SoTier

Well, in 2002, 2007, 2010, and 2013, getting "the best QB in the class" wouldn't get you more than a backup at best. NFL teams aren't looking for gold in backyards. They're looking for gold in the places that have produced gold in the past, and their top prospects, the first round QBs, still only hit about half the time ... and that's with the QBs taken at #1 hitting at about 80%. QBs taken between #2 and #32 only hit a little more than four times out of ten. That's pretty discouraging odds. Now, some teams luck out and find their franchise QBs but most don't because even among the 50% QBs that are "successes" there are going to be several who are only decent starters at best. I would agree with the author that the NFL isn't very good at evaluating QB prospects.

What about the Chiefs? Mahomes hasn't proven anything yet. Goff sucked as a rookie. He had an excellent sophomore year but if he fails to continue to progress, he certainly won't be the first or last first round QB to do so. What happens if Mahomes or Goff or both turn out to be busts? Worse yet, what if one or both turn out to be an Alex Smith or Jay Cutler or Blake Bortles -- "second tier QBs"? Given that first round QBs taken in the top ten other than the #1 consensus pick have only about 50% chance of even being a successful "second tier QB", giving up multiple first rounders and other picks to move into the top ten is reckless. If the QB turns out to be an Eli Manning, then the cost is forgiven. If the QB turns out to be a Mark Sanchez ...

The last time the Jests had a bonafide franchise QB was Lyndon Johnson was POTUS and I was in HS. By all means, the Jests should be a team that the Bills choose to emulate. NOT.

Ummm ... if the Bills cut McCoy, Hughes, and Clay, they will need to replace them as well. That's why the "we can fix everything in 2019 because we have tons of cap space" scenario doesn't fly ... players ARE going to have to be replaced because of retirement, injury, trade, cuts, etc., and vets are ALWAYS much more expensive than rookies of the same quality.

First round QBs in the last 20 years only hit the threshold of "successful starter for five or six years" (that's NOT "franchise QB" territory) only about 50% of the time. That's a QB on the level of Smith, Cutler, Flacco, Dalton, Tannehill, etc. Franchise QBs like Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Ryan etc come along much less frequently, not even at the rate of 1 a draft. The reason so few QBs from the 2nd or 3rd rounds don't succeed very often is that most aren't given real opportunities to be starters. In recent years, teams have found successful QBs and even franchise QBs when they've given them real opportunities: Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson, Derek Carr, Dak Prescott, etc. I disagree that this year is anything special when it comes to QBs. I think it's more like 2011 with tons of hype hiding iffy prospects. There will probably 1 decent/good starting QB from the draft like there is from most drafts. I do agree that Allen is a bust waiting to happen. Maybe he'll be great ... but let somebody else take that sucker bet.

You are going to "implode" because you believe that all the media mavens and draftniks predicting that the first three picks will be QBs and four of the top five picks will be QBs. I suppose you also buy into the hype that the colleges will stop producing QBs after 2018 so the Bills better grab one while they can no matter what the cost. You may believe the hype but I don't think teams at the top of the draft would have much interest in trading back as they shown or hinted at if the pros thought as highly of these kids as the media keeps claiming they do. I think Cleveland will take a QB at either #1 or #4 and the Jests will take another at #3 but I'm not seeing any of the other teams drafting between 5 and 11 doing so. The Giants will ride Eli a few years more; I think that they want Barkley. The Broncos have Keenum and still have Paxton on his rookie contract. Miami is NOT looking for Tannehill's replacement in the first round of this draft (Tannehill was drafted in 2012 NOT 2002!) when they have lots of holes to fill on both sides of the ball. Unless somebody trades up into the top ten, I think the Bills will have a shot at a choice of two or three when their turn comes at #12, although maybe they only like one of the top four or five, and he's already gone. In that case, dude, taking a LB like Smith if he's still available would make sense. Draft a developmental guy on the 2nd day if there's one there you like. Drafting a first round QB you don't think is that good just to placate idiot fans and put butts in the seats gets you EJ Manuel and Johnny Manziel. Well, that would be the end of the world ...

I don't believe that the Bills are "okay" with more than 1 QB at any specific draft slot because they have all the QBs in a definite rank order. I think they have only 1 QB they're willing to trade up to get. If they don't trade up to get that QB and he were to fall to #12, they would still take him over whomever they had slotted as the QB they would take at #12 because they believe he's a better prospect.

Actually, the Seahawks had their best teams in Russell Wilson's first three seasons when they weren't QB-centric, but were primarily a running team with a strong defense. When they became utterly QB-centric in 2017, they failed to make the playoffs. IMO, pro football has been QB-dependent since the 1960s with the rise of the AFL which emphasized scoring over defense. It has become increasingly QB centric since the merger, but I think that the rise of fantasy football in recent decades has put unreasonable emphasis on putting up impressive stats rather than on winning games. It used to be that QBs used to be judged on whether their teams won or lost and whether they made the playoffs and won playoff games. Stats were secondary. That's all been turned on its head. A QB like Tyrod Taylor is a "lousy" QB because he didn't put up big passing stats while starting for the Bills, although he played for a team with a run first philosophy with an average pass blocking OL and receivers at best. OTOH, Kirk Cousins is the star of FA because he played in a heavy pass first offense that allowed him to put up big numbers despite the fact that the Redskins have exactly the same record as the Bills over the last 3 seasons (2015-2017: 24 wins, 24 losses, 1 9-7 record, 1 playoff appearance, 0 playoff wins). Meanwhile, Phillip Rivers has a record of 18-30 over the last 3 seasons with 1 9-7 record but 0 playoff appearances. In fact, Rivers has exactly 1 more playoff win than either Taylor or Cousins despite having played in 6 playoff games in his entire 14 year career, and that win came in 2007. San Diego has made the playoffs only once in the last 7 years, but many of the same fans who dump on Taylor don't criticize Rivers for his consistent lack of clutch play when the playoffs/playoff games have been on the line over the years. Instead, they make excuses for him even when he throws INTs by the basketful (Rivers has thrown double digit INTs 10 times, including leading the league in INTs in 2014 and 2016).

This. My answer is that the Bills spent the previous 17 years more interested in putting butts in the seats than in winning football games. The previous FO and HCs simply weren't good enough, except perhaps for Marrone.

Exactly this. In 2016, the Rams and Eagles were able to trade up ONLY because the top two teams were again the Bucs and Titans, both of which drafted QBs at #1 and #2 in 2015. In 2012, Washington was able to trade up to #2 only because the Rams had drafted Sam Bradford in 2010. Neither the Panthers nor the Colts even considered trading back in 2011 or 2012. Fast forward to 2018 ... Cleveland, which has no QB, and the Giants, which has a 37 year old QB, have both hinted that they might trade out of the #1 or #2 spots. Indy, which has a young franchise QB who might be healthy or might not, already traded out of #3. That's an indication that maybe the pros don't think as much of the top QBs as the media.

Oh, you mean a dedication to winning? A smart HC? A good FO that makes personnel decisions based on drafting/signing/re-signing talented players to help the team win rather than just put butts in the seats? Why can't the Bills have those things? You are buying into the media's hype that all four of the top QBs are going in the top five. My guess is that the pros don't see it that way. If they did, NONE of the teams in the top five except Cleveland which has 2 top five picks, would be interested in trading back. Instead, it's like they're all at least sort of interested in trading back. That says that the pros aren't nearly as enamored of these QBs as the media talking heads and fans are. That's NOT what you've been saying in this thread. You've been constantly saying "do anything to get into the top five and draft a QB". Whenever somebody calls you on it, you claim you're not doing that, but then you come right back and say the same thing in your next reply to a post. If McDermott is running the draft and the team, why would he CARE about "saddling" a GM-to-be-named-later with his choice of QB? If he likes the QB, what the GM likes or dislikes would be immaterial. That's why the idea that McDermott didn't draft a QB last year because they were planning on changing GMs is nonsensical.

You don't pass on a future franchise QB when you have a chance to get one. That the Bills didn't pick a QB in the first round with 2 available says that they didn't think either Mahomes or Watson was likely to be one rather than that McDermott passed on a first round QB because of FO politics. Plain and simple, Mahomes and Watson were flawed prospects ... as are some of this year's highly touted media favorites.

I just want to be clear here. Staying at #12 and picking QB is automatically a "reach" but recklessly trading away high draft picks to move up to the top five in order to grab one of the media mavens' darlings who isn't even a good pick in the top ten isn't? Is that what you're saying?

How many playoff games have Phillip Rivers or Matthew Stafford won? Jim Kelly and Dan Marino won 0 championships between them. Aaron Rodgers has won only 1 championship as has Drew Brees. Peyton Manning won only 1 championship with Indy, Andrew Luck none. If you think that just drafting a "franchise QB" and "filling out the roster" is enough to win championships, guess again. Of course, that presupposes the QB the team drafts in the first round actually becomes a "franchise QB" rather a JP Losman, Mark Sanchez, Matt Leinart, Christian Ponder, Jake Locker or EJ Manuel. The Bills OL is in no way comparable to Philly's, and it didn't play "really well down the stretch". It played much better in the second half of the season compared to how it played early in the season, but that's not saying much because the OL really sucked early. Moreover, the center position has been weakened because Groy, who couldn't displace Wood as a starter, has now inherited the starting spot.

It's just part of the hype and hysteria that the media cultivates around the NFL draft to increase clicks or ratings ... and it obviously works judging from numerous responses.

It's called not burning your bridges. Some people never learn that.

It's worse than that IMO. He's shirking all responsibility for his own conduct. A mature adult would admit that he f'd up, and would promise that he'd try to do better if he got another chance. It's also not his fault that he did whatever drugs he did, either, amirite?

How many Super Bowls have the San Diego Chargers participated in since they drafted Phillip Rivers? What about the Detroit Lions? I'd take Tre White because I know he's proven himself. The history of the NFL is cluttered with all the flash-in-the-pan rookie QBs who looked good for part of a season. Isn't the cap dependent upon the amount of $$$ the NFL gets from its TV contracts, as per the last CBA? There were numerous articles in 2017 about the networks taking significant losses on games because of lowered ratings. That suggests that the television money may not increase significantly if at all in the next contract, and the cap won't be able to increase -- and might even decrease -- unless the CBA is changed.

Things would have been much worse without Cousins, though. He was just about the only thing the Skins have had for the last few years.

Actually, the Raven's Browns roots are the winning branch of the Cleveland Browns family. They are the descendents of the original Cleveland Browns of the All American Conference, Jim Brown, NFL Champion Browns. The current Cleveland Browns are the adopted children who have the name but not the DNA.

Good thing the Deadskins wasted that 2012 fourth rounder on that skinny kid named Cousins.

Griffin's problem has been that he never adjusted to the pro game. Even if he'd never been injured, he would have failed once defenses figured him out. It's the very same reason so many young QBs light up the league for a season or two and then crash and burn.

Mea culpa. Dak Prescott. Thanks.

I can see 3 or 4 QBs going in the first round because, apparently like their fan bases, some NFL GMs seem to buy into the a significant amount of the hype and hysteria dished up by the media around the draft. I think that Cleveland's GMs prior to the current regime certainly did that. IMO, the Jests move up to #3 so early and without knowing which QBs will be available smacks of the same stupidity. You are correct in noting that except for 1983 and 2004, most years with 3, 4 or 5 QBs taken in the first round don't actually produce that many successful QBs, much less "franchise QBs" from those first rounders. The drafts since 1983 have seemed to yield 1 and sometimes 2 successful QBs from each draft whether there's 1 QB drafted in the first round or 4 or 5, and in the last few years, there seems to be more successful QBs coming out of the draft from the rounds after the first. The chances of actually getting a "franchise" quality QB (a top notch, long term starter who becomes the face of the franchise) is much less because not all drafts produce one. Between 1999 and 2014, the 2002, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2014 certainly failed to produce QBs who were good enough to be considered "franchise QBs" although some of those drafts produced successful QBs. Taking a Daunte Culpepper or Ryan Tannehill or Jay Cutler at 11 or 12 is okay, but taking a Todd Blackledge or Joey Harrington at #2 is painful. Trading up to get a bust like JP Losman is a disaster. Only if the Bills or some other team trade up will 3 go in the top 10 IMO. I don't see any of the teams in the top 10 except Cleveland and the Jests drafting a QB, including Denver which has Keenum as well as 2016 first rounder Paxton Lynch who was hurt most of last season. The problem is that the evaluation skills that NFL teams use to judge draft QBs are woefully inadequate to enable teams to consistently pick good QBs in the draft, so yeah, it's a crap shoot. I can only think of 2 teams in the last 20 years that successfully transitioned directly from one franchise QB to another without missing a beat because they drafted his replacement: NE when Tom Brady replaced Drew Bledsoe and Green Bay when Aaron Rodgers replaced Brett Favre. The NY Jests transitioned from one successful QB, Vinnie Testaverde, to another successful QB, Chad Pennington, but I wouldn't rank either as "franchise QBs". Dallas may be a third team if Deshaun Watson Dak Prescott turns out to be a franchise QB (replacing Tony Romo who was an UDFA). QBs who are #1 consensus picks seem to hit with regularity, but the percentage of successful QBs from the first round drops precipitously after #1, even for QBs drafted in the top 5 or top 10, and is depressingly low for QBs drafted in the bottom half of the first round. My guess is that the success rate for QBs in the first round is significantly lower than for most other positions except perhaps WR. That suggests to me that the evaluation criteria aren't measuring what needs to be measured, which are the very things that separate the Rivers, Rodgers, and Lucks etc from the Harringtons, Losmans, and Carrs. So, unless there's a QB who's the #1 consensus pick in the draft, it's pretty much a crap shoot.

Promises, promises, promises.