thebandit27

It has to be included, otherwise the moment the ball hits a guy's hands with 2 feet down, he'll be awarded a catch. With the ability to slow down replay, there needs to be a 3rd component of a catch. It can't be a time requirement, because you'd be drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. The ability to perform a football move is a catch-all that allows for some discretion.

Agreed I certainly think that Allen is in the conversation for most gifted, yes. As for who I would take, man, my board is all over the place right now. Who I like on a stand-alone basis, and who I like for specific team fits are vastly different. I think Beane would move up for any of Darnold/Rosen/Allen, but that's just speculation on my part.

Of course; the benefit of hindsight is great, right? (that's just me talking; not a shot at you or anything) I think people get way too hung up on completion percentage. I am more interested in knowing if they've actually watched Allen face teams like Iowa, and saw how he threw the ball. I also want to know if the same folks were aware that Allen competed against 3 teams that finished in the top-20 pass defense in FBS in 2017 (Air Force, Utah State, and Central Michigan--and in those games he completed 72.7%, 69.2%, and 57.9% of his passes, respectively. My biggest problem is that people don't watch this kid, and they have no idea just how good he's been at times. I don't think it's as much attitude/injuries as team fit. Allen is blowing people's doors off with his physical ability, and as I said: the tape on the kid doesn't lie--when he's right, he's downright special.

I'm a bit of an anomaly among posters here, as I like any of Darnold/Rosen/Allen/Mayfield enough to trade up for them. Actually MAJ, that's 3 definite successes, and 4 if you count McCown...and that's not really the point. You stated definitively that it doesn't happen; I'm stating definitively that it does. One of us is correct, and the other needs to re-think things IMO. I'll leave it to you to decide which applies to yourself. FWIW, I am convinced that the #1 pick is going to come down to either Darnold or Allen...it would not surprise me at all if the other one goes #3 to NYJ

Not for nothing, but whether or not the 60% rule applies really depends upon your definition of "success". For example: Josh McCown was a career 51% passer in college, and all he's done is put together a 16-year career that includes 73 starts, and he's coming off of his best season as a pro--one in which he completed over 67% of his passes for a career-high 7.4 YPA. Obviously we have the Stafford example, but how many folks knew that Russell Wilson completed only 60.7% of his passes in college, and that prior to his senior season at Wisconsin, he was a career 57% passer? Carson Palmer was a career 59% passer at USC Matt Ryan was a career 59.9% passer at Boston College--including 59.3% as a senior So perhaps it's worth re-thinking the idea that (a) below 60% accuracy is some kind of automatic failure threshold, and (b) accuracy cannot be improved from college to the pros.

The first two that come to mind off the top of my head are Bud Dupree on Matt Moore... And Kiko Alonso on Joe Flacco...

If the Giants stay at 2 and don't draft a QB, it's HUGE for Buffalo, who can then move to 4 to get a QB for a much lower price than getting to 2.

I don't disagree with any of your comments about Seau or the unfortunate situation of guys "hiding" concussions. I also don't think that Trent Edwards' concussion was some kind of unicorn concussion that caused a guy's career to fold up like a lawn chair--plenty of other guys have taken much worse hits and not seen that kind of decline.

If it was the hit, then why did he play his best game as a professional the following game against the Chargers? For me, his decline was simple: defensive coordinators took away the quick interior routes that he lived off of and he couldn't challenge teams down the field.

Well, we can be sure that neither of them were blocked from entering One Bills Drive by Newhouse.

I jokingly said yesterday when the Kevin Minter visit was announced "Where's Karlos Dansby? Wherever Minter goes, Dansby won't be far behind" I wasn't being serious...

Yep, literally what you said:

I can't agree with that list of busts. If a QB is good enough to take you to a conference championship game, then he's not a bust. I guess we're pretty darn far apart on this one.

Okay, now I am 100% convinced that you are being intentionally obtuse. Let me simplify for you: Team give up picks to move up, take player Player acquisition not work out, end up getting traded Team still improve enough to have winning record in same season player leaves Team clearly not set back years and years from big trade up Get it now?

Phillips runs a 1-gap 3-4, so Suh's job wouldn't change much at all.

How can you be missing the point this badly? His point is that giving up picks to move up doesn't set the team back at all. With every post you reiterate that his point is salient...if the guy that they traded a future #1 pick and a 4th round pick to move up and acquire wasn't even on the team 3 seasons later when they made the playoffs, how is trading multiple assets to move up mortgaging he future? You're contending that they were somehow going to go from the 19th overall pick to the 2nd overall pick that year? No, that wasn't going to happen; they lacked the assets. Also, if the implication is that this is also the wrong year to make such a move, then I ask again: if not now, when?

Huh, who'd have thought?

I'll reference my earlier post so as not to be obnoxious by repeating myself

Nope. You completely missed Wayne's point and are now making outrageous claims. At what point was this team in position to land Mariota instead of Darby?

For me, I'm looking at the percentage of "franchise QBs" (so defined as guys that a team could win a Super Bowl with as their starter) across the league, and what percentage of those guys are premium picks in the draft. We could debate who counts and who doesn't, but I come up with around 20 guys that fit the description (I do not count anyone from the 2017 draft, nor am I including Mariota or Winston for reference). Of those 20, only 6 come from outside the 1st round, and another 4 come from outside the top 8...which means that 50% of the franchise QBs in the NFL come from the top 8 picks. If I'm playing the percentages, that's where I want to be picking.

Which strategy gives you the best chance to get a long-term answer at QB: wait and hope you get it right later, or scout all of the top guys, decide which one(s) you like best, and being aggressive to go get him?

Pretty sure you just proved Wayne's point. The team gave up a relative bounty to move up and draft Watkins--a move that ended up not working out as they planned--and yet they ended the 17-year playoff drought a mere 3 seasons later. Giving up a bounty didn't set the team back a decade then; why would it now?

That entire future scenario is predicated on the idea that drafting a QB this year precludes you from doing so again next year--and it doesn't. Not getting it right in a trade-up is no more likely to set the team back than the scenario where you stay at 12 and 22, draft non-QBs, play out the 2018 season with below-average QB play winning 7-9 games, and end up picking 18-20 again next season. Then what? You have a chance to go get your guy right now; we don't know when we'll have the chance again.

Two full decades before my time, but wasn't Lucas a signee in the inaugural AFL "free agent" (for lack of a better term) chase? I could be wrong...

Exactly. The point is that you have to capitalize on the opportunity to get your guy when you have the chance. It's no different than needing a QB and having the No. 2 overall pick--you're in position to get your guy, so you do it without question. Right now, Buffalo has the draft capitol to get in position to get their guy; not doing it would be the height of insanity IMO