"Next year" is always the best year for drafting quarterback

[Thurman#1]

Well I dont think the guy we wanted under center was in this years draft, I also dont think that Nix wanted to get whoever we thought was our guy murdered in his first year behind our line. The league is win now and we all know that. But as of now we have 0 quality starters at QB, we have back ups. So if you think that waiting for a certain guy thats going to be in next years draft when we are already looking at having one of the top 10-15 picks is wrong, I dont follow. I'm sure the Rams knew that Bradford was their guy before the season ended and if we know we selecting 1st we're also probably going to know who we want before it gets close to draft time.

 

 

 

We're going to be bad, but not #32 bad, count on that. We'll squeak out a few wins.

[Thurman#1]

Some links about QBs for the last draft...

 

This article mentions 3 QBs as possible top 10 picks. It doesn't even mention Snead, Locker, or Clausen.

 

This article has 3 "franchise" QBs (I won't count Snead since he didn't come out) and 4 possible starters.

 

Here's an article about darkhorse John Skelton.

 

Hope springs eternal. The marketing genius is out in the summer and there are plenty of kids being hyped for the upcoming NCAA season and their chances in the NFL. The only constant is that things change from the hope and hype of the summer to the final evaluations in the spring between the combine and the draft.

 

 

 

Nice. That should put an end to this.

 

But it won't. Some of the desperate ones will do anything to keep their beliefs going that there definitely WILL be a franchise guy out there when we draft, regardless of where that is. They'll twist logic around and think anything that allows them to come to that conclusion.

[Thurman#1]

It's pretty obvious NFL teams weren't as enthralled with Clausen as are many here. He wouldn't have slid so far had he been considered a can't-miss QB. Now, I understand if some want to criticize the Bills FO for not recognizing Clausen's talent. But I don't see how anyone would criticize the FO taking a player they like over a player they don't like. Taking a QB in the 2nd round simply for the sake of taking a QB in an early round is insane, if you aren't sold on that QB.

 

 

I can't criticize them for that NOW, Dean, but I definitely retain the right to second-guess this decision a few years down the road. If Clausen turns out terrific and whoever we end up with doesn't, the bottom line is that regardless of the reason we made that decision, it is going to look very stupid indeed.

 

I'm not saying that's going to happen, although I personally think Clausen is going to be a stud. I'm aware that Nix is smarter than me. I definitely am saying that it's a possibility, though, and maybe a pretty good one.

 

I just think it's quite possible that they liked him a lot, but not as much as they liked Spiller and Troup. Nobody wants to believe that's possible. People want to say that because Clausen fell it means every GM thought he sucked, and I don't buy it. Too many other factors go into these decisions, including the fact that Nix and Gailey may genuinely have felt that our current three deserved another shot, and that drafting Clausen would have basically ended their shot at starting in Buffalo.

 

We'll see. But if Clausen is a stud and we don't find one, this decision will haunt the franchise for years.

[DrFishfinder]

I can't criticize them for that NOW, Dean, but I definitely retain the right to second-guess this decision a few years down the road. If Clausen turns out terrific and whoever we end up with doesn't, the bottom line is that regardless of the reason we made that decision, it is going to look very stupid indeed.

 

I'm not saying that's going to happen, although I personally think Clausen is going to be a stud. I'm aware that Nix is smarter than me. I definitely am saying that it's a possibility, though, and maybe a pretty good one.

 

I just think it's quite possible that they liked him a lot, but not as much as they liked Spiller and Troup. Nobody wants to believe that's possible. People want to say that because Clausen fell it means every GM thought he sucked, and I don't buy it. Too many other factors go into these decisions, including the fact that Nix and Gailey may genuinely have felt that our current three deserved another shot, and that drafting Clausen would have basically ended their shot at starting in Buffalo.

 

We'll see. But if Clausen is a stud and we don't find one, this decision will haunt the franchise for years.

WADR, I disagree. That decision won't haunt the Bills any more, or any less, than any of the other QB's they've passed on, or the ones they didn't try to pull strings to get, or the ones who've outright flopped.

[Doc]

I'll buy that.

 

Maybe that's what you meant too, huh doc?

Seems like you're still the only one who's having problems with what I said, doc. What does that tell you? Or more precisely, what should that tell you?

[PDaDdy]

Yes - they got exactly what they wanted. 10th year or so of them out-foxing the competition come draft day. Slick.

 

Uh...there is a new GM and coach if you didn't hear the news. My comment was about the 2010 draft. No comment on the 9 years before that.

[Thurman#1]

I agree with this post. There are a lot of ways that college QBs can attain success that won't necessarily translate very effectively to the NFL level. The question NFL GMs are (or should be) asking isn't just "was this guy successful in college?" but rather, "of the things I'd like my starting quarterback to be able to do, how many has this guy proven he can do in college?"

 

 

 

If that's the question they should be asking, virtually nobody would ever get drafted.

 

In college, they're not asked to do the same things they will be asked to do in the pros, the important things anyway. The things like go through route trees of NFL-complexity, diagnose defenses of NFL complexity, and for anybody not working in a pro-style offense (which is 98% of college QBs these days), make anywhere near so many reads before throwing and throw into pro-size tiny windows. Not to mention showing how well they will handle being extremely rich.

 

Which is why basically nobody knows who will be the successful QBs. What GMs do is make the best educated guesses they can, because outside of the physical abilities of running fast, throwing hard enough and with enough touch, very little of what they throw in college helps diagnose whether or not they'll be good pros.

 

I could be wrong, but I think Bradford is going to be a dud. I hope I'm wrong, because it would be better for the league, but this guy never threw from under pressure, and basically had one read to make on each play. And he's the overwhelming critical fave of the QBs this year. You just can't be sure of anything.

[Thurman#1]

WADR, I disagree. That decision won't haunt the Bills any more, or any less, than any of the other QB's they've passed on, or the ones they didn't try to pull strings to get, or the ones who've outright flopped.

 

 

 

The ones who've outright flopped have haunted this franchise for years. Have you not noticed the last ten years and how well we've done. So yeah, you're right, it wouldn't haunt us anymore than drafting and screwing up Losman or trading a first for Rob Johnson did, and those each killed us for three or four years or so.

 

And the reason we passed on those other QBs were either that we never really had the chance to draft them (ala Roethlisberger) or we passed on them because we already were committed to one of the QBs we'd screwed up by drafting.

 

Those decisions set us back immensely. And if Clausen becomes a franchise guy, we will again have been set back immensely, unless, again, we get a franchise guy elsewhere, which is going to be a lot tougher than a lot of people here seem to think.

[The Dean]

We'll see. But if Clausen is a stud and we don't find one, this decision will haunt the franchise for years.

 

Well, possibly I suppose, unless one of their current QBs works out, or they pick one up, or they draft one next year, etc. But let's say one of the 5th or 6th round QBs turn out to be great. Will passing on them "haunt the franchise for years"?

[Orton's Arm]

If that's the question they should be asking, virtually nobody would ever get drafted.

 

In college, they're not asked to do the same things they will be asked to do in the pros, the important things anyway. The things like go through route trees of NFL-complexity, diagnose defenses of NFL complexity, and for anybody not working in a pro-style offense (which is 98% of college QBs these days), make anywhere near so many reads before throwing and throw into pro-size tiny windows. Not to mention showing how well they will handle being extremely rich.

 

Which is why basically nobody knows who will be the successful QBs. What GMs do is make the best educated guesses they can, because outside of the physical abilities of running fast, throwing hard enough and with enough touch, very little of what they throw in college helps diagnose whether or not they'll be good pros.

 

I could be wrong, but I think Bradford is going to be a dud. I hope I'm wrong, because it would be better for the league, but this guy never threw from under pressure, and basically had one read to make on each play. And he's the overwhelming critical fave of the QBs this year. You just can't be sure of anything.

I didn't indicate that it was possible for a college quarterback to prove he can do everything he'll be asked to do as a pro. But some college QBs show more NFL-like traits or abilities than others. Take a guy like Joe Montana, for example. In college, he showed a high level of accuracy, leadership, and the ability to hit his receivers in perfect stride. Those are all traits you want in your starting QB. (Though apparently the GMs of the time also wanted a lot of arm strength; which is the main reason why Montana lasted until the third round.)

[The Dean]

I didn't indicate that it was possible for a college quarterback to prove he can do everything he'll be asked to do as a pro. But some college QBs show more NFL-like traits or abilities than others. Take a guy like Joe Montana, for example. In college, he showed a high level of accuracy, leadership, and the ability to hit his receivers in perfect stride. Those are all traits you want in your starting QB. (Though apparently the GMs of the time also wanted a lot of arm strength; which is the main reason why Montana lasted until the third round.)

 

 

Have you considered what might have been Montana's fate had he been drafted by a team that used a vertical passing game, and didn't have a back as friendly to the passing game as Roger Craig, and WRs as adept as Rice, John Taylor, Dwight Clark, etc? Or played for a lesser offensive coach than Bill Walsh?

 

Can you imagine if Joe played for the Saints teams Archie Manning had the displeasure to have lead?

 

It isn't simply about the player. It is also about the context and the player.

[Mr. WEO]

Have you considered what might have been Montana's fate had he been drafted by a team that used a vertical passing game, and didn't have a back as friendly to the passing game as Roger Craig, and WRs as adept as Rice, John Taylor, Dwight Clark, etc? Or played for a lesser offensive coach than Bill Walsh?

 

Can you imagine if Joe played for the Saints teams Archie Manning had the displeasure to have lead?

 

It isn't simply about the player. It is also about the context and the player.

Well....you could pose the same question of any HOF QB. Also, it's hard to make the argument that the 49ers didn't "use a vertical passing game" from 81-90.

[DrFishfinder]

The ones who've outright flopped have haunted this franchise for years. Have you not noticed the last ten years and how well we've done. So yeah, you're right, it wouldn't haunt us anymore than drafting and screwing up Losman or trading a first for Rob Johnson did, and those each killed us for three or four years or so.

 

And the reason we passed on those other QBs were either that we never really had the chance to draft them (ala Roethlisberger) or we passed on them because we already were committed to one of the QBs we'd screwed up by drafting.

 

Those decisions set us back immensely. And if Clausen becomes a franchise guy, we will again have been set back immensely, unless, again, we get a franchise guy elsewhere, which is going to be a lot tougher than a lot of people here seem to think.

That was my only point. Passing on Clausen, IF he turns out to be a HOF QB, is still not going to end up being the most infamous thing the Bills FO has ever done.

[Orton's Arm]

Have you considered what might have been Montana's fate had he been drafted by a team that used a vertical passing game, and didn't have a back as friendly to the passing game as Roger Craig, and WRs as adept as Rice, John Taylor, Dwight Clark, etc? Or played for a lesser offensive coach than Bill Walsh?

 

Can you imagine if Joe played for the Saints teams Archie Manning had the displeasure to have lead?

 

It isn't simply about the player. It is also about the context and the player.

I agree that Montana was put in a situation deliberately designed to maximize his strengths, while minimizing his major weakness (lack of arm strength). Clearly, he would have been a lot less successful if he'd been placed in a true West Coast offense (based on a vertical passing game).