2017 NFL Mock Drafts & Top Prospects

[JohnC]

The point that you are missing is if we are going to cherry pick Carr and Bridgewater we can't forget about: Cutler, Kellen Clemens, Tavares Jackson, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Jamarcus Russell, Brady Quinn, Kevin Kolb, John Beck, Drew Stanton, Brohm, Henne, Sanchez, Freeman, Pat White, Bradford, Tebow, Clausen, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, Dalton, Kaepernick, RG3, Tannehill, Weeden, Osweiler, EJ, Geno, Bortles, Manziel, Jimmy G, Goff, Wentz, Lynch and Hackenberg.

 

That list is of the guys that have been drafted in the 1st or 2nd round over the last 10 years excluding the "franchise types" and Bridgewater. If you pull out the guys drafted in the top 3 there were 3 other QBs (this includes Bridgewater AND Flacco) that went in the top 2 rounds that ended up as franchise guys. It would be really easy to make an argument that TT has been better than both since the start of 2015. We can't just say that "we should have picked ____ guy that ended up good" while ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of guys drafted n that same area amounted to nothing. For every Derek Carr there are 10 John Beck's.

If you miss on a qb you don't then lament your plight and become timid because you failed to click with your selection. You get back at it. Teams miss with high picks for all positions. Doing the turtle and hiding in your protective shell may be an act of protection but it is not a positive response that leads to a solution.

 

In your list I would gladly take qbs such as Wentz or even Goff. The instant judgment for a position that requires a development period for qbs makes little sense. As you stated for every Derek Carr there is a John Beck. Most people are aware of the odds of hitting a bonanza. But that shouldn't be an argument for not participating in the action---it is an argument to make more attempts to get back into the action to improve your odds of hitting the mark.

 

I am not a TT basher. My current position is to keep him because he is our best option. But having him on the roster is not a reason for not pursuing a qb with more of an upside---it's the opposite. Because we have a bridge qb the Bills are in a better position to find a better long term option and give that prospect time to develop. TT is a viable option for now; he is not a long term solution for anything meaningful.

 

The Nix/Whaley tandem has been in operation for at least five years. What do they have to show for it? A Rex reclamation qb was brought in to fill the void. That's not good enough.

[Kirby Jackson]

If you miss on a qb you don't then lament your plight and become timid because you failed to click with your selection. You get back at it. Teams miss with high picks for all positions. Doing the turtle and hiding in your protective shell may be an act of protection but it is not a positive response that leads to a solution.

 

In your list I would gladly take qbs such as Wentz or even Goff. The instant judgment for a position that requires a development period for qbs makes little sense. As you stated for every Derek Carr there is a John Beck. Most people are aware of the odds of hitting a bonanza. But that shouldn't be an argument for not participating in the action---it is an argument to make more attempts to get back into the action to improve your odds of hitting the mark.

 

I am not a TT basher. My current position is to keep him because he is our best option. But having him on the roster is not a reason for not pursuing a qb with more of an upside---it's the opposite. Because we have a bridge qb the Bills are in a better position to find a better long term option and give that prospect time to develop. TT is a viable option for now; he is not a long term solution for anything meaningful.

 

The Nix/Whaley tandem has been in operation for at least five years. What do they have to show for it? A Rex reclamation qb was brought in to fill the void. That's not good enough.

I am not saying to stop swinging (just to be clear). I am saying when we look at the situation we say "just take a guy in the 1st or 2nd" or whatever and expect him to be the guy. Outside of the guys picked in the top 3 Carr & Flacco are the only ones that we can today, classify as franchise guys from the 1st 2 rounds of the last 10 drafts. If you take out RG, Bradford, Goff, Wentz, Russell, Bortles and Vince Young (all picked in the top 3 as well) you are left with 32 guys picked in the top 2 rounds (excluding top 3 picks). Of those 32 guys Carr & Flacco are the only franchise guys. That's a 6.25% chance. There are some guys that are serviceable in there but we already have that.

 

With those odds if you took 1 a year in the 1st 2 rounds (excluding in the top 3) for 10 years you would have a 62.5% chance that one of those guys would be what we are deeming a "franchise guy." Would you trade 10 picks in the 1st 2 rounds over 10 years for a 62.5% chance of finding the franchise savior? I doubt anyone would. If you make it every other year, you are looking at a 31.75% chance of a franchise guy and 5 less picks in the 1st 2 rounds over a 10 year span.

 

You can take this further to include guys like RW and Dak but then you have to include the John David Booty's and Levi Brown's of the world. You can't just pick the guys that worked out. You need to look at the whole class. When you look at the entire class it isn't easy to find a "franchise guy." It is hard to find a decent QB let alone a great one. IF we draft a guy at 10 or 44 we just need to be mindful of the odds of him being the guy that we all hope for. It is easy to draft A guy, it is hard to draft THE guy.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Blokestradamus]

It's "One rep at the Senior Bowl > 4 years of tape" day. Oh, joyous day.

[Chuck Wagon]

I am not saying to stop swinging (just to be clear). I am saying when we look at the situation we say "just take a guy in the 1st or 2nd" or whatever and expect him to be the guy. Outside of the guys picked in the top 3 Carr & Flacco are the only ones that we can today, classify as franchise guys from the 1st 2 rounds of the last 10 drafts. If you take out RG, Bradford, Goff, Wentz, Russell, Bortles and Vince Young (all picked in the top 3 as well) you are left with 32 guys picked in the top 2 rounds (excluding top 3 picks). Of those 32 guys Carr & Flacco are the only franchise guys. That's a 6.25% chance. There are some guys that are serviceable in there but we already have that.

 

With those odds if you took 1 a year in the 1st 2 rounds (excluding in the top 3) for 10 years you would have a 62.5% chance that one of those guys would be what we are deeming a "franchise guy." Would you trade 10 picks in the 1st 2 rounds over 10 years for a 62.5% chance of finding the franchise savior? I doubt anyone would. If you make it every other year, you are looking at a 31.75% chance of a franchise guy and 5 less picks in the 1st 2 rounds over a 10 year span.

 

You can take this further to include guys like RW and Dak but then you have to include the John David Booty's and Levi Brown's of the world. You can't just pick the guys that worked out. You need to look at the whole class. When you look at the entire class it isn't easy to find a "franchise guy." It is hard to find a decent QB let alone a great one. IF we draft a guy at 10 or 44 we just need to be mindful of the odds of him being the guy that we all hope for. It is easy to draft A guy, it is hard to draft THE guy.

 

With those odds if you took 1 a year in the 1st 2 rounds (excluding in the top 3) for 10 years you would have a 62.5% chance that one of those guys would be what we are deeming a "franchise guy."

 

- I'm 99% sure that's not how math works, I'm pretty sure it's closer to a ~15% chance over 10 attempts-

 

 

I understand both sides of the coin. If you don't have a QB, not much else matters (unless you do EVERYTHING) right, but the people who say "take a QB every year" simply do not understand the cap dynamics of the current league or the gambler's fallacy in the position.

 

I'm a firm believer that coaching and team situation are dramatic influences on the success of the QB position. Almost everyone drafted can sling the ball and has the physical traits to play the QB position in the league. However, more often than not, the ones who develop into true franchise QBs are put in a situation to flourish unless they are blessed with out of this world physical tools (ie Cam). If you put Tom Brady on the expansion Browns and Tim Couch on the Patriots behind Bledsoe, I think you'd have a dramatically different last 2 decades of NFL history. Brady / Roethlisberger / Russell Wilson / Flacco / Dak are all guys who were put in situations that asked very little of them when they started playing. Rodgers sat for several years and stepped into a playoff team. Even though Carr was drafted onto a terrible team, they immediately made significant investments in the offensive line and skill positions around him. Absent the guys that are so talented everyone's reached a consensus on (the Cams, Lucks and Jameis's of the world, of which there are none in the class) success at the position is almost entirely dependent on a perfect congruence of talent, situation and coaching.

 

I don't believe we've add the receiver talent to allow a QB to succeed since the days of Moulds and Price and even then our line (and his mobility) nearly got Bledsoe killed. I would like to see Tyrod get some better weapons, better coaching and an upgrade at RT to see what he can do. I'm not opposed to taking a guy in the 3rd to 5th round to compete with Cardale, but if our QB is Tyrod or Cardale or rookie to be named later, we need to see improvements in several areas before the guy has a chance to succeed.

 

10th is not the place to take a QB, you are ultimately talking yourself into day 2 or even day 3 talent at that spot as the "can't miss" QBs are going top 3, you are also passing on a likely "franchise" level talent at a different position (seriously, look at the success of QBs drafted in that range vs other positions, absent a headcase situation you really have to try to not get an eventual pro bowler there). We are drafting in the top 10 for a reason, we don't have the talent to allow a QB to succeed, give Tyrod another shot with better talent around him while also giving the next guy a better chance at success.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Chuck Wagon

[yungmack]

I don't think that it is different. Finding a franchise QB is always the most important thing. I am just trying to provide perspective that it isn't easy to do. If we use Gunner's list from the other day there are roughly 16 guys that fall into elite, franchise or next generation guys. Half of the league has one. There have been 213 QBs drafted since 2000 and 131 since 2006. There are 16 guys playing 10 or 20 years later than that MAY be considered franchise guys. I used the 2000 draft because there are players (Brady) from then. 7.5% of the guys drafted since 2000 are franchise guys today and 12.2% of the guys since 2006. Obviously the list is a touch subjective but when we say "just go find a franchise guy" it is NOT that easy (especially when you aren't picking at the top of the draft).

 

To add some perspective here are the guys drafted in the last 10 years (131 guys) that would fall into the elite category, franchise category or next generation category: Ryan, Flacco (maybe), Wilson, Luck, Stafford, Cam, Carr, Mariota, Jameis and Dak. Again, that is 7.6% of the guys (if you count Flacco). It doesn't include Goff or Wentz but they certainly haven't shown enough yet to warrant inclusion. 1 guy a year on average is a franchise guy. It isn't as easy as we make it out to be. It is hard to find good QB play let alone great QB play.

 

Even if you use the 1st round only it's only 25% over the last decade (that includes Flacco). It falls to about 20% if you don't include him. In addition, 4 of those 7 were taken 1st overall. If a team needs a QB and has the 1st pick, good luck prying it away. 6 of those 7 went in the top 3 picks.

I think it's even worse than you state. I wouldn't include Flacco, Stafford or Cam in the "elite" category though they are the default "franchise QB" for their franchises.

 

As to Prescott, I don't believe he would have had a fraction of the success he had this year if he was taken by the Rams. A team with a top three pick is, definitionally, a lousy team. He stepped into a situation with an overall excellent team. I'll reserve judgment on him until after season three.

 

As to Winston and Mariotta, it's too early to tell where they're headed though I am more confident in Marcus than Jameis breaking out. And Luck just might be falling off the list altogether if Indy can't get its stuff together ASAP.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

With those odds if you took 1 a year in the 1st 2 rounds (excluding in the top 3) for 10 years you would have a 62.5% chance that one of those guys would be what we are deeming a "franchise guy."

 

- I'm 99% sure that's not how math works, I'm pretty sure it's closer to a ~15% chance over 10 attempts-

 

 

I will try to explain and hope that it makes sense. If you exclude guys picked in the top 3 both good and bad, you are left with 32 guys picked in the 1st and 2nd round since 2006. If we use Gunner's list from the other day there are 16 guys that fall into elite, franchise or next generation guys. Only Flacco and Carr were taken in the 1st 2 rounds (excluding the top 3) over the last 10 years and fell into one of those 3 categories. There is still time for some but as of today that's what we have 2 of the 32 guys (that's where the 6.25% is coming in).

I think it's even worse than you state. I wouldn't include Flacco, Stafford or Cam in the "elite" category though they are the default "franchise QB" for their franchises.

 

As to Prescott, I don't believe he would have had a fraction of the success he had this year if he was taken by the Rams. A team with a top three pick is, definitionally, a lousy team. He stepped into a situation with an overall excellent team. I'll reserve judgment on him until after season three.

 

As to Winston and Mariotta, it's too early to tell where they're headed though I am more confident in Marcus than Jameis breaking out. And Luck just might be falling off the list altogether if Indy can't get its stuff together ASAP.

I just based it off of Gunner's list. I have Flacco in his game manager category but he did win a Super Bowl so I am not too strong on it one way or another. It is a little scary for all of the people saying "pick your guy at 10" or "in the 1st couple of rounds." The likelihood of that guy being what we would consider "franchise" is slim.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Chuck Wagon]

I think it's even worse than you state. I wouldn't include Flacco, Stafford or Cam in the "elite" category though they are the default "franchise QB" for their franchises.

 

As to Prescott, I don't believe he would have had a fraction of the success he had this year if he was taken by the Rams. A team with a top three pick is, definitionally, a lousy team. He stepped into a situation with an overall excellent team. I'll reserve judgment on him until after season three.

 

As to Winston and Mariotta, it's too early to tell where they're headed though I am more confident in Marcus than Jameis breaking out. And Luck just might be falling off the list altogether if Indy can't get its stuff together ASAP.

 

 

I don't know how you can't call Cam elite. He's certainly got some things to work on, but he dominated the league in 2015 with Greg Olsen and little else around him.

 

Also, the Rams weren't a bottom 3 team when they drafted Goff. They certainly lacked talent with their receivers and their line, but technically Dak went to a "worse" team than the Rams were in 2015. That being said, the general gist is right that Dak stepped into a perfect situation and Goff stepped into a mess, but also largely because the strengths of the Cowboys (line and run game) allowed Dak to succeed while the weaknesses of the Rams prevented Goff from doing the same.

I will try to explain and hope that it makes sense. If you exclude guys picked in the top 3 both good and bad, you are left with 32 guys picked in the 1st and 2nd round since 2006. If we use Gunner's list from the other day there are 16 guys that fall into elite, franchise or next generation guys. Only Flacco and Carr were taken in the 1st 2 rounds (excluding the top 3) over the last 10 years and fell into one of those 3 categories. There is still time for some but as of today that's what we have. 2 of the 32 guys (that's where the 6.25% is coming in.

 

 

I completely understand the sample. I'm just explaining that 6% odds executed over 10 attempts isn't 60% likelihood of success, it's about 12%.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

I don't know how you can't call Cam elite. He's certainly got some things to work on, but he dominated the league in 2015 with Greg Olsen and little else around him.

 

Also, the Rams weren't a bottom 3 team when they drafted Goff. They certainly lacked talent with their receivers and their line, but technically Dak went to a "worse" team than the Rams were in 2015. That being said, the general gist is right that Dak stepped into a perfect situation and Goff stepped into a mess, but also largely because the strengths of the Cowboys (line and run game) allowed Dak to succeed while the weaknesses of the Rams prevented Goff from doing the same.

 

I completely understand the sample. I'm just explaining that 6% odds executed over 10 attempts isn't 60% likelihood of success, it's about 12%.

In my example you would have 10 of the 32 guys. 1 out of every 16 guys would be a franchise guy, and 10 out of 16 would be 62.5% likelihood that you would have at least 1 of those 2. Maybe that doesn't make sense but that is my logic (or lack thereof). .

[YoloinOhio]

It's "One rep at the Senior Bowl > 4 years of tape" day. Oh, joyous day.

haha. Gotta love draft twitter.

[26CornerBlitz]

Who impressed on Day 1 of Senior Bowl practice? (1:25)

By NFL Network

NFL Network's Mike Mayock and Daniel Jeremiah discuss which players impressed them the most during the first day of Senior Bowl practice.

 

[aristocrat]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2017/story/_/id/18546325/dabo-swinney-clemson-tigers-passing-deshaun-watson-passing-michael-jordan

 

MOBILE, Ala. -- Clemson coach Dabo Swinney gave the ultimate endorsement Tuesday to his quarterback, Deshaun Watson, as he heads into the NFL draft process.

"I'm just telling you, if they pass on Deshaun Watson, they're passing on Michael Jordan," Swinney said during the first day of Senior Bowl practices. "I'm just telling you. I don't know what the heck I'm talking about; I'm just an old funky college coach. But Deshaun Watson is the best, by a long shot."

[BADOLBILZ]

I am not saying to stop swinging (just to be clear). I am saying when we look at the situation we say "just take a guy in the 1st or 2nd" or whatever and expect him to be the guy. Outside of the guys picked in the top 3 Carr & Flacco are the only ones that we can today, classify as franchise guys from the 1st 2 rounds of the last 10 drafts. If you take out RG, Bradford, Goff, Wentz, Russell, Bortles and Vince Young (all picked in the top 3 as well) you are left with 32 guys picked in the top 2 rounds (excluding top 3 picks). Of those 32 guys Carr & Flacco are the only franchise guys. That's a 6.25% chance. There are some guys that are serviceable in there but we already have that.

 

With those odds if you took 1 a year in the 1st 2 rounds (excluding in the top 3) for 10 years you would have a 62.5% chance that one of those guys would be what we are deeming a "franchise guy." Would you trade 10 picks in the 1st 2 rounds over 10 years for a 62.5% chance of finding the franchise savior? I doubt anyone would. If you make it every other year, you are looking at a 31.75% chance of a franchise guy and 5 less picks in the 1st 2 rounds over a 10 year span.

 

You can take this further to include guys like RW and Dak but then you have to include the John David Booty's and Levi Brown's of the world. You can't just pick the guys that worked out. You need to look at the whole class. When you look at the entire class it isn't easy to find a "franchise guy." It is hard to find a decent QB let alone a great one. IF we draft a guy at 10 or 44 we just need to be mindful of the odds of him being the guy that we all hope for. It is easy to draft A guy, it is hard to draft THE guy.

 

 

I get your point but I'm not sure you've thought this thru entirely:

 

1) How many of the Bills original first round picks over the last 17 years are still on the roster?

 

Only 5....and not surprisingly all within the last decade......

 

Stephon Gilmore (likely departure in FA)

EJ Manuel ( failure allowed to leave)

 

That leaves:

 

Sammy......talented but frustrating player yet to produce near his ability, missed much of season.

Dareus.......talented but frustrating player one strike from 10 game suspension....missed much of season.

Shaq......did not play remotely close to hype as a rookie after missing about half of season.

 

So that's your NET GAIN for passing on QB's in round 1 for all but one season over 10 years.

 

And to be honest.....over the course of 17 years that list really hasn't looked any better than that.

 

The moral of the story is let's not make first round picks out to be more than than what they actually yield.

 

2)ADDITIONALLY..........keep in mind that "serviceable QB's" like Sam Bradford and Jay Cutler yielded first round draft pick compensation, and then some, in trade.

 

You aren't necessarily throwing every pick of a QB in round 1 down the drain if it doesn't turn into one of the VERY RARE franchise QB's.

 

Conclusions?

 

If you use 10 first rounders........get 2 back in trade.......and were otherwise going to lose 5-7 of your first rounders to either bust or FA over a 10 year period ANYWAY...........then 62.5% chance of getting a franchise/HOF type at the expense of 2-4 position players of varying value doesn't sound so bad now does it?

 

Especially when you consider that if you get that franchise QB he will more than likely be there for your for 15 and perhaps even 20 years.

Edited January 25, 2017 by #BADOL

[Thurman#1]

I don't think that it is different. Finding a franchise QB is always the most important thing. I am just trying to provide perspective that it isn't easy to do.

 

 

 

Where are all the people saying it's easy to find one, that they're common as dirt? We get it.

 

What we're saying should be considered easy is the idea that you have to commit a ton of resources to the position. In the draft, consistently, till you get your guy. And even after, like the Pats and Packers do. You'd think that idea would be dead easy to understand and commit to, but the Bills haven't done it.

 

I'd like to see them start a conveyor belt for trading down the way the Pats did a few years back. Trade this year's first (assuming no first round QB we like is available there) down for a first next year and another third or so this year or next. Then next year you've got ammo to move up.

 

And if the guy's not there next year, pull the same move again with the second our 1st round picks. And keep doing it. Trade down and accumulate picks relentlessly. Desperate GMs will be there to help you out with this.

[Thurman#1]

I am not saying to stop swinging (just to be clear). I am saying when we look at the situation we say "just take a guy in the 1st or 2nd" or whatever and expect him to be the guy. Outside of the guys picked in the top 3 Carr & Flacco are the only ones that we can today, classify as franchise guys from the 1st 2 rounds of the last 10 drafts. If you take out RG, Bradford, Goff, Wentz, Russell, Bortles and Vince Young (all picked in the top 3 as well) you are left with 32 guys picked in the top 2 rounds (excluding top 3 picks). Of those 32 guys Carr & Flacco are the only franchise guys. That's a 6.25% chance. There are some guys that are serviceable in there but we already have that.

 

With those odds if you took 1 a year in the 1st 2 rounds (excluding in the top 3) for 10 years you would have a 62.5% chance that one of those guys would be what we are deeming a "franchise guy." Would you trade 10 picks in the 1st 2 rounds over 10 years for a 62.5% chance of finding the franchise savior? I doubt anyone would. If you make it every other year, you are looking at a 31.75% chance of a franchise guy and 5 less picks in the 1st 2 rounds over a 10 year span.

 

You can take this further to include guys like RW and Dak but then you have to include the John David Booty's and Levi Brown's of the world. You can't just pick the guys that worked out. You need to look at the whole class. When you look at the entire class it isn't easy to find a "franchise guy." It is hard to find a decent QB let alone a great one. IF we draft a guy at 10 or 44 we just need to be mindful of the odds of him being the guy that we all hope for. It is easy to draft A guy, it is hard to draft THE guy.

 

 

 

First, Tannehill's still got a possibility of becoming a franchise QB. Part of me doesn't want the Fins to get one, but the more there are the better it is for the NFL and Tannehill could easily become one.

 

But it's possible to get one of those top three picks, which would raise the odds. Look back and you see Griffin, you see Goff and Wentz.You see the Rams trading up to #2 in 2014 when they could have gotten Bortles but instead took an OL. You can get high QBs in trade. But you have to have serious ammunition, which it is possible to get if you start early.

 

 

1st rounders outside the top three since 2006: Leinart, Cutler, Quinn, Flacco, Sanchez, Tebow, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, Tannehill, Weeden, Manuel, Manziel, Bridgewater, and Paxton Lynch. That's 15 guys, including some obvious pathetic grabs (Manziel and Tebow) that should never have been made that early. Then you have Cutler, who's borderline and Flacco. And you have three guys who might still get there in Tannehill, Bridgewater and Lynch. That's not horrible odds. Far from it.

 

And that's not including the fact that some of those guys might (or might not, hard to say) have done a lot better if developed a lot better. Including Manuel. Some teams seem able to get guys and develop them. Look at Garoppolo. Look at how well Green Bay does even with their backups. I haven't a clue if any of the guys there who appear simply not good enough might have actually turned into something with a terrific franchise guiding and teaching them. It's often crap franchises picking these guys and crap franchises do a crap job. And you have to include us in that group right now.

 

You're right that it won't be easy. But if we can do a good job of developing them and a good job of identifying them and a good job of bringing through a significant number of guys with a real shot, your odds go up significantly.

[GunnerBill]

The Rams didn't trade up to #2 in 2014. It was an RGIII trade legacy pick.

 

Basically for a team to trade out of one of those top 2 or 3 spots when there are supposed potential franchise QBs on the board you need quite specific circumstances.

 

Either you need a team who within the two years before has selected what they rhink is their franchise Quarterback but is in the early stages of a rebuild and is still bad. See the 2011 Rams (had a young Bradford which allowed them to trade back with RGIII on the board in 2012) or the 2015 Tennessee Titans (had a young Mariota which allowed them to trade back with Goff and Wentz on the board).

 

Or you need a team that has looked at that year's crop doesn't fancy them and is organisationally committed to a tank - see the Cleveland Browns last spring (and after taking criticism early for passing on Wentz it now looks as though they may have got it right).

 

So who are the candidates for that kind of trade next year if the Bills found themselves in that #8-#12 draft range again but armed with two first round picks (so Kirby's scenario)? I think the most obvious one is the 49ers. If they take say Trubisky at #2 this year and see enough promise in him but still suck in 2017 (possible, their roster is terrible) enough to be picking top 3 again they could potentially be a trade partner for the Bills who would hold the ammunition to get up.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

 

Where are all the people saying it's easy to find one, that they're common as dirt? We get it.

 

What we're saying should be considered easy is the idea that you have to commit a ton of resources to the position. In the draft, consistently, till you get your guy. And even after, like the Pats and Packers do. You'd think that idea would be dead easy to understand and commit to, but the Bills haven't done it.

 

I'd like to see them start a conveyor belt for trading down the way the Pats did a few years back. Trade this year's first (assuming no first round QB we like is available there) down for a first next year and another third or so this year or next. Then next year you've got ammo to move up.

 

And if the guy's not there next year, pull the same move again with the second our 1st round picks. And keep doing it. Trade down and accumulate picks relentlessly. Desperate GMs will be there to help you out with this.

We seem to agree that gaining a 1st next year is the best course of action for finding that guy.

 

 

 

First, Tannehill's still got a possibility of becoming a franchise QB. Part of me doesn't want the Fins to get one, but the more there are the better it is for the NFL and Tannehill could easily become one.

 

But it's possible to get one of those top three picks, which would raise the odds. Look back and you see Griffin, you see Goff and Wentz.You see the Rams trading up to #2 in 2014 when they could have gotten Bortles but instead took an OL. You can get high QBs in trade. But you have to have serious ammunition, which it is possible to get if you start early.

 

 

1st rounders outside the top three since 2006: Leinart, Cutler, Quinn, Flacco, Sanchez, Tebow, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, Tannehill, Weeden, Manuel, Manziel, Bridgewater, and Paxton Lynch. That's 15 guys, including some obvious pathetic grabs (Manziel and Tebow) that should never have been made that early. Then you have Cutler, who's borderline and Flacco. And you have three guys who might still get there in Tannehill, Bridgewater and Lynch. That's not horrible odds. Far from it.

 

And that's not including the fact that some of those guys might (or might not, hard to say) have done a lot better if developed a lot better. Including Manuel. Some teams seem able to get guys and develop them. Look at Garoppolo. Look at how well Green Bay does even with their backups. I haven't a clue if any of the guys there who appear simply not good enough might have actually turned into something with a terrific franchise guiding and teaching them. It's often crap franchises picking these guys and crap franchises do a crap job. And you have to include us in that group right now.

 

You're right that it won't be easy. But if we can do a good job of developing them and a good job of identifying them and a good job of bringing through a significant number of guys with a real shot, your odds go up significantly.

In terms of Tannehill we already have that. TT and Tannehill have started 29 games each over the last 2 years. TT is 15-14 & has 47 TDs and 12 INTs, Tannehill is 14-15 & has 45 TDs and 24 INTs. He averages 29 yards more a game than Tyrod but certainly isn't in a different tier.

 

We are talking about finding a franchise guy which is different from solid QB play. We have solid QB play. We are getting what KC, Miami, Baltimore and a few others are getting. It's unequivocally better than another 6-8 teams. We don't need a guy that we hope gets to Tyrod's level or Tannehill's level. To do that we have to not just swing, we have to be surgical. If we acquired another 1st in 2018 the ammo would be there to move up and raise your odds.

The Rams didn't trade up to #2 in 2014. It was an RGIII trade legacy pick.

 

Basically for a team to trade out of one of those top 2 or 3 spots when there are supposed potential franchise QBs on the board you need quite specific circumstances.

 

Either you need a team who within the two years before has selected what they rhink is their franchise Quarterback but is in the early stages of a rebuild and is still bad. See the 2011 Rams (had a young Bradford which allowed them to trade back with RGIII on the board in 2012) or the 2015 Tennessee Titans (had a young Mariota which allowed them to trade back with Goff and Wentz on the board).

 

Or you need a team that has looked at that year's crop doesn't fancy them and is organisationally committed to a tank - see the Cleveland Browns last spring (and after taking criticism early for passing on Wentz it now looks as though they may have got it right).

 

So who are the candidates for that kind of trade next year if the Bills found themselves in that #8-#12 draft range again but armed with two first round picks (so Kirby's scenario)? I think the most obvious one is the 49ers. If they take say Trubisky at #2 this year and see enough promise in him but still suck in 2017 (possible, their roster is terrible) enough to be picking top 3 again they could potentially be a trade partner for the Bills who would hold the ammunition to get up.

San Francisco is probably the most likely. The Rams, the Browns are possible. I will throw out a sleeper, Washington. I think that they lock up Cousins this year and still don't think that they are very good. I wouldn't be shocked if they were like 5-11. That's probably top 5.

[GunnerBill]

In terms of Tannehill we already have that. TT and Tannehill have started 29 games each over the last 2 years. TT is 15-14 & has 47 TDs and 12 INTs, Tannehill is 14-15 & has 45 TDs and 24 INTs. He averages 29 yards more a game than Tyrod but certainly isn't in a different tier.

 

We are talking about finding a franchise guy which is different from solid QB play. We have solid QB play. We are getting what KC, Miami, Baltimore and a few others are getting. It's unequivocally better than another 6-8 teams. We don't need a guy that we hope gets to Tyrod's level or Tannehill's level. To do that we have to not just swing, we have to be surgical. If we acquired another 1st in 2018 the ammo would be there to move up and raise your odds.

 

I agree on Tannehill and I think he is what he is at this stage, same for Dalton actually. They have been in the league long enough now, they are into their 2nd contracts as starters... if they were suddenly going to develop into franchise guys I think it would have happened by now.

[aristocrat]

how far back do we have to go to get a 1st next year? 25 ?

[Kirby Jackson]

how far back do we have to go to get a 1st next year? 25 ?

In my head that's the most likely landing spot. We would give up 10 and a mid round pick this year or next, for 25, their 2nd and next year's 1st.

[aristocrat]

In my head that's the most likely landing spot. We would give up 10 and a mid round pick this year or next, for 25, their 2nd and next year's 1st.

 

if we also get this years 2nd sign me up for that. that would be a lot of players if whaley hits on the 2nds like he has in the past.