Thurman#1

Yup. Two GMs. McDermott ran the first draft, and then Beane. And yeah they traded talented players. Which has nothing to do with how well they seem, so far, to have picked. They still have a lot to prove but so far so good in their drafts.

Yup, a brilliant OC. Undermined as an HC by a flawed personnel acquisition staff. And probably a bad DC as well. OP, thanks for posting, it was a good article. Amazing to think their two top QBs were Brodie Croyle and Damon Huard ... and then both got injured and they had to go even further down the depth chart ... and did pretty well on offense. I mean, after the top two were out and they put in Thigpen and the new offense they went from 257 YPG to 340. That's insane. In those days making that leap was going from 31st in the league to 16th ... by installing a new offense mid-year with Thigpen as your QB. And now we see how very influential all that stuff has become. Again, thanks, OP. No, look at the stats. It worked very well. Most of his carries were direct snaps and he averaged 4.4 and 8.3 YPC in his two years here. Not a lot of carries. I think one of the main reasons they ran him was to give defenses yet more to prepare for, to make the Bills harder and much more time-consuming to game-plan for.

The problem there wasn't so much drafting for need. It was drafting poorly. But yeah, go for talent. Don't reach.

We'll fill in the offence in FA. When the draft comes along we'll be going BPA, as we should. We have needs on D as well as on O. How would you feel if we go O in the first at #9 and he plays like a #20 pick, which is where he should have gone? That's what happened with Donte Whitner. Picked too high and was treated as an underachiever for the rest of his career here when the fault was the Bills for picking him too high. Ideally we would go offence. But if there's no guy there worth the pick on O - and that's how it maybe looks - it would be crazy to force it.

Goff was always considered very highly ranked. Wentz played at a small school, so it took things like the Senior Bowl and interviews to show that he belonged. "Plenty of quarterback prospects from small schools have found success in the NFL, but they lean on the pre-draft process to prove themselves. The start of Wentz's meteoric rise in NFL Draft circles really happened at the Senior Bowl. In January, Wentz went down to Mobile, Ala. on a mission to prove he belonged despite playing in the FCS. He approached the week of practices at the Senior Bowl knowing he had the mental makeup to fit in. His size, 6’5, made him stand out even next to players from Alabama and Clemson who had just recently played for the FBS national title. The issue was whether the speed of the game would catch up and ultimately overtake Wentz. It didn’t. He looked as comfortable as any quarterback there and quickly showed off his leadership. When the North team did warmups, it was often Wentz leading the way. He was the one directing players, and giving encouragement after a blown play. He was doing all the little things you see the best quarterbacks in the NFL doing." "'I think about a month ago, Carson Wentz was an idle curiosity, a I-AA kid from North Dakota State,' draft analyst Mike Mayock said on NFL Network. 'He went to the Senior Bowl, confirmed his status as a top-tier quarterback, came to the Combine and I think had the cleanest workout of anybody in terms of arm strength, his feet looked good, he showed his athletic ability. For my money, he made some money.'" https://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-draft/2016/4/21/11477652/jared-goff-carson-wentz-2016-nfl-draft Not the same thing as this year at all. None of these guys are coming out of nowhere from North Dakota State. This really is a pretty weak draft for QBs. It's not as weak as 2013, but it's not a good year. And while trading down could happen, this isn't the year when it's an obvious likelihood. This year the numbers for us can come from free agency. We're in good cap shape for the first time in a very long time. What they need from the draft this year is core guys, impact guys. And the odds on getting that kind of guy usually drop as you trade down. I'm nearly always hoping for a trade down. Not so much this year. If a QB or two does slide above us, it will hopefully push down a real impact player to us.

Packers fans and Aaron Rodgers himself? "Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers says he wants to play until 40 without losing any of his athletic ability. 'My goal is to be able to move like I do or close to how I do and still be able to do that at 40 … just because nobody’s been able to do that and still move around the same,' Rodgers told King ..." https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=kuxBXODIJMXk-Aaz6K2QCA&q=aaron+rodgers+athleticism&btnK=Google+Search&oq=aaron+rodgers+athleticism&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2198.7596..8229...1.0..0.128.2320.22j4......0....1..gws-wiz.....6..35i39j0j0i10j0i22i30j0i8i13i30j0i13i30j33i21j33i160.8_sVYITTfBY Hell, even Brady talks about Rodgers that way. "'Well I think he does things that no one in the league has ever done or can do, just because of his physical ability. And some of the plays he makes, they're just phenomenal,' Brady said. 'And I've seen a lot of them. Not just the throws, the scrambles, he had one in the Giants game ... some of the plays yesterday, it's just his style of play. And he's been doing that for a while. I always love watching his tape, admiring all the things he can do, because I can't do many of those things.'" https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/tom-brady-gushes-over-aaron-rodgers-i-cant-do-many-of-those-things/ And of course they don't talk about the other three you picked as athletic, because they're not especially athletic. But Rodgers really is. And gets talked about that way. As did Steve Young. As do Russell Wilson, Marcus Mariota and Andrew Luck. It's not code for anything but being athletic. And yeah, some people say Allen's got problems in the passing game. But they don't need to use code to do it. Hopefully he'll develop out of it.

It isn't blind faith to think the experts - in nearly any area - know more than the people whose expertise in medicine is checking the internet. It's sense. Ah. Trolls or internet experts who know everything from their couch. Desperate to get the thread ended, and with less than 50 posts. Why am I engaging? Driving nails through my head would be a better use of time, self, than discussing things with people who know way more than the experts 'cause they read a few articles.

It isn't about what you think. Unless you're trained as a doctor. The experts say it is. "The consequences can be dire. A study published in The American Journal of Medicine found that for every 10 pounds football players gained from high school to college, or from college to the professional level, the risk of heart disease rose 14 percent compared with players whose weight changed little during the same period." Even if they eat better now they've already caused damage. Habits - good or bad - are viciously hard to break. Which doesn't free them from the responsibility of looking after their own health. But playing football requires acquiring this terrible habit. It's sad.

Nothing but you is really your responsibility. But you give to charity a bit, I hope, right? You care about others who are in trouble, right? And they very much did care while they were working. On the DL and OL many or most of those guys need to be overweight and eat like hogs just to do their job. You can't get an NFL job as an OL or DT or 3-4 DE if your weight is 260 normally.

Generally in a crucial year like this one I figure you need impact guys and I don't trade down. This would bring in two firsts, so I'd strongly consider it. If there was someone high I thought might fall to #9 and I was desperate for, or if I thought there were exactly nine guys who were blue chippers and would help this team, I'd understand them turning it down. But I don't see Oakland offering a deal like this. Yup.

This.

And again, there really is a talent gap. Even most first rounders don't play nearly as well as rookies as they do two or three years down the road. And while a lack of mental preparation is a large part of that, there's simply a lot more to it. At age 21 and 22 these kids aren't nearly as strong as they will be in a couple of years, as men rather than young men. Talent, as far as it would affect a college team playing an NFL team, isn't about eventual potential talent. It's about ability to play well RIGHT NOW, today!!!! Without a training camp. Without a first season and without two or three more. If you're talking about talent as far as having the kind of body frame that can be built into an NFL player, yeah, Alabama and maybe Clemson are beyond the other college teams. But if you're talking about talent in terms of whether a starter from the Crimson Tide can step right out of Tuscaloosa and one week later show the kind of talent to look good in the NFL ... nah. There would absolutely be a "talent at this moment gap," to make up an awkward phrase. Put 'im up against a fourth-rounder who's put on 25 pounds, spent three or four or five or however many years getting stronger in the pros, grooving his skills and learning what it takes to play in the pros and there might be one or two guys who could manage it. Maybe. Even with the 28.5 points, I'd bet the pros in a second. And I don't bet. It wouldn't be surprising to see the college guys lose by sixty. Especially as probably half of those eventual first rounders are still learning the college game as 19 or 20 year-old red-shirt freshmen or whatever.

They'll get a vet. They'll get a free agent at every position that's an obvious hole. After that, they could do far worse than picking Williams if he's the BPA in their opinion. Though I could see a bunch of guys going there, esp. if one of the excellent DLs falls.

They needed him. He's played well at what they wanted him to do. The defense played very very well this year. (2nd in DVOA, by the by. They're very symmetrical in DVOA, 2nd worst on offense, 2nd best on defense) He's one of the reasons they're very good.. He's the 16th-highest paid DT in average yearly salary, not top ten or top five. And he was third on the DL in percentage of snaps. This D rotates guys out a lot. Kyle was in 64.7%, Hughes 65.9% and Lotulelei was next. Nothing to see here. Seriously, nothing.

And Troup was on his way to being terrific till that back injury.

It's a major advantage to have a franchise QB on a rookie contract, as you can spend the money to surround him with good players. Doing this would eliminate their advantage at having their franchise guy cheap, as all the savings would be soaked up by Foles. Yeah, they wouldn't be in the top five guys at QB salary. But they also wouldn't be in the lowest 20 or so, which is where you ideally are if you have a young franchise guy on a rookie contract. And Foles would be much less tradeable with probably a $22 million dollar hit for the team that picked him up. It's possible but I'm not sure it's very likely.

Yeah, he's been around a long time and has proved himself an excellent backup, maybe the best in the league. Not so funny. He said Foles had gotten the team to the Super Bowl and won it. I pointed out that he hadn't gotten them there by any means that year. And this year they didn't win it. So he didn't get them to and win a Super Bowl either year. Not so funny at all. He "nearly" got them to the NFCC game, right? Does that mean he got them there? Or does it mean he didn't get them there. Football's a team game. And it was a team effort that got them there, not just Foles. Same with Wentz, but as the replies here make clear, it's pretty obvious which of the two nearly everyone prefers. But again, Foles had an advantage both years coming in late in the year when teams didn't have video on how he looked and what his tendencies were. That's a big advantage, which he did a great job of using. He's shown himself a terrific backup. I like the guy and hope he proves himself a franchise guy. But I doubt he will.

Agreed, the pressure will be on him. I think it always has been, though. He's their franchise guy, and has been since they drafted him. The injury thing is problematic, and he has to be a bit more Foles-ish in terms of playing within the game plan and the route designs and get balls coming out quicker.

Please. Foles didn't get them to that Super Bowl. Wentz did the large majority of the QBing that season. When Foles QB'd that team went 2-1 before the playoffs, while under Wentz they went 11-2. And that 2-1 was against the 3-13 Giants, the 6-10 Raiders and a loss with zero points scored against the 9-7 Cowboys. Foles played decently and well in the playoffs, but he didn't get them that championship. He took the baton and ran pretty well the last few miles of the marathon. They had home field advantage throughout the playoffs and that was huge. Foles has been in a great situation, because each year he's come in late and teams don't have a ton of video on him. Over a whole season, Foles can be figured out. I hope you're right that Foles can be a franchise guy but you have to prove that over more than a few games a season.

You aren't debunking. You're disagreeing. I do appreciate the effort. Impressive. As you say, though, it's subjective. And your conclusions disagree with everyone else's. And we all know how you feel about Josh Allen (and Tyrod and another one or two before that). You are a huge fan, to the point of apparent wackiness at times, of whichever Bills QB is your fave. As for your methodology, you again have the problem that you have showed over and over in your QB studies through the years. You give only your total conclusion, not breaking things down at all. I've pointed this out to you before, and you've simply ignored it each and every time, telling me it's not necessary to break things down. In fact, it's extremely necessary, because it means the only way to check your work is to exactly duplicate it and look at every play of the season. Effectively unrepeatable. Except of course by the experts and people who put in the effort because they're paid to do so. Those folks have already already done the same work, and as you yourself point out, they disagree with your conclusions. If you'd broken it down, giving totals for each game for instance, it would've been easy for someone on these boards to check a game or two and see if your per game totals were on target. But as is your method, you don't provide details - no gross numbers, no game by game breakdowns, no nothing except your percentage conclusions - making checks all but impossible. Thanks for the effort. If you'd given a reasonable chance to check, I'd have done so. But you never do, though I've asked before and it wouldn't have required much extra effort. It's not surprising you're not now. Which leaves no choice but to point out that as you yourself point out, you're a huge Josh Allen fan and you're disagreeing with everyone else who did the work. Their work is just more believable, as they don't much care how the tallies come out. I do admire - seriously - your willingness to put in this huge amount of work. As I said, very impressive.

I like your post, but I bet there'll be a lot more FAs than that. I expect them to bring in a bunch of guys, low-level to mid-level guys, filling the obvious holes and building a roster without major obvious weaknesses, building competition and depth. I don't see a lot of expensive FAs, though, if that's what you're saying. Don't see them trading up. It wasn't anything that they did in Carolina, and they've talked about treasuring their picks. IMO the reason they traded up was the very specific absolute need to bring in a franchise QB. I'd bet we don't see any major trade-ups, though going up a few spaces especially in later rounds might make sense to them. I guess we'll see who's right about that when the time comes.

Of course they're going to be active in FA, with $90 mill. They're not in a position to trade down too much at this point. Unfortunately. They don't so much need people as they need blue-chippers. Here's Bucky Brooks on the Cowboys and it's right on about how to develop a team: "As a young scout, I learned that it typically takes eight to 12 blue-chip players to field a championship roster. Those blue-chip players are regarded as top-10 players at their respective positions and they are the difference makers on your squad. From a draft perspective, I was also taught first- and second-round selections should form the nucleus of your team and they must play at a high level for your team to have any chance of competing for the title. "When I study the Cowboys, I absolutely believe they have enough blue-chippers to hoist the Lombardi Trophy within the next few years. The team has consensus blue-chip players in Frederick (missed all of this season but has voiced optimism about returning in 2019), Martin, Lawrence, Jones, Elliott, Smith and Vander Esch. Although Prescott isn't necessarily a blue-chip player, he is a high-end starter based on his winning record as a QB1 (32-16 in regular season; 1-1 in playoffs) and intangibles as a Steve McNair-like leader. "With the Cowboys also getting timely contributions from some late-rounders and undrafted playmakers, the team's overall development plan has played a huge role in its emergence as a heavyweight contender in the NFC. I think it is important to acknowledge the team's gamble to surrender a first-round pick to the Oakland Raiders for Amari Cooper at the trade deadline this season. Critics laughed at the Cowboys for giving up a king's ransom for an underachieving pass catcher, but Cooper has given the team a legitimate WR1 on the perimeter to complement the strong running game on offense. "'You want to draft and develop your own guys,' said an AFC executive. 'You build it from the ground up and add free agents or trade for guys to fill in the gaps. That's the perfect model.' " Exactly. I hope he's wrong about Dallas having a good shot at a title, but they're building the right way. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001009585/article/nick-foles-or-carson-wentz-eagles-face-big-offseason-decision

When he gets some good players. Look at the crap he's had at QB. This might've been his best QB group this year.

Deshaun Watson beat the Bengals? Sorry, but such a thing never happened. What happened was that Watson played quarterback while his team beat the Bengals by a score of 13 - 9. Yeah, his team beat the Bengals on the road, mostly through the defense holding the Bengals to 9 points. Whereas Houston scored 13 points, three of which came on a 12 yard drive from the Cincy 20 to the Cincy 8. Houston's drives that first game for Watson looked like this: 4 yards, punt 7 yards, punt 8 yards, punt 12 yards, field goal 13 yards, punt 9 yards, punt 94 yards, big play a 49 yard Watson run, TD 0 yards, end of half 24 yards, punt 7 yards, punt 0 yards, punt 66 yards, field goal 4 yards, punt Actually, not too bad of a game for a rookie QB's first.15 for 24 for 125 yards passing, no TDs, no INTs and a YPA of 5.21. And 67 yards running including a TD. Wins is not a QB stat. It is a team stat. If Watson, a year younger, had had his 2017 college teammates playing with him, this game would have been an absolute laugher. And I like Watson. But it was the defense that was by far the major factor in that win.

Not sure I understand your intent, but are you comparing Jim Kelly and Josh Allen in your analogy? Those two shouldn't be compared yet. Same with Bruce and ... who ... Bruce and Tre White also should not be compared, though Tre looks like a very fine young player. I agree with you that you wouldn't trade Kelly, Bruce and Talley for Tom Brady but that's not a good analogy for the theoretical trade we're talking about. That's two HOFers and Talley, who was maybe the heart of the team, or at least the defense. Allen, White and Zay (or Edmunds, White and Zay, if that's what was meant) have a long long way to go before they can be compared to that group.