Thurman#1

I think Rosen is going to work out great. Unfortunately I don't see him falling even out of the top two. If you're worrying about his attitude, listen to this about him. Listen to the stuff about his confrontation with Dilfer. Rosen has matured and is going to be a very very good player, IMHO. https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2018/01/18/fantasy-lab-podcast-matt-waldman-on-the-2018-qb-class/#respond It's around 9:50 and lasts around five minutes.

Well, yeah, but you're really slanting things your way. Sure Stafford was a 57% passer - career - but he improved every year and his senior year he was a 61% passer while holding a superb YPA of 9.0. His 57% had a lot more to do with his 51% freshman year when he had almost a 1:2 TD:INT ratio. Awful. But by his last year he was much much better. Had a few positives too, though. "STRENGTHS Positives: Perhaps a bit shorter than preferred, but has excellent bulk and strength for the position. ... Durable performer who never missed a college game due to injury, despite a leaky offensive line. ... Efficient footwork and depth on his drop from center. ... Quick to scan the field and go through his progressions. ... Elite arm strength. ... Can make all the throws and shows power and toughness getting the ball deep even when defenders are closing and making contact. ... Consistent with excellent accuracy to all levels of the field. ... Consistent placing the deep out on the far shoulder of his receiver, away from the defender. ... Has good deep accuracy and trajectory. ... Lofts the ball high enough to allow his receiver to run under it. ... Aggressive, but has developed into a smarter passer over his career and will take what the defense gives him by dropping to his second and third options. ... Learning to look off the safety. ... Underrated core strength. ... Keeps his eyes downfield and will step up in the pocket and is willing to take a hit to complete the pass. ... Surprisingly nimble in the pocket and can avoid the rush. ... Underrated straight-line speed and will take what the defense gives him. ... Takes his own success and that of the team very seriously. ... Extremely competitive. ... Team captain. ... Undefeated in bowl games. Negatives: Can get fundamentally lazy... ... Though he has an efficient overall release, should be able to speed it up for underneath screens passes to take better advantage of the surprise to the defense. ... Sloppy footwork. ... Will get lazy and throw off his back foot, which could lead to turnovers in the NFL... ... Willing to throw into tight spots, though more often than not he places the ball where it needs to be... ... Not great accuracy on crossing routes. ... Too often leads his receivers too far or forces them to reach back, slowing their momentum and limiting their ability to generate yardage after the catch."

Heh heh heh.

Agreed that it isn't no tradeups whatsoever. Fletcher Cox was brought in by moving up three spots at the cost of a 4th and a 6th. Fine!! For Matthews, it was no 1st rounder, it was a 2nd and two 3rds. But don't trade two 1sts up for anyone but a QB. There's a reason it's the rule. If they end up having a shot, I hope they do, but no thanks on Allen. They could get him later.

And people sometimes win a lot of money when they bet it all on double-zero. But that doesn't mean an intelligent person determined to maximize his chances of success should make that bet. Same with major tradeups of two 1sts or more for non-QBs. It's possible to win one. It just happens around 20% of the time, and therefore is a terrible idea. And the academic Massey-Thaler study, the Harvard Sport Collective study and more and more every time someone does a new one keep showing why it's not a good idea. Jax tried to find a Luck or Rogers. Bortles was their attempt. He may yet work out well, or not. But we have no idea whether Jax is a one or two-year phenomenon or a long-term success. Till we know, unless they win a Super Bowl this year, they make a terrible example for either side. We don't know what they are.

No, just the opposite. It's saying that even if it's not serious enough to cause concussion, repeated hits to the head can cause CTE. "Previous studies have shown that repetitive hits to the head -- even without concussion -- can result in CTE, but scientists said this is the most definitive study to date to find this connection." This isn't good news for the NFL in any way. And your headline is really misleading. This study doesn't show that it's "Confirmed Concussions don't cause CTE." Concussions do. But so do even lesser impacts, if repeated.

Holy cow! Man, that was too long and rich for me, but well worth a skim. The surprise to me was how well Mayfield came out of the comparisons, but he's not being compared to guys like Darnold. Very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

Yeah, but Bortles is still young and visibly improving quite a bit. We know Tyrod's ceiling. Have for a year and a half, really. Kornheiser's statement is an obvious exaggeration at a moment of excitement. He doesn't even rule out 3rd stringers. Clearly an exaggeration. I'm actually a Kornheiser fan. I lived in Northern Virginia and worked in D.C. for many years and read his stuff in the Post. Also have bought a couple of his books. The guy is genuinely funny. A hell of a writer.

Obviously Julio isn't a flop. But the huge host of picks they had to give up caused Atlanta to be pretty bad for three years. And Julio hasn't won them a title; if he had you'd have to say it was a good trade, as a title justifies pretty much anything, as I'm sure Belichick would agree. There's still a really good argument that the Jones trade was a mistake, as good a player as he is. They gave up the 2011 #27, the 2011 #59, the 2011 #124, the 2012 #22, and the 2012 #118. Just look at what they might have gotten for only the two 1sts and one 2nd they gave up. For the 2011 #27, they could have gotten Anthony Castonzo, Cameron Jordan, Jonathan Baldwin, Mark Ingram, Carimi, Muhammad Wilkerson or Cameron Heyward. For the 2011 #59 they could have gotten Marcus Gilbert, Randall Cobb, Terrell McClain, Justin Houston or DeMarco Murray. For the 2012 #22 they could have gotten Riley Rieff, David DeCastro, Dont'a Hightower, Whitney Mercilus, Zeitler, Harrison Smith or Fleener. And yeah, it's easier for me to pick after the fact, but all of those guys were available within 10 or so picks of where the picks the Falcs gave up were. That's a major harvest, and doesn't even count the two later picks. And the Julio trade is a rarity. Most trades of that kind are obvious horrible flops. Only a small percentage of trades of that much draft ammo can be considered even possible successes. You're taking a low-odds gamble by doing something like this.

It's not never trade up. But yeah, you don't give up two firsts except for a QB, you just don't. It's why the Sammy trade was mostly panned from minute one. Picking Sammy was good, though Mack might have been better. Making the trade up to get the #4 pick was really bad. Same with trading up for Roquan unless it's like a 1st and a 4th or something, which I doubt puts them in a good enough position to get Roquan.

Yup, this. I totally buy this part of that recent expose. The reporter had a lot of sources and the coverage was slanted towards Belichick, so some of the sources were almost certainly guys in Belichick's camp. In any case, I just don't see Garoppolo being available in any way, at any price.

NFLDraftScout has him between 4.65 and 4.76, but with a high of 4.87. that 4.87 is very slow. http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=127508&draftyear=2018&genpos=ILB But his range is OK but not excellent.

Right, Tomlin hasn't won a Super Bowl in the same amount of time Dungy was coach at Tampa. So if Dungy had won a title just before he arrived there, this would not be too too horrible of a comparison. But Tampa was Dungy's first HC shot, so it's an absolutely ridiculous dud. Winning a championship for a franchise correctly buys you a lot of leeway. And IMHO there's no Gruden available for Pittsburgh. The rest of your argument is reasonable. Though a lot of the reason Pittsburgh hasn't been in conference championships during Tomlin's post-championship tenure is that for a lot of that time they had poor defensive talent after their core got too old. They had to spend several years rebuilding their talent base. But the Rooneys are highly aware of the benefits of continuity.

The reason being that SF made a bad choice at QB. Smith was absolutely a top ten guy this year. For the rest of his post-Harbaugh career, more like 11th, 12th or 13th on the average. He'd be great to bring in if they don't have to give up too too much, but they should also draft a guy, high.

In Tyrod's dreams.

Agreed that he's not special, but you don't give up their legacy of success through continuity because the guy you have, who has a Super Bowl ring there, isn't special. Keep their machine turning over. Yeah, it's the Tony Dungy situation all over again. Remember the championships Dungy had, like the championship Tomlin has in Pittsburgh? Like a mirror image.

Nonsense. Not an especially good player. But as an on-field QB mentor, from all accounts he's smart, experienced and knowledgeable at this point. Two quick links on that: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-ryan-pace-nfl-meetings-spt-20170328-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-mark-sanchez-bears-quarterbacks-haugh-spt-0905-20170904-column.html He's been used in Chicago precisely as a mentor who's right in Trubisky's ear telling him what's going on. Not that I'm desperate to get the guy or anything. There's a reason I would want him only as a QB resource / backup.

It's looked that way for a while. Nothing much has changed. Not nearly as sure as you are about Bridgewater, though. No thanks on Bradford. Doesn't fit what the Bills need. Alex Smith or McCown seem the most likely. Sanchez, Fitz or Henne maybe, mostly as QB whisperers / bridge guys. Cousins would be better but the brain trust doesn't appear to be the types that pay such a high cost in FA. Bridgewater is an outside chance, he'd be a good pickup but probably won't be here.

Nah, he brought in the draft picks too. Cut Dareus. Who was it who brought in EJ Gaines? Oh, yeah, Beane. I mean, yeah, he wasn't here for the draft, so of course we don't know how things will work out in that facet of his work. But saying "show me the money, I'm waiting" before his first draft doesn't make sense. He hasn't had the slightest chance to do so yet. And Kelvin Benjamin looks like a terrific pickup for the future.

I'm entertaining? Dude, you're the one who's got people accusing you of wearing Taylor PJs and singing the greatest song about stalking and obsession ever written. It ain't me who's looking pitiful and needy or entertaining here. Ty, can't you see? You belong to T? His poor heart aches when you blame race. Every run you make every early pocket break every wackjob fan fruitcake every first read mistake every open throw you flake, every drive you brake the longballs you forsake Bills fans hearts you deflate, still COT's beefcake, not as good as Blake, but Transie's watching you.

The method Pitt used to acquire Big Ben was they lost enough games the year before to get the 11th pick. And while I certainly wouldn't have minded that myself, that ship has sailed. Oh, and they got that 11th pick In arguably the greatest QB draft year in history. Not sure I see it being that good this year, though you never know when it comes to the future. And Pittsburgh didn't win a Super Bowl in Roethlisberger's rookie year, though they certainly did have a terrific first Roethlisyear. Oh, and Keenum simply hasn't been pedestrian this year. He's been very good. And if the Eagles had played Foles all year instead of Wentz they not only wouldn't have gotten a bye and home field through the playoffs, they might well have not even made the playoffs. Wentz is the huge majority of the 2017 story at Eagles QB.

It doesn't feature Foles. Or rather, the reason the Eagles are still playing is 90% Wentz and 10% Foles. Wentz and Brady are both elite. Bortles and Wentz both top three picks. And Keenum is playing like a top ten guy if not elite. I'd argue what you see here is that you need a guy who can play like a top ten guy to have a decent chance. That someone without a top ten guy reasonably often gets to the NFL final four but rarely do you see them carrying the Lombardi. So you need a guy who can play like a top ten guy. And there are no guarantees anywhere, but the higher a guy gets drafted the more likely he is to turn out to be one of those guys. I do agree though that when you draft a guy you shouldn't assume that just because you want him to be an immediate starter and savior that that happens very very rarely. There will be development and that means time.

The post was a load of horse crap, so I called it a load of horse crap. And yours wasn't tongue in cheek. It was "largely tongue in cheek." Your own words. And thing is, tongue in cheek or not, it sounded exactly like your serious posts. Take off the last sentence or two where you tried to back off what you said, and it could've come from nearly any post you've written over the last few years. And yeah, it was worth my time. If it hadn't been I wouldn't have written it.

I can. The obsession? Stop it.

What a load of horse crap. Again and again you hear the same arguments against you. Because they make sense. And yet when it comes time for you to try to paraphrase, you're off in fantasyland making up straw men. Again and again. Virtually nobody said, "You can't win with Tyrod." It was obvious you could. The last three years we've won games. Not a ton but some. A very slight majority of the games he's started. Of course you can win with Tyrod. There were a few trolls who said, "Tyrod is one of the worst QBs in the league.!" Nobody else. Every non-troll here understands that he's one of the top 32 QBs in the league. No non-trolls on here would have the faintest problem finding twenty-five backup QBs that anyone would know Tyrod is a great deal better than. As usual it's better to make up stupid arguments to put in people's mouths, as they're easy to counter than to counter the actual good arguments about Tyrod and franchise QBs. Such as, "Having a franchise QB gives you a chance to be competitive for championships for a decade or more." Such as, "Tyrod can get you to the playoffs, as can nearly any QB with a little luck, but Tyrod doesn't get you a championship unless you have a surrounding team virtually without weaknesses, a defense comparable with defenses like the Ravens defense the year they won with or the Bears the year they won with Dilfer or the Bears the year they won with McMahon, or Tampa Bay's championship. And in any case, Bortles is in the same neighborhood as Taylor. Tyrod may be better by a whisker. But Bortles is in his fourth year and still improving at a pretty good rate. Whereas going on his eighth year, we've known Tyrod's ceiling for a while now. Not so with Bortles. Bortles' fourth year has been significantly better, for instance, than Eli Manning's had played in any of his first four years. Nor has Bortles himself made a Super Bowl yet, much less made his team consistent for championships over a long period of time. Bortles might be at his ceiling now. Or he might get a lot better next year. But we know Tyrod won't.