FireChan Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 No, it's don't get all lathered up and draft a bad QB. Which QB is bad?
jeffismagic Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 But as Watson heads toward the NFL draft, evaluators around the league believe his prospects are murky. At this point last year he was pegged as the top draft-eligible quarterback and probable No. 1 overall pick. Now he’s projected as the second or third quarterback off the board, with a ceiling of mid-to-late first round. Watson hasn’t regressed significantly over the past year, though he had a few shaky performances early and had patches when accuracy and/or decision-making weren’t great (especially near the end zone). (Mike)Shanahan: It takes a while to learn to be a pocket passer. You can tell that he (Deshaun Watson) struggled a little bit with the intermediate and deep routes. That does take some time. Your footwork in the pocket, your ability to slide in the pocket, instead of just taking off and looking downfield or looking at the holes in the defense where you can keep your head up and still slide and still focus downfield. And key the whole defense? That takes time. That doesn’t happen overnight. So that’s something he is going to have to work on. http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/01/11/nfl-draft-deshaun-watson-stock-round-scouting-report-mike-shanahan-josh-mccown-randall-cunningham
Boatdrinks Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 they might not work out but on a risk reward, some would consider it a bargain price for that lottery ticket The bargain price was the one agreed upon for the move-up with HOU. Roethlisberger would have paid off in spades. When that deal fell through, simply having to make a deal for a QB was chasing fools gold.
HT02 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Although he was mocked to the Bills by many people, I don't think anyone was saying he was a bargain. I agree, I recall most draft analysts didn't think there was any first round talent at QB that year... they were right
Adam Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 This is a very Billsy choice. The only time the Bills bucked their own trend at sheer Billsyness in the first round was when the team decided to pass on Matt Leinart. Yet, in even truer Bills fashion, they instead overreached by 3 rounds on Lil Donte Whitner. Whitner was the best QB we've had in awhile
jeffismagic Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 The bargain price was the one agreed upon for the move-up with HOU. Roethlisberger would have paid off in spades. When that deal fell through, simply having to make a deal for a QB was chasing fools gold. The Bills tried to move up for Roethlisberger but Jacksonville wanted Williams the receiver and refused us.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 But as Watson heads toward the NFL draft, evaluators around the league believe his prospects are murky. At this point last year he was pegged as the top draft-eligible quarterback and probable No. 1 overall pick. Now he’s projected as the second or third quarterback off the board, with a ceiling of mid-to-late first round. Watson hasn’t regressed significantly over the past year, though he had a few shaky performances early and had patches when accuracy and/or decision-making weren’t great (especially near the end zone). (Mike)Shanahan: It takes a while to learn to be a pocket passer. You can tell that he (Deshaun Watson) struggled a little bit with the intermediate and deep routes. That does take some time. Your footwork in the pocket, your ability to slide in the pocket, instead of just taking off and looking downfield or looking at the holes in the defense where you can keep your head up and still slide and still focus downfield. And key the whole defense? That takes time. That doesn’t happen overnight. So that’s something he is going to have to work on. http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/01/11/nfl-draft-deshaun-watson-stock-round-scouting-report-mike-shanahan-josh-mccown-randall-cunningham This all sounds very familiar...
NoSaint Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 The bargain price was the one agreed upon for the move-up with HOU. Roethlisberger would have paid off in spades. When that deal fell through, simply having to make a deal for a QB was chasing fools gold. Though replying to the Losman post, I was generally speaking towards everyone pointing out a qb that flopped. A choice can be reasonable value even if unsuccessful long term.
Rico Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 They said that , coming out of Tenn., Manning could place balls on a trainers face from 3 inches away...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Though replying to the Losman post, I was generally speaking towards everyone pointing out a qb that flopped. A choice can be reasonable value even if unsuccessful long term.I think that's true for a lot of the conversation on here. We critique too many things in hindsight. Let's call it the "Dak Prescott effect." Every team in the league passed on him 3 times. It's not like "the Bills didn't have the foresight." It was the perfect storm. Sometimes that happens, it's the exception, not the rule. At the time of the draft no one was saying what a big mistake it was to take Ragland instead of Dak.
jeffismagic Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 I think that's true for a lot of the conversation on here. We critique too many things in hindsight. Let's call it the "Dak Prescott effect." Every team in the league passed on him 3 times. It's not like "the Bills didn't have the foresight." It was the perfect storm. Sometimes that happens, it's the exception, not the rule. At the time of the draft no one was saying what a big mistake it was to take Ragland instead of Dak. There were a lot of people concerned that we spent 3 picks on a 2 down linebacker. As for Prescott, the Bills had him higher on their board and wanted to take a QB in the fourth round. If they hadn't crapped away picks for a limited range linebacker they very well could have finally solved their QB problem. Again, the Bills are a team that neglects the QB position and has done so by only drafting 2 players at the position in the first 2 rounds in the last 20 years.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 There were a lot of people concerned that we spent 3 picks on a 2 down linebacker. As for Prescott, the Bills had him higher on their board and wanted to take a QB in the fourth round. If they hadn't crapped away picks for a limited range linebacker they very well could have finally solved their QB problem. Again, the Bills are a team that neglects the QB position and has done so by only drafting 2 players at the position in the first 2 rounds in the last 20 years. I guess that I didn't articulate my point very well. It has nothing to do with "____ player that ended up successful" or "_____ player that didn't end up successful." What was the thought going in? As an example if Trubisky goes 2, plays okay and Davis Webb goes 176 and plays better are we all going to act like we knew Webb was the guy and not Trubisky? At the time of the 2000 draft people though Chad Pennington was a 1st rounder and Tom Brady a 6th. Obviously it didn't work out that way but we shouldn't blame the Jets for taking Pennington instead of Brady when EVERYBODY would have done the same thing.
jeffismagic Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 I guess that I didn't articulate my point very well. It has nothing to do with "____ player that ended up successful" or "_____ player that didn't end up successful." What was the thought going in? As an example if Trubisky goes 2, plays okay and Davis Webb goes 176 and plays better are we all going to act like we knew Webb was the guy and not Trubisky? At the time of the 2000 draft people though Chad Pennington was a 1st rounder and Tom Brady a 6th. Obviously it didn't work out that way but we shouldn't blame the Jets for taking Pennington instead of Brady when EVERYBODY would have done the same thing. I get your point. A lot of teams have a hard time evaluating quarterbacks. But it's not completely random as you suggest. That's why the Bills should spend resources on the best QB scouts they can. Not every team ranks players the same. The Bills claimed they had Ragland as a top 20 player last year. That scares the hell out of me.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 I get your point. A lot of teams have a hard time evaluating quarterbacks. But it's not completely random as you suggest. That's why the Bills should spend resources on the best QB scouts they can. Not every team ranks players the same. The Bills claimed they had Ragland as a top 20 player last year. That scares the hell out of me. It's pretty random. If you go into the last few pages of the draft thread all of the numbers are there. Outside of the top 3 picks, it's very random.
P51 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 I don't believe he was EVER a round 2-4 pick. I know there have been stories out there to that effect but I have had him as a first rounder since I started breaking down his games. I am with Kirby... slipping out of the first to early second is maybe possible. There is no way he goes later and he might not be there for the Bills at 10. I think his range is 1-44 right now myself. I have a 2nd round grade on him but I could see him going much higher, being a trade back into round 1 target, or going high in round 2 but not past Buffalo pick (depending on TT and pick 10), I'd be more surprised if he made it out of the first 10 picks or so in round 2 than if he went #1 overall.
jeffismagic Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 It's pretty random. If you go into the last few pages of the draft thread all of the numbers are there. Outside of the top 3 picks, it's very random. Oakland has Reggie who came from Green Bay. They have a great track record in drafting QB's so it's not just dumb luck they got Carr.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Oakland has Reggie who came from Green Bay. They have a great track record in drafting QB's so it's not just dumb luck they got Carr. Absolutely they do, but it's not common. The hit ratio across the league (after the top 3 picks) is not high for a "franchise" guy. It's a lot less than 1 out of 10.
PatsFanNH Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Absolutely they do, but it's not common. The hit ratio across the league (after the top 3 picks) is not high for a "franchise" guy. It's a lot less than 1 out of 10. I did the math on ALL QBs picked since 2005 and if all of the ones picked only 12% are Franchise or better.(with 2-3 to early to tell)
Recommended Posts