Some interesting info from TMQ

[Arkady Renko]

I like Wilson, and would be ok with him but I think he goes later than the third

 

 

 

Yes, I pushed for Brohm over the most untalented joke of a QB I have seen, Trent Edwards. And Brohm would be a better starter than Edwards who was afraid to even throw the ball. I never said Brohm was going to be this or that, I simply said he has yet to get some game time so lets see what he can do because Trent (and Fitz) had been horrendous in their time up to that point.

 

And you just proved how LITTLE you know about Mallet in your comments, so I guess there isn't much to discuss with you. I mean your statue comment is so absurd...he is faster than Manning and Brady...so who the hell cares about his 40 time. Did Montana, Brady, Manning, etc have bad careers because they were slow? No, because they are excellent at their footwork. Just because players like Vick dominate Madden does not mean its true in the NFL. And, watch some film on Mallet, he can avoid the rush and scramble more than people think because all they go buy is some blow hard comment about him being a statue.

 

Drug problems were alleged, and he was in college. Doesn't mean it will be an on going issue in the NFL, and all signs so far say he has been a model player in NE. And in his preseason time, he picked apart pro defenses (yes backups, but he was also playing with backups) and is the best pure passer in last years draft.

 

Who knows if any untested QB can read pro defenses...so would rather RISK our #10 pick on Tannehill who is already said to be project NOT ready for the NFL who you also have no idea if he can read pro defenses, especially since his knocks include questionable decision making...or use a lower round pick on a kid who is a better passer, incredible size, has learned behind Brady and BB for a year, has 1 season under his belt, shined in his rookie preseason outings, and his a top 10 TALENT but only fell because of some risk of an off field issue but has thus far shown no signs of trouble?

 

Brohm would be a better starter than Trent Edwards? I really doubt that. Levi Brown outplayed him.

[Mark Long Beach]

I'd take Freeman first, Flacco second, and Fitzpatrick third if I was building for the next 10 years. For next year only, I'd probably flip Flacco and Freeman, and Fitz would be a lot closer to both.

 

 

Yep, Easterbrook sure loves cherry-picking. So disingenuous, and he's smart enough to know better. But if you look at long-term results, the success rates are highest for first round QBs, then a step down to second round QBs, then a step down to third, then a big step down from there. (Except for the sixth round, which looks like a goldmine thanks to Brady, Hasselbeck, and Bulger.) So it seems like Easterbrook has a valid point.

 

EXCEPT! The supply of QBs is fixed; the only way for more teams to draft QBs in the first round is to take them from the second round or later. This does not improve them as prospects, except in that a first round QB will get more investment and chances from the team, and that probably does improve the chance of success a little bit, but not very much. Bust rates are already very high for first round QBs. This is because of two factors. First, it's really hard to be a good NFL QB, and really hard to project who can become a good NFL QB. Second, it's so important to have a good QB, and so hard to find one, that teams are willing to take big chances to try to find one. This is also why first round Safeties and Guards almost never bust: because the positions aren't as important, and replacements can be found relatively easily, teams aren't willing to spend a first-rounder on a S or G unless he's a can't-miss prospect.

 

So what's my point? Easterbrook's argument is terrible, because teams are already prioritizing QB about as much as possible. Any team that doesn't have an established QB will usually talk themselves into a QB in the first round. And if they don't, it usually means that they have such poor scouting reports on the available QBs that they can't even talk themselves into it. And the scouting reports, while not perfect, are generally pretty good, because QBs get less and less successful as you go deeper into the draft. (Again, with the exception of the 6th round, but I'm certain that that's just sampling error. Give us a couple hundred years to get an appropriate sample size, and the 6th round will drop right back into place.)

 

Awesome post.

[eball]

Flacco's a really interesting one. Yes, he's made the playoffs all three years in the league, but look at the team around him. A lot of Ravens fans are none too thrilled with the kid. I think he would have looked absolutely atrocious on the Bills last year.

[DC Tom]

After carefully evaluating the reach/value ratios for each of those players, according to my tier-1 positional ranking formula, I have concluded we should have taken Cam Newton when we had the chance.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Does your value ratio include the length of their pro careers?

[K-9]

Does your value ratio include the length of their pro careers?

 

Erudite as you hold yourself to be, I would think that even one of the most vile human beings I've ever met, in any venue, would know that the projected career spans would be 3.5 years. All you have to do is a regression analysis of previously established future projections to tell you that.

 

Oh, and divide by pi.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Dr. Fong]

Going back to 2007 (the last 5 drafts), these are the 1st round QBs the Bills had available and "passed" on selecting:

 

2007 - Brady Quinn

2008 - Joe Flacco

2009 - Josh Freeman

2010 - Tim Tebow, and i'll toss in Jimmy Clausen because of how high he was perceived

2011 - Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder

 

Does anyone honestly think any of those guys would have lead the Bills to the playoffs, or would you feel better with anyone of them currently leading the Bills over Fitzpatrick? I doubt it. But io guess we should have taken one so we "drafted a 1st round QB." (I will admit its way too early to pass judgement on the 2011 QBs, but none of them lit the league on fire their rookie season)

 

Once again, Gregggggg Easterbrook thinks he's stumbled on some great wisdom of the NFL, yet anyone with half a brain can easily debunk his claims as nothing more than hot air.

 

Out of that sorry group I'd only take Flacco over Fitzpatrick and I don't think Flacco would have done anything with this team that Fitzpatrick hasn't.

[spartacus]

For whatever reason Buffalo just does not seem to get this memo...can you forward to Buffalo front office please

 

Add this to the bottom thought: PS: Tannehill is too risky at #10, so grab a playmaker then trade our 3rd for Mallet.

 

pointless to bring in a drop back QB when we have no OTs to pass block

 

 

his career will be ruined before it is started

 

 

[peterpan]

It was interesting to hear what Billick said the other day. Jamarcus Russell was the highest rated player, EVER, on their board. That's Ozzie Newsome's board. Had they been in the position to get him, they would have. As would ANY team that needed a QB. Can you imagine if the Bills had taken him?

 

I fand that hard to believe. That was the Calin Johnson year. Did anyone have Russel rated over CJ? I dont remember any....I thought Russell went 1st bc of positional importance.

[K-9]

I fand that hard to believe. That was the Calin Johnson year. Did anyone have Russel rated over CJ? I dont remember any....I thought Russell went 1st bc of positional importance.

 

That was verbatim from Billick himself. That year was full of scouts and analysts like Mayock saying Russell had the best pro day workout of any QB in history. Not hard to believe Russell was at the top of most boards that year. I'll see if I can find the article and link it.

 

Found it.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/12/brian-billick-offers-a-cautionary-tale-on-jamarcus-russell/

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited April 26, 2012 by K-9

[ganesh]

Flacco, Locker, and Freeman would be very nice additions to this team...and Locker I think is going to be the real deal once he is ready to take over. Tenn is doing a great job not rushing the kid in and developing him old school behind proven vet, much like they did with McNair and not making the same mistake they made with V. Young.

 

And yet they went after Peyton Manning very hard and were willing to give him a lifetime contract. If Locker was so good, then why would you bury him down as your 3rd QB

[snamsnoops]

I like Wilson, and would be ok with him but I think he goes later than the third

 

 

 

Yes, I pushed for Brohm over the most untalented joke of a QB I have seen, Trent Edwards. And Brohm would be a better starter than Edwards who was afraid to even throw the ball. I never said Brohm was going to be this or that, I simply said he has yet to get some game time so lets see what he can do because Trent (and Fitz) had been horrendous in their time up to that point.

 

And you just proved how LITTLE you know about Mallet in your comments, so I guess there isn't much to discuss with you. I mean your statue comment is so absurd...he is faster than Manning and Brady...so who the hell cares about his 40 time. Did Montana, Brady, Manning, etc have bad careers because they were slow? No, because they are excellent at their footwork. Just because players like Vick dominate Madden does not mean its true in the NFL. And, watch some film on Mallet, he can avoid the rush and scramble more than people think because all they go buy is some blow hard comment about him being a statue.

 

Drug problems were alleged, and he was in college. Doesn't mean it will be an on going issue in the NFL, and all signs so far say he has been a model player in NE. And in his preseason time, he picked apart pro defenses (yes backups, but he was also playing with backups) and is the best pure passer in last years draft.

 

Who knows if any untested QB can read pro defenses...so would rather RISK our #10 pick on Tannehill who is already said to be project NOT ready for the NFL who you also have no idea if he can read pro defenses, especially since his knocks include questionable decision making...or use a lower round pick on a kid who is a better passer, incredible size, has learned behind Brady and BB for a year, has 1 season under his belt, shined in his rookie preseason outings, and his a top 10 TALENT but only fell because of some risk of an off field issue but has thus far shown no signs of trouble?

 

So Why would NE want to trade Mallet after 1 yr if he has so much potential. HMMM Brady isn't getting any younger. You would think if he was such a stud they would want to continue to groom him to be Marcy's replacement in a couple years. I think they know he isn't that good and are willing to part with him for what they drafted him! Sounds alot like Bledsoe to me.