Thurman#1

The article says (and there are such things as smoke screens, but let's assume they're being honest) they're committed to to Tannehill ... as starter ... for next year. That wouldn't prevent them from taking a QB early.

The Jets strategy may cause them problems the next two to three years. Us using that strategy would mean no franchise QB which would mean lots of 7-9 or 8-8 seasons until we get one, which could be a decade if we're very unlucky. If they absolutely can't get one this year, trade back for picks next year and plan to draft somebody then. We had a pretty good roster except for QB in Nix's last year and Whaley's first. What did it get us?

Completion percentage is an awful stat to pick if you're only going to look at one stat. In any case, he'll get an honest chance. Hopefully against one of the top few rookies.

Yeah, as I said, a few nuts and fruitcakes will take nearly any position. I'm sure there are a few people. But no, getting to 3 absolutely would not have been meaningless. Same as the Jets just put us in an extremely difficult position, we'd have done the same if we'd been the ones moving up. Say the Browns go Darnold and the Giants Rosen or Mayfield. Would it have been useless to move to #3 early if as you suggest they think those are the three guys they want? Now say the Jets pick the third of those three. Still useless? This hurt us. Now it could still turn out OK, if say the Bills want Rosen or Mayfield and the Giants go RB and the Jets pick Allen. But if that's how it's going, the Giants are likely to get a major offer. What do we do if the Browns go Darnold and we call the Giants and they say, "Yeah, Arizona just offered us their next three 1sts and a 2nd this year. Can you beat that?" Or if they say, "Listen, the Jets just offered us the #3 pick so we can get the guy we want anyway, as well as their 1st next year. You'll have to pretty much do a Pacman Jones at a strip club deal here and make it rain to beat that offer. Whatcha got?" This hurts. It restricts our options and puts the Giants in the catbird seat, probably making it even more expensive to get there if that's where we need to go.

10% chance, maybe. Can't imagine it being too too much higher than that. They're a financially conservative team. Conservative in cap money and conservative in pick accumulation. And also a team that is building for the future, for consistent excellence. This move would not be financially conservative and it would be valuing this year over the future. It just doesn't fit the M.O. they've established. Assuming they don't find anyone in the draft they like, I could imagine them bringing in another cheapish vet. An injury replacement guy if they really don't want to see Peterman start yet or ever. Foles would cost a lot of draft capital in the trade unless something changes. If they can't get a guy they want this year, they"re likely to be trading back to try to bank some picks next year to try to draft their guy then.

No more ridiculous than any other educated guess. And that isn't a blue-sky guess. It's a fairly reasonable one. Myself, I wouldn't go that far. It's not impossible. But it just became much much much more unlikely. This was bad news for the Bills. Where are all the people who want him fired? A few nuts and fruitcakes, I would guess, but basically nobody. But yeah, this hurt bad.

That's correct. We don't know squat. Squat means nothing. We don't know nothing. Correct. It's certainly true that we don't know everything. Beane doesn't either, of course. Nor does anyone, unless you're a religious person and believe in an all-knowing God. Beane does know more than us. But we know plenty enough to make educated guesses. I've thought about that, and it's possible either way. Certainly if given a chance, they would have leveraged us. But some offers come with "look, it's a yes or no offer. You have to give us an answer now. If you want to leverage the offer we won't even give it to you. Say no and the offer's off the table" ground rules. I haven't a clue, but it's certainly possible that they didn't get a chance to bounce it off us.

That carries about as much weight as my barber guaranteeing me a shot at Kate Upton.

The second pick is still there. But for all we know the Giants have decided to use it. The Jets waiting to do the same move later wouldn't have made things any easier. Only a bit more surprising. This trade gives the Giants a lot of time to play teams off against each other. If the #2 pick is even available, this drives the price up, making any team wanting the QB of their choice aware that they absolutely must have that one pick, they can't wait for #3 or #4 or later. This may well have OBD saying, "Jeez, let's look at Mayfield again. Can't see any way to get Rosen, or at least without spending an absolute king's ransom."

No. We should've done a full rebuild. If we'd tried we'd have dumped McCoy, Kyle Williams and Tyrod before the season.

Right, it wasn't an automatic move up. But it sure was an automatic attempt to move up. This hurt us. I politely disagree with Meanie. This vastly restricted our options and raised the price - a lot, probably - for making a move. And it put the Giants in the catbird seat. They're likely to be able to run an auction for several teams which might want to move up and get ahead of the Jets. And the Jets could even turn around now and trade up with the Giants. The #3 pick would make a very tempting bit of trade bait for the Giants, who could collect some extra picks while still getting the guy they wanted at #2 but a pick later.

Oh, man, that hurts.

Thanks. I don't really know Compton at all. Don't have any educated opinion beyond being convinced that Beane has been doing a terrific job so far. GAAAH!! OK, taking another look at NFLDraftScout, they do have a 3-cone for Compton, from his Pro Day rather than the combine. 6.86. Whereas Preston Brown's 3-cone is listed as 6.98 at the combine and 7.13 at his Pro Day. Not that this is some huge deal, but earlier somebody said that Brown's 3-cone was better. That doesn't appear to be true.

That's weird. Wiki says that their figures are from the 2012 combine but the combine site doesn't list Will Compton in 2012 or 2013. NFLDraftScout also doesn't list a 3-cone drill for Compton. I have serious questions. Especially as I went through this thread and found this: He doesn't list a link either. I'd have to have some more linkage, from whoever, on this before believing anything. EDIT: Just checked the official NFL Combine site. They list three Comptons in their history, Tom, Mike and Gary. http://nflcombineresults.com/psearch.php?nm=Compton Anyone can put anything on wiki. I use it sometimes but if there's a question I certainly don't trust them unreservedly.

Better than who? Compton didn't attend the combine and googling "Will Compton 3 cone drill" doesn't produce a result. Have you got one for him? And a link?

Yup. It's possible that none of the teams they call and ask about a trade will end up accepting less than seven first rounders. It could happen. And if it does, it's a good bet the Bills don't trade up.

He absolutely benefitted from sitting. Which is the point. Not all guys hired as bridge guys are expected to be good at being mentors. Some of them simply help by keeping the young guy on the bench where he can learn. Here's an excerpt from an excellent interview with Bob McGinn, the guy who was the Packers beat writer for 38 years on the occasion of his retirement. He talks about Rodgers sitting. The MMQB: "You documented how fortunate it was that Aaron Rodgers didn’t have to play the first couple of years—he just wasn’t ready. McGinn: “He was a very poor player here for his first two summers and regular-season practices. Fortunately for him, and he knows that down deep, he didn’t have to play early. His delivery was a mess, bad body language, he didn’t know how to deal with teammates. He learned so much from Brett Favre on how to in some ways be one of the guys and relate, and he became much more of a leader. He was really poor and how many great players have ever had a start like that? Not that many. A lot of scouts look at that exhibition tape those first two years and he was a little bit better the third year, but not to any degree, and then he just really developed. He lost a lot of close games in ’08, but by ’09 he was playing great and by 2010 he was maybe the best in the business. And then there have been a lot of playoff disappointments and poor performances. It’s a quarterback league and all the rules are designed for that quarterback to dominate, and he hasn’t done it in the most important times since 2010." https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/06/13/themmqb-exit-interview-bob-mcginn-green-bay-packers-milwaukee-journal-sentinel-nfl-beat-writer

I wouldn't call Tom Savage over DeShaun Watson a bad idea. They spent almost no money on him and ended up needing someone when Watson was injured. If anything it's a bit of a happy ending if the rookie ends up beating out your bridge guy.

I bet there were five other P.I.s hired by teams not stupid enough to hire one and then talk about it. Pretty common practice from what I've read.

Did you see the article just recently on one reason why the Chiefs thought Mahomes was going to make it? They said that they found that he understood team dynamics really well and explained how they knew that. They said that after practice, Mahomes, as many 2nd string QBs do, often grabbed a bunch of the receivers to go practice what he'd just seen. And they said that what impressed them was that when some of the first string WRs offered to work with him, he politely turned them down. He saw the starters as Smith's guys and didn't want to in any way be seen as trying to split the team or cause controversies. He just worked with the 2nd and 3rd string WRs. Thought that was a really interesting point about team dynamics, but also about how later QBs certainly can do a lot to improve and get reps. Often reps that fans might never see. Quickly tried to google it just now but couldn't find it. Couldn't come up with good enough keywords. Just saw it in the last 24 hours but now can't find it again.

Generally speaking, I'm with you. Don't go RB in the first at all. The one exception, IMHO, is if you're in the situation the Browns are in now, where they're going to draft a rookie QB who's going to spend a minimum of two or three years starting for them. I think grabbing a Barkley in this situation makes your QB a lot more effective and a lot harder to defend and pressure. And maybe the Browns are in even a better situation to do that with all the draft picks they have. I could understand it if they go that way, though I can't see almost any rationalisation for going Barkley at #1.

Indeed. And it's a pretty hardscrabble rabble, who sound like the Tower of Babel.

Dude, it's absolute nonsense that there's "ZERO data suggesting sitting is a benefit." In actuality, there's tons of data, and it's wildly mixed. Which is as it should be because the whole point of this is that some guys need it and some guys don't. Just as reasonable/true to say there's ZERO data suggesting sitting is NOT a benefit. You can't prove it either way. Your data on Super Bowl QBs is a good example. Of course the data is about the same. You're looking at guys who have been successful, as shown by the fact that they're Super Bowl quarterbacks. Could some of the ones who started right away have been better if they'd sat? No way to know. Could some of the ones who were in west coast offences have been better if they'd been in vertical offences? No way to know. Some might have and some might not have. Each guy is different and needs different things to maximize him. Maybe all of those SB quarterbacks were handled correctly. Maybe the ones who didn't need time didn't get it and the ones who did need time got it. There is no data that proves anything about this either way. Some guys need it and some guys don't. What we do know, for instance, is that Aaron Rodgers was really bad in preseason his first three years or so and when he got a chance in games too. And then after his motion had been changed and he'd gone to "Camp QB" under his head coach, when he finally got the chance to start he looked totally different. He'd simply improved a great deal with the chance to sit and learn. Whereas Dan Marino appears to have been ready the moment he got out of his car at his first training camp. Different guys have different needs.

https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2018/01/22/rsp-boiler-room-no-126-qb-josh-rosen-ucla-a-window-to-the-mind/ Really not buying this. Yeah, he's very good in a clean pocket. But he moves very well - not athletically but he moves to the right place - when he's pressured. Nobody's as good when under pressure but Rosen handles it pretty well. Yup. If in doubt, always go with SchlegdaddyTV.com He seems really calm and reasoned.

Rookie allocation these days is around $9 mill. That's around how much it generally costs. Not $5 mill. Yup. No Murphy. No Kyle Williams. No Logan Thomas. No - lemme check the spelling - Owamagbe Odighizuwa.