Dr. Who

Well stated. And yet folks will continue to harp on Whaley and qbs. Post #25 in this thread is also excellent. Because of length, I didn't want to quote it. It's a nice way to analyze the qb situation. I agree with your overall sentiments, though I like Watson, so I would draft him if available.

I agree.

Ahh, he seems to me GOAT. He benefits from a system perfectly suited to his skill set and a coach who is GOAT. Montana also benefited from a system suited to his strengths and an offensive genius for a coach. It's hard to be successful otherwise. Fortune plays a role even when one has superlative talent. Still, longevity is a factor. 39 and still no discernible drop-off. On the other hand, I don't recollect anyone questioning Montana's honor.

Yep. Nice thread in a message board devoted to a team that hasn't made the playoffs this millennium. Falcons are a tough out. I think they're going to win it all. I also live in Atlanta. Don't care when they lose; happy when they win. If only I could have the same emotional attachment to the Bills.

I addressed this in a later post. I understand your sensibility. It's fine. I just don't happen to share it, silly or not.

And what kind of superior GM skills were needed to draft Luck first overall?

Don't play safe, Doug. Fortune favors the bold . . . except when it doesn't

It is tricky and different psychologies react differently. Some folks are so starved for the Bills to make the playoffs, they think it's crazy to discard a reasonable player. Myself, the longer the drought, the more I am willing to take a shot at someone who can be upper echelon. The suffering just isn't worth it to be pretty good at best, imo.

Still think American football is the best sport (hockey is a close second.) The rest of the world can have "soccer." Unless it's the World Cup, it's usually a snooze fest and I can't stand the histrionics surrounding fouls.

You probably have to be picking first overall to get Darnold. If I see a potential franchise qb when I am picking, I take him. Just don't reach on a nice fella who doesn't really have the potential.

Okay, I see it. I think we top out at wild card material with Taylor.

Does wanting a better qb than Taylor = not wanting a good defense? I don't see a logical correlation. Since I don't think Taylor is a franchise qb and I think having such is what makes a team consistently dangerous, I think taking multiple shots at getting such is a priority. Of course, if it is legitimately determined a particular draft lacks viable candidates, you go elsewhere. The last draft had a DE (in the new system) and a LB (that may not fit, but I think he will adapt) at the top of the draft. Thinking it might be a good idea to spend a high pick on the offense is not a dismissal of the importance of defense.

Plus one. Wish we had kept Pysyk, but still like the trajectory of the team.

I really think they've got somebody lined up who is on a current playoff team.

Brian Daboll Tom Clements

Is anyone disagreeing with that? The question is, statistically, which tactic offers the greater probability to win.

If he's as careful and diligent as promoted -- he brought his best "book" to the interview, but not his only one --- then this is a hire he has already contemplated with a developed rationale.

Ah, I'm not so good with pop culture references.

It wasn't over when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, either .

Right. Cardale is an afterthought with most fans. He could develop and if he hits, he has the tools to be very good. Long odds, I still think, but that is true for most. I think his attitude is actually good. He doesn't get flustered. Has a bit of Favre's humor/bravado.

It is tiresome that so many on both sides resort so easily to hyperbole. I don't think Taylor is very good. He doesn't see the field, makes slow reads, plays almost too safe. That doesn't mean I hate Taylor. If he is the qb, I will hope he does well and proves my assessment inaccurate. I like Watson and Mahomes in this draft and I would like Whaley and Co. to consider them. I do not claim special wisdom when analyzing qbs. This is just my opinion. I am aware others dissent strongly. I do know if you wait for a near can't miss prospect, you are rarely, if ever, going to be drafting a qb. That seems a very bad long-term strategy to me.

I think Russell Wilson is always going to be a qb who is better than his numbers indicate. I agree that early Brady depended a great deal on the defense, but I surmise even early Brady was more than a placeholder which is what I think a qb like Dilfer or Johnson was. Again, if you have a superlative defense, you can get by with lesser qb play. I still say, in agreement with most of your interlocutors, that stellar qb play, on balance, allows for much more wiggle room when assessing long term success.

Tom Brady and Russell Wilson aren't top tier qbs? Flacco played out of his mind on the Ravens most recent run. Yes, I include Manning last year as a defense driven Super bowl. Dilfer, Brad Johnson, 85 Bears. No one is saying a great defense isn't important, but it usually isn't decisive imo.

That is my hope as well.

Once every twenty or thirty years, you get a Superbowl winner carried pretty much by the defense alone. A top-tier qb makes you relevant for a decade or more. Like it or not, you have to play the lotto on the position if you don't have one. And then when you do, you still keep drafting. My own proclivities, btw, would be to build the lines on both sides of the ball. Contemporary NFL skews towards the qb, however, so I think you need to make it priority 1 and 1A.