Thurman#1

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.

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.