thebandit27

I would optimistically take that as Gilly still being a candidate for a long-term deal. Very, very glad to see the trio of Sammy/Wood/Cyrus in attendance.

Perhaps creating an offense, but picking a QB? To my recollection, neither guy had anything to do with picking any of the 3 QBs with which they've collectively had success.

See, I'm not sure I agree with that--it could simply be that they don't have a potential franchise grade on either of those guys. I'm not one to skewer the organization for having a different grade on a player than I do...I will, however, take them to task if the philosophy doesn't make sense. For example, the 2012 draft. I don't want to hear days/weeks/months later that you had franchise grade on Russell Wilson. If that's true, then everyone involved should be fired for not drafting him in round 1 or 2. At the same time, we can wreck them for having the wrong grade on EJ Manuel all we want, but the thought process was correct: you need a franchise QB, and don't have any hopefuls on your roster, so you take your shot at the guy that you think has the greatest potential to become one. Now, if you look at a draft class and think that none of the QBs have that make-up, then I understand not taking a guy just for the sake of taking one...that, IMO, would be a waste of resources. My question wasn't if the presence of a veteran could preclude them from it, my question was what evidence do we have that suggests that it would? And the answer is zero. Now, the second question is what evidence do we have that the presence of a vet would not preclude them from drafting a guy? Answer: 2013 (EJ Manuel despite Kolb and Tarvaris Jackson on the roster) and 2016 (Cardale Jones despite EJ and Tyrod on the roster--and Tyrod had a long-term deal to boot).

Pressure in his face and disrupting his timing...gotta have both.

What? No, it's not short-term thinking. It's actually long-term thinking. Just because you're interested in winning in the present does not mean that you aren't interested in finding the long-term solution, and absolutely zero reason to connect the two (or to assume that the front office connects the two). Case-in-point: the last time that the front office was in an obvious state of not having a potential franchise guy on the roster, they went out and signed a veteran QB (Kevin Kolb) that they felt could start. A month later, they drafted EJ Manuel. On anecdotal evidence alone, there's no reason to connect the idea that a veteran presence precludes this front office staff from drafting a potential franchise QB.

I don't think it's a terrible class--I think it's a class where you need to know what traits can be developed vs. what traits cannot. This makes no sense. If you're a new HC, and you have a guy in the fold that has proven that he can lead an offense to a top-30%-of-the-NFL finish in points scored, then why wouldn't you try to keep that guy in the fold at a reasonable rate while you look for your long-term solution? As a new HC, you don't get much of a grace period to product results. Taken in the context of who is/was available to them at the position, it looks like the exact opposite of panic.

It's a concern, but remember that just because it's a cover-3 zone (or any other kind of zone) doesn't mean that it's off-coverage all the time. In fact, C-3 and other zone schemes often require their corners to play press/trail technique against shiftier guys. My guess is that--against teams like NE, the plan for McDermott's D will be to bump as much as possible in the short zones to disrupt timing and generate pressure up the middle with Dareus/Kyle/Shaq (who will probably play a decent amount of 3/4i those games).

No idea how you drew that conclusion, but no, that's ostensibly not at all what I said

Somehow I missed this post--sorry about that I really don't have an issue with any of what you said. It's merely a case where I like the upside of his skill set enough to gamble on him. Let's face it--each of the top QBs in this class is a gamble, so if I miss, I want it to be on the guy with the greatest upside.

I appreciate the sentiment! It seems we're pretty much in agreement on Mahomes. He's not my QB1 because he's a clean prospect who's an odds-on bet to be great; he's my QB1 because of what he could be if he continues to progress. One of the reasons that I'd like Buffalo to take a shot on him is that tyrod is under contract for 2 years, so he has time to work on his mechanical flaws.

The issues are mutually exclusive--even if you found another backup, it still doesn't make sense to cut a guy for zero cap savings

You're missing the point. ANY article thay focuses on a handful of plays will invariably fail to assess his entire body of work. As for my opinion, I've watched every throw of his from both 2015 and 2016 (twice), so I feel darn comfortable with what I'm putting out there.

Actually Rico, the argument for keeping EJ was quite simple: he cost the same amount against the cap whether they kept him or not, so it makes just as much sense to use his cap hit to fill a roster space than to cut him and have to spend more money to fill that roster spot

I like Cian Fahey, but the gate swings both ways with this type of analysis https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fanragsports.com/nfl/patrick-mahomes-best-qb-nfl-draft/amp/

I have no clue why there's this odd need to perpetuate a myth that every Mahomes supporter is simply focused on his arm strength. It's bizarre to say the least. Not that I expect everyone to have read my QB evaluation thread, but I covered my position on him at length: solid measurables, can extend plays--but also shows the ability to speed up his snap-to-release time when necessary, able to make his pre-snap reads, can drop his deep throws in the bucket, and most importantly he showed progress in terms of keeping his feet calm and climbing the pocket more often in 2016. He's not a perfect prospect; he needs to improve upon his erratic footwork and develop more of a comfort level in the pocket--become more consistent with climbing to safety instead of breaking out the back (sound familiar?). Nearly every Mahomes supporter acknowledges all of this; perhaps it makes more sense to make your analysis about the player and not his supporters.

Re Williams, that's the EXACT comparison that I thought of--a slightly less athletic Mike Evans. As to the drafting philosophy, I'm really hoping for a focus on excellent football players. If they happen to be front-7, that's fine with me.

Draft good players at premium positions; worrying about needs is a fool's errand IMO That said, Williams isn't a tier 1 NFL WR threat IMO. Nice player, but there will probably be better investments available at 10.

Boy is that an enormous mischaracterization of the pro-Mahomes argument

My philosophy is pretty easy: if you feel a guy can be a franchise QB, then he's the pick. After (or failing) that, take BPA, focusing on critical positions like pass rusher and corner, but be willing to go with other positions if a guy is a special player.

Isn't that true of every behavioral issue that involves a kid under 5?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-draft/0ap3000000796743/Patrick-Mahomes-Pro-Day-highlights

I have Baker as my 17th overall player--outstanding talent. He may get knocked for his size, but to me he's a starter at either safety spot that can walk down and play slot corner as well.

For whatever it's worth, I have Bolles at 25, Ramczyk as 30, Cam at 52, Garcia at 77, and Johnson outside my top-100, but with a R4-R5 grade.

What are you taking about? There's dozens and dozens of folks in this thread that have been all over this kid for a long time. Finally someone gets it? You're either joking around or altogether acluistic

Nice analysis from Bills Wire http://billswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/29/2017-nfl-draft-buffalo-bills-brad-seaton-villanova/