OldTimer1960

Folks SHOULD care about the cost. None of Darnold, Rosen or Allen carried their college teams to tremendous success, but yet some expect that to be exactly what they'd do with a middling talented team in Buffalo that gave up the majority of its draft to get one of them. Now, I'm not saying that they might not be good NFL starting QBs, but expecting savior level play is betting on a very long shot.

I've seen this and I agree that intangibles are even more important than the physical talent. I think Rudolph has good talent and if he is as smart and hard working as has been suggested, then I think he is being seriously under-estimated. Before flaming away, please recognize that I am not necessarily lobbying to take Rudolph over Darnold, Rosen or Mayfield. Rather, I don't think it is a bad plan to keep their picks and take Rudolph, Jackson or Allen and then still have 22, 53, 56, 65 and 96 to get other good players (plus all of next yer's picks as well).

This is the right perspective, in my opinion. The QB who can single-handedly carry a team is whom everyone is clamoring to give up a lot of picks for, BUT those guys are VERY rare. Brady, Rodgers and Brees are really about it playing today. After that there are maybe a handful like Roethlisberger, Rivers and Ryan that are very good and can keep you competitive most years, but are not doing it without some talent around them. Realistically, the question is would you trade 3 1sts, and 2 2nds and a bit more to take a shot at someone who has a 50% chance to be Matt Ryan, .05% chance to be Rodgers and 49.95% chance that you'll end up with a total bust?

THAT is funny!

I was not a believer even discounting all of the off-field stuff. I think the guy that made him was Mike Evans catching Manziel’s prayers after he ran around in the backfield for 10 seconds. i DO think that Baker Mayfield is a very good NFL prospect. I think his game is strong and his off field transgressions were not anything compared to many other players.

Not sure that I would not prefer Rudolph over Allen or Jackson. I think Rudolph has a good chance to be a good starter, but won’t likely single handed LT carry a team. Allen and Jackson have a tiny shot at being great, but to me have a high risk of not even becoming a decent NFL starter.

Agreed, I think Rudolph is a strong possibility for the Bills. No trade up would allow them to get Rudolph, LB, WR, And still have 2 picks in 3rd (including the first one). Alternative looks to be Rosen/Mayfield/Allen and maybe have a 3rd round pick left (maybe also losing a 1st or 2nd next year, too)

That is not exactly clear. Nobody knows if the 1st or 2nd pick is for sale. Why would Cleveland trade pick 1? They also need a QB prospect and they already have more high draft picks than do the Bills. As for the Giants, I don’t know why they would not sit tight at 2 and take their successor for Manning.

Plans have to be reassessed when conditions change. When they traded back last year, They thought that their own(Bills’) pick would be much earlier than it turns out to be (21). Further, the 2017 NCAA season was played and the Bills’ opinions of the QBs in this class may have changed (for better or worse). There are other teams that have (had in the Jets’ case) that are also desperate to get a QB prospect and that is driving up the price to move up and also locking up the early picks such that it will be hard to find a trade partner early enough to get one of the best prospects. i am virtually sure that their plan was to use their extra picks to move up for a QB, but competition, changing conditions and opinions may preclude them fro being able to execute that plan.

That may be true (I know that Cards and Phil’s are possible players), but I would not want to give up much to trade up for Allen or Jackson. I’d just as soon sit at 12 and take the lower ceiling, but higher floor Rudolph and still have all of my other picks left.

I think Allen is the riskiest pick of the top 4, but I think worth the gamble at 12 with no trade.

I don't think that having Bridgewater would give them any pause at all regarding drafting a QB. Bridgewater signed for a very small contract (relative to NFL QBs) and I imagine that was the best deal he could get given the great deal of uncertainty about his knee.

Every year is very different. This year has more good prospects than most. It could easily be that next year’s draft doesn’t have a QB who is as good a prospect as any of the top 5/6 this year. That doesn’t mean that even half of this year’s prospects pan out, but next year is no guarantee to have even a good QB prospect.

I think that this is wishful thinking. If I were running a team with a fading 37 y.o. QB who never carried the team (Giants), I would strongly consider a QB at 2. Likewise, if I were Denver, I would be looking for the long-term replacement for the QB signed in FA (Keenum). Agree on Rudolph, not as much on Allen but he (Allen) has talent for sure.

Nice detailed post. I am not quite as down on the QBs as your assessment, but I generally agree that it isn’t a group with 3 or 4 QBs that will be good enough to carry a team. I do think that some will be good NFL starting QBs, but odds are that none will be on the transcendent level that Brady, Rodgers and Brees are on. it would not surprise me if someone unexpected ends up being the best of the bunch.

Best wishes

Perspective check: 1. How often do you think HOF -caliber QBs are available in the draft? Are you saying tha a team should not draft a QB high in round 1 if they think that he will be good, but not necessarily a HOFer? 2. If you think the Bills can get to the 2nd pick, are there 2 certain HOF QBs in this draft?

I respect that you've read-up. That is my main source of draft info as well. However, I've watched several of Rudolph's games on draftbreakdown.com and my untrained eye can't see why he could not be a very good QB in the NFL. FWIW, I've been watching the NFL since 1970 (doesn't mean that I am a scout)

I am respectfully disagreeing. Just because some QBs that are not considered "physical freaks" haven't panned out doesn't mean that some won't. Fact of the matter is that many of the "physical freaks" have not panned out either. Most important aspect of playing QB in the NFL (IMHO) is ability to read defenses, make quick decisions on where to throw it and then make that throw. That doesn't mean the guy with the best arm.

What games did you watch to form that opinion? I recently re-watched him against Pittsburgh this year and he had mobility and made several plays. What does it mean to be a "system QB"? Every team runs a "system". If the Oklahoma State offense is somehow an unfair advantage for their QB, then maybe the Bills should run that offense with Mason Rudolph at the helm. Unless someone can tell me how that offense won't work in the NFL or why the defenses he faced were much worse than those that Baker Mayfield (same conference) and Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold faced in the notoriously weak defense PAC-10, then I have trouble understanding the criticism.

My point was that Rivers is very good, but has been unable to carry his team in most seasons. The Chargers had some very good seasons in the first 5 years of his career, but since then, they haven't been big playoff threats. Point taken though, so substitute Alex Smith, Jameis Winston, Carson Palmer, and a bunch of others who would not be called busts, but also weren't saviors either.

They had better be REALLY sure that: 1. Cleveland isn't going to take they guy that they want 2. The guy they take needs to be so good that he can CARRY a team - not just good enough to win with, but to carry those around him to victory. Would people be OK to trade that much for Phillip Rivers (who really has never won anything, but has been good) when he came out? Or is it only OK to trade that much to get Brady or Rodgers? 3. There needs to be a significant difference in how the Bills view the QB that they trade up for and guys like Mayfield, Allen or Jackson one or more of whom might be available close to 12.

These trades aren't just look-us on one of the several trade value charts. They are negotiations between two teams that have their own values on the available players. Additionally, the cost to move up seems to go up dramatically the closer you get the pick 1. That is also reflected on the trade value charts where I note that pick 2 is worth considerably more than pick 3 (supposedly). Here is a link to what is argued to be the most current/accurate trade chart. Note that pick 5 is worth about 5% more than pick 6, but pick 2 is worth almost 40% more than pick 3 and pick 1 is worth 40% more than pick 2. Note also that the author of this chart says: "Tying to create a table that includes picks at the top of the draft (ie: top five) doesn’t make sense because the value of the pick changes on a year-to-year basis. For example, the #1 pick when Andrew Luck was a prospect is worth a lot more than the #1 pick this year, with Myles Garrett as the top prospect." https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart

A GREAT QB is that. Blake Bortles and Jameis Winston or worse are FAR more likely than Brees, Brady or Rodgers (none of whom were actually drafted d at the very top of round 1). Would people trade 3 1sts plus more for Jameis Winston? Actually, how many current QBs would you really trade that much for? I think Rodgers, Brady and Brees, maybe 1 or 2 more.

You failed to recognize that there is a strong likelihood that whomever you trade up for might be a decent starter, but is not a transcendent player who can single-handedly carry a team to success. The likelihood of finding THAT guy is very low no matter how much you give up.