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

[MDH]

This. Worst case, we end up with a Rivers/Brees situation. Considering there's been precisely one franchise QB in the team's entire history, a Brees/Rivers situation doesn't look so bad!

 

How is that "worst case?" Having both picks pan out while one gets traded away is not worst case. Worst case is neither QB pans out and the Bills suck for another decade.

[Orton's Arm]

How is that "worst case?" Having both picks pan out while one gets traded away is not worst case. Worst case is neither QB pans out and the Bills suck for another decade.

 

Good point. My earlier post should have been expressed more clearly. "The main argument against taking a first round QB in 2014," I should have written, "would be that both players would work out; in which case you'd have a logjam at that position. But that's actually not a bad problem to have. On the other hand, taking a second bite at the apple makes it that much more likely that at least one QB prospect will work out."

[Bill from NYC]

 

 

Good point. My earlier post should have been expressed more clearly. "The main argument against taking a first round QB in 2014," I should have written, "would be that both players would work out; in which case you'd have a logjam at that position. But that's actually not a bad problem to have. On the other hand, taking a second bite at the apple makes it that much more likely that at least one QB prospect will work out."

 

A logjam at the QB position these days is almost unthinkably good. The trade value alone would be something we have never seen before due to the new CBA and the low salaries at which rookies are paid.

 

Think about it....Andrew Luck makes what, 5 mil. per season? Isn't this approx. 16 million LESS than Flacco? Which one would you rather have on your team?

 

Now, given the rule changes, there is no longer any dispute about the importance of the QB position. How much would a team trade away to get a great, cheap quarterback? If this ever happens we will see trades that resemble the Herschel Walker deal, which I am guessing that you are old enough to remember.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Bill from NYC

[Orton's Arm]

A logjam at the QB position these days is almost unthinkably good. The trade value alone would be something we have never seen before due to the new CBA and the low salaries at which rookies are paid.

 

Think about it....Andrew Luck makes what, 5 mil. per season? Isn't this approx. 16 million LESS than Flacco? Which one would you rather have on your team?

 

Now, given the rule changes, there is no longer any dispute about the importance of the QB position. How much would a team trade away to get a great, cheap quarterback? If this ever happens we will see trades that resemble the Herschel Walker deal, which I am guessing that you are old enough to remember.

 

> A logjam at the QB position these days is almost unthinkably good.

 

Very true. The Bills have repeatedly (deliberately?) created logjams at the RB position. The result was a third round pick for trading away Travis Henry, two third rounders for trading Willis McGahee, a fourth + 6th rounder when Marshawn Lynch went up on the trading block, and no compensation at all when the Bills released Antowain Smith. Compare that to the two first rounders, the Kyle Orton, and the other stuff Denver got for trading away Cutler! It's not even like Cutler is a top-10 QB!

 

And yet: the Bills have repeatedly acted as though a logjam at the RB position is perfectly reasonable; whereas a logjam at QB would be unthinkable.

 

> If this ever happens we will see trades that resemble the Herschel Walker deal, which I am guessing that you are old enough to remember.

 

I vaguely remember that deal. That said, I agree with your premise. If I was a GM trading away a Luck-caliber QB, I'd expect a lot more than just two first round picks! Likewise, if I was the GM trading for a player like that; I'd be willing to part with more than just two first rounders. Let's just hope the Bills are intelligent and flexible enough in their thinking to actually benefit from all this; rather than allowing themselves to become mired in conventional thinking.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

To Bill from NYC and Edwards' Arm:

 

My strong impression of this discussion is that most who post on this board (myself having posted numerous times in accord) agree that regardless of how EJ's season plays out, that it would behoove the Bills to draft another quarterback. This belief is based on two things:

 

1) The disproportionate importance of QB success on team success

 

2) The belief that this year's QB class is historically excellent with estimates that as many as 6-7 of these QBs will be drafted in the first round and that 4-5 of these QB can go onto greatness in the NFL.

 

Those opposed to drafting another QB argue that to do so would undermine the Bills advocacy of EJ.

 

I and others have previously argued that any QB not mentally tough enough to compete for his job is not mentally tough enough to become a great QB (BTW, has anyone seen these stories that when RG3 was at Baylor that the coaching staff omitted his bad plays from video review to protect his psyche?).

 

The dissent is not so much on the whether the Bills will draft another QB. The dissent centers around the likelihood that the Bills would do so.

 

This conversation we're having has been very well-developed over the last year or so (even before EJ was drafted) and bottom line, most people would be in favor of drafting another QB but most people believe it won't happen.

 

When you look at Jacksonville's decision to "give Gabbert another chance" and the Rams to do similarly with Bradford along with the historical evidence (the Steve Walsh-Troy Aikman being the only example) you realize that it is highly unconventional and highly-unlikely for teams to draft QBs highly in consecutive years.

Edited November 29, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Orton's Arm]

To Bill from NYC and Edwards' Arm:

 

My strong impression of this discussion is that most who post on this board (myself having posted numerous times in accord) agree that regardless of how EJ's season plays out, that it would behoove the Bills to draft another quarterback. This belief is based on two things:

 

1) The disproportionate importance of QB success on team success

 

2) The belief that this year's QB class is historically excellent with estimates that as many as 6-7 of these QBs will be drafted in the first round and that 4-5 of these QB can go onto greatness in the NFL.

 

Those opposed to drafting another QB argue that to do so would undermine the Bills advocacy of EJ.

 

I and others have previously argued that any QB not mentally tough enough to compete for his job is not mentally tough enough to become a great QB (BTW, has anyone seen these stories that when RG3 was at Baylor that the coaching staff omitted his bad plays from video review to protect his psyche?).

 

The dissent is not so much on the whether the Bills will draft another QB. The dissent centers around the likelihood that the Bills would do so.

 

This conversation we're having has been very well-developed over the last year or so (even before EJ was drafted) and bottom line, most people would be in favor of drafting another QB but most people believe it won't happen.

 

When you look at Jacksonville's decision to "give Gabbert another chance" and the Rams to do similarly with Bradford along with the historical evidence (the Steve Walsh-Troy Aikman being the only example) you realize that it is highly unconventional and highly-unlikely for teams to draft QBs highly in consecutive years.

 

Very good post!

 

Once you have a young QB who's franchise or looks like he's on the way to becoming at or near a franchise level, you can trade him away for a ton of draft value. That's why it makes so much sense for the Bills to take a first round QB, assuming there's a guy they like.

 

That said, you correctly pointed out it's very uncommon for a team to use back-to-back first round picks on QBs. That's the kind of move I'd expect from an outside-the-box guy like Chip Kelly; not necessarily from a team wedded to the conventional wisdom of 30 years ago. As usual, there's a difference between what the Bills should do and what they will do.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

That's the kind of move I'd expect from an outside-the-box guy like Chip Kelly; not necessarily from a team wedded to the conventional wisdom of 30 years ago. As usual, there's a difference between what the Bills should do and what they will do.

 

Thanks.

 

In fairness to the Bills, they are part of a pretty conventional group as this issue goes although I agree I'd like to see them being the team that can make bold, outside the box player moves.

[K-9]

Did I just read that once you have a franchise QB you can trade him away for a "ton of trade value?"

 

Unbelievable.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Dibs]

....

When you look at Jacksonville's decision to "give Gabbert another chance" and the Rams to do similarly with Bradford along with the historical evidence (the Steve Walsh-Troy Aikman being the only example) you realize that it is highly unconventional and highly-unlikely for teams to draft QBs highly in consecutive years.

 

Though I agree with your post and the thoughts behind it, I don't think that the examples you have given here highlight them.

 

Bradford was the last of the big contract QB rookies. His dead cap hit meant that the Rams couldn't think of letting him go until next season(with $23M being the hit in 2013, $7M next season) & his cap numbers are of the level that essentially locked them into keeping him regardless of what they may or may not have determined his true potential to be(once they saw him play for 2 seasons).

 

Gabbert on the other hand had an extremely friendly contract compared to Bradford. Only a 4 year, $12M deal. They too might have determined that his potential was minimal after seeing him play for 2 seasons......but their replacement options were minimal in the 2013 draft. They had the #2 and #33 picks. Assuming EJ was the only realistic option.....and considering that the Bills were confident enough to trade down to #16 to obtain him.....picking him at #2 was likely deemed as a great waste of such a premium asset. I tend to think it very likely that if there was a premium QB option for them to draft at #2 that they would have jumped at the chance.

[Orton's Arm]

Did I just read that once you have a franchise QB you can trade him away for a "ton of trade value?"

 

Unbelievable.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> Did I just read that once you have a franchise QB you can trade him away for a "ton of trade value?"

 

Ah, K-9. It's always a pleasure to read your posts. You always have so much insight to offer.

 

I take my earlier post back. If you took two different QBs in the first round, in back-to-back years, and if they both worked out well, you couldn't trade either of them away for much. Thank you so much for enlightening us little ones about this. I don't know what I was thinking, to believe that either of those guys could have been traded away for substantial value!

[K-9]

> Did I just read that once you have a franchise QB you can trade him away for a "ton of trade value?"

 

Ah, K-9. It's always a pleasure to read your posts. You always have so much insight to offer.

 

I take my earlier post back. If you took two different QBs in the first round, in back-to-back years, and if they both worked out well, you couldn't trade either of them away for much. Thank you so much for enlightening us little ones about this. I don't know what I was thinking, to believe that either of those guys could have been traded away for substantial value!

 

Perhaps you should do a better job of qualifying your premise next time because it sure sounded like you were advocating trading a QB once he developed into a franchise player for a "ton of trade value."

 

But in the interest of playing the charade, tell me, oh sage one, how does a team develop two young QBs into franchise players simultaneously? C'mon, let's have some of your razor sharp "insight" here.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Maury Ballstein]

Glennon won't be as impressive when 94 99 and 50 are smacking him around.

 

 

 

 

[Rockinon]

Glennon won't be as impressive when 94 99 and 50 are smacking him around.

I was thinking the same thing.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Though I agree with your post and the thoughts behind it, I don't think that the examples you have given here highlight them.

 

Bradford was the last of the big contract QB rookies. His dead cap hit meant that the Rams couldn't think of letting him go until next season(with $23M being the hit in 2013, $7M next season) & his cap numbers are of the level that essentially locked them into keeping him regardless of what they may or may not have determined his true potential to be(once they saw him play for 2 seasons).

 

Gabbert on the other hand had an extremely friendly contract compared to Bradford. Only a 4 year, $12M deal. They too might have determined that his potential was minimal after seeing him play for 2 seasons......but their replacement options were minimal in the 2013 draft. They had the #2 and #33 picks. Assuming EJ was the only realistic option.....and considering that the Bills were confident enough to trade down to #16 to obtain him.....picking him at #2 was likely deemed as a great waste of such a premium asset. I tend to think it very likely that if there was a premium QB option for them to draft at #2 that they would have jumped at the chance.

 

I don't disagree with your points either but to play devil's advocate:

 

If the Rams were stuck with Bradford but could still get another prime QB on the cheap (post-new CBA) why wouldn't they?

 

They traded away the opportunity to draft RG3 (I work with Jeff Fischer's brother, Mike) not so much for financial reasons but because they still believed that Bradford was a franchise QB and they felt that they could nurture him, surround him with weapons, etc. and make him successful. Conventional thinking.

 

As for Gabbert, he was drafted in 2011 so arguably after his dismal rookie year, the Jaguars could have drafted Ryan Tannehill to double their chances at success. Fast forward to 2013 and with the 2nd pick overall and after a second mediocre season from Gabbert they could have traded down to select EJ or another QB.

 

Maybe a better example would have been the Vikings drafting Christian Ponder and then Ryan Tannehill but anyways, the point remains that teams rarely draft QBs highly in consecutive years.

[JohnC]

 

 

> Did I just read that once you have a franchise QB you can trade him away for a "ton of trade value?"

 

Ah, K-9. It's always a pleasure to read your posts. You always have so much insight to offer.

 

I take my earlier post back. If you took two different QBs in the first round, in back-to-back years, and if they both worked out well, you couldn't trade either of them away for much. Thank you so much for enlightening us little ones about this. I don't know what I was thinking, to believe that either of those guys could have been traded away for substantial value!

 

I don't understand your theoretical strategy of drafting qbs in the first round in consecutive years. If the first drafted qb demonstrates an ability to be a franchise qb then why would you pursue another high round qb instead of using that pick to address one of your other many needs? What a young qb needs more than anything else to develop is playing time. Your approach makes sense if the first qb you selected demonstrates little ability to succeed in the long run, such as Gabbert. But if a young qb gets progressively better or demonstrates the potential that he can play that position then why would you hinder his development with another potential prospect hovering over him? It's not an issue of a qb being weak-minded by feeling threatened by the other prospect but the issue is playing time.

 

Let's forget about the possibility of an Adrew Luck caliber being available in the second draft year. He is a once in a generation type qb who will be the first pick taken in any draft. If you want to pursue an intriguing qb prospect in a lower round, such as Russell Wilson, then I wouldn't be adverse to taking qbs in consecutive years. But for me taking two qbs in the first round in consecutive years is not an approach I would advocate for.

 

What makes more sense is if an interesting qb prospect is available in the second year with numerous suitors trying to move up to our spot to get that prospect then I would make the trade down and accumulate picks to address the numerous holes that exist on the roster.

Edited November 30, 2013 by JohnC

[YoloinOhio]

I don't understand your theoretical strategy of drafting qbs in the first round in consecutive years. If the first drafted qb demonstrates an ability to be a franchise qb then why would you pursue another high round qb instead of using that pick to address one of your other many needs? What a young qb needs more than anything else to develop is playing time. Your approach makes sense if the first qb you selected demonstrates little ability to succeed in the long run, such as Gabbert. But if a young qb gets progressively better or demonstrates the potential that he can play that position then why would you hinder his development with another potential prospect hovering over him? It's not an issue of a qb being weak-minded by feeling threatened by the other prospect but the issue is playing time.

 

Let's forget about the possibility of an Adrew Luck caliber being available in the second draft year. He is a once in a generation type qb who will be the first pick taken in any draft. If you want to pursue an intriguing qb prospect in a lower round, such as Russell Wilson, then I wouldn't be adverse to taking qbs in consecutive years. But for me taking two qbs in the first round in consecutive years is not an approach I would advocate for.

 

What makes more sense is if an interesting qb prospect is available in the second year with numerous suitors trying to move up to our spot to get that prospect then I would make the trade down and accumulate picks to address the numerous holes that exist on the roster.

Yes. It is hard enough to develop one young QB in the NFL - now people want Hackett to develop two and see who wins? Dive the reps in practice? OK. The old saying is true. If you have 2 QBs, you have no QB. If they want to bring in another QB go with a vet who can come in and play well enough to win and can help mentor EJ as well. If, after next year, EJ has not shown the potential to be franchise QB, maybe look at drafting another one high. But unless there is a can't miss guy in this draft (there isn't), makes no sense. Edited November 30, 2013 by YoloInTheBlo

[Orton's Arm]

 

 

I don't understand your theoretical strategy of drafting qbs in the first round in consecutive years. If the first drafted qb demonstrates an ability to be a franchise qb then why would you pursue another high round qb instead of using that pick to address one of your other many needs? What a young qb needs more than anything else to develop is playing time. Your approach makes sense if the first qb you selected demonstrates little ability to succeed in the long run, such as Gabbert. But if a young qb gets progressively better or demonstrates the potential that he can play that position then why would you hinder his development with another potential prospect hovering over him? It's not an issue of a qb being weak-minded by feeling threatened by the other prospect but the issue is playing time.

 

Let's forget about the possibility of an Adrew Luck caliber being available in the second draft year. He is a once in a generation type qb who will be the first pick taken in any draft. If you want to pursue an intriguing qb prospect in a lower round, such as Russell Wilson, then I wouldn't be adverse to taking qbs in consecutive years. But for me taking two qbs in the first round in consecutive years is not an approach I would advocate for.

 

What makes more sense is if an interesting qb prospect is available in the second year with numerous suitors trying to move up to our spot to get that prospect then I would make the trade down and accumulate picks to address the numerous holes that exist on the roster.

 

Back when the Chargers had both Rivers and Brees on the roster, they had to choose one guy or the other. They chose Rivers, despite the fact he'd been given little playing time up to that point. This year, Rivers is having the best season of any QB in the NFL.

 

If you have two QBs of Rivers/Brees caliber on your roster, then in the long term you'll only be able to keep one of them. Whichever guy you make the backup will not sign any kind of contract extension, so he's gone when his first contract is over. That means that one of your QBs must be traded before that happens.

 

Normally you'd trade away whichever QB was getting the lion's share of playing time; because that will be the QB with the most trade value. Much more trade value than a backup who's played very little!

 

A strategy like this only makes sense if you like the second QB drafted at least as much as the first one you took. The second QB will be the guy who replaces the first QB once he's traded away. So you have to have confidence in him.

 

If both QBs work out, then you'll be able to trade away one of them for significantly more than the draft pick initially used to take him. If only one QB works out, at least you still have a QB. If neither work out, at least you gave yourself two chances at bat.

[uncle flap]

Among the many reasons the Bills *might* consider drafting a QB, the most important one is staying true to their board. If a highly touted QB falls into their lap, and they don't get an adequate trade offer for the pick, then I have no problem with them taking a QB in the first.

 

As far as "developing" two QBs at once, they obviously can't nor shouldn't devote reps and whatnot to the draftee at EJ's expense. The beautiful thing is, if EJ doesn't pan out, or gets injured again, or mysteriously retires, or whatever... they don't have to wait until next year, nor do they have to "reach" or force a QB pick in the future, when the pool might not be as deep.

 

For me at least, the Jets game did a lot to silence my criticisms. Right now, I'm not advocating that they should definitely draft a QB in the first anymore, but it still should be a consideration because the reasons NOT to take a QB are not as compelling as the possible benefits.

 

All in all, what I'm really hoping for is drafting best player available. If it's not a QB, great. If it is, that's great too. I just don't want the Bills to pass on another QB they like (if that QB is the BPA) just because they view EJ as the franchise QB.

[JohnC]

 

 

Back when the Chargers had both Rivers and Brees on the roster, they had to choose one guy or the other. They chose Rivers, despite the fact he'd been given little playing time up to that point. This year, Rivers is having the best season of any QB in the NFL.

 

If you have two QBs of Rivers/Brees caliber on your roster, then in the long term you'll only be able to keep one of them. Whichever guy you make the backup will not sign any kind of contract extension, so he's gone when his first contract is over. That means that one of your QBs must be traded before that happens.

 

Normally you'd trade away whichever QB was getting the lion's share of playing time; because that will be the QB with the most trade value. Much more trade value than a backup who's played very little!

 

A strategy like this only makes sense if you like the second QB drafted at least as much as the first one you took. The second QB will be the guy who replaces the first QB once he's traded away. So you have to have confidence in him.

 

If both QBs work out, then you'll be able to trade away one of them for significantly more than the draft pick initially used to take him. If only one QB works out, at least you still have a QB. If neither work out, at least you gave yourself two chances at bat.

 

I understand your position but it still doesn't make sense to me. Let's go back to your San Diego example of Brees and Rivers. Brees had some early struggles (not unsurprisingly for a young qb) and he had some injury issues. The Chargers drafted Rivers and allowed Brees to leave because of injury concerns and also contract restraints with two qbs. Let's review the rsults. Drew Brees left with no compensation (I believe---????) and ends up in New Orleans. As good as Rivers is he is not as good as Brees who will eventually be a first ballot HOFer. In addition, Brees has led his team to a SB championship and has consistently led his team to regular visits to the playoffs. What it comes down to is if the Chargers would have stuck with Brees (hindsight is a beautiful tool) they would have been better off.

 

My main criticism with your consecutive qb procurement approach is the damage it does to the qb development to the first qb. You develop with playing time. If you play the first qb at the expense of the second qb you diminish the second qb. If you play the second qb at the expense of the first qb you diminish the first qb.

 

Your premise on this issue falters for the simple reason that you don't account for the fact that the qb position is qualitatively different from other positions. With the other positions, even if you have an abundance of players playing the same position, they can still get playing time. You can't easily rotate the backup qb in a game and then rotate the qb out as you can with the other positions.

 

Sometimes being conventional is better than being innovative. Very often you can end up outsmarting yourself when trying to demonstrate how much more creative one is compared to the boring conventional crowd. Remember Tom Donahoe? On this qb issue I prefer the stodgy approach over the risky creative approach. Your road is too perilous for my tastes. I'm sticking to the paved road rather than the off beaten path you are on. I'm very confident is saying that I will get to the destination sooner than you will with fewer damages to your now jalopy.

Edited November 30, 2013 by JohnC

[Orton's Arm]

 

 

I understand your position but it still doesn't make sense to me. Let's go back to your San Diego example of Brees and Rivers. Brees had some early struggles (not unsurprisingly for a young qb) and he had some injury issues. The Chargers drafted Rivers and allowed Brees to leave because of injury concerns and also contract restraints with two qbs. Let's review the rsults. Drew Brees left with no compensation (I believe---????) and ends up in New Orleans. As good as Rivers is he is not as good as Brees who will eventually be a first ballot HOFer. In addition, Brees has led his team to a SB championship and has consistently led his team to regular visits to the playoffs. What it comes down to is if the Chargers would have stuck with Brees (hindsight is a beautiful tool) they would have been better off.

 

My main criticism with your consecutive qb procurement approach is the damage it does to the qb development to the first qb. You develop with playing time. If you play the first qb at the expense of the second qb you diminish the second qb. If you play the second qb at the expense of the first qb you diminish the first qb.

 

Your premise on this issue falters for the simple reason that you don't account for the fact that the qb position is qualitatively different from other positions. With the other positions, even if you have an abundance of players playing the same position, they can still get playing time. You can't easily rotate the backup qb in a game and then rotate the qb out as you can with the other positions.

 

Sometimes being conventional is better than being innovative. Very often you can end up outsmarting yourself when trying to demonstrate how much more creative one is compared to the boring conventional crowd. Remember Tom Donahoe? On this qb issue I prefer the stodgy approach over the risky creative approach. Your road is too perilous for my tastes. I'm sticking to the paved road rather than the off beaten path you are on. I'm very confident is saying that I will get to the destination sooner than you will with fewer damages to your now jalopy.

 

The reason the Chargers didn't get any compensation for Brees was because he and Rivers were drafted several years apart. By the time the Chargers were ready to fully commit to Rivers, Brees' contract was just about up. Also, Brees had suffered an injury; and it wasn't clear whether he'd fully recover. That lowered his perceived value to teams like Miami. A team drafting first round QBs in back-to-back years would be unlikely to encounter those problems.

 

The Bengals took Carson Palmer first overall. Then they put him on the third string team; with Jon Kitna as the starter. Early in the year, Palmer looked very mistake-prone and unpolished with that third string team. Later in the year, he played very well in practice. Palmer was anointed starter at the beginning of his second year. He looked polished; like a guy who'd learned a lot as a rookie in practice. Aaron Rodgers is another guy who benefitted from time on the bench early in his career.

 

Tom Donahoe represents faux unconventional thinking. The only reason for ever departing from convention is because you've thought about an area more deeply than conventional thinkers have; and have perceived insights they have missed. For someone who isn't a deep thinker, departing from conventional wisdom is usually a mistake. A person like that is unlikely to avoid the errors embodied in conventional thinking; and is likely to make additional errors a conventional thinker would have avoided.

 

The West Coast offense was not considered conventional when Bill Walsh first unleashed it. Ideas like passing on first down, blitzing, or going into a nickel defense on third down were once considered gimmicky things that only AFL teams would do--not the conventional NFL teams.

 

The most likely way to win a Super Bowl is to do something better than other teams do it. This often requires better thinking than that embodied by convention. During the pre- and post-Kelly eras combined, the Bills have achieved one NFL playoff win. The Bills have had exactly one franchise QB in team history. Using back-to-back first round picks on QBs is a logical response to the vital importance of the QB position, the difficulty of finding a franchise QB, and the trade opportunities available to a team with a very good QB on the auction block.