OldTimer1960 Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Albwan said: I still think there's potential with NP, so no. People are nuts to judge him over that charger game. What a horrible decision to throw him in, that game, under those circumstances, anyways. I've been skeptical of the coach after that game. I don’t think Peterman’s nightmare game necessarily is the end for him, but still if the Biss take someone like Jackson, Allen or Rudolph without a major trade up, I would have no problem at all if they took another QB as high as their 2nd 2nd round pick if they think the guy is a good prospect to be a starter eventually. If both QBs pan out, they could always trade one.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 40 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said: I don’t think Peterman’s nightmare game necessarily is the end for him, but still if the Biss take someone like Jackson, Allen or Rudolph without a major trade up, I would have no problem at all if they took another QB as high as their 2nd 2nd round pick if they think the guy is a good prospect to be a starter eventually. If both QBs pan out, they could always trade one. That’s just not an option. The Bills have to add: QB, RB #2, WR #2, 2 OL, 2 DT, 1 Edge, 2 LBs and at least 1 CB. Those are the guys that they need to play all of the time. I’m counting 11 guys that they need to add that will actually play. Have a vet QB and identify the guy that you want and get him. Invest the resources in the QB that you have identified instead of 2 that you kind of like. Your 2 1sts and a pick next year is better drafting 2 guys in the top 60.
OldTimer1960 Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 13 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: That’s just not an option. The Bills have to add: QB, RB #2, WR #2, 2 OL, 2 DT, 1 Edge, 2 LBs and at least 1 CB. Those are the guys that they need to play all of the time. I’m counting 11 guys that they need to add that will actually play. Have a vet QB and identify the guy that you want and get him. Invest the resources in the QB that you have identified instead of 2 that you kind of like. Your 2 1sts and a pick next year is better drafting 2 guys in the top 60. I understand your point, but you REALLY have to be confident that the guy you give all that up for will end up a good starting QB. Let’s say that we think that Darnold has a 75% chance of becoming a good starter. For the sake of argument, let’s say Rudolph has a 55% chance of the same and maybe White has a 40% chance. Is using 3 premium picks on Darnold and still having a 25% chance of failure better or worse than using 2 picks on Rudolph and White and have nearly the same 27% chance of failure? I’m not necessarily arguing not to trade up, but I could also see the latter approach as not bad. Of course, if the chance of success assigned to the players is different that would tilt the scale one way or the other. I understand that this is a very simplistic way to look at it - it treats success as a binary value and, of course there are degrees of success/failure.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 16 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said: I understand your point, but you REALLY have to be confident that the guy you give all that up for will end up a good starting QB. Let’s say that we think that Darnold has a 75% chance of becoming a good starter. For the sake of argument, let’s say Rudolph has a 55% chance of the same and maybe White has a 40% chance. Is using 3 premium picks on Darnold and still having a 25% chance of failure better or worse than using 2 picks on Rudolph and White and have nearly the same 27% chance of failure? I’m not necessarily arguing not to trade up, but I could also see the latter approach as not bad. Of course, if the chance of success assigned to the players is different that would tilt the scale one way or the other. I understand that this is a very simplistic way to look at it - it treats success as a binary value and, of course there are degrees of success/failure. I think based on historical data your numbers are way high. Darnold is probably 50%, Rudolph is probably 25% and White 5% (based on where they’ll be drafted). There is a thread on here where someone did the success ratio. You are much more likely to hit having a top 5 QB than a guy in the 20’s and a guy in the 50’s.
OldTimer1960 Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: I think based on historical data your numbers are way high. Darnold is probably 50%, Rudolph is probably 25% and White 5% (based on where they’ll be drafted). There is a thread on here where someone did the success ratio. You are much more likely to hit having a top 5 QB than a guy in the 20’s and a guy in the 50’s. I think you are right about the numbers - I was just going for an example. I am am not advocating this, but using these adjusted numbers, let’s say that Jackson also has 25% of success. 3 premium picks to get Darnold to have a 50% chance of success or 21 and 22 for Jackson and Rudolph with 44% chance. Again, not saying that is what they should do, just saying I could see why a team *might* consider it. Edited February 10, 2018 by OldTimer1960
Kirby Jackson Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 1 minute ago, OldTimer1960 said: I think you are right about the numbers - I was just going for an example. If it was the other way around I would reconsider. It’s all a numbers game. No one ever knows for certain what a guy will be. The surefire guys like Luck and Peyton are kind of exceptions (and even still Luck hasn’t lived up to his expectations yet). You have to give yourself the best chance that you can. That’s why I have been a Rosen fan for a couple of years. He is the least likely to bust IMO. I think that his worst case scenario is a solid starter (like a Dalton). His ceiling is a good Pro Bowl QB. He may not have the upside of someone like Josh Allen but doesn’t have the downside either. He’s a high floor, high ceiling guy which is what I want in the top 5-10.
OldTimer1960 Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: If it was the other way around I would reconsider. It’s all a numbers game. No one ever knows for certain what a guy will be. The surefire guys like Luck and Peyton are kind of exceptions (and even still Luck hasn’t lived up to his expectations yet). You have to give yourself the best chance that you can. That’s why I have been a Rosen fan for a couple of years. He is the least likely to bust IMO. I think that his worst case scenario is a solid starter (like a Dalton). His ceiling is a good Pro Bowl QB. He may not have the upside of someone like Josh Allen but doesn’t have the downside either. He’s a high floor, high ceiling guy which is what I want in the top 5-10. However they get one, I just hope that they finally get a guy who we can at least get excited to think he could succeed. It really has been soooo long. 1
K-9 Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 On 2/9/2018 at 2:50 PM, PromoTheRobot said: Like the Redskins did with RG3 and Cousins. Don't trade up but take the QB that falls to you, plus a next-rung QB in a lower round like White or Lauletta? As a hedge against busting out our as an asset to deal later? No, because they will need to sign a vet and splitting reps four ways is no way to develop two first year and one second year QB.
OldTimer1960 Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 53 minutes ago, K-9 said: No, because they will need to sign a vet and splitting reps four ways is no way to develop two first year and one second year QB. Even I they sign a vet, nothing says they even need to bring Peterman to camp if they think they have 2 better rookies.
K-9 Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said: Even I they sign a vet, nothing says they even need to bring Peterman to camp if they think they have 2 better rookies. True. Doesn’t matter who they bring to camp, there are only so many reps to go around.
OldTimer1960 Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, K-9 said: True. Doesn’t matter who they bring to camp, there are only so many reps to go around. They will for sure bring at least 3 QBs to camp - too much wear and tear on arms if there are only 2 QBs in camp. i could envision a modest-level vet being who they target. If they draft someone like Rudolph or even Rosen, it might be smart to bring in a vet like Ryan Fitzpatrick who surely has a lot of knowledge and prepares like a pro - he just doesn’t have optimal physical talent to be a top NFL player. I think Fitz could be a really good QB coach after he is done playing, if he is interested in doing that. Think about Fitz with Rudolph and Mike Wite or Kyle Lauletta or Peterman. Josh McCown fits the Fitz “smart vet” profile as Fitz with a smidge Bette physical tools. Wouldn’t quibble with either. Edited February 10, 2018 by OldTimer1960
atlbillsfan1975 Posted February 10, 2018 Posted February 10, 2018 If the Bills spend a first round pick on qb, I wouldn’t be opposed to them taking one later in the draft that they felt fell to them.
Thurman#1 Posted February 11, 2018 Posted February 11, 2018 On 2/10/2018 at 4:50 AM, PromoTheRobot said: Like the Redskins did with RG3 and Cousins. Don't trade up but take the QB that falls to you, plus a next-rung QB in a lower round like White or Lauletta? As a hedge against busting out our as an asset to deal later? I know people don't want to hear this, but I think our 2nd draft QB is Peterman. 17 hours ago, OldTimer1960 said: They will for sure bring at least 3 QBs to camp - too much wear and tear on arms if there are only 2 QBs in camp. i could envision a modest-level vet being who they target. If they draft someone like Rudolph or even Rosen, it might be smart to bring in a vet like Ryan Fitzpatrick who surely has a lot of knowledge and prepares like a pro - he just doesn’t have optimal physical talent to be a top NFL player. I think Fitz could be a really good QB coach after he is done playing, if he is interested in doing that. Think about Fitz with Rudolph and Mike Wite or Kyle Lauletta or Peterman. Josh McCown fits the Fitz “smart vet” profile as Fitz with a smidge Bette physical tools. Wouldn’t quibble with either. Yeah, Fitz or McCown would make great bridges with the added benefit of then staying with us as the QB whisperer.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 11, 2018 Posted February 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: I know people don't want to hear this, but I think our 2nd draft QB is Peterman. Yeah, Fitz or McCown would make great bridges with the added benefit of then staying with us as the QB whisperer. I think that it’s likely that the QB room is vet, early pick young guy and Peterman. It’s a matter of if they keep 2 or 3 guys. I would expect 2 but if they draft a guy like Allen that needs a redshirt year I could see Peterman sticking. If they get Rosen or Baker I think that they keep the vet and the draft pick.
KD in CA Posted February 11, 2018 Posted February 11, 2018 On 2/9/2018 at 1:22 PM, Kirby Jackson said: You don’t draft 2 QBs. You use the resources to go get a QB. You must understand that? That’s why the Eagles, Rams, etc... trades up instead of staying put and taking whatever was left and another later. Come on, instead of trading 3 picks, draft QBs at 21, 22 and in the 2nd round. Open competition with 3 shots at finding the right guy!
Manther Posted February 11, 2018 Posted February 11, 2018 On 2018-02-09 at 4:27 PM, GunnerBill said: I am kind of with Kirby. I'd rather use picks to get up and take the one we want in the top 5 and sign a vet. However, if you get to your pick in round 4 and a QB you have a 2nd round grade on is still sitting there sticking out as the BPA then yes, do it. But it needs to be that level of obvious for me. Agreed On 2018-02-09 at 9:46 PM, Formerly Allan in MD said: Frerotte was promising until he celebrated a touchdown throw by concussing himself or severely spraining his neck when, in celebrating, he banged his head into a concrete wall. No joke. I absolutely remember that. I also remember Automatica Gramatica tearing his ACL celebrating.
PIZ Posted February 11, 2018 Posted February 11, 2018 2012 Washington drafted RG3 in the 1st and Cousins in the 4th. In the 2012 draft, the Colts picked Luck in the first and Chandler Harnish in the 7th. The Packers drafted Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn in 2008. Dallas took Troy Aikman in the first round of the 89 draft, and Steve Walsh in the first round of the 89 Supplemental draft. In 2010 the Panthers technically drafted 3 QB's, although they moved one to wide receiver. Jimmy Clausen, Armanti Edwards (moved to WR) and Tony Pike. Carmazzi and Rattay...49ers 2000. Found some of this on Reddit.
H2o Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 On 2/9/2018 at 2:50 PM, PromoTheRobot said: Like the Redskins did with RG3 and Cousins. Don't trade up but take the QB that falls to you, plus a next-rung QB in a lower round like White or Lauletta? As a hedge against busting out our as an asset to deal later? Only if a guy falls into the 2nd or 3rd they had a high grade on. They could use him for trade bait later if both pan out ala Atlanta with Vick and Schaub.
Rob's House Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 If it was a good value pick, sure. I always think the talk of "holes" on the roster is overblown. Most teams have a fair number of role players. Supposing we took QBs in the 1st and 4th, we'd still have a 1st, 2 2nds, a 3rd, and 2 5ths to draft position players. That's not bad. Based on last season, I'd imagine these guys could find decent mid-level FAs that fit the system to patch any remaining holes.
GreggTX Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 Not unless he is BPA by a mile and definitely not early if we draft one in the 1st. We have too many needs elsewhere and a 2nd year QB whose ceiling has not likely been reached. I'd love to get a guy that would at least benefit from starting as a rookie, keep Peterman and let him compete for the backup job with a veteran who is cap friendly like Glennon if he'll take a paycut that is in line with his value.
Recommended Posts