CritMark

Ok, here is my frustration. Any objective measure used to support Mayfield is met with subjective, impossible to measure responses. Please note, I am not at all calling you out specifically, I appreciate your reasoned replies. This is more of a general frustration. Here is an example. Fact: Mayfield led the nation in completion percentage. Response 1: But he played in the Big 12 where they don't play defense. Rebuttal 1: The Pac 12 in 2017 was ranked worse than the Big 12 in defense but neither Rosen nor Darnold get any such criticism. Response 2: But Mayfield had better talent around him. Rebuttal 2: Looking at recruiting class rankings USC had the far better recruiting classes consistently with UCLA and OU roughly even. Response 3: But everyone knows OU does a better job of developing talent. Rebuttal 3: If everyone knows that, why does USC continue to draw better talent? wouldn't it be in the players interest to chose OU over USC? Response 4: Well it's all just a guessing game trying to evaluate talent coming out of high school. So if everything comes down to dismissing everything to a guessing game, then throw out all the stats and just look at how a players feels to you. Oh wait, that's what they seem to be doing with Josh Allen. My bad. I could go on but you get my drift. It doesn't matter what objective measure you want to apply, there is always an excuse to dismiss it and most of the time is it grossly subjective and not supported by facts You are absolutely correct, there are a lot of stats out there that compute adjusted percentage to account for spikes etc. Mayfield still leads the country. You yourself question if short throws pad the stats. There are stats out there as well and Mayfields production holds up at any distance. Mayfield's completion and rating are far better than the other QB prospects at any distance, short, medium or long. Here's one more for you, Mayfield's passer rating under pressure was better that Rosen & Darnold when they had no pressure. Here are two quotes from ProFootballFocus: Every number you choose to focus on puts Mayfield head and shoulders above the rest of the class. His NFL passer rating when kept clean in the pocket was 143.8 in 2017, more than 20.0 points higher than any of the other potential top quarterbacks. Mayfield was more productive and efficient when pressured than the other top prospects were when kept clean in 2017. Are there other factors that need to be looked at, absolutely. How about, maybe the reason the offensive talent at OU looked better or developed better was do in some part to the QB elevating the talent around him! Just an idea. OK, stepping off my soap box now. As I said, I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful dialog.

Help me understand something. If you have two QBs that play in a similar system and both benefit from one "that favors gaudy passing numbers", to use your words, and one of those two QBs has much better numbers statistically than the other, why is that not meaningful? Even if both are inflated, one QB did more with the system they both played in. I touched on this in another post to address looking at the quality of competition. I looked at the six top rated defenses faced in 2017 by Darnold, Rosen and Mayfield. I won't go through all the stats again now, but happy to if you would like. Bottom line was the average ranking of the top six defenses played was Darnold (31), Rosen (56) and Mayfield (19). So Mayfield faced MUCH better defenses than either of the other two top prospects and the stats were not even close. As I said, happy to post all the stats for you. My point isn't that the Bills need to trade up for Mayfield. My point is however, if the Bills, or any other team, wants to take a QB at the top of the draft, Mayfield should be in the conversation as the first QB off the board. Not absolutely the first QB, but seriously in the conversation.

Move on everybody. Nothing to see here.

Tell me they know with 100% certainty that Wentz will be ready to go when the season starts and I would up the odds to 10% he will be traded this off season. Tell me they have a plan for a backup should Wentz go down again that they feel as comfortable with as Foles and I would up the odds to 10%. Tell me they have both and I would be willing to concede the odds are 20%. But I don't see it happening. He is cheap insurance and if Wentz is good to go, Foles will not have the opportunity to play poorly and diminish his value. I would expect him to be traded somewhere around week 10 if Wentz is going strong.

Foles isn't going anywhere this offseason. He is under contract and between his & Wentz, the cost to the Eagles is only $15MM. However, there is a clause in Foles contract that he will become an UFA if he is still on the roster in Feb 2019. Best case scenario for the Eagles is Wentz is back and Foles doesn't play a down in 2018. That way the perceived value of Foles is still high and they trade him late season to a QB needy team and that team get the last three years of his contact at just $6.1MM/year. A team will overpay for the chance to get Foles for three years at that cost. The Eagles will make out like bandits.

What were you expecting to see in the Rose Bowl? Georgia's D was 4th in the county in points/game, 4th in yards/game, 2nd in passing yards/game. He put up 45 points in regulation. The next largest number of points allowed in the season was 28. He was not the reason OU lost that game. Yes the play calling in the second half was questionable. The OU run defense was beyond pitiful. He held up very well in that game and certainly nothing in my eyes that would detract from his draft stock. I think you are right on not needing much else. Trading up into the top two - five gets very expensive. That said, if he does fall to 10 or so, don't be surprised if you see some other teams jump in to the mix. There are some teams that could use a QB due to their current starters age, or skill level, that would never trade to the top of the draft, but into the top 10 - 15 may make them a player.

Quite the contrary. Having a good team with a good QB, being bad with AWFUL QB play, and returning to a good team does not mean the whole team was inherently bad. What it means is the team has the capacity to be at least a respectable team with a good QB. I have read on here more times than I can count how if we had QB XXX we would win x # games more. That doesn't mean the whole team was bad. Let's look at past year. The Bills win 9 games. If a QB of the equivalent talent of Painter is at the helm we may win maybe 3 or 4 and I'm not sure I would bet on that. Does that mean all the rest of the players on the team went to ****? The point I was making was Luck did not take over a terrible team. He inherited a better than average team that went through a year with awful QB play.

I happen to agree that Luck is a top tier talent but I am afraid the 'hapless Colts' description may be a bit of revisionist history. In 2010 Manning led them to a 10-6 record. Without any Qb anyone would remember in 2011 with Manning out, they were indeed awful. Luck comes in in 2012 and restores order. The whole team did not fall apart the year before luck arrived, just the QB play. For those who forget: Kerry Collins - 3 games, 49.0% completions, 2 TD/1 Int and a rating of 65.9 Curtis Painter - 9 games, 54.3% completions, 5 TD/9 INT and a rating of 66.6 (that was the highest rating of his career, the other two years with very limited games 9.8 & 19.0 rating respectively) Dan Orlovsky - 8 games, 63.2% completions, 6 TD/4 INT and a rating of 82.4 (Also the highest rating of his career) Obviously some games w/multiple QBs but the point is, they were BAD. This was not a perpetually bad team, just a one year bump due to QB issues.

Wow, tough crown. No love for incumbents or Luck. So somebody new it is. Jump up once to get Mayfield if he falls past 10 (I don't think he will) and sign Bradford as a mentor with small guarantee but incentives on being available to play to a reasonable starting QB salary. .

Not to sound harsh but what does fair have to do with it? He is under contract and just because he may deserve a chance does not obligate the team to trade him. As for paying two guys starting money, they aren't. Wentz cap for 2018 = $7,275,365 and Foles = $7,600,000. Tell me what team would not jump at the chance to pay these two guys a combined $15MM? The Eagles problem is if Foles is still on the team in Feb 2019, he becomes a free agent by contract. They will be forced to deal him at some time, just not for most or all of 2018.

You did say it and I was quoting you. I laugh when I hear people say the last 'can't miss' guy was Luck. People forget that Indy got that pick because the very good team with Manning at the helm had to go thru a year without him. Had Manning played, they don't get that pick. Once they got a quality QB back, they were the same very good team they were with Manning. BTW - here is a little piece of trivia for you. Had Cleveland not missed a 36 yard field goal against the Rams, it would have been the Rams and not the Colts with that pick. Late in a game against the Rams, Cleveland missed a 36 yard field goal that cost them the game and subsequent cost the Rams Andrew Luck.

The problem is the team knows what they have with Foles, in their system, in their locker room and on their field. ANY other option doesn't give them that kind of certainty, or as much as you can ever get in the NFL. I don't see them dealing him until late in the season, if at all. Certainly not in this off season.

If anyone has been a football fan for any length of time you know there are no sure things. No one measure is always 'the best way' to evaluate a kid coming out of collage and projecting their success in the NFL. Rosen is bright, has superior mechanics and has some questions. Darnold has a big arm, has played some great games and has some questions. Mayfield's stats are off the charts, intensely passionate, throws receivers open and has questions. Allen has all the measurable but can't hit a net from 10 yards away (sorry I couldn't resist) and has questions. Every evaluator has to decide which combination of attributes and flaws will yield them the best result. If I could hand place each of these guys on a team with a specific scenario I think they would all be successful. But they go where they get drafted and the best players go to the worst teams by design. Sometime that works out and sometimes it fails miserably. I think Rosen would do very poorly in Cleveland and very well with the Giants. Bottom line "can be" is accurate, will be is quite another story. Let's see where he ends up first.

While you are playing GM and manipulating cap space, don't forget you have to leave room for your 2018 draft picks. Based on numbers from overthecap.com the Bills need $8.45MM. Just thought I would complicate things a bit as people are trying to free up money to sign _____ (insert favorite player/UFA here).

He reminds me more of Kaepernick, although I don't think Allen is as good a runner. Big arm, can throw a rocket, zero touch and NOT a very catchable ball.

Exactly. While the market for Foles may never be higher, until I get some assurances from doctors that Wentz will be ready and 100%, I will keep Foles and his $7.6MM cap hit for 2018. Who else are they going to get as a back-up that they think would be better sitting behind Wentz, even if they lose him in 2019, which they very likely will?

In the event anyone has not seen this yet, check out this video of Allen missing the net completely from 10 yards away during a senior bowl drill. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/01/josh-allen-wyoming-senior-bowl-throw-video-miss-workout-accuracy-browns-nfl-draft I know it could have been nerves but it is very funny. That said, I would take him at 21 and let him sit for two years. Top 5 or 10, not so much.

I think that is a fair bet. Rudolph was a very popular pick early in the college season as a top 10 pick but has dropped for some reason. He certainly did not have a bad year. I honestly don't think he will be on the board at 21 but wouldn't bet on that. If he is, that would make for an interesting decision for the brass.

That is a subjective statement. The question is will a QB needy team make a run at him. I think there is little chance Rudolph gets out of the first round and certainly not available where the Bills draft in round 2. White is possible.

Both fill in QBs, Foles & Keenum, will want a starting gig and there will be a team that will want them. I don't expect either to be on their current team at the end of next season, likely at the beginning.

I was responding to people comparing Brock Osweiler to the Smith deal or a potential Cousins deal. I was in no way comparing Cousins to an untested vet. The point was that if you gamble on a rookie you get them under a strict salary limitation. No more $80MM deals for a QB that has never seen an NFL field. When you take a chance on an untested vet like Osweiler or Jimmy G., often the gamble is the same but at a much higher price. With those two examples, Osweiler didn't work out and Jimmy G seems to be. Hope that makes sense. hate to say it but the Browns have earned the reputation they have. It's no surprise that top FAs don't want to play there.

Would they have to move up to #3 though? Moving to #5 for 21, 22 & 53 is a good deal for the Broncos if they sign Cousins. If Barkley is there at #4 Cleveland will not trade out of that spot. Indy is not drafting a QB. Baring an Indy trade, a top QB is available at #5. Likewise, if Indy takes Barkley, trading those same three picks for #4 based on the value chart is a good deal for Cleveland. I think that is where you are likely going to need to get to #4 or #5 unless something odd happens at 1 through 3. The nightmare scenario for a QB needy team is if Cleveland takes Barkley at #1 assuming they determine they will be happy with any one of three QBs, no matter how they rank them. If they do that I would expect the Giants to take Rosen and someone move up to #3 to take a QB. That means 2-3-4 are all QBs. That is the scenario where you would have to trade up to #3 as your only option.

The problem with gambling on any QB that doesn't have a lot of starts under their belt is you don't really know what you have. The cost just gets exacerbated when it is an untested veteran. Are you getting Brock or Jimmy G.? People forget that Jimmy G. only had a couple of actual starts. That could have gone the other way like Brock.

He also had pretty good stats in 2016 where he played all but the opening game. Completed 71.6% of his passes, 20 TDs/5 INTs. A lot of his passes were short because the O-Line for them last year was exceptionally bad. He got hammered. So much so that one of his O-Lineman asked him after a particularity big hit if he was dead. If he checks out physically, he will serve some team as a very good rental.

The Vikings will not keep both Keenum and Bridgewater. Keenum wants to start and not have to compete with another starting quality QB for a job. If the Vikes want to sign Bridgewater I think the likelihood of Keenum signing as well is maybe 5% and I think that may be high. I'm thinking AZ is a likely landing spot for him but just a guess. Bradford is another story. He has shown when he is on a decent team he can play pretty well. His obvious knock is his ability to stay on the field. He would be a very good option for a short term contract to mentor a rookie with every intention of the rookie being the long term option. The contract would likely have incentives for being available to play as opposed to a big guarantee. That seems like a reasonable option for both the player and the team.