Thurman#1

Interesting. I hadn't remembered that he started as a receiver. But you're not a draft bust when the reason you have problems is a completely unpredictable health problem, in this case an eye condition. Your scouts didn't make a mistake. You're just unlucky, the player and the team both.

It could easily happen, especially if they throw in Cordy Glenn as Galko suggests they might.

Bucky was a defensive back, not a receiver. And while he started slow he was actually starting to improve and look decent when they found he had an eye problem which was preventing him from focusing on the ball in the air. If I remember correctly he had surgery but never really fully recovered from that setback. Gotta admit I don't see the irony either.

And their record said they were a non-playoff team in a very weak division with an extremely easy schedule, a year after they went 16-0 with Brady against a tough schedule. Brady has been a huge part of their success there. I'm so happy we dodged a bullet with Garoppolo being traded. Thank you, Mr. Kraft.

No. I'm a big fan of taking a lot of shots at QB. But certainly not two in the first. It's like when you have a rose. Wanna develop the blossoms? You have to prune off the majority and keep doing so. The plant only has enough energy to truly support a few blossoms. One of those guys would turn into a long-term development prospect, a guy who wouldn't get enough reps to know what you had till three or four years down the road. And while you can do that with a lower pick, doing it with a #1 would be a poor use of resources. On the other hand, using both those picks for a QB (by trading up) makes a ton of sense.

It it dies - and it could - it's likely to be a longer term thing. The short term and the longer term don't always line up. More, I seem to recall one or two cases previous of television executives making bad decisions. Maybe I'm just imagining that, maybe they've always been perfect.

https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2017/07/18/rsp-boiler-room-no-101-qb-lamar-jackson-louisville-drops-and-accuracy/ Waldman's breakdowns are generally pretty terrific. Points out areas that need improvement. He seems to be more positive about Jackson than he is about Allen, for instance, at least on this breakdown (he has several and often compares the two). Sees a real likelihood of development in his game, which is a real positive.

It's not entirely different. Some years college's best player is the best pro. But yeah, it's hard to predict, especially at QB. Mayfield was the best QB in college. PFF be damned. Pretty much everyone thinks so. It's how he'll transition to the NFL that is the question. And there's a very decent argument that he might turn out to be the best in this draft. Or not. But it's not a stupid opinion either way. If it was such a no-brainer how come he lasted till 12? It was a calculated risk same as nearly all of them are. I don't think you can guarantee squat off what we know. Yeah, McBeane values character. But there's a very legitimate argument that Mayfield has it in the important areas, that character isn't really a problem for him. Of course, there's an argument the other way, too. But again, both are legit.No, he's not a choirboy and no he's not classy, but you can be a character-filled person without being either, really. I don't think we've seen enough from McDermott or Beane yet to know exactly how they feel about this kid. He's divisive. It's not like he's JaMarcus Russell.

Relationships matter in deals somewhat. Relationships with a co-worker of the guy making the deal... leading to a favorable bargain ... not so much. Might they get the deal? Sure. Over a team that's offering more? Nah. Will Reich try to arrange something so that his new team, the one that his coaching legacy will probably rest on, gets fewer weapons out of a deal? Nope.

I know people don't want to hear this, but I think our 2nd draft QB is Peterman. Yeah, Fitz or McCown would make great bridges with the added benefit of then staying with us as the QB whisperer.

And most of that is the Cassel year when they had an extremely easy schedule. The Dolphins went 1-15 the year before, then 11-5 that year against the incredibly nice AFC East schedule, and then 7-9 the year after. That year was a fluke. And as you know, turns out the NFL thinks Garoppolo is pretty good too, even without being in Foxboro.

There's never anything genuinely worth talking about. Other things are more worth doing. But if you think who the QB is is a worthwhile subject, IMHO there are a bunch of others. Will we keep Gaines? Will we trade up? Will we trade down after we trade up if we trade up? How many years will it be before we're genuinely competitive for a trophy? Lots to talk about, but all of it guesswork. Isn't that kind of what the boards are for?

Also never gets old how most of those games were in his first year, 2015, when NFL teams hadn't figured out how to counter Tyrod yet. In 2016, Woods and Watkins played together in six games. Baltimore, Jets, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Miami and the Jets again. The last game against the Jets, Tyrod didn't play. So ten of those games fifteen games you're talking about were in 2015. Only five in 2016. And those five games in 2016 were against the 13th, 14th, 17th, 31st and 30th best pass defenses in terms of passer rating. That's not a difficult slate. Not great defenses overall. Tyrod was pretty good in those games. How many of those games did Woods go over 43 yards? Zero. His yards for those five games were 20, 10, 29, 5 and 43 and zero TDs. Sammy? 43, 20, 54,10 and 154 against Miami, again one of the worst pass Ds in the league that year. Total of two TDs. Tyrod wasn't ripping up those two WRs in those games. He played pretty well, but those WRs sure don't appear to have been the reason.

There's nothing wrong with reduction to the absurd when the point you're attacking is itself absurd. The reason reduction to the absurd works on phrases like "anyone but Tyrod" is because it's absurd ... on the face of it. They don't mean "anyone but Tyrod." It's shorthand and a lot smoother than, "Not Tyrod." That's what they meant. And for good reason. They don't mean anyone. Don't like Beyonce? Fine, they don't mean Taylor Swift. And they don't mean Manuel or Blaine Gabbert or Beatherd. The idea's ridiculous. But honestly, I would rather see Siemian than Tyrod. For three reasons. First, as has been pointed out again and again, he doesn't fit what McDermott is trying to do. So if we used him again we'd see yet another year of the "why don't they change the playbook for Tyrod's sake to utilize him better" crap. And that's NOT what you want to be doing for a bridge QB. A bridge QB should, among other things, be able to use the playbook they've installed for the future, so the whole offensive unit can start internalizing it. And second, Siemian is going into his fourth year. He still might make a leap. Time's growing short for him, but going into his eighth year we know what Tyrod is. And third, Siemian wouldn't cost us $23 mill against the cap for one year of his services in 2018. For what feels like the billionth time, our head coach has laid out one thing that he wants from his QB. Not a list of seventeen characteristics or a wide-ranging skillset or a sweeping manifesto. ONE THING. One requirement. He should be able to function well from the pocket. And Tyrod does NOT check the box on their one requirement. So I'm there. Not Tyrod! A nice guy. A hard worker. Not who they should want. Bring in a guy who can work the playbook they want to use. And Taylor has been, by eyeball and by statistics, basically the same QB since about game nine of his first year here, but particularly the last two years. Up and down. Very inconsistent. But overall below average. And again, unable to consistently operate from the pocket. Yeah, a better surrounding cast would make him better. But not good enough. Does not fulfill their one requirement.

Frank Reich in the video here: https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/02/05/malcolm-butler-benching-eagles-passing-scheme-super-bowl-52 He's talking about the trick play, Philly Special "You come in here and you're doing your walkthrough and stuff and there's a lot of media around. So we didn't want to run it in front of a lot of people. So we're doing it in the hotel room. We're doing it in this little ballroom, like three times, just making sure ..." Not that I doubt the Pats would take the chance, but there is another possible explanation than Pats Paranoia for a fake walkthrough at the Super Bowl. It's just in too public a place and anyone can see.

I see. So there's never been one QB in NFL history who despite being new and thus not in sync with his WRs greatly improved his team's passing without major personnel improvement? Not true at all. Hell, look at Keenum this year. Keenum, Foles and Smith would probably all do significantly better here, as they're all better at getting the ball out on time, and throwing before a guy comes open. Some of Tyrod's problems are a result of Tyrod's tendencies, and some QBs - even guys who aren't that great - don't have those tendencies. It certainly is spin to say, "people who want our QB to be careless with the ball." Can you find anyone who's actually said that? Or words with that slant? And I think a lot of people's problem with Tyrod comes from a conviction that when your coach and GM have listed only one thing they need from a QB - the ability to throw from the pocket - and your current QB simply has never shown that ability that bringing in somebody who could fit the system they want to build should be a priority. "Anyone but Tyrod," is pretty clearly an exaggeration. I don't think those folks would rather see, say, Beyonce at QB, or the Dannemora escapees, or even someone with genuine football talent such as Shady at QB. They're just saying they don't want Tyrod. And an awful lot of that frustration directed at Tyrod is really more directed at his nuttier supporters (not you) not just posting bizarrely but overwhelming the threads with huge numbers of posts. A while back I went through one Tyrod thread and found one guy had about 20% of the posts on the thread. The great majority of which made not much sense. Again, I have no problem with what Tyrod said here. None whatsoever. But I don't want to give up $23 mill in cap space for one year of a guy who doesn't satisfy the one entry in the new coach's What-a-QB-Needs rubric.

He wasn't, Scott. He was incredibly accurate in the deep ball game his first year. His second year there was a major regression, and that has continued this year. From ESPN splits: 2015: 21 - 30 yards: 13/34, 38.2%, 339 yards, 6 TDs, 2 INTs, 90.6 passer rating 31-40 yards: 8/21, 38.1%, 314 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT, 105.7 passer rating 41 yards and up: 7/14, 50% 360 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, 135.4 rating That's some really good long passing. Over a thousand yards. 12 TDs and 3 INTs 2016: 21-30 yards: 9/28, 32.1%, 228 yards, 1 TD, 3 INTs, 35.1% passer rating 31-40 yards: 3/17, 17.6%, 168 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT, 83.3% passer rating 41+ yards: 4/8, 50%, 237 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, 135.4 passer rating That's much less effective. Particularly the 6 TDs and 4 INTs.

It does indeed. I remember the Fitz years well. But that's not what you get when you have a QB who is willing to sling it. That's what you get when you have a QB who isn't very good and slings it. There are no "people who want our QB to be careless with the ball," as you put it. That's some serious spin you're throwing with there, it would cut right through the wind at the Ralph. There are plenty of people who want us to be extremely proactive in getting a QB who is good enough to better take advantage of situations so as to be a lot more productive while upping the mistake levels a bit but not too much. It's possible. It involves being willing to throw to spots before the guy is open, for instance. I agree with anyone who says that Tyrod's lack of turnovers is a very good thing, but not good enough to overcome the passing game's lack of productivity. We need to stop worrying about bridges and get the long-term answer in here one way or another. We'll never be a really dangerous team till we can have a passing offense that teams respect.

We might disagree, but anyone insisting one guy is responsible or even mostly responsible for a football team's record is wrong. Flat-out wrong. It's a team game. Success is a team result. It depends on the run game. And the pass game. And the STs. And the run defense. And the pass defense. And the times when the ref thinks a forward lateral on the final kickoff wasn't forward. And the coaching. And on and on. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Yeah, QBs have more impact than any other player, but there are 22 others. Was Foles better than Brady? Or was Philly better than New England? When evaluating a QB, you don't look at how well, for instance, the middle linebacker played when he dropped or caught a probably game-winning INT, or whether or not the FG kicker missed or made the crucial kick. You look at how well the QB played QB. Period.

I do know it when I see it. But beyond that, it's basically when the defense changes from the standard defense to the prevent and starts letting teams have the shorter passes to trade for time burnt and a chance to rush the passer hard. That's the shorthand. You can't get too much more precise than that because it's different based on defensive personnel and strategy, the offense's quick-strike ability, the time left in the game and so on. But it absolutely exists. Can you explain to me in an objective way what a franchise QB is? Does the fact that you can't mean they don't exist? Can you explain precisely what momentum is and what difference it makes? When a defense is bend-but-don't-break and what the dividing line is between that and a defense that just gets pushed around a lot? There are a ton of things in football ... in any endeavor so complex and highly observed ... that can't be precisely objectively explained, and yet they exist. Accuracy, the subject of this thread, is one of them. Garbage time is also one of those things.

Bottom line is it could go either way. He'd be very useful to the Eagles this year if Wentz is injured again. And this is probably the peak of his value, so they would get maximum value for trading him. Both make sense. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Nope. The problem was drafting badly.

Good luck with all this.

Oh, come on. There's a difference there, Hapless. I agree with what you said about Tyrod's words. Nothing wrong with them. You expect a QB to be confident. But there's certainly such a thing as garbage time and unsuccessful comebacks are a bit different. You know this.

That's the thing. He ISN'T a slightly above average starter. He's a slightly below average starter. Slightly above average starter would mean he's top 15 or so, and it's not difficult to make a list of 15 starters you'd rather have than Tyrod. It is indeed straightforward, but there are still a few on here who don't get that. As for having a good cap number, questionable. Cap number is relevant to two things. Relevant to the first, league-wide QB cap numbers, his has indeed been decent. But a cap number is also relevant to how good a player the guy is. And Tyrod's cap numbers have been pretty high when you look at what we actually got, after that first year anyway. As for what it says that he's the all time leading Bills passer, I'd say it says more about the way the game has changed over the years. Tyrod wasn't a better passer than Kelly. I think everyone can agree with that. But completion percentages have steadily risen over the years. What it says is less that Bills QBs have been bad than that the last two or three QBs, the ones who played in the era when stats were roughly the same, weren't very good, not that that's big news. And it also says something about which stats you're looking at. Orton's one year in Buffalo he had higher completion percentage than Tyrod has ever had here. That's not Tyrod who has the good track record of beating the teams we should beat. It's the Buffalo Bills. Wins and losses is a team statistic.