thebandit27

That's why scouting QBs is such a conundrum. These days, they all have significant weak points, so you really need to be able to assess what translates and what doesn't. I like Mahomes the best, and have kept him as my QB1, but I keep going back to the idea that I think Trubisky's game may translate better and/or quicker to the NFL game. I'm probably guilty of dismissing too many guys versus liking too many.

He's started some threads that were worthy of discussion We all have our misses, but I do see a post from him claiming that Stanford's Kevin Hogan would "be special"

NFL execs opine regarding who will be the 1st QB taken: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000800928/article/ask-5-wholl-be-first-qb-selected-in-2017-nfl-draft?campaign=tw-cf-sf71542487-sf71542487 Also, draft gurus discuss how they mis-evaluated guys: https://theringer.com/2017-nfl-draft-biggest-misses-scouts-executives-9b7afdd89a7e

Time for you to go on record, since every guy that's mentioned you apparently want to tear down...who do you like in the draft?

Not exactly. Some folks happen to believe that the backup RB on this team has a higher value to this team than the does to any other team in the NFL...and that a guy that was very productive in his limited role is worth spending an additional $900k in cap space in order to keep him. It really is that simple.

FWIW, Arizona liked Bortles a LOT back in 2014

Who, exactly, are you referring to with this comment?

That's how I have it now

That would certainly make the draft more interesting

I can assure you that I'm done banging my head against that wall

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about 100% of the time and it's taxing Literally everything I said is true, and yet somehow, like always, you're making things up for the sake of who knows what? I've given you the benefit of the doubt that, at some point, you'd make a single solitary attempt to make a coherent point on any one subject. It hasn't happened. You have a single bullet in your arsenal, and that's to deny that the opposing argument is true without even addressing the content. It's useless, and I apologize to the rest of the board for entertaining your routine this long.

That place is phenomenal

You've heard all of my arguments on this...in the ONLY stretch of games during which he was targeted at a similar pace to those guys he OUT-PRODUCED them. That he plays in an offense that throws the ball less than any other in the game is by far the largest factor in holding him back. Availability is a relatively distant second. Those are the facts; debate them as you will, but I'd encourage you to do it (a) in the appropriate thread and (b) with some consideration of context

I don't see Trubisky going to SF, but John Lynch has no draft record, so SF is a bit of a wildcard. That said, with reports running rampant that SF wants to move down from the 2 slot, it makes me believe that they don't love any QB enough to take him there. Suppose, however, that they do take Trubisky at No. 2...I would guess that Chicago would take Thomas. I feel fairly certain that he'd never get passed Tennessee at No. 5

I realize that you are angry, but state facts instead of whining about inaccuracies. He's started 70% of the games that have been played since he's been in the NFL, and he's extremely productive when on the field. He had a foot injury that he played through in 2015, and smoked the rest of the league over the final 9 games that season (when they finally started making him the focal point of the passing game). Has availability held him back? Yes. Is it anywhere near as bad as you're claiming? No. Now go find another team to cheer for since you've said multiple times that you're done with this one.

I noticed that Tyrod had a lot more time later in the season once Watkins came back...that extra safety that defenses can't walk down into the box makes an enormous difference.

Evidence?

I think they're trying to make sure that they get both of the guys that they want. They absolutely must take Garrett at 1 if they want him, because there's no conceivable way he gets passed 2 as the best player in the draft. So if they want Trubisky as well, and they want to make sure they get him, they should trade up in front of any team that looks likely to take a QB. They obviously feel that SF and Chicago won't, so logically you'd look at Tennessee, who has Mariota and has a history of draft-day trades with Cleveland.

Son of a B word...I wondered how they stayed open that long Oh well; guess I'll have to get my Mediterranean fix from Zoe's on Transit.

Interestingly enough, Jacksonville did this quite a bit late in the season...and for the most part, it worked...until Shady hit them for a 75-yard TD run and Tyrod hit Sammy on a bomb.

You could be right. My only thought was that you might be able to entice him to sign for less if you fully-guarantee the deal very early in the offseason. If not, well, then you slap the 2nd round tender on him and let him play hardball if he wants to...in the end, you own his rights, so he'll have to sign.

I was saying to offer him that contract in lieu of any of the tenders...back in January before the RFA tender period.

He gets more guaranteed money than either the OR or 2nd round tender in case of an injury prior to the season. If they moved quickly on it (say, in January), I think he'd have taken it. If he didn't, then you slap the 2nd round tender on him and you're good to go.

As I've said a few times in this thread (and given how long it is it's understandable if anyone missed it), I said very early in the offseason that I'd offer him a 2-year, $4.5M deal that was fully guaranteed. I'd have kept the cap hit low for 2017--lower than the original-round tender at $1.5M--and let the 2018 cap figure climb to $3M. The incentive to sign is that it's more guaranteed money in case he gets injured in the preseason.

Not bloody likely...if they're trying to move up, then it's more than likely us that they're trying to get ahead of IMO