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

[Thurman#1]

Love this bit:

 

 

"McDermott (and Doug Whaley at the time) didn’t trade down last year to get an extra first round pick this year to draft a guard.

"Beane didn’t trade Sammy Watkins and Ronald Darby for second and third round picks, respectively, to fill depth spots at wide receiver or defensive tackle.

"And I don’t believe he traded Cordy Glenn to move up nine spots from No. 21 to 12 to stay there and replace Brown or select the best leftover QB on the board."

 

 

Exactly.

 

Sal has a nice way of cutting to the heart of things.

 

Follow the process. Don't change horses in mid-stream due to apparent short-term needs.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

16 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdosUw3Z5XM

 Ouch

 

 

 

The butt fumble? Really?

 

And from what I saw, only one of the NFL plays there was a direct result of bad OL play. All but one came way outside the pocket with the QB trying to do too much.

 

And to continue, even a below average OL is a lot of protection. Staking a goat is a ridiculous overstatement. Historically, most top QB draft picks have stepped into situations with bad OLs. It doesn't destroy careers as long as the team works hard to improve the OL as soon as they can.

 

Again, wild overstatement unless there are referees in the thicket ready to throw the flag if the tiger goes helmet-to-helmet, or if the goat can throw the ball away to stop the play.

 

But yeah, it will likely make things more difficult for McCarron this year after the tradeup.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Thurman#1

[SouthNYfan]

27 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

.....and spending everything on the QB and nothing on the o-line is like staking a goat out overnight next to the thicket where the hungry tiger lives.

 

I don't disagree.

Need to have the king before you build the castle though

[thebandit27]

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?

33 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

.....and spending everything on the QB and nothing on the o-line is like staking a goat out overnight next to the thicket where the hungry tiger lives.

 

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.

[teef]

24 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Love this bit:

 

 

"McDermott (and Doug Whaley at the time) didn’t trade down last year to get an extra first round pick this year to draft a guard.

"Beane didn’t trade Sammy Watkins and Ronald Darby for second and third round picks, respectively, to fill depth spots at wide receiver or defensive tackle.

"And I don’t believe he traded Cordy Glenn to move up nine spots from No. 21 to 12 to stay there and replace Brown or select the best leftover QB on the board."

 

 

Exactly.

 

Sal has a nice way of cutting to the heart of things.

 

Follow the process. Don't change horses in mid-stream due to apparent short-term needs.

absolutely.  the bills did a lot of work to gather picks.  they have a huge opportunity, (potentially) in front of them, and they need to take it if they really feel strongly about a qb.  If for some reason the bills can't trade up, having the extra picks in a nice consolation prize.

[RochesterRob]

7 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

If anyone had actually said that because we picked a QB at #1 or #2 it guaranteed success, you'd really have a point. 

 

But what people say - absolutely correctly - is that picking a QB at #1 or #2 is the best place to get a franchise QB. Not the perfect place. Just the best place. That that's the way to maximize your chances. 

 

Sure, there are other ways to get a QB. None of those other ways have percentages of success anywhere near picking an early guy.

 

And by the way, it's easy to make things look terrible if you only look at the bad QBs. If you'd also included the Andrew Lucks, the Carson Wentzes, the Philip Riverses, the Eli Mannings, the Matt Ryans, the Marcus Mariotas, the Carson Palmers, the Goffs and Jameises and Newtons, then all of a sudden it doesn't look anywhere near as bad.

  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.

[bigK14094]

The problem w trading into the top 5 to get a "franchise guy" is that the odds of getting that caliber guy are still only about 1 in 3.......that is a bad bet imho.  I would take a good looking QB in the first couple of rounds, and fill all the holes.  Its the route to winning faster......and, if we had kept Taylor, we might have won with him at QB.  Face it, the Dennison era was a diaster for the O.......he only wanted his system to start, which didn't work, so he had to revert to some of what worked in the past.  And, the receivers we had were bottom of the barrel. (yes, even Benjamin after he was hurt)  Keeping those picks and getting a handful of starters is the way to go.  NEED wr, qb, ol,lb, cb......yikes.....need some serious help here.  Glad I dropped my tickets.......

[thebandit27]

3 minutes ago, bigK14094 said:

The problem w trading into the top 5 to get a "franchise guy" is that the odds of getting that caliber guy are still only about 1 in 3.......that is a bad bet imho.  I would take a good looking QB in the first couple of rounds, and fill all the holes.  Its the route to winning faster......and, if we had kept Taylor, we might have won with him at QB.  Face it, the Dennison era was a diaster for the O.......he only wanted his system to start, which didn't work, so he had to revert to some of what worked in the past.  And, the receivers we had were bottom of the barrel. (yes, even Benjamin after he was hurt)  Keeping those picks and getting a handful of starters is the way to go.  NEED wr, qb, ol,lb, cb......yikes.....need some serious help here.  Glad I dropped my tickets.......

 

Even if the odds are 1-in-3 (which I haven't checked, but will take at face value for the purpose of this discussion), that's still a much better set of odds than drafting a QB anywhere in the other 250 picks.  I'm also curious as to why you think that continuing the "let's see who everyone else doesn't want" approach is a faster route to winning?

 

The team has been keeping picks and drafting starters for 20 years; it's been a failure.  It's time to take a shot; I ask again: if not now, when?

[NeverOutNick]

In a year where AJ McCarron is probably starting half the year even if we do get the #2 pick and get our franchise QB, it won't matter if the O line is less than ideal because we can go into next offseason and focus solely on that (like the Rams did for Goff). 2 years from now when Brady is out or on his way out we can be tops in the division focusing on small holes instead of a glaring franchise QB need. 

[RochesterRob]

10 hours ago, Jay_Fixit said:

Get your quarterback

Protect your quarterback

Get to the quarterback

  It's just that easy?  PLEASE submit your name as a candidate for GM to the Jets, Redskins, Bears, etc. immediately!   

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2765375-a-way-too-early-look-at-the-potential-2019-nfl-draft-qb-class

 

This cycle is a weak one for QBs after the bounty in 2018, but Patterson is a potential difference maker if available.

 

https://247sports.com/Article/2019-NFL-Draft-A-way-too-early-big-board-for-2019-prospects-114189631

 

"2018 NFL Draft: Will Questionable 2019 Quarterback Class Cause Panic?"

 

https://withthefirstpick.com/2018/03/23/2018-nfl-draft-will-questionable-2019-quarterback-class-cause-panic/

 

 

 

Wishing it was a good QB year next year doesn't make it so. That's not the way it looks so far, and that's surprising because nearly every year is reported as being a good crop until the year comes and they start making mistakes in game play. But this year 2019 is reported as weak, maybe in comparison to the strong crop this year.

 

These are the first three reports off google, but it wasn't difficult to find a bunch even though a huge majority of the coverage is of course about the 2018 draft.

 

 

 

 

  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. 

[Chris66]

9 hours ago, jr1 said:

Richie was a dick to do it this late

He could have waited til after the draft if he wanted to be a douche

[thebandit27]

Just now, Chris66 said:

He could have waited til after the draft if he wanted to be a douche

 

Hey, whose team would know better about that type of behavior than yours?

[maryland-bills-fan]

1 hour ago, thebandit27 said:

 

Even if the odds are 1-in-3 (which I haven't checked, but will take at face value for the purpose of this discussion), that's still a much better set of odds than drafting a QB anywhere in the other 250 picks.  I'm also curious as to why you think that continuing the "let's see who everyone else doesn't want" approach is a faster route to winning?

 

The team has been keeping picks and drafting starters for 20 years; it's been a failure.  It's time to take a shot; I ask again: if not now, when?

There was a good article in Buffalo Rumblings (that I can't find now). It looked pretty well thought out and without an agenda. If I remember, he said it was 80% on the #1 pick and 50% on the first round.  The second and third were about 30% ?.   Because of the way the draft value chart really shoots up in the top 5, the best way would be (if you havent tanked) to draft a QB in the second or third round for 3 years. About 5X more "cost effective".  You can only try out/test out one extra QB a year, so there is no way to draft 3-5 in one year.  That seems to be what smart teams do- the Pat's just got one with Garo'  and traded him away before he hit FA.  A good plan when you already have a QB is to draft one in the 2nd or 3rd every other year.

[RochesterRob]

10 hours ago, par73 said:

The Bills will likely never have so much draft capital again. If they don't use it this year (which certainly seems to have been the plan all along), when will they get a QB (next year is supposed to be a bad year for QB's)? While waiting on a QB, your draft pieces (the decent ones) will hit free agency and need to be replaced again. QB stands above all as the most important piece on a FB team, and the Bills have waited since Kelly for a franchise guy.

Also, you can pick up decent Lineman and Linebackers in the mid-rounds of the draft, so you can still address needs (there are also some free agents still out there-- they already signed Wood's replacement).

  QB can't hit free agency?  If a guy such as Rosen feels that Buffalo is a bad taste he wants to wash out of his mouth pronto then he will only be here for his rookie deal and franchise tag year.  If he sits his rookie year then you would have only have had him for four years in practicality.  If he runs his mouth to the media as to how he sees Buffalo fans other than in a good light then it might not be that long.  I can already see the episode where he has a run in with a bunch of fans as we are chugging to a 3-13 finish forcing a trade as the Buffalo media lambasts him.  Heck, I can see him and his agent orchestrate such an incident to go to a more desired location.  The trader-uppers are acting as though QB's will never be made again after 2018 or the opportunity to get one from another team will never happen.  Many options out there people!

[maryland-bills-fan]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  QB can't hit free agency?  If a guy such as Rosen feels that Buffalo is a bad taste he wants to wash out of his mouth pronto then he will only be here for his rookie deal and franchise tag year.  If he sits his rookie year then you would have only have had him for four years in practicality.  If he runs his mouth to the media as to how he sees Buffalo fans other than in a good light then it might not be that long.  I can already see the episode where he has a run in with a bunch of fans as we are chugging to a 3-13 finish forcing a trade as the Buffalo media lambasts him.  Heck, I can see him and his agent orchestrate such an incident to go to a more desired location.  The trader-uppers are acting as though QB's will never be made again after 2018 or the opportunity to get one from another team will never happen.  Many options out there people!

Yea, Cousinau and Kelly and Simpson never tried any of that BS.

[BuffaninATL]

11 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

"........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. ......."     So run in the other direction???   How about a plan where we build a team and then bring in a good QB?  Why not trade a high 2nd from this year for a 1st for next year and trade a low 1st from this year for a high first for next year.    Invest the results from those into the next years draft (supposed to have some really good QB's) and get the guy then.  In the meantime put draft capital into long-lived meat-and-potatoe linemen and linebackers and improve the quality of tools

Does one of the three give you success?   What if you do the first but can't do anything (5% success) on the other two?  What does that give you.  I like rainbows and pixey dust too, but you can't do all three at the same time starting where we are at.

 

this crusade you are on (.....established after multiple posts espousing not going hard after one of the current, top QBs) is not resonating with me - at all. The kick the can down the road approach will lead us nowhere except middling (or worse) records, resulting in being stuck in draft purgatory. Per the bolded, are you serious? The dropoff in 2018 QB draft class vs. 2019 is more than huge. To not land a top QB (if possible) this year borders on irresponsibility and malfeasance. 

 

To wit, looking at 2019 QBs.........meh, not so much

 

http://walterfootball.com/draft2019QB.php 

[maryland-bills-fan]

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?

 

Here is an article you might not like about how well the pundits are at picking QB's.

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23039883/history-tells-us-nfl-terrible-evaluating-quarterbacks-means-2018-draft-prospects#Part1

Edited April 11, 2018 by maryland-bills-fan

[BuffaninATL]

10 hours ago, jr1 said:

Richie was a dick to do it this late

 

as if he had control over a medical diagnosis in which he was told MAJOR ORGANS are stressed to the point of dysfunction. Better to have this happen now than post-draft or later, for that matter

9 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?

 

Here is an article you might not like about how well the pundits are at picking QB's.

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23039883/history-tells-us-nfl-terrible-evaluating-quarterbacks-means-2018-draft-prospects#Part1

 

I am in agreement with your first 2 plans but NOT the "rebuillding" option. A QB in the 2nd or 3rd round is not the solution. Seems like you are OK with having it both ways which is not a strategy. 

[Like A Mofo]

I know a lot here point out busts and I get that totally: But regardless of that, what the Bills #1 goal is in 2 weeks is to draft a guy who COULD be a franchise QB.

 

The trying part is something that has eluded the Bills for decades.  If they miss, so be it. It is all about the attempt.

[BillsfanAZ]

I trust that McBeane will find a QB that will be best suited for what they want. If that is over paying some to move up to get the guy they want, fine, just do it so the sting of losing draft picks can ease already. If they cant move up then use the picks for the BPA. I would be ok with a QB somewhere in the first or second round if he is accurate on his short to mid range throws. Deep passes are nice but most throws are within 10 yards. Only McBeane knows what the offense will look like next year and what kind of QB they need to run it. I like that they run a tight ship without a lot of info leaking out. 

[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