OldTimer1960

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.

Having “house money” does not justify taking imprudent risks. Say I won a thousand $ on a $2 scratch off. That doesn’t mean that I should spend that thousand on more scratch offs.

While Jackson has some scud misses on tape, he also has some damn fine throws plus he isTHE most dynamic running QB that I have ever seen (and I’ve been watching since since 1970). Can he clean up those horrible throws? I don’t know, but I’d rather risk pick 12 on him (or Rudolph) than trade 3 firsts + for any other QB in the draft.

I can be on board with this.

I think Denver at 5 might nix that plan. How is he anything like EJ?

Again, wasn’t Baker Mayfield and Oklahoma in the same conference? Has anyone ever thought the PAC-10 (Darnold and Rosen) was full of even decent defenses? This is not a paid political ad for Rudolph, but I truly don’t see why so many are so down on him.

Please explain what that means. I see it repeatedly and when I watch his game cut ups, I see many intermediate and deep throws and throws with some anticipation. He definitely did not pad his passing stats with a lot of short passes. I remember when Aaron Rodgers was downgraded because nobody had ever succeeded from a Jeff Telford offense.

How do you know that? Is it because you read an anonymous quote attributed to a scout? I remember the Bills flat out stating prior to the draft that Cordy Glenn could not play OT and then drafting him to play OT.

+1

I am not willing to give up 12, 22 and next year’s 1st for any of the QBs in this draft. In my (uninformed) opinion, none of them are sure -thing can’t miss prospects. It it is one thing.to draft Andy Dalton or Derek Carr in round 2, but trading up to (reach) to get Allen or Mayfield is a struggle for me. Not that I think either are bad prospects, but giving up a lot to get either is very risky.

Foles had several opps to prove that he can be a good starter in the NFL and he did not prove that. Could he have figured it out and be a tru “franchise “ QB? Yes, but odds are way against that...

He will have every chance to be a decent QB.