Thurman#1

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.

Marino had a freaking gatling gun. Kelly had a strong arm. Both great Steelers QBs, Bradshaw and Roethlisberger had big arms. Elway had a monster arm. Lamonica.. And those are some of all-time greats. So, sorry but that doesn't hold up. Sure, some of the all-time greats didn't. But a very fair percentage did. Agreed that he has to improve his accuracy. There's some indications that he already has from his QB coach, Jordan Palmer. We'll see how that holds up.

No. Kizer maybe had the biggest arm last year and he was 4th for Mayock and Webb who also had a big arm was 5th while Watson was 1st and Trubisky, who doesn't have a strong arm, was 2nd. Mayock makes a point to say, every year, that a big arm isn't that important once you have enough arm to make all the throws. He always scoffs about JaMarcus Russell throwing 70 yards from his knees. Every year. In 2016 the biggest armed guy was probably Cardale Jones. Didn't make any lists, including Mayock's and Kiper's. In 2015 he had Mariota above everyone. If anything what you see is a pretty good grasp of who's going to be successful and who's not. I think he liked Manziel too, so he's far from perfect but he doesn't really take off-the-field stuff into consideration

Seriously? You don't understand how a horrible defense puts a ton more pressure on the offense by giving it consistently worse field position and forcing them to have to score more to win? Seriously? I don't quite know what to say to that. Lemme try this ... Having a great defense makes life much easier for an offense. Having a terrible defense makes things a ton more difficult. A ton more difficult. Oklahoma had a bad defense. Yeah. Oklahoma allowed 394.9 yards per game. That's bad. But UCLA allowed almost 100 yard per game more, 483.7. And yeah, Oklahoma allowed 389 points. That's bad. But UCLA allowed almost 100 more points, 476. Oklahoma's defense was a bit above average, well behind the really good defenses, but not awful. UCLA's was absolutely awful. Yes, Lamar is a very good QB. But you're flat out WRONG if you think that he's responsible for their wins and losses. He had a share of it. So did the rest of the guys on the field. Yeah, good QBs lift a team. So does a good RB, a good LT, anyone good lifts the level of the team and the guys around him. QBs more so because of the importance of their position. But it's a simple, obvious, self-evident truth that it's teams that win. Not one player. Not in football. Archie Manning was a terrific QB. He absolutely lifted the level of the players around him. But they sucked so bad that there was no way to lift them enough. Put Joe Montana on that Saints team and they still lose most of their games. It's a team game. Philip Rivers lifts the level of the players around him a ton. But he simply hasn't had good enough players around him to make any serious dent in the playoffs. It's a team game. And you can't say Rosen didn't lift his teammates. You can't say that unless you're in the huddle, unless you're one of the coaches calling the plays and watching practices. Most of the way that QBs lift teams is simply by playing extremely well. Which Rosen did and that game where they had the huge comeback is an example. Deny that he wasn't lifting his teammates in that game and you're only showing you're seeing what you want to see. Here's another possible indication that he lifted his teammates: UCLA played 13 games. With Rosen they played eleven games against Texas A&M, Hawaii, Memphis, Stanford, Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Arizona State, USC and Cal. They averaged in those games 35.0 points per game. Without Rosen they played two games and scored 17 points both times. Against the mighty defenses of Utah and Kansas State. Care to guess what their two lowest-scoring games of the year were? And Rosen didn't lift that team? Come on, man. As for Mayfield, I'd rather have him as Secretary of War. I like Mayfield. Wouldn't mind him here either.

Yes, there is inaccuracy on tape that is not a result of his receivers or his coaching. Do listen to the interview. The Palmer interview starts around 42 minutes in. Jordan Palmer isn't just an ex-pro QB these days. He's arguably the most highly-respected QB guru out there. He talks a lot about DeShaun Watson, another guy he worked with extensively. That was also interesting. He's worked a lot with Stidham also. And he says he's addressed this and that Allen got better in Mobile, better yet at the combine and will be a ton better at his pro day. That should be easy enough to eyeball as confirmation that Palmer is onto something. So, yeah, you're taking it on faith that he's improved over the offseason without facing live rushes. Of course, you're assuming the same thing with every QB out there in every year. You're taking it on trust with every QB. Everyone has to take different kinds of huge steps upwards. I'm not pounding the table for the guy. But to me there's been a wild disconnect between the obvious problem and the fact that guys like Mayock love the guy. Mayock has him as the #2 after Darnold. Why? Kiper has him as the #1. Why? I haven't understood it. After hearing this, I understand. Again, feel free to disagree. The agents pay him, and they pay him only for the three month QB camp he puts people through. He has no financial interest in whether or where they get drafted. He's already been paid. Yes, agreed. But again, Palmer has been working with him every day. He says it's already been addressed and that his accuracy has been improving. You can choose to disbelieve that if you like, or you can suspect that when he's being rushed he might regress. Fair enough. But there's already some serious indication that a change has been made. It might stick. Might not. But it might.

Correct. Good scouting is necessary. Goes without saying, I would think. However, the higher you have to go to get your guy, the better the odds. But you're right that if you have the #1 pick and use it on, say, Ryan Fitzpatrick, drafting him first hasn't made him a better player.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/03/21/themmqb-podcast-peter-king-bears-head-coach-matt-nagy-jordan-palmer-quarterback-coach-sam-darnold At about 1:06:30 Worth noting that Palmer has no financial interest in any of the QBs he works with, but he's been working with Darnold and Allen very extensively. By the way, I tried to find if this had been written about, I searched the boards, couldn't find anything. If this has already been posted, I apologize. Anyway ... King: "Josh Allen completed 56% of his passes at Wyoming in his career. In 1987 that might've been pretty good. In 2017, that stinks. So what did you do with him and what gives you any reason to think that he's going to be a more accurate pro than he was collegian?" Palmer: "It's a good question and I'll start by saying I'm a guy that believes that the most important thing you've got to do in football as a quarterback you've got to be accurate and you've got to be a guy who can complete balls. And the other thing is I don't really care if you have a giant arm. Because most of the balls that are thrown in the league are ... I call them layers ... you're layering it in there. You don't throw the ball as hard as you can every play. "With that being said, when I dug deeper on Josh, you know I've seen every play a bunch of times and I've spent a ton of time with him. And I really know the story, like way more than any front office does, just because of the exposure that I've had to it. I look at it two ways. You look at the 56% completion percentage ... there's what he's doing with the ball and there's what's on the receiving end. "And what's happening on the receiving end at Wyoming ... he wouldn't say any of this stuff, I can just call a spade a spade, and the front office guys that are watching this tape, they're going to see it too. There's a lot of discrepancies around depth and the angle and some of those guys couldn't catch it (inaudible) throw the ball hard. "And they had to manufacture completions and they weren't the best team on the field every week. They have a great coaching staff, they have a couple really good players, but Josh is running around trying to make plays. So when you don't have timing and separation ... I'm not saying everybody has to be open every play but when you don't have timing and separation it causes you to wait to see it open and then throw it late. "And when you couple those two things together and he has a bazooka attached to his shoulder, they're not in an offense where they're trying to get as many completions as they can and kick bubble screens the whole time. One of the things that manipulates what you just said about 1983 versus now is the amount of essentially handoffs that are completed in college football. The swings, the bubbles the (nows?) the quick slants, they didn't have a lot of those, so that right now is going to trim down some completions right there. "And then on Josh's end, the part that he has to own is his inaccuracy a lot of it was tied to a couple of mechanical things. The root of it, though, mechanics-wise was the base. So when you watch him on tape next time ... what you'll see is he'll get up on his toes and bounce and immediately take a big front stride with his left foot. I call it an overstride. When you overstride it puts you in a position where you can do a couple of things wrong now. You can lean a little too much, you can not bring your hip through so you're going to bend forward. and when you do either of those two things your elbow is going to drop and your release point is going to lower and it's going to be hard to put touch on it." ... "To boil it down there was two things happening. On the receiving end, there's a lack of continuity, a lack of timing and a lack of separation. On Josh's end, he was putting himself in a position mechanically where he was overstriding and it was causing him to miss. "We've addressed the overstride. You saw it a little bit in Mobile you saw it a lot more in Indianapolis and we're going to see it a ton on Friday in Wyoming. I think he'll only miss two or three throws on Friday out of 70. And he's going to be throwing to guys at the next level where it's going to be (inaudible) on timing and accuracy and separation. "So, I'm big on ... I wanna see a guy who can complete balls. And I don't care about arm talent. But this dude is probably as talented an arm as I've ever seen. And I've seen him throw a lot in three months. And over the next couple of years you're going to see a guy who's going to be deadly accurate. I think he's going to be a superstar." To me, there's always been a weird disconnect between the obvious completion percentage problem and the way that the pundits and scouts and sources talk about him. And this strikes me as the likely reason why. I've always had real questions about him and hoped the Bills would avoid him. I no longer feel that way. But feel free to disagree. :-) It's certainly a really interesting segment with Jordan Palmer, with a lot on Darnold and a lot on QBing in general.

Sometimes forcing it is the right move. The Eagles forced it for Wentz. The Texans for Watson too.

I'm a Tyrod sympathizer too. Great guy. But after 7 years we know who he is. And yeah, more passes will be what the doctor ordered ... to increase his total yardage and his other raw totals, his quantitative numbers. But again, he'll still be Tyrod. The few passes he threw here did make a difference in keeping his quantitative numbers down. But not his qualitative numbers. And yeah, our offense wasn't exactly lighting it up. Except for, you know, the running game. Which really was lighting it up. Which is a huge advantage for a QB. It was the passing game specifically that was having problems.

If the Giants want Barkley, they'll be willing to trade back to #4 or possibly even #5. Which would make it pretty likely we could get to #2 with two trades. And the Giants could just as easily be targeting DE Chubb rather than RB Barkley. Or one of the two. It's not a crap shoot whatsoever. It's a play on the odds. If you get a QB with the top pick, your odds of success in getting a franchise QB are somewhere around 70%. Get one with the #2 - #5 pick your odds are still above 50% you get a franchise guy (just based on what's happened since 2000). Below that, your odds drop. The farther down you go, the lower the odds. That's not a crap shoot. Getting a franchise QB is huge, the single biggest piece piece of the puzzle. It doesn't guarantee team success, as guys like Rivers and Archie Manning show. But without a franchise QB your odds of winning a Super Bowl are absolutely miniscule. So what do you do? You maximize the odds of getting a franchise QB. And you do that by getting a high pick in the draft, at least if you don't manage to get Cousins or Brees in FA. Yeah, if you can't do that, you keep trying further down anyway. But you give up a lot - an absolute ton - to trade up into the purer air at higher altitudes to maximize your chances. It ain't a coincidence we hear that Beane is "trying like hell" to trade up. The Jets trading up to #3 put us under huge pressure.

They ARE high on McCarron. That's why they brought him in as opposed to all the other possible bridge QBs who were still out there at that time. It will be interesting. This is it, most likely. Very possibly even by pick 5.

It isn't just refutable, it's wrong on the face of it. That defense was absolutely horrible, well beyond porous. And pre-season rankings are guesses. I kind of agree with you somewhat on the "winner" thing. It's a team sport. QBs aren't winners. Teams are. Lamar Jackson isn't a winner based on his performance at QB. He was on a winning team. There is a huge difference. What you want is a guy who plays QB very well. It's that simple.

Yeah, maybe. Might throw more passes, for instance. But he'll still be Tyrod. The jury's in.

The Bills won that trade, getting a 3rd. The Browns are drafting a QB for a reason. We're going into Tyrod's 8th year in the league ... the jury's in. But Tyrod will serve a good purpose there, bridge and backup.

It's an interesting question. My guess is that their first choice is to trade up to #2 and that they would be willing to pay well above market value to do that. But it's not at all clear that the Giants will do that. The Jints might be thinking that they're going to stay there and pick someone unless they get an offer that's way way way above market value. I'd like to see the Bills step up there and give, but there surely does have to be a limit, and perhaps the Giants would require more than we would/should be willing to give. After #2, it becomes wildly unclear because if the Giants don't trade (or if someone else pays a very large price to trade up), it's reasonably likely that the first three picks will all have been QBs. But which ones? Once you get past the top three or so it starts depending on who's left and whether your team likes them or thinks they'd fit. My guess is that the Browns aren't trading back from #4 if Barkley is still there, and that by #6, four QBs will have been picked. That could easily turn out to be wrong, but it's not an unreasonable guess. And at that point, things would be so unpredictable I wouldn't even want to guess. If forced, I'd say a tradeup to #2 is the most likely. Agreed I don't see any way that Jets move is good for us. I hope he's right, though.