The "We have too many holes" argument

[Ol Dirty B]

I'm all for trading up... but... if they do stay at 21, and the QB they want is somehow their... Do you take the other guy you'd take at 22 at 21, just to see the fanbase's reaction in those 5 minutes before you take the QB at 22? I think you do. 

[oldmanfan]

The starting QBs in the championship games included Bortles, Foles, and Keenum.  Maybe the concept of having to have a star QB is changing.

[Nihilarian]

Sam Darnold is supposedly this year's best QB...with his elongated throwing motion and turnover issues, I just don't see it!

 

Trading up into the top three seems like a fool's errand to me as the cost would be too much, 3000, 2600, 2200 for those 1, 2, 3 spots. Buffalo will only get 1580 for their first two picks and would need to give up possibly all six picks in the first three rounds. Sorry, I just can't see giving up so many draft picks for one maybe QB in Darnold, Rosen who have some major warts. 

 

OTOH, I can envision the Bills trading up to the 7th, 8th or 9th spot in front of Miami who might also select a QB. Cleveland, Denver, NY Jets, Arizona, and Buffalo are the teams truly desperate for a QB in the draft this year. One of those teams might sign Kirk Cousins and not the Vikings so things could swing in the Bills favor so they can land one of the top four. Still, I think if they wait until the 20th, 21st picks those top six might all be gone. 

 

I think they must trade up... just not into the top five. 

 

 

[Thurman#1]

On 3/11/2018 at 7:08 PM, Buddo said:

Tbh, the one actual 'deciding' point in all of the above, is that draft classes like this one (for QBs), don't come around that often.

 

Hopefully, the likes of Gettleman, aren't paying too much attention to that notion, as it's the ideal time for the Giants to take and groom Mannings successor.

 

 

 

Disagree. It's huge that we don't have to be a Super Bowl competitor this year. McD and Beane are not on a short leash, they just aren't.

 

And yeah, you're right on that second point, that a lot of it will come down to what the teams holding the top seven or so picks decide to do. Should be a really interesting draft. 

 

I hate that they moved the draft back last year and haven't corrected things this year. The teams don't need the extra time and we fans will only waste more time and be more annoyed waiting and waiting.

 

 

1 hour ago, Nihilarian said:

Sam Darnold is supposedly this year's best QB...with his elongated throwing motion and turnover issues, I just don't see it!

 

Trading up into the top three seems like a fool's errand to me as the cost would be too much, 3000, 2600, 2200 for those 1, 2, 3 spots. Buffalo will only get 1580 for their first two picks and would need to give up possibly all six picks in the first three rounds. Sorry, I just can't see giving up so many draft picks for one maybe QB in Darnold, Rosen who have some major warts. 

 

OTOH, I can envision the Bills trading up to the 7th, 8th or 9th spot in front of Miami who might also select a QB. Cleveland, Denver, NY Jets, Arizona, and Buffalo are the teams truly desperate for a QB in the draft this year. One of those teams might sign Kirk Cousins and not the Vikings so things could swing in the Bills favor so they can land one of the top four. Still, I think if they wait until the 20th, 21st picks those top six might all be gone. 

 

I think they must trade up... just not into the top five. 

 

 

 

 

I think you're wrong, personally. Not nearly enough warts on Darnold or Rosen as there were for Trubitsky for instance. Go get 'em, Bills. Spend all six picks if you have to. But if they want Mayfield, yeah, maybe wait an extra pick or two and pray. I wouldn't but what do I know?

Edited March 12, 2018 by Thurman#1

[simool]

We have too many holes.

[Thurman#1]

21 hours ago, prissythecat said:

 

 

Giving up six draft picks to move up is brilliant .  

 

 

Yeah, it is. If you get a franchise QB.

 

Look at what Philly did to get Wentz. Gave up five picks. Worth every one. If Foles had been the QB all year they probably would've been a one-and-done in the playoffs. And they wouldn't have Wentz to come back this year and for the next 12 - 15 years.

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

We have had multiple times since Kelly where we had a formidable Defense and no offense. Or we have an ok offense and the defense falls apart Fitzy years. Finally we have a team now that plays well together and are able to do their jobs because our coach is a team first guy. We were literally a QB away from doing something special last year after being devoid of talent in a lot of places Dline, Oline, Receivers mostly because of injury, Linebackers. Yet our secondary was second to no one and Shady still had a decent year. We were opportunistic with turnovers and caught teams mostly at the right time. I say whatever it takes to get our Franchise QB do it then build around him even if we have to have a down year it's completely worth it to me. 

[prissythecat]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, it is. If you get a franchise QB.

 

Look at what Philly did to get Wentz. Gave up five picks. Worth every one. If Foles had been the QB all year they probably would've been a one-and-done in the playoffs. And they wouldn't have Wentz to come back this year and for the next 12 - 15 years.

 

 

Still too early to say if it was.  Wentz looked good last season but mediocre the prior year.  Jury is still out on which season is the outlier.  

[Bing Bong]

teams do turn it around in one season. Happens every year.

[billsredneck1]

On 3/11/2018 at 8:11 AM, No Place To Hyde said:

I am a guy that says we have too many holes to fill. I do think that filling the team with lower cost high potential draftees is a great way to build a team to compete for the long haul. I also freely acknowledge that there is more than 1 way to build a football team and really no 1 way is guaranteed to be successful or fail. 

 

That being said, if Beane moves up to grab the guy he wants...good! If he moves to 2 and grabs his guy...awesome. One less hole to fill. 8 for Mayfield? Awesome! Whatever the plan is I fully support. We do still have FA to fill some of the holes and hey, just checked and there is another draft next year to fill even more. Whatever happens, whatever we give up or whatever we keep I think the one thing most can agree on is that it is necessary that the Buffalo Bills leave draft weekend with the QB of the future.

  i'm kind of this way also. the wisest move may be to stay put and take rudolph at 21. he is in the top 5.(over allen) as far as talent, size ,experience,  intelligence...checks off every parcell's box. he has as much of a chance to succeed as any of the others. i would say he's sam bradford.

 

  that allows us to knock the hell out of the draft. with a couple of key free agents, we could be a playoff team this year.

remember last year, if we would have had even slightly better qb production, we would have commanded a wc spot.

 

  if they decide to start nate, groom rudolph and bring another young gun in, i'd be ok with that. what makes it so important/mandatory to pay 20 mil. to any of the free agents?

 

  what separates rudolph from the others....seriously? is it 2 miles an hour velocity? is it the school/division he came from? he's the sam bradford of this draft and while i like me some mayfield,  i'm also ok if they decide to sit tight.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I agree we have to make every effort to get a QB, and that the time to make those efforts is when there's a good class.   Wait until your perfect time and wind up drafting a QB in 2013 vs. 2012.  Ugh.  Still rots my drawers.

 

However, as previously discussed, I don't agree we should do everything we can to land one of the top 4 QB.  They all have flaws, some less important than others from the perspective of what Beane and McDermott want.  There are 1 (or perhaps 2) of those guys who check their boxes.  That's who we go for, and no one else.  Don't trade up for the 4th choice - shades of Losman - unless he happens to be the guy you actually have #1.

 

So we might not get him, despite our best efforts, if he happens to also be the choice of a team that's drafting above where we can make a trade.

 

So we need to have other plans, backup plans, and if we wind up drafting a QB at 21 or 22, just recognize it might not be because Beane is worried about "too may holes", it may be the guy we thought worth trading the farm wasn't available.

 

Finding a QB may be a process too.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Thurman#1]

30 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

teams do turn it around in one season. Happens every year.

 

 

 

Nope. What happens every year is that teams that have silently been getting better for two or three years hit a tipping point and start to show how much better they've gotten. 

 

Genuinely crappy teams improving a whole bunch in one year, that's a pretty rare phenomenon. The Rams are a great example. People say they turned it all around this year and that's nonsense. For several years now they've been putting together some really talented players, Gurley, Quinn, Aaron Donald, Goff in particular, Barron, etc. 

 

Yeah, bringing in a new coach helped, as did some good personnel additions. But if Donald and Goff and Gurley and a bunch of others like Jamon Brown, Havenstein and Saffold on the OL hadn't been there, he probably wouldn't have come. They were a team with a ton of potential

[Bing Bong]

4 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Nope. What happens every year is that teams that have silently been getting better for two or three years hit a tipping point and start to show how much better they've gotten. 

 

Genuinely crappy teams improving a whole bunch in one year, that's a pretty rare phenomenon. The Rams are a great example. People say they turned it all around this year and that's nonsense. For several years now they've been putting together some really talented players, Gurley, Quinn, Aaron Donald, Goff in particular, Barron, etc. 

 

Yeah, bringing in a new coach helped, as did some good personnel additions. But if Donald and Goff and Gurley and a bunch of others like Jamon Brown, Havenstein and Saffold on the OL hadn't been there, he probably wouldn't have come. They were a team with a ton of potential

Falcons rebound from earlier.

 

Teams have ebbs and flows. You don't think fans were griping about all the "holes" they had. Next year was a superbowl appearance.

Edited March 12, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[Thurman#1]

41 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I agree we have to make every effort to get a QB, and that the time to make those efforts is when there's a good class.   Wait until your perfect time and wind up drafting a QB in 2013 vs. 2012.  Ugh.  Still rots my drawers.

 

However, as previously discussed, I don't agree we should do everything we can to land one of the top 4 QB.  They all have flaws, some less important than others from the perspective of what Beane and McDermott want.  There are 1 (or perhaps 2) of those guys who check their boxes.  That's who we go for, and no one else.  Don't trade up for the 4th choice - shades of Losman - unless he happens to be the guy you actually have #1.

 

So we might not get him, despite our best efforts, if he happens to also be the choice of a team that's drafting above where we can make a trade.

 

So we need to have other plans, backup plans, and if we wind up drafting a QB at 21 or 22, just recognize it might not be because Beane is worried about "too may holes", it may be the guy we thought worth trading the farm wasn't available.

 

Finding a QB may be a process too.

 

 

You've said that before, and I've disagreed before. So again ...

 

How do you know that there are only one or two of those four guys who check their boxes. That is a rank, pure guess. And nothing more. My personal guess, which has as much chance of being correct as yours though certainly no more chance, is that maybe two of the QBs meet their qualifications for trading up into the top three to five if they're still available and if trading up can be done underneath whatever ceiling they establish on that possibility in terms of price. I further guess that one more meets their qualifications for trading up to the top seven or eight. And that one more meets their qualifications for picking at their present spot.

 

Needless to say, when I say "top three to five" and "top seven" those are guesstimations and not precise ranges. Same for guessing that only three guys are worth trading up for. They might easily think it's four.

 

And there's absolutely no reason to think they don't want some of the other QBs who I guess they wouldn't take.

 

Here's how their process DOESN'T go:  "Well, QB A definitely meets our qualifications. Let's trade up to get him if he reaches the three-spot and we can get him after that. Well, guess that ends our work on QBs. Obviously there's only one per draft who is any good." 

 

If the fourth choice is actually their fourth choice and they think he's not as good as the top three, but good enough to trade up for if he falls to ... I don't know ... #12 or later or wherever they can get him for the #22, #56, and the #96 or less , then they should do that.

 

Agreed about your "too many holes" argument. They might not get the chance to draft however many guys they might have been willing to trade up for

 

 

 

[Thurman#1]

22 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Falcons rebound from earlier.

 

Teams have ebbs and flows. You don't think fans were griping about all the "holes" they had. Next year was a superbowl appearance.

 

 

No idea what you mean by all this.

 

But my point stands. The Falcons forced their way through some dry years caused by things like the lack of picks from the Julio trade and so on. But the  8-8 2015 Falcons had a lot fewer holes than the 6-10 2014 Falcons or the 4-12 2013 Falcons. That was the opposite of a one-year turnaround. It was a team improving, getting better, till it started to come together and they could show how good they are.

 

True one-year turnarounds are rare and often lucky things. Sometimes results of a particularly bad or good schedule and something else happening. A good example was the 2007, 2008 and 2009 Dolphins. In 2007 they went 1-15. Then they brought in Pennington, had a historically easy schedule and brought back the Wildcat to shock teams and win a few games. Went 11-5. And then 7-9 the next year. They hadn't actually been good. Just managed to look it for a year. Certainly a one-year turnaround in terms of wins, though. They sucked in 2007.

 

But it's really pretty rare. Much more often we see a team in the third year of a rebuild "suddenly turn things around."

[Bing Bong]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

No idea what you mean by all this.

 

But my point stands. The Falcons forced their way through some dry years caused by things like the lack of picks from the Julio trade and so on. But the  8-8 2015 Falcons had a lot fewer holes than the 6-10 2014 Falcons or the 4-12 2013 Falcons. That was the opposite of a one-year turnaround. It was a team improving, getting better, till it started to come together and they could show how good they are.

 

True one-year turnarounds are rare and often lucky things. Sometimes results of a particularly bad or good schedule and something else happening. A good example was the 2007, 2008 and 2009 Dolphins. In 2007 they went 1-15. Then they brought in Pennington, had a historically easy schedule and brought back the Wildcat to shock teams and win a few games. Went 11-5. And then 7-9 the next year. They hadn't actually been good. Just managed to look it for a year. Certainly a one-year turnaround in terms of wins, though. They sucked in 2007.

 

But it's really pretty rare. Much more often we see a team in the third year of a rebuild "suddenly turn things around."

2012 Falcons were 13-3, they had a good well coached team. wasn't like they were rebuilding in 2013.

 

I'm just saying if we're 9-7, a little bit better than the 8-8 Falcons right?

 

I find it's a narrative made after the fact. People say "oh well the Rams have always been good". when last year they'd say "Rams have one of the worst rosters in the league". I could cite that narrative for at least one team every. single. year.

 

I get your argument. Agree to disagree.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

On 3/11/2018 at 8:02 AM, GunnerBill said:

... is a pathetic argument propagated by those with negative attitudes. 

 

...how the hell to you categorize one's OPINION as a negative attitude?.....Jim Jones' followers all HAD (past tense) positive attitudes...............

[Wsam4031]

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 10:24 AM, The_Dude said:

I cannot stand the ‘lets not trade up for a QB because we need a center,’ guys. Idiots. Old school, outdated, idiotic thinking. 

Thank you!

[RochesterRob]

On March 11, 2018 at 10:22 AM, CheshireCT said:

It's all about risk. If you bet the whole draft on a QB you take a big risk on one player. If you stay put and use all the picks, you spread the risk out and will likely have some great players and a few that don't pan out. For this reason, it's easier to convince yourself to stay put and make the "safer bet." But the problem is, it's SO HARD to get an amazing QB. Unless you draft one, it's nearly impossible to get one.

 

I'm all for betting the draft on a QB if the team has confidence in the guy. Every other player on the team is important, but it's MUCH easier to find players to plug holes at every other position in creative ways....for instance we saw how Beane signed some quality "no-name" guys to fill spots on the team last year for reasonable prices. Also, every other position on the team is more interchangeable and can adapt to new schemes and such. Of course it would be great to have stars at every single position, but even if you lose those guys because they cost too much, they're much easier to replace than quarterbacks. It's important that a GM has this kind of sense.

  The trouble is the guys here banging the table don't know how the prospects are evaluated by the guys who find players for a living versus reading a draft publication or blog.  The logic here is akin to buying a car because it looks cool but nobody knows how long it will go before it has to go into the shop.

6 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I agree we have to make every effort to get a QB, and that the time to make those efforts is when there's a good class.   Wait until your perfect time and wind up drafting a QB in 2013 vs. 2012.  Ugh.  Still rots my drawers.

 

However, as previously discussed, I don't agree we should do everything we can to land one of the top 4 QB.  They all have flaws, some less important than others from the perspective of what Beane and McDermott want.  There are 1 (or perhaps 2) of those guys who check their boxes.  That's who we go for, and no one else.  Don't trade up for the 4th choice - shades of Losman - unless he happens to be the guy you actually have #1.

 

So we might not get him, despite our best efforts, if he happens to also be the choice of a team that's drafting above where we can make a trade.

 

So we need to have other plans, backup plans, and if we wind up drafting a QB at 21 or 22, just recognize it might not be because Beane is worried about "too may holes", it may be the guy we thought worth trading the farm wasn't available.

 

Finding a QB may be a process too.

  Don't worry.  Each "Trader Joe" here will question Beane's manhood when draft day comes and goes and their guy's name was not called when the Bills pick was announced.  It won't matter if Beane was telling the truth in that a team did not want to trade or wanted more than the predictions here made in terms of a trade package.  

[Reed83HOF]

Fu^& this thread....go Bills!