BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Actually at this time last year the 2017 QB class was seen as being Watson, Kizer, Kaaya and Kelly. The general consensus was 1 star (Watson) and better depth than 2016. Kaaya went in the 6th and Kelly the 7th. It just shows how perspectives change. I think one of the supposed 2018 top 3 now (Darnold, Rosen and Allen) will end up picked after the 1st round next year. My guess is Rosen who has been really unimpressive when I have watched him to this point but I don't evaluate a year ahead. The only one of these guys I had started on was Rudolph when it looked like he might declare for 2017. Rosen also needs to mature. Not as bad as Chad, but not a good look at the moment if you're going for 'face of the franchise' status.
JohnC Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Actually at this time last year the 2017 QB class was seen as being Watson, Kizer, Kaaya and Kelly. The general consensus was 1 star (Watson) and better depth than 2016. Kaaya went in the 6th and Kelly the 7th. It just shows how perspectives change. I think one of the supposed 2018 top 3 now (Darnold, Rosen and Allen) will end up picked after the 1st round next year. My guess is Rosen who has been really unimpressive when I have watched him to this point but I don't evaluate a year ahead. The only one of these guys I had started on was Rudolph when it looked like he might declare for 2017. What is often forgotten in the qb discussion is that the most propitious time to draft a qb is when you already have an "acceptable" starting qb. One of the worst ways of handling most young qbs is throwing them into the fray when they are not ready. In a discussion with the AlphaDog he took the position that taking Mahomes was a gratuitous act because they already had a starting qb and should have used their pick to select a good positional prospect. I take the opposite position. When you are not in a desperate position that is the time to exhibit foresight and put your team in a good position to make the seamless transition to a better qb. As you well know the argument that is used is justifying delaying in selecting a qb is that the next year's crop is better. The Bills have not had a legitimate franchise qb in almost a quarter century. Yet that argument continues to be used. It makes little sense. The reality is that the teams that took the first three qbs in this draft acted aggressively by giving up picks to acquire them. They all exhibited an urgency and resoluteness that the floundering Bills haven't exhibited during its past generation of failure. And that is not a coincidence, it is a consequence of its perplexing passive attitude in addressing an issue that has held this franchise back.
GunnerBill Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 What is often forgotten in the qb discussion is that the most propitious time to draft a qb is when you already have an "acceptable" starting qb. One of the worst ways of handling most young qbs is throwing them into the fray when they are not ready. In a discussion with the AlphaDog he took the position that taking Mahomes was a gratuitous act because they already had a starting qb and should have used their pick to select a good positional prospect. I take the opposite position. When you are not in a desperate position that is the time to exhibit foresight and put your team in a good position to make the seamless transition to a better qb. As you well know the argument that is used is justifying delaying in selecting a qb is that the next year's crop is better. The Bills have not had a legitimate franchise qb in almost a quarter century. Yet that argument continues to be used. It makes little sense. The reality is that the teams that took the first three qbs in this draft acted aggressively by giving up picks to acquire them. They all exhibited an urgency and resoluteness that the floundering Bills haven't exhibited during its past generation of failure. And that is not a coincidence, it is a consequence of its perplexing passive attitude in addressing an issue that has held this franchise back. You are preaching to the converted here John as you are aware. Agree with all of that.
oldmanfan Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 What is often forgotten in the qb discussion is that the most propitious time to draft a qb is when you already have an "acceptable" starting qb. One of the worst ways of handling most young qbs is throwing them into the fray when they are not ready. In a discussion with the AlphaDog he took the position that taking Mahomes was a gratuitous act because they already had a starting qb and should have used their pick to select a good positional prospect. I take the opposite position. When you are not in a desperate position that is the time to exhibit foresight and put your team in a good position to make the seamless transition to a better qb. As you well know the argument that is used is justifying delaying in selecting a qb is that the next year's crop is better. The Bills have not had a legitimate franchise qb in almost a quarter century. Yet that argument continues to be used. It makes little sense. The reality is that the teams that took the first three qbs in this draft acted aggressively by giving up picks to acquire them. They all exhibited an urgency and resoluteness that the floundering Bills haven't exhibited during its past generation of failure. And that is not a coincidence, it is a consequence of its perplexing passive attitude in addressing an issue that has held this franchise back. That approach is valid if you hit the right guy. And the misses far exceed the hits. Do the most diligent scouting you can and when you see a guy you think is the guy by all means go for it.
mannc Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 It's really rich that a fan of the Bills lecturing the Chiefs organization on how to run their operation and address the qb issue. The Bills are one of the least successful franchises over the past generation while the Chiefs are one of the most consistently good teams in the NFL. To put it mildly the Bills franchise is one of the most erratically run organizations in the sport compared to the Chiefs who are one of the most stable franchises in the NFL. Compare the torrential staffing changes the Bills have had over the past decade with coaches and front office staff to the Chiefs whose coaching and front office staff are and have been well anchored within the organization. As you noted the Chiefs could have gone is a number of directions in this draft. They identified a qb that they believe after some understudying will be their franchise qb for a long time. Will he? Who knows. They evaluated a player and had a conviction on him and took a decisive action. Compare that to the Bills organization that hasn't had a quality franchise qb for more than two consecutive decades? Yet you still have the temerity to criticize a team that is proactive in securing the qb position for not necessarily now but shortly down the road. The issue under discussion will not be fairly judged until a few years down the road when it is determined whether Mahomes is a good qb or not. The argument that is too often used is that the qb a team aggressively pursued might not work out is nonsensical because highly selected players at all positions very often do not work out. It's a calculated gamble. If you go into the casino and don't consider the possibility that you might lose that day then you are an oblivious fool. It's the nature of beast. It's interesting (ironic, even) that you, who are incessantly bemoaning the Bills' failure to use draft picks on QBs, are holding up as a shining example the Kansas City Chiefs, a franchise that has gone more than 30 years (and counting) without winning a single game with a quarterback that it drafted.
Rico Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 The Bills' recent decision-making seems to have been geared toward asking Whaley what he would do, and then doing the opposite. Pegula: "What's that, Doug? You want to hire Lynn, who won't fight you for power? OK, we're hiring McDermott, who doesn't want to deal with you at all. You think we should get rid of Tyrod Taylor? Cool story; let's re-sign him. Want to draft DeShaun Watson in the first? Nah, we'll take Nathan Peterman in the fifth. Want to pick up Sammy's option because of how much you invested in him? No, we're tired of making moves to help you save face." Love it all. I think we're on the right track for the first time in ~17 years. Good take, very savvy on Pegs' part. The sleeping giant has awoken!
GunnerBill Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 It's interesting (ironic, even) that you, who are incessantly bemoaning the Bills' failure to use draft picks on QBs, are holding up as a shining example the Kansas City Chiefs, a franchise that has gone more than 30 years (and counting) without winning a single game with a quarterback that it drafted. Yea KC have been terrible at drafting QBs and have had all their successful years by acquiring guys from elsewhere - Montana, Green, Cassel and now Smith. But I think John is praising their process as much as their pick.
dave mcbride Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) Yea KC have been terrible at drafting QBs and have had all their successful years by acquiring guys from elsewhere - Montana, Green, Cassel and now Smith. But I think John is praising their process as much as their pick. They basically drafted Alex Smith - they traded a second for him. They traded a first for Trent Green. Both were great moves. People need to be more expansive with regard to the idea of what a draft pick is. Brandin Cooks is basically the Pats first round pick this season, and Kony Ealy is their second rounder. Edited May 3, 2017 by dave mcbride
GunnerBill Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 They basically drafted Alex Smith - they traded a second for him. They traded a first for Trent Green. Both were great moves. People need to be more expansive with regard to the idea of what a draft pick is. Brandin Cooks is basically the Pats first round pick this season, and Kony Ealy is their second rounder. Yea a 1st or 2nd round investment is still a big investment even if a trade.
mannc Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 They basically drafted Alex Smith - they traded a second for him. They traded a first for Trent Green. Both were great moves. People need to be more expansive with regard to the idea of what a draft pick is. Brandin Cooks is basically the Pats first round pick this season, and Kony Ealy is their second rounder. I think KC traded two second round picks for Smith--and he's been no better than Tyrod Taylor, who the Bills got for free.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Vic C's account sounds plausible to me - http://buffalonews.com/2017/05/01/vic-caruccis-bills-wake-call-new-gm-wont-change-structure/ Well, there's a couple of points here. Carucci says: "The coach knew he was absolutely on solid ground when he met with reporters after the Bills made their final pick Saturday and provided the following answer to the question of whether he anticipated being the lone spokesperson for the team in future drafts as he was before this one: "As long as I’m the head coach, I do," McDermott said. "We’re going with that one-voice approach and streamlined and aligned on what we’re doing, why we’re doing it and how we’re doing it. I believe in that, we believe in that and that’s an organizational decision at this time." In his press conference about the Whaley firing, Pegula says: Q: Will the new GM that you hire have all of the responsibilities and duties that Doug had or will Sean assume maybe more of the personnel decisions? A: Sean’s a head coach. When we hire a new GM, we’ll talk about, obviously, his obligations and duties, but Sean’s a head coach. The GM’s going to be the GM. Q: Will Sean theoretically report to the GM? A: That’s going to be decided. We have to talk to whoever the candidates are and make that decision in the future. OK, so McDermott says it's an organizational decision that the organization will speak with one voice and he is that voice as long as he is head coach. Pegula says it is TBD whether or not McDermott will report to the new HC and that the GM "will be the GM" My, this is sure to work out well.
dave mcbride Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) I think KC traded two second round picks for Smith--and he's been no better than Tyrod Taylor, who the Bills got for free. KC traded a second rounder and a conditional pick for someone who has been an objectively above average QB (using PFR's rating-plus measure of 100 as average) every season he has played there and in his final two 49er seasons. In the games he has started over the past 6 years, his teams have gone 60-26-1. Edited May 3, 2017 by dave mcbride
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) That approach is valid if you hit the right guy. And the misses far exceed the hits. Do the most diligent scouting you can and when you see a guy you think is the guy by all means go for it. it's a little ambiguous to me what you mean by "that approach". Are you speaking of the approach, "show urgency about the QB position and pursue a QB in the draft even if you already have a QB" or are you talking about the "wait, don't bet the ranch, next year's crop is better" Edited May 3, 2017 by Hapless Bills Fan
mannc Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 KC traded a second rounder and a conditional pick for someone who has been an objectively above average QB (using PFR's rating-plus measure of 100 as average) every season he has played there and in his final two 49er seasons. In the games he has started over the past 6 years, his teams have gone 60-26-1. The conditional pick became a 2nd, so I was correct. How did Smith's PFR rating compare to Tyrod's?
Fan in Chicago Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 KC traded a second rounder and a conditional pick for someone who has been an objectively above average QB (using PFR's rating-plus measure of 100 as average) every season he has played there and in his final two 49er seasons. In the games he has started over the past 6 years, his teams have gone 60-26-1. Alex Smith is the quintessential 'bridge' QB. If anything, the Chiefs should have drafted a QB last year. From their perspective, better late than never.
dave mcbride Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 The conditional pick became a 2nd, so I was correct. How did Smith's PFR rating compare to Tyrod's? Taylor was above nicely average in 2015 (115) and definitively average (100) last year. Again, Smith has been above average 6 years in a row, with a high of 123 in 2012 (he played 9 games that year). The number is a strict comparison with other qbs in that season, not anything else. It compares like to like and is therefore a good measure in my opinion. Alex Smith is the quintessential 'bridge' QB. If anything, the Chiefs should have drafted a QB last year. From their perspective, better late than never. My bar is very low at this point. 10-11 wins and a playoff appearance -- which is what Smith usually delivers -- is all I really want right now.
nucci Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Well, there's a couple of points here. Carucci says: "The coach knew he was absolutely on solid ground when he met with reporters after the Bills made their final pick Saturday and provided the following answer to the question of whether he anticipated being the lone spokesperson for the team in future drafts as he was before this one: "As long as I’m the head coach, I do," McDermott said. "We’re going with that one-voice approach and streamlined and aligned on what we’re doing, why we’re doing it and how we’re doing it. I believe in that, we believe in that and that’s an organizational decision at this time." In his press conference about the Whaley firing, Pegula says: Q: Will the new GM that you hire have all of the responsibilities and duties that Doug had or will Sean assume maybe more of the personnel decisions? A: Sean’s a head coach. When we hire a new GM, we’ll talk about, obviously, his obligations and duties, but Sean’s a head coach. The GM’s going to be the GM. Q: Will Sean theoretically report to the GM? A: That’s going to be decided. We have to talk to whoever the candidates are and make that decision in the future. OK, so McDermott says it's an organizational decision that the organization will speak with one voice and he is that voice as long as he is head coach. Pegula says it is TBD whether or not McDermott will report to the new HC and that the GM "will be the GM" My, this is sure to work out well. Pegulaville
Kelly the Dog Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 So if it's one in a trillion odds, we REALLY shouldn't bank on it happening a third time in so many less than a trillion draftsHe probably meant one in a third of a trillion. So it could easily happen again.
BillsVet Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 The Bills' recent decision-making seems to have been geared toward asking Whaley what he would do, and then doing the opposite. Pegula: "What's that, Doug? You want to hire Lynn, who won't fight you for power? OK, we're hiring McDermott, who doesn't want to deal with you at all. You think we should get rid of Tyrod Taylor? Cool story; let's re-sign him. Want to draft DeShaun Watson in the first? Nah, we'll take Nathan Peterman in the fifth. Want to pick up Sammy's option because of how much you invested in him? No, we're tired of making moves to help you save face." Love it all. I think we're on the right track for the first time in ~17 years. Perhaps TPegs is a George Costanza fan?
oldmanfan Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 it's a little ambiguous to me what you mean by "that approach". Are you speaking of the approach, "show urgency about the QB position and pursue a QB in the draft even if you already have a QB" or are you talking about the "wait, don't bet the ranch, next year's crop is better" More the urgency. In general I don't agree with drafting QB after QB hoping you hit on one.
Recommended Posts