Drunken Pygmy Goat

Or the Bills are just doing their due diligence, in case a trade up doesn't work out.

Stats... Numbers never lie, but they don't always tell the whole truth either. Truth is, no one knows how good, bad, or average this QB class is (will become). Analytics is a tool, not an end all, be all. How much weight it carries depends on the preference of the person(s) using it. But you can bet that it does not carry anywhere close to as much weight as the game tape. With that being said, perhaps this year's class is being overrated, to some degree. The premium on QBs is obviously high, but if you look at the potential QBs in the 2019 class (especially if you want to get all analytical and look at numbers), you'll understand why the demand for these QBs in this class is as high as it is.

1) There's another forum for these types of comments. 2) You are using a defense/avoidance tactic against a post that wasn't exactly wrong. 3) These types of comments don't exactly help to paint you or your views in a positive manner...

The tweet was from today, not Sunday April 1st. It was the author's way of saying that no one knows what goes through Richie's mind, which alludes to the "crusade" comment. They even used the word "assuming" in the article. He very well could have fired them via twitter, but there's no factual evidence posted I'm the article that proves it to be the case. Besides, depending on Richie's contractual agreement with his former agency, he can tell them he's firing them however he wants. Maybe it's a bit douchey to do it via text, but it's not illegal. Peesonally, I think it was just a jokingly way of referencing a pop-culture Trump quote.

I did notice how they threw in the Miami scandal, and the racial slur thing, even though they didn't have to. It was an unecceary, indirect jab.

I wonder if PFT actually reached out to Richie, or his agent, to actually confirm their "fired via Twitter" theory. Considering the source....

Some of the worst, too.

This means nothing more than the Bills GM is covering all bases. Nothing to read into. I'm sure there's a QB or 2 that the Bills are willing to trade up for, but if a deal cannot be reached, or those players are gone, the FO will want to have done enough homework on other players before drafting them. There's not one single, specific plan of action. Beane (as any good GM should) has several plans in place, based on how each scenario plays out. Exactly

Stating an opinion as fact... Sure, that happens, but it's not guaranteed to happen every year, and there may not be a star QB outside the "top 4" this year. I wouldn't bet against it, or for it. And if I'm Beane, I wouldn't rely on it... It matters to all teams. Russell Wilson didn't sit. His coach gave him a chance in camp, and he felt it was best to go with Wilson over Matt Flynn...far from a franchise QB (but was paid like one IIRC).

Why would he be "IGNORED" by the media? If he's any good, he won't be ignored. If he sucks, he'll be glad he's not in New York... The whole "the media doesn't like the Bills/Buffalo" idea, which many fans seem to believe, is bogus. What the media "doesn't like" is a team that is mediocre for 15+ years, because they're not interesting. "Interesting" is what sells. Did you see how the media reacted to the Bills making the playoffs last year, and how they reacted to the fan donations to charities? The Bills and Bills fans/Buffalo got all kinds of love and run from the media. Why? Because what the team did, and what the fans did, wasn't mediocre...it was "good". It was interesting. The general public likes to see good things. They'll pay closer attention to them. A team has to be at least decent to make the playoffs...a "good" thing. People using an incredible sports story line as a reason to donate to charity...a "good" thing. If a QB comes in and starts winning, or at least looks like a guy that will be a franchise QB in 1-2 more years, he won't be "ignored" by anyone. The Bills as a franchise had been in a weird spot for a while, but it's not as if they haven't had good players over the drought years, especially over the last 5 or so years. They're not the NFL wasteland that they were in the early-mid '80s, and enough time had passed to pretty much shed the "Boy I Love Losing Super Bowls" tag. Bills Mafia has been pretty well known nationally for several years now. Fans around the league understand what it's like to be a Bills fan, and just how hardcore and passionate we are about our team. It's to the point where many of those fans have been somewhat rooting for the Bills recently (that may change a bit, now that the drought is over). But during the drought, even with talented teams, there was one constant issue that led to continued mediocrity: NO FRANCHISE QB. The perception of the Bills has changed. Since 2013, they've at least been competitive. The Fitz years before that had a few exciting moments, but those seasons crashed and burned in the end. But it's not as if the Bills have been "ignored" since then. They just haven't gotten as much attention as we'd like, because they haven't consistently done more winning than losing during that time span. Do more of that, and the media will do more covering of that. Simple. Winning cures all.

We'll have to wait for Chad Forbes to tweet about it to know for sure...

San Fran. I "follow" them, but I certainly don't feel the same way about them as I do the Bills. Easy team to like during the Montana/Young, Rice years. They owned the '80s. Kind of crazy that either the Bills or the 49ers made the Super Bowl in 7 consecutive seasons, yet never faced off in any of them. Both teams were very similar; high powered offenses with average defenses (the Bills defenses were probably above average, but were on the field a lot and gave up a lot due to the quick scoring K-Gun). The "no punt game" in '92 was a perfect reflection of that.

Well said @Thurman#1

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.

Is this the new trolling? I find it hard to believe that running the ball has no impact. When teams run the ball, the same play, multiple times out of specific formations, defenses notice, be it within their game or on film. When they see the offense line up in that same formation, the perception given is that it's a run. You would think there's some type of mental element to it. Also, if you're a terrible rushing team, defenses may not fear the run so much, and not sell out on the fake.

Not bad

Yeah, sorry. I was posting while at work, and didn't care to dig it up. That's why I added the "IIRC"...clearly I did not :\

Thank you...I was hoping someone would clarify. So my memory was off. It was still a terribly called game.

Yet the Bills had won more games than they lost. And honestly, I don't remember seeing too many draws last year. My point was that, when you start a rookie QB for the first time, typically you run a very basic, limited offense. You don't "get cute", and try to fool the defense by doing things that don't make sense, just to hopefully take advantage of the element of surprise. Granted, the element of surprise is necessary in all games, but that's what draws and play action are for. You get that element, without putting your QB in a position that has not yet comfortable in. You get hesitation from defenders with the draw, and defenders out of place with play action, creating good separation (something that lacked severely in general from the WRs last year anyways). Peterman may have failed, but the game plan and play calls put him in a position to fail. Actually (IIRC), the opening drive of the game was very run oriented, and the Bills scored. Maybe my memory is off, but I feel like I liked what I saw at the time, to start the game. Then they got away from that, and the Bills fell off a cliff. (edit: I must have been confused with a different game. That wasn't the start to the Chargers game).

He looked bad that day, but he wasn't the only one to blame. Players and coaches handled that poorly. That said, I'm not ready to complete write him off, but I'm not "fascinated" with much of his game. One of his biggest flaws (especially that day) was that he was POORLY telegraphing his throws. It very very noticeable, at least to me, and it was something that I paid very close attention to in the Colts game. From what I saw, there was improvement there, so I believe that the coaches saw the same thing in LA, and made it a focal point for NP to work on. The fact that he did show improvement gives me some hope for him, but again, I don't have high expectations either.

That's true, but that doesn't make their ragging warranted. Its more of a defensive tactic. Some people will argue about the dumbest $#!+, without giving any semblance of a reasonable explanation as to why, or totally dismiss any and all factors that at least make the average thinker go "hmmmm". The only good that comes from it is that it makes it easy to filter out the posters that you should take seriously, and those you shouldn't. They suffer from "Facebooktwitteritis". And don't get me wrong, I don't think I'm all high and mighty, and that I'm always right. I gladly welcome any criticism or corrections to my ideas and opinions. But at least I try I use perspective when formulating them, so that I don't sound like a total fool, and not subject readers here to that same type of drivel.

I know who you're referring to, and I totally agree. Dude has a weird obsession, and I cannot recall him ever posting on another topic other than TT, dating back to BBMB. Very miopic in his opinion, and certainly doesn't seem open minded at all. Completely dismisses anything positive of Taylor. NP literally had the worst half of football ever for a QB (regardless of relative factors), yet where's the criticism?

You cannot be serious with this... [recalls posting history] Ok, never mind.

Read my previous post. I agree with the points you make. It was the game plan and how they called the game that was horrible, IMO. I somewhat agree. However, you cannot dismiss all the plays where he had plenty of time, and open receivers, yet didn't deliver. I get that it happens to pretty .much all QBs at times, but the rate in which they occurred with Taylor was ridiculous for a NFL starting QB. Partially agree... Definitely agree... Don't agree at all...