metzelaars_lives Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) I will say the same thing to you that I say to everyone who questions my train of thought If you dont like my solution....what is YOUR solution Because it is soooo hard to find my solution is to find a QB - At some point and time was playing good football - Is not too old - Could actually be available What is YOUR solution to our QB problem.....Ill wait what QB would have been available to us at the 19th pick that could turn our fortunes around....... Whaley saw the opportunity (he believes) to get a game changing player in Sammy Watkins.......it was a gutsy move....he is not yet wrong for having done it becuase their is NO QB available at that 19th pick to change our fortunes. Those are the two most glaring things wrong with his post- that a) who would we have gotten to play QB at 19th overall this year that would be a surefire option and b) it has yet to be proven that Sammy Watkins is NOT worth trading up and sacrificing a 19th overall pick. In fact if you would look at the last 15 19th overall picks, I would venture to guess that Sammy Watkins' career projects to be well worth the trade. As I've stated a million times, if it wasn't for the freakishly good seasons by Beckham and Evans everyone would probably be thrilled with the trade. If I could go back in time would I stay at 9 and take Beckham? Of course. But Whaley does not possess Biff's sports almanac, which is not a fireable offense. At the time I thought it was a good trade, Watkins had a very good rookie season, hence I still think it was a good trade. Edited February 11, 2015 by metzelaars_lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Those are the two most glaring things wrong with his post- that a) who would we have gotten to play QB at 19th overall this year that would be a surefire option and b) it has yet to be proven that Sammy Watkins is NOT worth trading up and sacrificing a 19th overall pick. In fact if you would look at the last 15 19th overall picks, I would venture to guess that Sammy Watkins' career projects to be well worth the trade. As I've stated a million times, if it wasn't for the freakishly good seasons by Beckham and Evans everyone would probably be thrilled with the trade. If I could go back in time would I stay at 9 and take Beckham? Of course. But Whaley does not possess Biff's sports almanac, which is not a fireable offense. At the time I thought it was a good trade, Watkins had a very good rookie season, hence I still think it was a good trade. Trading up 5 spots to get a receiver, bad move IMO. There are always top receivers available, every year, and this year was no exception. Everyone in the NFL is aware of this, except Buffalo apparently. Trading up 5 spots to get a receiver, bad move IMO. There are always top receivers available, every year, and this year was no exception. Everyone in the NFL is aware of this, except Buffalo apparently. Adding to this the issue of having nobody to throw him the ball only compounds the mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSE Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Most of the quarterbacks listed on this board as available clearly are not. Its always been a case of wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Trading up 5 spots to get a receiver, bad move IMO. There are always top receivers available, every year, and this year was no exception. Everyone in the NFL is aware of this, except Buffalo apparently. He was the top graded WR since 2011 and the highest rated player on their board in 2013, 2014 or 2015. Going to get that guy isn't crazy if that is how you feel about someone. The Bills were not the only team to have him as the highest rated player in that 3 year window either. So back to what you said earlier, "which QB are the Bills missing out on by trading pick 19 this year?" Edited February 11, 2015 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbalaya Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Unfortunately the best option that might be out there is to pick up Sanchez. And that would make me puke. Colin, Eli, etc are not going to be released. Bradford is the only legit starting QB who could possibly be released. But we'd need a strong run game, a big TE target and huge Oline upgrade to keep him healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) There have been persistent rumors on this board that Sam Bradford, Eli Manning, Jay Cutler, RGIII and Colin Kaepernick (am I missing anyone?) may be available this offseason for various reasons. I don't see it. Why would any team give up a viable veteran (although not perfect) QB without an obvious replacement in the wings? I can kind of see Bradford because of the cap hit but even there why would St. Louis do that without an obvious candidate to take his place? This is a serious question. Missing rumors of non-FA QB...Big Ben, Peyton Manning, Dalton, Glennon, Foles, Cousins (edit and I'm sure I'm missing a couple) You're asking a very good question and one that I repeatedly succumb to the urge to bring up myself. A possible trade has to make sense for both teams and take into account that even if a team wants to move in a different direction at starter, they need a realistic backup plan. I think if everyone would look at what other QB does that team have and try to sanity-check the suggestion from the POV of the other team's GM, we'd see less of such threads. I think fundamentally it's fan "wishful thinking" at heart. Edited February 11, 2015 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BILLS_ROC Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) ...because as the Colts have proven, NFL teams are rewarded for tanking their season in order to land the first pick of the draft. There's no way the Colts, even with an injured Manning were the worst team in the NFL. Their strategy to replace Manning was to parlay that injury season into a first overall pick. I expect that someday, someone in the organization during that season will leak the fact that the Colts were instructed to lose in order to guarantee the number one pick... Oh and guess what.... that was the year Andrew Luck was in the draft... go figure. It went not just unpunished, but unmentioned by the media. Why not follow their lead? BTW I have no idea about college football, so I don't know if there is anyone coming up in the 2016 draft that would be worth betting the farm on. Edited February 11, 2015 by BILLS_ROC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Trading up 5 spots to get a receiver, bad move IMO. There are always top receivers available, every year, and this year was no exception. Everyone in the NFL is aware of this, except Buffalo apparently. Adding to this the issue of having nobody to throw him the ball only compounds the mistake. You still havent answered my question ...because as the Colts have proven, NFL teams are rewarded for tanking their season in order to land the first pick of the draft. There's no way the Colts, even with an injured Manning were the worst team in the NFL. Their strategy to replace Manning was to parlay that injury season into a first overall pick. I expect that someday, someone in the organization during that season will leak the fact that the Colts were instructed to lose in order to guarantee the number one pick... Oh and guess what.... that was the year Andrew Luck was in the draft... go figure. It went not just unpunished, but unmentioned by the media. Why not follow their lead? BTW I have no idea about college football, so I don't know if there is anyone coming up in the 2016 draft that would be worth betting the farm on. Ahhh but here is the rub on that Andrew Luck was the best prospect to come out in many years.....he was a QB WORTH tanking for..... You dont have that this year.....or last year.......so tanking just to get low enough to get the top QB is probably a flawed action to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) The Buffalo Bills released Fitzpatrick having no replacement on the roster, and the Draft still to come... Cap? Performance? New Coach? Different direction?? I could be mistaken, but I do think it's a different situation to release Fitz vs to release Eli Manning or Colin Kaepernick. These guys have been championship winning QB fergoodnessakes! It is possible that Cutler and Bradford could be cap casualties, but the same salary load which makes that likely makes it unlikely another team would offer enough to compensate their current teams for the loss and again, these are top draft picks on teams that are trying to contend. And there's still the question of whether that would be a smart move. IMO, and this may be an unpopular view here, the Bills were absolutely nuts to release Fitz as they did. I think Marrone came in and wanted a WCO guy and they thought Kolb had more potential, ignoring his injury and concussion history. The results were a QB catastrophe. They could have kept Fitz as a backup option if they offered him what the Thumbtacks did plus some guaranteed money. Edited February 11, 2015 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Good question. Here are my guess-answers: Bradford didn't play last year and St. Louis may view him as unnecessary and someone who could net draft picks (and/or provide cap relief). RGIII is on the outs in DC, they clearly prefer Cousins and/or brining back McCoy. As to the Giants, perhaps they would trade Eli for a bevy of picks as they are a ways away from contending. Cutler--the Bears stink with him, they figure they can stink w/o his attitude. No clue on Kaepernick, unless they think they can draft a replacement. I don't think that Bradford will go anywhere unless the Rams think his injuries won't be healed or will never fully heal. I don't think Washington thinks either Cousins or McCoy are viable options. They may not think RG3 is either, but it isn't because they are sold on McCoy or Cousins. Cutler' attitude and salary could make him available. I don't think SF is happy with Kaepernick, but expect them to keep him because he is still young enough to improve and because there are no better options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 One of the things that made me respect Chan Gailey, perhaps more than any of the Bills other HC's in the last 15 years, was the way he handled Trent Edwards. After naming him his starter at the onset of training camp, he simply released him after 2 games and 2 awful starts. When asked why, Gailey said essentially, "I have seen enough, and I don't ever want to be tempted to go down that road again. I don't know if what we have is any better (Fitz), but I know what Edwards brought us wasn't good enough". Naming someone the starter at essentially the outset of the off-season and then dumping him after 2 games showed precisely why the Bills, back in 2010, were a ship adrift at sea without any sails. It showed no long range planning, and worse, Nix and Gailey decided they could win with Ryan Fitzpatrick for 2 + season after 2010. Decisions back then led to decisions recently, i.e. being forced to take a QB in 2013 who wasn't ready to play. Trent was dumped after 2 games in 2010 and Manuel lasted all of 14 games before St. Doug pulled him. Thankfully, there are football people in charge now and that kind of amateur clown show won't be going on with new ownership in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Naming someone the starter at essentially the outset of the off-season and then dumping him after 2 games showed precisely why the Bills, back in 2010, were a ship adrift at sea without any sails. It showed no long range planning, and worse, Nix and Gailey decided they could win with Ryan Fitzpatrick for 2 + season after 2010. Decisions back then led to decisions recently, i.e. being forced to take a QB in 2013 who wasn't ready to play. Trent was dumped after 2 games in 2010 and Manuel lasted all of 14 games before St. Doug pulled him. Thankfully, there are football people in charge now and that kind of amateur clown show won't be going on with new ownership in charge. Agreed IMO you dont draft a QB who in the 3rd....or draft a QB in a weak draft that has the tools but needs some time to work on fundamental flaws and START them.....u get a experienced veteran QB and you ride with them.....at least through part of the season....and you ease a young QB in. And that experienced veteran QB shouldnt be one concussion away from retirement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Agreed IMO you dont draft a QB who in the 3rd....or draft a QB in a weak draft that has the tools but needs some time to work on fundamental flaws and START them.....u get a experienced veteran QB and you ride with them.....at least through part of the season....and you ease a young QB in. And that experienced veteran QB shouldnt be one concussion away from retirement So, we are back to what other veteran option did they have at QB besides Kevin Kolb? Let's assume that Fitz wasn't a good option because he perhaps didn't want to help a rookie take his job. So who else should they have brought in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I could be mistaken, but I do think it's a different situation to release Fitz vs to release Eli Manning or Colin Kaepernick. These guys have been championship winning QB fergoodnessakes! It is possible that Cutler and Bradford could be cap casualties, but the same salary load which makes that likely makes it unlikely another team would offer enough to compensate their current teams for the loss and again, these are top draft picks on teams that are trying to contend. And there's still the question of whether that would be a smart move. Has there been a QB cut with a decent starting record who could be considered a "cap casualty"? Another thing re: Eli or Kaepernick. Both the Giants and 49ers have very good GM's that aren't going to rid themselves of their current starter. Buddy Nix might, but not Jerry Reese or Trent Baalke. Not happening, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I could be mistaken, but I do think it's a different situation to release Fitz vs to release Eli Manning or Colin Kaepernick. These guys have been championship winning QB fergoodnessakes! It is possible that Cutler and Bradford could be cap casualties, but the same salary load which makes that likely makes it unlikely another team would offer enough to compensate their current teams for the loss and again, these are top draft picks on teams that are trying to contend. And there's still the question of whether that would be a smart move. IMO, and this may be an unpopular view here, the Bills were absolutely nuts to release Fitz as they did. I think Marrone came in and wanted a WCO guy and they thought Kolb had more potential, ignoring his injury and concussion history. The results were a QB catastrophe. They could have kept Fitz as a backup option if they offered him what the Thumbtacks did plus some guaranteed money. Correct., I was referring to the Bills specifically... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSE Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I hear we can get Andrew Luck for a 6th rounder in 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Trading up 5 spots to get a receiver, bad move IMO. There are always top receivers available, every year, and this year was no exception. Everyone in the NFL is aware of this, except Buffalo apparently. Adding to this the issue of having nobody to throw him the ball only compounds the mistake. Really? Would you have traded up 5 spots to get Jerry rice? Randy moss? How can you declare whether a trade is successful or not before Watkins has had a chance to show what he can really do in this league? I agree they need a qb but it wasn't happening in last year's or this year's draft regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Really? Would you have traded up 5 spots to get Jerry rice? Randy moss? How can you declare whether a trade is successful or not before Watkins has had a chance to show what he can really do in this league? I agree they need a qb but it wasn't happening in last year's or this year's draft regardless.Needing a QB is how people that didn't want the Watkins trade justify it. The reality is that it was Watkins OR Ebron, pick 19 and the 4th (or whatever it was). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Needing a QB is how people that didn't want the Watkins trade justify it. The reality is that it was Watkins OR Ebron, pick 19 and the 4th (or whatever it was). Watkins is a special talent whose rankings would be near the top in most drafts. The issue for many is: Was the trade up worth it? Those who say that it wasn't worth it have a strong basis to make that claim . The reason is until there is a qb who can play at a competent level the sterling receiver's talents are squandered. If EJ is that starter will Watkins's talents be properly utilized? I think not. (I would love to be proven wrong. But his erratic accuracy disturbs me.) If the front office in this offseason comes up with an Orton type qb then the Watkins deal looks less worthy. If the front office comes up with a capable (adequate) qb who can sufficiently make plays then the deal was worth the expense. The most interesting issue for the fans in this offseason is who is Whaley going to bring in to add to the qb mix? I have mulled over this issue, as have many others. There are no slam dunk talents available. But considering the market limitations that isn't what should be expected. If we can enter into the season with a bridge qb who falls in the category of reasonably competent then my low ball measuring stick will call it a successful transaction. If we enter the season in the same situation as last year then the Watkins deal is questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Has there been a QB cut with a decent starting record who could be considered a "cap casualty"? Another thing re: Eli or Kaepernick. Both the Giants and 49ers have very good GM's that aren't going to rid themselves of their current starter. Buddy Nix might, but not Jerry Reese or Trent Baalke. Not happening, I thought that the QB that went to Seattle got a extremely unfair shake......should have kept him and given him a legit chance to start. Also.....I dont know what veteran QBs were actually available at the Kolb time....but I bet there was someone available via trade? Once again...not looking for a franchise guy because he isnt there.....a guy to keep the horse from running off the cliff for a while till EJ Manuel is actually READY to be a starter.......if ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts