Haplo848 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I firmly believe that the Bills SHOULDN'T draft a QB this year (of course, that doesn't mean they won't...). If you draft someone in the first round, especially with the third pick in the draft, they should be starting immediately. None of the QBs listed as first round potential (Newton, Gabbert, Locker, Mallet), with the possible exception of Mallet, could come in and immediately start, they'd need time to come in and learn the pro game, sitting behind someone for a year or two. I don't think Mallet should be the pick at number 3, so therefore I don't believe that any of these four should be the pick at number 3, and I'm hoping Buddy and Chan see it this way, too. We need immediate help at multiple positions, and drafting someone who can't start immediately, with such high bust potential, isn't who we should be looking for. What do you all think?
Maddog69 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 As much as fans and media want it to be true, the draft is not intended to immediate impact. The draft is where team stock themselves with players whom they feel with have the greatest longterm impact. As far as the player they draft in the first round needing to start immediately, that is not true. It would be great if that happened, but that is not common for the Bills. They've had very high picks in the last several years and most did not start immediately, if ever (see Spiller, Maybin, McKelvin, etc)
silvermike Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I really don't mind giving a QB a year on the bench, especially on a team as far away from the playoffs as the Bills are. If the goal is to get a franchise QB as soon as possible, there's no difference between giving Newton or Gabbert a year on the bench, and drafting a "day one starter" in 2012. If you draft the QB this year, you can look for an immediate starter in 2012 at a position where that tends to work better.
Lofton80 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Chan being an offensive coach makes drafting a QB a possibility. His comments about the spread being the coming trend and his past success with Kordell Stewart makes me think he would take Cam Newton and groom him. If Ralph spends some money on two starter type FA's I say go for it. History says Ralph and Littman spend peanuts on B level FA's instead. Drafting one of the DL and a Martez Wilson in round 2 would not upset me at all.
ReturnoftheBuffaloBeast23 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 There is more than one round ... I could be wrong there may be one round ... It's not like if we draft a defensive player they are gonna make us a Superbowl Contender... Didn't it take Mario WIlliams 2 years to get great at his postion cuz his rookie year wasn't good same for Revis. Why people make it seem like just becase they play defense it doesn't have a learning curve. With that said... CAM NEWTON!.... Nuff Said!
NastyNateSoldiers Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 No Martez Wilson, the guy is overrated, way to stiff in the hips plays to high for a mlb and doesn't. Shed blockers very well. I just can't see why lots of people on this board want this guy in the second round, maybe the third.
Nanker Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Bottom line for me is that The Bills have to get tougher all around, at every position. If they think there's a QB that's a tough son-of-a-B word and will eventually get them consistently winning again, then so be it. But every other player they draft better be capable of starting on day one and tough as nails and nasty on game day as my wife is when I forget her birthday. We need a lot more "football players" on this team, not just guys that play at playing the game.
NastyNateSoldiers Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 No Martez Wilson, the guy is overrated, way to stiff in the hips plays to high for a mlb and doesn't. Shed blockers very well. I just can't see why lots of people on this board want this guy in the second round, maybe the third.
silvermike Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Bottom line for me is that The Bills have to get tougher all around, at every position. If they think there's a QB that's a tough son-of-a-B word and will eventually get them consistently winning again, then so be it. But every other player they draft better be capable of starting on day one and tough as nails and nasty on game day as my wife is when I forget her birthday. We need a lot more "football players" on this team, not just guys that play at playing the game. How bad would a rookie QB have to be before you (or anyone else) would be calling for Fitzpatrick to take back the reigns? Say he starts the first three games, they go 0-3, and ends up with three TDs, 5 picks, and an average of 200 yards/game.
Thoner7 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 QBs are worth the investment (high picks/years on the bench learning) but I think the guys this year are just so risky, we would best be served by passing on them. Guys like Bradford or Luck or Sanchez have better than a 50/50 shot at success lets say, because of their talents and college experience and workouts etc. But, how many scrambling, 1 read and run QBs have come to the NFL and succeeded? I bet its less than 10% if you ran the #s. McNabb and Vick seem to be the only two that come to mind. I know Steve Young did a while back but that’s a long time ago. How many guys who repeatedly make bad reads, and repeatedly show poor accuracy (Locker and Mallet) are successful in the NFL? Still less than 10%. Gabbert I haven’t seen enough of to form my own opinion, but how many QBs that McShay touts as being the top QB end up being good? ZERO – it has never happened, ever. I honestly see a QB like Dalton being much much less risky than any of the “top 4” but I also don’t know how high his ceiling is. Either way I am staying away from QB this year because of the class, while fully admitting it’s our #1 need.
BreezeMafia Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I firmly believe that the Bills SHOULDN'T draft a QB this year (of course, that doesn't mean they won't...). If you draft someone in the first round, especially with the third pick in the draft, they should be starting immediately. None of the QBs listed as first round potential (Newton, Gabbert, Locker, Mallet), with the possible exception of Mallet, could come in and immediately start, they'd need time to come in and learn the pro game, sitting behind someone for a year or two. I don't think Mallet should be the pick at number 3, so therefore I don't believe that any of these four should be the pick at number 3, and I'm hoping Buddy and Chan see it this way, too. We need immediate help at multiple positions, and drafting someone who can't start immediately, with such high bust potential, isn't who we should be looking for. What do you all think? AGREED!
NewEra Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Bottom line for me is that The Bills have to get tougher all around, at every position. If they think there's a QB that's a tough son-of-a-B word and will eventually get them consistently winning again, then so be it. But every other player they draft better be capable of starting on day one and tough as nails and nasty on game day as my wife is when I forget her birthday. We need a lot more "football players" on this team, not just guys that play at playing the game. lol....yeeeeeeaaaaaaah
Captain Hindsight Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 As much as fans and media want it to be true, the draft is not intended to immediate impact. The draft is where team stock themselves with players whom they feel with have the greatest longterm impact. As far as the player they draft in the first round needing to start immediately, that is not true. It would be great if that happened, but that is not common for the Bills. They've had very high picks in the last several years and most did not start immediately, if ever (see Spiller, Maybin, McKelvin, etc) How much did fans B word and moan this season about how we get no production from our rookies? There are 53 spots on that team. Call me crazy but they should each have a role and should be filling that role every single day. Teams like the pats and the Steelers and the packers plug their rookies in and win games. In Buffalo we have to build up our talent and let them develop. Anyone else see a problem here?
Maddog69 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Wait until the Pats lose Brady, they won't be able to "plug their rookies in and win games" We did the same thing when we had Kelly. Good teams can plugs a rookie or two in and be fine. Buffalo is not a good team. My original point to the OP was that I don't care if our #1 picks starts from day one. I care if he has a successful 10yr career as a Bill.
BuffaloBaumer Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Who cares if the guy at #3 does not start right off the bat. This team is so far away from the playoffs, it's ridiculous. If they see a QB that they think will take a year to turn into the leader they want, go for it. Do you think a DT or LB at 3 will get this team to the playoffs next year? So why would they pass on a QB if they think he is legit. This team DESPERATELY needs an identity and a leader (much like the Sabres) and until these two organizations get the franchise QB and first line Center, mediocrity will continue.....
Captain Hindsight Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Wait until the Pats lose Brady, they won't be able to "plug their rookies in and win games" We did the same thing when we had Kelly. Good teams can plugs a rookie or two in and be fine. Buffalo is not a good team. My original point to the OP was that I don't care if our #1 picks starts from day one. I care if he has a successful 10yr career as a Bill. The steelers won a few games with Dennis Dixon this year. Matt Flynn looked pretty solid in his start this year Matt Cassel surely didnt go 11-5 when he started for the pats* a year after Brady had 50 TDs. football is a team sport. A franchise QB is so rare that you better be sure. Cam Newton has amazing potential, nobody can deny that but nobody is sure about any of these QBs. Their isnt a Matt Ryan where you could tell at Boston College he could walk in and start just by watching a few games. I see alot of highlights but i dont see an NFL QB Answer me this: Who was the last QB from a spread offense in college to be a productive starter in the NFL?
RevWarRifleman Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I firmly believe that the Bills SHOULDN'T draft a QB this year (of course, that doesn't mean they won't...). If you draft someone in the first round, especially with the third pick in the draft, they should be starting immediately. None of the QBs listed as first round potential (Newton, Gabbert, Locker, Mallet), with the possible exception of Mallet, could come in and immediately start, they'd need time to come in and learn the pro game, sitting behind someone for a year or two. I don't think Mallet should be the pick at number 3, so therefore I don't believe that any of these four should be the pick at number 3, and I'm hoping Buddy and Chan see it this way, too. We need immediate help at multiple positions, and drafting someone who can't start immediately, with such high bust potential, isn't who we should be looking for. What do you all think? I agree, Haplo. I think we should shore up our defensive front 7, then go hard after the Stanford QB (his name is on the tip of my tongue) next year, regardless of where we might be in the draft.
Captain Hindsight Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I agree, Haplo. I think we should shore up our defensive front 7, then go hard after the Stanford QB (his name is on the tip of my tongue) next year, regardless of where we might be in the draft. You are referring to Andrew Luck sir
Bangarang Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) What I learn from threads like this -If you draft a QB in the 1st round, he needs to start day 1 or it was a stupid pick. -If we draft a defensive player like Dareus or Fairley, our defense will completely turn around in terms of production. -There is only 1 round in the NFL draft. So if we draft QB in the 1st round, there's no other opportunity to address any other need. -Just because we draft a defensive player, he'll be able to start day 1 without having much of a learning curve. -OP's try and base their arguments around not taking a player at #3 even though that player was NEVER good enough/rumored to ever go that high. -Cam Newton will bust because he is Vince Young. -Guys who play defense never bust in the NFL. *All these points may or may not have been the subject of OP's thread nor do they represent what he thinks. Edited February 21, 2011 by Bangarang
Maddog69 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 The steelers won a few games with Dennis Dixon this year. Matt Flynn looked pretty solid in his start this year Matt Cassel surely didnt go 11-5 when he started for the pats* a year after Brady had 50 TDs. football is a team sport. A franchise QB is so rare that you better be sure. Cam Newton has amazing potential, nobody can deny that but nobody is sure about any of these QBs. Their isnt a Matt Ryan where you could tell at Boston College he could walk in and start just by watching a few games. I see alot of highlights but i dont see an NFL QB Answer me this: Who was the last QB from a spread offense in college to be a productive starter in the NFL? Sam Bradford looks pretty good. Josh Freeman is progressing nicely. Just off the top of my head.
Recommended Posts