JohnC Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 It's more about who, than when. There is no reason to draft a guy in any year unless you think that he can be a franchise guy. Don't ever take a guy because it's time to take a guy. You need to identify the right guys and pull the trigger in any year. I have never argued otherwise. That doesn't mean that you shy away from a daunting decision because you are haunted by prior decisions. If the front office identifies a qb that they believe is a potential franchise qb then they should select him. If they believe that the qb they identified can be reached at a lower spot then show some flexibility and creativity and trade down. Having TT as a bridge qb is not a reason not to select a qb. It is a reason to select one now because you have some time to develop the prospect. What happens if Cardale demonstrates that he can be a franchise qb? Great. I'm not going to complain about an abundance of players at that position---I'm going to revel in that status. Then let the competition begin.
hondo in seattle Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 And in the post I replied to, "It" factor was not listed as part of Watson description...the things I replied to were all things said about EJ. But you are also wrong on about what you just said. One of the biggest feathers in EJ's cap coming out of college was his alleged "IT" factor as a leader in the locker room and on the field. Being undefeated in Bowl Games, having his best games during them, and playing big in big moments. In fact, that was one of the things that people latched on to to justify reaching for a 2nd round graded QB in the first. He was drawing comparisons to Ray Lewis in the locker room and his pre bowl game speeches were circulating on this board like crazy. He was touted as a big time leader and that was what a lot of people were most enamored with about EJ. The questions were that his on field production over his career wasn't over whelming, but he blew people away with his interviews and potential as a Leader and field general. Watching him play and badly not live up to those expectations has made people forget about that, so I understand why you would say or think that. But ultimately, he had a lot more of "It" factor buzz than on field production buzz coming out of the draft. He was seen as a guy with all the physical gifts and leadership skills and people felt the offensive system was why his on field production wasn't as high as you would like to see. How is it a very low risk when any QB prospect is always way more often a bust than a hit? All QB prospects are a big risk as most will fail. Taking ones with questionable skills at the NFL level in terms of passing, is an even bigger risk. So I respectfully disagree with the "low" risk assessment. Especially when we could take an Elite WR or S prospect there to help get this team over the hump this year. I agree with what AlphaDawg7 is saying about any QB being a risk. But I don't agree with the conclusion. The Bills have historically been risk-averse in the draft. Typically, instead of taking the risk on a QB, we've avoided QBs to take guys theoretically with a higher probability of success. This approach might make sense in the short-run but leads to problems in the long run. You just can't avoid drafting QBs because they might not work out. While all QBs are risky, the earlier a QB is taken, the greater the chance he'll work out. You have to roll the dice on an early-round QB maybe every other year. The Bills strategy of taking an early round QB once every decade or so just doesn't work. It's exactly because QB are big risks that you have to go after them frequently even though that means wasting some picks.
JohnC Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 I agree with what AlphaDawg7 is saying about any QB being a risk. But I don't agree with the conclusion. The Bills have historically been risk-averse in the draft. Typically, instead of taking the risk on a QB, we've avoided QBs to take guys theoretically with a higher probability of success. This approach might make sense in the short-run but leads to problems in the long run. You just can't avoid drafting QBs because they might not work out. While all QBs are risky, the earlier a QB is taken, the greater the chance he'll work out. You have to roll the dice on an early-round QB maybe every other year. The Bills strategy of taking an early round QB once every decade or so just doesn't work. It's exactly because QB are big risks that you have to go after them frequently even though that means wasting some picks. Could you direct your response to that good fellow named Kirby? He's not listening to me. The more I try to reason with him on this issue the more resistant he is to what I am suggesting. Maybe another more mellow voice might make him more receptive?
Kirby Jackson Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 I have never argued otherwise. That doesn't mean that you shy away from a daunting decision because you are haunted by prior decisions. If the front office identifies a qb that they believe is a potential franchise qb then they should select him. If they believe that the qb they identified can be reached at a lower spot then show some flexibility and creativity and trade down. Having TT as a bridge qb is not a reason not to select a qb. It is a reason to select one now because you have some time to develop the prospect. What happens if Cardale demonstrates that he can be a franchise qb? Great. I'm not going to complain about an abundance of players at that position---I'm going to revel in that status. Then let the competition begin. I am saying that there is never a reason "to" or "not to" draft a QB. You draft a QB when you identify a guy that you think can be a franchise guy. If you have Tom Brady and love Jimmy Garoppolo as a prospect, you take him. If you don't have a QB but think that EJ Manuel is the tallest midget, don't waste the pick. It doesn't matter what you have, especially when it comes to the middle rounds. If there is a guy that you like, take him. What you have done prior has no impact on what you are doing next.
1st Ammendment NoMas Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Watson will not drop to 10 with the Browns, 49ers, Bears and Jets all needing a QB.
FireChan Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 It's more about who, than when. There is no reason to draft a guy in any year unless you think that he can be a franchise guy. Don't ever take a guy because it's time to take a guy. You need to identify the right guys and pull the trigger in any year. Easier said than done. Too often the Bills get caught up in their own evaluation skills, I think. Taking Hackenberg over Ragland last year wouldn't have changed our record but we would've had a chance for a franchise guy.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Easier said than done. Too often the Bills get caught up in their own evaluation skills, I think. Taking Hackenberg over Ragland last year wouldn't have changed our record but we would've had a chance for a franchise guy. ....and I think that Hackenberg is TERRIBLE. I wouldn't have taken him in the 5th. It depends on the guy.
FireChan Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 ....and I think that Hackenberg is TERRIBLE. I wouldn't have taken him in the 5th. It depends on the guy. I hear ya, but if you never reach for a QB, you'll almost never get one.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Could you direct your response to that good fellow named Kirby? He's not listening to me. The more I try to reason with him on this issue the more resistant he is to what I am suggesting. Maybe another more mellow voice might make him more receptive? We just don't agree. I don't think that you need a reason to take a QB. I don't think that past success or failure has ANYTHING to do with how you evaluate a particular class. You identify the guys that you like and that fit your team and you take them. Because we have a bridge QB doesn't inspire me to take a QB. Not having a bridge QB wouldn't inspire me to take a QB either. I am looking solely at the prospects of "X" player at the next level. I hear ya, but if you never reach for a QB, you'll almost never get one. I'm not reaching for a guy that I don't think can ever play in the NFL. That's beyond foolish. That's exactly why the hit ratio on QBs is so incredibly low. People are reaching for guys like Grayson, Petty, Hackenberg, etc... If you don't project those guys to ever be THE guy don't waste the pick. Go find a guy that can help your football team. If you identify a guy that you think CAN be a franchise guy, go get him. You don't draft a QB because it's time to draft a QB. Just to refresh everyone's memories here are the guys that teams picked (outside of the top 3) in the 1st 2 rounds since 2006: 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, Bridgewater, Carr, Jimmy G, Goff, Wentz, Lynch and Hackenberg. Edited January 25, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
BillsFan2313 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Yes like Pitt CB that we cut and is now a big deal the guy from Duke. Ross Cockrell is a big deal? When did this happen?
GunnerBill Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Would you trade down in the first round for Mahomes? Would you consider Trubisky at the 10th spot if Watson is not available? Having a bridge qb on the roster (assuming TT is retained) is a good situation to bring a good qb prospect in now. The waiting until next year is an approach that we have followed for a generation. Haha. My now long overdue film breakdown of Watson, Trubisky, Mahomes, Kizer, Kaaya is coming this weekend (definitely!) and I don't want to pre-empt that too much. I would not take Mahomes in the 1st even with a trade down, but yes if Watson has gone and Trubisky is still there I'd take him at 10 as well.
FireChan Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) I'm not reaching for a guy that I don't think can ever play in the NFL. That's beyond foolish. That's exactly why the hit ratio on QBs is so incredibly low. People are reaching for guys like Grayson, Petty, Hackenberg, etc... If you don't project those guys to ever be THE guy don't waste the pick. Go find a guy that can help your football team. If you identify a guy that you think CAN be a franchise guy, go get him. You don't draft a QB because it's time to draft a QB. Just to refresh everyone's memories here are the guys that teams picked (outside of the top 3) in the 1st 2 rounds since 2006: 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, Bridgewater, Carr, Jimmy G, Goff, Wentz, Lynch and Hackenberg. I don't think it's as simple as "I don't think the guy can play." If the Bills thought Carr could be the guy, waiting until the second to get him basically ensured we would miss him. You're better off reaching on a QB you're lukewarm about than not getting him. It's why even though EJ sucked, I don't disagree with taking a shot. Your BPA and your best QB are very rarely going to be the same person in non 1st overall Luck/Winston years. Edited January 25, 2017 by FireChan
Kirby Jackson Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) I don't think it's as simple as "I don't think the guy can play." If the Bills thought Carr could be the guy, waiting until the second to get him basically ensured we would miss him. You're better off reaching on a QB you're lukewarm about than not getting him. It's why even though EJ sucked, I don't disagree with taking a shot. Your BPA and your best QB are very rarely going to be the same person in non 1st overall Luck/Winston years. It's not a BPA strategy because you do weight the QBs higher. As an example if you believe Mahomes is the guy, take him at 10. If you think that he can be a franchise QB but is the 30th best player on your board, there is no issue taking him at 10. Don't ever take a guy that you are lukewarm on at any position. I've advocated trying to go get a top guy in 2018. The top QBs in 2018 will be near the top of the board. Value matching need is the best case scenario. Edited January 25, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
GunnerBill Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 It's not a BPA strategy because you do weight the QBs higher. As an example if you believe Mahomes is the guy, take him at 10. If you think that he can be a franchise QB but is the 30th best player on your board, there is no issue taking him at 10. Don't ever take a guy that you are lukewarm on at any position. I've advocated trying to go get a top guy in 2018. The top QBs in 2018 will be near the top of the board. Value matching need is the best case scenario. Agree
FireChan Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 It's not a BPA strategy because you do weight the QBs higher. As an example if you believe Mahomes is the guy, take him at 10. If you think that he can be a franchise QB but is the 30th best player on your board, there is no issue taking him at 10. Don't ever take a guy that you are lukewarm on at any position. I've advocated trying to go get a top guy in 2018. The top QBs in 2018 will be near the top of the board. Value matching need is the best case scenario. I think that's a very easy thing to say. Harder in practice. If the Bills think Watson is the guy, should they trade up? Did the Raiders think Carr was the guy and if they did, why did they wait? Did the Bills think Kelly was the guy when they took him after Tony Hunter?
Alphadawg7 Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) I agree with what AlphaDawg7 is saying about any QB being a risk. But I don't agree with the conclusion. The Bills have historically been risk-averse in the draft. Typically, instead of taking the risk on a QB, we've avoided QBs to take guys theoretically with a higher probability of success. This approach might make sense in the short-run but leads to problems in the long run. You just can't avoid drafting QBs because they might not work out. While all QBs are risky, the earlier a QB is taken, the greater the chance he'll work out. You have to roll the dice on an early-round QB maybe every other year. The Bills strategy of taking an early round QB once every decade or so just doesn't work. It's exactly because QB are big risks that you have to go after them frequently even though that means wasting some picks. I hear you, but the last thing anyone would say about the Bills under Whaley is that we are "risk-averse". He has undoubtedly proven he isnt afraid of risk, being aggressive at going after what he wants, trades, character risks, etc. There is something you and everyone else is getting wrong when discussing this with the anti QB crowd at #10. No one is advocating for not drafting QB's, what they are arguing is that is NOT a good year to REACH for a QB at 10, especially when QB and the offense were FAR from our biggest problem. We are in a great position of NOT having to reach. If the Bills want to grab a guy later in the draft, great, do it. We don't even have a backup QB right now (Cardale is no where close to ready to be even our #2, and you can't gamble he will be by camp), so bringing in another QB is going to happen one way or the other. You don't risk wasting a top 10 pick on a risky QB when you are not desperate at QB. Our offense was top 5 in the NFL under Taylor, the D was 26th in the NFL in the 15 games that werent vs a Brady less Pats team. Even a small rebound in performance from the D and we are in the Playoffs. It would take a significant improvement at QB to win with the crappy D we have fielded. And there is PLENTY of proof of that: Go ask Brees, Rivers, Stafford, Luck, and even Matt Ryan how easy it is to make the playoffs with a bad D. Over the last 3 years, those QB's have reached the playoffs a combined 4 times out of 15 chances. 1. Ryan missed the playoffs 3 straight years before this year, including leading a collapse last year after the team started red hot. Atlanta saw their young players on D start to develop and that made all the difference in that team. 2. Brees has averaged 5000 yards the past 3 seasons and not won more than 7 games in any season and only made playoffs ONCE in FIVE years. 3. In the last 7 years, Rivers has only made the playoffs once, and that was 4 years ago. Rivers wont sniff the playoffs ever again if he stays with the Chargers because the roster around him is so far behind the other 3 teams in his division alone. 4. After a promising start beating up on a bad division, Luck made the playoffs early (and stunk in the postseason). But, Luck has a losing record the last 2 seasons, and his team has a BETTER winning % in the 9 games he played than in the 23 games he played in. 5. Stafford has compiled some of the best passing numbers in the league playing with the best WR in the game most of those years and yet Lions only made playoffs 2 of last 5 years. And worse yet, there is not a single QB in this draft that remotely ranks to as promising as any of those QB's potential coming out of college. Drew Brees was the only one taken out of the first, but he was a projected first and went first pick in the 2nd and the only reasons his stock slid was because he was considered short for the NFL level. Not one of these QB's is even considered a guy that could project to anything remotely close to as good as those QB's. So again, you DONT waste a first round pick reaching for a risky QB unless you are desperate, and even then, its ill advisable. And we are not by any means desperate despite the biased opinions of those around here who seem to think passing yards is the most important stat in the world. Edited January 25, 2017 by Alphadawg7
DallasMac Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Haha. My now long overdue film breakdown of Watson, Trubisky, Mahomes, Kizer, Kaaya is coming this weekend (definitely!) and I don't want to pre-empt that too much. I would not take Mahomes in the 1st even with a trade down, but yes if Watson has gone and Trubisky is still there I'd take him at 10 as well. Im with you on Mahomes. I see a Qb that is slow to make reads, doesn't throw with anticipation, has a spotty deep ball, and relies on his athleticism too much which isn't going to get you very far in the NFL. I wanted to like him when watching him play. Trubisky and Watson are the guys to hope for.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 I think that's a very easy thing to say. Harder in practice. If the Bills think Watson is the guy, should they trade up? Yes Did the Raiders think Carr was the guy and if they did, why did they wait? Don't know and it depends on what grade they gave him. Maybe they thought he was great value in the 2nd? Maybe they loved him but couldn't move up? They clearly thought getting Mack was more important. Did the Bills think Kelly was the guy when they took him after Tony Hunter? They probably stuck to their draft board. There were other QBs on the board that they may have had rated pretty closely. I.E. if we take Hunter at 12 we can get Kelly or Marino at 14. If we take one of them now we might not get Hunter.
CommonCents Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 What do you guys think of Watson's arm strength in a place like Buffalo? Any concerns? I heard Colin mention it today and it had me thinking. I prefer Mahomes over him anyways but this could be worth a discussion.
H2o Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Watson was ALWAYS considered a 1st rounder by intelligent draft experts. If anything he's a guy that could fall from the top because he was not picked. He's not exactly a late riser. A 4th round pick? Are you joking? Thank you. It's like I'm taking crazy pills. 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. Seen it all over different websites. Read where execs think his accuracy is spotty enough to push him down between the 2nd and 4th Rounds of the draft. The 4th Round projection is obviously the lowest floor for the guy. Guess that was the unintelligent NFL personnel who said they viewed him as a prospect of that caliber?Watson's receivers bailed him out a lot. Just because you all watched the championship game that he won doesn't take away from the facts about his game. Is he a winner? Yes. Does he rise to the occasion? Yes. Is he flawed? Yes. Is he worthy of the #1 overall selection? Not imo. Is he worthy of #10? Not imo and I hope we don't make that mistake. Of course your opinions are different. My Pop used to tell me, "Son, opinions are like *$$holes. Everybody's got one." This is true so you carry yours and I will carry mine. Edited January 25, 2017 by H2o
Recommended Posts