offsides#76FredSmerlas Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 I think the QB with most upside is EJ Manuel. I like his size, arm strength, mobility and leadership qualities. I would love to grab him and let him sit behind Kolb for 1 season. I am not sure if he is ready to step on the field year one but I think down the line he may be the best prospect. I like the Kolb move because it gives us more options and some better stability at a position of need.
Jerry Christ Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 I doubt that's Nix's intent. He can't assume he still has his job for another year. he's not going to be......he's gone.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 According to this article (and others, this was just the first one a quick google search turned up), the contracts for the first 16 picks (including Tannehill) are fully guaranteed. This doesn't have to be the case -- I remember there being a sticking point last year for draftees in the late teens who were trying to get their deals fully guaranteed, so it's negotiable. This is a cap wrinkle I actually wanted to bring up, because it does impact the discussion of drafting QBs #1 in consecutive years. Most pundits/fans agree pretty much universally that the new rookie salary structure decreases the risk of drafting a QB high, since you're not stuck with a Sam Bradford-level contract for said QB. But when you consider that in the top half of the first round, your QB is getting a 4-year *guaranteed* deal, it alters the thinking a little bit. That salary structure is set up for a bad team to pick their "franchise" QB and commit to him for 3-4 years whether he's good or not. Drafting 2 QBs back-to-back is still somewhat feasible, but going 3 in a row is basically impossible unless a team can trade at least one of them. Teams aren't going to want to carry fully guaranteed contracts on the bench if they can avoid it. It's doable if a QB is riding the pine because he's being groomed to be the starter, and probably also if the team considers him a quality backup, but that's about it. I still say that the default position for rebuilding teams will be what it's been -- draft a QB high, make him the face of the franchise, commit to him for several years until he's proven that he can't do it, then repeat. (Sprinkle in a few games or whole seasons of starting the Holcombs/Fitzes/Kolbs of the world in there as well.) Great post, Cash. So what LL Phoenix said is somewhat true although the contract for Tannehill last year was in the $12 million range, not the $15-20 million range. Nevertheless I was wrong because I didn't know the contracts of the first 16 first rounders was guaranteed so I mistakenly equated the signing bonus ($7.653 million) with the guaranteed money when in fact the entire contract is guaranteed. Yeah, I wonder how close Jacksonville was to drafting a QB last year and I wonder how tempted Cleveland will be this year.
Cash Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 Great post, Cash. So what LL Phoenix said is somewhat true although the contract for Tannehill last year was in the $12 million range, not the $15-20 million range. Nevertheless I was wrong because I didn't know the contracts of the first 16 first rounders was guaranteed so I mistakenly equated the signing bonus ($7.653 million) with the guaranteed money when in fact the entire contract is guaranteed. Yeah, I wonder how close Jacksonville was to drafting a QB last year and I wonder how tempted Cleveland will be this year. Right. Our hypothetical QB drafted at #8 this year would get just about what Tannehill got last year, presumably a smidge more. Let's say that after 2013, there's about $9 million left on his contract, all of it guaranteed. Let's also say he looked pretty bad as a rookie in 2013, and Murray/Bridgewater/Boyd/etc. all had great years and look like great prospects. There would definitely be some temptation to pick a QB again in 2014. But would the Bills pull the trigger on a new QB, knowing that they have to pay the 2013 guy another $9 million whether he plays or not, and also knowing that many great QBs had very unimpressive rookie seasons? I think the answer's no. The natural tendency of most decision-makers would be to justify sticking with the 2013, with the rationale that he needs time and commitment to develop, and that the presence of another first-rounder on the roster will shatter 2013's confidence and ruin his career forever. Having said that, it's still not impossible. But it's important to consider that with guaranteed rookie contracts, there is no plausible scenario where a team cuts a top-16 QB (or any player) after 1 or 2 years. They might trade him for peanuts, but they won't take the chance of the player clearing waivers and getting paid to do nothing. Not just for cap implications, but also for the real-world cash outlay to a player no longer on the roster. So for a team to draft QBs in the first round, especially the high first round, they would probably have to have a conscious strategy of developing 2 QBs simultaneously with a notion of keeping 1 as a good backup and maybe trading him for picks before his contract is up. Most current/old school NFL thinkers seem to think that a team CAN'T develop 2 QBs simultaneously, because there aren't enough practice reps available. That's why there was so much surprise when Washington drafted a second QB last year, and also why Mike Lombardi repeatedly blasted Pete Carroll for having a 3-way QB competition between TJax, Flynn, & Wilson last year. Lombardi's argument was that with Wilson a rookie and Flynn only having played essentially 2 NFL games, they both needed as many practice reps as possible to develop, and the Seahawks couldn't afford to split reps/playing time in training camp/preseason as part of a QB competition. He also argued that TJax was still young/developing and also needed practice reps, but that sounded dumb even at the time, so I ignored it. I agreed with the rest of his argument, and was very intrigued by how terribly wrong it turned out to be. Was it just that Russell Wilson is way better than Lombardi realized, or was his logic flawed? Old-school defenders should be quick to point out that Wilson actually was pretty mediocre to bad for the first part of the season, and maybe if he'd gotten the lion's share of the practice reps all along, he'd have developed a few games quicker? Anyway, I wanted to bring up the Lombardi/Seahawks commentary, because Lombardi is now GM of the Browns, and has an interesting decision in front of him. I don't remember him being particularly high or low on Weeden last year, but he has no specific loyalties there. Weeden's contract only pays about $2mil a year, but at least the first 3 years are guaranteed. Lombardi can't feasibly cut Weeden and shell out something like $4mil for an empty roster spot. So he needs to decide whether to roll with Weeden as "the man" or bring in some competition. By his own argument last year, he should commit to Weeden, and make sure the coaching staff gives him as much experience as possible to Weeden's development. But maybe Seattle's success convinced Lombardi that he was wrong, and he'll take a different tack this year? Possible, but if he goes that route, I think it's a lot more likely that he drafts a QB in the 2nd or 3rd "to provide competition", and I would also expect Weeden to quickly get yanked in favor of the rookie in that scenario. I.e., the same situation that happened with Losman & Edwards.
KOKBILLS Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 Right. Our hypothetical QB drafted at #8 this year would get just about what Tannehill got last year, presumably a smidge more. Let's say that after 2013, there's about $9 million left on his contract, all of it guaranteed. Let's also say he looked pretty bad as a rookie in 2013, and Murray/Bridgewater/Boyd/etc. all had great years and look like great prospects. There would definitely be some temptation to pick a QB again in 2014. But would the Bills pull the trigger on a new QB, knowing that they have to pay the 2013 guy another $9 million whether he plays or not, and also knowing that many great QBs had very unimpressive rookie seasons? I think the answer's no. The natural tendency of most decision-makers would be to justify sticking with the 2013, with the rationale that he needs time and commitment to develop, and that the presence of another first-rounder on the roster will shatter 2013's confidence and ruin his career forever. Having said that, it's still not impossible. But it's important to consider that with guaranteed rookie contracts, there is no plausible scenario where a team cuts a top-16 QB (or any player) after 1 or 2 years. They might trade him for peanuts, but they won't take the chance of the player clearing waivers and getting paid to do nothing. Not just for cap implications, but also for the real-world cash outlay to a player no longer on the roster. So for a team to draft QBs in the first round, especially the high first round, they would probably have to have a conscious strategy of developing 2 QBs simultaneously with a notion of keeping 1 as a good backup and maybe trading him for picks before his contract is up. Most current/old school NFL thinkers seem to think that a team CAN'T develop 2 QBs simultaneously, because there aren't enough practice reps available. That's why there was so much surprise when Washington drafted a second QB last year, and also why Mike Lombardi repeatedly blasted Pete Carroll for having a 3-way QB competition between TJax, Flynn, & Wilson last year. Lombardi's argument was that with Wilson a rookie and Flynn only having played essentially 2 NFL games, they both needed as many practice reps as possible to develop, and the Seahawks couldn't afford to split reps/playing time in training camp/preseason as part of a QB competition. He also argued that TJax was still young/developing and also needed practice reps, but that sounded dumb even at the time, so I ignored it. I agreed with the rest of his argument, and was very intrigued by how terribly wrong it turned out to be. Was it just that Russell Wilson is way better than Lombardi realized, or was his logic flawed? Old-school defenders should be quick to point out that Wilson actually was pretty mediocre to bad for the first part of the season, and maybe if he'd gotten the lion's share of the practice reps all along, he'd have developed a few games quicker? Anyway, I wanted to bring up the Lombardi/Seahawks commentary, because Lombardi is now GM of the Browns, and has an interesting decision in front of him. I don't remember him being particularly high or low on Weeden last year, but he has no specific loyalties there. Weeden's contract only pays about $2mil a year, but at least the first 3 years are guaranteed. Lombardi can't feasibly cut Weeden and shell out something like $4mil for an empty roster spot. So he needs to decide whether to roll with Weeden as "the man" or bring in some competition. By his own argument last year, he should commit to Weeden, and make sure the coaching staff gives him as much experience as possible to Weeden's development. But maybe Seattle's success convinced Lombardi that he was wrong, and he'll take a different tack this year? Possible, but if he goes that route, I think it's a lot more likely that he drafts a QB in the 2nd or 3rd "to provide competition", and I would also expect Weeden to quickly get yanked in favor of the rookie in that scenario. I.e., the same situation that happened with Losman & Edwards. I think even if Lombardi is swayed slightly by what happened in Seattle, the reality is the Seahawks got a what appears to be a Top 10 caliber QB in the 3rd Round...The risk for Seattle was relatively low in comparison to the pick the Browns would have to use this year to bring in a QB that can compete with Weeden from day #1...Instead I think the Browns look towards a Matt Scott-like prospect in the 2nd or 3rd Round...
KeisterHollow Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 long time reader of these blogs first time i ever posted..... Everybody keeps on saying 2014 is the better draft class....how do you know this? If Barkley and Wilson came out last year they could have both been 1st round talent from their previous season of work....stuff happens they had a bad next season....same can be said for any of the three kids coming out next year there are supposedly all better than these guys. Personally I would rather take a guy like Barkley or Wilson now that they have had success and defeat....Both of those guys know what this league is all about....Not For Long......they will have the better attitude than anybody riding a high from a good couple of seasons. Because when push comes to shove and the speed of the Pro game is just too much for you, your mind wont adapt to the agony of defeat. Barkley and Wilson have that mental toughness now without a team paying them a single dollar. I am also sick of hearing about what happened in the past. Do you really think an NFL GM cares what happened 20 years ago in the draft, i dont even think he cares about what happened last year. It is a dog eat dog world and if you truly think someone is going to suck for luck situation how would you like it if your boss decides to fire everyone around you and bring in all new people....do you think he would have his job long or the company would still even be around. You have to put food on the table somehow. Remember this is not a game like everyone thinks it is.....this is a business and peoples lives are at stake. Once you start thinking like that and not a fan most of you will actually understand. I was about to say the same thing - you just never know what next year's QB class will actually look like until it happens. Guys could get hurt, guys could have poor years, and our team might not be drafting as high. I really don't dislike this year's draft class. As a matter of fact, IMO, if you're going to need to draft a QB, I'd rather it be a year like this - where there is no clear cut top QB, but where there are some 6 or 7 QB's who could all legitimately be drafted in the first 3 rounds, and each has qualities that make them POTENTIALLY good NFL QB's. It just leaves the Bills a lot of options, and if they do their homework, which they appear to be doing, they should be able to determine which QB's are a good fit for them. And, they could very well grab a QB in the 2nd and 4th, for instance, or 1st and 4th - like the Redskins did last year, just to increase their odds of having a legitimate QB on the roster. If there were only 2 or 3 really solid NFL franchise caliber QB's in this draft, there would be a very good chance Buffalo would miss out on them all, because Jax, Oak, Phil, Arizona, and even Cleveland all pick before Buffalo, and how many of them would have made different QB decisions this offseason if they had a more highly rated rookie to look forward to drafting? We should consider ourselves lucky - this draft might shape out to be perfect for Buffalo. The only bad thing about this draft is our lack of picks!
BuffBill Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 The financial commitment to a QB 8th overall would be hard to give up on after one year, though. Especially with the Bills. That will be like $15-20M guaranteed. 41st pick, absolutely disposable. With the new CBA the position really doesn't matter. The pay is pretty much slotted at the draft position and they know for the most part what they are going to pay the pick no matter who it is. I actually do have an example. The Redskins used there pick last year, this year, AND next year on QBs. It just happened to be the same guy. The Bills spent the 2003 first round pick on Bledsoe and a first round pick in 2004 on Losman.
Mr. WEO Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 . According to this article (and others, this was just the first one a quick google search turned up), the contracts for the first 16 picks (including Tannehill) are fully guaranteed. This doesn't have to be the case -- I remember there being a sticking point last year for draftees in the late teens who were trying to get their deals fully guaranteed, so it's negotiable. Tannehill's contract 12.7 mil total, is not guaranteed all 4 years. He was given a signing bonus of 7.6 and his first year was 900,000. In the next three seasons, he gets a base salary and then a roster bonus (higher than the base salary) if he is on the roster beyond the 6th day of camp. So, cutting him year or 2 early costs very little. It's a throwaway spot, essentially. Draft the often and early.
Recommended Posts