Thurman#1

I would absolutely love the Mayfield pick at #12. Love it!!! But if we get Mayfield, I'd pass on Jackson. IMHO once you've got the guy you want you have to start building around him. But as you say, and then we'd wake up. I find it really hard to imagine Mayfield falling past four or five without some team, likely the Bills, trading up for him even if nobody there now would want to pick him.

Simple question. How often did the Panthers trade up in the draft, in the higher rounds? Doesn't fly, man. Beane has made it extremely clear that he's a conservative guy, financially and in terms of trades. He's a guy who understands how important extra picks are. He's showed this by respecting and valuing comp picks. He understands the analytics that say that trading up is generally ineffective and trading down is generally very effective, as shown by the Massey-Thaler study, the Harvard Sports Analysis Collective Study and frankly all of the rest of the academic literature on this subject. That's the rule of thumb for smart, conservative teams. You don't give up important capital to trade up ... wait for it ... except if you're going for a franchise QB. It's what the Panthers have always gone by. The Bills started building up their draft ammunition BEFORE the season last year. Not after. They knew it was going to be a good year for QBs. LB, WR, DT and their other big needs weren't forecast to be good crops, and still aren't. Again, sorry, this doesn't fly. And this is classic ... you're trying out the argument that we traded up so that we could trade down? Oh, Lord, dude, you are getting very very desperate. And to repeat ... because you keep ignoring this for reasons that are very very clear ... "Brandon is trying like hell to get up and get a quarterback," the NFL GM told La Canfora. 'I'm convinced he'll trade up twice more if he has to. It reminds me of (Eagles general manager) Howie (Roseman) a few years ago (when he was moving up to land Carson Wentz).'" http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/04/buffalo_bills_gm_brandon_beane_reportedly_trying_like_hell_to_trade_up_for_qb.html Every move they've made since Beane has become GM has been aimed at this. They all fit this narrative, whereas no other narrative fits all of them. If they'd wanted to build up the team they'd have kept Gilmore or Darby or Gaines or Brown or especially Cordy Glenn to give them two very strong tackles. They want to make it possible for them to trade up high for a QB.

2015 (7-9) Eagles offensive starters: Sam Bradford, DeMarco Murray, Nelson Agholor, Riley Cooper, Jordan Matthews, Brent Celek, Jason Peters, Allen Barbre, Jason Kelce, Matt Tobin, Lane Johnson 2017 new starters: LeGarrette Blount, Alshon Jeffery, Torrey Smith, Zach Ertz, Halapoulivaati Vaitai (in place of injured Peters), Stefen Wisniewski, Brandon Brooks The offense was in place? Who? Agholor, Celek, Peters, Barbre, Kelce, Lane Johnson. They spent 2016 and 2017 frantically putting new pieces in place around Wentz despite giving up all that draft ammo.

We ... can ... sit ... the ... rookie ... behind ... McCarron. You guys keep not hearing this but it's a very decent possibility that first year. Our OL may actually be pretty good. They were quite good before Wood's injury. And last time he played center Groy played well. The right side needs work but Ducasse was decent later in the year. But our center looks decent and our LT played very well indeed last year. And yet again, there's every chance our new QB spends a year on the bench behind McCarron. Oh, and Vaitai was the tackle for 10 games in 2016 in Philly. Kelce and Peters were good but during the seasons the starters at guard weren't good enough and they had to bring in the backups. And you knew that, didn't you? It's the reason you only mentioned center and tackles. By the way, remind me, how many sacks did Philly allow this year? 50. The original sentiment here was that Philly'd already built the team up before they'd brought in Wentz. And the 2015 roster makes it very clear they hadn't, as does the major turnover during the next two seasons.

Yes, we want to place a rookie QB in the middle of this mess, probably on the bench for a year, and expect a big turnaround in the next 3 - 4 years. That's absolutely what we want to do, and it's frankly the best available plan. Agreed we draft young NFL starting talent. Starting with a QB. Then fill in around him. We get that there are holes, but we also get that all the other holes are simply less important than QB. If you do it your way you'll become a decent but not great team and have the 18th - 22nd picks somewhere in that area, and not have a franchise QB and not be able to trade up to get one. either because we're too far back. This is the problem you guys keep avoiding, that you can't just become an 8 - 10 win team, just missing or bombing out of the playoffs early and then trade up to get an excellent QB. In years where there's one or two good QBs they're even less likely to get out of the top one or two picks and generally the teams there want QBs. This was the Steelers for around 15 years before Roethlisberger. Great team except at QB. Not good enough to win a title. Unable to get a QB till their worst year gave them the #11 pick in a year that luckily had three terrific prospects. A triumph of luck. That's the situation that results in getting good before you get your QB. After that you're too good to get a good QB. You get nothing but Slashes and O'Donnells and Tomczaks and Bristers and Blackledges and Mark Malones and Tommy Maddoxes unless 15 years down the road you have a bad season and get extremely lucky as to how far a very good QB falls. It's a loser of a strategy. You get your QB when you have a chance. We have a terrific chance this year. Go your way and yeah, you'll bring our QB into the best possible situation but that QB will be one of the Tommy Maddoxes and the Mark Malones and the Kordell Stewarts.

It's absolutely true. Here are the QBs of the last five Super Bowl champions: Carson Wentz (and no, they don't win it without Wentz. They build their team around a terrific QB and went 11-2 in the games he started.) Tom Brady Peyton Manning Tom Brady Russell Wilson All five were top ten or twelve QBs. Yeah, some of the teams were more defensive and others more offensive. That's been so through history. But all of them had a franchise QB. That has also been so through history. Around 90% of all SB winners had a top 10 - 12 QB, a franchise QB. There are a few exceptions. But they are very few. And if you want to achieve a goal, you don't model the most unsuccessful strategy to achieve that goal. You model the successful one. And no, Manning wasn't awful the way people say. I give you that he wasn't what he had been. Not even close. But even with that shot arm they couldn't win without him. He had an elite QB mind and that was enough. The guy had three fourth quarter comebacks and three game-winning drives despite only playing 10 games. Yeah, he threw a lot of INTs imagining he still had the old Peyton's arm. But he still got thing things he needed to get done done. Yeah, the defense was the key factor. But how has that terrific defense done without Manning? How did they do that year when Osweiler was in the game?

That wouldn't be a revolution. As the guy who mentioned Doug Marrone nicely pointed out, people who haven't been able to get a good QB have been desperately trying to do this since the league started. But only about 10% of all Super Bowls are won by any team not built around a top ten franchise QB, and that's out of the 2/3rds of the league's teams that at any one time don't have a franchise QB. So when you have 66% of the league's teams winning 10% of the championships and the 33% that do have a franchise QB winning 90% of the championships, free-thinking isn't the way to go. The way to go is to find a way - almost any way - to join that 33%. There are some areas in the NFL where a revolution could happen. The near-elimination of punting, for example. But not needing a franchise QB ain't one of those potentially fruitful lines of thought.

Dude, they're moving up for a QB if they have the chance. They might not get that chance. But that is what they want to do. "Brandon is trying like hell to get up and get a quarterback," the NFL GM told La Canfora. 'I'm convinced he'll trade up twice more if he has to. It reminds me of (Eagles general manager) Howie (Roseman) a few years ago (when he was moving up to land Carson Wentz).'" http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/04/buffalo_bills_gm_brandon_beane_reportedly_trying_like_hell_to_trade_up_for_qb.html If they weren't trading up, they'd have traded Glenn not for a move up but for another draft pick. Get used to it. This is likely to happen. Practically every draft-related move they've made since Beane got here has been pointed at this.

There's no guarantee. Thing is, there's no guarantee that keeping the picks and spending them on other positions will help the team either. In real life, there are no guarantees. Guarantees are for buying mass-produced consumer goods. Nothing important in life is ever guaranteed. Certainly not that a QB will be a franchise guy. Wentz wasn't a guarantee. Hell, Peyton Manning wasn't a guarantee. There's no such thing. So what you do is you correctly pick your priorities. And QB should be priority number one. Then you make the moves that most greatly improve your odds of achieving that #1 priority. Which would be trading up, unless they just don't like these QBs. But they do. They've made that very clear with their actions. For ammunition to trade up in the draft and get the QB they want up high.

How can you say the Eagles defense was built before they traded up? Their starters in 2015 were Fletcher Cox, Cedric Thornton, Bennie Logan, Connor Barwin, Brandon Graham, Mychal Kendricks, DeMeco Ryans, Nolan Carroll, Byron Maxwell, Malcolm Jenkins and Walter Thurmond. How many of those guys still start? Graham, Cox, Kendricks, and Jenkins? And you claim the defense was built before? That doesn't hold up. Yeah, they had Graham and Cox, and that helped them a ton, but they had to make a ton of moves to fill in.

Sorry, he's right. Know when they got a QB? When one was available. And Wentz was 11-2 last year while Foles was 2-1 against a very weak schedule while teams didn't have film on him. Foles looked pretty average or below in the game when he took Their timing was perfect. If you're going to get your QB injured, do it with just a few games left in the year so teams don't know how to handle him in that offense. And especially do it after your franchise QB has gotten you to a place where you can have a bye week before your playoffs start to change the offense to make teams surprised at how your backup looks in those playoffs. Wentz was the key piece. They don't win without him. And they didn't have a strong lineup his first year. Agholor and Matthews were the WRs, a decent group, not great. And yet even with the harvest of picks they had to give up to get Wentz they were able to "reinforce that [7-9] foundation." Notice that we have a lot of cap room next year? We can do the same thing. You're right that the Eagles had more when they traded for Wentz than we have now. Fair enough. For that reason it's likely to take two or three or four years for us to get to real good instead of the two the Eagles took. Assuming they do a good job picking the QB and assembling the pieces around him. But the Eagles went 7-9 the year before the trade and 7-9 the year after. They weren't good. This, precisely. You put it better than I did. Thanks. However, I wouldn't call the defense we played "excellent." Surprisingly competent, though. Certainly right up there with the Eagles 2015 defense, though, and probably better.

Doubt it. If they are looking at Allen, Darnold and Rosen, chances are pretty good they go in the top five. Hell, probably the top three. If the Jets hadn't gotten there someone would have. Odds are pretty decent those three and Mayfield besides will be gone by #6.

Gilmore played well. He's not even close to a problem. And their front seven is not a problem for them. They'll be fine with receivers. They get by with dregs every year and Edelman will be fine. Have you seen the workout vids he posted in February? https://247sports.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/Bolt/Julian-Edelman-continues-to-look-strong-during-rehab-115597303 He'll be fine. TE, maybe, yeah. And yeah, they need a pass rusher, you're right there. RB. Tackles. Though Scarnecchia seems to make Shinola from feces every year. He's their secret weapon. Still, they need tackles. But I bet they get good OL play by Week 6 or so, whoever is there. Hogan was their speed guy a year ago and I'm sure he can fill the role again. They don't have as many holes as we have. Having said that, I'm not at all sure they're going QB with the picks they got. But expect them to be an extremely good team as long as they have Brady.

The stories reported were that Belichick wanted to leave them with Garoppolo when Brady retired, which is why he didn't trade him before the season. Wanted to keep him as long as possible. Saw that as a kind of legacy, that people would have thought of Belichick when he was gone but Garoppolo was tearing up the league. I think he's right that people would have thought of Garoppolo being there afterwards as another proof of Belichick's genius. We're lucky there was friction and the owner forced that trade. But there'd be no reason for Brady to get upset at them drafting a guy this year and sitting him for the two or three more years Brady may be in the league. Getting a QB is a very possible move, IMHO, though they do have a lot of needs. If that's the lowest you can get the offer, take it. Darnold and Rosen would be terrific options here if Beane thinks they'd fit and if they weren't gone.

Same guy. Terrific in both roles. Unfortunately. He's managed to keep that team stocked for 17 years now, all while drafting in the late 20s very continuously. Their drafting has been smart. No, they haven't picked any more successfully than anyone else. But they've consistently arbitraged up in trades and the draft, maximized the number of picks, again by trades but also by consistently maxing out their comp picks. And the more picks you have the better your odds of getting some good players. Which they have done consistently. And which again is much more difficult when you're drafting so late every damn year.

Wishful thinking, unfortunately. Till Brady is gone anyway. You can bet they'll be in the top 2 or 3 in the AFC and more likely than any other AFC team to make the Super Bowl. Unfortunately. Every year we hear how the dynasty is over till, and then it isn't. Sure, if we'd gone to #3, the Jets might have jumped us. But also, we might have then traded up again from #3 to #2. The Giants would probably have loved to do that. Going to #3 would have been a very very nice move for us. May have been impossible, though. Hard to know.

Bumpy in terms of movement between teams. But there are a lot of good players there, an awful lot. The movement isn't all that surprising, really. Teams generally have somewhere on the order of 10, maybe twelve core guys. Around them they generally draft new blood and bring in FAs. The rate of roster turnover is really high. And if I were to guess, I'd guess it's higher at WR than at many other positions. To be a core guy on your team at WR you have to be very good because WR salaries are really high, and it's a position that depends an awful lot for it's production on a QB to throw to you. As for overall turnover, look at this article: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000340908/article/which-teams-have-had-the-most-nfl-roster-turnover It's from April 2014 and it's looking at players remaining from the 2011 team, meaning players that lasted three years and are still on the roster just after FA began the fourth year. And the number of players remaining range from 7 (Colts) to 25 (Packers). The median was 16. Meaning most teams kept in the neighborhood of slightly less than a third of their players for 3 years and an offseason up to April. Based on those numbers, the 2014 WR class looks about how you'd expect.

Yup, teams win championships. And about 90% of the teams that do are teams with a QB in the top 10 or 12 QBs in the league. And Philly wouldn't have won the SB without Wentz. Wentz in-season record: 11-2 Foles in-season record 2-1 (squeaking by the 3-13 Giants and the 6-10 Raiders and losing to the 9-7 Cowboys by a score of 6-0) and in the LA game they won where Wentz was injured, did they win because of Wentz (23/41, 281 yards, 4 TDs and 1 INT, 31 points scored by the offense in the 3 quarters he played) or Foles (6/10, 42 yards, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, six points - 2 FGs - scored by the offense in the one quarter he was in the game. And one of those field goals came on a 10 yard drive from the LA 25 to the LA 15 after a strip sack on Goff.) No. This argument only works in years where there's a major dropoff in talent between, say #1 and #2 or between #2 and #3. A draft in QB isn't deep if it has four QBs go in the top five spots. It's top-heavy. This draft is top-heavy and maybe deep as well with guys like Lauletta and Rudolph and Falk and so on. When the #4 QB is good enough to go probably 4th or 5th, it doesn't matter whether the players picked before him are QBs or not. It only matters that he's good enough to go at the #4 or #5 spot.

Yeah, if you find anyone who had said that, that would have been a terrific response. In the meantime, though, you'll have to better paraphrase me for me to bother spending time on an answer. EDIT: Boatdrinks said it for me.

Fair enough opinion. But Beane and McDermott are in a better situation than that. Expect them to be here for four or five more years unless something disastrous happens. And a top 5 pick of a QB sitting and developing for a couple of years if that's what he needs is not a disaster.

Jared Goff without the slightest question. You're right that Donald is one of the best players in the entire league. Goff, however, is a quarterback. I think he's going to be a top 10 or 12 guy and they're the most valuable players in the league.

With the flipside of that question being something like, "or are the Rams making a mistake in undervaluing them in their current situation"? It's generally been considered good strategy to collect picks when you're looking at long-term results, but generally not such good strategy if you think you've got a window of a year or two. Is that what the Rams think? Is this a coordinated strategy, or just a result of a bunch of moves they happen to have liked? Will they do the same thing next year? People said the Pats were giving up on draft picks last year and now they trade Cooks for a pick. They're terrific at arbitrage. Is that what the Rams are trying to do? Too soon to know, really.

No, that's not my logic. Again, I'm not pounding the table for him, but he's going to get taken in the top ten and it's very understandable why.

Your win-loss record as a college football coach doesn't say squat about your credibility. What says something about your credibility is ... you know ... not lying. Remember this quote from Saban: "I guess I have to say it, I'm not going to be the Alabama coach."

I don't know whether Allen will succeed or be a bust. But he didn't raise the level of the guys around him? Wyoming played 13 games this year, 11 with Allen and 2 without him. In the two games without Allen, their offense scored seven points and seventeen points. That was against Fresno State and 17 against San Jose State. San Jose State was 2-11 and allowed 54 points per game and 499 yards per game ... and yet they only allowed the Allen-less Cowboys 17 points and Fresno won. Allen certainly elevated that team. With him, 7-3, without him 0-2. They have McCarron, they won't have a problem sitting whoever they draft for at least a year. I think you're right that Allen should sit for at least a year. But the Bills can do that. I haven't watched much of him, but it's exactly his mechanics, his accuracy and his ability on touch passes that he has so much improved this offseason. I'm not pounding the table for him, but I am saying there's a legit argument for him. Yes. Agreed. He won't be around late. And if you don't think his issues are correctable you don't draft him.