Thurman#1

I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as all that, Bill. You could be right. That's a thoughtful list. But a team or two could easily disagree or find bad fits, and it's certainly reasonably likely that two QBs go that early as well. Maybe even three, though maybe not. QB fever is as bad as gold fever. To answer your exact question, in that case I'd probably go Williams. Maybe Dillard.I'd guess Hockenson might be available with a smallish trade-down myself, though I'm far from sure. I wouldn't feel those two were a reach. Not that I'm against trading down. It's often a smart move.

Not really buying that this is no-man's land. It always feels that way because you're always pining for guys who will probably not be available to you and scorning the guys who'll likely be there a few picks later. Fans of most teams feel that way most years. I felt that way the year we got Dareus because I wanted Von Miller or a QB even though I didn't love Newton. And I think that Oliver, Jawaan Taylor and Sweat are all blue-chippers and we'll likely get a shot at one of them. And I see another couple of guys on the bubble. I'm guessing you want somebody else?

Absent your new coach's system, you would trade down and surround Rosen with talent. But if your coach says he absolutely needs a QB to run his system who's an athletic threat ... I might listen to him. I might also ask him how come he didn't say so before I hired him to coach the team. He originally said good things about Rosen. But going with your coach's system is big. It's important. And no, one year is absolutely not enough to judge Rosen, it simply isn't, particularly in the crappy situation he was stuck in. I guess I'd stick with Rosen, myself. The coach originally said he could do the job with him.

No particular reason to think Dawkins is a G playing OT. He played very well at tackle as a rookie and thinks he knows the problems he had last year. He could easily play very well at tackle.

If this is your definition and approach, I doubt there's a single pure BPA team in the league. Let's say the Giants are a pure BPA team and at the time they pick the BPA is an absolutely terrific RB, a guy who's ranked far above all others on the board. A pure BPA team would pick the RB even if they have Saquon. I don't think there's a team in the league that would do that. I suppose you could argue that they could trade down. Fair enough, but if the second-best player on their board is ranked above all other players on their board (except for the RB of course), and plays a position of need, I think nearly any team is going to go with that guy. Very few principles work when looked at in an absolutely pure way. There are exceptions to nearly anything, even an idea like BPA that is generally absolutely terrific. Thou shalt not kill. Great principle. But there's self-defense. And if you're in the armed forces. Or if you're driving and somebody darts in front of you and your only alternative is to veer onto the sidewalk and hit a group of nuns ...

Yes, this.

Good post. You can do well as a smaller DT ... if you're a penetrator. If you're not, guys will latch onto you and you will be at a disadvantage. Oliver is really strong for his size, but the key is that he is a terrific penetrator. When guys contact him, he's often already put them in a bad position with his very quick start. Look at Jay/Jeremiah Ratliff, for example. Guy played nose tackle at between 290 and 303, most of the time on the low end, and was extremely effective. Four straight Pro Bowls, for instance.

Nah. Whether or not a study verifies a self-fulfilling prophecy is beside the point. That it verifies something is the point. Plenty of things that people call self-fulfilling prophecies are actually ... not self-fulfilling prophecies. And one example is exactly what you're talking about here. This isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy at all. Yeah, good teams trade down. So do bad ones. Were the Browns a terrific team when they kept trading down the past few years. Were the 7-8 2016 Bills a good team? They traded down with the Chiefs in 2016. Were the 2016 Chiefs who traded up with us to get Mahomes a bad team? They had just gone 12-4. It's nonsense that only bad teams trade up and good teams trade back. It's just not true. What do these studies say about trading up for QBs? I think it's already pretty clear from my earlier post, but to repeat ... the rule is that you don't trade up by giving up important picks, that if you do, your outcome will worsen a large number of times, but that the exception is trading up for a QB, because without a QB in or extremely near the top ten, you're not likely to see Super Bowls. Trading up for a QB early is where a desperation move can be your best move. The studies understand this. If you're actually curious, go read the studies. They're the new best practices. That was the Residents, not the Replacements. The Replacements are terrific.

Why? Because whether or not we do that, next year we'll have positions of need. That's the way this all works. And next year is the year we might very realistically start to be a very good team if things work well and we can fill those positions of need.

I disagree totally. They're all about NOT being a win-now team. Their goal is specific ... long-term, consistent excellence.

You can demand these deals. But they don't have to say yes. They could easily say, "OK, thanks, we'll work something out with Cincy at #11 or GB at #12, or whatever." To get these premiums you need a desperate team. Last year we were desperate and everybody knew it. I don't know that a team with Carr on the roster should be as desperate as we were last year. Also worth looking at the Rich Hill chart as well as the traditional Johnson model. #24 - 237 #27 - 216 #35 - 170 equals 723 Bills #9 equals 387 Supposedly teams are moving towards the Hill model. Personally, if I'm Oakland I don't make this trade. In any case, I'm not convinced Oakland is going after a QB. I guess they are building around Carr. We'll see. I generally like trading back, a lot. But IMO if Oliver is still there, we snag him.

Three 1st round OLs since 2005 for the Pats. Three in 13 years. Us? One. Scarnecchia is great. Clearly. But three 1sts has to have helped him.

I count it 14-8. In 2001 they went 11-3 with Brady and 0-2 without him. And most of that 14-8 (14 of the 22 games) was with Cassel against an extremely easy schedule.

I disagree, strongly. It's more about Brady. When you've got him at QB it gives you a ton more latitude elsewhere. Look at Belichick's history in Cleveland. And yeah they protect Brady very well, but he is one of the absolute best movers at QB in football. Not most athletic movers, of course. But he keeps his eyes downfield while moving away from pressure in the pocket as well as or better than anyone else in football. Brady also hits small windows in short and medium throws as well as anyone around, and processes things extremely fast too. Maybe Belichick did build an offense with quicker releases earlier than anyone, though there are other coaches who've worked hard on the same thing earlier or around the same time. But people now know the Belichick system. They know you need a skittery waterbug guy, a Welker/Edelman type, an RB who can catch and bunch formations and picks. Plenty of teams have caught on to that. And yet none of them are as good as the Pats. Why? None of those teams have Tom Brady. The problem with a system that so stresses short passes is the obvious one. You have to run more plays, you have to make more good throws, and there are more chances for QB errors. Hell, most defenses in the league try to take away long throws and force teams to nickel-and-dime down the field. It's in the defense's best interest. So how come nobody runs it, after all this time, as well as the Pats? Brady simply makes fewer mistakes. Defenses force you to dink-and-dunk because more passes means the QB has more chances to make mistakes. Drives with more plays bog down a higher percentage of the time. Brady drives teams nuts by not making those mistakes. He's simply better.

"All Pro"? This and your OP make it look like you did what GMs shouldn't do ... you fell in love with a prospect and went looking for ways to justify that love rather than seeing what's really there. I like Hockenson. But putting him as an All-Pro is a massive reach. More, the failure or success of their tenure doesn't depend on Allen becoming a franchise QB. It depends on the Bills becoming a very good team. Yeah, Allen becoming a franchise QB would certainly help towards that goal. But so would having a terrific defense. And while getting a very good TE would help Allen, would it be the difference between him becoming a franchise QB or not? No particular reason to think so. I put Hockenson in the group of guys they should consider in the 1st round. I'd rather trade back if they go for him. I think they can get him a few picks later, myself, but if Oliver is there, I'd rather just take him.

Being better than McKellar, Metzelaars and Chandler does NOT make you worthy of the #9 pick.

Don't know how I screwed that up. You're right. The Johnson chart likes it, as you say, but the new Hill chart doesn't, saying the Bills would get 41 (#40 is 149 and #31 is 190), and Houston only 28 (#99 is 36 and #74 is 64 points, though the chart is modified a bit when you consider picks, but the trade still looks uneven). https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart (without comp picks) https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart-Rich-Hill.asp (with comp picks) It's an interesting possibility. I wouldn't do it, myself if I were the Rams, it just looks wrong. But maybe they'll like it better than me.

Anderson got signed on Oct. 9th and Allen was knocked out on Oct. 14th, so I think ... yes. Didn't look like a cheap shot to me, and I absolutely agree that Allen's time off benefitted him a great deal. But that wasn't even the most important game of the year, much less the most important play.

Yup, Mayock had Payne at #16 in his final big board, Brandt at #20. Having him earlier than borderline 2nd rounder was very reasonable at the time. And if scouts didn't differ, there'd be no need for them. There'd just be one service scouting and ranking guys and everyone would go by that. Different teams will have different BPA rankings. That's human beings for ya. I don't know how Washington made that choice. I no longer keep close track of them. And yeah, Washington had serious needs in that draft that would have been filled with James or Edmunds. They might easily have chosen Payne by the BPA method. I don't know if they did, but they certainly could have.

I don't think it actually is "no matter what," Logic. If the greatest long snapper in the history of the league, easily the best at his position ever, appears, you still don't pick him in the first. Same with punter. It's not "no matter what." It's within reason. Indy's not going to draft a guy in the first to compete with Quenton Nelson, nor are the Giants or Cowboys going RB in the first. There are exceptions. However, BPA at bottom is the sensible way to go, and should be applied in 80- 95% of all cases. GunnerBill points out that QB is an exception. That's right. There are other less overwhelming exceptions as well. Nearly any principle applied "no matter what" will produce problems. But teams that draft primarily by need are handicapping themselves in the long run. Plenty do it regardless, of course, but they're hurting themselves.

I think the Bills would love that if they could get it. But that would mean the Bills would get 100 points by only giving away 15 points. I think the Rams would laugh in our face at that deal. But if the Bills could get it, yeah, jump on it.

I don't see that at all, that last year was supposed to look like this year. They were well aware that last year they had very little money to work with. This year's very different. Last year if anything was part of the road to this year, saving cap money so they'd have more this year and getting a QB and the one real key pick that a McDermott defense needs in a Kuechley-alike at MLB. As for trading up? Last year even after the first trade-up, the one for Allen, they still had: 1st Josh Allen 1st #22 3rd #65 3rd #96 4th #121 5th #154 5th #166 6th #187 7th #255 That's before the Edmunds trade. So they trade up for Edmunds and still get three guys in the first three rounds. They'd picked up a real bounty of trade bait to go get a QB and had some of it left. This year their first extra pick is a 4th rounder. That won't get them a trade-up even from #9 to #7, even if they also throw in their extra 5th on top of it. #9 to #7 on the Johnson chart would cost a 2nd. 40th to 30th would cost a 3rd. A trade up wouldn't surprise me but one where they give up an earlyish pick would. Or at least trading away an early pick would when we only have one pick in each of the first three rounds. If we pick up an extra a tradeup with the extra would surprise me much less. We'll see. I could imagine them being very tempted if Quinnen or Bosa or Josh Allen fell to #7 or so, but I think they'll have gamed all this and won't make a trade unless they get a very nice bargain.

Yup. Any position vs. the field should be field. Including the ones that might get five or six guys drafted.

Field, certainly, unless the odds got up to 3:1 or 4:1 or so. EDIT: umm, make that 6:1. My guesses: DT 2.5 :1 Edge: 3:1 OL: 4:1 WR: 5:1 TE: 6:1 LB: 15:1 CB: 20:1 RB: 40:1 S: 75:1 QB: 100:1 And those are reliable, because I took about 4 minutes to think my opinion through.

For the 2013 draft, Whaley was the assistant general manager. That's a Nix draft. Whaley undoubtedly helped and had a major effect. And he was clearly on board with Manuel, as he'd been charged by Nix with leading a committee to choose a QB. And more telling is that he never backed away from Manuel through the years. He kept trying to get him another chance and he never started with the "Well, I wasn't in charge at that point," stuff, for which I admire him. But he took over as GM after the draft that year.