Thurman#1

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.

Fair enough summation. And that's why: 1) We shouldn't expect the team to be great this year. It's unlikely. Their goal is - and should be - to build an organization that can consistently compete for championships. 2) There are many ways to fill holes. Expect many of those holes to be filled, but with low to medium-priced guys, journeymen. It's what financially conservative teams do. And it's the most consistent roadmap to competing for a title. 3) We have so many holes. We wouldn't have so many if they hadn't traded guys like Sammy and Cordy (who'd have looked mighty good across from Dawkins) and so on exactly to gain ammo for a tradeup. They created those holes because they knew we absolutely needed a QB and that there was only one effective way to maximize our chances of getting a good one.

You could easily be right in your overall opinon about Rosen. But "barely reads defenses" just doesn't make sense. Where have you seen that? Got any links? I do agree about niftiness in the pocket. He moves decently but he's not very athletic. You'd think he'd move better with both his parents being national champion ice dancers. But I don't see him doing any triple lutzes or double axels out there. It's a worry in a guy who's been injured so much. Personally I'd love to get him. Or Mayfield or Darnold for that matter. But I'll trust Beane. He's been terrifically smart so far.

Still can't argue, hunh? For obvious reasons. You were wrong again here, as you were over and over and over again, almost without exception on Tyrod. Thanks for showing that. And again, the femmy emos don't do anything for me. You seem to keep throwing your spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks. Trust me, this strategy and the hints about relationships just aren't working here. It strikes me you're on the wrong kind of site. You keep trying to talk about a relationship. Are you perhaps looking for a site with a name something more along the lines of CornFedFootballBoys.com or something similar? I don't have any specific sites to suggest, but google is your friend. Again, I personally am not that kind of guy, though I wish you the best in finding whatever it is you are looking for, I do. For everyone, really. Oh, and while I'm not arrogant at all in real life, conversing with people with opinions as dumb as yours have been on Tyrod does indeed bring out the arrogance in me. I'm not proud of that, but honestly it's hard to resist when facing puffball arguments. You were just wrong so often. I have no problem avoiding arrogance when comparing myself to most people, though. Still, you're right, I should work harder on that. I don't like it in myself. And might I humbly suggest that a guy who says, just above, "Ummm.... have you watched the NFL lately? Rookie QBs play and take fire in year 1." in a year where one early-round rookie QB, Mahomes played in one game, in Week 17, and another, Trubisky, was only put in after his bridge QB totally fell apart ... might be dealing with some of the same arrogance issues as I am, with wrongness issues on top of that? In any case, your unwillingness to back up any of the words of your past arguments speaks for itself pretty well.

Good point that it's strategically less valuable because we don't move ahead of any direct competitors. But it would not be absolutely pointless. It would probably make our compensation package more desireable for the team we want to trade with. Still, saying that, I think it's unlikely. Hughes will turn 30 in August. He'll probably have another 2 to 3 good years. And he's our only real pass rush threat right now other than Murphy if he turns out well. That's not what we want to be trading away unless we absolutely had to. He's a good player, he fits the scheme and we would only save $1.5 mill against the cap this year and next year is his last contract year so we wouldn't save a lot there either. He's worth what we pay him. I seriously doubt it.

Because winning this year is both unlikely and a lot less important than growing and putting themselves in position for consistent long term success. I think he cares less about winning this year than doing that. Why make those great trades for picks and give half away? Because it's the best move for the team. Because without a franchise QB you're simply not likely to be seriously competitive for a Super Bowl even occasionally, much less regularly. Bottom line? Why make those great trades and give half away? Because it's the best move.

As a member of the hoi polloi, a couple of flocks and throngs and a riff raff or two, I quite agree.

You're not a rabble, Meanie. Just a member of one.

It's a five year deal. Unless he sucks, he'll be here all five years. It's seriously front-loaded, the last two years are the cheapest for the Bills, and therefore the least likely for them to cut him. But yeah, if he's bad, anytime after the second year will have non-catastrophic amounts of dead money.

Nah. That's what you pay to sign a guy to a second contract. Think Cousins is the highest paid QB because Beane knows him? Or is it just because new contract tend to be valued a bit higher than old ones? If you want the 18th or 20th best player at a given position you probably have to give him the 10th or so highest contract.