Proteus

Joe B. says a lot of questionable stuff. Paul Hamilton is the worst though. The hackiest hack that ever did hack.

I think he is the best candidate that has been mentioned.

Ahhh I'm not interested but you know who I think might be a good coach for you? My son Kyle...

I bet the over in the Ravens/Steelers game which was 46. That safety mad me very happy.

It stings so much that Watkins isn't the best WR in the draft that you have to come up with any criticism you can to make one of the best talents in years so that he looks inferior to Watkins. Dude Beckham is great. He has been great from day one and like barring injuries going to be a sure fire first ballot HOFamer. Laugh all you want that he only played 12 games but he did only play 12 games and blew Sammy Watkins out of the water. I know it hurts but Beckham is better than Watkins.

You are right. The Griffin situation is very similar to Beckham. Scrambling QB's who have success in year one and then get figured out are very similar to WR's who put up fantastic numbers every game they play in. Beckham will almost certainly regress a lot and be a middling receiver. Also, Randy Moss says hello.

So now that thread has calmed down a bit, you feel the need to come troll me and insult my intelligence. You are a winner pal.

I was using the QB situation as an example and probably should not have. I am not trying to make any picks pan out. If you look at 1st round QB's the percentages are pretty low on them too. There are a lot of starting QB's in the NFL that are not 1st rounders. You have to take shots to find a QB and the more shots you take the greater your odds.

Not really. Take the current Bills situation for example. If I am GM I am signing a vet. If I am able to get a guy like Caepernick or RG3 trade, then I may change my strategy a bit and look to add to what I have at other positions. If not I am signing a vet a looking to draft Hundley in the 2nd, or one of Petty or Grayson in the 3rd. Then I might take a shot at a guy like Bo Wallace in the 6th or 7th. You go into training camp With a vet, say Matt Moore for conversation sake. Then Moore, EJ and Hundley are probably battling for the 1 spot. Wallace is probably getting cut unless he has a huge training camp. You going into the season with those 3 guys and if EJ doesn't win the job or do something by the end of the season, then he is first on the chopping block for next off-season. Then you are going into the season with Hundley, Moore, draft pick. It isn't really too hard to figure out and I think reps isn't too much of a problem in this scenario.

What Odell Beckham did this year was very rare in the NFL. When players come out and have rookie seasons like this it is not an accident. It means they are going to be one of the all time greats. The only thing that can stop Beckham from having a sure fire first ballot HOF career and being considered one of the greatest WR's of all time is injury.

Yep and most coaching punt on 4th and 1 on the other side of the 50 when all statistical analysis shows that it is a mistake.

We are never going to agree on this. The Bills have sucked for 15 years. During that time the one truth is we have had **** at QB. If an owner was GM were forward thinking enough to know that it doesn't matter until you get a QB and had the balls to do this I think it would work. If I were an NFL GM taking over a team with a bad QB situation I would need my owner to understand that we might be really bad for 2 or 3 years. Right now you pretty much have to luck into getting a great QB. So is there any way to make your luck better? Yes, draft more of them. This would be my strategy: Draft a QB on day one or two every year until you find your guy. Of course you want to draft for value so this doesn't mean you are going with a QB in the first round every year. Get the best value on a QB in the first 3 rounds every year. Also if there is a guy in round 1 that you absolutely believe then you can obviously overpay and give up some value. I would also draft one project QB in rounds 4-7 every year. Next, I am never drafting for need during the time I am trying to find a QB. I am always taking the best player available and also always trading down when the value is there, trying to accumulate as many picks as possible over the years. So you are taking shots at QB's and adding picks to coincide with the finding of the QB. It would be radically different from what GM's do now but I think this is a great long term strategy to finding a great QB and setting yourself up for 10-15 years window. You may struggle at first but it would be worth it in the end. Is that what I said?

I disagree completely. If you are a GM and take over a team with a bad QB situation and build a great team outside of QB, you are still going to be gone because you only be able to go so far. If you hit on a QB, you probably are going to be the GM for 5-10 years minimum.

So we disagree on this strategy. Fair enough. If I GM of the Bills I am drafting a QB on day one or two every draft until I find one. Like I said you can hit in the first and second round every year outside of QB. If you don't find a QB within 4 or 5 years of those guys you hit on being drafted, they will be gone before you can do anything with them. Get the QB and start from there.

So you believe drafting QB's early every year no matter what is a straw man argument? Does that mean you disagree with that strategy. It would seem like you do but it is hard to tell because you rarely do anything but attack the integrity of the poster you disagree with.

It is a straw man argument. The Bills philosophy should be to keep drafting QB's until they find one whether they fail or not. Saying who would you have drafted with hindsight is irrelevant. Keep drafting QB's until you find one or you can keep drafting great players at other positions and watch them leave after not making the playoffs in their tenure with the team because you had no QB. Sorry but straw man arguments are not worth responses.

I criticized Whaley for the regression of the offensive line. I think it was pretty obvious I was talking about the regression of personnel from year to year. You decided that I was saying Whaley was responsible for individual regression of the offensive lineman due to coaching. So you tried to discredit me on that when it was obvious that is what I was not talking about. You can say whatever you want I really don't care. Paint me as paranoid or not knowing my ass from my head. What really happened is I made a very legitimate criticism of Whaley and you decided to attack me for it.

Sorry bud but when someone continually attacks the poster and provides no alternative position I think concluding that he has no real defense for his position is not a stretch.

Is that what you fall back on when proven wrong?

Well if he did anything during this thread to actually defend his position instead of attacking me I may think differently. Please tell me what conclusions I am leaping to though. The one where the GM is responsible for the personnel he puts on the field? Is that the one you are talking about?

All this does is prove that you have absolutely no argument and no defense of your positions other than to attack the poster you are debating with. Well done, you just proved that you wrong.

No he deserves no blame whatsoever.

My original post which some you apparently cannot handle.