Tyrod's friend

slightly ... less enthusiastic about daboll. Within the context of the entire conversation, you'd almost place Dilfer's considered opinion of Daboll as closer to the "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" category.

What I tussle with is the input of Paul Depodesto in the draft process. As a Mets fan, I'm pretty familiar with the mini-Jonah Hill. Part of me says the GM has shut them out and down. It's his deal. Part of me says there is just so much smoke there. Let's just get to May and put this behind us.

Truly. And who says the Bills have to use the 12th pick in the draft to move up? This is just assumed, but not the exclusive path. 22, plus 53, 56, 65 is over 1750 points - I won't say that's enticing enough to get to 5, but certainly 7. Change it up; make part of the offer some part of 2019 (although I'm pretty sure Brandon Beane is categorically against trading future picks) and maybe you'll find a combination that works for you. Why is it that we can't get ... [Insert QB here] at 6 and then possibly STILL MOVE UP from 12 to get ... [insert wild card here]? What is to say you can't walk away from this draft with Quinton Nelson and Josh Rosen? Sam Darnold and Trumaine Edmunds? or two, game changing defensive players - say, Chubb and Smith, with some bizarre Toledo or Memphis QB in the 4th round that becomes Jimmy Garrapolo? Anything could happen. You just don't know. My point being this ... why can't the dark horse moving up be ...The Buffalo Bills? There is a robust history of these kinds of moves in the NFL draft. Why can't the Bills have TWO top ten picks this year?

OK; I get your point now - very relevant. There is so much statistical analysis being done right now and of course the draft is all about projection, so I wondered if that statistic was out there and I didn't know about it. Cheers.

Here's ah honest question. The statistical background of "peak performance" in baseball is very well established. Either a player makes it and is hitting his prime by 27-30 or forget about it. Is there any statistical analysis similar to this in football - at QB and then at the rest of the roster? My sense is that the impact of age on a QB (other than the outlier like Weeden) really isn't substantial. If you are drafting for projection - for improvement - that's one thing. I don't think anyone is drafting Baker Mayfield because he is going to get better. He is - excuse the pun - fully formed on arrival. It strikes me the only question for Mayfield is going to be how much of what you've already seen can be transferred to the NFL. Ultimately assuming a two year arc of completing his learning process, he's 25 and realistically under control by your team well into his mid-30s. I don't see a problem with age at 23.

I'm guessing it doesn't include the guy that has the interest of 3 playoff teams, two of whom have HoF QBs right now. Of course, we couldn't possibly use him and we HAVE TO HAVE TO HAVE TO move up to get a guy that has health issues, which themselves are directly related to being a statue. More yards rushing and more rushing TDs than Saquon Barkley ... in fewer carries.

If four of the first five picks are QBs, then at least two teams f'd up: the Giants, and whomever took Josh Allen in the top five.

you are right. Mayfield. #1, overall. The one guy Dorsey was scouting before he became a GM. The one guy that screams out leadership. The guy, by the way, most similar to their current starting QB (other than Lamar). The sole reason the Bills FO ran to the WC to suddenly speak to Darnold - because only Mayfield at #1 puts a scenario where Rosen goes at #3.

It's precisely this sort of pitchfork mentality which leads to teams using up a lot of draft picks so they can get into position to pick up Josh Allen. SMH.

As in most things, the more desperate you are the more likely you are to make a mistake.

A draft that starts with Baker Mayfield and 7 more picks is like a date that starts with sex. Who cares what follows, you're gonna have a **** eating grin the rest of the night.

I would suggest that the MORE of the hole you have to fill, the more cautious you should be trying to fill it. Reaching is a four letter word.

And of course Mike Ditka actually WAS able to trade an entire draft to get a running back; I don't recall and SB appearances from NO. Dallas traded away an outstanding running back and got pretty much the entire guts of the Vikings future drafts. They wound up with a couple of SBs because of that. Of the many things the Giants could do, turning away from 3 #1s plus more to take a RB at 2 might not be the best thing in the world for them. Not in this draft.

Cleaned that up for you.

Not sure how valuable that information is. So ...take two of the Giants, Colts and Bucs (7 picks, 6 teams) out of the realm of choices. That seems like facts, not information. Doesn't change anything. Broncos and Jets won't take Rosen, that's information. I was literally just going to write this. It seems too easy to NOT be true. GM personally scouted Mayfield 5x before he became a GM. Suddenly, the Bills FO goes to Cali for a scouting trip to Darnold. Why is that? Mayfield at 1 changes the Jets at 3 (not to belabor the point, but NYC is home to a ton of Jews, and it is in part always about marketing in NYC). 2 and 4 are in some order Chubb and Barkley, unless Gettelman is willing to move down to 5, in which case he gets one of Chubb, Barkley, Nelson. All of this puts Darnold in play in a way that Allen would not have put him into play.

Didn't he already do this? McCarron Tyrod

I'd sign up for that draft in a second. I might rather have Wynn or Hernandez at the second, but sure.

I love Flutie's line - a big guy has to prove he can't play QB. A small guy has to prove he can. Flutie was a favorite of mine, and I don't think he is anywhere in Baker Mayfield's arena.

How in the world do you interpret what I wrote as "talking down to you"? If you were insulted, then before we go any further please take your mother's dress off. Jezus. And losing a debate? It would help if you responded to any one of my points, which you didn't. That's a debate. But I'll go ahead and respond to yours. The Jacksonville game was one game. Against one of the better defenses in football, the Bills took the field with Deonte Thompson as the only WR, with a group of 3 TEs as starters. One of the starters was a converted QB. Shady had a run of 25 yards, but beyond that he was 18 for 50. Taylor himself was injured during the game but he played on. Other than Charles Clay, there wasn't a single, reasonable wide receiver on the field, with no output from the running game and Tyrod was playing his first playoff game, on the road, against the #1 passing defense in football. And again, he injured his leg during the game. Tough game for him and his passes were all over the field. Not quite Blake Bortles bad, but bad. Tell you what. You give an argument for how the Bills set him up for success, gave him the tools, a fine offensive coordinator and QB coach, a great game plan and an experienced pair of offensive tackles so he could set up in the backfield with confidence. And I'll happily point out that they tried to get a running QB to stay in the pocket, took away his deep threat - which really is one of his best assets, and saddled him with some miserable play calling. Cheers.

Hold on there Shady. I grew up with that guy, and don't you let those letters linger. Joe Willie played the better part of his career with no knees. He played against the dirtiest teams I've ever seen - the Chiefs and the Raiders. Screw statistics. I know he completed 49% of his passes and threw too many INTs. But it's where statistics fail you. In 1970, after embarrassing the Colts he had to face them in the regular season. The only problem was three of his offensive linemen were injured and wouldn't start. Snell couldn't suit up and Boozer was playing hurt. Joe was hammered all afternoon long - they don't count sacks but my old memory says it must have been 5 or 8 times. 62 passes ... 62, and not one of them in the flats or a screen. It was like the Colts were holding him up so they could beat on him. He threw 6 interceptions and afterward the game he finally hung it up for the year. He couldn't take anymore pain - going into the game his knees already looked like train tracks. He kept playing but he was done. I've watched football since 1967 and no player ever took a beating like him. I can still see guys like Willie Lanier, Buck Buchanon and Ben Davidson twisting his legs like drumsticks.

Not to state the obvious or talk down to you, but this isn't Madden, right? You don't get the right to swap out the two starting WRs, replace them with bad receivers including one rookie that apparently can't catch a cold, then on top of that replace the scheme with frankly a world class bad OC, and say that little guy on the screen is just going to do what you say. It affects him, affects his confidence, distracts what he's doing on the field. I'm sure you get this. The management and ownership of this team believed that Tyrod was in fact not holding back the team in 2015 and 2016. Why would they? In his first two years as a starter in the NFL he was averaging nearly 400 points a season. They brought him back for 2017. The consensus around the league was that Tyrod was (still) a good QB even after the abortion of last year; apparently there were at least three different suitors for him and it led to a bidding war. I'm sure you are really good at your day job. I think the talent evaluators in the NFL are pretty good too. Tyrod was no worse or better than he was in 2016. We destroyed the environment on our way to cleaning up the cap space, left that man on an island, and all he did was QB the team to winning 9 of 15 games. And thank goodness he was able to politely say thank you very much with his mouth full of the $hit this organization stuck in there. And leave our fair city like a pro. I realize it only speaks to his quality as a human being and not whether or not he was a great QB. And he's not a great QB - I'm not saying that. But for an organization to dump on him like they did in 2017? Sorry, I won't hold him responsible for that whole mess. Not for a second.

I can see why #4 might be available. I fail to see why it decreases the cost.

Excuse me? Last year ... you mean the year where the team divested itself of its #2 WR? Then when that wasn't enough, we traded away the #2 WR? That we decided it was okay to work with walk-ons at WR? That it went forward with an offensive line that couldn't get out of it's own way? When they put into place an OC so inept that the team was badly - historically - outcoached at the start of each and every second half? Tyrod Taylor held back the offensive unit of the Buffalo Bills in 2017? Wow. OK. Hey, it's America and I think freedom of thought is a pretty good thing. Cheers and welcome the sun on Friday night my friend. Yeah, wrong on both counts. You bring zero to the table, and it's easy enough to show you are an idiot. F off.

Fixed that for you.

Oh. You mean like Ben Roethlisberger did last year, right?