Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, Luxy312 said:

There is no urgency to sign anyone, and it's pretty straight forward as to why.  Look at the teams that draft before the Bills at #12.  Cleveland holds the #1 and #4 pick right now.  Yes, they acquired Tyrod, but they will in all likelihood take a QB with one of those two picks.  I expect Barkley to be the #1 pick in the draft as he's not making it to #4.  Eli Manning has said he wants to play 3-4 more years minimum and the Giants have endorsed that.  There's no reason for them to take QB at #2.  The Colts have Andrew Luck and thus far I've read nothing that suggests he won't be ready to go at the beginning of the season.  Let's check the box with Denver giving Keenum a big contract, so no QB for them at #5.  The Jets now have McCown, Petty, Hackenberg, AND Bridgewater on their depth chart.  Does drafting a FIFTH QB for their roster at #6 make sense?  Nope.  TB has Winston.  Chicago has Trubisky.  SF has Garropolo.  Oakland has Carr.  See where I'm going here?  Maybe Miami isn't happy with Tannehill, but that makes only 2 QB's off the board before the Bills pick at #12 and possibly only one.

The free agent situation for QB's right now is and should be pretty quiet.  If the Bills sign any of the myriad of retreads that are available, I think it's distinctly possible that they're still just a backup at the beginning of the season.  If the plan was a journeyman "bridge" for a year, I think they would have just kept Tyrod.  What does Moore, Henne, Stanton, Anderson, Sanchez, Gabbert, Osweiler, Siemian, Cutler, or Yates add that Taylor didn't?  There's probably a half dozen other names that I missed, but the point is made.

Tyrod was traded for a very valuable pick in this draft. The Bills passing game was putrid with Taylor. NOT trading him when a team is offering pick #65 would be dereliction of duty. They planned on signing a vet upgrade. 

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Estelle Getty said:

Expect us to get Siemian today.  They are probably working out a trade as we speak. Perfect option with1 year 1.9 million left on his contract.  Why would they want to pay a guy like Moore $8 million a year or McCarron $12 million a year to keep the next QBs seat warm.  Especially when there is no real difference in skill level.  

 

If we can secure a comp pick it might be like...


Siemian and a 2019 3rd/4th for a 7th round pick.  Vs. McCarron for a 2019 3rd/4th

 

If you have no interest in starting the guy at the end of the day, you could do worse for a backup.  

Edited by dneveu
Posted

Thanks Rush.  I don't agree with that plan, but it's plausible.  

 

I don't agree with it because I don't think anyone knows how to "develop" a qb.  They do develop, but I don't think anyone develops them. There's no qb school that's the equivalent of Harvard. 

 

So going into 2018 with a true journeyman like Moore and a couple of youngsters seems risky. Why not play 2018 with a qb who has some promise, like Keenum?   

 

Moore has a career passer rating of 81. That's EJ Manuel territory.  If he were a good qb, he wouldn't have been horrible for the Dolphins in 2017. 

 

Keenum, on the other hand, has been growing as a qb - he's been getting better. He give the Bills a real chance to win in 2018, and could even become a star.  

 

The downside to Keenum was cost.  Bur the Bills had enough cap room to do it, and he wouldn't have eaten cap beyond 2019 if the Bills wanted to drop him. 

 

I don't like going into 2017 naked. 

 

I think McD believes in Peterman. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said:

I think we are talking Matt Moore because he is familiar with Beane and also played for Brian Daboll in Miami, so connecting teh dots, he might be the better fit. 

 

Okay so I dug a little deeper and Derek Anderson also played for Daboll in 2009 with the Browns...just another fyi. The Browns moved on after 2009 to Colt McCoy etc...so maybe they didn't love Anderson. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Luxy312 said:

There is no urgency to sign anyone, and it's pretty straight forward as to why.  Look at the teams that draft before the Bills at #12.  Cleveland holds the #1 and #4 pick right now.  Yes, they acquired Tyrod, but they will in all likelihood take a QB with one of those two picks.  I expect Barkley to be the #1 pick in the draft as he's not making it to #4.  Eli Manning has said he wants to play 3-4 more years minimum and the Giants have endorsed that.  There's no reason for them to take QB at #2.  The Colts have Andrew Luck and thus far I've read nothing that suggests he won't be ready to go at the beginning of the season.  Let's check the box with Denver giving Keenum a big contract, so no QB for them at #5.  The Jets now have McCown, Petty, Hackenberg, AND Bridgewater on their depth chart.  Does drafting a FIFTH QB for their roster at #6 make sense?  Nope.  TB has Winston.  Chicago has Trubisky.  SF has Garropolo.  Oakland has Carr.  See where I'm going here?  Maybe Miami isn't happy with Tannehill, but that makes only 2 QB's off the board before the Bills pick at #12 and possibly only one.

The free agent situation for QB's right now is and should be pretty quiet.  If the Bills sign any of the myriad of retreads that are available, I think it's distinctly possible that they're still just a backup at the beginning of the season.  If the plan was a journeyman "bridge" for a year, I think they would have just kept Tyrod.  What does Moore, Henne, Stanton, Anderson, Sanchez, Gabbert, Osweiler, Siemian, Cutler, or Yates add that Taylor didn't?  There's probably a half dozen other names that I missed, but the point is made.

First the Jests WILL take a QB....my gawd man look at the names you trotted out there - aint no way they wont take a QB.....same for Giants - they are going to need someone behind Eli....there will be at bare minimum 4 QB's gone by #12.....

Posted
1 minute ago, Kwai San said:

First the Jests WILL take a QB....my gawd man look at the names you trotted out there - aint no way they wont take a QB.....same for Giants - they are going to need someone behind Eli....there will be at bare minimum 4 QB's gone by #12.....

 

Jets yes, Giants - maybe?  A lot of people actually really like Davis Webb as a QB of the future. They had their top 3 WRs out, no run game, and a bottom tier Oline. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Luxy312 said:

There is no urgency to sign anyone, and it's pretty straight forward as to why.  Look at the teams that draft before the Bills at #12.  Cleveland holds the #1 and #4 pick right now.  Yes, they acquired Tyrod, but they will in all likelihood take a QB with one of those two picks.  I expect Barkley to be the #1 pick in the draft as he's not making it to #4.  Eli Manning has said he wants to play 3-4 more years minimum and the Giants have endorsed that.  There's no reason for them to take QB at #2.  The Colts have Andrew Luck and thus far I've read nothing that suggests he won't be ready to go at the beginning of the season.  Let's check the box with Denver giving Keenum a big contract, so no QB for them at #5.  The Jets now have McCown, Petty, Hackenberg, AND Bridgewater on their depth chart.  Does drafting a FIFTH QB for their roster at #6 make sense?  Nope.  TB has Winston.  Chicago has Trubisky.  SF has Garropolo.  Oakland has Carr.  See where I'm going here?  Maybe Miami isn't happy with Tannehill, but that makes only 2 QB's off the board before the Bills pick at #12 and possibly only one.

The free agent situation for QB's right now is and should be pretty quiet.  If the Bills sign any of the myriad of retreads that are available, I think it's distinctly possible that they're still just a backup at the beginning of the season.  If the plan was a journeyman "bridge" for a year, I think they would have just kept Tyrod.  What does Moore, Henne, Stanton, Anderson, Sanchez, Gabbert, Osweiler, Siemian, Cutler, or Yates add that Taylor didn't?  There's probably a half dozen other names that I missed, but the point is made.

I'd like to think you're correct but I don't think you are.  

 

Some teams like the Giants and Broncos know they don't have a long term answer, so they'll take a QB.  And if they really don't want a qb, they'll trade down with someone who does want a qb.  The Bengals did that already.  

 

There's no way only one qb comes off the board in the first 11 picks.  No way. Q

Posted
34 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said:

I, for one, am not at all surprised how things have turned out for FA QB’s so far.  Nearly all of the bigger names are off the board and we are starting to see some second tier QB’s too.

 

The Bills have not been seriously linked to any QB and have yet to reach an agreement with one, despite the huge need for a veteran QB.

 

IMO this has been the plan the entire time.  They have to feel extremely confident they can’t trade up and take either their top, or one of the top QB’s in th draft.

 

Beane and McDermott always have the long term goal in mind.  In a year when the Bills have a lot of dead money tied up in the cap, they aren’t going to spend $15-$20 on a QB for one or two seasons.  They also aren’t going to go “all in” on any position that could negatively affect their cap situation in the future. 

 

They also aren’t going to trade anything substantial for Nick Foles.  They acquired enough draft capital over the past year to move up and draft a rookie, while maintaining a semblance of a regular draft class.  They won’t deviate from that plan to acquire a QB for 1 season.  

 

For that reason, I don’t think the plan was ever to sign one of the top QB’s on the FA market.  I believe they plan on signing Matt Moore given his leadership, familiarity with the AFCE, and his past with Beane.  The best case scenario is for him to start the year and turn it over to a rookie in the final weeks.  

 

It certainly does seem they are bracing for a potential setup in 2018, but if that’s what it takes to develop a franchise QB they are ok with it.  Again, it’s all part of the “process.”   With a QB in place, along with a few other spots, the Bills can then make a run in 2019 and 2020.

 

If it’s not Moore I will be shocked, but I would think Derek Anderson would fit that bill as well.  Then there’s always the trade for Tervor Simian.

 

But I really think it’s Matt Moore.

 

 

Matt Moore and this plan makes sense.  However, the best case scenario is we draft a QB and that QB shows up and is clearly the best QB on the roster from day 1 and he starts immediately. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

We all know that WON'T be happening....

Still a possibility until it isn't. Wouldn't that pull the rug out from under the entire NFL?

Posted

All I know is I don't want Tervor Simian OR his cousin, Trevor Siemian. No thanks to both. 

 

I can live with Matt Moore with a dash of hot sauce known as Baker Mayfield. 

Posted

It's not likely but I believe we should stay right where we are with our current draft position.

 

I'm not completely out of my mind excited about any of the top 4 to 5 QB's available in this draft class.

 

We will get one of them at 12 ....... will we be patient enough to do so? ......... I sure hope so.

 

We will have an incredible draft if we just stay put GO BILLS!! 

Posted

This does not look promising.  Matt Moore had that 1 good year in Carolina, but ultimately where ever Moore goes a QB cluster.... follows. I really do not want to bring a rookie into this bs.  Hell I would rather start Peterman all season. Seriously.

 

From 2007-2010 you have the Delhomme, Carr, Testeverde, Moore cluster.... in Carolina

 

From 2011-2017 you have the Chad Henne, Ryan Tannehill, David Garrard, Jay Cutler, Moore cluster.... in Miami

 

×
×
  • Create New...