Wayne Cubed Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 We are never going to agree on this. The Bills have sucked for 15 years. During that time the one truth is we have had **** at QB. If an owner was GM were forward thinking enough to know that it doesn't matter until you get a QB and had the balls to do this I think it would work. If I were an NFL GM taking over a team with a bad QB situation I would need my owner to understand that we might be really bad for 2 or 3 years. Right now you pretty much have to luck into getting a great QB. So is there any way to make your luck better? Yes, draft more of them. This would be my strategy: Draft a QB on day one or two every year until you find your guy. Of course you want to draft for value so this doesn't mean you are going with a QB in the first round every year. Get the best value on a QB in the first 3 rounds every year. Also if there is a guy in round 1 that you absolutely believe then you can obviously overpay and give up some value. I would also draft one project QB in rounds 4-7 every year. Next, I am never drafting for need during the time I am trying to find a QB. I am always taking the best player available and also always trading down when the value is there, trying to accumulate as many picks as possible over the years. So you are taking shots at QB's and adding picks to coincide with the finding of the QB. It would be radically different from what GM's do now but I think this is a great long term strategy to finding a great QB and setting yourself up for 10-15 years window. You may struggle at first but it would be worth it in the end. Is that what I said? Again, how will you know if you have found a QB? Whats the benchmark? They look good in year one? What if they suck after that? Lot of the great QB's weren't good right away. What if they suck right off the bat and their reps get cut down? Only so many reps according to the CBA. So how do you split the reps? How do you create rhythm and continuity in the offense? This theory cause more problems than it solves.
The Wiz Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 I blame them both. They both worked elbow to elbow in the kitchen. Saying one screwed up the soup by stirring it too much and the other screwed it up by not stirring it enough is, well, comical. It is but it's not how people are blaming them. One of them put the right amount of salt, pepper, thyme in but the other one added too much sauce so the flavor is lost, is how people are drawing it up. If that makes sense.
GG Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 To me, Whaley' legacy will be defined if either of the 3M's will turn into capable NFL QBs.
Proteus Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Again, how will you know if you have found a QB? Whats the benchmark? They look good in year one? What if they suck after that? Lot of the great QB's weren't good right away. What if they suck right off the bat and their reps get cut down? Only so many reps according to the CBA. So how do you split the reps? How do you create rhythm and continuity in the offense? This theory cause more problems than it solves. Not really. Take the current Bills situation for example. If I am GM I am signing a vet. If I am able to get a guy like Caepernick or RG3 trade, then I may change my strategy a bit and look to add to what I have at other positions. If not I am signing a vet a looking to draft Hundley in the 2nd, or one of Petty or Grayson in the 3rd. Then I might take a shot at a guy like Bo Wallace in the 6th or 7th. You go into training camp With a vet, say Matt Moore for conversation sake. Then Moore, EJ and Hundley are probably battling for the 1 spot. Wallace is probably getting cut unless he has a huge training camp. You going into the season with those 3 guys and if EJ doesn't win the job or do something by the end of the season, then he is first on the chopping block for next off-season. Then you are going into the season with Hundley, Moore, draft pick. It isn't really too hard to figure out and I think reps isn't too much of a problem in this scenario.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 You go into training camp With a vet, say Matt Moore for conversation sake. Then Moore, EJ and Hundley are probably battling for the 1 spot. Wallace is probably getting cut unless he has a huge training camp. You going into the season with those 3 guys and if EJ doesn't win the job or do something by the end of the season, then he is first on the chopping block for next off-season. Then you are going into the season with Hundley, Moore, draft pick. It isn't really too hard to figure out and I think reps isn't too much of a problem in this scenario. I think that is a great idea. Moore is probably my first choice for available stopgaps. Hundley looks good as a project. It would depend on who else was available in the second when Hundley was there (my UCLA homer friends think he won't be a good pro, which scares me), so maybe you got Petty or Grayson in the third. But then the next year, unless you are right at the top, you dont draft a QB number one if one of Moore, EJ and Petty aren't shown to be a stud yet. In fact, chances are that Moore starts and EJ sits. So the next year you cut EJ who still hasn't played for your 1 or 2 pick?
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 It is but it's not how people are blaming them. One of them put the right amount of salt, pepper, thyme in but the other one added too much sauce so the flavor is lost, is how people are drawing it up. If that makes sense. People are blaming them to fit data to the outcome they hope to see. If a player is a failure, it is better to assume that it was Nix who screwed the soup, because Nix has left the building. The phenomena is a board constant. Every time someone is fired (or leaves), all the recent garbage on the field is shoveled into a brown paper bag, placed on the guy's doormat, set on fire, and the doorbell rung. Edit: And like you say, the converse is also true. Some may place all the blame on the guy still in the building. The sticky part is that for some, saying there are group decisions involved is totally unacceptable. Saying X had anything more than 0% to do with bad decision Y is simply unfathomable.
John from Riverside Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Not really. Take the current Bills situation for example. If I am GM I am signing a vet. If I am able to get a guy like Caepernick or RG3 trade, then I may change my strategy a bit and look to add to what I have at other positions. If not I am signing a vet a looking to draft Hundley in the 2nd, or one of Petty or Grayson in the 3rd. Then I might take a shot at a guy like Bo Wallace in the 6th or 7th. You go into training camp With a vet, say Matt Moore for conversation sake. Then Moore, EJ and Hundley are probably battling for the 1 spot. Wallace is probably getting cut unless he has a huge training camp. You going into the season with those 3 guys and if EJ doesn't win the job or do something by the end of the season, then he is first on the chopping block for next off-season. Then you are going into the season with Hundley, Moore, draft pick. It isn't really too hard to figure out and I think reps isn't too much of a problem in this scenario. So your answer is to try to make a 2nd or 3rd round QB pan out....... You do realize the chances of that happening are not good....there is a REASON they are 2nd and 3rd round picks..... Even the vet aquisitions are iffy.....but that is where I would look myself......because we have a defense that can keep us in any game......
thebandit27 Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 People are blaming them to fit data to the outcome they hope to see. If a player is a failure, it is better to assume that it was Nix who screwed the soup, because Nix has left the building. The phenomena is a board constant. Every time there someone is fired or leaves, all the recent garbage on the field is shoveled into a brown paper bag, placed on the guy's doormat, set on fire, and the doorbell rung. To me the debate makes no sense either way. I say both nix and Whaley are responsible for drafting EJ, and that's fine with me. The team had no possible franchise QB on the roster, and there wasn't one available in FA or via trade, so they HAD to draft someone. They took a shot with EJ based on his being (in their opinion) the most talented guy in the class. So far it hasn't worked out--not sure what else they could've done.
Proteus Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 So your answer is to try to make a 2nd or 3rd round QB pan out....... You do realize the chances of that happening are not good....there is a REASON they are 2nd and 3rd round picks..... Even the vet aquisitions are iffy.....but that is where I would look myself......because we have a defense that can keep us in any game...... I was using the QB situation as an example and probably should not have. I am not trying to make any picks pan out. If you look at 1st round QB's the percentages are pretty low on them too. There are a lot of starting QB's in the NFL that are not 1st rounders. You have to take shots to find a QB and the more shots you take the greater your odds.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 I was using the QB situation as an example and probably should not have. I am not trying to make any picks pan out. If you look at 1st round QB's the percentages are pretty low on them too. There are a lot of starting QB's in the NFL that are not 1st rounders. You have to take shots to find a QB and the more shots you take the greater your odds. So you never took statistics either.
Proteus Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 So you never took statistics either. So now that thread has calmed down a bit, you feel the need to come troll me and insult my intelligence. You are a winner pal.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 So now that thread has calmed down a bit, you feel the need to come troll me and insult my intelligence. You are a winner pal. It's a tough board for tough people.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 So now that thread has calmed down a bit, you feel the need to come troll me and insult my intelligence. You are a winner pal. Not trolling, just pointing out your logic is flawed. Taking more chances does not always increase your odds. And the strategy you're championing is proof of that.
MattM Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 So we disagree on this strategy. Fair enough. If I GM of the Bills I am drafting a QB on day one or two every draft until I find one. Like I said you can hit in the first and second round every year outside of QB. If you don't find a QB within 4 or 5 years of those guys you hit on being drafted, they will be gone before you can do anything with them. Get the QB and start from there. As others have pointed out, that's just a wasteful strategy that has no bearing in reality. Just for starters, so after two or three years you're bringing multiple day one picks into camp to try to find a QB. How do you split the reps? How do you develop chemistry between your main QB and receivers? How do you have any continuity in your blocking and protection schemes? How do you handle the psychological aspects of your young QBs' development if they're always looking over their shoulder for a competitor? It just doesn't work that way in real life, plain and simple. Sounds nice, considering how important the position is, but it just can't work that way for all of the reasons folks have given (plus the fact also that by doing this, you'd also be thinning out the talent on the rest of your team by wasting high picks on players many of who, by definition since there can only be one QB, will never see the field).
Kelly the Dog Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Not trolling, just pointing out your logic is flawed. Taking more chances does not always increase your odds. And the strategy you're championing is proof of that. In his defense, since no one in charge of a team has ever done it in over 100 years, nor would they in the next hundred, it's never actually proven to have failed.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 In his defense, since no one in charge of a team has ever done it in over 100 years, nor would they in the next hundred, it's never actually proven to have failed. So true.
Wayne Cubed Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Not really. Take the current Bills situation for example. If I am GM I am signing a vet. If I am able to get a guy like Caepernick or RG3 trade, then I may change my strategy a bit and look to add to what I have at other positions. If not I am signing a vet a looking to draft Hundley in the 2nd, or one of Petty or Grayson in the 3rd. Then I might take a shot at a guy like Bo Wallace in the 6th or 7th. You go into training camp With a vet, say Matt Moore for conversation sake. Then Moore, EJ and Hundley are probably battling for the 1 spot. Wallace is probably getting cut unless he has a huge training camp. You going into the season with those 3 guys and if EJ doesn't win the job or do something by the end of the season, then he is first on the chopping block for next off-season. Then you are going into the season with Hundley, Moore, draft pick. It isn't really too hard to figure out and I think reps isn't too much of a problem in this scenario. This doesn't make a lot of sense either. So you bring a vet, that vet right off the bat most likely is the starter. He probably beats out the younger guys and lets face it gives the team the best chance to win. Especially if you are talking about taking QB's in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. So that means EJ is gone. Going into seasons 2 you have the vet, Hundley and some other draft choice. Who wins that one? Maybe Hundley, but how do you know what you have in him and how long do you give him to figure it out? If you give him the year and he doesn't show anything, do you get rid of him or the vet? What if Moore wins out again, now you've got 2 draft picks not even seeing the field, surely thats a waste of resources.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 As others have pointed out, that's just a wasteful strategy that has no bearing in reality. Just for starters, so after two or three years you're bringing multiple day one picks into camp to try to find a QB. How do you split the reps? How do you develop chemistry between your main QB and receivers? How do you have any continuity in your blocking and protection schemes? How do you handle the psychological aspects of your young QBs' development if they're always looking over their shoulder for a competitor? It just doesn't work that way in real life, plain and simple. Sounds nice, considering how important the position is, but it just can't work that way for all of the reasons folks have given (plus the fact also that by doing this, you'd also be thinning out the talent on the rest of your team by wasting high picks on players many of who, by definition since there can only be one QB, will never see the field). "I don't believe in continuity. It's better to put your five best quarterbacks on the field." - Doug Marrone
bigK14094 Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Yea his draft picks are horrible. I see you convienantly ignore players thag don't fit your agenda. Let's see: Kiko Alonso Preston Brown Jerry Hughes Boobie Dixon Sentreal Henderson Sammy Watkins Robert Woods All players Doug Whaley brought here. And he's added even more loads more of depth. But I'm not going to waste my time. I'm not even sure why I'm responding to this thread. Actually, Jerry Hughes was a trade.....
The Wiz Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Actually, Jerry Hughes was a trade..... But who made the trade? Nix or Whaley?
Recommended Posts