FireChan

That's true, but making it to the top 10 is a feat in itself. He had high expectations, but getting a top 10 QB is always nice.

I think that 7-10 group is a bit jumbled up and can go a lot of different ways.

I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. Being #2 was never my style.

Kinda ruins the purpose of a Private message, doesn't it?

The problem is every guy you take a shot on in the 1st round creates a hole on your roster. And filling that hole next year creates another hole. Again, what holes have we filled with picks 6-32? Shaq Lawson at DE? The reality is that if the Bills traded all their bad 1st round picks from the last decade for the next QB taken off the board in the same draft, they would be in the same boat now because not one of those QBs would have been a success (you MIGHT have a case with Flacco but I really doubt he wins a Super Bowl here with this coaching staff and roster at the time). Whereas if they traded all their bad 1st round picks for other players at other positions they would almost surely be better off now than they are. This is two fallacies meshed together. There is zero reason to suspect that the Bills highest ranked QB when they were picking was the QB taken next. I cannot stress that enough. For all we know, Teddy and Carr were their #1 and #2 QB's in 2014. We just don't know. To say that they would make the same pick that another NFL team did is a speculative argument at best. And then the second part. You say you the Bills should recognize they are not smarter than other teams, and that they couldn't have known what QB's were gonna be good, but they should know what other first round prospects are gonna be good? If this team had drafted Ngata and Orakpo instead of Whitner and Maybin, we still would not have had a franchise QB. Ergo, we still would not have found consistent success. The problem with Bills drafting past isn't that they haven't taken enough QBs in the 1st round - when would a 1st round QB have saved our team at our draft positions? - it's that they have drafted poorly. The solution isn't to switch over to a strategy that haven't remotely worked out since 2008, it's to draft better players in the 1st round. Again, this is the exact thing you argued against in regards to QB's. I could easily say, "just take better QB's." Same argument. You ignored my list of QBs taken in that range because there isn't really a good rebuttal to it. QBs taken outside of the top 2 in the 1st round are traditionally bad. Since 2008 the ceiling of that range is Ryan Tannehill. If I'm taking a QB at 10 he has to be better than Tannehill, that's pretty much the floor of legit starting QBs. The only rebuttal you could have is that just because it hasn't worked out in a while doesn't mean it won't this time. Which is true. But there's something to this. There's something about QBs that have enough flaws to scare away the early teams, but also have some wow factor that convinces other teams to overlook the flaws. If a good CB falls to you in the draft it's not necessarily because teams above you didn't like him, it may be that there were just better CBs taken earlier. Not so with QBs most of the time. Anyone that slides to 10, like Manuel slid to 16, has some kind of major flaw unlikely to be corrected. This is shown in the data too. I didn't ignore your list of QB's, I just believe it to be flawed for the reasons above. As much as you try to make Carr seem like Dak (he wasn't,,Carr was some folks' #2 QB that year), he was a borderline first round prospect. No one would have been surprised for him to go #30 overall. So to arbitrarily cut off the picks there is silly. As well as your "flaws" argument. Does anyone care that Carr had flaws coming out? Does anyone care about Dak? A guy either fixes them or he doesn't. Manuel is the perfect example about how taking a shot on a QB cost us virtually nothing. It cost us a first rounder in arguably the worst draft class of all time. It was irrelevant to the grand scheme of the franchise. The Manuel pick was about getting a guy who you think has or can acquire all the tools to be your 15+ year starter and I would never begrudge a GM for taking a shot on a guy like that when they don't have one. All prospects fall because some other teams like other prospects more. Not sure what your point is there. The Raiders would have been just as successful taking Carr in the 1st round, but the Cowboys would have been successful taking Prescott in the 1st round too. Hindsight like that isn't a reason to start taking any QB you like in the 1st round. The failure of drafting a bad QB in round 1 is twofold - you miss out on your QB, AND you miss out on a 1st round caliber player. For the last time, Carr =/= Dak. Dak was a Brady-esque shot in the dark. Carr was a borderline first rounder QB that the Raiders got lucky to acquire. That's not hindsight, that's what happened. If you're afraid of taking a QB because he might fail, you've already lost. And as for the "missing out on first round caliber players" the Bills again have taken one QB in the first since 2007 and they have 1 first round player drafted 6-32 on the roster in Shaq Lawson. So who have really missed out on by taking QB's?

Well that's just not true. He's not in my top 100.

I 100% agree with this statement but my conclusion is wildly different. If the draft is a crapshoot, and usually only 1 QB per draft on average becomes a franchise tier guy, you absolutely need to take shots on guys you believe in. Derek Carr would've been successful taken a round earlier. So would've Dak. And Wilson. If finding a franchise guy is dumb luck, then you need to buy some lotto tickets. And as much as folks bag on 1st round QB's who bust, let's look at Bills first rounders in the last 11 drafts who are on the roster in the 6-32 range. Shaq Lawson. That's it. You need to take shots on QB's. Oakland didn't turn their franchise around because of Khalil Mack. They did it with Derek Carr. Luckily for them, they ended up with both. But I contend that if we reached on Carr at #8 in 2014, we would be the ones who made the postseason last year, not them. And while I understand your take of "then all QB's would be taken higher" taking an early second late first QB prospect in the top 10 ain't that crazy. It just really isn't.

Kujo and a 2nd.

Laugh out loud funny that you ended up with egg on your face.

Yep, it's certainly well-documented. Manning was really basically overnight. First 7 games in 2014 he threw 22 TD's to just 3 picks. Last 8? 17 TD's, 12 INT's.

BADOL just needs to stop doubling down. Shady played great last year. Yes, RB's hit walls suddenly moreso than any other position. Yes, RB's can go from great to out of the league in a blink of an eye. Yes, there's a decent chance that happens to Shady in the next 2 years. But why keep pushing it?

Where do you rank Luck? Also, they don't? Link?

Well I took Greggy's words at face value, so I was assuming those were the circumstances.

The flip side is imagine if the Raiders took Khalil Mack and Carr was gone by their next pick.

Do you deny killing Syrians under the terms of a cease fire is a war crime?

No. You and I both know no one said that.

This is just shoddy work, even for you.

Safety help and cover 3. He'd be a much better fit than Gilmore. If Darby returned to form, Hyde/Sherman/Darby/S would go from a mediocre group to very solid.

Maybe he is. Why would you call out somebody before you know? If he said, "actually, I spent the entirety of last year repairing cleft palates in Africa for free," you'd look like a total !@#$. And you'd have to apologize. But hey, keep on keeping on. If we were judging folks on what their posts "sound like," I'd say you sound like an ass.

There are degrees of success. You can't win a Superbowl or playoff game without first making the playoffs. If you ask me if I'd be content with a playoff loss every year, the answer would be no. But make no mistake, I'd take the 99.9% chance of losing in the playoffs every year over never making it. Some teams win on just dumb luck or get streaky or what have you. But you can never, ever, ever get hot/lucky in the playoffs if you're golfing.

Is the media being played or in on it? I can say that truthfully, I've never been more inclined to believe in so called "conspiracy theories" more than right now. This seems to be the most tumultuous Presidency in my lifetime, and it's been 3 months.

You called him a terrible father and husband. You don't know the first thing about him. You honestly come off like a much worse person here. It's really telling how quick you are to personally attack somebody. I'd just bow out if I was you.

I'm not even sure what's going on anymore.

Because you have no context or knowledge of the situation. That generally leads to making yourself look like an ass. Exhibit A: your last handful of posts in this topic.