thebandit27

I'll take the Jets to back-door the spread. I don't see Buffalo's offense scoring enough to cover that margin.

How anyone can say this based on the sample space we've seen is beyond me.

You don't need to evaluate Peterman this year, since you know for a fact that you're drafting a QB next season regardless. Also, you have Peterman under contract for 3 more seasons after this; there's no hurry. What this team needs to do is evaluate everything else. The QB that is capable of making the most plays on Sundays is the guy that will give the FO the best chance to evaluate the other pieces/parts of the offense. Right now, they must believe that's Taylor, or else they'd be starting Peterman.

They can get out of Austin's deal after 2017 with only $5M in dead money.

Some folks really need to learn to separate their evaluations of Peterman and Taylor. Just because someone thinks that Taylor isn't good enough doesn't imply that they think Peterman is the next big thing. Just because someone thinks that Peterman isn't ready to play doesn't imply that they think Taylor is good enough. Peterman showed some encouraging signs during the preseason that he may be able to play in this league. That has absolutely zero bearing on anyone's evaluation of Taylor.

He lead the team in receptions last year and tied for the team lead in TDs. He also had more receptions than all but 12 other TEs in the NFL despite playing on the team that threw the fewest passes. He hasn't been worth the money they gave him, but reports of his underachievement are highly exaggerated IMO.

They also drafted Marcus Maye in round 2, so I think they'll have 2 rookies starting at safety. Seattle's front is a wrecking crew now though...base downs they'll have Avril-J. Reed-Richardson-Bennett, and then when Reed comes off the field in passing situations they'll have Avril-Bennett-Richardson-F. Clark. Woof.

The Jets still have a very good front with Wilkerson, McClendon, and Williams.

Not sorry to see that dude out of the division.

Jeremy Zuttah is back on the market

Peterman certainly looks much better tonight. It's an encouraging showing for sure

Nobody is being harsh. You are mistaking honest evaluation for unnecessary harshness for some odd reason.

That could end up being the case. Right now, I like that Mayfield is athletic, can make plays, and pushes the ball down the field. I also value that he seems to be able to speed up his snap-to-release when he needs to. If I'm guessing, he'll probably drop below whichever of the 3 you've mentioned can further develop their accuracy and snap-to-release time, since they all have the measurables to win out if all else is equal. For now, I'm not willing to mix in potential into my evaluation since so much can change in the next 4 months, and so Mayfield gets the top spot. FWIW, going into 2016 I had Mahomes as my top QB, and I kept him there right on through the draft, though I conceded that I was sure Trubisky would go before him because his game probably translated to the NFL more smoothly.

I am most decidedly not a Mason Rudolph-in-the-first guy at the moment...obviously my 2017 season evaluations could change that. Right now, my QB board based on offseason work-ups looks like this: 1. Mayfield 2. Rosen 3/4/5. Allen/Darnold/Falk (no separation at the moment) 6. Rudolph Other guys I've reviewed in detail include Browning, Ferguson, McSorely, Thorson, Fitzgerald, Speight, Stanton, Francois, and Littman, but they're all in tier 2 or 3 for me at the moment. I'm looking forward to getting enough video of L. Jackson and J. Stidham to put together an evaluation on them as well.

I'm not sure why that would upset anyone. I am sure that there are folks that have posted in this thread that would be upset if he called Tyrod a good QB.

That you have to re-state the truth of this point for the bajillionth time because it's being fully ignored is utter lunacy

I understood the point. old school also understood the point; he simply decided that he didn't care about that point because it ran counter to his diatribe...if we don't boil the focus of the discussion down to whether or not Tyrod has looked good this preseason then it doesn't fit the narrative.

Yes, it most certainly is difficult when one person points out obscene logical fallacies and someone with an agenda just says "yeah, but let's ignore those and focus on minutiae that may or may not support my agenda".

See below...

They're not good. The only WRs that had a higher drop percentage on the same/higher number of targets were Brandon Marshall and Michael Crabtree. In fact, of the 48 players that had over 100 targets in 2016, Matthews is one of only 6 with a drop percentage that high.

He's had issues in the pros too... Drop percentage by year: 2016 - 5.1% 2015 - 3.9% 2014 - 5.8% Not good.

How does it make sense to disregard 29 games of real, actual, regular-season game experience as a starting QB in favor of analyzing a mere 2+ quarters of preseason play? That's the question that Hokie is asking (albeit in a roundabout way by drawing a comparison).

Actually, at least 2 of the 3 "ifs" you mention here aren't exactly accurate. 1) Taylor is not a "1 read and run" QB. Read this: http://billswire.usatoday.com/2016/09/30/buffalo-bills-film-study-levels/ 2) I'm certain that the offense will have more to it than what we've seen in the preseason, but since that can be argued as conjecture to this point, I'll toss this one to the side 3) If the OL isn't very good, does it make more sense to play the guy that's shown in the past that he can extend plays and hurt defenses down the field, or the guy that's significantly less mobile? Look, I understand the idea about "let's find out about Nate". You have the kid under contract for 4 years, so there's no hurry. Unless he absolutely sets the world on fire in the regular season (which would be unbelievable considering he's done nothing remotely close to that against 2's and 3's in the preseason), then you're still drafting a QB with your top pick next year. Why not? Hokie's point is that Ryan's an established starter (like Tyrod), playing in a new offense (like Tyrod), and he hasn't performed--by the numbers--as well as Peterman this preseason (like Tyrod).

Good topic Gunner! I think Reilly is probably going to make the roster, so i'm going to avoid listing him. Bradley Sylve Marquavious Lewis Michael Ola

Well, as I've said, I think tying one's opinion about Peterman to one's opinion about Tyrod is misplaced in this discussion. As to your question, I think you're being kind with regard to Tyrod's comeback ability. He's bottom-third easily, perhaps even bottom-5. Again though, that's irrespective of Peterman IMO. No need for an olive branch; no animosity whatsoever (on my side anyway ). My main reason for not starting Peterman over Tyrod when healthy is that I believe that a rookie should have to earn the starting role. Tyrod came into the preseason as the unquestioned starter, and while he's struggled since Watkins' exit (along with the rest of the starting offense), Peterman hasn't exactly played the type of Russell-Wilson-in-the-2012-preseason lights-out football that a rookie should be playing against 2's and 3's to wrest the job from an established starter. The ancillary reasons I have for going with Tyrod include (a) I want to see what guys like Zay Jones and Jordan Matthews can do in this offense, and I think Tyrod is more capable of making plays at this stage of his career, and (b) I simply don't see a guy in Peterman that's ready to play competitive football against 1st-string NFL defenses when the bullets start flying. Hope that clears things up. PS--I appreciate that you bring up good talking points in a well-reasoned manner.