dave mcbride

I feel that if you truly think that the qb is a likely franchise qb - a dozen+-year starter - the picks you give up to get him aren't all that important. I'm thinking 4-5 years down the road at this point, not about 2019. I believe Darnold is that guy. I suggest you list all of the great UCLA qbs not named Troy Aikman. And all of the great Oklahoma QBs. I did research on this, and the only two schools that stand out since the 1970 merger are Stanford and to a lesser extent Cal.

I actually think Darnold is better now. And as a UCLA alum, I like Rosen and would be happy to have him.

pretty interesting 7-round mock: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/seven-round-nfl-mock-draft-21-trades-256-picks-and-draft-class-analysis-for-all-32-teams/

Agreed. The Cleveland receiving corps is a lot more talented than Buffalo's was last season.

I did watch the game live. UCLA was really lucky because when it was 34-17, Rosen threw an easy pick but it went right through the defender's hands into the arms of a UCLA receiver who was behind him. What should have been a sure INT ended up being a TD for UCLA. Also, A & M's qb got hurt and their backup went 3 for 17 on his throws (26 total yards). Great game though!

I have been getting the NY Times delivered to my house for over 20 years and I generally do not read the sports section except for some of their baseball analysis (Tyler Kepner is good). It is the only paper I get, but the sports section is terrible. It's about as good as their comics section.

Mayfield's Oklahoma team put up 45 points in regulation in the semifinal against one of the best defenses in CFB last season! It's a team game.

I think Tannehill was on an upward path until he got hurt in 2016. This is his make or break year, and I expect him to be pretty good (at least).

Agreed. Stafford is an extremely good qb who has been cursed playing for a franchise with a terrible running game for years. He has been excellent the last 3 years: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/StafMa00.htm

I think what you see is what you get in this case. I fully expect Mayfield to be a Jet.

I only lead with Cline because this is supposed to be a Bills-related site! More seriously, did anyone know this about Booker? I had no idea: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/cory-booker-stanford-football-highlights-video-2020-presidential-election-new-jersey.html?mobi=true.

In the game they gave up 52 points, the Bills turned the ball over 9 times. The Cowboys should have had 59 if not for Leon Lett's showboating.

I have zero idea of whether a trade like this happens, but upon reading this -- https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/18/josh-allen-draft-cleveland-browns-mmqb-peter-king -- it seems to me that the Browns would be crazy to draft Josh Allen over Darnold. Now I realize people will say that this is the Browns we're talking about, but Dorsey is not an idiot. I just find Allen going #1 overall somewhat implausible, but what do I know?

Here's where I disagree with you slightly - if you don't have decent velocity, you will by definition HAVE to put air under deep outs. Josh Allen doesn't need to do that. The rejoinder, of course, is, How many deep outs do QBs actually throw? And do they ALWAYS have to be on a rope? Probably not. We drafted JP Losman because he could "make all the throws", but it didn't help him.

That was my thought too, but if you look at the success rate of guys throwing 50 or under, it's pretty low. Deshaun Watson and Tyrod to an extent are outliers.

Well, I don't think it's a farce at all in the sense that it is a bona fide measurable. But of course it doesn't factor in how the situations in which qbs throw balls - which are never ideal. That is, they're under a lot of pressure and are often throwing off balance or moving. Game situations are totally different. Regardless, below 50 is low.

Are you worried that he threw 49 mph at the combine?

I strongly believe they'd take Darnold.

Deshaun Watson was 49. So was Mike Glennon. Tyrod was 50. You'd rather have it 55+, but there are enough solid qbs over time to suggest that you can survive in the low 50s if you're good at everything else. It's not like he's being taken in the first round. https://birdbreakdown.com/2014/03/03/qb-velocity-rankings-nick-foles-has-an-objectively-strong-arm/ Josh Allen hit 62! Lamar Jackson? 49. I don't see the Bills being interested in him. https://brownswire.usatoday.com/2018/03/08/josh-allen-baker-mayfield-top-qb-velocity-during-combine-throwing-session/ Colt Brennan, though: 44!! I remember when he was a prospect after racking up huge numbers at Hawaii.

52 isn't terrible. It's not disqualifying.

My point about Lauletta is actually Bills-related: if the Giants are indeed interested, that's a good omen for a Bills' trade-up scenario. Given their needs, the only way the Giants are gonna draft him is if they have a lot of picks. We can help them get there!

A new team.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/10/draft-wide-receiver-wr-first-round-busts-kyle-lauletta-jimmy-garoppolo-chad-kanoff-princeton So where could Lauletta end up? The Patriots connection is thrown around because of their investment in Garoppolo, but there is a lot of interest around the league in Lauletta. He’ll end up getting drafted by a team that prioritizes quick decision-making, fast release and defensive recognition. To me, that would put the Giants and Cardinals in the mix, and I would put the New Orleans Saints as a serious suitor. (The Giants and Cardinals, by the way, have come up multiple times when asking around about second- and third-round quarterbacks.)

Hope you're right. We shall see. If the Bills get Darnold, this draft will be a huge success, at least by my reckoning.

Fair point. That said, I do worry that we're moving into the land of magical thinking at this point. The trade sorta works for everyone, but it REALLY works for the Bills. Hence our love for the scenario. But if the Giants would take Darnold if he's there (as has been reported ad infinitum), and the Browns want to take Allen, why would the Giants ever make that trade?