BigBuff423

The question is a valid one, in that you want to try project your return on investment. But, while the QB should elevate the team, more specifically the Offense in general, I'm not sure you can place entire team responsibility on one guy even the QB. Not to turn this into another nauseating thread about Tyrod, but as an example I think most think the Defense was "good enough" to win at least 2 more games, nullifying the need for the Cincinnati Comeback, and probably winning the game against the Jags. Just to show I'm not pulling just from recent Bills history, in 2002 Bledsoe had 4,300 yards and 24 TDs, but if you remember that season you remember watching so many wins slip away to a bad Defense. The next year the Defense was good and the Offense couldn't get it done. Point being, to measure just the QB and the Offense in general, I think the R.O.I. would need to be: Offense ranked consistently in top 10, and specifically in passing yards, passing TDs, and total yards Demonstrating consistent "comeback" wins by leading a drive in the 4th Quarter or OT to win the game in some fashion Marked improvement in overall TDs, passing and rushing because I'm assuming the new QB can audible to a run in the Red Zone when warranted A 12 year full year starter...10 would be marginally acceptable if shortened due to injuries within the season (even Brady had one) Passing yards approaching or over 4,000 yards (it's the the modern NFL, Alex Smith just did it) every single year An ability to gut through minor injuries to start every game, because you can't be great if you don't play (refer to 4th point) A decent citizen in Buffalo community (not a choir boy, but a decent guy) An easily recognized leader of the entire team on and off the field I'd say Pro Bowler over multiple years, but it's just so hard now with Twitter, it is much more the popularity vote than anything else. IMHO, these types of categories place the responsibility on him alone, and doesn't require him to play Defense / Special Teams or for the GM to get it right every single Draft or FA season....it allows him to shine and show that he's doing his part, which is ALL we can ask. It's up to the GM / FO staff / Coaches to maximize the rest of the players and take the whole team approach to win Super Bowls.

The problem with this way of thinking is that is contrary to someone's basic Constitutional freedom. If you don't want to listen, you're entitled to shut it off....but he's just as entitled, as anyone else in this great nation, to express his opinion on issues he believes are relevant to him. Sorry that you don't like it....you don't have to...but, "shut up and play football" is just not the reality. And to say no one is interested in what you think, is factually inaccurate. Such is why athletes have extremely high numbers of follower on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. because people ARE interested in their lives, which includes their thoughts and opinions. You may not be, but you do not speak for the majority or minority or any section of people, you speak for yourself. Which is cool, but athletes and others who are thought to be "famous" have much to say and always have....it's the way of the world and this great country we live in....so suck it up buttercup, and mute the t.v., turn off FB or Twitter, and turn down the volume when the game is on, otherwise you might have to listen to commentary about politics, social issues, etc. And yet, the article also addressed the Stanford issue where Josh admitted he wanted playing time and David Shaw said, we don't have room for you and Josh admitted it would NOT have been a good fit for him and it "killed my ego a little bit"....also, that he took his time to go to UCLA as a positive from what was perceived to be a negative. And it's not a "counterpoint" because these statements refer to the SAME FRICKEN ISSUES that are taken head-on in the first two articles from SI that started this thread....what is it you don't get? No one is arguing he doesn't need to mature, we've all conceded that point since it wasn't a hard one to make and I don't know anyone who is arguing he doesn't need to show maturation...the ISSUE you don't seem to grasp, is you continue to use the word "elitist" and that he has a bad attitude or shouldn't be able to make political or social statements simply because his beliefs contradict yours....the ISSUE is that he needs to learn how to vocalize and cope with them in a better, more mature way instead of the frat-boy antics he pulled while at UCLA but the fundamental ISSUE with being permitted to express those beliefs, no matter how opposed they are to your own, are still valid and will remain so no matter how much ranting and raving you do and telling those darn kids to get off your lawn....

IMO, to those who say Jackson is a taller version of Tyrod Taylor, I wholeheartedly disagree....Jackson far more Russell Wilson (taller) than he is Tyrod....by a mile....it's not even close. At least at this point in their respective careers.

Depends on who you listen to, but if you listen to Chris Traspasso or Cover1 or Rob Quinn, they tend to think the same thing....until they watch the video. They say that this last year, he was far more working through progressions, staying in the pocket more often and being more of a quarterback. Interesting enough, one of them and I think it was Cover1, shared a story how either last year or early this year (can't remember, sorry) that during practice, Jackson threw the ball away and told the coach he could have scored on that play (had he ran), and the coach essentially said he didn't want him to be a runner, he wanted him to be a quarterback. I'm no scout or any kind of professional (well, duh) but from what I've seen Jackson has gotten MUCH better in reference to the above and his arm is outstanding. Also, FWIW, during the WGR section last week Mayock said Jackson is the most electrifying dual threat QB he's ever seen, and that included Michael Vick.

Perfect, we'll trade them Tyrod for a 4th. Bam, problem solved for both teams.

I have to agree with this, and more to the point: DT is one of the deepest positions in a Draft the Bills have a wealth of picks. Use 2 on DT and pick a DT in FA, ala Poe.

So because apparently you didn't read the articles, I'll make it easy for you and insert some quotes: "'So many of my teammates have nothing. I have a platform where I can advocate.' " - in reference to his comments about how NCAA athletes aren't paid because they're considered "amateurs" "Bosco went 12–2 in Rosen's senior year, and along the way he endeared himself to the coaches and faculty by napping on the floor of the football offices, raising money through local businesses to help kids on his team pay for road trips and earning a weighted 4.8 GPA" "On Christmas Eve two years ago Rosen fell asleep on Mora's couch. Last Christmas the Moras hosted the Rosens. The day after UCLA lost to rival USC 40–21 to close the regular season, Rosen showed up at Mora's house. They watched an NFL game together, mostly in silence. Mora took that as a sweet gesture, a player stopping by to pick up his coach." "....quarterback who can make enough money off the field to play for the league minimum so his team can spend its salary cap space on his teammates." Does any of this make him a saint? Absolutely not....does he still need to mature through some of the frat-boy mindset at times? Of course....but what this DOES show, he is not nearly as self-centered and "elitist" as you have painted him. He made a snide comment about how Alabama's metrics for college acceptance is lower than UCLA's and that such a lower standard allows Alabama to have superior athletes and therefore, an incredible football program - which you dispute, and took issue with because Alabama is your alma mater. The rest is your own spin because you don't like him....fair enough, no need to like or dislike or care....but then you need to own it, and not create an image of him that a reasonable, objective individual should arrive at the same conclusion. Furthermore, you continue to get stuck on his opinions and how he voices them....his 1st Amendment right is no different than yours or mine, we all share that basic civil liberty - he just has a larger audience than you or I, and he knows it...so he's using such audience to his advantage. Good. I wish more would do that with careful insight, well-informed opinions and ideologies, and with passion. The world needs more of this, from all viewpoints and perspectives. Those that support a certain brand of politics and those that oppose it. If you love America, then you love the incredible star-spangled freedom we all have to Constitutional liberty....even Josh Rosen.

I think he was referring to the absolute dumpster fire QBs Drafted at #22 have been over the years....

Hey, I’ve come around on Rosen the more I’ve read about him since the end of December. My over generalized statement was in reference to some people - on this board, on Twitter, etc. - that paint this picture of him. So my basic question was more a hypothetical regarding two supremely gifted QBs and how someone who believes both have character concerns sifts through their issues to arrive at a possible solution to handle them if there’s any interest to resolve them at all. A few few posters read my “what if” scenario to be my take on Rosen, and it isn’t - but that’s as much my fault for failing to communicate that effectively as it might be for some who didn’t read my question carefully enough.

Go on believing whatever you’d like, you’re entrenched in your opinion and I am in mind. FWIW, I was NOT Rosen fan for most of the season, it wasn’t until I started reading more about him and seeing all of his statements in full context did I start to come around to my belief that not only does he possess the football ability but he will be able to command a team’s respect as he matures through some age appropriate issues. And again, other than you disagree with and don’t like his comments about Alabama, what gives you the idea he is “elitist”? If you read the articles you read how he was concerned about the general welfare of his teammates and fellow students when in high school. These types of comments demonstrate an agenda without seeking the information objectively.

The bold portion was what I quoted, just for clarity's sake. I have no issue with Rosen *not* wanting to play for any team, i.e. Browns or Bills or whomever, but what I did take note of in your response was that he publicly stated he didn't want to play for the Browns. I circled back to the article that "alluded" to his lack of interest in playing for the Browns when he said he would rather be Drafted later and play for the right team, as opposed to being Drafted early and playing for the wrong one. Then I said the rest of his statements were not included in the sound bite and that the rest of his statement provided context and one I agreed with. Then, the link you provided was for one where Rosen was reportedly saying "in private" he didn't want to play for the Browns to which I asked, should we all be held strictly accountable for something we say in private regarding our interests? Personally, I don't....but I see how that could be an unpopular perspective. Please see my response as I needed to quote your first post, thank you.

And again, I've said there are intelligent and quite capable young men and women who attend and graduate from University of Alabama, a long-time family friend hails from Alabama and it is his alma mater. He's a great guy, smart, and capable....but he also didn't play football for Alabama. My point was that their larger student body is probably a nice cross section of the intellectual spectrum but to say the football players are at the high end of that spectrum "in general" is probably just plain false. And that when you take the "average" football player at UCLA vs. Alabama, which was Rosen's point, you're probably sacrificing some academic acumen at Bama because their interest is wholly football oriented for their prospective players. UCLA is not necessarily the center of the genius universe, but there's no way you don't look at their acceptance criteria and presume them to be the same, ESPECIALLY when it comes to football players.

And that sounds like someone who is a bit defensive because it's his / her alma mater. To debate this is pointless, you obviously hold your school in high regard for their academics, and that's fine...but to make it a centralized or objective opinion is something different. According to U.S. News and World Report in their national college rankings UCLA is 21st, Alabama, 159th....here's the link: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ucla-1315 There's the homework you asked for, do I get an A?

yes, a second link please as this one does not cite Rosen directly, only that he has said "privately", then how did they get that information? And are WE ALL going to be held for what we say in private? Because that's the standard....you can't knock a guy for his thoughts or private statements.

Because they've won MULTIPLE titles under Saban and are the gold standard of college football supremacy. So, he essentially says, "To be the best in football, you have to be willing to be less than stellar in academics"....you don't get both or rarely ever do.

Bruh, let's be honest and let's be real....Alabama's intellectual landscape is quite different than that of Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, etc....there's NOTHING wrong with it, and there are certainly intelligent and capable folks that graduate from Alabama. BUT, if you're going to Alabama on a football scholarship, is there ANY doubt about where the emphasis lies during your time at that college? Really? You want to debate the fact that Alabama's acceptance policy isn't centered around having athletic talent first, and academics a distant second?? It's not lumping everyone together, but when you talk about standardized test scores, and Alabama SATs, the minimum score threshold is quite different. Let's put it this way: currently, the 25th percentile score at UCLA puts you in the 75th percentile at Alabama. Basically if you're below average at UCLA, you're above average at Alabama....nothing wrong with that, as it's the world we live in, but let's not fool one another either. He made a statement that virtually everyone, even Alabama alum, acknowledge, they just don't like it when another prominent athlete from a different school speaks the truth.

So once again I ask, did you read the article? If you did you'd see screenshots of Twitter where multiple teammates came to his Defense when the story came "out" about how his team didn't like him....Mora talked about how much he liked coaching him, but said it was a challenge. But, the best in any industry, i.e. Steve Jobs, typically come with these types of challenges. And please link the article where he said he didn't want to play for Browns and wanted to play for NYG. Maybe he did, but what is often referenced is out of context when he said, I'd rather be Drafted lower and go to the right team, than Drafted higher and go to the wrong one. That one line was a part of a much longer answer and explanation and in context, I'd say I have to agree with him. I tend to be a bit old-fashioned when it comes to these things, ex. be grateful you get play this sport for a ton of money, be glad it bought you a free college education, be a good role model, etc. But, in the context of his answer, I understand it and probably agree with him if I were in his shoes. We can't tar and feather an athlete for authenticity and then rip them for giving cliched answers or platitudes when talking about their team. If we're asking them to be genuine, then we must do the same and accept their humanity as much as their statutory place in the sports industry.

RE: the bold statement above, I assume you read the article? I assume you read where he spoke to the coach about the depth chart and the coach essentially said there's no room here for you? He didn't apply to Stanford, he was told straightforward, there's no spot for you - which is different than applying and having your hopes set high only to realize you're not good enough after a formal process. This was essentially about playing opportunity. Rosen then goes on to say he legit took into consideration his chance to play early as part of the decision making process, again that kind of transparency is laudable in my mind. As for deflecting failure, he said that such a recognition that Stanford wasn't going to *make* room for him and therefore he should keep looking, was humbling and that it was good for him....his words. Is it placating the journalist and therefore pandering to all the readers? Maybe..? But, given his other statements and how he's gone about handling his opinion on other matters, that would appear to be contrary to character for him. In fact, what seems to get him into some sticky areas is when he discusses his opinions without careful consideration, in other words little filter to the mouth. As for trying to improve his IQ by reading....again, he stated he admired Andrew Luck for having the raw IQ, but wanted to work to improve his own intellectual capability....I'd say that's a positive, instead of a QB standing by their 3.7 in Slavic Basket Weaving...? I don't know how he will pan out and I have no idea, since I won't be the one interviewing him, if he has the mental fortitude to be an NFL QB, but since you use the term "snowflake" and the story mentions his "F Trump" moniker while playing golf, maybe your issue with him is his politics? I don't know....but seems odd that you would use such a term to someone trying to improve their mental acumen. In the interest of full disclosure, I hope the Bills stay put at 21 and trade back from 22 if possible, because to me, I'd rather use all this Draft capital for building the team with great young players. If Rudolph is there at 21 I would Draft him, if not, then I'd take a guy like Mike White in the 2nd....but, if Bills believe so much in Rosen they are able to go get him, then once he puts on that red, white, and blue uniform, I'm all in....

It wasn't my analysis, it's the very generalized, over used "opinion" of some people about Rosen. Some of them on this board, some of them elsewhere...but his detractors tend to have this basic opinion of him. No one really argues his arm or his football ability they generally question his medical concerns (those are mine as well) and his "character" issues (which are not mine). So, I ask the question: between the two really gifted, talented QBs as character has come up with both of them, which of them do you believe can correct their "issues" and which of them do you think is just stuck to being incapable of adjusting to the NFL life? If either or neither then that's fine too, and why...?

So here's legitimate question in my mind. We have two supremely gifted QBs in Mayfield and Rosen. One, is viewed as the silver-spoon brat who pisses all over anyone he wants because, he can....and the other is viewed a tough, charismatic leader who is misunderstood simply because he loves to win. If you've read up on both, and only if you have, please tell me which of these two present the greatest challenge to Draft based on the "character" concerns alone? In other words, which do you view as merely, "needs to grow up", vs. "he's whacked out and wont' get it right" or maybe you feel it's both or neither....I'm just curious.

Fixed it....those run-on sentences can be beasts to deal with, especially when it changes the meaning.

You may or may not be right, but go look at the thread where Yolo linked two articles from SI, one from 2016 and one from January, and see if you have the same opinion. If you do, fair enough, but much of what you're referring to were incidents taken out of context and in fact, I quoted him in that thread where he indicates he chose UCLA over USC just because he doesn't like powerhouses and he likes to "mess things up" and wants to help a team be a phoenix rising out of the ashes. Also, his politics may not be something you agree with, but he has as much right as anyone else to express it. All athletes, especially the gifted and intelligent ones, use their platform to advance their ideological perspective, and I'm fine with it even when I disagree because THAT is what makes a America great.

At this point, more than ANYTHING else, it's the medicals that worry me about Rosen. I found the articles to be enlightening about his character and I'm not even remotely concerned about his ability to transition to the NFL in terms of maturity, because his "issues" have all been age appropriate, meaning he can mature beyond the point where a fart noise in church is funny (which these kinds of things are akin to). IF the Bills are truly gauging the landscape to trade up, he should be in for a Pre Draft visit with a 9 hour medical review to insure everything is what it needs to be and NOT have any unforeseen medical set backs (i.e. Shaq Lawson).

I find this quote interesting as well: "I'm not a fan of, like, powerhouses," he says. "I like messing up the system. I'm all about equality and kind of bringing some phoenixes from the fire." With that information in mind, Buffalo is the *perfect* spot for you....if it happens, you'll be dragging this franchise and its fans everywhere out of the fired ruins of despair.

I won't go down the that lane all over again about his full of b.s. stuff, but maybe a thread of some of the piles of dung he was shoveling came from him? It would also, to some degree, explain why there was information from all over the place....a trainer will hear things from all levels of people based on how they interact with so many different people on the staff, and possibly if assisting with a workout routine - the FO staff as well. I'm not saying I'm buying his "info" as accurate, but I'm suggesting maybe there are tiny tidbits of truth in what he was saying....although, I'm happy to see the board put that whole dramatic saga behind us....let's leave it there.