BuffaloRush Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 23 minutes ago, Bangarang said: Who should he have drafted? Jake Locker? Blaine Gabbert? Christian Ponder? Again... Did Buddy Nix pass on drafting a QB in the top 10 twice? Yes or no? 6 minutes ago, Logic said: Ah, DC Tom. I know I can always count on you to make personal attacks in posts that don't warrant them. Also, it's 2018, maybe you could come up with some form of criticism other than calling things "retarded"? I guess I was operating under the mistaken impression that this is a message board built for discussion of topics. I missed the part where anyone who disagrees with you automatically has "retarded" opinions and is illogical. For your original post with the list of names to have any merit, we'd have to compare the success rate (30%, as you stated) with the collective success rate of all QBs taken OUTSIDE the top 10 picks in the past four decades. Want to guess which list has a higher rate of success overall? But forgive me, there I go again, DARING to have opinions that differ from yours, for which I must clearly be illogical and "retarded". Some real mature, high quality rebuttal on your part, as usual. You are right - it’s getting to the point where you can’t post anything without getting insulted or harassed for not Adding topics the way individual members want 1
auburnbillsbacker Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 We have only had a top 3 pick once since 1986. We are bad at being bad. 4
Alphadawg7 Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 1 minute ago, auburnbillsbacker said: We have only had a top 3 pick once since 1986. We are bad at being bad. THIS ^ Perennial 6, 7, 8 or 9 win teams don't get you many chances to pick in the top 10, let alone top 5. We have been piss poor at sucking...just enough to always miss the playoffs, but not enough to get a high draft pick. 1 1
Bangarang Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 33 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said: Again... Did Buddy Nix pass on drafting a QB in the top 10 twice? Yes or no? Why are you deflecting? You are saying that as some sort of criticism of Nix are you not? If that’s the case then surely you’d be able to say who he should have drafted instead.
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 43 minutes ago, Logic said: Ah, DC Tom. I know I can always count on you to make personal attacks in posts that don't warrant them. Also, it's 2018, maybe you could come up with some form of criticism other than calling things "retarded"? I guess I was operating under the mistaken impression that this is a message board built for discussion of topics. I missed the part where anyone who disagrees with you automatically has "retarded" opinions and is illogical. For your original post with the list of names to have any merit, we'd have to compare the success rate (30%, as you stated) with the collective success rate of all QBs taken OUTSIDE the top 10 picks in the past four decades. Want to guess which list has a higher rate of success overall? But forgive me, there I go again, DARING to have opinions that differ from yours, for which I must clearly be illogical and "retarded". Some real mature, high quality rebuttal on your part, as usual. I didn't call YOU retarded, I called the dumbass fallacy of "You miss all the shots you don't take" retarded. There's a difference. IF you don't see the difference, then yes, you are in fact irretrievably stupid. 1
Logic Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I didn't call YOU retarded, I called the dumbass fallacy of "You miss all the shots you don't take" retarded. There's a difference. IF you don't see the difference, then yes, you are in fact irretrievably stupid. Even in a post in which you are attempting to clarify that you weren't insulting me, you felt that need to mention that I might be irretrievably stupid. Cool. Let me know if you want to talk about football. I have no interesting in carrying on a conversation based on personal attacks.
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 Just now, Logic said: Even in a post in which you are attempting to clarify that you weren't insulting me, you felt that need to mention that I might be irretrievably stupid. Cool. Let me know if you want to talk about football. I have no interesting in carrying on a conversation based on personal attacks. I put together a post to demonstrate that there's roughly a 3 in 10 success rate of picking a QB in the top ten. I was talking about football. You chose not to, and instead whined about me insulting you. So I insulted you. You got the discussion you started.
What a Tuel Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: I put together a post to demonstrate that there's roughly a 3 in 10 success rate of picking a QB in the top ten. I was talking about football. You chose not to, and instead whined about me insulting you. So I insulted you. You got the discussion you started. The logic that we should not consider moving up to take a QB that the front office deems worthy of moving up for because they might make a mistake or miss is some god awful logic. The 7 out of 10 ratio is irrelevant because different people are making the picks. Will our front office be successful or not in picking the right QB is the question to ask. Will they decide to move up? Or will they stand pat and take the left overs? Either way, if they fail their chickens are coming home to roost.
BuffaloRush Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 14 minutes ago, Bangarang said: Why are you deflecting? You are saying that as some sort of criticism of Nix are you not? If that’s the case then surely you’d be able to say who he should have drafted instead. Not deflecting just asking you a question. It’s very clear you are defending Buddy. ANSWER.THE.QUESTION.
Bangarang Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said: Not deflecting just asking you a question. It’s very clear you are defending Buddy. ANSWER.THE.QUESTION. Obviously he passed on QBs when picking in the top 10. Now are you going to answer the question and say who he should have taken instead since you want to criticize him for it? I’m guessing you’ll just keep deflecting and continue to ignore answering. Edited March 25, 2018 by Bangarang 1
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 36 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: THIS ^ Perennial 6, 7, 8 or 9 win teams don't get you many chances to pick in the top 10, let alone top 5. We have been piss poor at sucking...just enough to always miss the playoffs, but not enough to get a high draft pick. Careful, people don’t like tanking around here. 1
Reed83HOF Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Careful, people don’t like tanking around here. It might be the Sabres that influence this - the Big difference between the NFL & NHL is, the tank would have gotten them McDavid in the NFL draft...
Bobby Hooks Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, BigDingus said: No, it's definitely relevant in context of our franchise futility. It also goes hand in hand with our terrible GM's, coaches, and management philosophy prior to Beane. And in terms of this board, we have yet again countless people in the "kick the ahead to next year yet again!" camp...the same people who always say "wait until next year" to draft a QB because they're afraid everyone is a bust if they're not automatically labeled the best QB of all time prior to stepping foot in the league. 100% relevant. Exactly. This is the draft we’ve been accruing picks for. This is the draft with three viable qbs (imo). This is the time. People would prefer we dabble in mediocrity another 17 years. Or worse yet wait until we actually have a four win season and pick top three where there would be no guarantees there would be a guy worth picking? Take the shot. Edited March 25, 2018 by Bobby Hooks
GoBills808 Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: Let's list all the QBs picked in the first 10 rounds of the draft since 1980: 1980s: Rich Campbell Art Schlichter Jim McMahon John Elway Todd Blackledge Jim Everett Kelly Stouffer Vinnie Testaverde Troy Aikman 1990s: Jeff George Andre Ware David Klingler Drew Bledsoe Rick Mirer Heath Shuler Trent Dilfer Steve McNair Kerry Collins Peyton Manning Ryan Leaf Tim Couch Donovan McNabb Akili Smith 2000s: Michael Vick David Carr Joey Harrington Carson Palmer Byron Leftwich Eli Manning Philip Rivers Alex Smith Vince Young Matt Leinart Jamarcus Russell Matt Ryan Matthew Stafford Butt Fumble 2010s: Sam Bradford Cam Newton Jake Locker Andrew Luck RGIII Ryan Tannenhill Blake Bortles Jameis Winston Marcus Mariota Jared Goff Carson Wentz Patrick Mahomes Not an illustrious list. Certainly not a consistent-enough list that it suggests moving in to the top 10 to select a QB is worthwhile. Between the outright busts and the number of QBs who ended up moving to other teams and being successful, there's a decent argument to be made for moving in to the top 10 to pick a "franchise QB" to be a losing proposition, as more likely than not he'll either fail or be someone else's franchise QB down the road. I’d argue that it’s trending in the right direction percentage-wise. You’re more likely to hit at QB in the top 10 today than you were in the 80s, which isn’t surprising considering how much more money gets poured into scouting. One could argue that now is the best time to trade up to get a QB considering their value relative to other positions.
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 12 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: The logic that we should not consider moving up to take a QB that the front office deems worthy of moving up for because they might make a mistake or miss is some god awful logic. The 7 out of 10 ratio is irrelevant because different people are making the picks. Will our front office be successful or not in picking the right QB is the question to ask. Will they decide to move up? Or will they stand pat and take the left overs? Either way, if they fail their chickens are coming home to roost. Not nearly as god awful as "it doesn't matter because picks are made by different people." Everyone making those picks thought they were making the right pick, but considerable risk and uncertainty is clearly involved. So the question to ask is: is the considerable risk (~70% chance of failure) worth moving up? Or to put it more simply: if you trade a first and a second to move up to the top 10 to take a QB, you now have a 70% chance that you've spent TWO picks on a bust. You increase your magnitude of lost with precisely what commensurate and measurable potential for gain? Yes, for the potential gain of a "franchise QB"...which 7 out of 10 times doesn't work out. How does spending more to move up a couple spots change those odds?
4merper4mer Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 2 hours ago, BigDingus said: No, it's definitely relevant in context of our franchise futility. It also goes hand in hand with our terrible GM's, coaches, and management philosophy prior to Beane. And in terms of this board, we have yet again countless people in the "kick the ahead to next year yet again!" camp...the same people who always say "wait until next year" to draft a QB because they're afraid everyone is a bust if they're not automatically labeled the best QB of all time prior to stepping foot in the league. 100% relevant. It could not be more irrelevevant if it tried. 3 QBs are very probably gonen with the first three picks of the draft. The owners of those picks are not going to trade and the Bills are unable to just pick someone at 2 or 3 by pushing an opposing GM down the stairs to the stage. It doesn't matter what you want, what I want or the consensus of the board thinks. The do whatever it takes crowd and the kick the can crowd are both powerless, but the power of whining seems strong. 1
What a Tuel Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Not nearly as god awful as "it doesn't matter because picks are made by different people." Everyone making those picks thought they were making the right pick, but considerable risk and uncertainty is clearly involved. So the question to ask is: is the considerable risk (~70% chance of failure) worth moving up? Or to put it more simply: if you trade a first and a second to move up to the top 10 to take a QB, you now have a 70% chance that you've spent TWO picks on a bust. You increase your magnitude of lost with precisely what commensurate and measurable potential for gain? Yes, for the potential gain of a "franchise QB"...which 7 out of 10 times doesn't work out. How does spending more to move up a couple spots change those odds? So you think Bill Belichick has the same 7 out of 10 chance as Doug Whaley? That 7 out of 10 is the average, it does not define the odds. Is it worth moving up? If they think they know who they want then absolutely 100% yes. They need to be able to pick the right QB, that is their job. If they cannot do that, then they will end up with a mediocre team like Whaley did.
Boatdrinks Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 13 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said: It might be the Sabres that influence this - the Big difference between the NFL & NHL is, the tank would have gotten them McDavid in the NFL draft... Tanking has no track record of working in the NFL. There are huge differences between football and hockey , which could be one reason. If tanking were so effective the Browns should have a mantle full of Lombardis by now.
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 1 minute ago, GoBills808 said: I’d argue that it’s trending in the right direction percentage-wise. You’re more likely to hit at QB in the top 10 today than you were in the 80s, which isn’t surprising considering how much more money gets poured into scouting. One could argue that now is the best time to trade up to get a QB considering their value relative to other positions. Or it's that the game's changed that much that it really does depend more on raw skill than teamwork these days. Or we're just over-judging current active players who aren't out of chances yet over historical players (which would not be an uncommon bias.) I mean, I saw the trend, yes...but I'm leery of drawing conclusions against QBs drafted since 2010 or so. Considering the top six in the "2010s" list should be hitting their prime right now as 27-30 year olds, but only one (Newton) is playing at a consistently All-Pro level, so I'd be hesitant to judge the trend as changing all that much based on the current data.
BuffaloRush Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 34 minutes ago, Bangarang said: Obviously he passed on QBs when picking in the top 10. Now are you going to answer the question and say who he should have taken instead since you want to criticize him for it? I’m guessing you’ll just keep deflecting and continue to ignore answering. He did pass on Andy Dalton. Say what you will about Dalton, but he would have been a much better choice than any of the QB’s playing QB for the Bills since then
Recommended Posts