Mr. WEO Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Wilson will get a huge new deal after the 2014 season. Combined with all the other big deals they'll be shelling-out, their luck will probably end about the same time. Where have we heard that before--for the past 5 years or so...? I don't think that's luck...I think that's good Drafting... It's always luck when other teams do it. Stick to the script! True, but that won't stop him from demanding $20M/year. It will probably depend on what he's offered in FA. True, but guys like Sherman and Chancellor were 5th rounders and SB MVP Malcolm Smith was a 7th rounder, and if they really knew how good they would be, they wouldn't have waited that long to take them. As for Wilson, Seahawks' GM John Schneider said that they took Wilson in the 3rd because they knew the Bills really liked him and wanted him in the 4th. Sherman and Thomas are due for big raises this off-season, like in the $10M/year range. And Malcolm Smith might be looking for a nice pay raise as well. If the Bills reall liked Wilson, they would have taken him in the 3rd. By your logic, all top draft picks that bomb out are just bad luck, ohterwise teams wouldn't have drafted them so highly. had they "known" how bad they ould be.
Doc Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) Russell Wilson isn't elite, but he played a major part in his team doing something this franchise has never done and is extremely far off of even competing for. He currently has as many SB wins as Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson. Which is why I say the Bills should focus on defense and improving the OL. We'll see what the future holds. Where have we heard that before--for the past 5 years or so...? By "luck" I mean winning the SB. Although in that case, I don't know if "luck" is the right word. If the Bills reall liked Wilson, they would have taken him in the 3rd. I think they liked everything about him but his size and why they thought they could wait until the 4th. But he's a major exception to the rule. In hindsight it looks like a huge mistake. But that's the great thing about hindsight. By your logic, all top draft picks that bomb out are just bad luck, ohterwise teams wouldn't have drafted them so highly. had they "known" how bad they ould be. Nope, by my logic, hitting on picks is more good luck given the bust rate of drafted players. Even more so the further you get from the 1st round. Edited February 25, 2014 by Doc
White Linen Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I don't think that's luck...I think that's good Drafting... Maybe calling it luck is a bit unfair. I'd call them fortunate.
BigBuff423 Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Maybe calling it luck is a bit unfair. I'd call them fortunate. And no doubt good fortune plays a part in all things successful...just somtimes, I think we as fans tend to give little credit to other organizations when they do well because we're too busy pressing the sour grapes between our teeth...that's not to say Seattle has it "all figured out", but IMO you can't look at that roster and not give serious credit to their ability to Draft talent and sign UDFAs when you see who contributed to the wins...for God's sake, the Super Bowl MVP didn't even get a Combine invite the year he went Drafted...that's good scouting and information followed by solid coaching... I believe the BILLS can replicate something just like that, now that Whaley and Marrone, et. al., are taking the reigns and yes, I read the piece that said the younger guys want to change things while the "lifers" are resistant to such changes, but in the end, you can only judge the organization by the product on the field...and while they didn't improve their record, there are few fans who didn't see dramatic improvement in just what was taking place on the field on Sundays, despite the QB carousel and some key injuries... All that said, this Franchise is running out of excuses and next year is truly a key year in reinvigorating the fan base and demonstrating palpable evidence of a winning organization coming to maturation....
Mr. WEO Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 He currently has as many SB wins as Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson. Which is why I say the Bills should focus on defense and improving the OL. We'll see what the future holds. By "luck" I mean winning the SB. Although in that case, I don't know if "luck" is the right word. I think they liked everything about him but his size and why they thought they could wait until the 4th. But he's a major exception to the rule. In hindsight it looks like a huge mistake. But that's the great thing about hindsight. Nope, by my logic, hitting on picks is more good luck given the bust rate of drafted players. Even more so the further you get from the 1st round. Yes, there was nothing about anything in Wilson's college career that would even hint as his ability at QB. Also, there was simply no histrory of short QBs succeeding in the NFL. No, you're right--concludng passing on WIlson was a mistake can only be made in hindsight. It was far more reasonable to trade up to grab a mediocre WR who himself declared before the draft "People say I can't catch".
Doc Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Yes, there was nothing about anything in Wilson's college career that would even hint as his ability at QB. Also, there was simply no histrory of short QBs succeeding in the NFL. No, you're right--concludng passing on WIlson was a mistake can only be made in hindsight. It was far more reasonable to trade up to grab a mediocre WR who himself declared before the draft "People say I can't catch". Lots of QB's show their ability in college and fail to produce in the NFL. And the history of short QB's succeeding in the NFL was about as short as, well, they are. About the only player in the past 20 years who was sub-6' tall and had some success (albeit it short-lived) was Flutie. Hardly a proven history.
Mr. WEO Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 Lots of QB's show their ability in college and fail to produce in the NFL. And the history of short QB's succeeding in the NFL was about as short as, well, they are. About the only player in the past 20 years who was sub-6' tall and had some success (albeit it short-lived) was Flutie. Hardly a proven history. Brees is essentially the same height-no functional difference. The point is that we needed a QB and it would have cost us less than we blew on the Brad Smith experiment. And for Kolb/TJax2.
NoSaint Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 For those that say it has nothing to do with the resigning of Wilson. I say your batchit crazy. They are looking at saving 8+ million this year. That's a way to start planning for the obscene contract that Wilson and others like Sherman are going to demand within another year. It might not do anything for Wilson's contract this year, but it frees up money for other avenues to plan ahead. ill agree that it allows them flexibility to sign guys this year to structures that can help them keep wilson as part of a bigger picture. it may not be direct line "who do we keep, bryant or wilson" but given their upcoming cap situation its "we have are facing giving 2-3 guys pay raises of 10 to 20m within the next year or so, we cant pay average players like bryants getting paid."
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 Brees is essentially the same height-no functional difference. The point is that we needed a QB and it would have cost us less than we blew on the Brad Smith experiment. And for Kolb/TJax2. Oh, god, my eyes.
Doc Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 Brees is essentially the same height-no functional difference. The point is that we needed a QB and it would have cost us less than we blew on the Brad Smith experiment. And for Kolb/TJax2. Brees is almost 2" taller, above the traditional 6' threshold, and took until his 4th season to develop. Again not much of a history to suggest Wilson was going to be one of those rare exceptions. And yes in hindsight it would have been cheaper and better, but is like to see the Bills build a great defense and see how that helps.
mrags Posted February 26, 2014 Author Posted February 26, 2014 ill agree that it allows them flexibility to sign guys this year to structures that can help them keep wilson as part of a bigger picture. it may not be direct line "who do we keep, bryant or wilson" but given their upcoming cap situation its "we have are facing giving 2-3 guys pay raises of 10 to 20m within the next year or so, we cant pay average players like bryants getting paid." exactly. Glad you are able to realize what I meant.
Mr. WEO Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 Brees is almost 2" taller, above the traditional 6' threshold, and took until his 4th season to develop. Again not much of a history to suggest Wilson was going to be one of those rare exceptions. And yes in hindsight it would have been cheaper and better, but is like to see the Bills build a great defense and see how that helps. 5'11' v 6'. The inch isn't magical. Picking Wilson would not have precluded the Bills building a great defense. 4 DCs in 4 years would, however...
Doc Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 5'11' v 6'. The inch isn't magical. Picking Wilson would not have precluded the Bills building a great defense. 4 DCs in 4 years would, however... Actually 5'10-5/8" versus 6'-1/8", so almost 2". And again, the history of sub-6' QB's isn't good. And we can't go back in the past now. Which is why I say fortify the defense get whatever tools you can on offense for EJ. I'd like them to address the OL in FA and draft defense and a TE.
Mr. WEO Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 I was going by their combine heights. What is the history of QB's 6 feet or under?
Doc Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 I was going by their combine heights. What is the history of QB's 6 feet or under? That is their combine height. Most places round up or down, but the official Combine measurement is expressed with 4 digits, with the first being feet, next two being inches, and last being eighths of an inch. So Wilson was 5105 and Brees was 6002. A good place to get that info is to search "nfl draft scout" and the player's name. And there isn't much history, or at least good history, from the past 20 years or so.
Mr. WEO Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) That is their combine height. Most places round up or down, but the official Combine measurement is expressed with 4 digits, with the first being feet, next two being inches, and last being eighths of an inch. So Wilson was 5105 and Brees was 6002. A good place to get that info is to search "nfl draft scout" and the player's name. And there isn't much history, or at least good history, from the past 20 years or so. Look at Brees towering over Wilson! This discussion of height is a silly as 5105 v. 6002. It is completely arbitrary. Brees, Vick, Tarketon--they are all 6 feet tall, simple as that. Throw in Flutie, Pat Haden, Billy Kilmer, Sonny Jurgenson, Len Dawson, YA Tittle, Johnny Lujack...all 6 feet or less. I can't off the top of my head think of a starter 6 feet or under who tanked after a year or 2 as starter. I would bet that the bust rate for all QBs 6' 5" or taller is far higher than that for the shorter men. Bottom line, the only knock on Wilson was his height, yet there was Drew Bress rewriting the record book (and making nonsense of this "too short" argument) for all GMs to see. Edited February 26, 2014 by Mr. WEO
Doc Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) Look at Brees towering over Wilson! This discussion of height is a silly as 5105 v. 6002. It is completely arbitrary. Brees, Vick, Tarketon--they are all 6 feet tall, simple as that. Throw in Flutie, Pat Haden, Billy Kilmer, Sonny Jurgenson, Len Dawson, YA Tittle, Johnny Lujack...all 6 feet or less. I can't off the top of my head think of a starter 6 feet or under who tanked after a year or 2 as starter. I would bet that the bust rate for all QBs 6' 5" or taller is far higher than that for the shorter men. Bottom line, the only knock on Wilson was his height, yet there was Drew Bress rewriting the record book (and making nonsense of this "too short" argument) for all GMs to see. That's why I said of the past 20 years or so. Most of the guy you listed played well over 20 years ago. And of the 3 who have played within the past 20 years, only one, Brees, has had any sustained success, and it took his over 3 years to get to where he is. It's not hard to see that there is very little history of shorter QB's succeeding in the modern NFL. But thanks to Brees and now Wilson, a guy like Manziel will likely get picked in the 1st round. But will he succeed, considering he had a far better career than Wilson did in college? Edited February 27, 2014 by Doc
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I was going by their combine heights. What is the history of QB's 6 feet or under? It would be just like the Bills to pick a deceased quarterback.
Pete Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I clicked on this link because I thought it was a thread about Red Bryant
Recommended Posts