Thurman#1

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.

That's a fair enough opinion. Here's what I found about his pro day: "1) I can't remember a time when a quarterback prospect has done a better job in the offseason. Allen had a great performance in January at the Reese's Senior Bowl. He was the talk of the NFL Scouting Combine earlier this month with the athletic ability and arm strength he showed off in Indianapolis. On Friday, he had one of the better pro-day throwing sessions we'll see. He won the offseason. "2) Allen's footwork, accuracy and touch were improved at the pro day from what we saw him from him a few weeks ago at the combine. It was clear that he and his QB coach, Jordan Palmer, wanted to focus on touch throws in this workout, and he showed well in that area. Of course, he also showed off his cannon of a right arm. He threw fastballs with ease." ... says Daniel Jeremiah, who continues ... "I'm expecting four QBs to go in the top six picks next month, and I expect Allen to be in that group." ... and ... "I see Allen making progress. He's trending up, but he's going to need time to fully realize his potential. He needs a franchise that will be patient with him. The payoff could be huge." That's what Palmer predicted, that he'd be even better at his pro day. Palmer said their work had resulted in improvement from the season at the Senior Bowl, a lot of improvement from there at the combine and predicted still more improvement and terrific accuracy at his pro day. Lo and behold, that's what happened. Does that mean that the improvements are guaranteed to stick? Nope. But it could happen and if it does this guy could be terrific. And it seems to me that with McCarron the Bills have put themselves in a position where they can be patient with whoever they do pick.

We were at his pro day. And we haven't brought in all of the other big four yet either. We still have many visits left. If we still haven't brought him in as the draft nears, that might mean something.

Dr. D., I wish it were true, but it's not. The #2 pick is 2600 points on the old but still generally used value chart. And all of our six picks in the first three rounds total 3071. #12 1200 #22 780 #53 370 #56 340 #65 265 #96 116 That looks like a victory but if you look at deals where teams trade up into the top five, the team trading up generally has to give a MAJOR premium to the traders down, often as much as 50%. That's why people are often talking about having to maybe throw in next year's #1. People are right that this is going to really hurt what we can do this year and maybe next and hopefully not but maybe even the year after. But we should do it anyway. Getting a guy you think will be a franchise QB is that important.

I personally wouldn't mind getting Mayfield at #6 either, but there's a very decent chance he's gone in the top five. QBs could easily go 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-3-5, especially after teams that want QBs start throwing picks to trade up.

Of all the available options ... YES ... the absolute smartest when your goal is to be consistently competitive for a championship.

You're right, the cost may be too high. They should do it anyway. Unless the demands are all our picks from the first three rounds and our next three 1st rounders besides, we should do it anyway. Those guys simply DO NOT make us Super Bowl contenders on a consistent basis a few years down the line, not without a franchise QB they don't. And that's the goal. Nothing less.

That just does not follow. It's like saying that of the people who get an education, many fail anyway. Therefore the education doesn't help anyone at all, you either are a failure or you're not and nobody needs an education. It simply does not follow. Nobody is saying that sitting on the sidelines for a while will help absolutely everybody succeed. Some people simply don't have the capacity to be a successful QB. But there absolutely are some people who are helped by sitting. Aaron Rodgers is one. Carson Palmer is another. And there are plenty more. On Peter King's podcast that I posted yesterday about Josh Allen, NFL QB coaching guru Jordan Palmer makes a very convincing case that every QB out there would be helped by a year to sit. He acknowledges there are political and practical reasons that will never happen for many QBs, but says ideally every college QB would get that time. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but he's absolutely right that many young guys can benefit tremendously.

"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 It's probably a good deal higher than even. Though maybe the Giants and Browns simply don't want to make the trades. 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.

You're mistaken right from your first sentence. People don't think that one of the new QBs can perform miracles. And we're aware that trading away all those picks will hurt the team's roster, handicapping us for several years. But you've spent an awful lot of work here missing the point. By a wide margin. We're aware that we're going to be pretty bad next year after they trade up. (And the news makes it very obvious that if there's any way to do that, Beane will. He's desperately trying to do that.) The point is that Beane's and McDermott's focus is not on next year. It's on the long term ability to put together a team that can consistently be in position to compete for championships. And a franchise QB will put us in that position. Not next year. Hell, the chances are very good that whatever high-level guy we pick after the tradeup is going to sit next year and learn from McCarron. Whereas filling a bunch of holes but still having no franchise QB will very much NOT put us in that position. There's still one situation where trade-backs become very possible. If we can't get into the top five or six and the top four QBs are gone ... and if they don't like anyone else as much as some on these boards do ... then yeah, we might well see them trading back. Trading this year's #22 for a 1st next year and some change. This year's #56 for a 2nd next year and some change. And so on. Because if they don't get someone this year that they really like at QB, expect them to try to put themselves in the same situation next year putting together a big ole cache of picks so that we can try to trade up next year. Yeah, those picks could fill some holes. That won't begin to do for the long term prospects of this team what getting a franchise QB here would.

NOT moving up, even if it takes too much means no Super Bowl win for probably 7 or 10 years. We'd win a few more games, reach the lower levels of the playoffs, but without a franchise QB we wouldn't be good enough. We'd be the Bengals. And we'd be too good to get a good enough draft pick to get a real shot at a franchise QB. Then after four or five or six years of being pretty good but not good enough, somebody hopefully realizes what's happening and we do a complete rebuild. If we suck bad enough to get a good QB, and we build well around him, three or four or five years later we might be good enough to be competitive to win a Super Bowl. Seriously. 7 - 10 years probably.

Did I disagree with that part of his post? I guess your underlying point is that Josh Allen doesn't have accuracy. And there are now questions about that. Check the interview I posted with Jordan Palmer about working with Allen over the past few months. Palmer says the inaccuracy was from a mechanical flaw, overstriding, and that it can be addressed and in fact has already been addressed in Palmer's sessions with Allen, and that that's the reason he was more accurate in the Senior Bowl than he was during the season, more accurate still at the combine and will be extremely accurate at his Pro Day. Clearly that's no guarantee that the changes will stick, but they might. That, I believe, is why teams are so interested in a guy whose completion percentage was so low.