Shaw66

I'll say. Nothing like two picks in the first round and a half dozen good quarterbacks to get people interested.

Goodness, gracious, all this draft talk has lured a lurker out from the weeds to join the fray. Welcome!

Oh, man, don't say it. Someone tell Beane not to draft The Black Panther.

The draft is like Christmas every year. Shiny new toy under the tree, all that. But this year, it's like there's a four-car garage under the tree and I'm hoping for a Jag, a Porsche, a Maserati and a Lexus for everyday driving with a big red bow on top.

I'll admit it: I have draft fever, bad. I'm coming here every day, every night, looking for news. Any trades? Any credible rumors? Did McBeane say anything? Are the Browns on the clock yet? Did Belichick fart in his sleep? I can't help myself. I bite on almost anything. GIVE ME SOME NEWS!!!! Will the draft EVER get here? Not here yet? How about now? Still no? This is agony.

Of course, but the truth is that the second and last post in almost every thread should be "Nobody actually knows s***." No, we were talking about the Jets game.

Jake Arrieta was a young pitcher with a lot of potential. The Orioles got him and tried to reshape his motion and his philosophy, worked with him for years and never got anywhere. He moved on to the Cubs, who said "go back to doing it your way," and he became an immediate success. It's not that the Orioles approach was wrong; it's that it's really hard to have success by changing what the player has done naturally for years.

I didn't study it. I did look at point 4, because I think I understand this point, and the article got it completely correct. Assuming for the moment that points 1-3 are correct, and they made sense to me, then you can understand why it's so hard to change mechanics when these guys get to the pros. If you've been throwing with a flawed motion since seventh grade, it's very difficult to reshape all that muscle memory and come up with a new motion that you use under pressure. It's tough. My son was a pretty good high school baseball player with a flawed swing. We studied and figured out the proper mechanics, and he practiced it a lot. Stepped into the batter's box in a live game, however, and his swing went back to the old flaws. Without the right mechanics, he never good generate the bat speed necessary to hit in college. That's why I said in the beginning of this thread that I take articles about changed mechanics with a grain of salt. A lot more people work on their mechanics than actually change them.

You can make it up if you want, but the rest of us trying to deal in reality here. In your world a touchdown pass to Zay Jones in the second quarter may count for 3 points, but for the rest of us, it's 7. And 15-21, a touchdown, and 7.8 yards per attempt over the first three quarters may be horrible in your world, but the rest of us call it something else.

Wrong. Here's what I wrote after the game: At the risk of starting a firestorm, what I really liked in the Jets game was Tyrod Taylor. We’ll see what the second half of the season, but I’m pretty much sold on him. Another night of excellent numbers. He was 29 for 40, 7.1 yards per attempt, 2 TDs. 109 passer rating. And before someone complains that he fattened his numbers in garbage time, he didn’t. Through three quarters, he was 15-21 for a 7.8 average per attempt, with one touchdown. 110 passer rating. In the fourth quarter he just continued what he’d been doing all game. And he made a bundle of excellent throws. Both TDs were delivered beautifully, one with zip to Jones and one with touch, deep, to Thompson. He had several excellent throws to receivers over the middle, including a couple to Jones, the fumble plays by Matthews and O’Leary. Plus, he’s in complete control. Never seems to be excited, runs the huddle efficiently.

You're right. It was the defense. Taylor was pretty bad against New Orleans, but he was really good against the Jets. Still, I'll put it on McD. Why change your QB when he's playing well and your defense is imploding? That's on McD. And whoever said it may have been Denison's call is right, too. May have been. And maybe it was just McDermott trusting his coordinators, and after the debacle he knew Denison was gone. But I can't buy that completely. McDermott was seeing the practices. He must have seen that Peterman wasn't playing like Aaron Rodgers.

Exactly.

Yeah, but trading up you can be sure to get both the stud you want and the QB you want. You're there, you have the draft capital to do it. If you can do it, why not? If it makes sense to the Giants, it could happen. However, if the Giants want a QB, it doesn't. I was a Browns fan before the Bills existed. I agree. But Bills first, please. I don't have a lot of time left.

Another possible scenario. Jets would hate it if the Bills somehow moved to 2 and took their guy. Of course, if the Giants want a QB, it's all moot. Then three QBs will go off the board in the first four picks, and the Bills may be looking at their 4th choice before they have a chance to do anything.

First, we don't know they'll take a QB. If they were desperate for a QB, there wouldn't be all this talk about them taking Barkely. And it really depends, as it does with every team, how they evaluate the QBs. Would you be happy with the third best QB in the draft? I think I would be. So if the Browns take Barkely at 1, the Giants know they can trade back to 4 and get either the third best QB in the draft or the best position player after Barkely, plus maybe the Browns pick at the top of the second round. It all depends on what and who is important to the Giants.

True. But if they don't a QB, they can move to 4, pick up a draft pick and still get the guy they want. Okay, fifth year. The point is that both picks become free agents about the same time, and if you've hit big on them, you'll have to invest a lot of money to keep them, whenever it happens. Doesn't mean you don't do it, because, as you say, you've had them for 4-5 years, and that's as much of a run as you can expect to have in the league. Look at the Seahawks.

Browns take Barkely at 1. If Giants don't want a QB they don't need to stay at 2. They can go to 4 and still get the guy they would have taken at 2.

Another fine example. To be honest, I know very little about the QBs and NOTHING about anyone else. Don't know who Chubb is, where's he's from or what position he plays. I at least can answer those questions about Barkely, but nothing beyond that. I just can't get interested. It's enough to know there are possibly four and maybe more good QBs in this draft, along with the usual two or three super-studs at other positions, guys who would be going 1-2-3 if EJ Manuel were the best QB in the draft. In that kind of a draft, you're going to see exactly what we've seen and will continue to see. Moves to get into position, and speculation about a lot of other moves. The Bills, beginning with the Chiefs deal last season, have put themselves in the mix. The Jets made a great move to 3. The Browns, of course, set themselves up beautifully. The Giants have a tough decision to make. Broncos seem to me to be a big wildcard. For fans whose teams are in the mix, is interesting, crazy, fascinating and fun. Now that's a really interesting point. If the Browns win big with their two first-round picks, their cap situation in four years gets very complicated. They'll have a $30 million QB and a $20 million running back to deal with.

If that's true, then it depends if Gettleman has his heart set on only one of the three, or if he'd be with one of two or one of three. Because if he'd be happy with any of two or three, he can trade back with the Browns, let the Browns take one of his two and get the other, together with a nice pick from the Browns. More likely, however, that you're right. There's a guy he REALLY likes, and he isn't going to give the Browns an opportunity to take him. BUT, if the Browns take Gettleman's guy at #1, it makes sense that Gettleman would be willing to trade back to #4 with the Browns, because Gettleman knows that the Browns and Jets both will take QBs and Gettleman can pick up his second choice plus a free pick.

This post demonstrates how much fun, and how pointless, it is to speculate about the draft. Do the Giants want a QB or don't they? Makes a big difference. Do the Broncos want a QB or don't they? Is Barkely a transcendent player who must be taken ASAP (by the Giants or the Browns)? Without knowing the answers to questions like these, everything is just guess work. That's what makes it so tough for the Bills to decide what to do. That's why the Bills have to have had conversations with all the teams with the top 6 picks, so that when the draft begins to unfold they can make a quick deal, if necessary.

It benefits the Browns because they could get Barkley and the QB they want. Right now, if they go QB at 1, they probably lose Barkley to the Giants. If they go Barkley at 1, they probably lose the QB they want because the Jets might take him or the Giants or the Giants' trade partner might take him. But if they take Barkley at one and then trade with the Giants because the Giants really don't want a QB that high, they are sure to get the QB they want. The Giants don't care, because if they're taking a non-QB, they can afford to trade back to 4 without losing out on their second choice. It could make sense for the Browns and the Giants.

Maybe it could happen Everyone says the Giants want Barkley, which means I guess that they don't feel like they need to solve their QB problem this year. Okay, if that's true, that the Giants are going to slide on a QB, then the Browns have to take Barkley at 1, leaving the Giants standing at the altar without a bride. Then the Gmen have ten minutes to make a deal with the Browns. They've already decided they don't want a QB, so they're looking at some other position. Anyone they see at 2 they can get at 4, I suppose, because the Jets are taking the best QB on the board. So maybe the Giants swing a quick deal with the Browns, pick up a pick by moving back two spots and get the guy they would have taken at 2. Or, the Giants move back to 4 and immediately call the Bills, with whom they've already had discussions, and another team or two, with whom they've already had discussions, and swing a quick deal to move back some more. Get maybe 12 and a second round pick from the Bills. Could it happen? I suppose. But if the Giants like a QB and Barkley over the QB was a close call for them, then when the Browns take Barkley at 1, the Giants take the QB and have no interest in trading back. By the way, I really disagree with this "lock this thread" stuff. How is anyone supposed to know if the same subject is being discussed in another thread? Unless the title to the thread makes it clear that it's about the Browns moving to 2, how do you know without reading every thread and seeing which threads have meandered into a subject different from the title? If there are people on this thread who want to talk about the title of the thread, in my mind it's a legitimate thread that is entitled to its own life.

Not that it matters, but I'll take this opportunity to write my occasional rant about this smokescreen nonsense. There's about 1/10,000 as much smokescreening during this period than the fans think. It's silly. First, the supposed point of the smokescreen is to influence some other team to make a decision that the other team ordinarily wouldn't make so that the screening team can gain an advantage. Well, if you have the number 1 pick, no one is drafting ahead of you so, there isn't anyone to influence. So there's no point in putting up a smoke screen about what the Browns intend to do at #1. Well, you say, they may be trying to protect the guy they want at #4. Baloney. They're trying to mislead the Giants or Jets into thinking they'll take Allen or Mayfield when they really want Darnold. Then what? The Browns take Barkley at 1 and expect that the Giants and Jets will be so confused by the smokescreen that they WON'T NOTICE that Darnold is still on the board and Darnold will slip to 4? That's the plan? That's like a scene from Dumb and Dumber. Second, who actually believes that GMs sit around and think of ways to slyly mislead some other team so the other team will change it's decision making and then tells some underling to leak a certain piece of misinformation to a certain reporter, expecting that somehow that leak, among all the reporting that's out there, will actually cause the other team to change direction? Maybe Tom Cruise does that in Mission Impossible, but it doesn't happen in the NFL. There's a much more plausible explanation about what happens at this time of year. There are, I'd guess, more than 1000 members of the media who have to print or say something every day about what's going on leading up to the draft. Reporters and broadcasters who cover the league and others who cover individual teams. They need fresh material, so they keep talking to anyone who will talk to them. GMs, coaches, players, scouts, former GMs, former coaches, former players, former scouts, wives of former GMs, ex-wives of former GMs, boyfriends of ex-wives of former GMs, anyone they can find. The media take from those conversations anything they can, and they publish it in a way that makes it sound like it's true. Then fans who don't want to believe that conclusion (usually because the fan doesn't want it to be true because it means his team won't be able to draft the guy he wants) need a reason to not believe it. There's no obvious way to refute the statement, because it's a simple statement about something that no one else on the team is talking, so there's nothing to contradict it. So why would the speaker have said it? Oh, to mislead some other teams. Of course! VOILA!!! The smokescreen is born. Do teams actually try to create smokescreens? I'm sure it's been done once in a while, particularly to trick a team into trading up in a way that benefits the screening team. But that's once in a great while. Why? Because if you're a GM and you trick another GM into doing something that works to your benefit and the other guy's disadvantage, you develop a reputation of not being a straight shooter, and your ability to make trades in the future is weakened. Honesty is the best policy. Long live the smoke screen.

Just to stir things up, I think these Peterman discussions really miss the point. The real point is that starting Peterman was a huge mistake that called into question McDermott's judgment as a coach. Let's hope he learned his lesson. I thought it was a bad decision at the time, but I thought that McDermott must have seen Peterman consistently lighting it up in practice, demonstrating that he was an NFL starter just waiting for his opportunity. Taylor had been playing poorly enough that he created the opportunity. However, Peterman made it clear that that wasn't what was going. McDermott simply panicked. The team was floundering and McDermott made a desperation move. He abandoned his own process and made a change for the sake of change, instead of staying with the guy who had earned the starting position, despite the ugly streak the Bills were on. If Peterman really had been lighting it up in practice (1) he wouldn't have been so God-awful when he did a get a start, and (2) McDermott would have kept him on the field for that game and the rest of the season. To McDermott's credit, he maintained his credibility with the team despite his awful judgment in making the change. He went on to lead his team to the playoffs. It was a coaching triumph following the blunder. Unfortunately, the decision sealed Taylor's fate. Maybe the Bills already had decided to move on from Taylor, but after benching him and then bringing him to relieve the rookie after only one half, there was no turning back. Taylor was toast. You don't see many coaching decisions that bad.

Well, okay, you're just saying that's what Football Outsiders are saying. I'll make the same argument. Why should I care about a stat that Football Outsiders made up if it reaches a different conclusion about the value of players than the coaches, who have greater expertise and access to equally good if not better data? Now, my disclaimers. First, I like Football Outsiders and if they think McCarron is a downgrade, I'm interested. Second, I'm not sure the Bills coaches have ever said they think AJ is, overall, an upgrade. Third, I doubt he's an upgrade. Fourth, I don't think there's enough data to make a meaningful judgment; we have to see more starts from McCarron. Fifth, if it's a close call between Taylor and McCarron, thats enough to know AJ isn't the answer.