Dr. Who

Well, I remember a number of folks, including myself, pushing for drafting Watson or Mahomes before the draft. Gunner Bill was really high on Watson. I agree that we don't really know about Mahomes yet.

Might as well take Mike White later in the draft if your plan is Rudolph at 21. I hope we're more proactive, though none of this would be an issue if we had taken Watson or Mahomes last year. Tre White is a very nice player, but now we are looking to spend a boatload to get the franchise qb that was arguably sitting there right for us. (I seem to also recall a rumor that we could have traded ten to the Giants, but had a gentleman's agreement with the Chiefs, so maybe we could have had #2 right now.)

What, NE was oblivious that the Colts were interested in McDaniels? They waited until he had signed on with Indy and hired some assistants, then decided it was appropriate to talk counteroffers? Only a selfish, entitled, classless organization would behave that way . . . alright, at least they recognize McDaniels fits in with the culture.

That's cool. I generally think you're a good poster too, btw. I don't have to agree with someone all the time to appreciate the cut of mind. I think you can discern that fairly quickly.

Do you think that price will get it done? I am all for it, but I fear the heavy demand for qb will skyrocket what it will take.

I'm so old I thought this was some obscure reference to an old Jeff Bridges scifi movie.

I don't think predicting what you think will happen = what you want to happen. Personally, I am hoping Beane is serious about finally getting a franchise qb, but that it could play out in a way contrary to my hopes is not incredible.

I think Corta takes interesting stances and he's not an idiot. I've given Kirby and Gunner more thumbs up than I have for probably anyone else on the board, but if you feel it necessary to call somewhat out on this sort of thing, more power to you.

Hard not to at least get a more decent person out of it. They ought to give Frank Reich a shot, imo.

Oops. I personally have very little awareness of that sort of thing. I guess I missed those threads ad nauseum.

Well, SaviorPeterman at least will be happy. You're one of the best posters here, imo, so this is plausible, I suppose, but it won't please me if that is what happens at qb. Clay and Wallace predictions make sense, but I would rather keep Clay, unless we draft Mark Andrews. It is better than another year of Tyrod . . .

I'd be happy to put my name on the check if she doesn't want to deal with the hassle.

Jackson is the only qb worth taking in the first that has a chance to fall to 21, imo. I am hoping we sign a good DT in FA and some Oline help. Personally, I want to trade up to secure one of the better qbs. This becomes more palatable if you've filled some significant holes in free agency. Fella who is arguing against trading up for the fourth best qb is missing the point. If this draft has four potential franchise qbs, you should trade up to get one. Getting fourth best is only bad if there are only one or two or no franchise qbs available. (I see that you may be the fella I was thinking of, though you say top five. The number really doesn't matter. You judge the quality of the player. If there's a qb you believe in, go get him if possible. It's the hardest position to secure.)

I think it's really difficult to compare eras. Brady is obviously the best for this era -- on the deficit side, you lose players to free agency and salary cap considerations make keeping a team together harder; on the favorable side for Brady, he plays in an era that caters to the passing game, I believe there generally is a ref bias for Pats*, and some degree of cheating beyond the norm (I take trying to steal signals okay for both sides) has benefitted his record. Mainly, I believe Brady would have been broke in half in the seventies and if there is Pats* bias, there is also Brady treatment. You can give Cam Newton multiple concussions, and not just because he runs a lot, and its okay, but if you breathe hard on Brady, you risk a fifteen yard penalty.

I didn't watch and I have no desire to see any of it. Glad for Frank Reich, otherwise, couldn't care less.

The thought of Taylor for one more year makes me ill, so I hope another path opens up. I understand the rationale for your thinking there, however.

I'm not disputing the need to bolster DT and LB. Even gaming worst case scenarios, I think you have to give some nod to qb and it seems to me you did not. I like Rosen, Darnold, and Mayfield. First two will go top five, Mayfield probably top ten, so it would be a challenge and expensive to get up there. I'm in the camp that is dubious about Allen, though if he matches physical talent to everything else needed to be a successful NFL qb, he will be lights out. We're in a tough spot, because there are a lot of holes. Have to be good and lucky in FA to allow a trade up that would not leave much of the team needs unaddressed.

Mr. Glass does not inspire confidence, though he would likely play well for four or five quarters before being put on IR for the year.

I agree with the Gaines scenario and also the unhappy prognostication. Doubt we see Cousins coming here. Who is your qb under this hypothetical, because I highly doubt it will be Tyrod?

How can anyone read that list and not want to either cry or fall asleep from boredom?

As you note, unrealistic, but that is one nice draft. As an UGA fan, I feel compelled to point out it is Roquan Smith. Seems to be a hard name to get right.

Yeah, if the criteria you have artificially tied yourself to produce a situation where you can't address the most significant position for overall team success, I'd pass on the criteria and think outside that particular box. I do agree that FA will alter priorities. I think we should try and address OL and DL particularly.

Well, we've got several coaches at RT and RG right now.

Umm, I'm not interested in simulations or mocks that entirely ignore the qb position. I doubt OBD will.

Little known fact: an osterich's eye is larger than its brain.