Thurman#1

Whatever else you want to say, this isn't a BS program. House is Brady's QB coach. Has also worked with Brees, Carson Palmer and Matt Ryan. And speaking of Ryans, he's worked with Noley as well. Nolan credited House in his Hall of Fame induction speech. House is very much for real. Doesn't prove anything about how much Peterman might improve, but who knows, maybe. A lack of zip has been a major problem for him.

No particular reason to think so, Bill. He was pretty accurate right out of college. Not that improving his velocity automatically means he's there now. But he's got a shot at being around for a while.

Trade back for picks next year that could get us a good QB then, and do the same next year if we don't get one then. Keep that conveyor belt going till we get a franchise QB type. Not with all the picks of course, but with enough to get us a lot of capital next year. Aside from accomplishing that, defense and OL, please.

http://www.buffalobills.com/video/videos/Nathan-Peterman-Exciting-To-Learn/857fc723-1a5f-4134-bb88-1856f1bc6943 6'55 and then again later near the end Peterman worked this offseason with Tom House to add velocity and get better. He was asked if he'd added velocity, he said "Yup, absolutely, that's what it was all about Also keeping your accuracy, 'cause accuracy I think is the most important thing. So being accurate while also being able to zip the ball right in there was critical." That ought to be interesting to watch.

Good points, OP. I try to keep in mind, though I don't always manage, that a reach can be a tremendous success if the player turns out to be better than the consensus thought he was. But sometimes time shows that reaches are just wasted chances.

Stupid argument for Transie, as usual. I argued historical tendencies in a case where out of roughly 80 - 120 guys who qualified for the group (QBs who'd been in the league for six years or more, hadn't proved themselves franchise guys before that and had a chance to start for at least a year or more), only one had raised his level that late in his career and become a franchise guy, Gannon. I argued that this showed that Tyrod had a miniscule chance of suddenly upping his level in 2017. Transie argued Tyrod was totally in there with a good chance of major improvement. Gee, hard to figure who was right on that one. And in this thread, Transie's arguing historical tendencies about a group of two guys. Statistically insignificant. And he asks me to tell project QBs who've reached their potential ignoring the fact I've already done so ... in this thread. But that's Transie. Miss the point a million ways from Sunday. History says jack-**** about Allen. He's a one-off. You evaluate him by the scouting report. He's got pluses and minuses there and that's how you decide. And at least so far it looks like he's likely to go in the top ten or so. But some people know way more than NFL GMs Most likely this is enough on this argument. He's a guy whose history shows that if he gets the last word he thinks he's won, and this sometimes baits me onwards. If his next post is as obviously unaware and off-point as this one, I won't bother answering.

That's a shaky assertion, though clearly it would be the best situation for a QB to develop in. Who was Brees's QB coach in SD the first year when he didn't play because the starter was Flutie. Was Flutie the guy you want to learn fundamental football from? From my research, I see it was Mike Johnson, the current WRs coach at Oregon. In any case, McCarron doesn't have a ton of on-field experience but he's a vet who has a lot to teach.

Not impossible. Not extremely unlikely. Not even fairly unlikely. You're one of those guys who thinks he's way smarter than NFL GMs, even though as I've pointed out before, your record on QBs is a few miles south of abysmal. You were wrong on Tyrod every single step of the way and you expect us to take you seriously on somebody being extremely unlikely? You saw extremely unlikely starting in Buffalo for the past year or year and a half and couldn't recognize it. Jake Locker went to Washington. That isn't a small school, so he absolutely doesn't belong in that group. If Matt Ryan playing for Boston College in the ACC "against serious competition" excludes him, then Locker played in the PAC-10 against equally serious competition. Same with Josh Freeman at Kansas State playing against Big-12 competition. If you're going to include them you have to throw in Matt Ryan and McNabb. Blaine Gabbert, yeah, reasonable. That's one guy. Klingler and Ware absolutely do NOT fit because as you pointed out they played very well in college and that excludes them from the group whose boundaries we're talking about, boundaries originally set by you. Again, you're the one who set the parameters here. You said, "I've been challenging someone to find me a QB between 1979 and now who played at a small college against mediocre competition and had mediocre stats who was drafted in the top 10 of the 1st round." Klingler and Ware had excellent college careers and stats and Freeman and Locker did not play at a small college against mediocre competition. Looks like you've got two guys there. Gabbert and Kelly Stouffer. Maybe one or two others we've missed but this is completely statistically insignificant.

Well, Doug hired Rex, so it's his responsibility in the long run. And don't give me that Whaley was overruled by the Pegulas. They were still young and inexperienced. If he'd taken them aside and told them he couldn't work with Rex and that Rex wasn't going to be able to work with the defensive personnel there as he said, they'd almost certainly have listened to him. He was their guy at that time. And as I've pointed out many times, the starters on that defense were virtually all Nix guys, with a couple pre-Nix. The Whaley guys were non-entities ... Preston Brown and Brandon Spikes if I remember correctly. If that's your idea of truffles and fois gras, you're not hired as my personal shopper.

Six receivers over 1200 yards. 15 over 1000. Five with over 100 catches. Fourteen with over 80. Seven with 9 TDs or more and Eighteen with eight or more. Six with twenty or more 20+ yard plays, and seventeen with fifteen or more 20+ yard plays. It absolutely is a QB league. 2017 Receiving TDs 741 2017 Rushing TDs 380 I added those with a calculator rather than finding the totals somewhere, so I might have hit a wrong key, but please do check for yourself on nfl.com, team scoring. Skipped back by three years at a time. 2014 Receiving TDs 741 2014 Rushing TDs 381 2011 Receiving TDs 745 2011 Rushing TDs 400 Very little if any less passing TDs. It absolutely is still a QB league.

He doesn't have to say that. There are a million ways of commenting without committing yourself too strongly. You don't have to say what he said. It'd be fine for him to say something like, "Allen is a gutsy, tough guy. I'd take him in a street fight, he's the guy I want behind me. He's smart and I think he's going to be a big success." More, it's a fact that Allen really has looked a lot more accurate at every step along the way. He looked more accurate at the Senior Bowl than he had during the season. He looked more accurate at the combine than he had at the Senior Bowl, and he looked a lot more accurate at his pro day than he had at the combine, deliberately mixing in a bunch of touch passes of the type he hadn't been known for. He's improved a lot. Will it stick? That's another question. But if he sits the bench a year or two to let the mechanics improvements get deep into his muscle memory, the odds get quite a bit better. But not perfect. With some guys it doesn't stick. But with some it does.

It's really hard to define a project QB. Isn't Drew Brees one? He sat for his first year behind Flutie while the Dougster was completing 56.4% of his passes and throwing 15 TDs and 18 INTs. I'd argue Cousins is a terrific example. Isn't Romo one? Is a project QB only a guy who has potential to be near-elite or a top ten guy if he develops? Or is it anyone who is thought to be able to start if he develops? Hard to say. Favre? Dunno, maybe. The story is bizarre. Take a look: https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/10/18/brett-favre-book-jeff-pearlman-atlanta-falcons-green-bay-packers He certainly wasn't picked to start the first year. Miller was the established starter. Isn't Brady one? No, nobody called him to be excellent but they thought he might be decent down the line. Isn't that developmental? I think it is, but it's reasonable to disagree. I think Russell Wilson was drafted as a developmental guy but they found to their surprise and excitement he was ready right away. What is a developmental QB? I'd say it's a guy who you think/hope can get a lot better with time and teaching. I think there are plenty of them over the years.

Nicely put.

You're right. Coming back from 34 points down with two minutes left in the third quarter to win is no accomplishment at all. How could I not have seen this?

Yes, but how surprising is it that out of the extremely small pool you're proposing? Forget guys who went on to a good NFL career. Very few guys who played at a small college against mediocre competition and had mediocre stats were drafted in the top ten, probably because none were thought to be as likely to be good as Allen. Especially hazy and unfocused, as "mediocre" is a very unclear word, as is "small" schools. Is Boston College a small school for Matt Ryan? He had pretty mediocre stats. Syracuse for McNabb (who had a very fine senior campaign anyway)? How many guys are we talking about? Four? Andre Ware? Terrific senior year. David Klingler? For his time he was generally thought of as having terrific stats, overinflated, actually. Kelly Stouffer? OK, fair enough. Dilfer at Fresno State? Great senior year. Three guys? Four? Statistically insignificant. Means absolutely nothing. All you're pointing out here is how rare a guy Allen is to be good enough in his situation to be considered a possible top ten pick. Which we already knew.

Manuel's problems went well beyond accuracy and ball placement, though those were also a problem. They were more about not making good quick decisions about where to go. He had problems reading defenses and throwing to the right guy, and he has fairly poor pocket movement skills.

Tyrod's friend, It's still unclear what your main point is. I asked before for two or three sentences that summarize. If you can do that, great, maybe a discussion can be had. If you can't, I'm not interested and I doubt anyone else is either. From what little I can tell, your argument when summarized looks something like this: Quarterbacks can't improve their completion percentage and the way I know that is that there is nobody in league history who has ever improved their completion percentage after you throw out all the guys who improved early like Favre or guys who improved later in their career like Brees. In fact, for reasons that are completely unclear, I'm unwilling to accept anyone but guys who improved in a slow and consistent improvement throughout their career, a "sequential growth in accuracy". Which is a stunningly ridiculous argument, only about the fact that you're simply unwilling to look at the guys who actually have improved. But perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding you. I honestly hope so. Again, in one or two sentences, can you explain your main point?

There's no reason to think that Beane doesn't have two or even three or four QBs he would take at #2 if he could get there. He wouldn't have so consistently assembled draft capital this last year if there was only one guy he wanted and that guy might well be gone at #1. Agreed that the Giants want the Browns to want to trade up right along with the teams that want a QB there. The more suitors the bigger the dowry stands a chance of being.

It is indeed a secret ... to everyone, including the writer of the article, who is saying that IF they don't trade down and IF they don't go QB then they would go Barkley.

Coaching some of the worst QBs in league history doesn't mean you're a bad coach. Sometimes good coaches coach bad players and what results is an improved but still bad player. Is there anyone Daboll has coached who was bad under Daboll but good under someone else? As for scouting QBs, Beane and McDermott were there when the Panthers chose Newton. I wouldn't be thrilled with Newton but he's sure better than we have had in a very long time. He had one year where he was league MVP. He's been a lot worse since then but picking him was a good decision at that time. And we don't know yet whether or not Peterman was a good decision. Way too early to make that call. We sure know he wasn't ready last year but that's all we know for sure. Yeah, that guy has him as a 2nd round prospect based on the fact that he will have to sit for a year or two. Any team that grades guys down that much for having to sit will and should avoid him as a first round option. But if you're willing to sit him and think his long-term chances are really good, he'd look like a 1st rounder to you. The need to sit him should absolutely be a factor in whether your team is willing to pick him early.

We do indeed have a failure to communicate. Sorry, but your point was extremely unclear to me, even after I went back and read all of your last four posts on the subject. I don't think anyone can understand what your main point is. A while back you said this, "I'll say that Matt [Stafford] is the one guy that did improve his % in the pros ... after he was in Detroit for 8 years." And now when I point out that Favre's first season of play in the NFL was at a much higher completion percentage than his college stats apparently I missed the point about senior improvement. OK, what then is the point? Because Favre's senior improvement was less than one percent. So .....? If you can explain it in two or three sentences, I'd maybe be interested in talking about it. But so far you're doing just the opposite, picking one thing here, one thing there and ending up with no coherent point. Fair enough if you don't want to clarify, but if so don't expect people to engage or be interested. You've noticed it's only me replying for a few days now, right?

Unless you can point out some articles and such that say so, it doesn't "appear" that way at all. It certainly could happen, but what you appear to mean is that you think it will happen.

Brett Favre 1987 Southern Mississippi 40.7% 1988 Southern Mississippi 55.8% 1989 Southern Mississippi 54.1% 1990 Southern Mississippi 54.5% 1991 Atlanta zero passes thrown 1992 Green Bay 64.1% Again, sometimes it happens. And also, particularly if we take Allen but maybe so with any of the top four draft guys, we might easily have him spend a year on the bench. Worked pretty well with Favre, in retrospect, though he spent much of that Atlanta year with his head under a keg, supposedly. Still may have learned a lot, though. Carson Palmer 59% in college, weirdly he has stats in 5 years at USC, 1998 - 2002. His second year he hit 73.6% but only threw 53 passes, so IMO statistically insignificant. The last 3 years he threw 54.9%, 58.6% and 63.2. Then his first year in the NFL was 60.9% but his 2nd was 67.8%, his career best. At this point I'm not sure what your point is, exactly, although I do get that you're talking only about completion percentage and that you clearly understand the limits of talking only about that. All cool to that point, but beyond that I've lost track of what your point is as you refine your thoughts. My point is real simple. No parameters or any of that stuff. Guys sometimes improve in completion percentage from college to the pros. Some immediately. Some later. But improvement happens sometimes. And of course, sometimes it doesn't. That's certainly part of the picture too.

Something is very weird with Richie since he fired his agent. Hope he's OK.

Nor should you. Did Lombardi or Belichick stick on an NFL roster? Do they teach people to be good NFL players? That's irrelevant. What's relevant is whether he's a good coach. And DeShaun Watson has gone out of his way very often to say he thinks Palmer is terrific and had a lot to do with his success. Which probably has a lot to do with why he got Rosen and Allen this year. He's a very highly regarded QB coach. Not that that guarantees the success of his pupils. But he knows his ****.