I talked to several NFL Scouts today about the Quarterback group and guess who is #1?

[BUFF BANDIT]

If both Barkley and Gino fall to 7 im going to be very happy. At least we can get 1 of them....and they will pick a CB lol

then nix drafts marcus lattimore

[Rochesterfan]

From that video I think it is easy, he would make us a better team immediately at the most important position. Contracts are lower so if he sucks draft Manzel or Murray next year.

This is the problem though - with the lower contracts you can get out from these QB with less invested financially, but if you draft a kid in the first round - you are still going to give him 3-4 years to learn and grow. The money changed, but you are not going to draft guys in the first round year after year or it is a waste. That is the reason I don't want them drafting 2 QB's this year. They need to get the guy they want to lead them the next 3-5 years and hopefully longer. Then you work with him and build him up.

Everyone points to the Redskins, but the only reason they took 2 is that RG3 has an injury history and the way he plays QB - he is likely to have that happen again. If the Bills like a guy - draft him and then we are not looking at an early round QB for several years.

[dtsportscards]

I would really like Barkley but i trust in buddy nix

[WilliamsWreckingCrew]

Today I talked with four NFL Scouts and i thought I would share with you what they said about the current quarterback situation. I posted an article, I thought I would share it since the Bills are definitely looking for a quarterback. I thought it was very interesting that Matt Barkley's stock is still there. Not moving down.

http://nfldraftzone.com/draft-news/m...-draft-boards/

Here you go, I hope you enjoy.

#GO BILLS

I can definitely understand this and see why, but there are a few draft sites where I've seen Barkley compared to Chad Pennington, who is a marginally better version of Fitzpatrick.

So if this is true than it goes to show just how crappy and weak this years QB class really is.

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

As a hypothetical question, I'd tend to agree, but I think you also have to draft a genuine development prospect also. Trouble is, you've just paid the pick you would use, over for Smith.
Back in the real world, I think Smith gets to go somewhere where he's been given some assurances about his status, either by the 49ers trading him somewhere that is going to do that, or by Smith being able to make that decision for himself, after getting released.
I don't think I'd have a problem if the #8 pick got used on Barkley, but after him, I'm fairly underwhelmed by what I've read about this year's crop. Eventually I'll get round to looking at a few highlights, but generally speaking, the only guy who appears to have the pedigree is Barkley.
This year's group seems much more like the year that Bradford came out, with only a couple of genuinely decent 'NFL ready' prospects, but with a bigger group behind them, that could be picked from the 2nd round on down. Actually, you could include the 2009 class in that discussion as well, probably.
I think it's highly unlikely that the top QB this year, whoever that is, will not go in the top 10 picks. We heard the same sort of stuff about both Bradford and Stafford, yet what happens?
History will very likely repeat itself. For all the talk about Barkley being injured etc., it will come as no surprise to me, if KC hasn't pretty much already got him inked in as their #1 pick - assuming they will still want a QB, when the draft comes around.

To be honest, I dont think Barkley is anywhere near the caliber of NFL prospect that Stafford or Bradford were.....and neither of those guys have been anything to get too excited over. I just dont think the top QB this year is necessarily anything worth investing time into. You're basically signing up for the Sanchez thing (not comparing the players Barkley vs. Sanchez...more the situation of being able to hope and pray that THIS year the guy gets it) and I just dont see any team that has played that strategy to great success. I cant think of a team that over drafted a subpar prospect and then had it work out incredibly well.

You've got later round guys who have developed surprisingly. You've got 2nd round guys that took a year or three of seasoning before turning into great QBs. You've got great prospects who were drafted highly and turned out great. But you'd be hardpressed to find a situation where a team reached big time due to "necessity" for a QB and ended up in love with the results.

If you pursue Smith (especially in the case of a release) you're really not in a much different situation than Seattle last year. Take a 3rd round guy who maybe has a "deficiency" that you can work with and scheme around. Sign Smith to hold down the fort. Next year, if a prospect you really like is in reach, you take him.

If it were my team, I wouldnt want to join the Jets, Jags, Vikings, Titans as teams with their carts hitched to "well...maybe" horses.

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

If the Bills are going to invest in a QB, either a pick or $$$ or both, then I want them to draft one, NOT take somebody else's failed starter.



The problem with this line of thought is two-fold. First, Smith isn't that good. He was a borderline starter for his entire career until 2011 when he put up fancy stats on a team loaded with offensive talent. Then he lost his job to a green sophomore QB after the kid only made two or three starts. He's basically Fitzpatrick with a better arm and a more conservative mindset -- or Trent Edwards on a very talented team.

The second part of this problem is even bigger. Developing a QB and deciding whether he's "good enough" is always going to take multiple seasons, even if your QB spends some of those seasons are spent sitting and watching. Even QBs like Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers presented big question marks after their first seasons as starters. The Jests thought they had their QB spot sewed up for the next decade after Mark Sanchez's sophomore season, and now, they're back in the QB hunt without the means to compete. Unless you are willing to settle for backup QBs masquerading as starters, other teams' failed starters or old QBs looking for their last hurrah, every team has to bite the bullet and invest in a young QB. And yeah, sometimes you'll draft a bust like JP Losman or only a "decent" Jay Cutler type, but if you never draft even one, you'll never hit on an Aaron Rodgers or a Joe Flacco.

Save the pick and save the cap space, pass on Smith and draft a young QB early in the draft.

This just isn't correct.....at all.

Developing a QB whos "good enough" doesnt ALWAYS take multiple seasons....and recent history suggests that it doesnt really take multiple seasons at all. Scouting has gotten infinitely better than it was even 20 years ago. Look at the success rookie QBs have had going back to 2004 and accelerating as we've moved to today. You CAN draft a guy who can come in and show you, right away, that hes the guy. I'm not really sure why you're bringing up Tom Brady (a 6th round prayer that ended up being genius after he grabbed the starting job and never gave it up) or Roethlisberger (another guy who performed very very well once he entered the lineup and was never ever ever in danger of losing his job). Rodgers, despite not playing for a few years, didn't grind out his first year and fight off questions....he posted a better than 2:1 INT ratio and was one of the better QBs in the league.

No one is saying not to invest in young QBs.....thats generally a move that pays off nicely (though nowhere near as much as some here thinks it does) but it isn't intrinsically successful. It doesnt guarantee its own success as a concept. Ask Jacksonville. Ask Tennessee. Ask Minnesota. These are teams that "bit the bullet" early in the first round on flawed prospects and are now stuck in the mud, hoping that the flashes they see will become something they arent.

I guess I just dont see the value of "save the pick" in regards to a 3rd rounder and, instead, endorsing the investment of a Top 10 pick in a flawed product. Doesnt really make much sense.

PS - Smith isn't "an elite" QB....but he's more than capable of playing well enough to lead a team to a few more wins and some contention. He'd give you the best level of play for the next two years of the available options.

[Thurman#1]

This is the problem though - with the lower contracts you can get out from these QB with less invested financially, but if you draft a kid in the first round - you are still going to give him 3-4 years to learn and grow. The money changed, but you are not going to draft guys in the first round year after year or it is a waste. That is the reason I don't want them drafting 2 QB's this year. They need to get the guy they want to lead them the next 3-5 years and hopefully longer. Then you work with him and build him up.

Everyone points to the Redskins, but the only reason they took 2 is that RG3 has an injury history and the way he plays QB - he is likely to have that happen again. If the Bills like a guy - draft him and then we are not looking at an early round QB for several years.

So, the Jags are going to wait another couple of years to draft someone to start to work towards replacing Gabbert? You don't have to wait four years anymore. If your guy is on the edge, sometimes you do, but it's no longer an absolute necessity because of how the financial disincentives are no longer in place.

And your Redskins argument is a justification. Plenty of running QBs were drafted this year. Did their teams assume they'd be injured? The Skins picked Cousins because they thought it was the right move. Yeah, they knew Griffin played a game that might eventually get him hurt, but if they really figured Griffin'd start getting injured in the first year or two, they wouldn't have drafted him at all.

Draft a second guy a year or two down the road and you get at worst a good backup at a reasonable salary. There is very little downside compared to the possibility for a massive upside.

[Thurman#1]

You've got later round guys who have developed surprisingly. You've got 2nd round guys that took a year or three of seasoning before turning into great QBs. You've got great prospects who were drafted highly and turned out great. But you'd be hardpressed to find a situation where a team reached big time due to "necessity" for a QB and ended up in love with the results.

I would strongly argue that that's because when teams did that and it worked out, people say "Gee, it wasn't a reach after all," and stop remembering it as a reach even though it was at the time. And conversely, when a pick that didn't that bad at the time, maybe a tiny bit of a reach but defensible, doesn't work out, everyone remembers it as time passes for a huge reach.

There was a lot of criticism of the Matt Ryan pick at the time, for instance. Nobody remembers now, because it worked out. The McNair pick was criticized, as it was said he was a runner not a passer. In college, the guy threw 15, 11, 15 and 17 INTs in college and never threw for over 57.4% completions. Turned out pretty well, though. Remember the Eagles fans booing Donovan McNabb?

There was massive criticism when the Steelers picked Bradshaw.

[Buddo]

To be honest, I dont think Barkley is anywhere near the caliber of NFL prospect that Stafford or Bradford were.....and neither of those guys have been anything to get too excited over. I just dont think the top QB this year is necessarily anything worth investing time into. You're basically signing up for the Sanchez thing (not comparing the players Barkley vs. Sanchez...more the situation of being able to hope and pray that THIS year the guy gets it) and I just dont see any team that has played that strategy to great success. I cant think of a team that over drafted a subpar prospect and then had it work out incredibly well.

You've got later round guys who have developed surprisingly. You've got 2nd round guys that took a year or three of seasoning before turning into great QBs. You've got great prospects who were drafted highly and turned out great. But you'd be hardpressed to find a situation where a team reached big time due to "necessity" for a QB and ended up in love with the results.

If you pursue Smith (especially in the case of a release) you're really not in a much different situation than Seattle last year. Take a 3rd round guy who maybe has a "deficiency" that you can work with and scheme around. Sign Smith to hold down the fort. Next year, if a prospect you really like is in reach, you take him.

If it were my team, I wouldnt want to join the Jets, Jags, Vikings, Titans as teams with their carts hitched to "well...maybe" horses.

The Bills seem to have been trying to find an adequate 'place holder' QB for years, unsuccessfully. Should Smith be released, I wouldn't really object if they went after him, with a view of drafting a kid like Manuel or Nassib later on, i.e. 2nd/3rd round, but I'm not prepared to be giving up a pick for another attempt at a 'placeholder'. TBH, if there's a guy who could tailor an offense for Smith, it's as likely to be Marrone, as anyone, but you are doing what you said, but in a different way. You are still hitching your wagon to a 'maybe' horse, to an extent.
I'd also say that I'm not advocating 'betting the farm' on a QB this year, but should Smith or Barkley become in easy enough range to move up to, then I wouldn't object to that either, assuming Smith is a good prospect.
The Bills currently, have a decent O=Line for any QB to operate behind. They aren't as good as some would have, but they aren't too shabby either. Any QB coming in, should have a degree of comfort, that will allow for a fairly prompt assessment, of what his chances are going to be in the NFL. For all that it is possible to find a QB anywhere in the draft, the 'norm' is still for the majority to come from the first round. I think that hold true due to the fact that classes vary, but I see it as little coincidence that good prospects have come from lower rounds, mostly in years where there has been a greater number of high end guys taken.
Providing it doesn't cost then next year's 1st, I think the Bills are in a decent position to try and get either Barkley or Smith, and I don't think that they will have to wait too long to find out if either of them is going to work out. They could then use another 1st round pick on a QB, if they felt they had to, next year. In this day and age, actually building the line first, might have longer term benefits, in the search for a QB, than we have at first thought.

While there's a fair bit of 'fence-sitting' in the above, ultimately I believe this sort of thing will have to come down to a distinct strategy. Much will depend on how Smith is viewed by the top brass, as to whether or not they try to bring him in. If they like him, I don't suppose there is anything to stop them from going hard at him, to get him to come here.
My own view is that the Bills need to get out of trying to sign the 'stop-gap' QB, and get a guy who is going to be 'the man' for the next decade, from the time he starts. Smith isn't that, although I think he would be moderately successful here.
About the only current QB we could get who could fit that bill, would be Flynn, from the Seahawks, and that is one heck of a gamble.
So we are back to the draft.

[Thurman#1]

I can definitely understand this and see why, but there are a few draft sites where I've seen Barkley compared to Chad Pennington, who is a marginally better version of Fitzpatrick.

So if this is true than it goes to show just how crappy and weak this years QB class really is.

Chad Pennington before his injury was briefly elite. He looked to be a long-term top five QB until then.

Compare Fitz to Pennington when he has a year like Pennington did in 2002, his third year in the league but his first as a starter. He was 1st in completion percentage, 1st in QB rating with a 104.2, 3rd in YPA, and threw 22 TDs and 6 INTs, which came out to a sensational INT percentage of 1.5.

Fitz never even dreamed of a season like that.

[dtsportscards]

I would like to see Buffalo draft a QB early and then bring in a UDFA, such as Kyle Padron of Eastern Washington who is a gun slinger. To me that makes sense

[bilzfancy]

I would like to see Buffalo draft a QB early and then bring in a UDFA, such as Kyle Padron of Eastern Washington who is a gun slinger. To me that makes sense

sign Matt Moore, draft a QB early, and take a 4th or 5th rd flyer on Brad Sorenson, and release Fitz

[Buddo]

Chad Pennington before his injury was briefly elite. He looked to be a long-term top five QB until then.

Compare Fitz to Pennington when he has a year like Pennington did in 2002, his third year in the league but his first as a starter. He was 1st in completion percentage, 1st in QB rating with a 104.2, 3rd in YPA, and threw 22 TDs and 6 INTs, which came out to a sensational INT percentage of 1.5.

Fitz never even dreamed of a season like that.

Pennington was also the major factor in the turnaround the Fins had, going from bottom to top. I always thought he would have been a good option for us, even with the noodle arm. Very smart QB, who might have been exceptional if not for his injuries.
A healthy Pennington, when his arm was still decent, was only bettered by the elite, imho.
Obviously gets a bad rep around here as much for who he played for, than anything else.

[Rochesterfan]

So, the Jags are going to wait another couple of years to draft someone to start to work towards replacing Gabbert? You don't have to wait four years anymore. If your guy is on the edge, sometimes you do, but it's no longer an absolute necessity because of how the financial disincentives are no longer in place.

And your Redskins argument is a justification. Plenty of running QBs were drafted this year. Did their teams assume they'd be injured? The Skins picked Cousins because they thought it was the right move. Yeah, they knew Griffin played a game that might eventually get him hurt, but if they really figured Griffin'd start getting injured in the first year or two, they wouldn't have drafted him at all.

Draft a second guy a year or two down the road and you get at worst a good backup at a reasonable salary. There is very little downside compared to the possibility for a massive upside.

First - I have no issue drafting a guy again down the road, but to suggest that you should be drafting 2 QB's this year and then continue to draft QBs in the first round is just wrong (understand I am not say you want them to draft 2 QBs this year, but that is what many are suggesting.)

Second - I understand that the financial implications aren't in place, but your example of Gabbert - He improved from year 1 to year 2 - Do you just get rid of him now. They have changed coaches and GMs during his time - is that holding him back or is it the player. There are many examples of QB's that got better years 3-5 - so do you just assume failure and move on - or do you try to see if he keeps improving.

All I am saying is that in the past the financial concerns were also a part of it, but you still need the 3-5 years to see if they develop. If they only gave these guys 1 or 2 years - guys like Eli Manning and Drew Brees would have been cut and never developed. Even guys like Matthew Stafford and Sam Bradford - #1 picks have struggled, but showed promise - if they got rid of them - then teams would always be looking for a QB. You still need to give these guys time to develop and grow whether or not there are money concerns - that has not changed and if you draft a guy in the first round - he should be our guy for the next 3-5 years to see if he can develop. You can still draft guys in the next couple of drafts, but you don't want to be taking first round picks every year.

[jcmccall]

then nix drafts marcus lattimore

Atta troll.

[jcmccall]

The Bills seem to have been trying to find an adequate 'place holder' QB for years, unsuccessfully. Should Smith be released, I wouldn't really object if they went after him, with a view of drafting a kid like Manuel or Nassib later on, i.e. 2nd/3rd round, but I'm not prepared to be giving up a pick for another attempt at a 'placeholder'. TBH, if there's a guy who could tailor an offense for Smith, it's as likely to be Marrone, as anyone, but you are doing what you said, but in a different way. You are still hitching your wagon to a 'maybe' horse, to an extent.
I'd also say that I'm not advocating 'betting the farm' on a QB this year, but should Smith or Barkley become in easy enough range to move up to, then I wouldn't object to that either, assuming Smith is a good prospect.
The Bills currently, have a decent O=Line for any QB to operate behind. They aren't as good as some would have, but they aren't too shabby either. Any QB coming in, should have a degree of comfort, that will allow for a fairly prompt assessment, of what his chances are going to be in the NFL. For all that it is possible to find a QB anywhere in the draft, the 'norm' is still for the majority to come from the first round. I think that hold true due to the fact that classes vary, but I see it as little coincidence that good prospects have come from lower rounds, mostly in years where there has been a greater number of high end guys taken.
Providing it doesn't cost then next year's 1st, I think the Bills are in a decent position to try and get either Barkley or Smith, and I don't think that they will have to wait too long to find out if either of them is going to work out. They could then use another 1st round pick on a QB, if they felt they had to, next year. In this day and age, actually building the line first, might have longer term benefits, in the search for a QB, than we have at first thought.

While there's a fair bit of 'fence-sitting' in the above, ultimately I believe this sort of thing will have to come down to a distinct strategy. Much will depend on how Smith is viewed by the top brass, as to whether or not they try to bring him in. If they like him, I don't suppose there is anything to stop them from going hard at him, to get him to come here.
My own view is that the Bills need to get out of trying to sign the 'stop-gap' QB, and get a guy who is going to be 'the man' for the next decade, from the time he starts. Smith isn't that, although I think he would be moderately successful here.
About the only current QB we could get who could fit that bill, would be Flynn, from the Seahawks, and that is one heck of a gamble.
So we are back to the draft.

I think the issue is that if he trade for Smith, he's not a FA until 2016, so that doesn't make him a "place holder quarterback" it makes him your quarterback. If the 49ers do grant him a release (as I think they will simply because of the length of the contract and base salaries over that time), there will likely be a bit of a bidding war for him and he's just not worth that much money. I also don't see Smith signing a short term deal to the next team he goes to to be a stop gap, he may have to, but there could be a team that desperate enough to give him a 4 year deal. I hope it's not us.

Frankly, I'd rather toss less money at a guy like Chase Daniel or the "devil I don't know."

[Baad 1]

sign Matt Moore, draft a QB early, and take a 4th or 5th rd flyer on Brad Sorenson, and release Fitz

Oh that makes sense.....2 draft picks and FA money for "maybe" a QB if the Gods smile on Buffalo ???? Might as well stay with Fitz ......

[bilzfancy]

Oh that makes sense.....2 draft picks and FA money for "maybe" a QB if the Gods smile on Buffalo ???? Might as well stay with Fitz ......

we already know what Fitz can't do, and IMO Matt Moore is a better and cheaper option then him

[scorpio83]

I doubt he falls to us.

He's a 4 year starter in a pro-style system
Extremely accurate with the football
Highly respected
Class act
Good arm
Good football IQ
Poised under pressure.

His flaws are he plays at USC, same school as huge busts, and "looks like a cali punk".

He's a far more pollished Andy Dalton, Barkley's stock will only skyrocket from here.

You named all the reasons why I like him...I just never put him in the class of QB's....cause I think they will be gone...& we might not go QB at 8.

[scorpio83]

It's crazy that most people didn't really watch Barkley play. It's mind bobbing, that people can say they don't like him, & never even watched him play & seemed to be amazed in the youtube footage in this thread. I knew most of the board didn't know what they are talking about...seeing the reaponses confirms it. You men & women has to do your homework (if you do then great), & stop talking about things you haven't actually seen.