Thurman#1

It really is not. You're right that Brady is a singularity. There really are no other Tom Bradys out there. And please, what round a guy is picked in has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he is a great QB. That's all on what he becomes. Thing is, same with Josh Allen. Nobody else like Allen is out there. Same with Mahomes. They're all great in different ways. What you need is a great quarterback, a quarterback who is superb in the pass game. If he is also mobile, that's a fantastic added extra. But it's not necessary. Jimmy Garoppolo was in the Super Bowl last year. Goff and Brady before that. Foles/Wentz and Brady before that. And while Wentz has regressed, if he hadn't he'd be looked at as a long-term franchise type guy despite not being mobile. Any team having a shot at a young Drew Brees would take it in a millisecond. You simply do not need it. A Kurt Warner or a Carson Palmer could be wildly successful in the NFL today. Matt Ryan, Philip Rivers and Stafford, if on good teams, would put their teams in contention every year. It helps. If you put together the ideal QB, he'd be mobile. But mobility is not among the minimum requirements for greatness at QB. Brady is in the Super Bowl. This year. Right now. For good reason. And they wouldn't be there or close without him despite his lack of athleticism. Oh, agreed, 100%. But it wasn't because he was athletic or quick or fast. It was because he always stepped in the right direction at the right time, without taking his eyes off of what was going on downfield. It was a head thing. And he's still in the Super Bowl at age 43 and it ain't because of his mobility or athleticism.

Teams have absolutely always felt the pressure to find their QB of the future. No change whatsoever there. Tom Brady says hi. Movement is an added weapon. It isn't necessary, though.

Re-sign. unless absolutely impossible.

Wild exaggeration, and as relevant as his favorite dessert.

Makes total sense. Not that they can relax now, obviously, but they absolutely should be among the favorites.

Here's his comments when told after a game by Romeo Crennel that he'd gotten his 100th sack. Crennel urged him to speak. "I appreciate it," Watt told his teammates. "I've said leading up to the 100th - the media always asks questions, and I've always said - no personal achievement is ever more important than a team achievement. So, to get it on a day when we got a win as a team means a lot to me. Football's the ultimate team game. Nobody does anything by themselves in football. That's why it's so special. That's what makes this game so great is that it takes so many guys pulling together in the same direction to make something great happen. A hundred sacks is great, but that's a whole bunch of teammates, coaches, coverages, d-lineman, linebackers, that's a whole bunch of people, training staff, cafeteria staff, a whole lot of people helping me make that happen. So, while I may get a lot of media attention today for this, just know that it's because of you, it's because of everybody who helped make it happen. It's never just about one person, so I want to say thank you. I appreciate it. Video here: https://www.chron.com/sports/texans/article/Texans-JJ-Watt-speech-teammates-100-career-sacks-15711547.php

Oh, I know he doesn't get the big bucks anymore, but if they think he can still get to the passer he'll probably get offers for $4M to $12M, somewhere in that wide band, and if they think he can't still get to the passer he won't get offers. I've only seen him a bit, but so far, me likey.

Disagree strongly. Teammates love the guy.

Vet min? I don't think there's a chance in hell he plays for that. When was the last time a guy who's been one of the better guys in the league played for vet min, even at the tail end of his career? He certainly won't get what he would have gotten three years ago, but you won't get him for vet min or even very close, I suspect. He'd see that as an insult.

Cutting Addison, Butler and Jefferson and doing some restructures would get us enough money to re-sign maybe two of Milano, Feliciano and Daryl Williams. Maybe it could get us up to where we can pay for nearly all of our 52. Where do we get the money for Watt?

I'd do it if I were Beane. I'd laugh the offer out of town if I were the Jags.

So, in the military, police and fire companies and in transfers, around 99% of their careers are over by the late 30s like they are in football? Come on, man. I'm not saying those careers aren't also tough rows to hoe and worthy of great respect. But the rates at which those careers end young doesn't even approach football. And while plenty of members of the military voluntarily opt out young, that's not the same as being forced out in football because you can't do the job anymore. Again, not saying military, police, first responders, etc. don't deserve our respect, understanding and more support than they may be getting. They do deserve those things.

What part of that is not likely to be related to CTE? CTE symptoms include vulnerability to addictions and alcoholism, they include extreme irresponsibility with money, terrible problems sleeping, anxiety aggression, impulse control generally, suicidal tendencies and dementia. There's nothing there that isn't very likely caused by CTE. No way to prove it, of course, but that's what these CTE narratives sound like. Read the one about Mike Webster? Absolutely heart-breaking. Several times there people talk about Seau's descent. He may have been a drug user and had an alcohol problem before but it suddenly got worse as he spiralled. This is all pretty typical, though it happened earlier with Seau then with some.

Sure, in some of these guys it's not all CTE. But CTE isn't just a brain injury. It's progressive and degenerative, brings about major behavioral change, depression, etc. Sure, some CTE folks have other problems. Others don't and they still suffer horribly from CTE, if they get it. Yup, fair enough. It's different.

Yes, but not many careers end so young. Nor do so many careers have groupies or magnificently high salaries. A few do, movie stars and such, but sports are different.

Sounds weird at first. But seeing that Studesville was the run game guy last year makes it seem a bit more understandable. I wonder if it'll work. Wouldn't mind if it causes problems.

You're right, nothing's guaranteed. Injuries happen. Regimes change and they like different things in players because of their different schemes. Guys get older, guys regress, they get better. So nothing's certain. But unless things do change drastically, unless there's regression, injury or a regime change, three of those guys are near-certainties to be here and the fourth is pretty likely as well. That assumes McDermott is still coach. Now, if you're coach at that point, I would definitely change my mind on their futures. But I'm betting you're not and I think it's pretty likely McDermott still is, and that he's still the same guy, whether or not you disagree with his thought processes.

Yes, you are indeed incorrect. Thanks for the warning right up top. And if anyone is all over the place, it's you. In your first post, you tried to show why my examples weren't good, but I pointed out where you were wrong. Then in your next post you said that I was right (you were right about that) but that my point was obvious. And yet your next post was back to arguing the point that a moment ago you felt was too obvious to make. You're right that no one has said there's no risk in FA or trades. But the title of this thread is that first round picks are overrated, and it implies that that is true compared to FAs and trades. That is wrong. You among others here have tried to whitewash the salaries out of how you decide whether an FA is a good pickup. Which is nuts. As is whitewashing out the value of what you give up when you make a trade. They both absolutely factor into a decision on whether an acquistion is a good one. Mario Williams was a mistake. He was overpaid. He was a very good player but he was not as good as his salary made him out to be. For years I tried defending that signing but ultimately there was no good defense. But they brought him in because they thought we were close and he would make a difference. And no not because we didn't win a Super Bowl. In case you didn't notice, we didn't even make the playoffs. Mario was brought in after a 6-10 season and raised the level of the team, so that out record soared up to ... oh, 6-10 again, for his first two years here. You don't pay a hundred million dollar contract, making a guy the highest-paid defensive player in league history at that time ... not for performances like that. Two out of four years here he made the Pro Bowl. Mario was a very good player who was still overpaid. My lens for judging good and bad is what I've been saying in the last few posts. It's what anyone should look at. Is his performance, good and bad, worth what you spent to bring him in? How much money you spend or picks or players you trade away is absolutely part of the equation as to whether it was a good acquisition. And yeah, you could go on an write up hundreds of bad draft picks. And I could go on and write up hundreds of bad FA and trade acquisitions. Which is my point. People want to pretend FAs are safer and better. When looked at correctly - factoring in the money and what was traded away - that is very questionable. Picks are cheap, and rookies are more teachable in terms of developing towards your system and what you want from them. That's why over the years few teams have flourished without valuing picks and bringing in most (not all, but most) of their core through the draft. Giving those picks away will hurt the Rams more than the unnamed executive thinks. And I say that as a guy who thinks Stafford will be a good acquisition for them, that in a good situation he will shine far more than he did in Detroit. Losing those picks, especially while in a bad cap position, will impact their ability to put him in a good situation.

I see. So you agree that I'm right. And yet you just spent about four paragraphs telling me I was wrong about the same thing. You're a real talent here, dude, an asset to the board. Correct, no players is a guarantee. Getting free agents and trades also carry many risks, as many as drafting guys, and yet they tend to cost more.

As usual, you're wrong in many small and large ways. Sanders was not "off the books in one season." They were still paying $5.2 of dead money two years after he left. And the cap at that time was $71.1M, so Deion was taking up about 8% of their cap two years after he left. And for that financial farrago, he got them all the way up to an 8-8 record. Great FA pickup there. You say, "Case Keenum signing a front-loaded deal after a miracle year was a big gamble?" Yeah, um, the answer to that would be "Yeah. Duh." Guaranteeing $25M of his deal at signing while signing Keenum, and keeping him for only one year after he shepherded them to a 6-10 record, was indeed a big risk and a horrible deal. You say, "Josh Rosen was a proven vet?" And yet I didn't say he was a proven vet. I put him in a list of "examples of free agents and trades that also didn't work out or busted" ... and he absolutely belongs there. Rosen was acquired in a trade. Miami gave up a 2nd round pick. How's that deal look in hindsight? I mean, maybe you would do that one over in a second, Chans, but most, um ... wouldn't. They're great examples whether you like to admit it or not. And while you may (or may not) be right that in terms of playing ability you might be better off, playing ability is only part of the equation. You're also generally dealing with much higher salaries or throwing in trade value. So if your Pro Bowl level player (Jairus Byrd, for instance, or the Bills giving sure-fire high-production TE Charles Clay a massive contract so Tyrod could (not) throw to him or giving the massive deal to Mario Williams) even if the guy is good he can be a crappy deal due to how much you're paying or what you traded to get him. And yes, the "what if he's not a star in your system" argument is an excellent argument and is part of the risk you take with FAs. Along with aging worries, overpays, giving away too much on the trade problems, lose interest after the big payday problems, etc.

I agree with you that my answer would be yes. But how about a related question? How about if the Bills adapted the Rams strategy this offseason and LOST a Super Bowl next year but had to blow it up 3 years from now. Would that be worth it? Or if they adapted the Rams strategy and came much close to the Chiefs next year in the AFC championship, losing by one on a last-minute field goal, almost getting over the top but had to blow it up after that? Would that be worth it?

Leonhard? EDIT: Ah, it was him, and people already picked up the problem. Cool for Jim. Hope he does well.

If by "highly overrated," you mean that they're even worse than people say, I'm with you. Cap problems are real and they have effects. You cite the Rams as your example, but that's a team with a really good defense but were a few players away on offense, and so they're out in the divisional game whereas if they'd been in better shape and had been able to keep or bring in a couple of more guys they might have really competed. IMO the Saints just wasted Drew Brees, only winning one championship, and a lot of the reason for that was their consistent cap problems handcuffing their personnnel moves.

You could. But I could fill this page with examples of free agents and trades that also didn't work out or busted. Remember when the Dolphins got Mike Wallace? Albert Haynesworth? Neil O'Donnell after he left the Steelers? Dana Stubblefield? David Boston. Rosen is on your list. He's on mine too. Is Kirk Cousins living up to his contract? He's a good player but not worth what they paid. Case Keenum's second FA contract? Michael Crabtree? Sam Bradford? Peerless Price? Trent Murphy? Vanderjagt? LaVar Arrington? Deion Sanders in D.C.? Fred Smoot? Two 1sts for Sean Gilbert? Nate Clements in SF? Derrick Dockery? It hurt me to even type his name. Langston Walker, who fits the other side of the story? They signed him as an RT and it was a solid signing, then they moved him to LT and it was a disaster. Larry Triplett? I mean, I could go on and on as well. It always makes me laugh when people talk about signing a "proven vet," like there's no way anything could ever go wrong.

When you look at the Rams best players, most of them are first or second rounders from back when they used to use them. Aaron Donald and Brockers, for instance. They do have a CB who's good and was ... a trade? Ramsey. First rounders are overrated by anyone who thinks they're sure things. Otherwise, no. FAs and trades can also be misses, and draft picks keep your team viable under the cap.