Thurman#1

Agreed. People must be bored of people saying this, but who are the best QBs in the game? Brees, Rodgers and Brady? They all spent a year on the bench, or more. As did Carson Palmer, Philip Rivers and Kirk Cousins. It ain't a bad thing. It doesn't guarantee anything either, of course, but it does give guys time to ingrain good mechanical habits if they need upgrades and to figure out how to study film and how to start to read defences.

Yeah, if #2 and #5 prove unwilling to trade, it could be unthrilling for us. I don't see us picking Jackson in that case, but what do I know?

Yup, we heard last year that it looked like a high pick, and it did. It was completely impossible to see how very easy our schedule would be, not to mention that even the good teams we played would be right in the middle of streaks of horrible play. We did indeed get very lucky last year. And it could happen again. The law of averages says it's pretty unlikely, though. And even our coaches have put out warning signals about how we might have problems next year. I'd certainly love to be picking #32. I hope you're right. Wouldn't bet my rent on it, though. Or even $10.

This has been said, correctly, approximately seven million times. Winning is not a QB thing. It's a team thing, every time. What a QB can do is play QB extremely well. With a crappy team around him that won't be enough. Rivers is terrific. His team has been terrible. He is absolutely a franchise QB, a top ten guy. On the Steelers he might have won more titles than Roethlisberger. What a franchise guy does is give your team a chance every year. A chance. But if your GM and coach consistently put a bad team around him, that chance will go for naught. And no, Hotrod doesn't make the playoffs more than that. The Buffalo Bills made the playoffs one of three years with Hotrod at QB. The Buffalo Bills did. And the Ravens won a Super Bowl with him. Wasn't really him, or Flacco, that gets the credit, though. It's the Ravens. The QB is the foundation without which it's extremely unlikely to win a title. But not the only thing necessary to win a title.

Nice post and good point. I go back and forth between three and four, but not all of the big four. I have a good feeling (guess) about Mayfield. Rosen if he stays healthy, but that's a big if. It's all guesswork but yours is thoughtful and smart.

What is non-process about Rosen? The process is simply about getting better every day and trusting to the process of improvement rather than the result. Nothing about Rosen would conflict with that.

Yup, I agree that it might be a high pick next year. But I'd include it in a second if it gets us a QB they're convince has a great shot at being a top 10 - 12 guy. If the Giants pick Chubb or Barkley and we want any of the top three or four QBs, then yeah, five would still be great for us. But if the Giants trade out, it will be with someone who wants to draft a QB. Possibly us, but if it's someone else, they'll almost certainly want a QB. And you can't count on anyone falling to #12. Arizona could trade up. Even the Pats. Several teams might.

Did he say he had a source, or was it an educated guess? Because it's as reasonable as anything else, but if they are going that way, it's likely because the Giants are asking an absolutely huge bounty.

Me personally, I'd cut none of them. I might be looking for a replacement for Bortles any time I get a great shot at someone with a good chance. IMHO Mariota's going to make it, Winston and Bortles are still question marks, though honestly I haven't looked at Winston enough probably to have an educated opinion. But if inside the building I see they are absolutely committed and putting in the work to improve, I'd keep all three, though they'd be on shortish leashes if they plateau.

Two? He'd have to be a disaster of JaMarcus-like proportions. Three to five. But basically, every guy is different, so every situation is different. Generally three to four.

What you based it on don't matter, dude. What you did matters. And what you did was to make an extremely shaky comparison. From 1990 to 2016, in the second round 29 QBs were picked. Two became real franchise guys. Around 7%. From 1990 to 2016, in the third round, 31 QBs were picked. One became a real franchise guy. Around 3%. Maximizing your chances in the only move that makes sense.

Foles isn't a quibble. He's no franchise QB. Not even close. Dalton may be a franchise guy but he's no top ten or twelve guy at least so far, and that's what you need, a consistent top ten or twelve guy to give yourself a consistent shot at titles. And your way of fighting recency bias is to look only at the last six years? That does not fully address the problem. This is what you get when you look at 2011 - 2016. 2011 - 2016 Pick 1 - 10 Goff, Wentz, Jameis Winston, Mariota, Bortles. Luck, Griffin III, Tannehill, Newton, Locker, Gabbert (with Winston, Mariota, Bortles and maybe Tannehill still having a shot) 2011 - 2016 Pick 11 - 32: Paxton Lynch, Manziel, Bridgewater, Manuel, Weeden, Ponder (Bridgewater still has a shot, and maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe Lynch) 2011 - 2016 2nd rounders: Hackenberg, Carr, Garoppolo, Geno Smith, Osweiler, Dalton, Kaepernick (Garroppolo and Carr have really great chances. Very likely. Dalton, too, maybe) 2011 - 2016 3rd rounders: Brissett, Kessler, Grayson, Mannion, Glennon, Wilson, Foles, Mallett What does this tell you? It tells you all but nothing, because it's way too small a sample, with many of these guys early enough in their careers that we don't know for sure yet). You need to have many more years to look at. The only real trend is that out of five rock solid top QBs, four of them were picked in the top ten. Get yourself a larger sample, though, and what you find changes radically ..... 1990 - 2016 Pick 1 - 10 Goff, Wentz, Jameis Winston, Mariota, Bortles. Luck, Griffin III, Tannehill, Newton, Locker, Gabbert, Bradford, Stafford, Sanchez, Matt Ryan, JaMarcus Russell, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Alex Smith, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Carson Palmer, Byron Leftwich, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Mike Vick, Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf, Steve McNair, Kerry Collins, Heath Shuler, Trent Dilfer, Drew Bledsoe, Rick Mirer, David Klingler, Jeff George, Andre Ware ........................... (with Winston, Mariota, Bortles and maybe Tannehill still having a shot) 1990 - 2016 Pick 11 - 32: Paxton Lynch, Manziel, Bridgewater, Manuel, Weeden, Ponder, Tebow, Freeman, Joe Flacco, Brady Quinn, Jay Cutler, Aaron Rodgers, Jason Campbell, Roethlisberger, Losman, Kyle Boller, Rex Grossman, Patrick Ramsey, Chad Pennington before the shoulder injuries, Giovanni Carmazzi, Daunte Culpepper, Cade McNown, Jim Druckenmiller, Tommy Maddox, Dan McGwire, Todd Marinovich .......................(Bridgewater still has a shot, and maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe Lynch. IMO Flacco was a franchise guy but not a rock solid long-term franchise guy and Culpepper might've made it without the injuries but doesn't) 1990 - 2016 2nd rounders: Hackenberg, Carr, Garoppolo, Geno Smith, Osweiler, Dalton, Kaepernick, Clausen, Pat White, Brohm, Henne, Kevin Kolb, John Beck, Drew Stanton, Kellen Clemens, Tarvaris Jackson, Drew Brees, Quincy Carter, Marques Tuiasosopo, Shaun King, Charlie Batch, Jake Plummer, Tony Banks, Todd Collins, Kordell Stewart, Matt Blundin, Tony Sacca, Brett Favre, Browning Nagle ............................. (Garroppolo and Carr have really great chances. Very likely. Dalton, too, maybe) 1990 - 2016 3rd rounders: Brissett, Kessler, Grayson, Mannion, Glennon, Wilson, Foles, Mallett, Colt McCoy, Kevin O'Connell, Trent Edwards, Charlie Whitehurst, Brodie Croyle, Charlie Frye, Andrew Walter, David Greene, Matt Schaub, Dave Ragone, Chris Simms, Josh McCown, Chris Redman, Brock Huard, Jonathan Quinn, Brian Griese, Bobby Hoying, Stoney Case, Eric Zeier, Billy Joe Hobert, Tom Hodson, Peter Tom Willis, Neil O'Donnell There are some reasonable disagreements to be made with who I counted as undoubted franchise successes. But the overall trend is inarguable. And while I didn't go any further back, I'd bet the trend would be much the same further back.

Yup. Especially when you're going to have to marry her rather than just date her for a week or so. It's a brilliant move.

Solder may have been overpaid by Pats standards with his new contract, but that's beside the point of whether they'll miss him. They will. He's done a terrific job for a long time for them at a premium position. My guess is that Scarnecchia coaches someone up but they suffer a definite regression at tackle.

I doubt it's completely smoke, but they didn't move up hoping to get Mayfield and nobody else. He's an edgy guy and would probably fit NYC in terms of temperament, which is important there. You can't be oversensitive in the Big Apple. Pure guesswork, but I think he's their second choice, after Darnold.

He was a rookie. And while I'm sure there's a lot of group-think in the media and everywhere, guys like Mayock and the other tape monsters were just as high on him as the folks who are more going on highlights and rumors. As for his college film being filled with inaccuracy, I'm not seeing it. Watched the 2016 Clemson and Miami games and saw two or three really bad decisions (all against Miami), and three or four throws that seemed to take forever to get there, causing problems, but overall good accuracy despite the Miami defense consistently pressuring him and making his windows small as well on many or most plays. Not saying I expect him to ever be a starter, but I wouldn't rule it out either. I respect your work on QBs, Gunner, and I only watched the two games, but while I did see the floating, he looked accurate to me. I'll bow out for a while but will come back to read.

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.