MPT

Yeah, that's been my point all along. Tyrod isn't perfect, but he also isn't the reason we didn't make the playoffs.

Baltimore has a far superior defense. And Tyrod played perhaps the best game of his career against Seattle. We lost that game because of a series of unfortunate events at the end of the first half and, again, an inability to make any defensive stands.

Except this debate is centered on Tyrod's comparison to other QB's. No one thinks he is better than Flacco or Roethlisberger. There are some people who point to the Miami games as evidence that he isn't as good as Tannehill. That point is defeated by the fact that our defense lost those games while Tyrod played well.

Run defense. If we hadn't given up historic yardage to their RB we would have made the playoffs and they wouldn't have. It's that simple.

You wouldn't need to trade anything to draft Rodgers or Brady. If those two were in next year's draft, we would be able to draft either one without trading anything. Rodgers went 24th. Brady, obviously, went in the 6th round. The point is, teams pass on franchise quarterbacks all the time. And they also accept draft trades from other teams all the time. It just depends which team values which players. You certainly don't know that our future franchise quarterback will be impossible to acquire next year. The Browns accepted trades from other teams this year while passing on QB's until Kizer even though they are arguably the most QB-needy team. Maybe the Jets pick up Kaepernick and the Browns and 49ers decide Kizer and Beathard are their guys. You don't know what's going to happen between now and next year's draft, but it's better to position yourself as well as possible instead of resigning to the possibility that you won't get exactly what you want.

Please, for the love of God, help the Tyrod haters to understand this.

Okay, fair enough. But Miami also had the benefit of facing the other three of the bottom four in the league in defensive rushing ypg. Since the Bills and the Dolphins both beat the Browns and 49ers, let's look at the Bills / Dolphins games. Tyrod slightly outperformed Tannehill and vastly outperformed Moore in those games. He also was our leading rusher in the game against Tannehill, so he was clearly the better quarterback in each game. The difference is that we let Jay Ajayi rush for 420 yards. That's insane. That's almost unheard of. If you put an average defense out there against the Dolphins in those games, we win both and go to the playoffs while they sit at home.

I said they needed to be an average defense that gives up fewer than 24 ppg. Allowing 133 rush yards per game is far, far, far below average and will never get a team to the playoffs, whereas much worse QBs than Tyrod have made it to the playoffs and indeed won Super Bowls. If you think rush yards per game is a random defensive stat, then maybe you shouldn't be discussing this at all. You're out of your element, Donnie.

That's funny. Okay, so you want to tank the season before it even starts. I'd rather not be a part of that embarrassment.

29th in rush yards per game. That's a death sentence. Who needs points when you can just hang onto the football all day long?

Uhh come again? This sums up the absurdity of the Tyrod haters extremely well.

We would have only needed an average defense that gave up fewer than 24 ppg the last two seasons and we would be in the playoffs. Tyrod is leading a top ten offense. Trent Dilfer threw for 1500 yards with 12 TDs and 11 INTs. There is no comparison between the two.

Went with Watson. There's a chance he becomes their "franchise" guy as early as this season. Doubt he'll be this year's Dak, but the job is wide open for him with a great defense in Houston. Mahomes is going into a great overall situation, but I don't see him winning the job over Smith anytime soon. I like Peterman and I hope he can become the guy. However, despite all the naysayers out there, Tyrod is the co-linchpin of a top-ten offense right now, and you don't just toss that aside to take a chance on a 5th round QB. Also, as a general rule I try not to jinx what little chances the Bills have by betting on them.

Actually, Pegula said Whaley ran the entire draft. McDermott also stated that Whaley made the first round trade happen. I'm sure McDermott had a lot more input than most first year head coaches, but the evidence does not support what you're saying.

Then don't bump it. Thanks for contributing.

What is it about his first two years that makes you so sure of this? Because from where I'm sitting on Sundays, he is looking more like an early retiree than a junior year breakout.

Well it can't be both "5 years of good-not-great CB play" AND "nothing to show for it" eh? Contradiction in terms.

Literally everyone not named Myles Garrett has a flaw or question. If the draft were a sure thing, we wouldn't have any busts to talk about.

Correct. They paid a lot to move up one spot for reasons that did not in any way include an arbitrary chart value. If another team were willing to give up more, the cost would have been higher. If no other teams were interested, the cost would have been lower.

Instead of simply looking up a word you didn't know, you claimed it doesn't exist. That is a pretty strong indicator of your level of debate. Yeah, that's exactly what we've been trying to tell you. There are examples of worse trades and examples of better trades. But they are all eventually determined by the actual value of players that each team acquired, which generally isn't known until the players get on the field. They can not be fairly judged based on chart values, because each one is based on a hundred variables independent of the nominal pick. You think a player we could have gotten at #10 is worth more than the one we got at #27 plus the ones we'll get in the 3rd round and next year's 1st round? Fine. I disagree, but everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just don't think basing your opinion on a static chart value holds much merit when we see the true values of draft trades fluctuate so wildly compared to the chart values.

I've seen this argument a lot, and I certainly respect the hazards of attempting to predict future NFL drafts. However, this year's QB draft class was predicted to be weak since before last year's draft and those predictions turned out to be mostly accurate. The difference between the opinions of the next year's QB draft class for 2017 and 2018, when each were still a year beyond, are so drastic that I can't help but be hopeful about next year's class.

Thanks. Wasn't sure if you'd be able to follow. You and the Bears GM can justify that trade based on the chart, but the actual value favors the 49ers immensely. They gave up literally nothing and got several high picks in return. Your infallible, all-knowing chart does not apply in every situation, alas.

Might have re-evaluated that position when his defense **** the bed after Norman left.

Run the numbers on how many future #1 overall picks you would have to trade to get this year's #1 overall pick using the "1-round deduction" for future drafts. Never gonna happen. These are guidelines, not straight math. Also, everyone already knows the Bears got fleeced hard, so the fact that the numbers line up almost exactly should tell you how inaccurate they are.

A significant part of being a successful quarterback is putting an absurd amount of hours into game preparation. If you need your agent to help you prepare or you choose not to prepare at all, I would think that would be more damning in the eyes of NFL scouts than would a low score.