If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
All: The new Billszone site with the updated software is scheduled to be turned on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. The company that built it, Dynascale, estimates a FOUR HOUR shut down, from 8pm Pacific, (5pm Eastern) while they get it up and running. Nobody will be able to post in any forum until they are done. Afterwards, you may need to do a web search for the site, as old links will not work, because the site is getting a new IP address. Please be patient. If there are bugs, we will tackle them one at a time. Remember the goal is to be up and running with no glitches by camp. Doing this now assures us of that, because it gives us all summer to get our ducks in a row. Thank you!
There is work to be done and things to be learned. We are going to try to get the old look back - or something close to it. We also know there are bugs. A thread will be started to report bugs and then we can pass those onto the host.
Thank you for all the patience and support with this - hopefully this will greatly reduce the crashes and other site issues we have had lately.
Please use this thread to report any issues you come across
http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/forum/feedback-forums/billszone-q-a/6521455-upgrade-report-bugs-here
Albert Breer, spoke to reps from two NFL teams that had Manuel graded higher
Albert Breer, spoke to reps from two NFL teams that had Manuel graded higher
Don't know if this is true but if so then it's hard to know if EJ would've still been there at 31 or later.
The Manuel call wasn't such a shocker: The truth about the 2013 quarterback class is that its uniqueness was in the divergent opinions it inspired. I spoke with two clubs that had EJ Manuel ranked ahead of Geno Smith -- one had Smith graded as a low third-round pick -- and another two that had them virtually even, with one feeling that Manuel had a higher ceiling and the other giving low second-round grades to both (slotting Matt Barkley ahead of them).
When the Buffalo Bills took EJ Manuel at No. 16 -- leaving Geno Smith to fall to the New York Jets -- jaws dropped. In his draft notebook, Albert Breer says the move actually wasn't that shocking.
Re: Albert Breer, spoke to reps from two NFL teams that had Manuel graded higher
Honestly, I'm really not worried about it. We traded down once, which was awesome and not something we'd normally do. We got the QB we wanted and there is nothing to say he would or would not have been there a bit later. No point in saying he would or would not have been. No one knew before we picked him, and no one knows now.
Right, but how many of those teams picked between us and 41?
But how many of those teams needed a QB that bad? Answer: Not that many. So who cares? He would have been there at 41. He's not that good a QB. Period. Outside of the Bills, Jets, and perhaps the Cardinals every team had addressed their QB needs. You people act like every team needed a QB and that EJ Manuel was Andrew Luck.
Right, but how many of those teams picked between us and 41?
Good question, but also important to ask how or where they ranked Manuel. We know they had Geno in the 2nd-3rd Round range. Does that mean they had Manuel in the 1st-2nd? And building on the second part of the statement did they even rank Manuel #1 or did they just have him over Smith but they were ranked 3 and 4?
Breer's information while intriguing leaves a lot of open questions. What's done is done however and now its time for everybody to root for EJ.
COMING SOON...
Originally posted by Dr.Lecter
We were both drunk and Hillary did not look that bad at 2 AM, I swear!!!!!!
Right, but how many of those teams picked between us and 41?
Oh my god, who cares? The point is that some teams had him valued as early 2nd round picks. Some may have had him graded higher...we'll never know. And it DOESN'T MATTER if those teams picked between 16 and 41, because Buddy Nix never would have been able to find that out. Hindsight is 20/20. The point is, if EJ is the guy they wanted, they were better off taking him at 16, than waiting around and hoping he would still be there later. Even if the teams that supposedly wanted him picked after 41, they certainly could have traded up, and most likely would have, if they saw us sitting at 41, and assumed that we would be taking one of the QB's.
Everybody needs to stop whining about the fact that we took him at 16. If he isn't the QB you wanted...that's one thing. I'm ok with him, because I think he has the highest upside, but I get the argument. But arguing that we took him too early is just asinine. There is no guarantee that the guy you want will be there at your next pick. If you are sure that you want him, and he is the highest rated player on your board, you take him when you have the chance to.
I just came across an old article from 2009, calling the Jairus Byrd pick a reach. Here is what they said:
Jairus Byrd/CB/Buffalo/2nd Round: Byrd ran pedestrian times in the 4.6 range during his pro-day workout. He's a solid prospect , but there were at least a half dozen higher-rated cornerbacks available to the Bills when they selected him at the top of Round 2.
So a bunch of pundits said that some other DB's were rated higher than Byrd...we must have reached. But obviously, we saw something we liked, and felt that he was worth the pick. Should we have traded down, or hoped that he would still be there for us in the next round?
Oh my god, who cares? The point is that some teams had him valued as early 2nd round picks. Some may have had him graded higher...we'll never know. And it DOESN'T MATTER if those teams picked between 16 and 41, because Buddy Nix never would have been able to find that out. Hindsight is 20/20. The point is, if EJ is the guy they wanted, they were better off taking him at 16, than waiting around and hoping he would still be there later. Even if the teams that supposedly wanted him picked after 41, they certainly could have traded up, and most likely would have, if they saw us sitting at 41, and assumed that we would be taking one of the QB's.
Everybody needs to stop whining about the fact that we took him at 16. If he isn't the QB you wanted...that's one thing. I'm ok with him, because I think he has the highest upside, but I get the argument. But arguing that we took him too early is just asinine. There is no guarantee that the guy you want will be there at your next pick. If you are sure that you want him, and he is the highest rated player on your board, you take him when you have the chance to.
I just came across an old article from 2009, calling the Jairus Byrd pick a reach. Here is what they said:
Jairus Byrd/CB/Buffalo/2nd Round: Byrd ran pedestrian times in the 4.6 range during his pro-day workout. He's a solid prospect , but there were at least a half dozen higher-rated cornerbacks available to the Bills when they selected him at the top of Round 2.
So a bunch of pundits said that some other DB's were rated higher than Byrd...we must have reached. But obviously, we saw something we liked, and felt that he was worth the pick. Should we have traded down, or hoped that he would still be there for us in the next round?
You're misquoting an awful large part of the bolded. Nowhere does it mention DB's, it mentions CB's. Many people thought Byrd should of been a CB coming out and his ranking was reflective of that. The Bills thought of him as a SAF, but he was not ranked as a SAF by whatever source you pulled the bolded from so trying to infer something off of that is a bit misleading.
COMING SOON...
Originally posted by Dr.Lecter
We were both drunk and Hillary did not look that bad at 2 AM, I swear!!!!!!
Oh my god, who cares? The point is that some teams had him valued as early 2nd round picks. Some may have had him graded higher...we'll never know. And it DOESN'T MATTER if those teams picked between 16 and 41, because Buddy Nix never would have been able to find that out. Hindsight is 20/20. The point is, if EJ is the guy they wanted, they were better off taking him at 16, than waiting around and hoping he would still be there later. Even if the teams that supposedly wanted him picked after 41, they certainly could have traded up, and most likely would have, if they saw us sitting at 41, and assumed that we would be taking one of the QB's.
Everybody needs to stop whining about the fact that we took him at 16. If he isn't the QB you wanted...that's one thing. I'm ok with him, because I think he has the highest upside, but I get the argument. But arguing that we took him too early is just asinine. There is no guarantee that the guy you want will be there at your next pick. If you are sure that you want him, and he is the highest rated player on your board, you take him when you have the chance to.
I just came across an old article from 2009, calling the Jairus Byrd pick a reach. Here is what they said:
Jairus Byrd/CB/Buffalo/2nd Round: Byrd ran pedestrian times in the 4.6 range during his pro-day workout. He's a solid prospect , but there were at least a half dozen higher-rated cornerbacks available to the Bills when they selected him at the top of Round 2.
So a bunch of pundits said that some other DB's were rated higher than Byrd...we must have reached. But obviously, we saw something we liked, and felt that he was worth the pick. Should we have traded down, or hoped that he would still be there for us in the next round?
Wow you inferred a whole lot about my opinion from one simple question.
First, "The point is that some teams had him valued as early 2nd round picks" is not stated in JASF's quote. All it says is that some teams thought Manuel was better than Smith. Which is clearly true.
It does not say
1) That some teams had high second rounders on him
2) That those teams picked ahead of us or
3) That those teams would have picked a QB. I mean, the Packers could have rated him a high first rounder, but there's no way they are drafting him when they just gave Rodgers like $125 million.
I'm glad they stopped playing games and took a QB, but I do also think he would have been there at 41.
Re: Albert Breer, spoke to reps from two NFL teams that had Manuel graded higher
I think it is funny that Draft day and the days after it the Bills go slammed left right and center for this pick, and now people are starting to come out of the wood work to defend it and say "Well maybe they did do the right thing taking him." I didn't like the pick at first but it grew on me, but I do love seeing people start to back track. Typical sports journalism, they say one thing, a few weeks later they say the opposite, and now in 2-3 years they can go back no matter what and say they called it.
Re: Albert Breer, spoke to reps from two NFL teams that had Manuel graded higher
Both opinions were there from the get go.
If someone wants to think he would have been there at 41, then that is their prerogative. No one knows that for sure and there is sufficient evidence to suggest that he may not have been.
If someone wants to think he would have been there at 41, then that is their prerogative. No one knows that for sure and there is sufficient evidence to suggest that he may not have been.
So, there it is. He was our pick. Can we move on?
Thinking people will just move on is naive, people will complain that he was drafted too high until he wins a SB, then they will say they loved the pick at the time. It's like the 150,000 people who were at the Bills Houston Comeback game that didn't even sell out. Everyone and their brother was there after the fact, but they only sold 65,000 tickets to the game with 53,000 being season ticket holders.
Hindsight always changes things, but looking forward few are willing to take a stand because god forbid they are wrong.
I'm glad they stopped playing games and took a QB, but I do also think he would have been there at 41.
But noone actually knows either way do they? This was the first draft in a long time that QB's as a group were not ridiculously overdrafted. You've seen guys like Gabbert and Ponder and Locker picked top 10. So the Bills went into the draft thinking "we want 1 guy and we're not going to take the chance he won't be there in the 2nd". To me that was sensible thinking based on recent draft history. The Bills have no way of knowing what other teams are going to do. If they really wanted Manuel and they waited till 41 to take him and he's not there then what? Take a guy you don't want? Skip drafting a QB entirely?
The Bills didn't like either of those options. The extra 3rd they might have gained by a 2nd trade down was not worth the risk in their minds. Based on the last decade of Bills drafting that 3rd would not have made any impact anyway, maybe not even made the team. A franchise QB? That's worth a whole lot. It all comes down to Manuel. If he is the man where he was picked will be a minor footnote. If he busts this draft will not be a success. That simple.
Tweet
Comment