Thurman#1

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 ****.

Heh heh. Fair enough. But it's relevant. Here's a guy who's been massively wrong about QBs with absolute consistency. And spamming the boards about it with thousands and thousands of posts about it. For years. Who hasn't learned from it and won't even admit it at this point. Wanting to be taken seriously on the subject of QBs. It's relevant and I'll bring it up again. But yeah, fair enough. for now I'll let it drop. Can't promise how long that will last. If he turns on the fire hose again - and he certainly does seem like that's the direction in which he's headed - it's IMO worth reminding people that that's when he's at his most wrong.

Fair enough. There's always a bit of a frenzy over QBs. Which includes spectacular years like the Rivers-Manning-Roethlisberger year. I'm not smart enough to know where Mason or Lamar might go. I would predict 5, but wouldn't be at all surprised if it's only 4. No, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at all. No particular reason to think so. It doesn't work by a pattern. Each guy is an isolated case, good, bad or average. Because there are four guys ranked high this year doesn't have anything to do with how well-evaluated the fifth or sixth guys are. Or anyone else. It only means they are below the top four, but absolutely nothing about how far below. That's all you can say. Just below? Way below? No way to know. And there's also no reason to think the pundits are over-ranking the crop for clicks. They were pretty negative last year. Was that because they wanted to avoid clicks? They're saying what they think. That doesn't mean they'll be correct, of course, but they're not changing their evals for clicks. There's no reason to think positives get more clicks than negatives. And if there was, they'd have been much more positive last year (and every single year). That theory doesn't make sense.

Where are all these mysterious big boards of yours? Here? Where the top four QBs are in the top eight picks? https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/03/07/nfl-draft-top-prospects-big-board-top-100 Here? Where Drafttek has the top four in the top 11 places? https://www.drafttek.com/Top-100-NFL-Draft-Prospects-2018.asp Matt Miller's where they're in the top 12? http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2763483-2018-nfl-draft-big-board-matt-millers-post-combine-rankings Here where they're in the top 23? http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sd-sp-nfl-draft-2018-big-board-top-25-prospects-20180402-story.html Here, where PFF doesn't like Jackson but has the other three in the top 6 and Rudolph and Lamar Jackson at 20 and 21? https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pff-draft-board-top-100-players-for-the-2018-nfl-draft Kiper, who has the top four in the top ten places? http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/mel-kipers-big-board-position-rankings-top-2018/story?id=53475544 Newsday, who has five in the top 28? https://projects.newsday.com/feature-grid/sports/football/nfl-draft-2018-big-board-top-100-prospects/ Daniel Jeremiah with the top four in the top 14 spots http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000919918/article/daniel-jeremiahs-top-50-prospects-for-2018-nfl-draft-20 I mean, come on, man, that's nonsense. I think six in the top round could be high, but five seems like a very reasonable possibility.

The reason there are a lot of QBs predicted to go in the first round is that this is a rich year for QBs, same as 2014 was a rich year for WRs. Yeah, it doesn't fit. And that's good news for teams that need a QB like we do and can get up high.

Hah, you'll be behind it 100%, whatever? Wow, you're a better fan than I. I generally reserve the right to criticize and disagree, though I do my best to convince myself it has a chance. And I would argue that it's as close to written in stone that they plan to trade up as plans in complicated circumstances ever get. They wouldn't have traded a WR, a CB and a tackle away for picks in order to use the draft to fill holes at tackle and WR and maybe CB ... among other things. Doesn't make sense. They want to trade up. Not that that guarantees they'll be able to but it's clear that's what they want and have wanted for more than a year.

Stafford for one, as you pointed out. Tyrod, for another, completed 57.1% in college. Brady completed 61.9% in college, whereas since 2007 he's been well above that. Matt Ryan completed 59.9% in college. Brees 61.1% to 66.9%. It happens. You say that you have proved that it doesn't happen, and I disagree with that. While you did a lot of interesting research there and wrote a fine post (kudos), what you really showed is that often when it happens it's not so difficult to justify it. You can say, "well, it was the scheme switch," or "that only happened later in his career," or whatever. But those are justifications. I think you are also artificially narrowing the parameters by demanding that the whole improvement show up in the new guy's rookie year. Sometimes it won't, but it does show up and make him productive.

Agreed we don't know what will happen. But we do know what they want to do, insofar as they want to trade up for somebody. Who that is there's no way to know. They've made it obvious with the moves they've made since Beane arrived that it's one of them, though.

Yes we have holes. No they don't need to be filled this year. They're building for the long term, and thank God for that. Thing is, Beane and Co obviously disagree, as they've been making move after move for more than a year showing that they plan to trade up. They might not be able to, but it's very obvious that's their plan. As for 6 QBs in the top 16, I don't see anyone but you saying it's looking more and more that way. Five or even six in the first round wouldn't surprise me, though. Nearly everyone has five in the 1st as a very reasonable possibility.

Yeah, we get it, I talk about how spectacularly dumb your record is on QBs, and you go on about romance. Not going to happen no matter how femmy you get. Learn to deal with the disappointment. What's going to happen is I'm going to keep reminding everyone of your spectacularly consistent wrongness on Tyrod. And you can wait as long as you want for like the fifth repetition of the list. I don't need to post it. Everyone on these boards knows, because you forced it down our gullets over and over and over and over and over. You refused to let us forget for an instant. I posted a list earlier in this thread. Certainly not going to do it again. Basically, though, you fought the common sense that most of us kept telling you about, basically the list that you are now responding to. You fought all that relentlessly and without surcease. Yes, you were wrong about the bold. And all of the rest of it as well. People saw.

Fair enough. But did your brother in law fire his agent by twitter? IMO you're both right. Being concerned about your health is the most reasonable thing in the world, and yet we also hear that if the money is good enough he'd play another year. I think he's going through some kind of weirdness lately, but I have no problem with wanting to retire for his health. I hope he's OK.

Disagree. Groy might turn out to be better than that. He was quite decent at center when he played. And after the first few weeks, Ducasse was pretty solid. Shambles is an overstatement.

I like them a lot so far. They seem smart and well-directed.

Very worthwhile question that to me doesn't have a clear answer. I'm absolutely sure they're aware of this concern. But have they put a good system / foundation in place? Hard to say. Hope so. Concerning Losman, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that he wasn't developed properly. Plenty. It's not totally convincing. Either way. Nor could it ever be. This is a deeply complex process. But the Bills put Losman in before he could win the QB battle with Bledsoe, worked with him, found a system in which he greatly elevated his play and looked promising, and then promptly in the offseason brought in a new offensive coach and system that pretty much eliminated the areas of strength from his game and tried to get him to conform to a system which stressed the areas he'd never been good at. That's freaking awful. And it surely made things much more difficult for him, no question. No way to know if he'd ever have become a franchise guy even if he'd been handled perfectly. Perhaps not. But they handled and developed him very poorly indeed. And yes, there are numerous cases of both sitting a guy and not sitting him succeeding. This is almost certainly because each guy is different, having different needs, and a good development process certainly would involve correctly identifying what your particular guy needs. Some guys will never be good enough, no matter how much development they get, some, like JaMarcus Russell, won't take the coaching they're given. And some are good enough and ready enough that their needs are relatively minimal. But there's a very large middle ground where guys who need development either get it or don't and this greatly impacts their chances for success.

Nope, that argument doesn't work. Nobody argues that getting a franchise QB is a guarantee of a Lombardi. Why would anyone do so? How could having one of the top 10 or 12 guarantee a championship. It ain't one guy who is a franchise QB. It's lots. What having a franchise guy at QB does is give your team a chance to be competitive for a title every year. A chance. Still, if your team botches the personnel game for a decade, even a good QB can be wasted, ala Philip Rivers. BPA will absolutely not have as good a chance to win it all. No way is there any way to even begin to prove that because virtually nobody actually picks BPA (think the guard who's maybe the second-best player in the draft this year after Barkley goes 2nd to the Giants?) and it's impossible to separate out BPA picks. What we know is that there is only one position in football where roughly 90% of all Super Bowl winners have one of the top ten or twelve guys at that position. Quarterback. And no other. Not LT, not LCB, not #1 WR, nothing else. You need a franchise QB. Without one, you'll be one of the 20 - 22 or so teams each year over 10 years or so (roughly 200+ teams) out of which one team wins a Super Bowl. About 10% of Super Bowls are won by a team without a franchise QB. You don't want your team to be one of those 200 teams hoping they're the one, a 0.5% chance. Much much much better to be one of the 10 - 12 teams every year that does have one of the best 10 - 12 QBs. Those teams win about 90% of SBs. So in 10 years, that's 9 teams out of 100 - 120, a roughly 11% chance. That's the group you want to be in. That's the strategy you want to use as your model. Oh, and you're right, none of no-trader-uppers are in any way insistent or unpleasant. It's all on the one side, right through all the threads. Right.

Sorry, my fault. I left out the quotation marks. "Bounty" isn't my word, it's the reporters. And yes, "bounty." This is a good year for QBs. It's pretty good odds we get four QBs in the first seven picks. How often does that happen? But again, thanks. I'll go back and put in quotation marks. Sorry again.

The butt fumble? Really? And from what I saw, only one of the NFL plays there was a direct result of bad OL play. All but one came way outside the pocket with the QB trying to do too much. And to continue, even a below average OL is a lot of protection. Staking a goat is a ridiculous overstatement. Historically, most top QB draft picks have stepped into situations with bad OLs. It doesn't destroy careers as long as the team works hard to improve the OL as soon as they can. Again, wild overstatement unless there are referees in the thicket ready to throw the flag if the tiger goes helmet-to-helmet, or if the goat can throw the ball away to stop the play. But yeah, it will likely make things more difficult for McCarron this year after the tradeup.