dave mcbride

Trust me, I fully understand. What you don't seem to realize is that the bottom 25-30 players on an NFL rosters are chum; they are paid peanuts, relatively speaking, and collectively they add up to a miniscule amount. Are there low earners in MLB? Yes, but they represent a far smaller portion of the roster than in the NFL. Seriously, look at salary pages for NFL and MLB teams. The issue is that some players HAVE to be paid credible major professional sports salaries given the revenues involved and the collective bargaining agreements, even in the 53-players-per-team NFL. The disparity between the top and bottom tiers in the NFL is huge, but since there is a salary cap floor, for all teams some number of players have to paid . Indeed, the Browns basically took on Brock Osweiler last year to add ballast to their overall salary structure, which was ridiculously low. By way of example: http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/san-francisco-giants/payroll/ vs. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/cap/ Seriously, take a look.

? - I don't understand your point. Look around at MLB team salary pages and factor in a) the Browns' cap situation and b) Landry' productivity. He is decidedly better than average albeit not elite.

He's as slow as Benjamin at this point, and skill-wise Dez does pretty much what Benjamin does anyway (wins jump balls). Moreover, he's actually lost a ton on his vertical leap. Plus he's an a-hole. I say no.

It's not a ridiculous comparison at all. $15 million is what *average* decent starters (e.g., Brandon Belt and Brandon Crawford for the Giants) get paid in MLB when they are no longer under team control. Landry is n no longer under team control and better than average (he's not a deep threat, but he's one of the better slot guys in the league). By way of comparison, Landry, for all of his limitations, is a *significantly* better receiver than anyone on the Bills at present (and yes, I'm including Benjamin, who is glacially slow for a #1). Anyway, the MLB luxury is $210 million now, and the minimum salary is higher than in the NFL. In the NFL, guys on rookie contracts count for peanuts, and the Browns' team is filled with them. Last year, the Browns were something like $100 million under the cap. The bottom line: $15 million ain't what it used to be with regard to NFL contracts. The cap has gone up by a LOT in recent years.

This isn't directed at you at all, but I get the sense that many people here are clueless about how much the cap has gone up. At 177.2 million, it's approaching MLB levels. If people are familiar with MLB salaries, they'll begin to understand that salaries like $15 million are garden variety for players that teams assume will be above-average starters. The Browns are a team with a TON of players on rookie contracts (and that'll go up after this draft too), so they have to spend their money somehow. They aren't devoting much to the QB position either, relatively speaking.

My suggestion: stop arguing with him. This one is truly implausible because there are no trades. There will be trades. That is certain.

Yet I would bet a lot of money that this poll is a pretty accurate reflection of reality. There should be no question that Darnold is the top QB prospect, and by a substantial margin.

An implausible mock draft that Rosen fans here will nonetheless like: http://walterfootball.com/draft2018trades.php

Makes sense to me. I think Darnold is heads and shoulders above the rest, and I'd be shocked if the Browns don't take him. Because they're told that there are 24 teams being polled and hence their lone answer doesn't actually matter. The fact that Darnold got the vast majority of the votes tells you all you need to know. He is hands down the best prospect in this draft. I have been saying that forever, to be sure, but it seems patently obvious. This backs that up.

I'm a Foles fan and would be happy to get him. People who label him a journeyman focus way, way too much on his short stint under Jeff Fisher playing in an archaic offensive scheme.

Cyrus K, Trent Richardson, Foster, Dareus, Rolando McClain ... national merit scholars all!

I've read other things with more detail on this board; I just can't remember when or by whom. They were trustworthy posters, though.

Here you go!!! https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/report-the-very-upset-giants-tried-to-trade-up-for-patrick-mahomes/

Let's just stick with the first round alone. There's no way he wasn't a top five player. I can only think of three other elite picks: Watson, Lattimore, and Garrett.

You know, it really depends. It may be the case that the Bills targeted White and thought he was the perfect player for them, but he knew he'd be there late in the first. And he was actually phenomenal! Another thing - it's a relationship business, and not screwing someone over in your first year on the job will help you out later on. That stuff matters over the long haul. Ironically, Dorsey controls picks 1 and 4 this year. We shall see what happens. They already got more than I ever thought they would for Tyrod from Dorsey.

But my understanding is that the Giants, who had a better pick (23), wanted to trade up with the Bills too, but McDermott nixed it because he already had a deal in place with Reid. If we had made that trade with the Giants, no one would be complaining! I think it's very arguable that 2 of the best 5 players in last year's draft based on 2017 performances were CBs, and that White was definitely one of those top 5. Name me one player other than Lattimore who was better than White last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_NFL_Draft.

Given that the trade was with Andy Reid/Dorsey, I highly doubt that Whaley had much say in this instance. Christ, he had already been fired, more or less.

Precisely. I agree 100 percent. That said, the Colts actually made a number of good picks - Edgerrin James, Reggie Wayne (helped because of Manning, of course, but still a great player), Freeney, Mathis, Sanders, and Tarik Glenn (also helped by Manning). Both Freeney and Mathis are borderline hall of famers. Maybe you're just an easy grader!

From everything I've read, there really aren't 22 first round talents this year, and there are a lot of players graded as second rounders. 2 second round-graded players are better than one in terms of your odds of achieving success. You just aren't finding an elite prospect at 22.

I've heard 17-18 first rounders at most. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea considering a trade up with GB, a team which always seems to find good value in the 40-100 range (think of all of their second and third round receivers who produce like crazy - Nelson, Jennings, Cobb, Adams).

Maybe trade 22, 53, and 96 to GB for #14? It then becomes more conceivable to trade 12, 14, 65 and next year's second to move into the top 5. It's two instead of 1. Plus 6 is way better than 12.

That has been my worry too. Good quote.

Great stuff and confirms my belief that a strong case can be made for Mayfield, Darnold, and Rosen as #1 overalls. That is really rare - only 2004 and 1983 compare, really. That is why the Bills really need to get one of these guys if they can. They are that much better (at least as prospects) than next year's shaky crop. We knew this after last season too -- everyone said that this was the year. Btw, I'm starting to get a sneaking sense that Lamar Jackson might go before Allen. I still think Allen goes ni the first, btw. Yes.

.40 -- holy effing crap!

You are imagining a lot of things about other posters that aren't true. Don't be so defensive.