FireChan

I would say not picking a player is the least bold move you can make with a draft pick

QB may not have to play this year. Win win.

I picked this play. http://www.buffalobills.com/video/videos/WK3-Cant-Miss-Play-Florence-pick-six/39c6c34c-9fc6-4255-b39e-1372cfef7075 Florence's pick six against the Pats, 24-24 in the 4th quarter, when both teams were 2-0. I picked this play because it was the exact moment I truly believed we were gonna have a great season. There was nothing flashy about the play itself, it was a fluke. But it was the day the Bills caught some breaks and beat the class of the NFL. And I thought we were in store for more. We had been unlucky for so long, starting out 3-0, beating Brady. It was like watching a completely different team from the last decade. And then the rest of the season happened.

QB over Fournette forever.

That's awesome, was happy to see he got picked up at Fox. What happened with BR. You and me both.

Actual friends? Rob's Knicks updates are always good for a laugh.

I don't know man. I think there's a much better chance Cam returns to the form that he's played at after one down year than a QB to do something that he's never done before.

I have also heard this.

Seymour better not suck.

USC boys.

Can we take a break from the action to ask WTF were they thinking with that line? Did no one notice that in editing?

Maybe they would've won 8 of them if their offense averaged more than 23.6 PPG.

But both defenses were better than ours. Almost all teams are inconsistent. Which is why setting the barometer at an arbitrary average is crazy. Better off doing a game by game analysis and letting the gross numbers fall where they may.

That's cursory at best. Arizona, a good defense, ranked 14th in points allowed, 2nd in yards, failed to meet that 23.6 PPG mark 7 times. Philly, 12th in points, 13th in yards, failed to meet the 23.6 PPG mark 9 times. That's the thing about averages. Allowing 10 points and then allowing 30 means you have a better average than allowing 21 points twice. It's why eliminating the good games, or only comparing the bad games makes no sense.

I think his argument is that if some folks truly stated how they felt about TT, they would have their opinions ridiculed.

Wait what? That's a strange analysis. Take out all of our defenses' easy games, then compare them to the rest of the league? The offense and defense both had their best games on the whole against crap teams.

Well the context is 6/7 of our highest point totals also came against teams with losing records. The story really goes that the Bills offense and defense both beat down crappy teams, and played kinda bad against good teams.

Inconsistent or beat up on bad teams? The only team with a winning record that the Bills held to less than 20 was the Pats with Brissett.

How could anyone know anything for a fact, John?

DROY to on the trade block for peanuts. Life comes at you fast.

Shades of EJ in 2015.

Why would he want to come here for cheap versus a contender for cheap?

When you challenge folks who say they believe he won't, it kinda lends credence to that assumption.

I already answered this in my original post. The Bills haven't filled holes with those picks but the solution is to draft better, not to throw away picks on a player that is very unlikely to succeed. But the heart of this statement is how do we draft better. The basic assumption you've repeatedly stated is that no team is smarter than the rest. Sometimes teams draft great players and sometimes teams draft busts. If all teams are equal, isn't it just luck at its most basic element? This is true but for the purpose of analysis I just have to go off the final draft board. You've argued well enough that Carr should be included so I'll grant you that. He is close enough to the range and it is definitely conceivable that he could have been a late 1st rounder. I dont know why Carr fell to the 2nd. Just looking at his draft profile... http://www.nfl.com/draft/2014/profiles/derek-carr?id=2543499 ...it looks like his main weaknesses were playing in a spread offense and playing for a smaller school. I mean it's crazy to me reading this profile that he fell as far as he did. He didn't have mechanical issues. He had good pocket presence. The last line of the profile says "Will be a starter sooner rather than later and the degree to which hes able to make those around him better will determine his ceiling." Yeah your guess is as good as mine why he fell so far but he is still the exception, not the rule. The first success since 2008. Yep. That's why I've repeatedly said that Oakland got lucky that Carr was there. He could've easily been the Browns or Vikings pick. Or someone like the Bills could've traded up to #33 and nabbed him. Some folks (not you) say that they believed in Carr's talent to be a day one starter and their guy. If that was true, they would've either taken him instead of Mack or pulled an EJ trade and gambled he'd last to the middle of the first. It's not definitively true that if we had taken Ngata and Orakpo we wouldn't have found success. As I said originally every time you miss on a 1st round pick you create a hole on your roster. Filling those holes takes more picks that could have been used on prospects like Wilson and Prescott. You can never know for sure if your prospect will work out but there is at least a decent shot, much more so than if you take a QB there. I mean, the teams that drafted Ngata and Orakpo only consistently won more games than they lost when they got QB's. Yes, sometimes teams get lucky and hit on a bunch of players and make it to the postseason once or twice, but it never lasts, FA sees to that. Consistent winning seasons in the majority of a period of 5-10 years only happens with a good QB. It's not the same argument because there weren't better QBs to take. There are better players at OTHER positions that we could have taken but not QB. The exception as I agreed would be Derek Carr, we could have taken him in 2014 and been in great shape. Is this truly a fair argument? I only ask because your Flacco take was that he wouldn't have been as successful or successful at all on the Bills. If that's true for him, why isn't it true for Hopkins, OBJ, etc? There's a better chance they'd be the same players on the Bills, but no guarantee. With that Bills scheme switching every year, would Orakpo have been as effective? Would Ngata? Maybe. Not truly convinced. And the converse is true. Maybe Jake Locker sees more success in Chan's scheme with the screens and horizontal game. Who knows? Just for your info, I was one of the few wanting to take another QB in 2014. And instead we tripled down on EJ by trading our 2015 1st. And here's the thing, if Carr lasted late into the second, maybe the Bills would've taken him, but we never got that chance. That's why i think you need to target QB's early. More importantly, I think if the Bills truly wanted to find a franchise guy, they need to do what the Colts or Panthers did and tank for a season. We would've been better off with no Watkins in 2014, playing EJ all year, and ending up with the #1, 2 or 3 pick. That or acquire enough assets to make a move like the Eagles or Rams did. That doesn't have a great success rate, but with a higher pick, you always have a better chance of getting the better QB prospects.