The only Mahomes thread you need

[Maury Ballstein]

Make slants and seams great again !

[HappyDays]

I 100% agree with this statement but my conclusion is wildly different.

 

If the draft is a crapshoot, and usually only 1 QB per draft on average becomes a franchise tier guy, you absolutely need to take shots on guys you believe in. Derek Carr would've been successful taken a round earlier. So would've Dak. And Wilson.

 

If finding a franchise guy is dumb luck, then you need to buy some lotto tickets. And as much as folks bag on 1st round QB's who bust, let's look at Bills first rounders in the last 11 drafts who are on the roster in the 6-32 range. Shaq Lawson. That's it.

 

You need to take shots on QB's. Oakland didn't turn their franchise around because of Khalil Mack. They did it with Derek Carr. Luckily for them, they ended up with both. But I contend that if we reached on Carr at #8 in 2014, we would be the ones who made the postseason last year, not them. And while I understand your take of "then all QB's would be taken higher" taking an early second late first QB prospect in the top 10 ain't that crazy. It just really isn't.

The problem is every guy you take a shot on in the 1st round creates a hole on your roster. And filling that hole next year creates another hole. The reality is that if the Bills traded all their bad 1st round picks from the last decade for the next QB taken off the board in the same draft, they would be in the same boat now because not one of those QBs would have been a success (you MIGHT have a case with Flacco but I really doubt he wins a Super Bowl here with this coaching staff and roster at the time). Whereas if they traded all their bad 1st round picks for other players at other positions they would almost surely be better off now than they are.

 

The problem with Bills drafting past isn't that they haven't taken enough QBs in the 1st round - when would a 1st round QB have saved our team at our draft positions? - it's that they have drafted poorly. The solution isn't to switch over to a strategy that haven't remotely worked out since 2008, it's to draft better players in the 1st round.

 

You ignored my list of QBs taken in that range because there isn't really a good rebuttal to it. QBs taken outside of the top 2 in the 1st round are traditionally bad. Since 2008 the ceiling of that range is Ryan Tannehill. If I'm taking a QB at 10 he has to be better than Tannehill, that's pretty much the floor of legit starting QBs. The only rebuttal you could have is that just because it hasn't worked out in a while doesn't mean it won't this time. Which is true. But there's something to this. There's something about QBs that have enough flaws to scare away the early teams, but also have some wow factor that convinces other teams to overlook the flaws. If a good CB falls to you in the draft it's not necessarily because teams above you didn't like him, it may be that there were just better CBs taken earlier. Not so with QBs most of the time. Anyone that slides to 10, like Manuel slid to 16, has some kind of major flaw unlikely to be corrected. This is shown in the data too.

 

The Raiders would have been just as successful taking Carr in the 1st round, but the Cowboys would have been successful taking Prescott in the 1st round too. Hindsight like that isn't a reason to start taking any QB you like in the 1st round. The failure of drafting a bad QB in round 1 is twofold - you miss out on your QB, AND you miss out on a 1st round caliber player.

[thebandit27]

My thing is, that is where their value is to me. A guy who I projected to be a few years away, but isn't as developmental as a lower round pick. Also has a higher upside with a better chance to reach said upside.

 

We are starting to see it a bit more where people at finding starters outside of the first round.

 

I have two thoughts about this:

 

1) With the way that college offenses have evolved, nearly every QB is going to be at least a year away from being able to effectively run an NFL offense--let's face it, the guys that can are outliers. If that's the qualification for a first-round pick, then I'm afraid that other teams will be scooping up QBs far ahead of you for years to come.

 

2) I ask this: what is the commonality among starters drafted in the 1st round? To me, it seems that nearly all of them were drafted to teams that already had established starters (or, in the case of a guy like Cousins, a higher draft pick that was expected to be the franchise QB). Drafting a guy with high upside in the mid-rounds and hoping to develop him over time is a fine recipe for a team that has a franchise hopeful...but if you're a team that is near to (or completely) convinced that your incumbent isn't a franchise QB, then I think that's a poor primary plan for identifying your guy.

 

I fundamentally disagree with this but I'm guessing it's one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree on. I understand the mindset, but to me drafting any player in the 1st round that is off the team within 4 years is a horrible pick. Indefensible. Not an immediately fireable offense, and there's more leeway with QBs than any other position, but you just threw that pick away. Imagine if the Raiders had taken their favorite QB instead of Khalil Mack (maybe Manziel, or Blake Bortles in an alternate universe) and then passed on Derek Carr at the top of round 2. Forcing a pick isn't worth it. I say always select BPA in round 1. If you're that sure about a QB you should do everything you can to trade up. If you're not sure enough that you're willing to let another team draft them first, then you were never that sure to begin with and you might as well take a blue-chip prospect. Round 2 and onwards I have no qualms with overdrafting a QB. There's just too much value with top 10 picks for me to throw it away on a prayer. The Bills not only didn't trade up, they traded DOWN before selecting EJ. No confidence at all. I mean it's still better than staying put and drafting him but it was an utterly bizarre move that reeked of dysfunction and lack of direction.

 

 

Clearly ours is a difference in philosophy, but we actually don't differ much. As I've said: I agree that there's no point in forcing a pick simply for the sake of taking a QB. My emphasis on the position is merely to say that any QB that a team values as a potential franchise guy should get a 1st round grade. If you don't feel that way about a QB, then bag it and draft the best player available applying an increase in valuation to critical positions like pass rusher, playmaking LB/DB, or elite receiving target.

[jeffismagic]

 

I have two thoughts about this:

 

1) With the way that college offenses have evolved, nearly every QB is going to be at least a year away from being able to effectively run an NFL offense--let's face it, the guys that can are outliers. If that's the qualification for a first-round pick, then I'm afraid that other teams will be scooping up QBs far ahead of you for years to come.

 

2) I ask this: what is the commonality among starters drafted in the 1st round? To me, it seems that nearly all of them were drafted to teams that already had established starters (or, in the case of a guy like Cousins, a higher draft pick that was expected to be the franchise QB). Drafting a guy with high upside in the mid-rounds and hoping to develop him over time is a fine recipe for a team that has a franchise hopeful...but if you're a team that is near to (or completely) convinced that your incumbent isn't a franchise QB, then I think that's a poor primary plan for identifying your guy.

 

 

Clearly ours is a difference in philosophy, but we actually don't differ much. As I've said: I agree that there's no point in forcing a pick simply for the sake of taking a QB. My emphasis on the position is merely to say that any QB that a team values as a potential franchise guy should get a 1st round grade. If you don't feel that way about a QB, then bag it and draft the best player available applying an increase in valuation to critical positions like pass rusher, playmaking LB/DB, or elite receiving target.

 

The person you are talking to is also convinced that nothing needs to be done other than let Tyrod play. There is no point in discussing draft strategies with someone whose mind is already made up.

[thebandit27]

 

The person you are talking to is also convinced that nothing needs to be done other than let Tyrod play. There is no point in discussing draft strategies with someone whose mind is already made up.

 

I don't know...I found both of their posts to be perfectly reasonable despite the fact that I disagree

[jeffismagic]

 

I don't know...I found both of their posts to be perfectly reasonable despite the fact that I disagree

 

Yes, but if you're convinced Tyrod is the answer it's easy to start convincing yourself you need to build around him.

 

 

The problem is every guy you take a shot on in the 1st round creates a hole on your roster.

 

 

There are a large contingent of Bills fans who don't think QB is a need.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

No, I'd rather take 3 or 4 random plays out of context and declare him a future draft bust. Wait, sounds like a Fahey "evaluation".

 

 

take the good with the bad. then you get a fair evaluation. you seem to be a little disturbed that someone pointed out the not so good.

 

 

it's okay to like a player coming out of the draft or in your case like him so much you post a video of one of his decent games and have his photo for an avatar so you must really like him. but, he is not as great as you feel he is and looks like a college level mobile QB that could go in the first round but from what I've seen, not real impressing, he could drop to the 2nd round?

 

21 days and you'll find out.

[jeffismagic]

 

 

take the good with the bad. then you get a fair evaluation. you seem to be a little disturbed that someone pointed out the not so good.

 

 

it's okay to like a player coming out of the draft or in your case like him so much you post a video of one of his decent games and have his photo for an avatar so you must really like him. but, he is not as great as you feel he is and looks like a college level mobile QB that could go in the first round but from what I've seen, not real impressing, he could drop to the 2nd round?

 

21 days and you'll find out.

 

I'm fine with someone not liking my player. When someone just lies and makes stuff up it annoys me. It seems like Fahey just took Cossell's evaluation, added some exclamation marks and hyperbole and called it his own.

 

At least I understand Cossell and where he is coming from.

[Bill_with_it]

 

I don't mean this in a snarky way, but if that's the case, then what's your plan for the future of the QB position?

 

I've argued that it's paramount to identify your guy and take your shot. For as much as the EJ pick failed, it was absolutely the right approach. They didn't have a franchise hopeful at the QB position, so they identified the guy that they thought had the best chance and took him.

 

I'd have zero issue if they do it again.

The EJ approach wasnt the correct approach at all. It sat this franchise back the length if manuels contract minus a year. To take avqb just because you need one is a disaster, add on taking a qb thst is about as raw as in every category except for tremendous arm strength and you are cooking up another disaster.

[TheFunPolice]

The Bills ceiling with Tyrod is the Bengals or Chiefs.

 

Teams that win 11-12 games every season and lose in their first playoff game because they won enough not to play in the wildcard round. Worse yet, everyone knows they have no chance in the playoffs once they come up against the best teams. Sure enough, all that hard work, all those regular season wins, don't mean anything and there's no getting over that hump because the QB is not good enough to put up the points you need to beat the top teams.

 

You lose those playoff games with stupid scores like 15-11, where your defense holds the other team to 5 FG yet you still lose.

 

Then, after a few years contracts expire and the roster gets picked apart in free agency. Suddenly your 11 win team is a 7 win team and the window of losing in the divisional round is closed and you start over.

Edited April 6, 2017 by TheFunPolice

[thebandit27]

The EJ approach wasnt the correct approach at all. It sat this franchise back the length if manuels contract minus a year. To take avqb just because you need one is a disaster, add on taking a qb thst is about as raw as in every category except for tremendous arm strength and you are cooking up another disaster.

 

You're projecting an opinion onto me that I haven't expressed; see below...

 

 

 

I have two thoughts about this:

 

1) With the way that college offenses have evolved, nearly every QB is going to be at least a year away from being able to effectively run an NFL offense--let's face it, the guys that can are outliers. If that's the qualification for a first-round pick, then I'm afraid that other teams will be scooping up QBs far ahead of you for years to come.

 

2) I ask this: what is the commonality among starters drafted in the 1st round? To me, it seems that nearly all of them were drafted to teams that already had established starters (or, in the case of a guy like Cousins, a higher draft pick that was expected to be the franchise QB). Drafting a guy with high upside in the mid-rounds and hoping to develop him over time is a fine recipe for a team that has a franchise hopeful...but if you're a team that is near to (or completely) convinced that your incumbent isn't a franchise QB, then I think that's a poor primary plan for identifying your guy.

 

 

Clearly ours is a difference in philosophy, but we actually don't differ much. As I've said: I agree that there's no point in forcing a pick simply for the sake of taking a QB. My emphasis on the position is merely to say that any QB that a team values as a potential franchise guy should get a 1st round grade. If you don't feel that way about a QB, then bag it and draft the best player available applying an increase in valuation to critical positions like pass rusher, playmaking LB/DB, or elite receiving target.

 

The only mistake was how the position was handled after the EJ pick. Had they made the same offer that the Vikings made to Seattle to move up to the 32nd pick of the 2014 draft and taken Carr (which, for the record, I did not advocate at the time) then the EJ pick would be entirely inconsequential.

 

No matter which position we're discussing, drafting specifically to fill a need is a fool's errand; a sucker bet.

 

I'll say one more time for everyone's clarity: if you are a team that does not have a clearly-defined franchise QB (or hopeful franchise QB), and you have identified a player that you believe has the tools to become a franchise QB, then that's who you take with your first pick. Failing that, then you take the best football player available applying an increase in valuation to critical positions like pass rusher, playmaking LB/DB, or elite receiving target.

[jeffismagic]

The Bills ceiling with Tyrod is the Bengals or Chiefs.

 

Teams that win 11-12 games every season and lose in their first playoff game because they won enough not to play in the wildcard round. Worse yet, everyone knows they have no chance in the playoffs once they come up against the best teams.

 

Then, after a few years contracts expire and the roster gets picked apart in free agency. Suddenly your 11 win team is a 7 win team and the window of losing in the divisional round is closed and you start over.

 

Completely agree. The problem is is there anyone at One Bills Drive thinking of more than next year? Whaley seems to be losing influence and this upcoming draft will have the stamp of McDermott on it. Will the new defensive coach just look to fill in holes on the roster or will he think more strategically?

 

You're projecting an opinion onto me that I haven't expressed; see below...

 

 

 

 

 

No matter which position we're discussing, drafting specifically to fill a need is a fool's errand; a sucker bet.

 

I'll say one more time for everyone's clarity: if you are a team that does not have a clearly-defined franchise QB (or hopeful franchise QB), and you have identified a player that you believe has the tools to become a franchise QB, then that's who you take with your first pick. Failing that, then you take the best football player available applying an increase in valuation to critical positions like pass rusher, playmaking LB/DB, or elite receiving target.

 

You win the thread.

[FireChan]

 

The problem is every guy you take a shot on in the 1st round creates a hole on your roster. And filling that hole next year creates another hole.

 

Again, what holes have we filled with picks 6-32? Shaq Lawson at DE?

 

The reality is that if the Bills traded all their bad 1st round picks from the last decade for the next QB taken off the board in the same draft, they would be in the same boat now because not one of those QBs would have been a success (you MIGHT have a case with Flacco but I really doubt he wins a Super Bowl here with this coaching staff and roster at the time). Whereas if they traded all their bad 1st round picks for other players at other positions they would almost surely be better off now than they are.

 

This is two fallacies meshed together. There is zero reason to suspect that the Bills highest ranked QB when they were picking was the QB taken next. I cannot stress that enough. For all we know, Teddy and Carr were their #1 and #2 QB's in 2014. We just don't know. To say that they would make the same pick that another NFL team did is a speculative argument at best.

 

And then the second part. You say you the Bills should recognize they are not smarter than other teams, and that they couldn't have known what QB's were gonna be good, but they should know what other first round prospects are gonna be good? If this team had drafted Ngata and Orakpo instead of Whitner and Maybin, we still would not have had a franchise QB. Ergo, we still would not have found consistent success.

 

The problem with Bills drafting past isn't that they haven't taken enough QBs in the 1st round - when would a 1st round QB have saved our team at our draft positions? - it's that they have drafted poorly. The solution isn't to switch over to a strategy that haven't remotely worked out since 2008, it's to draft better players in the 1st round.

 

Again, this is the exact thing you argued against in regards to QB's. I could easily say, "just take better QB's." Same argument.

 

You ignored my list of QBs taken in that range because there isn't really a good rebuttal to it. QBs taken outside of the top 2 in the 1st round are traditionally bad. Since 2008 the ceiling of that range is Ryan Tannehill. If I'm taking a QB at 10 he has to be better than Tannehill, that's pretty much the floor of legit starting QBs. The only rebuttal you could have is that just because it hasn't worked out in a while doesn't mean it won't this time. Which is true. But there's something to this. There's something about QBs that have enough flaws to scare away the early teams, but also have some wow factor that convinces other teams to overlook the flaws. If a good CB falls to you in the draft it's not necessarily because teams above you didn't like him, it may be that there were just better CBs taken earlier. Not so with QBs most of the time. Anyone that slides to 10, like Manuel slid to 16, has some kind of major flaw unlikely to be corrected. This is shown in the data too.

 

I didn't ignore your list of QB's, I just believe it to be flawed for the reasons above. As much as you try to make Carr seem like Dak (he wasn't,,Carr was some folks' #2 QB that year), he was a borderline first round prospect. No one would have been surprised for him to go #30 overall. So to arbitrarily cut off the picks there is silly. As well as your "flaws" argument. Does anyone care that Carr had flaws coming out? Does anyone care about Dak? A guy either fixes them or he doesn't. Manuel is the perfect example about how taking a shot on a QB cost us virtually nothing. It cost us a first rounder in arguably the worst draft class of all time. It was irrelevant to the grand scheme of the franchise. The Manuel pick was about getting a guy who you think has or can acquire all the tools to be your 15+ year starter and I would never begrudge a GM for taking a shot on a guy like that when they don't have one.

 

All prospects fall because some other teams like other prospects more. Not sure what your point is there.

 

The Raiders would have been just as successful taking Carr in the 1st round, but the Cowboys would have been successful taking Prescott in the 1st round too. Hindsight like that isn't a reason to start taking any QB you like in the 1st round. The failure of drafting a bad QB in round 1 is twofold - you miss out on your QB, AND you miss out on a 1st round caliber player.

 

For the last time, Carr =/= Dak. Dak was a Brady-esque shot in the dark. Carr was a borderline first rounder QB that the Raiders got lucky to acquire. That's not hindsight, that's what happened.

 

If you're afraid of taking a QB because he might fail, you've already lost. And as for the "missing out on first round caliber players" the Bills again have taken one QB in the first since 2007 and they have 1 first round player drafted 6-32 on the roster in Shaq Lawson. So who have really missed out on by taking QB's?

Edited April 6, 2017 by FireChan

[Bill_with_it]

After watching Mahomes against K-state and Texas I see a guy who can see the field in scramble situations, but a guy who is very careless with the ball on a lot of plays.

 

I saw a lot of passes behind the line of scrimmage and very few passes where he actually set his feet and strode into the pass.

 

There is some talent there, but I think he is a bit of a long shot to really become a good player in the NFL. While he makes some very very nice throws without really setting up properly, many throws are made while going backwards. In my opinion, and I am not a scout, there are a lot of things to clean up in his game, but I will say that he does seem to see the full field when plays breakdown.

 

My opinion is that Mahomes could be a major league turnover machine in the NFL who won't last long if he has to play without a lot of development. As with most QBs, I don't know if he will ever really shed those habits that look dangerous for the NFL.

 

I know some see a "gun slinger" like Favre when they see him, there are a LOT of "gun slingers" who never make it in the NFL and Favre is the exception rather than the rule.

 

I'd have a VERY hard time taking Mahomes at 10 or even in round 1. I think that even in round 2 you are taking a long-shot gamble on him and likely missing out on a starting calibre DB or WR if you take Mahomes.

I agree.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

 

I'm fine with someone not liking my player. When someone just lies and makes stuff up it annoys me. It seems like Fahey just took Cossell's evaluation, added some exclamation marks and hyperbole and called it his own.

 

At least I understand Cossell and where he is coming from.

 

 

oh I did not say I didn't like him, just not impressed as some. a lot liked tebow too, where is he now, playing baseball? I don't think the bills draft a QB this draft although they could in later rounds? I know, if you don't believe they don't take one it's the wrong line of thinking as some believe you draft one every year until you strike gold. problem is, no real gold in this draft but next year could prove to be where they find their guy? TT is only a gap for the next couple years, if he does well enough under center this season. I hope he does well so the QB they get can have some time to develop behind him and that way the rookie would/should be ready to take the reins in 2019?

 

no matter how much it pains some that TT is starting if you look at it through a logical perspective then it should go as stated above and by 2019 when the rookie is ready, he becomes the starter?

 

 

right now, who the hell really knows. it's just people throwing out their opinions.

 

time will tell

[jeffismagic]

I agree.

 

Yes, if you want your QB's to follow the rules then you should read Greg Cossell. Here is Greg showing the way by his QB methods...Here is Greg in 2014.

 

“I would say it’s probably an average quarterback class,” he said during our phone conversation. “There’s certainly not a slam-dunk guy in this draft by any stretch of the imagination. But some, based on their different circumstances, may have an opportunity to develop. But there’s no guy that you say regardless of the situation will be a high-quality starting NFL quarterback.”

Of the top three quarterbacks, at least in the media’s eyes, Cosell liked the potential of Blake Bortles, the Central Florida quarterback who is a popular Vikings choice in mock drafts, most.

“Bortles, to me, would be the best down-the-road prospect because of size, which is a definite attribute,” he said. “I think he’s got a good arm, not a gun. I think he’s got movement ability. I think he’s got the kind of traits that you ultimately look for in an NFL starting quarterback.”

 

Cosell then dismissed Derek Carr as a project because he played in a spread offense. He then gave Mahomes the Derek Carr treatment this year.

 

http://www.startribune.com/talking-quarterback-prospects-with-greg-cosell-of-nfl-films/258131691/

 

 

oh I did not say I didn't like him, just not impressed as some. a lot liked tebow too, where is he now, playing baseball? I don't think the bills draft a QB this draft although they could in later rounds? I know, if you don't believe they don't take one it's the wrong line of thinking as some believe you draft one every year until you strike gold. problem is, no real gold in this draft but next year could prove to be where they find their guy? TT is only a gap for the next couple years, if he does well enough under center this season. I hope he does well so the QB they get can have some time to develop behind him and that way the rookie would/should be ready to take the reins in 2019?

 

no matter how much it pains some that TT is starting if you look at it through a logical perspective then it should go as stated above and by 2019 when the rookie is ready, he becomes the starter?

 

 

right now, who the hell really knows. it's just people throwing out their opinions.

 

time will tell

 

You just compared Mahomes to Tebow? That's cool. That was what people on this board called Dak last year. Another Tebow.

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by jeffismagic

[Bill_with_it]

 

That's the problem with non-visionary leadership. McDermott wanted a veteran QB and used his influence to get one with little thought about the cap implications. It looks like panic to non-Bills fans I have spoken to.

 

Anyway, enough on McDermott. Back to Mahomes...

 

 

The Bills fans saying it's a terrible class often belong to CoT. Funny that.

I oersonally belong to the Co Top ten scoring offense led by Tyrod Taylor.

[jeffismagic]

I oersonally belong to the Co Top ten scoring offense led by Tyrod Taylor.

 

Enjoy it while you can. Tyrod is not good enough and the Bills decided they would not pick up the option.

[GunnerBill]

 

You just compared Mahomes to Tebow? That's cool. That was what people on this board called Dak last year. Another Tebow.

 

 

On this board? Or on BBMB?

[jeffismagic]

 

On this board? Or on BBMB?

 

Yes, the thread came back a few weeks ago. To be fair a few liked Dak too but all it took was the comparison to get out there by one or two writers and some people here went with that.

Edited April 6, 2017 by jeffismagic