I'll leave this list here for the non-QB in the 1st people

[BillsCuse]

First off I'm a new member here, but have been reading this board along with BBMB for years. This is my first ever post so I expect to get some abuse as I've seen before, lol. Anyway, I've wavered a lot in the past few months in what I want the Bills to do. With position players, it obviously depends on how the board falls, but I think there are realistically 5-6 players that would make sense for us at 10 that I wouldn't be mad at. With that said, I look at this list of former 1st round picks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buffalo_Bills_first-round_draft_picks....especially since 2000 and think what's the point if we don't have a QB. There's some great players, solid starters, bust and everywhere in between, but can you honestly say any of them were franchise changing players? No you can't and until we find a QB it just doesn't matter. I understand people are frustrated with no playoffs (as am I), but I'd much rather have our goal be to be a contender year in and year out than to "just make the playoffs." I don't want to just do what the Dolphins did last year and get in the playoffs, but lose early. I want to contend for a Super Bowl and to do that you need a franchise QB. Maybe this QB class isn't the best compared to past years, but if the Bills can identity someone who they think can be that guy and he's there at 10, take him and don't think twice. If he flames out, I still wouldn't be mad at the pick because we took a chance. Its a risk we need to take. If we take the next Darrel Revis or Luke Keuchly, but go 8-8 for the next 3 years then who cares. Not to mention, non-QB have a chance to be a bust, too. My draft dream is for the Bills to trade back a bit, get an extra 2nd or 3rd (to help with their positional needs) and still get their guy at QB, but not sure how realistic that is and it risks losing their guy. So if they want to take him at 10, I'm all for it

[Kirby Jackson]

Go back through your research and count the number of franchise quality starters that were drafted outside of the top 3. Also go through all of the other QBs drafted and double check the percentage of them that are franchise guys. Franchise QBs are picked at the beginning of the draft and once every few years a mid round guy comes along. About 10% of drafted QBs end up as franchise guys. In a class where their are question marks you don't take those chances imo. You set yourself up to get a guy that's more likely to hit.

[BillsCuse]

That's true and I completely understand that, but I also think you are not going to find one unless you take chances. I don't want them to take one just to take one. Only if they truly think he has a good chance to be the guy.

[Kirby Jackson]

That's true and I completely understand that, but I also think you are not going to find one unless you take chances. I don't want them to take one just to take one. Only if they truly think he has a good chance to be the guy.

You always take one if you think that he will be the guy. My point is that the numbers support that 9 out of 10 aren't the guy. I don't like shooting for the 10%. I'd rather build assets to get a guy that looks like 5 out of 10 (like Jameis or Mariota) will be the guy. It is even better when it is 8 out of 10 (like Luck).

[rayray808]

Another factor is the "first year head coach" angle. McD would definitely benefit from finding a QB that he can sit for a year and eventually plug in as "the guy".

 

Like I mentioned many times before, if we get first pick at a QB at 10 I hope we pull the trigger. However if Bears/Jets go QB we better not settle just to get someone at the position.

 

The true wild card will be if our top QB of choice is still around after those 2 teams take their guy, do we gamble and trade back hoping that guy will still be around? My answer is no. We ainʻt got enough chips on the table to gamble anymore. We canʻt be limping into pots anymore just to see the flop.

[BillsCuse]

You always take one if you think that he will be the guy. My point is that the numbers support that 9 out of 10 aren't the guy. I don't like shooting for the 10%. I'd rather build assets to get a guy that looks like 5 out of 10 (like Jameis or Mariota) will be the guy. It is even better when it is 8 out of 10 (like Luck).

I completely agree. I guess my point is, if they think one of these guys is a 5 out of 10, then I'd like them to take a shot at him. I don't think you can wait around for guys like Luck because unless you have one of the top picks, you either have no chance to get him or have give up a serious ransom for him. If the Bills think he's a 10% guy then no don't take him

[Heavy Kevi]

I would be willing to bet that a QB at 10 would have a similar rate of becoming a franchise QB as a second round QB historically.

 

In reality, the best QBs are drafted in the first few picks, definitely before 10, and then the late gems. (wilson 3rd, brady 6th, etc...) My opinion is you draft a QB in the first 3 picks or you wait until later rounds. No need in wasting picks (like the jets) just drafting a qb yearly for the sake of it. OP wants to believe all you need is QB but that is only true with the Cheaters. Even Peyton Manning and Drew Brees needed significant help getting rings, and only did when they had defenses that were class of the league. Are you suggesting we will get a QB better than Manning or Brees at the tenth overall freakin pick?

[BillsCuse]

Another factor is the "first year head coach" angle. McD would definitely benefit from finding a QB that he can sit for a year and eventually plug in as "the guy".

 

Like I mentioned many times before, if we get first pick at a QB at 10 I hope we pull the trigger. However if Bears/Jets go QB we better not settle just to get someone at the position.

 

The true wild card will be if our top QB of choice is still around after those 2 teams take their guy, do we gamble and trade back hoping that guy will still be around? My answer is no. We ainʻt got enough chips on the table to gamble anymore. We canʻt be limping into pots anymore just to see the flop.

Yeah I definitely do not want to settle on a guy just to take one. And also agree I don't want to risk trading back if our guy is sitting there for the taking. However, it would be great if we could pull it off. Even going back a few spots for an extra 3rd

[Kirby Jackson]

I completely agree. I guess my point is, if they think one of these guys is a 5 out of 10, then I'd like them to take a shot at him. I don't think you can wait around for guys like Luck because unless you have one of the top picks, you either have no chance to get him or have give up a serious ransom for him. If the Bills think he's a 10% guy then no don't take him

That's fair. I have been on board with trying to acquire another 2018 1st. I think that Darnold and Rosen will fall in that category. You would have the amount go get them (especially if the Browns or some other team that takes QB finishes at the bottom).

[BillsCuse]

I would be willing to bet that a QB at 10 would have a similar rate of becoming a franchise QB as a second round QB historically.

 

In reality, the best QBs are drafted in the first few picks, definitely before 10, and then the late gems. (wilson 3rd, brady 6th, etc...) My opinion is you draft a QB in the first 3 picks or you wait until later rounds. No need in wasting picks (like the jets) just drafting a qb yearly for the sake of it. OP wants to believe all you need is QB but that is only true with the Cheaters. Even Peyton Manning and Drew Brees needed significant help getting rings, and only did when they had defenses that were class of the league. Are you suggesting we will get a QB better than Manning or Brees at the tenth overall freakin pick?

I don't believe at all that QB is all you need. You absolutely need a well rounded team. However average to below average QB play is not going to get it done. Position players bust out too, so sometimes its worth taking the risk on a QB

[mannc]

Go back through your research and count the number of franchise quality starters that were drafted outside of the top 3. Also go through all of the other QBs drafted and double check the percentage of them that are franchise guys. Franchise QBs are picked at the beginning of the draft and once every few years a mid round guy comes along. About 10% of drafted QBs end up as franchise guys. In a class where their are question marks you don't take those chances imo. You set yourself up to get a guy that's more likely to hit.

Actually, I think your numbers are, if anything, overly optimistic. There are franchise QBs and there are true Franchise QBs, guys who will raise the play of everyone around them and get a team with otherwise mediocre talent to the playoffs and beyond, year after year. There are really only 3 or 4 of the latter in the league right now and none of them was drafted in the top 3 or even the top 8. There are other guys who are good, but not good enough to literally change the fortunes of a franchise and keep his team in contention every year (Matt Stafford, Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers) and then there are a few up and comers who might get there (Winston, Mariota, Carr). A team should always be trying to find a franchise guy, but that doesn't mean they have to be reckless in doing so, by trading up or by using first round picks on guys who have only started one year in college. If there is one thing we have learned, it's that no one really knows where the next great QB is going to come from. Use your picks wisely to build a platform from which your QB can be successful, once you find him. Dallas comes to mind...

[NewEra]

Leroi says no QB at 10. I billieve him. Maybe in a trade back scenario if the guy they like most is there. While I'm not very high on any of these guys, if there's a guy that the FO identifies as "the guy" take him and don't even think twice. Doesn't sound like that's the situation this year though

[billz4life820]

I would be willing to bet that a QB at 10 would have a similar rate of becoming a franchise QB as a second round QB historically.

 

In reality, the best QBs are drafted in the first few picks, definitely before 10, and then the late gems. (wilson 3rd, brady 6th, etc...) My opinion is you draft a QB in the first 3 picks or you wait until later rounds. No need in wasting picks (like the jets) just drafting a qb yearly for the sake of it. OP wants to believe all you need is QB but that is only true with the Cheaters. Even Peyton Manning and Drew Brees needed significant help getting rings, and only did when they had defenses that were class of the league. Are you suggesting we will get a QB better than Manning or Brees at the tenth overall freakin pick?

 

 

i get what you are saying but you need the qb first or you will build a team that is average and wins 7-8 games a year just leaving you out of the top 10 of the draft every year and missing out on the top qb prospects....i mean that is really the reason Bills are in QB purgatory is because we only have had one legitimate shot when we picked at 3 and cam newton was the only qb prospect worth taking....therefore you truly do have to gamble and hope you win the next lottery (wilson, prescott, cousins) in the later rounds

 

the OP is right.... it does not matter until we have a qb

[BillsCuse]

That's fair. I have been on board with trying to acquire another 2018 1st. I think that Darnold and Rosen will fall in that category. You would have the amount go get them (especially if the Browns or some other team that takes QB finishes at the bottom).

I'm definitely on board with this. I think you always have to look into the future, not just do what's good for this upcoming year. If they don't like any QBs this year, I would love to trade back and gain assets

[billz4life820]

That's fair. I have been on board with trying to acquire another 2018 1st. I think that Darnold and Rosen will fall in that category. You would have the amount go get them (especially if the Browns or some other team that takes QB finishes at the bottom).

 

this would be ideal but there is just too much risk and easier said then done.... most of the time if you are picking in the top 3 you need a qb.... even if browns (and have already selected lets say tribusky or watson) have a top pick and darnold and rosen are the real deal, you have to expect at least 2-3 other teams also trying to trade up for their services... that is a lot of competition and uncertainty

Edited April 26, 2017 by billz4life820

[mannc]

I would be willing to bet that a QB at 10 would have a similar rate of becoming a franchise QB as a second round QB historically.

 

In reality, the best QBs are drafted in the first few picks, definitely before 10, and then the late gems. (wilson 3rd, brady 6th, etc...) My opinion is you draft a QB in the first 3 picks or you wait until later rounds. No need in wasting picks (like the jets) just drafting a qb yearly for the sake of it. OP wants to believe all you need is QB but that is only true with the Cheaters. Even Peyton Manning and Drew Brees needed significant help getting rings, and only did when they had defenses that were class of the league. Are you suggesting we will get a QB better than Manning or Brees at the tenth overall freakin pick?

The theory that you can't get a franchise QB drafting in the middle of the first round, but you can in the later rounds makes no sense whatsoever and is easily disproven. (A. Rogers, B Roethlisberger, to name two off the top of my head.)

Very good to great QBs can be found anywhere in the draft, and even in UDFA.

[Success]

Tyrod Taylor is really underrated by this fanbase in general. It's interesting - when I talk to fans of other teams, they hold him in higher regard than many here.

 

I can't wait to see what he can do with real coaching and better receivers.

[TheFunPolice]

The problem is that if you build yourself a nice mediocre KC or Houston type team you'll win 11 games each season, have zero chance of going anywhere in the playoffs and lose early every year for 5-6 years.

 

Then your core players get older, teams poach your free agents or you sign players to huge contracts to keep them and maintain the mediocrity and suddenly the window of being somewhat decent but going nowhere closes and you're back to square one.

 

That's the plan if you do not have a QB.

 

KC and Houston will never advance to the Super Bowl, let alone win without a real QB. Both teams have stacked rosters and good coaching. They will win a bunch of games, then lose in either the Wild Card or Divisional round again, depending on who they draw for matchups.

 

So what's the point?

 

Worst of all, your mediocre "no chance in the post-season" team will never be up high enough to take a top QB prospect.

Edited April 26, 2017 by TheFunPolice

[Chuck Wagon]

Just going to say it now, but I think 3 QBs go top 6. There's starting to be A LOT of smoke about the Browns actually going with Trub #1, the 49ers and Jacksonville have flirted around with QBs and the Jets are such a wildcard, not to mention Tennessee being very open on moving down. I wouldn't be shocked to see Trub - 1 / Watson 2-4 / Mahomes - 6, which could be great for us if it removes the temptation and pushes a guy down the board.

[Reed83HOF]

The problem is that if you build yourself a nice mediocre KC or Houston type team you'll win 11 games each season, have zero chance of going anywhere in the playoffs and lose early every year for 5-6 years.

 

Then your core players get older, teams poach your free agents or you sign players to huge contracts to keep them and maintain the mediocrity and suddenly the window of being somewhat decent but going nowhere closes and you're back to square one.

 

That's the plan if you do not have a QB.

 

Worst of all, your mediocre "no chance in the post-season" team will never be up high enough to take a top QB prospect.

 

Well said!