Shaw66
-
Posts
9,725 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
1 hour ago, Logic said:
The thing that is key to remember, in my opinion, is that the Bills have set themselves up in such a way that they can trade up for a QB and STILL have a nearly full complement of draft picks. Now, it maybe true that if they have to way overpay to move all the way up to #2, this may not be the case. But let's say they give up their two 1sts, a 2nd , and a 3rd to move to the #5 spot. They would still have a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, two 5ths, and a 6th basically a full draft.
Another thing to remember, as others have pointed out, is that the Bills aren't going to be able to completely build their roster up in just one offseason, even IF they use all of the draft picks they currently possess. I think that McDermott's comment about "not as far along as people think" was meant to temper expectations for the 2018 season. This is year two of a rebuild. I believe they get their QB this year and let him learn on the job for a year. Then NEXT season, the Bills spend a bunch of the $90million in cap space they have and their full complement of draft picks to really "complete" the roster, as much as a roster ever CAN be completed in the NFL. They are following the model of "get a rookie QB on a cheap contract for 5 years, and use that window of low QB cost to build the roster around him". It's the best bet, in my opinion, and I'm glad that OBD seems to agree.Excellent, Logic. Just damn excellent.
I've thought for a while that it's more likely that the Bills sit tight or trade up between 5 and 11 than it is that they make a deal with the Giants. It just seems to me that this is the Giants best chance to get the successor to Eli, and they aren't going to trade that chance just for a boatload of picks that won't be good enough to get them back up to the top of the draft next year. Especially if they trade with the Bills, because they know then that 1, 2 and 3 will be QBs, and that will leave the Giants with their fourth choice at QB instead of second.
Beane is careful and deliberate. He isn't likely to blow all his draft capital in a deal with the Giants unless his absolute favorite, can't-miss QB is at #2, whoever that may be. (He may not even HAVE a can't-miss favorite.)
If the McCarron deal signaled anything, it is that Beane was figuring he'd get his QB someplace after the #4 pick (or I suppose at #4 if the Browns want to deal) and that he's figuring that the QB he drafts in the first round should sit for a year. McCarron can get him through 2018. Plus, maybe McCarron turns out to be a surprise.
But I hadn't thought about your point that by trading up 4-7 picks, Beane still can leave himself with a more or less full draft.
I'd really like to know what went on at last year's draft. We don't really know who was in charge, but it's an interesting scenario to think that the Pegulas told Whaley to do what McDermott told him. Whaley probably already knew what was coming. In any case, passing on Mahomes and moving all the way back to 29 was a gutsy move. Getting White was a bonus, because the real prize was to set up Beane with two first round picks this year. Even though they turned out to be relatively late in the round, those picks set up Beane to make the other deals and get himself to where he is now. He has virtually every choice in front of him now - move to 2 if he wants to pay the price. Move to 5 through 11. Sit at 12. Heck, who knows? It's possible he'd even trade back a few picks from 12. Point is, he has the capital to do whatever he wants, and it all started because the Bills passed on Mahomes.
-
4 hours ago, Nineforty said:
All of their moves in regards to acquiring more draft capital seem to indicate otherwise but doesn't have to mean I'm right either.
I've always felt get the qb, evaluate him and build based off those details and the talent that becomes available next year in FA and the draft.
Get a qb and if you hit, we have time to fill in blanks.
You're right, especially your first sentence.
Frankly, I don't think there's anything to be read into their moves, either way. They felt like they needed to move Glenn, and the opportunity was to get a better draft choice. So they took it. That meant they could trade up more if it made sense, and it also meant they could get the middle linebacker they want. They could go either way.
I keep remembering that McD said a month ago or more that the Bills aren't as far along as some people think. Sounded he was trying to control expectations for 2018. The McCarron signing and that statement can go both ways - "we're gonna have a rookie QB, and either he'll be a typical rookie or we'll go with McCarron. Either way, it'll take another year for us to get better."
-
2
-
-
A first, a second and a fifth, and they can have 'em.
-
5
-
-
Shady packaged with picks in deal with the Giants?
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:
Good god. Who the hell cares about 2 inches. He was the same weight and a lot more mobile.
His problem was accuracy and knowing where to go with the football. His rocket arm and prototypical size amounted for nothing.
People fall inlove with the physical attributes. There's no convincing them otherwise, until they fail.
The Raiders talked themselves out of every possible concern they might have had about Jamarcus Russell.
I have a lot of confidence that McBeane are completely on top of this. If they take Allen it'll be because they know several things we don't know.
I put some stock in the Wonderlic scores, and it's interesting that Allen had the highest of the QBs. Of course, Fitz was off the charts on the Wonderlic and he still threw every critical INT he could.
-
15 minutes ago, Logic said:
I hope you're right about the importance they do or don't place on faith and squeaky clean off-field behavior. I KNOW you're right about how methodical and detail oriented they are. Mr Pegula even mentioned it recently when asked what it's been like to work with Brandon Beane: "It's amazing how methodical he is". He mentioned it a couple times.
It's fair to say that WHOEVER the Bills select at QB, McBeane has done their homework. And no matter who it is, even if it's Allen, I'll be behind him 100% and root for him to succeed. And I will have faith that the these guys must have seen SOMETHING in the prospect, since they're basically staking their jobs on his success.
Me, personally? It's so simple from where I sit: If I'm gonna bank on a set of qualities and stake my job on drafting a QB with said qualities, I'll choose throwing accuracy, competitive fire, chip on the shoulder, leadership, and proven production over cannon arm, ideal build, perceived upside, and projected growth 10 times out of 10. I really, really hope the Bills select Baker Mayfield. In my own opinion -- and it's just that: an opinion -- people will look back in 5 years and not be able to figure out how everyone couldn't tell from afar that Mayfield was the best of the bunch. He has Hall of Fame and "most popular Buffalo Bill of all time" potential. But he's two inches too short and he's borderline arrogant, so we keep seeing him listed as the 4th or 5th best QB prospect. I don't get it.
We'll see. April 26th can't come soon enough.I keep saying I haven't studied any of these guys, but from what little I've seen and read, I'm also completely on board with Mayfield. Whenever I saw him, play over the past couple of years, I saw a flat-out winner. I like his fire, his competitiveness, his ability to find guys when he's flushed. Reports say he's the most accurate thrower in the group. Does he have an edge to him? Yes. So did Big Ben in his early years. Beane can deal with that.
And I would suggest you not believe the reports that say he is 4th or 5th. I think he does too much too well for teams to miss the boat on him. If the Bills got him at 12 I'd be ecstatic, but I think they'll have to go up into the 5-6 range, and maybe that won't be enough.
I think it's too expensive to trade with the Giants. Unless, of course, he is a Hall of Fame player.
-
5 hours ago, Logic said:
Meanwhile, Allen can't play worth a lick but he's a good christian boy from the midwest and he's built like an American Gladiator...so there's legit fear that McBeane is Ga-Ga and trades up for him.
By the way, I think you seriously misperceive McBeane on this one. Yes, they are Christians and they believe there is great value in that, but I don't think Christian is anywhere on their checklist. These guys are detail oriented and methodical. They can tell you without notes exactly what it is they are looking in a QB, and they will evaluate each guy against those criteria. They aren't taking a guy because he's a Christian, and they aren't not taking a guy because he's a Jew. They are way above that.
-
22 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
Well the Packers were able to do it without any issues. I think teams are just too impatient. I don't watch too much hockey but I know in the NHL it's expected that many of your draft picks will not play for a couple years. The Sabres drafted a player in the 1st round who had just graduated high school. Windows in the NFL are so small so teams aren't willing to try that, but the one time they did they got Aaron Rodgers so I'm surprised it isn't tried more.
I do wonder how much depends on the right team drafting you but I generally agree that it doesn't make a difference most of the time. And I don't know if the accuracy issues that Allen has could be corrected in any amount of time. I've seen some people mention that he misses throws even when his mechanics appear to be perfect. Something in our brain allows us to make predictions about where a moving object will be, and maybe his brain just doesn't have that and never will.
It's different when you have a Hall of Fame QB. You can draft a Garopolo or a Rodgers and sit him and work on him. The problem in that situation is what to do when you Hall of Fame quarterback doesn't want to retire on you schedule.
Rodgers would have started as a rookie in Buffalo. Why? Because you have to play your best player, and he would have been the best QB in camp. It's inconceivable that the 2005 Bills would have drafted Rodgers in the first round and then told the fans he wasn't going to play for three years. Bills had NO ONE at QB by that time. Plus, it's inconceivable that Mr. Wilson would have paid him first round money to sit for three years.
-
1 hour ago, Ayjent said:
If you watched EJ Manuel in college you knew he wasn't a great passer and it was a very close to pro system he played in. He often made wide open guys have to adjust to poorly thrown balls, and actually left a lot of plays on the field because of his inconsistent passing and inaccuracy. He could string together some plays, but he would really struggle at other times. He never really passed with any rhythm, and he was really a disappointment to many Noles fans that saw his problems frequently crop up in the biggest games.
I can remember my utter disbelief when he was drafted in the first round. People I know who are FSU Grads and alumni were all calling me up and laughing their asses off at how dumb that pick was. That was a peach of a pick - Nix/Whaley combo didn't know what a good QB prospect looked like. It took Rex freaking Ryan to actually help out to get a decent guy on the roster.
I always defend the Manuel pick, although I agree with what you're saying about his passing.
I defend the pick because if you're the GM of the Bills in that draft, you MUST take a QB, because you don't have one. So you evaluate the talent and make the best pick you can. Manuel probably was the best choice of the group available, and the plan, to have him sit for a season, was the right thing to do for him. Unfortunately, it didn't work out well, but the Bills had to take SOMEONE. Maybe they should have taken two, but the pickins were slim, for sure.
I've always said the Bills didn't manage the QB situation horribly after Bledsoe, they just made bad picks. Moving up to take Losman was addressing the QB situation. Problem was their evaluation of him was wrong. And moving up cost them Aaron Rodgers in the draft the following year. Taking Edwards in the third was a good move, good planning for the position, and it seemed like it was working until his concussion.
The biggest mistake was betting on Fitz. Well, betting on him made some sense, but not immediately drafting the next guy in line was the mistake. Just like they took Edwards when they thought Losman would be the guy, they should have taken someone when they gave Fitz his deal. And that someone was Russell Wilson. Because they didn't draft Fitzy's replacement, the Bills found them sevesin a situation where they were forced to draft someone, and that someone turned out to be Manuel.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, HappyDays said:
You know what I'd do with a guy like Allen, I'd take him in the 2nd round and give him the Aaron Rodgers treatment. Three years on the bench, give him some spot play here and there when games are out of reach. Every day of that 3 years he's be working with a personal coach whose job is to teach him new muscle memory. I think that's the only way you could hope to make it work. And truthfully that MIGHT work, I don't know because NFL teams don't try that very often. It's usually one year on the bench and then you're thrown to the wolves. Usually what happens there is the guy will flash for a few games but eventually revert to his old mechanics.
If only NFL teams would actually try to innovate we could see more guys like Allen get a real shot to improve. But more likely than not he'll be pushed onto the field early. Look at what the Chiefs are doing with Pat Mahomes. He was very similar to Allen coming out of Texas Tech, needs some time to develop NFL traits. So what do they Do? Give him exactly one year then trade away Alex Smith coming off the best season of his career. Now Mahomes is forced to start with nothing but one year of NFL training. Why has Rodgers been the only QB given ample time to develop? It makes no sense to me.
The NFL doesn't do that because of cost. They'd have to expand the rosters or the practice squad, and if there'd have to be a way to protect a guy like Allen on the practice squad. And he'd want a lot of money. It is largely a sink or swim situation.
Yes, they could work on a guy's mechanics like that, but the real skill, the decision making, is learned only on the field in real games. So the guy has to be good enough to get on the field to get that playing time.
The fact is, if you've got it, you make it, and if you don't, you don't. People here often say well, if you put this guy in the right situation, he'll grow into the position. I think that's hogwash. I can't think of a QB who was a failure on his first team and then, under different coaching, miraculously blossomed. Maybe Kurt Warner is one. Most guys move on to their second team and look pretty much the same as they did with their first team. If the situation really changed the fortunes of QBs, there's be lots of stories about how this guy became a star with his second team.
But, as usual, I agree with you. I wouldn't burn a first round pick on Allen, because he he's low probability. But his physical skill apparently are so spectacular that he may be worth taking as a project. He may very well go in the first round, and I doubt he fall past the second.
-
13 minutes ago, jrober38 said:
I was talking about college QBs.
EJ Manuel completed 68% of his throws his Senior year, and he's one of the most inaccurate QBs I've ever seen in the NFL.
Got it.
But, without really knowing, I'd say that in the college the opposite of what I said is true. In college you can have a high completion rate for a season or more and be inaccurate, but it's quite unlikely that an accurate college passer will have a low completion percentage. Maybe Stafford did, but by and large it's pretty easy to throw in college (relative to the pros), and accurate college passers should almost always have high completion percentages.
12 minutes ago, HappyDays said:This is definitely not true. He throws a lot of interceptable balls, he panics under pressure, he makes bad decisions and bad throws when forced to move beyond his first read, he has very poor ball placement and touch at every level of the field, he attempts throws that he has no business making... Literally he checks 2 boxes - strong arm and prototypical size. Every other trait is a long-term project.
So you wouldn't trade up for Allen, but it sounds like you'd love him at 12!
-
48 minutes ago, jrober38 said:
Completion percentage has little to do with accuracy.
You've been an accuracy guy for as long as I can remember, and you've convinced me.
But let's not go overboard. Completion percentage isn't a measure of accuracy, but to to say it has little to do with accuracy is, well, inaccurate.
It may be true that some accurate throwers have low completion percentages for a game or maybe even a season. But virtually NO thrower with a high completion percentage for a season is inaccurate. You simple can't complete 60-65% of 500 passes if you're a fundamentally inaccurate passer.
Completion percentage is the only common stat that correlates in some way with accuracy.
-
9 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
What I've been saying for a while and that is I personally think Mayfield is the best QB in the draft.
I don't get into these draft discussion very much because I'e never studied the QBs nearly enough to form an intelligent opinion.
Some people say Allen will be great. Some say it's Darnold. Some say it's Rosen. Some say it's Mayfield. Some say Jackson. Some say Rudolph. One or more of those opinions will turn out to be correct, and several likely will turn out to be wrong, and there is no way to tell who's right from any of these discussions.
However, I do think a few things:
A lot of the metrics keep pointing to Mayfield. Doesn't mean he's the guy, but I'm sure none of the teams looking for a QB is overlooking him. There is only one reason Mayfield will fall in the draft, and it's the same reason any of these other guys may fall in the draft: teams with access to a lot of film, data, interviews, etc. will all decide that the guy has enough questions about him not to merit a pick in the top 5 or 10.
Parcells and QBase put a lot of weight on QBs graduating from college, starting for three years, posting a lot of wins, as well as accuracy. For whatever reason, it's apparently the case that very few guys who started two years or less turn out to be great in the NFL. Newton has come closest, and Flacco is the only other one who's had any substantial success of any kind.
I'm confused and frustrated, and like Logic, I'm finding it nerve-wracking waiting for the draft.
-
4 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:
Did I disagree with that part of his post?
I guess your underlying point is that Josh Allen doesn't have accuracy. And there are now questions about that. Check the interview I posted with Jordan Palmer about working with Allen over the past few months.
Palmer says the inaccuracy was from a mechanical flaw, overstriding, and that it can be addressed and in fact has already been addressed in Palmer's sessions with Allen, and that that's the reason he was more accurate in the Senior Bowl than he was during the season, more accurate still at the combine and will be extremely accurate at his Pro Day. Clearly that's no guarantee that the changes will stick, but they might.
That, I believe, is why teams are so interested in a guy whose completion percentage was so low.
Did I disagree with what you said about strong arms?
I didn't say anything about Josh Allen's accuracy, but keep on guessing.
-
5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:
Marino had a freaking gatling gun. Kelly had a strong arm. Both great Steelers QBs, Bradshaw and Roethlisberger had big arms. Elway had a monster arm.
And those are some of all-time greats. So, sorry but that doesn't hold up. Sure, some of the all-time greats didn't. But a very fair percentage did.
You're right. But rober's fundamental point is true. The one thing that all the greats have is accuracy. Not big arms, not mobility, not size. What they all have is accuracy.
-
21 minutes ago, jrober38 said:
Look up any list of elite, all time great NFL QBs.
Few of them had incredible physical tools, so saying if he figures it out his upside is enormous doesn't add up.
The common trait elite NFL QBs have is accuracy. When they throw the ball, it goes where they intend for it to go, and they put their receivers in a position to run after the catch which ultimately keeps the chains moving.
Josh Allen's worst trait is his accuracy.
Like so many big, strong, bazooka armed QBs before him, if he doesn't figure out how to dramatically improve his accuracy and ball placement, he has no hope of ever being an elite NFL QB.
Brady, more than anything else, is accurate.
And the QB in the draft who gets high grades in accuracy is Baker Mayfield.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, PrimeTime101 said:
So I like many others read this disclaimer and didn't read any more. Then I scrolled down and saw many idiotic replies and then wondered to myself (how bad could this possibly be)
So I scrolled up and read it and I am glad I did. So I will post some thoughts and roll with it.
1. I think there was lots of really dumb replies of this thread and I am sorry you had to read them but glad you didn't react to them.
2. This thread is refreshing to me. Right now there is like 5 threads each on one QB and to read a life story like this just kind of put a smile on my face.
3. I think many of you have to realize that if you don't like a topic... DONT read it.. but to come on here and bash it is nonsense and rude. To those that did bash this thread I say to you.. Get A Life.
Thank you for this read and thanks for putting yourself out there knowing idiots would bash this thread and not care cause it meant something to YOU. I don't have a crystal globe so who knows maybe AJ does work out. I guess we will have to see.
ALWAYS continue reading a Meanie post.
-
Meanie
Well I hadn't seen this before and I'm so glad I got back to it. It's a great combination of personal memories, commentary on religion and humor. I couldn't stop laughing at the sentence that said "Mostly I've been focused on free agency...." Incredible juxtaposition.
You have a way of making your stories personal and humorous and touching. It made me love your mother.
I'm not Catholic. I enjoyed reading all the posts from Catholics who can relate to your story.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences.
-
23 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
Yeah but teams that wait five years to admit the obvious, are the Buffalo Bills who never win.
So what I mean by mistake, is insisting you are right. When everybody can see you are wrong. And doing nothing about it.
Teams that wait 5 years between taking longshot bets, are the Buffalo Bills.
Teams that use the 9th overall pick and the next year's 1st round and 4th round pick, to trade up to 4th overall, to get a wide receiver, but use 16th overall pick to get their franchise quarterback, are the Buffalo Bills.
It is most certainly the fault of the Buffalo Bills that they haven't had a QB for 20 years. It isn't bad luck.
So yes betting on one is WAY better than not betting. I totally agree. But the Bills haven't been betting for ages.
Two years after they drafted EJ they bet on Taylor.
Most teams make only one bet at a time.
Bills have made a lot of bad bets. Losman Edwards Fitz EJ Taylor
-
35 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
I don't think this is your kind of post! I figured you may have looked at this, shook your head sadly at what the Bills have
But what bugs the beejeebers out of me is somebody like Nix who is STILL convinced he made no mistake on EJ. Make a mistake move on, try again. Ok by me. Make a mistake and refuse to admit it and pass on quality prospects for years, that irritates the heck out of me.
It depends on what you mean by mistake. Everyone agrees that EJ hasn't become a useful NFL starter, so by that measure he was a mistake. But the Bills needed a qb and they had to get the best one they could. They were going to take SOMEONE.
Could Nix have traded down and still gotten the guy he wanted? I don't know, but if he could have, them that was a mistake.
But the EJ draft is exactly what I'm talking about. You need a qb, you see a guy with potential but with problems. You take him. In five years either the guy is good or he's another one of those guys who make up the 50% Bust rate in the first round.
In other words, teams overdraft qbs, because betting on one is better than not betting.
-
Cambo
Thanks for the post. A lot of provocative thoughts, and I think there's more truth there than people recognize.
Your qb analysis is as good as anyone else. I think your analysis of the draft will go or should go is spot on. The Giants are the key.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, matter2003 said:
It goes by college stats...its an imperfect science...people who think there is a 1:1 correlation out there that can be found are only kidding themselves.
Well if you read the article or some of the posts here you'd see that NO ONE, including the people who wrote the art I cle, thinks there's an1-1 correlation.
19 minutes ago, BuffaLoko said:Wow man! just wow! if your post about AJ McC, scapulars and all those beliefs in catholicism, weren't enough to make you a hero to me, this analogies amog careers / industries have just pushed the envelope!! thanks or a well thought post again!
I missed all of that. Scapulars? I'll have to come here more often.
As for Meanie's post, I do think the pros are several steps ahead of us when it comes to guessing. The problem in the qb department is that if your team needs a qb, you have to take chances on guys. On a Losman, an Edwards, a Manuel. You have take someone.
The simple fact is that it appears that there are only ten or twelve guys on the planet who can really master the position and there are 32 teams looking for QB's. So they take guys hoping they're own evaluation turns to be wrong.
-
18 minutes ago, BigDingus said:
Their breakdown seems weird....just this alone raises tons of red flags -
Top QBASE Projections, 1997-2017
Player / QBASE:
Philip Rivers 1964Carson Palmer 1916
Donovan McNabb 1799
Baker Mayfield 1480
Russell Wilson 1288
Peyton Manning 1279
Marcus Mariota 1277
Byron Leftwich 1216
Aaron Rodgers 1216
Ben Roethlisberger 1211
So based on these same metrics, they had Byron Leftwich ahead of Aaron Rodgers & Ben Roethlisberger? Or Carson Palmer above Peyton Manning?
I think Mayfield will be good too, but the way they put value on QB's pre-draft projections seems off if these are the results. Darnold having a 52% Bust rating & 4% Elite rating compared to Luke Faulk's 54% & 7%? Wtf is going on there?Read what they say about Darnold. Surprisingly, very few guys who have started only two years in college have made it in the NFL, and the ones that did make in the pros had much better production in college than Darnold. Cam Newtons stats in college blow away Darnold.
-
As some of you know, Football Outsiders takes a highly analytical, statistically driven approach to evaluating teams and individual players. Like any rating system, there are assumptions built into their analytical tools that affect their results. Thus, like any rating system, there's some bias built into the system. Still, they're objective is to be as objective as possible.
I happened to look at Football Outsiders today, and it turns out they have a system for evaluating college quarterbacks. I have no idea how they do it, but I'm sure they explain it on their website. If it's like their other systems, you'll need a Masters degree in statistics to understand it. They have applied their system, called QBASE, to previous drafts. The highest rated guys on their system are Rivers, Palmer, McNabb, Russell Wilson, Peyton, Mariota, Leftwich, Rodgers and Roethlisberger. In other words, their system seems to work reasonably well. Certainly there are some names they missed, and Leftwich is an outlier, but it seems like if a guy rates high on their system there's a pretty good chance that he's going to make it in the NFL. Doesn't mean that some other guys who aren't highly rated won't make it; just means that you're looking good if you rate high.
So they analyzed 2018, and one guy stands alone - everyone else is back in the pack somewhere, not close. Baker Mayfield rates number 4 on their ALL-TIME list, of college quarterbacks behind McNabb and ahead of Russell Wilson.
Their article about this is here: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/qbase-2018
Sorry if this has been discussed in another thread - I didn't see it anywhere.
-
2
-
1
-
Buffalo Hasn't Conducted Itself This Offseason Like They'll Trade Most/All High PIcks for #2
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I think that's what I meant.
McCarron is the best insurance Beane could buy for 2018 at a low price. But McCarron is not evidence that the Beane wants to trade up to #2 or anything else. He's just the guy who's gonna be the QB if the rookie, wherever he's drafted, doesn't step up to start. If it hadn't been McCarron, it would have been McCown or some other inexpensive recognizable name. It's almost as though Beane waited out the QB music chairs until there was only one guy left - didn't matter which it would be, only that it would be a guy left with no bargaining power.