Deranged Rhino Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 You can say whatever you want I really don't care. Clearly that's not true.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 The Nix thing is something I always think of also knowing he wasn't leaving until he drafted a QB. It's fairly easy, or reasonable, to believe, that between EJ, Geno, Glennon, Barkley, and Nassib, that EJ had the most potential. It's very possible that all of them thought so. One or two may have thought Geno was better. But I could imagine there was a consensus on that one. I have never heard anyone say or imply that Nix, Marrone, Whaley or Brandon thought Geno was a better choice, or anyone else. It's harder to imagine there was a consensus on the coach. And I have heard from a few very reliable sources that they weren't all in consensus. In fact, there were reports that Whisenhunt was a done deal before Marrone was hired. And that he was the favorite. And the Bills liked him.
Proteus Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 You mean like when someone asks you who else was available for quarterback when you berate them for not getting a quarterback and your response is that it's silly and you're not going to answer that? It is a straw man argument. The Bills philosophy should be to keep drafting QB's until they find one whether they fail or not. Saying who would you have drafted with hindsight is irrelevant. Keep drafting QB's until you find one or you can keep drafting great players at other positions and watch them leave after not making the playoffs in their tenure with the team because you had no QB. Sorry but straw man arguments are not worth responses. It is a straw man argument. The Bills philosophy should be to keep drafting QB's until they find one whether they fail or not. Saying who would you have drafted with hindsight is irrelevant. Keep drafting QB's until you find one or you can keep drafting great players at other positions and watch them leave after not making the playoffs in their tenure with the team because you had no QB. Sorry but straw man arguments are not worth responses. It is a straw man argument. The Bills philosophy should be to keep drafting QB's until they find one whether they fail or not. Saying who would you have drafted with hindsight is irrelevant. Keep drafting QB's until you find one or you can keep drafting great players at other positions and watch them leave after not making the playoffs in their tenure with the team because you had no QB. Sorry but straw man arguments are not worth responses. Also who did I berate?
Deranged Rhino Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 It is a straw man argument. The Bills philosophy should be to keep drafting QB's until they find one whether they fail or not. Saying who would you have drafted with hindsight is irrelevant. Keep drafting QB's until you find one or you can keep drafting great players at other positions and watch them leave after not making the playoffs in their tenure with the team because you had no QB. Sorry but straw man arguments are not worth responses. The irony of this is hilarious
Kelly the Dog Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 You can say whatever you want I really don't care. You're really not very good at this, are you. Of course you care. You respond in one minute to every point he makes. Although, on second thought, i take that back. You really don't care what he says. You completely ignore it.
Proteus Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 You can say whatever you want I really don't care. You're really not very good at this, are you. Of course you care. You respond in one minute to every point he makes. Although, on second thought, i take that back. You really don't care what he says. You completely ignore it. Was my criticism of Whaley and the offensive line legitimate?
Kelly the Dog Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 It is a straw man argument. The Bills philosophy should be to keep drafting QB's until they find one whether they fail or not. Saying who would you have drafted with hindsight is irrelevant. Keep drafting QB's until you find one or you can keep drafting great players at other positions and watch them leave after not making the playoffs in their tenure with the team because you had no QB. Sorry but straw man arguments are not worth responses. Just drafting crappy quarterbacks is 10 times worse than not drafting a quarterback. There is no question they have made mistakes on QBs for twenty years. But it's not at all a straw man argument. There has to be a person you consider that has a chance to be good. There weren't any. There weren't any free agents. Maybe two of them arguably, Derek Carr and Bridgewater, who would have had to take number one, and who are far, far, far from good quarterbacks, even look like they have a chance, out of dozens of QBs available in the last two drafts and free agents.
Proteus Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 The irony of this is hilarious So you believe drafting QB's early every year no matter what is a straw man argument? Does that mean you disagree with that strategy. It would seem like you do but it is hard to tell because you rarely do anything but attack the integrity of the poster you disagree with.
GunnerBill Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 So if Whaley had drafted a Quarterback in May even if that person failed to beat out EJ or played and had a similar rookie year to EJ you would be ok with the way he had addressed the position? Or would you, more likely, now be saying "two busts at Quarterback"?
Deranged Rhino Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 So you believe drafting QB's early every year no matter what is a straw man argument? Does that mean you disagree with that strategy. It would seem like you do but it is hard to tell because you rarely do anything but attack the integrity of the poster you disagree with. No, that's not what I think. But now I think you don't understand the definition of irony. I personally think the idea of drafting a QB every year no matter what is a criminal misuse of resources. But it's not a strawman argument. It's just not a very good argument.
Proteus Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Just drafting crappy quarterbacks is 10 times worse than not drafting a quarterback. There is no question they have made mistakes on QBs for twenty years. But it's not at all a straw man argument. There has to be a person you consider that has a chance to be good. There weren't any. There weren't any free agents. Maybe two of them arguably, Derek Carr and Bridgewater, who would have had to take number one, and who are far, far, far from good quarterbacks, even look like they have a chance, out of dozens of QBs available in the last two drafts and free agents. 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.
Deranged Rhino 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. If a GM ran a team like that, he wouldn't be around long enough to see his work pay off. That's why it's a terrible strategy.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 You can say whatever you want I really don't care. You're really not very good at this, are you. Of course you care. You respond in one minute to every point he makes. Although, on second thought, i take that back. You really don't care what he says. You completely ignore it. Was my criticism of Whaley and the offensive line legitimate? Sure he should be criticized for the lousy play of his FA and his draft picks. They didn't pan out. He deserves some criticism and perhaps a lot. But it also isn't necessarily all his fault and very very likely isn't. Marrone was terrible with these guys. The guys we had the year before all regressed. Four of them. All four. So perhaps Marrone deserves equal blame, too. Or a good portion. Maybe pat Morris deserves some blame. Maybe Hackett deserves some part of the blame. Perhaps Marrone AND Whaley really wanted a different OG in FA and Overdorf couldn't get a deal done with his agent so Whaley settled for Chris Williams. Chances are far better that it was a combination of all of those things rather than Whaley was to blame. And Whaley doesn't, in turn, get whole credit for all the guys he brought in. Marrone stuck with Crossman and Marrone started playing starters on ST. That combined with whom Whaley brought in, is why the ST were so good. It's not black and white. IMO, Marrone was the biggest reason that the offense was poor. For several reasons. Followed by Whaley not getting some better players. That particular problem lies with several things that Marrone did, not one.
GunnerBill Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Correct Kelly. And even if you take Bridgewater or Carr I don't think either of them would have improved our 2014 record though granted you would be in a better position for 2015.
Wayne Cubed Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) 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. So how many QB's are you bringing to camp and how are you going to divide up the reps? Do you give it to the guy who's been there the longest or the new guy? What if the new guy looks good but the guy drafted in year 2 just needs a little bit of time to learn the offense? How will they get into any sort of rhythm in the offense? Edited January 4, 2015 by Wayne Cubed
Proteus Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 If a GM ran a team like that, he wouldn't be around long enough to see his work pay off. That's why it's a terrible strategy. I disagree completely. If you are a GM and take over a team with a bad QB situation and build a great team outside of QB, you are still going to be gone because you only be able to go so far. If you hit on a QB, you probably are going to be the GM for 5-10 years minimum.
Kelly the Dog 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. No. Totally false. If you take a QB in round one or two for five years and don't hit because most don't hit, you will be gone before you even get a chance to draft five.
GunnerBill Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 And Wayne the point about development time under the CBA is a key flaw in the keep drafting as many QBs as you can argument.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 I disagree completely. If you are a GM and take over a team with a bad QB situation and build a great team outside of QB, you are still going to be gone because you only be able to go so far. If you hit on a QB, you probably are going to be the GM for 5-10 years minimum. But that presumes that there's a franchise caliber QB available every year in the draft -- or every other year -- when that's just not true. And if a GM continually spends 1st and 2nd round picks on QBs in back-to-back years, other areas of the team's depth will suffer, making the team less competitive than it was when the GM took over. It's a bad strategy.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 I disagree completely. If you are a GM and take over a team with a bad QB situation and build a great team outside of QB, you are still going to be gone because you only be able to go so far. If you hit on a QB, you probably are going to be the GM for 5-10 years minimum. If you give up on them after they suck in year one and take a different guy you'll never know.
Recommended Posts