jrober38

Football people are wrong all the time. They constantly look for the diamond in the rough who they can polish into something great at the NFL level. It never works. Guys with Allen's skill set never succeed in the NFL. The fact that he's being talked about as the potential #1 overall pick is insane. He's the exact same prospect as EJ Manuel.

No. If we don't get one of the top 5 guys, don't bother drafting one of the long shots. Just a waste of a pick.

Agreed. My guess when it all shakes out: Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, Allen - top 10 picks (in no particular order) Jackson - 1st round Falk, Rudolph - 3rd round White, Lauletta, Ferguson - 4th-7th round Benkert, Briscoe, Lee - UDFAs

Exactly. There is literally nothing to be gained by watching the QBs at the combine. You want to know about a QB - watch the game film. It'll tell you all you need to know. If a guy has terrible accuracy on film, he's going to have terrible accuracy in the NFL. End of story.

Not surprising. Rudolph is Bryce Petty with a weaker arm. Where did Pretty get picked? Round 4.

Josh Allen is EJ Manuel/Jake Locker. How is this not obvious to everyone?

They should take Nelson and give themselves an All Pro RG for Barkley to run behind. Cousins, Barkley and Josh Gordon would form a pretty formidable offensive attack. Then use the rest of the picks upgrading the defense.

Mass shootings of random civilian targets is an American thing. Death by way of using guns is also an American thing (relative to the rest of the Western World). The US has 10.64 gun related deaths per year, per 100,000 people (12th highest in the world). Canada checks in at 1.97 gun deaths, the UK at 0.23, and Australia at 0.93. Saying gun control doesn't work is just nonsense.

Agreed. It's worked pretty much everywhere else it's been implemented, and what hysterical is that the people who want to be able to buy guns, and own assault weapons will for the most part still be able to do so. Nothing will change in their life other than the small inconvenience of having to get a license or permit and pay a small fee every couple years. Life will go on as it does now, and like in those other places the number of mass shootings by psychopaths who have no business owning guns will likely be reduced dramatically.

Nothing. I'm just pointing out that Canadian, Ozzies, and Brits don't leave their house in the morning worried their kids school might be attacked. That kind of peace of mind probably has a lot of value to some people.

Australia institutes gun control in 1996 - ZERO mass shootings of random civilians since UK institutes gun control in 1996 - One mass shooting of random civilians since (12 total deaths) Canada institutes gun control in 1995 - Two mass shootings of random civilians since (10 total deaths) USA - no gun control - Sixteen mass shootings of random civilians since 1995 (328 total deaths)

Trudeau is the worst. Such a buffoon.

Nope. I own 4 guns. Never paid a single fee since I bought any of them. I have to pay to renew my license every 5 years for the cost of $60. Oh, the horror!!!!!!!

This has essentially been the system in Canada for the past 23 years and there's no threat of the government rounding up all the guns.

I don't think anyone is saying you can't own a gun. I think they're saying you can't own some guns. There are already restrictions on automatic weapons, so calling for a restriction on semi automatic assault rifles doesn't seem like such a crazy idea.

I don't understand why gun advocates constantly push the false narrative that proposing restrictions on assault weapons means that Liberals want to take away ALL of the guns.

I don't know what the answer is and I won't pretend anyone is going to change their mind on this subject. I will describe my own experiences though as an outsider. I live in Toronto and I am a gun owner, but never once in my life have I left my house feeling that I need a firearm to protect me. Toronto is a relatively safe city and random attacks are extremely rare. What violent crime there is is usually heavily concentrated in specific neighbourhoods. For a city of 5+ million residents, you hardly ever hear of random attacks or robberies. Our definition of violent crime is very different than in the US, and in Canada we include many things that the US doesn't. As some may know, guns are restricted in Canada. To purchase a firearm, you need a license. You can't just walk into a store and buy a long gun (rifle or shotgun). To get a license, you go through a gun safety course and have to pass an exam. Once you pass the exam, you fill out an application which involves your background, requires references, requires the consent of your spouse or ex spouse if there is one or anyone else who could reasonably object to your ability to purchase a gun. These applications are relatively straight forward and I've never heard of someone having one denied. The basic license is for "non restricted" firearms (rifles and shotguns with capacity limits). Once you have your license, you can purchase rifles and shotguns. With a few exceptions (.22 calibre rifles with extended mags, retired WW2 weapons, etc), rifles are restricted to guns with a magazine capacity of 5 rounds or fewer, and shotguns can hold 3 shells. The next license which requires more extensive background checks, is the "restricted firearms" license. If this application is approved, license holders can purchase handguns and some higher capacity semi automatic rifles (you can own an AR-15 in Canada with this license). These weapons need to be registered with the RCMP with an owner, and if you change your address you have to let them know. I think this system probably creates the environment where mass public shootings just aren't a thing in Canada. A guy tried an attack at our Parliament in Ottawa a couple years ago. He used a Bolt Action Rifle, shot one person and then was gunned down by police. I suspect our laws contributed to his inability to secure a more lethal weapon (hand gun or assault rifle). The notion that criminals will find ways to get the illegal firearms is true to some extent, but for the most part in Canada it is severely limited. There is certain gang and drug violence, which is almost entirely targeted are other criminals, but people with mental issues generally have zero success acquiring high capacity weapons in Canada even though they are available. Canadians don't have better mental health than Americans, yet mass shootings of random targets never happen in this country. I think it's probably the gun laws, but I'm not going to try and prove that. People who might shoot up a school, or a mall to kill random civilians generally can't get through the checks and balances we have in place. Like the Parliament guy, you might get the first license but the guns you can buy with that license aren't meant for mass killings due to their rate of fire, reload time, etc, and the result is that the police will have the upper hand in those situations and be able to resolve the situation before the casualty count gets out of control. For the law abiding gun owners, if you want to own a handgun or an assault rifle, you can. You just need to follow some pretty basic rules that really don't impact your life all that much or cause any real inconvenience. All I know is that you guys need to do something. The status quo isn't working, so something needs to change. Doing nothing shouldn't be an option anymore.

If you separate it farther and take away the guys who went #1 overall, it's really freaking hard to find a QB unless you have the first pick. Most of the "successes" in the 1-5 range were all guys who went #1. Reality is that if we draft a QB this year, they're nothing more than a long shot of being successful. Odds are we'll be looking for someone again in 2-3 years.

I think we're talking about the same thing. Whether it's campaign contributions or fundraising of the copious amounts of money politicians make from lobbyists the massive amounts of money involved in politics inevitably leads to corruption. Federal politicians act to protect the interests of the people who give them millions in lobbying and not the people who vote for them in the elections. If you take away the huge money that comes from lobbying and fundraising, politicians would wind up having to serve the people instead of corporations and the super wealthy.

It all starts and ends with Hilary. She was convinced she'd win, and everyone else was convinced she'd win, and because she's so ruthless and corrupt they wanted to make sure they were on her good side when she took office, and everyone involved thought there was no way any of this would ever become public info. All these people acted according to what would help them the most during a Clinton Presidency, and when it blew up in their face the cover up immediately went into full swing. The whole thing is disgusting. Federal Politics has become big business and the money and greed need to be destroyed for the average American's to get their country back. Limit campaign contributions, stop lobbying and make the politicians answer to their constituents instead of their big donors and things will get a hell of a lot better.

This whole thing is a joke. The Democrats are so corrupt it's out of control. It all started with Hilary. They rigged the primaries for her, and were so convinced she'd beat Trump they broke laws to give her advantages over her opponent thinking they'd never get caught because Hilary would win. Turns out she was a terrible candidate who no one liked and she lost. Now they're left holding the bag. Heads need to roll and people need to go to jail. The corruption in Washington (on both sides) is outrageous and there needs to be real accountability.

All I'm reading here is that whatever QB you like is the guy we shouldn't want. Nothing but colossal busts on that list. I hate pretty much every QB over the past 10 years. Exceptions for top prospects have been Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Teddy Bridgewater, Winston, Griffin, andTannehill. I despised Jimmy Clausen, Matt Barkley, Johnny Manziel, Geno Smith, Jake Locker, and Blaine Gabbert.

I don't see anything different between Josh Allen and EJ Manuel when he was a prospect. Exact same pros, exact same cons that QBs rarely ever correct at the pro level. If you put Josh Allen in Baker Mayfield's body, he's nothing more than a flyer on the 3rd day of the draft. Is the fact that he's 6'5, 240 really what makes a player worthy of a 1st round pick, or should it be the way they actually play football on the field? Allen is severely flawed. I hope he goes early because it means a better player falls to us.

Anyone who takes Allen in the 1st round is making a big mistake. He's got upside, but he's also got enormous downside. Guys like him rarely succeed at the NFL level. I don't think he's worth anything more than a 4th round pick. He's too raw and too much has to go right for him to become a top QB.

The Browns make the most sense. They can pay him the most, and they have a ton of picks which could result in a quick turn around. If the Browns add Cousins, and could bring in Barkley to play RB and use the rest of their picks to upgrade their defense, they could be decent next year. They'd be set at QB and RB, and they'd have Josh Gordon at WR. On defense, they have Miles Garrett and could possibly add Chubb to bookend him. Then they can use the rest of their picks upgrading their secondary and OL.