Thurman#1

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.

Yeah, this. Knowing what we know, and with the bonds fans have built for White and Allen in particular but with Zay as well ... yeah, I think you would take that in retrospect. Of course, part of the development of Mahomes is due to being with Reid in that situation. But if you could trade Mahomes as he is now for our three as they are now, you'd probably do it. I don't know if I'd say it's obvious. You'd think about it first, but at least for me, I'd do it. The guy who was in charge was McDermott. The guy who actually puts the board together does it the way the guy in charge wants. It was McDermott's draft. Whaley doubtless had a lot of input, though, if that's what you're trying to say.

How well did he do in his first NFL game again? A game which came after months of training camp? Zero catches for zero yards, wasn't it? As a matter of fact, in Foster's first six NFL games he had two catches for 30 yards. On 9 targets. And after that, he was waived. And yet by the end of a full season of immersion into the NFL culture he begins to get it. He has vastly improved. Your evidence if anything supports the opposing argument. It points out that after a long time in NFL camps and on NFL rosters, and in Foster's case actually being waived, some guys can learn and improve enough so that they can begin to make a difference in the NFL. Some. So yes, even Foster, an NFL newbie, is a seasoned NFL pro compared to the Alabama guys. Minus 64? Yeah, this sort of thing would be required before Alabama would start to look like a good bet.

Wouldn't be very surprised to see him as a coordinator at some point. HC is probably a stretch. He might need to put in some time in coach rehab, at a college somewhere or something.

Here's the final sentence on Manish's story: "Time will reveal whether they were right this time, but it sure looks and feels like they nailed it with Gase. " Gase and McCarthy both looked like they would at least maximize Darnold. I'd have picked McCarthy if I were the GM. Manish's comment was pretty reasonable, IMHO. I think Gase's got a decent chance. It always seemed to me that it was Miami and Tannehill holding Gase back rather than the reverse. Time will tell. Hope I'm wrong, as a Jets team mired in failure is always an entertaining spectacle.

I think he's got another year or two left, but can't see it being the Bills who bring him in. More likely a team that feels they're in their SB window right now.

It's pretty clear they have 2 - 3 years short of some kind of complete collapse. If I had to bet, I'd bet positively on both. Far more smart moves than dumb ones from both of them. But since I don't have to do anything, I'm still stuck at my default for guys who haven't proved it yet ... they've got a lot to prove. Just kidding yourself, Scott, if you think you know much more than the fact that the Pegulas have a great deal of confidence in these two guys and have shown plenty of patience at times in their handling of Sabres and Bills FO personnel. If they show no signs of improvement whatever next year even with all the FA money available, they might be in trouble. But as long as there's progress, they'll likely get those two or three years.

Me, I predict that after digging under the surface of the moon, they will indeed find green cheese. I mean, your prediction could come true, but there's no particular reason to think it will. So far at least they appear to be completely different types. One from a huge program, one from a tiny one. And Lawrence has already had more success passing than Josh ever had in college or the NFL yet, for that matter. No apparent similarities.

Yup, this is a good point too. A year or two from today, the trend could easily switch back to DCs being the flavor of the week.

Same can happen with an offensive head coach. Your OC will tend to be given less credit than you, so will be less likely to be chosen as a potential head coach candidate. But at the same time, your OC will be looking to move on to a different OC job where he can be given more of the credit for offensive success. Either way, teams with very successful offenses are more likely to lose their OCs and teams with very successful defenses are more likely to lose their DCs. Nah. Head coaches who aren't experts in taking advantage of offensive rule changes can hire OCs who are. More, head coaches from defensive backgrounds are also experts on how teams take advantage of various defensive moves. You can learn a ton about offenses by being a good DC, and a ton about defenses from being a good OC. And yeah, Brees likes Payton and wouldn't want to see him go. But if he went, I doubt Brees'd want an offensive HC more than a defensive guy willing to hire an excellent OC and seriously consider Brees' advice on doing so.

I can definitely believe there are some GMs who feel that way and make decisions based on it. I seriously doubt it's most. A more competent guy can indeed challenge authority. He's also more likely to win more games and thus extend the GM's success and length of tenure. Besides, the most obviously competent guy in each cycle generally gets hired by somebody even if it's not the first team. I'm willing to believe the process is flawed, but I'm not sure what better way there would be. It's always tough predicting how a guy will do a level up. It might be a case of the Peter Principle, or he might be the right guy. It's really hard to tell, IMHO.

Promo, you say that the Bills were "the team that took a chance on him." No. Several teams were interested. The Bills offered a bit of extra money and won the bidding war, but it they hadn't signed him he would have been somewhere else. And it's nonsense that he quit on the team. He held out. Those two are not the same thing. And your point about Wood doesn't hold either. Do people still call Wood injury-prone? Nope. But Peters has been more consistently reliable over a much longer career. Ten years just in Philly.