Greg Cosell: "Glennon is best QB in rookie class and it is not eve

[San Jose Bills Fan]

We should draft a QB in the first round if he's a generational talent like Luck, etc. Nobody like that will be available when we draft, if a QB like that exists in the draft as it is.

 

AJ McCarron doesn't fit the description.

 

The Aikman/Walsh scenario is the only one that's relevant to the discussion. N.O. got taken to the cleaners as Walsh never established himself as a franchise player when he was in Dallas and they rolled the dice and lost. Desperate teams do desperate things when it comes to QBs, especially. RJ is a prime example.

 

The crux of the issue is that teams can't develop two franchise QBs simultaneously. And the problem of development isn't confined to what those QBs do on the field, either. There's a huge locker room component involved.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

McCarron is a just "for instance." My point is that there are a lot of good QBs out there even after Bridgewater, Manziel, and Mariota. What if the Bills are drafting 12th and Boyd or Hundley are there?

 

Ideally a team would want to trade up for the pick but what if no good trade offer materializes even though the Bills know strong interest exists? Do you buy and hold?

 

No doubt developing two QBs is difficult but it's not impossible. Cousins seemed to develop very nicely in spite of getting second string reps. Foles developed nicely for a second stringer.

 

As for the locker room aspect, I believe that a strong coach could sell a competitive situation at QB to his team. I think it's only disruptive when leadership is weak.

 

Again, all I'm saying is that a team shouldn't dismiss out of hand, the possibility of drafting a QB in the first round in consecutive years.

[K-9]

McCarron is a just "for instance." My point is that there are a lot of good QBs out there even after Bridgewater, Manziel, and Mariota. What if the Bills are drafting 12th and Boyd or Hundley are there?

 

Ideally a team would want to trade up for the pick but what if no good trade offer materializes even though the Bills know strong interest exists? Do you buy and hold?

 

No doubt developing two QBs is difficult but it's not impossible. Cousins seemed to develop very nicely in spite of getting second string reps. Foles developed nicely for a second stringer.

 

As for the locker room aspect, I believe that a strong coach could sell a competitive situation at QB to his team. I think it's only disruptive when leadership is weak.

 

Again, all I'm saying is that a team shouldn't dismiss out of hand, the possibility of drafting a QB in the first round in consecutive years.

 

The Bills would have to believe that Manuel is definitely not the answer moving forward to select any QB you mentioned. To even begin to entertain that.

 

That locker room aspect is not and never will be the realm of the coach. It's nice to think that's how it works, but the locker room and the politics that preside within it, is all about the players. And the QB is the most important player in that room and he HAS to make the team his own. That takes an exceptional physical and mental talent. And it can never be done in tandem.

 

There is just not enough time to give to two QB prospects drafted for the purpose of being an eventual franchise QB. You want to draft a Reich or a Cousins to be a back up, that's one thing. But I don't envision a day when a team takes an Andrew Luck one year and then a Peyton Manning the next. Regardless of how convenient the rookie wage scale makes that.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[chris heff]

 

 

It's the same discussion as the theoretical of whether you take a tight end or a guard in the first round.

 

You don't know until you're on the clock and you see what your options are.

 

My point is that you don't disqualify the possibility.

 

I don't believe dogmatism is a good approach to anything (I was just dogmatic, wasn't I?).

That I agree with.

[JohnC]

Drafting QBs in the first round in consecutive seasons, as has already been agreed, is an outside the box, unconventional idea to say the least.

 

It becomes less "out there" when you consider that:

 

1) QB has increased in value almost exponentially in the last decade and

 

2) With the new collective bargaining agreement which includes a rookie pay scale, what used to be impossible is now plausible.

 

I was as big a supporter of EJ Manuel BEFORE the draft and CONTINUE to support and believe in him.

 

The reason I don't think any team should ever rule out drafting a QB highly in consecutive years is multi-fold. QBs are valuable assets.

 

If this QB draft is as outstanding as scouts are saying, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Bills will have a premier QB prospect (AJ McCarron for instance) available when they pick even at picks 10-12.

 

As I mentioned upthread, the Cowboys spent a first rounder on Troy Aikman less than one year after taking Steve Walsh using a first round pick in the supplemental draft.

 

When they determined that Aikman was the better prospect four games into the 1990 season, "Dallas traded Walsh to the New Orleans Saints for a first, third and second round draft choices. With the third pick the Cowboys would eventually select Erik Williams."

 

http://en.wikipedia....erican_football)

 

Williams was a dominating force who went to 4 Pro Bowls, was a 3-time All Pro and one of the most feared O-linemen of his era.

 

In any given draft, there are numerous teams looking for their franchise QB. Being able to draft one is a great form of being able to leverage value.

 

I'm a bit surprised by the adherence to conventional thinking at a time when there's strong rationale for reassessing this issue.

 

The Walsh/Aikman scenario happened a quarter century ago. There is a good reason why that duplicative qb strategy hasn't happened too often. In addition, it didn't take the Cowboys too long to determine that Walsh didn't have a strong enough arm to be a quality qb starter. When the Saints made the deal with the Cowboys that bolstered the Cowboys and weakened their team they made a stupendous blunder that current non harebrained franchises would not want to make. Another factor why the Dallas/Saint deal you make reference to is improbable is that in the NFL of today draft picks are coveted in this era strongly influenced by the cap.

 

The Bills are in a rebuild stage where they are entering the level of respectability. If they believe that they already have a good franchise qb prospect with their first drafted qb it would make little sense to delay the rebuild process with another younger qb entering the mix.

Edited December 1, 2013 by JohnC

[mannc]

You guys are overthinking this. It seems unlikely that we will know one way or the other about EJ this year. The main reason to draft a QB this year is that there is currently no credible backup on the roster. If the player drafted turns out to be better than expected, then you have a good problem on your hands, but it is silly to draft another QB for the purpose of developing him and then trading one of your QBs for a high draft pick. The chances of it happening are too slim, and too many things can go wrong.

[YoloinOhio]

You guys are overthinking this. It seems unlikely that we will know one way or the other about EJ this year. The main reason to draft a QB this year is that there is currently no credible backup on the roster. If the player drafted turns out to be better than expected, then you have a good problem on your hands, but it is silly to draft another QB for the purpose of developing him and then trading one of your QBs for a high draft pick. The chances of it happening are too slim, and too many things can go wrong.

Instead of adding another rookie to the mix though, I would rather sign a veteran if they feel that Thad is not good enough to be the backup. You still need to develop a rookie even if he is the backup. We would be in the same situation as we were this year if EJ got hurt, an inexperienced rookie starting with not a lot of reps.

[mannc]

Instead of adding another rookie to the mix though, I would rather sign a veteran if they feel that Thad is not good enough to be the backup. You still need to develop a rookie even if he is the backup. We would be in the same situation as we were this year if EJ got hurt, an inexperienced rookie starting with not a lot of reps.

I agree that signing a vet is a viable option, too, but there will not be a lot of good, proven vets available at an affordable price. A draftee would be cheaper and (presumably) have higher upside.

[chris heff]

 

 

The Walsh/Aikman scenario happened a quarter century ago. There is a good reason why that duplicative qb strategy hasn't happened too often. In addition, it didn't take the Cowboys too long to determine that Walsh didn't have a strong enough arm to be a quality qb starter. When the Saints made the deal with the Cowboys that bolstered the Cowboys and weakened their team they made a stupendous blunder that current non harebrained franchises would not want to make. Another factor why the Dallas/Saint deal you make reference to is improbable is that in the NFL of today draft picks are coveted in this era strongly influenced by the cap.

 

The Bills are in a rebuild stage where they are entering the level of respectability. If they believe that they already have a good franchise qb prospect with their first drafted qb it would makeA little sense to delay the rebuild process with another younger qb entering the mix.

Drafting a QB in the first round in consecutive drafts was virtually impossible prior to to new CBA rookie salary structure. That being said, I can't see a team doing it unless the only missing position is QB and in the second draft, when your turn comes up, the number one guy on your board is a QB that has fallen to you. It would be a guy impossible to pass on.

[Fixxxer]

Instead of adding another rookie to the mix though, I would rather sign a veteran if they feel that Thad is not good enough to be the backup. You still need to develop a rookie even if he is the backup. We would be in the same situation as we were this year if EJ got hurt, an inexperienced rookie starting with not a lot of reps.

 

I feel is too late now, we could have used the veteran this year, but he proved to be damaged woods. With what Thad showed this year, he should be the back-up going forward, unless Tuel has anything to say about it next training camp, obviously.

[Orton's Arm]

The Bills would have to believe that Manuel is definitely not the answer moving forward to select any QB you mentioned. To even begin to entertain that.

 

That locker room aspect is not and never will be the realm of the coach. It's nice to think that's how it works, but the locker room and the politics that preside within it, is all about the players. And the QB is the most important player in that room and he HAS to make the team his own. That takes an exceptional physical and mental talent. And it can never be done in tandem.

 

There is just not enough time to give to two QB prospects drafted for the purpose of being an eventual franchise QB. You want to draft a Reich or a Cousins to be a back up, that's one thing. But I don't envision a day when a team takes an Andrew Luck one year and then a Peyton Manning the next. Regardless of how convenient the rookie wage scale makes that.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

San Jose Bills Fan has done a bang-up job in his recent posts. So much so that it's tempting for me to get a bit lazy here; and leave this discussion in his capable hands. That said, there's a point from your post which I'd like to address.

 

> The Bills would have to believe that Manuel is definitely not the answer moving forward to select any QB you mentioned. To even begin to entertain that.

 

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Bills decide there's a 30% chance of Manuel becoming the long-term answer; and a 30% chance of one of the guys SJBF mentioned becoming the answer. A Manuel-only approach gives the team a 30% chance to get the QB position fixed. Most first round QBs don't turn into long-term answers for the teams that drafted them. Assigning a 30% chance to any randomly-chosen first round QB is probably fairly accurate--especially if the QB in question wasn't taken in the top-5.

 

Instead of the 30% chance of having the long-term answer on your roster (Manuel only), taking a second QB creates the following:

9% chance of both QBs working out

42% chance of exactly one QB working out

49% chance of neither QB working out

 

If you run into that 9% chance, can you extract value from the situation by trading away one of your QBs for a good price? The answer is probably you can, if you go in with your eyes open. Cutler was traded away for two first round picks and sundry.

[JohnC]

 

 

San Jose Bills Fan has done a bang-up job in his recent posts. So much so that it's tempting for me to get a bit lazy here; and leave this discussion in his capable hands. That said, there's a point from your post which I'd like to address.

 

> The Bills would have to believe that Manuel is definitely not the answer moving forward to select any QB you mentioned. To even begin to entertain that.

 

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Bills decide there's a 30% chance of Manuel becoming the long-term answer; and a 30% chance of one of the guys SJBF mentioned becoming the answer. A Manuel-only approach gives the team a 30% chance to get the QB position fixed. Most first round QBs don't turn into long-term answers for the teams that drafted them. Assigning a 30% chance to any randomly-chosen first round QB is probably fairly accurate--especially if the QB in question wasn't taken in the top-5.

 

Instead of the 30% chance of having the long-term answer on your roster (Manuel only), taking a second QB creates the following:

9% chance of both QBs working out

42% chance of exactly one QB working out

49% chance of neither QB working out

 

If you run into that 9% chance, can you extract value from the situation by trading away one of your QBs for a good price? The answer is probably you can, if you go in with your eyes open. Cutler was traded away for two first round picks and sundry.

 

If it appears that Manuel isn't a legitimate franchise qb you will get little in return for him if you draft another qb who potentially has a higher upside. That contradicts your original premise that both of your qbs have value on the trade market.

 

SJB brought up the example of the Walsh trade after the drafting of Aikman. That deal happened a quarter century ago. There is a reason why that type of deal is such a rarity. It is so improbable that the odds of it happening is bordering on being nonexistent. It is very unlikely a team is going to give up an abundance of picks when the discarded qb is not valued by his trading team.

 

Your Cutler example has little to do with your orignial premise. He made it very clear that he didn't want to remain with the franchise and work with the new coaching staff. The HC wasn't enamored with him and his attitude so the organization made the trade.

Edited December 1, 2013 by JohnC

[Orton's Arm]

If it appears that Manuel isn't a legitimate franchise qb you will get little in return for him if you draft another qb who potentially has a higher upside. That contradicts your original premise that both of your qbs have value on the trade market.

 

SJB brought up the example of the Walsh trade after the drafting of Aikman. That deal happened a quarter century ago. There is a reason why that type of deal is such a rarity. It is so improbable that the odds of it happening is bordering on being nonexistent. It is very unlikely a team is going to give up an abundance of picks when the discarded qb is not valued by his trading team.

 

Your Cutler example has little to do with your orignial premise. He made it very clear that he didn't want to remain with the franchise and work with the new coaching staff. The HC wasn't enamored with him and his attitude so the organization made the trade.

 

If you draft first round QBs in back-to-back years, there's a 9% chance of the question of trade value mattering; and a 91% chance of it not mattering. (Assuming one accepts the premise that a typical first round, non-top-5 QB has a 30% chance of becoming the long-term answer.) I don't want to get too caught up in arguing about that 9%; because the other 91% is much more important.

 

From 1993 - present, the Bills have used first round picks on the following players:

• Thomas Smith (CB)
  
• Jeff Burris (CB)
  
• Antoine Winfield (CB)
  
• Nate Clements (CB)
  
• Donte Whitner (SS)
  
• Leodis McKelvin (CB)
  
• Stephon Gilmore (CB)

And also on these players:

• Antowain Smith (RB)
  
• Willis McGahee (RB)
  
• Marshawn Lynch (RB)
  
• CJ Spiller (RB)

That's eleven draft picks! Suppose that every one of those eleven first round picks had been used either on a) QBs, or b) traded for future picks to be used on QBs. With eleven extra first round picks being directly or indirectly thrown at the QB position, odds are very strong we would have found a long-term answer. Don't you think a long-term answer at QB--the next Jim Kelly or better--would be worth more to the team than all eleven of those guys combined?

 

Besides that, it's quite possible that the Bills would have found their answer long before the eleventh first round pick used on a QB. If they'd gotten a rock solid QB after only five first round picks used on the position; then picks six - eleven could have been used on non-QBs.

 

But no. That's not how this franchise has been run. If anyone at the QB position offered even a remote prayer of being the long-term answer, the Bills would not take a QB until it was absolutely certain that prayer wouldn't be answered. The following list of players caused the Bills to see QB as a non-need: Todd Collins, Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, J.P. Losman, Trent Edwards, Ryan Fitzpatrick.

 

When you use a first round pick on a JP Losman, you're squandering the pick. More importantly--at least if you're the Bills--you're squandering time. As long as the Bills have it in their heads that Losman is the quarterback of the future, he will displace all other QBs the Bills might otherwise have drafted. That scenario can be absolutely devastating--and has been devastating the Bills ever since Polian left.

 

At this point, you could come back at me with, "It's too soon to know if Manuel is the next Losman, or if he's the next Russell Wilson." Fine. But it does not make sense to assume he's Russell Wilson until he proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he's Losman. If there's uncertainty--which there is--it's best to respond to that uncertainty by investing more resources into the QB position. Given that the QB position is by far the most important, it makes sense to err on the side of over-investing in that position.

[Wayne Cubed]

At this point, you could come back at me with, "It's too soon to know if Manuel is the next Losman, or if he's the next Russell Wilson." Fine. But it does not make sense to assume he's Russell Wilson until he proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he's Losman. If there's uncertainty--which there is--it's best to respond to that uncertainty by investing more resources into the QB position. Given that the QB position is by far the most important, it makes sense to err on the side of over-investing in that position.

 

How's that working out for the Redskins? Team is falling apart. Has a terrible OL, WR corp. and a terrible defense. They have no first round pick next year, which would have been really high, possibly in the top 5. Still don't know what they have in RGIII.

 

But yes, by all means, over-invest in a single position.

[GunnerBill]

So basically you do think that this game is so quarterback critical that you would draft a QB in the first round every year until you find one you want?

 

I disagree. Whilst you need a good Quarterback to win a Superbowl your theory would seem to suggest it's the only position in which it's worth trying to prioritise premium players. I have never seen a Superbowl champion with a great QB and average players everywhere else.

 

How's that working out for the Redskins? Team is falling apart. Has a terrible OL, WR corp. and a terrible defense. They have no first round pick next year, which would have been really high, possibly in the top 5. Still don't know what they have in RGIII.

 

But yes, by all means, over-invest in a single position.

 

I agree. Presumably as RGIII hasn't proven he is definitely the answer yet they should use their second round pick next year on a Quarterback despite all the other needs you have rightly highlighted. I'm confused by this theory.

Edited December 1, 2013 by GunnerBill

[Orton's Arm]

How's that working out for the Redskins? Team is falling apart. Has a terrible OL, WR corp. and a terrible defense. They have no first round pick next year, which would have been really high, possibly in the top 5. Still don't know what they have in RGIII.

 

But yes, by all means, over-invest in a single position.

 

The Indianapolis Colts weren't exactly bursting with talent when they drafted Peyton Manning. Had they been, they wouldn't have lost enough games to be able to draft first overall. Nor were they bursting with talent when they took Andrew Luck.

 

After the Colts took Manning, they had some not-so-great years. But Manning gave them well over a decade of his career; and eventually they were able to build a team around him. A Super Bowl-winning team.

 

I have no idea if RGIII will be able to do something similar for Washington. But if he's that kind of player, then the current struggles for the Redskins will someday seem about as irrelevant as the Colts' struggles early in Manning's career.

[JohnC]

 

 

If you draft first round QBs in back-to-back years, there's a 9% chance of the question of trade value mattering; and a 91% chance of it not mattering. (Assuming one accepts the premise that a typical first round, non-top-5 QB has a 30% chance of becoming the long-term answer.) I don't want to get too caught up in arguing about that 9%; because the other 91% is much more important.

 

From 1993 - present, the Bills have used first round picks on the following players:

• Thomas Smith (CB)
  
• Jeff Burris (CB)
  
• Antoine Winfield (CB)
  
• Nate Clements (CB)
  
• Donte Whitner (SS)
  
• Leodis McKelvin (CB)
  
• Stephon Gilmore (CB)

And also on these players:

• Antowain Smith (RB)
  
• Willis McGahee (RB)
  
• Marshawn Lynch (RB)
  
• CJ Spiller (RB)

That's eleven draft picks! Suppose that every one of those eleven first round picks had been used either on a) QBs, or b) traded for future picks to be used on QBs. With eleven extra first round picks being directly or indirectly thrown at the QB position, odds are very strong we would have found a long-term answer. Don't you think a long-term answer at QB--the next Jim Kelly or better--would be worth more to the team than all eleven of those guys combined?

 

Besides that, it's quite possible that the Bills would have found their answer long before the eleventh first round pick used on a QB. If they'd gotten a rock solid QB after only five first round picks used on the position; then picks six - eleven could have been used on non-QBs.

 

But no. That's not how this franchise has been run. If anyone at the QB position offered even a remote prayer of being the long-term answer, the Bills would not take a QB until it was absolutely certain that prayer wouldn't be answered. The following list of players caused the Bills to see QB as a non-need: Todd Collins, Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, J.P. Losman, Trent Edwards, Ryan Fitzpatrick.

 

When you use a first round pick on a JP Losman, you're squandering the pick. More importantly--at least if you're the Bills--you're squandering time. As long as the Bills have it in their heads that Losman is the quarterback of the future, he will displace all other QBs the Bills might otherwise have drafted. That scenario can be absolutely devastating--and has been devastating the Bills ever since Polian left.

 

At this point, you could come back at me with, "It's too soon to know if Manuel is the next Losman, or if he's the next Russell Wilson." Fine. But it does not make sense to assume he's Russell Wilson until he proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he's Losman. If there's uncertainty--which there is--it's best to respond to that uncertainty by investing more resources into the QB position. Given that the QB position is by far the most important, it makes sense to err on the side of over-investing in that position.

 

The problem with this franchise has little to do with not taking an exotic approach to drafting qbs but is more attributable to poor drafting in general. The Bills had opportunities to draft good qb prospects but let them pass by. Kaepernick and Russell Wilson are the most glaring examples of their lackluster evaluation system. The moving up to select TJ Graham at the expense of not taking Russell Wilson still rankles me.

 

This regime is trying to build a full roster. There are many identifiable holes that need to be addressed. Not only do they have to add talent to climb up the ladder of mediocrtiy but they also have this distressing habit of letting talent go they they cultivated. Filling a hole is challenging enough, but when you have to backtrack to refill a hole of your own creation you don't move too far forward in your quest to get beyond being below average.

 

I'm not going to declare EJ a success story at this point. No one can. But let's see how he does with his remaining games this year and a full training camp under his belt. My problem with your approach is that if you bring in a new qb prospect then this team in the short run is set back again. Aren't you tired of taking the down elevator and starting at the bottom floor again?

 

The Bills spent a lot of resources last offseason determining who was going to be their best prospect in last year's draft. Why be so impatient with the qb that this franchise invested in? If he doesn't work out then he doesn't work out. When that becomes apparent then move on to the next option.

 

I'm trying to be open-minded on your innovative approach to finding a franchise qb. But for a number of reasons I don't find it very appealing. There are so many needs that need to be addressed that I'm not going to gratuitously squander a high first round pick on another qb at this point.

 

My advice to you is be more patient and develop what you got. When you ride the bronco long enough you can end up with a tamed horse that can get you where you want to go. At this time jumping off of your erratic ride is simply not a wise thing to do. Watching a rookie qb play can be very unsettling. Being frustrated and not sure are normal sensations. Don't let that queasiness force you to do someting that will come back to haunt you.

[GunnerBill]

After the Colts took Manning, they had some not-so-great years. But Manning gave them well over a decade of his career; and eventually they were able to build a team around him. A Super Bowl-winning team.

 

Correct. But if you go along with your theory that you keep drafting Quarterbacks in round 1 until you find one you are totally convinced by then presumably even future first ballot Hall of Famer Peyton Manning wouldn't have done enough to convince you in year 1 when he led his team to just 3 wins and threw a league high 28 picks. Following that season in the 1999 draft the Colts picked 4th. They selected Edgerrin James, who in his rookie year ran for over 1,500 yards and 13 touchdowns and was a major contributory factor in turning the Colts from a 3 win team to a 13 win team. It also allowed them to trade Marshall Faulk for two more draft picks that they spent on guys who contributed in the early Manning years.

 

Say they'd followed your theory.... the first 3 picks in that draft were all Quarterbacks.. (Tim Couch was picked #1 overall *ouch*) - the 4th QB taken was Daunte Culpepper... so let's run with the possibility that he was the Colts pick. There is of course a chance (although I'd agree a very small one) that Culpepper wins the job out of camp and Peyton Manning's career pans out a different way. But even if it doesn't they don't have James, they are left with a demotivated Marshall Faulk who wants out and they don't put a piece (actually 3 pieces incuding the picks picked up in the trade) of the team that went on to become such a force in place around their Quarterback.

 

You need a team. Your Quarterback has to be good but you have to surround him with good players too. Even the very top bracket elite guys.... Brady, Mannings, Rodgers and Brees can't do it with bad teams. They maybe need fewer stars around them than the guys who are just "good" but they can't do it on their own. If you so obssess in finding a Quarterback you might miss on one who could have been your answer if the supporting cast wasn't so poor. Y'know things like recievers and tight ends who don't fumble the ball when you're in winning field goal range for example...... (not that I'm saying EJ Manuel is the necessarily the answer you understand....)

Edited December 2, 2013 by GunnerBill