Jump to content


Doug Whaley said WHAT?!


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#1 #34fan

#34fan

    Hate to say I told you so... Especially since I didn't.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:54 PM

From BBMB:

Bills Assistant GM Doug Whaley, who oversees the team’s College Scouting Department and organizes the formation of the team’s draft board, said this year’s quarterback class is going to come down to skill set preference.

“In my opinion it’s basically going to come down to what you value over other things,” Whaley told Buffalobills.com. “All of these guys have a value and some things they do good and some things they don’t do as well. So it’s a matter of what value you put on the quarterback you want to lead your team.”

:blink: Huh?

Didn't know Whaley was in charge of this, but it sounds to me like he's ready to comprimise, which is, of course, what got us into this QB quagmire to begin with.

Here's an idea... How about we NOT do that. -At least not with a high pick.

I dunno about Whaley, but I value progress... Sure hope he's not willing to sacrifice the future just to fill a "need"

#2 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,567 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:59 PM

I second the "need" part. Would rather draft a Defensive player earlier and then reach for a QB that's limited regardless of round.

#3 San Jose Bills Fan

San Jose Bills Fan

    San Jose Bills Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:00 AM

Can you clarify exactly what it is that bothers you about Whaley's comments?

I'm not following you.

#4 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,567 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:00 AM

I second the "need" part. Would rather draft a Defensive player earlier and then reach for a QB that's limited regardless of round.

#5 Buftex

Buftex

    JIM KELLY: the reason for the seasons!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,733 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:09 AM

View Post#34fan, on 18 February 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

From BBMB:

Bills Assistant GM Doug Whaley, who oversees the team’s College Scouting Department and organizes the formation of the team’s draft board, said this year’s quarterback class is going to come down to skill set preference.

“In my opinion it’s basically going to come down to what you value over other things,” Whaley told Buffalobills.com. “All of these guys have a value and some things they do good and some things they don’t do as well. So it’s a matter of what value you put on the quarterback you want to lead your team.”

:blink: Huh?

Didn't know Whaley was in charge of this, but it sounds to me like he's ready to comprimise, which is, of course, what got us into this QB quagmire to begin with.

Here's an idea... How about we NOT do that. -At least not with a high pick.

I dunno about Whaley, but I value progress... Sure hope he's not willing to sacrifice the future just to fill a "need"

Not sure what you are having such an issue with...what I hear Whaley is saying that no QB in the draft is great in every area, so you pick the one whose strengths are most important to your offense.  For instance, a team wanting to run an offense like the 49ers probably wouldn't draft a pocket QB.  A team, like the Raiders, who have traditionally valued the bomb, is probably looking for a QB with a big arm, more than they are concerned with a QB who is a runner....

#6 #34fan

#34fan

    Hate to say I told you so... Especially since I didn't.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:20 AM

View PostSan Jose Bills Fan, on 19 February 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

Can you clarify exactly what it is that bothers you about Whaley's comments?

I'm not following you.

What exactly are the things he values over the "other things"?  And why are we making a trade-off on such a critical position?
All I'm saying is that if the QB lanscape is that rough, then DON'T waste a high pick on it.

Clearly it's a need in '13... However, if we get it wrong, it'll be a need in '14 '15, '16, '17 etc.

Edited by #34fan, 19 February 2013 - 12:52 AM.


#7 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,416 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:27 AM

View Post#34fan, on 19 February 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:



What exactly are the things he values over the "other things"?  And why are we making a trade-off on such a critical position?
All I'm saying is that if the QB lanscape is that rough, then DON'T waste a high pick on it.

Clearly it's a need in '13... However, if we get it wrong, it'll be a need in '14 '15, and '16, '17 etc.

Unless you are the colts, every team for over a decade that has selected any qb has made this trade off

#8 #34fan

#34fan

    Hate to say I told you so... Especially since I didn't.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:51 AM

View PostBuftex, on 19 February 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

Not sure what you are having such an issue with...what I hear Whaley is saying that no QB in the draft is great in every area, so you pick the one whose strengths are most important to your offense.  For instance, a team wanting to run an offense like the 49ers probably wouldn't draft a pocket QB.  A team, like the Raiders, who have traditionally valued the bomb, is probably looking for a QB with a big arm, more than they are concerned with a QB who is a runner....

I wish things were that cut and dried...

In this draft, I don't see the traditional runners, big arms, etc...  Every QB prospect has serious holes in their game.... This years contingent of pocket passers (Nassib, Glennon) are some of the worst I've ever seen. It's not like these kids do some things good, and others not-so-good. For the most part, they're mediocre at everything.

-Everything, except for the things they absolutely suck at.

Whaley is calling the draft a mix and match, but what I'm seeing is feast or famine. Let's not waste a high pick on a another career backup QB.

#9 BlueFire

BlueFire

    OU Still Sucks!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,254 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:52 AM

View Post#34fan, on 19 February 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

What exactly are the things he values over the "other things"?  And why are we making a trade-off on such a critical position?
All I'm saying is that if the QB lanscape is that rough, then DON'T waste a high pick on it.

Clearly it's a need in '13... However, if we get it wrong, it'll be a need in '14 '15, '16, '17 etc.

Name one QB who can do everything in the NFL.

#10 Meathead

Meathead

    certified meatrosexual

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,319 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:55 AM

once again it is incredibly irritating to have to point out ...

link it or it didnt fn happen

jeez

#11 Hotpockets28

Hotpockets28

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 231 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:58 AM

View PostMeathead, on 19 February 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

once again it is incredibly irritating to have to point out ...

link it or it didnt fn happen

jeez
             LOL!

#12 #34fan

#34fan

    Hate to say I told you so... Especially since I didn't.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:18 AM

View PostBlueFire, on 19 February 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Name one QB who can do everything in the NFL.

Russell Wilson. -But that's not the point. The point is, you'll have a hard time finding even a few things that any kid in this QB class is proficient at.  Tyler Wilson is the most complete, and he's a project.

I expect us to draft potential starters. -Not two, or three year clipboard stands.

Edited by #34fan, 19 February 2013 - 01:21 AM.


#13 #34fan

#34fan

    Hate to say I told you so... Especially since I didn't.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:38 AM

View PostMeathead, on 19 February 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

once again it is incredibly irritating to have to point out ...

link it or it didnt fn happen

jeez

Here's your link. Hope you find it useful. http://www.diapers.c...tm_term=diapers


For everyone else.......

http://www.buffalobi...b8-f1c2553962b4

#14 NewEra

NewEra

    I don't "know", I "think"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,632 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:41 AM

View PostBlueFire, on 19 February 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:



Name one QB who can do everything in the NFL.

Aaron Rodgers.  Some of these kids, rg3, Wilson, Kaepernick and newton seem like they have the tools as well, just not long enough of a sample size to predict over the long haul.  Although I think all 4 have the total package.  Heck, even luck has it all, he can run too.

#15 Dragonborn10

Dragonborn10

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,370 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:43 AM

View PostBuftex, on 19 February 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

Not sure what you are having such an issue with...what I hear Whaley is saying that no QB in the draft is great in every area, so you pick the one whose strengths are most important to your offense.  For instance, a team wanting to run an offense like the 49ers probably wouldn't draft a pocket QB.  A team, like the Raiders, who have traditionally valued the bomb, is probably looking for a QB with a big arm, more than they are concerned with a QB who is a runner....
Agreed...I don't understand what the issue is...From the quote that was given Whaley didn't say he would reach or settle for a QB at #8.  There is no Luck or Elway or even Beldsoe in this draft.  Everyone knows it.  They will draft BPA at #8 if they lose Levitre.  If they retain Levitre and Byrd then it will be best available LB or WR.

#16 Buftex

Buftex

    JIM KELLY: the reason for the seasons!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,733 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:59 AM

View Post#34fan, on 19 February 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:


Whaley is calling the draft a mix and match, but what I'm seeing is feast or famine. Let's not waste a high pick on a another career backup QB.

Well, on this part I agree with you...I would hate for the Bills to draft a guy in the first round, just to say they have a "franchise QB", as they drafted a guy in the first round...we already went through that with Losman.  Who knows, if Losman had been picked in the 3rd round (as most scouts had him projected) maybe there wouldn't have been the rush to anoint him the starter,  only to find out three years later, you still don't have a QB.  I won't pretend to know enough about any of the guys that are considered the top 5 or 6 QB prospects in this draft...I only see the highlights, and hear what the "experts" have to say.  Based on that, I am with you, and I am convincing myself that I am content with settling for Fitzpatrick/Jackson for another year, and drafting the best LB (Ogltree, red flags and all?) available.

#17 Captain Hindsight

Captain Hindsight

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,419 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:02 AM

dont see an issue with the quote at all

#18 jeremy2020

jeremy2020

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,224 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:53 AM

So basically, he made some vague comments about drafting a Qb and you're reading into it what you don't want to hear

#19 #34fan

#34fan

    Hate to say I told you so... Especially since I didn't.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:27 AM

View PostDadonkadonk, on 19 February 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

Agreed...I don't understand what the issue is...From the quote that was given Whaley didn't say he would reach or settle for a QB at #8.  There is no Luck or Elway or even Beldsoe in this draft.  Everyone knows it.  They will draft BPA at #8 if they lose Levitre.  If they retain Levitre and Byrd then it will be best available LB or WR.

It's not the words that I take issue with, but the thought process they expose. Whaley oversees the college scouting department, and organizes the formation of the draft board.

After everything we've been through at the quarterback position, why would this decision come down to "a matter of what value you put on the quarterback you want to lead your team."?

How could the value of the Buffalo Bills future franchise QB be something open to interpretation? What other value could it have besides the max?

We don't need a kid with a bazooka arm who can't hit the broad side of a barn with it. We don't a statue in the pocket who stares down recievers, then airs it out to a waiting DB.

I guess i don't see any confidence that we KNOW what we're looking for when it comes down to this critical piece. There's also no recent history of us turning project kids who do "some things" "good" into playoff calibre QB's.

Edited by #34fan, 19 February 2013 - 03:30 AM.


#20 Green Lightning

Green Lightning

    Mr. Peanut

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,942 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:03 AM

Yawn