Thurman#1

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.

As far as that, you're very reasonable and I actually agree, except for the part about what people were thinking in December means. They've had more time to watch more tape and get a better picture of the guy. But I'm also hoping we're not looking at him.

That's true. Some rookie QBs play in year 1. However, I think if you look carefully, there are no requirements about that anywhere in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. And that's utter nonsense that the best way to learn is on the field. The best way to learn varies. Different guys have different needs. Sitting, learning, re-jiggering his throwing motion and attending his head coach's "quarterback camp" was the best thing that ever happened to Aaron Rodgers. Thinking there's one best solution for everybody is pure idiocy.

Don't see this affecting the draft in any way. Browns go QB at #1, probably, or at least #4 and plan on sitting him.

Mayock has him at #2. Is he smoke-screening for someone? It's pretty much the consensus. I personally hope we don't take him but I wouldn't rule anything out. Beane and McD are from the Panthers, who chose Newton first overall, a guy who was on absolutely nobody's radar before that final year. Newton threw six passes in two years at Florida then spent a year at that JUCO, and then his terrific year at Auburn. Not that I want Allen. But I don't think there's any way to rule him out. I agree they've been looking at the QBs in this draft for awhile, but I can't imagine they'd close their minds when another guy starts to look draft-worthy.

Yeah, QB is likely their #1 pick unless they really see the top three QBs as exactly equal, which is wildly unlikely.

Broncos are going to be very interested in trading up.

Sal became well-known out of nowhere exactly because he had sources inside the Bills organization. He posted scoop after scoop after scoop. Regimes have changed since then, but we still don't know if his source was someone close to the GM or just someone in the building somewhere who overheard things. In any case, he's pretty good. He's measured and pretty careful. Not a huge fan, but he's alright.

IMHO that's just what they did is pull a Nix. Nix got FAs, but not the high-level expensive guys, or at least not till his third year did he go after one. Nix was a financial conservative. So is this regime. These days you can unofficially sign guys early and you couldn't in Nix's day, but these guys are signing just the kind of guys that Nix did, and Nix built a really good roster ... minus the QB and the coach. Remember the last time anyone thought we had depth? It was during the Nix regime. I think they would've liked to get some of those QBs but knew they'd be too expensive and would destroy the cap. And I think Cousins is the only good risk-reward shot in the group. I would love to have gotten Keenum or Bridgewater, but I figured it would just be too expensive. My guess is that's what the Bills thought too. They probably did due diligence but heard that their guesses on trade price and signing price had been pretty reasonable. They figure McCarron is unproven, but that that made him an affordable bridge. That was the first improvement on Tyrod and the second is that McCarron fulfills their one requirement, that it has to be a guy who can play from the pocket. There's a higher chance that McCarron becomes a good QB who can play from the pocket than there was that Tyrod could become the same thing. An upgrade and a savings. Though he could easily turn out to be an unproductive guy, he fits the offense and could at least be a good mentor for a couple of years if he doesn't play well.

This isn't a big deal. You said it yourself. Money. Money is what drives most free agency decisions on destination from the player's sides, in probably 90% of all deals. The exceptions are generally when the offers are very close and there's no big financial difference or for guys who have already brought in tens of millions of bucks and now on their later contracts can afford to look at championships rather than just money. I think Beane's doing a terrific job. I'm not saying this to slight the Bills in any way. But picking the Bills over the Pats would not be any kind of a big deal unless the terms the Pats were offering were better.