Thurman#1

Some of them? Nah. All of them. It's a team game. Send your QB out all alone and you won't see results. What the good QBs do is play QB as well as it can be played under the circumstances. Which for th egood QBs is generally really good. As for your Kurt Warner stuff... So the years when Warner had Holt and Bruce and Faulk and managed a QB rating of 67.4 and 72.9 ... were explained by ...? Was it that Holt was getting old in his 3rd and 4th years in the league? Or that Bruce at age 30 and 31, who played six more years was getting old when one year later he managed 1292 yards? Please. And the final years in Arizona when he had Fitz and Boldin and QB ratings in the high 80s and low 90s were explained by ...? Were Fitz and Boldin aging in 2005 - 2009? Your own figures don't even begin to back you up here.

BWAH HA HA HA HA!!!! I'm obsessed with Tyrod? Oh, that's a good one. I'm obsessed with Tyrod, says the guy who spent literally thousands of posts, very likely approaching if not exceeding ten thousand on both forums desperately getting it wrong on the guy, unable to stop telling everybody how wrong they were on him!!!!! Funny stuff. I forget how many times you started polls with tags like "Let's go on record about ..." something about how Tyrod was going to be terrific and everyone else was wrong. You're on record, and it's mostly due to you. So yeah, when you start going on about your opinions on QBs, expect it to be brought up how far beyond questionable into brain-dead your opinions on quarterbacks have been. That's life, dude. When you have an obsession, people notice. And when your obsession turns to wanting to forget your old views, there's no reason for us to let go of how desperately you yourself wanted to go on record about how wrong everyone but you was. If you've proved one thing over the years here it's that you don't know quarterbacks and especially you don't know what kind of quarterbacks the Bills need.

Did this really need it's own thread? Same argument. It's a legitimate argument, but it's been said before in almost exactly the same words, many many times.

Dude, you can do better than this. Effective trolling requires you to make a ridiculous claim (you've done that), but also to make it have an ever-so slight dose of realism, as if you actually believe it. And clearly you haven't done that. Better luck in the rest of your trolling career. And folks, don't feed 'em. At least save your ire for the more capable trolls.

Six? Yeah, reasonable projection. Could easily happen.

Same old Transplant. "I don't understand." Then, "I understand" and in repeating it back miss the point. Classic. Not that anyone can take a guy with your record of being so relentlessly consistently utterly wrong on Tyrod seriously about QBs anyway. How well I remember your opinions that he was a franchise QB, that he was almost elite, that he wasn't a bridge, that he wouldn't take a pay cut, and even right up till they traded him that he was going to be the Bills starter this year ... Every one of them and dozens more held weeks and months too long for the sensible Tyrod fans to do anything but try to turn their heads away in embarrassment. Ah, the sound of wrongness.

Giants wouldn't be interested. Not enough value there for both the #2 and Beckham, IMHO. I'd love to get Beckham, but I just don't see the financially conservative Beane bringing in his contract. He covets both. He does covet draft picks, though, that won't be able to be used to move up for a QB. Look at how he's already working on maximizing next year's comp picks. But yeah, they've moved up mostly to get their trade cache. Yeah, if you look at it as two separate trades, it makes things clearer. The tradeup for the #2 would be a slight overpay ... in a market which demands large overpays for moving up to the top five. Looked at in terms of what teams have to pay to move up that high, this wouldn't be an underpay. And then two seconds for Odell would be ... IMHO an underpay. I think they're going to demand a 1st and more for Beckham if he goes. I don't think they'd consider it. That's my opinion anyway. If we could do it and if I were GM, I would. I don't think the Giants would be interested, partly for the reasons above and partly because if they don't pick a QB early, I think they're going to go all in on trying to win a title with Eli in the next couple of years, which would include keeping Beckham unless the deal was extraordinarily sweet. And at #12, they wouldn't be able to get one of the top four QBs or Barkley or Chubb. So they'd want a very rich haul indeed, IMHO.

Disagree all you like, it's still true. The O-line last year was quite good. Especially the left side. PFF agrees. Everyone does, really. And Taylor sucked badly enough at the passing game that teams were able to concentrate, as they have the past two years, on stopping the run. And yet the running game still was still by far the offense's strength last year. The OL had a very large share of that. Are you talking about Allen as a running QB who will get hurt? Nonsense. The guy's bigger and stronger than most RBs. He's closer to Newton physically than most other QBs. And who's to say they run him if they draft him. Besides, if you're talking about Allen you are - again - missing the point by light years. Allen is going to sit on the bench. If Allen's the guy, McCarron will be very happy and by the end of the next couple of years, very experienced. And to repeat yet again ... yes, we need upgrades. Yes, we have holes. And yes, we have three or four years to fill those holes. Whereas if we draft to fill holes and don't get a franchise QB now, we're not likely to get the chance to draft a franchise QB for another six or seven years of being on the high end of mediocre.

A clue is missing, alright. But it's from your argument. Close your eyes and cross your fingers is a billion miles away from the actual argument you're facing, which is this ... it's very rare for most teams to be in a position or to be able to reach a position where you can get very high in the draft in a year when one or more possible franchise guys the place where the historic best chance of getting a franchise QB has always been - very early in the first round of the draft - and if your front office believes in a guy they absolutely should do what is necessary and take their shot. It's true that the odds are overall not much more than 50%. But the odds of success in every single other way of getting a franchise QB are vastly lower. This maximizes your chances. It's like the old quote about democracy that Churchill resurrected. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Same here. Getting a QB in the top few picks of the draft is also the worst way to do it except all the others. "How many Ryan Leaf's, Akili Smith's, Matt Leinhart's, Andre Ware's, and Jamarcus f___ing Russell's have to get drafted before somebody trips and falls on a damn CLUE??" you ask? Here's the same question, revised and much more sensible ... how many Jared Goffs, Mitch Trubiskys, DeShaun Watsons and f_____ing Carson Wentzs have to get traded up for before people like you trip and fall on a damn CLUE yourself?

If you don't understand why, that's on you. Some people think he can change and improve as Palmer says. It's that simple. Disagree? Fine. Reasonable. Don't understand, though? That's on you.

Wow, you mean there are guys not good enough to be NFL QBs even without coaching? Color me surprised and shocked!!! He may very well have "helped" (Nice use of quotation marks, there) them to be as good as they could be, which might well have not been good enough to be successful. He says he can help anybody. He doesn't say he can turn anybody into a superstar or even a starter. Any particular reason you guys left out the fact that he's worked with Deshaun Watson? Not to mention working an awful lot with his brother? Doesn't fit your narrative, maybe? He's also worked with Stafford. Does that mean he can definitely permanently cure Allen's problems? No. But he really is an exceptionally highly-regarded QB coach. Palmer says that the accuracy problems he needs to be responsible for are due to mechanical problems. Is that all of the problems? Dunno. But it really is true that his accuracy has gotten better every time people have seen him this offseason, Senior Bowl, combine and even more so at his Pro Bowl. So he's probably correctly diagnosed a real problem for Allen. Can Allen permanently change his mechanics so that he has good fundamentals even when the pressure is on and bullets are flying? Dunno. Some guys can. Many can't. But again, this is why NFL teams are interested. It's why the fans don't like him but the clubs and pundits do. Some think he can make this change, that it will impact his accuracy and that he can make it permanent. I don't have a clue. But that's where the disconnect with Allen is.

Well, of course they have a plan B in case it turns out to be impossible to trade up. Beside the point, though. At #12 the top four guys are extremely unlikely to get even close much less reach there. Their plan is to trade up. But yeah, it might turn out not to be do-able. Trading up to #12 does indeed put them in play ... with another trade up. Without that, they're not realistically in play. So they traded up to get in position to trade up. Exactly. So why all the arguing then? Jeez.

You're duplicating another thread. Please check before posting. "A New Approach to QB Projections ..."

Now you're even misquoting yourself. Here's what you actually said. You said this was "not the only explanation for trading away Glenn." So no, it's you who's having the problem with English here. You weren't talking about "after trading up" at all. You were trying to use this as an explanation for using Glenn to trade UP rather than to acquire another pick. Are you one of those people who simply change arguments constantly? Or was this an honest case of losing track (which certainly happens)? You simply don't trade up because maybe somebody might - maybe - be desperate enough to pay a premium. You claim that this is a good explanation for why they used Glenn to trade up rather than acquire a separate pick. It ain't. People don't only trade up at a premium for picks at #12 and higher. They trade up everywhere and they give a premium if they want the guy badly enough. One difference being that if you get a new pick for Glenn you now have two picks, each or both of which you might trade back if that was what you thought was the best use of the pick. This simply doesn't in any way address why they traded up rather than acquire a new pick. I respect the tone you've generally been using in this thread. But honestly, this is a dead issue. They want to trade up. Desperately. Their entire history here in Buffalo shows this. Particularly using Glenn to trade up, because people very high up in the draft don't want to trade too far down even if they get a good premium. That's why they traded up instead of acquiring a new pick. Because teams at #2 or #4 or #5 didn't want to trade back to #21 even if they got a premium to do so. They might not be able to trade up. But it's what they want. And pretty much everyone knows it. Look at what people around the league are saying. Some may say the Bills shouldn't trade up but they know what their behavior means is their next step. And an NFL GM who knows a great deal more about what they're doing than we do says it reminds him of the Eagles.

You pointed out that one of the options was to trade up in order to trade down. That idea is indeed bizarre. And the idea that because teams sometimes trade down that the idea of trading up and then trading down ... sorry, again, doesn't follow. Oh, please. The old nonsense that because the source is anonymous it doesn't matter. Please. It's an NFL GM. Clearly the reason he thinks this is because of the contact he and other GMs have had with Beane and what he's talking about. He says it's You know, you keep asking questions where the answer is an obvious "YES" and posing them as if the reasonable answer is "NO." It's like you're saying, "Would a reasonable person buy a Haagen-Dasz ice cream at more than twice the price of bargain-basement ice cream even though the taste improvement is probably no more than 20 or 30%? Hmmmmm." You've done this in the last three or so posts. And you do it again here. "Would a conservative guy bet the farm on an unproven rookie in a position where there is a 50% fail rate? Hmmmm." Clearly you think the answer is no, but it's in fact very much a YES. The conservative rule, again, is that you don't trade up and give up major early value ... EXCEPT when you are going after a franchise QB." The answer is YES. As shown in the Goff and Wentz trades and a ton more. YES, you take that risk if you like the guy. Earlier you asked, ""Say then it takes 2 more years to catch up. It is now 2021 and the team is "rebuilt" and competitive. (well, with the QB bust rate it is a 50% chance at best). Sorry, but is that a smart place to be?" Again, I can see you don't get this, but that isn't even a good question. The answer is YES. If you believe the QB will be a franchise guy, yes, it's not just a good place to be, it's the best place to be. Without question.

That's a bizarre use of stats. Football Outsiders uses these stats to grade the whole offense, not the QB. The writer pretty much agrees with this, saying you can't separate players out. Yet he's doing so. He also seems to use pro stats, but only from the first four years. Which would really help fast starters and grade down guys who started slower. And because he uses some (reasonable) ways to cull the guys he might have looked at and is only looking at QBs from 2010 or later, he has only looked at 38 QBs college-to-pro results so far. He points out that a guy like Rosen who sat for a year in college has a big advantage over guys who played early, and says the same thing happens for QBs who sit for a while as a pro at the beginning of their career, these numbers are better when they start later. I read most of the article, but it's night over here. I'm beat. Looks like an interesting avenue of approach but I don't he's putting this out there as much more than an interesting idea that he has to work more on, that shows some promise. He likes it better in showing ceilings. This is early in looking at this method. It's interesting, though.

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.