for that exact thought process.  "Let's stay at 12", "fill needs first", "nobody scouts QBs well anyway, so it doesn't make a difference where you pick one".  I don't mean to marginalize opinions; the fact of the matter is that 50% of the franchise QBs in the NFL today come from top-5 picks in round 1 of the draft, while the other 50% come from somewhere in the other 250 picks.  The odds change significantly when teams get to pick from the premium talent.

 

Be bold.  If not now, then when?

 

Nah...you can build an OL in FA and the draft in a single offseason.  This team did it only a few seasons ago with guys like Incognito, Miller, and Mills.

 

Try taking the same approach to the QB position and you end up where Buffalo has been for 20 years.

 

You and I haven't agreed much over the years, but this post is indeed spot-on. There needs to be a change in strategy and I sense that has occurred at OBD.

 

36 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I am in favor of trying for one of the top 3 with a trade up to #5 to #8.  Or seeing what  is available at #12.  Or rebuilding and taking a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round.   As to what is around in 2019, lets wait a while and see what happens after the 2019 college season.   By the way, have you ever seen Walter football ever say anything good about the Bills?

 

No team without a top QB has truly rebuilt. And the likeliest place to find them is at the top of the first round. It remains a nuanced discussion (which isn't suited to a message board) but the idea you can settle for a 2nd/3rd rounder to focus on positions of less value is asinine. (EDIT) Or, hope someone falls into picks 6 and later. It's time to be aggressive and stop being passive about finding your QB of the future.

 

The fact remains that being afraid of taking a QB is what has led Buffalo, as bandit said above, into mediocrity. They chose one dude, hoped he would work out, saw him fail, and had nothing behind that guy. It is a strategy for losing. And frankly, I don't care what "walter football" has to say. Their site carries too much advertisements and is in no way quality.

 

I'll take ourlads anyday and I recommend their draft guides.

Edited April 11, 2018 by BillsVet

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

    

  Bounty?  There are several names with positives along with negatives for QB's.  It's a lot easier to roll the dice when it is one pick for one player such as it is when you finish in the top 5 in terms of draft slots. 

 

 

Sorry, my fault. I left out the quotation marks. "Bounty" isn't my word, it's the reporters. 

 

And yes, "bounty." This is a good year for QBs. It's pretty good odds we get four QBs in the first seven picks. How often does that happen?

 

But again, thanks. I'll go back and put in quotation marks. Sorry again.

[FeelingOnYouboty]

Don't even know why we even entertain the 'stay put at 12' brigade. It's not happening. Accept that we're moving up now and you'll feel better. We traded away asset after asset in the last year because we're targeting a QB. Don't think for a second Brandon Beane is just going to wait it out at #12 to take a Mason Rudolph lol.

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, FeelingOnYouboty said:

Don't even know why we even entertain the 'stay put at 12' brigade. It's not happening. Accept that we're moving up now and you'll feel better. We traded away asset after asset in the last year because we're targeting a QB. Don't think for a second Brandon Beane is just going to wait it out at #12 to take a Mason Rudolph lol.

I agree, but there may not be a willing trade partner. Staying at 12 would probably not be an intentional strategy, ( you don't move to 12 with the thought of staying there)but it's where they are right now. 

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  Considering that most of those names never touched a Lombardi and never will does not sweeten the argument.  There have been plenty of prolific passing teams that never won a SB.  BPA will often have just as good a chance to win it all as will drafting a high QB.  The way some of the trader-upper's conduct themselves here I wonder if they have any friends in real life.  Most people who don't let anybody else get a word in edge-wise usually lack friends.

 

 

Nope, that argument doesn't work.

 

Nobody argues that getting a franchise QB is a guarantee of a Lombardi. Why would anyone do so? How could having one of the top 10 or 12 guarantee a championship. It ain't one guy who is a franchise QB. It's lots.

 

What having a franchise guy at QB does is give your team a chance to be competitive for a title every year. A chance. Still, if your team botches the personnel game for a decade, even a good QB can be wasted, ala Philip Rivers. 

 

BPA will absolutely not have as good a chance to win it all. No way is there any way to even begin to prove that because virtually nobody actually picks BPA (think the guard who's maybe the second-best player in the draft this year after Barkley goes 2nd to the Giants?) and it's impossible to separate out BPA picks.

 

What we know is that there is only one position in football where roughly 90% of all Super Bowl winners have one of the top ten or twelve guys at that position. Quarterback. And no other. Not LT, not LCB, not #1 WR, nothing else. 

 

You need a franchise QB. Without one, you'll be one of the 20 - 22 or so teams each year over 10 years or so (roughly 200+ teams) out of which one team wins a Super Bowl. About 10% of Super Bowls are won by a team without a franchise QB. You don't want your team to be one of those 200 teams hoping they're the one, a 0.5% chance.

 

Much much much better to be one of the 10 - 12 teams every year that does have one of the best 10 - 12 QBs. Those teams win about 90% of SBs. So in 10 years, that's 9 teams out of 100 - 120, a roughly 11% chance. That's the group you want to be in. That's the strategy you want to use as your model.

 

Oh, and you're right, none of no-trader-uppers are in any way insistent or unpleasant. It's all on the one side, right through all the threads. Right.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Mat68]

They have holes.  IMO the largest holes are still QB, Linebaker, Wr , than Depth on the oline, linbaker, and secondary.  Top priority has to be QB.  Last year Mcdermott showed he is an adequate game day coach that can win games he shouldn't and have his team ready and prepared.  Even with Mccarron playing 16 games I think Buffalo still wins 7 or more games.  If that happens Buffalo is sitting right where they are now but without 22,56, and 65th picks.  Next year there will not be 5 Qbs rated 90 or higher in terms of quality prospects.  Buffalo must use their created pick surplus to move them into position to obtain one of those prospects.  The higher rated the better,  Bufflao has never drafted a high quality prospect at Qb in over 35 years.  They never drafted a qb inside of the top 10 picks in the franchises history.  I would offer 12,22,56,65 and 2019 1st for 2.  Get Rosen who imo is the most pro ready.  Use the second and third to find 2 positional starters, and the remaining picks fill the depth.  Maybe they can get Rosen at 4 or later but that would be taking on a large risk, he could end up in the division at the Jets.  Of the Qbs whoever they value highly this need to be the mindset.  Next year Buffalo has tremendous cap space and can really add players to the roster to move them into a perennial contender if they have a Qb that looks like a Franchise guy.  if that happens they will attract better players on the outside.  Build your foundation through the draft, that foundation is a franchise Qb.

[TheFunPolice]

[whimper] but guys... we might fail

 

 

[maryland-bills-fan]

1 hour ago, BillsVet said:

 

Montana was drafted in 1979. Brady in 2000. While we're at it, how about Johnny U in the 9th round of the 1957 draft. Or Bart Starr in the 17th round in '56?

 

The past does not predict the future and those who abhor risks to gain security will themselves realize failure.

 

 

You and I haven't agreed much over the years, but this post is indeed spot-on. There needs to be a change in strategy and I sense that has occurred at OBD.

 

 

No team without a top QB has truly rebuilt. And the likeliest place to find them is at the top of the first round. It remains a nuanced discussion (which isn't suited to a message board) but the idea you can settle for a 2nd/3rd rounder to focus on positions of less value is asinine. (EDIT) Or, hope someone falls into picks 6 and later. It's time to be aggressive and stop being passive about finding your QB of the future.

 

The fact remains that being afraid of taking a QB is what has led Buffalo, as bandit said above, into mediocrity. They chose one dude, hoped he would work out, saw him fail, and had nothing behind that guy. It is a strategy for losing. And frankly, I don't care what "walter football" has to say. Their site carries too much advertisements and is in no way quality.

 

I'll take ourlads anyday and I recommend their draft guides.

Heh?   Jim Kelly walking into a pretty good, under performing team when he finally came over.

[BillsVet]

25 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Heh?   Jim Kelly walking into a pretty good, under performing team when he finally came over.

 

Buffalo was 4-12 in '86 and 8-7 in '87.  Kelly's acquisition was so much different than drafting a QB. He already had 36 USFL games under his belt and was very good to start.

 

 

 

[maryland-bills-fan]

Just now, BillsVet said:

 

Buffalo was 4-12 in '86 and 8-7 in '87.  Kelly's acquisition was so much different than drafting a QB. He already had 36 USFL games under his belt and was very good to start.

 

 

 

Yes, he was experienced. My point is that he had immediate success because the groundwork was already in place.  If you try to start a rookie QB with a poor and disfunctional team- especially the WR and offensive line, how the hell is he going to learn anything and develop?  He learns that it is better to make one read and run with the ball because the linemen wiff on blocks and the  wide receivers can't run a 5 yard break to get daylight to catch a pass.   You ruin the guy if he has to learn to play in the NFL that way. 

[Rico]

2 hours ago, BillsVet said:

 

Montana was drafted in 1979. Brady in 2000. While we're at it, how about Johnny U in the 9th round of the 1957 draft. Or Bart Starr in the 17th round in '56?

 

The past does not predict the future and those who abhor risks to gain security will themselves realize failure.

 

 

You and I haven't agreed much over the years, but this post is indeed spot-on. There needs to be a change in strategy and I sense that has occurred at OBD.

 

 

No team without a top QB has truly rebuilt. And the likeliest place to find them is at the top of the first round. It remains a nuanced discussion (which isn't suited to a message board) but the idea you can settle for a 2nd/3rd rounder to focus on positions of less value is asinine. (EDIT) Or, hope someone falls into picks 6 and later. It's time to be aggressive and stop being passive about finding your QB of the future.

 

The fact remains that being afraid of taking a QB is what has led Buffalo, as bandit said above, into mediocrity. They chose one dude, hoped he would work out, saw him fail, and had nothing behind that guy. It is a strategy for losing. And frankly, I don't care what "walter football" has to say. Their site carries too much advertisements and is in no way quality.

 

I'll take ourlads anyday and I recommend their draft guides.

I think the change in strategy to move up and acquire a blue-chip QB is an integral and necessary part of changing the culture.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

15 hours ago, Logic said:

I read (and agree with) this article, and thought I'd share.

http://www.wgr550.com/articles/opinion/capaccio-despite-roster-holes-bills-still-need-be-aggressive-qb

 

CAPACCIO: Despite roster holes, Bills still need to be aggressive for QB

The team won't be in this position again with draft capital

SAL CAPACCIO

APRIL 10, 2018 - 10:58 PM

 

First, it was Eric Wood retiring. Now Richie Incognito.  Seven free agents have left for other teams, including starting middle linebacker Preston Brown, with no apparent successor in his place yet on the roster.  There are certainly question marks hanging over Zay Jones’ head after his bizarre incident in Los Angeles.

The Bills came into this off-season with several holes to fill.  They still have plenty of them, both short-term and long-term.

Yet no matter who’s retired or left, nor how many positions seem to have a need either at the starting spot or depth behind him; no matter the age or contractual situation of anyone, if their plan was to draft their franchise quarterback of the future later this month - and I believe it has been since last year’s draft - general manager Brandon Beane and head coach Sean McDermott shouldn’t waiver for one second and should stick with that plan....

-- click the link for more -- 

 

 

they are not wavering no matter how much the Holes protest