dave mcbride

The play calling in the second half was beyond terrible. I felt bad for shady - so many no-chance plays for him. Dennison has to go.

Agreed - so many chippy late hits. Bush league.

This isn't true. From a month ago: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000877512/article/ask-5-whos-better-nfl-prospect-sam-darnold-or-josh-rosen .

Oh. I like Rosen too. I prefer Darnold, but I can see why others prefer Rosen.

Because the player was clearly injured, that's why - he had a screw in his foot, after all. Lal's pressuring him to play only made things worse for the player too. Wow.

WOW. Lots to chew on here, but suffice it to say that the situation in Buffalo was toxic. He contributed to it, but so did the team. Lal does not come off well here.

You are absolutely correct. I don't know where people are reading that his stock has dropped. The only place I see it is when a reporter offers a hot take after he throws a pick. If he comes out, my strong hunch is that he'll be the #1 pick. Why?

I agree with this, but it is my personal opinion that Darnold will be the #1 overall pick and that Cleveland is not trading out. The last theing Cleveland needs at this point is more picks anyway.

And a couple of those were flat out vulture sacks.

Watch the games. He has looked really good *as a QB* since growing into the role with the Vikings, and he was good in 2013 for the Rams (a bad organization). His career has been so punctuated by injury that it's been hard to progress, but there is a reason why he was the consensus #1 overall pick when he came out. Flat out, he is a better talent than you think he is. He is a far more talented thrower and player than Fitzpatrick, who consistently labors to throw it and is an interception machine.

To repeat, Bradford played very well for Minnesota by practically any available measure. That's not really in dispute. I was in error about the Philly trade; they gave up a second rounder and Foles for Bradford and a fifth rounder (and then immediately guaranteed him $26 million). We are going to continue to disagree, which I am fine with. Regardless, I think that comparing him with Fitzpatrick's career trajectory is fair. When healthy, Bradford has been a better player at every stage of his career. This is not to deny Fitzpatrick's good 2015 season (although he of course choked in the final game). The one area they do compare in is the teams they've played for. All have been pretty deeply flawed until the 2017 Vikings. (The Fisher-era Rams were an especially flawed team. Who trades up (with the Bills, no less) to spend a high first on Tavon Austin??) Unfortunately for Bradford, he got hurt again. He's a better QB than Keenum, though, and if he had stayed healthy my guess is that the Vikings would be even better than 10-3 right now.

Regardless of what one thinks of the original post, there are some good discussions going on here. When we're at page 38, you can pretty much say that a thread has taken on a life of its own independent of the OP (to an extent).

He's not offended; he's annoyed. I do agree with him that it's a pain in the neck to scroll through troll-like commentary in an otherwise good thread.

I fundamentally disagree with your premise and think you're basically espousing a narrative of permanent stasis with regard to the player we're discussing. He wouldn't be the first highly talented QB to improve over time; the list of such qbs who became better over time is quite long (e.g., Steve Young, another extremely accurate QB, is the most famous example). It takes a while to learn to deal with the complexity and speed of NFL defenses. Bradford always had the potential (no one ever doubted his talent). Injuries took their toll, however. Indeed, 2013 looked like the year he would turn the corner because he was playing very well for St. Louis. But he was knocked out for the season during game seven. If you recall it, his progress that year was a relatively major topic of discussion across the league. He missed all of 2014 too (knee again). But there is a reason that both Philly and Minnesota traded first round picks for him: extreme talent, which has been on display lately. Both of those organizations understand QBs better than you or I.

As I said in two posts above (and elsewhere), his knee is too much of a risk. I thought that was clear. That being said, he played very well in 2016 despite having the worst running game I've seen in the past few years (32nd in both yards and YPA). He completed 71.6 percent of his passes, which is staggeringly high, had a 99+ rating, and he lit up a very good Saints team like an Xmas tree in game one this year. Players -- especially QBs -- often do get better over time assuming they have the requisite physical talent because they learn to deal with the complexity of the game. Bradford is one of those guys, at least in my view. I also will reiterate that the Vikings' running game was historically terrible last season. But to repeat (which I apparently I need to do given your post above!), his knee would scare me off.

It all depends on his knee.

As I said elsewhere, Bradford has looked like an elite starter in his last few full-game starts. His last three games: 34/50 for 382 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, 110.6 rating 25/33 for 250 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT, 114.5 rating 27/32 for 346 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, 143.0 rating He is a good player at this point in his career. However, his knee is a scarred-over mess of spaghetti. That's the issue with him, not his talent or performance. If the knee somehow ends up being OK, he can be a high end starter. But given the history of that knee, it is simply too much of risk to invest in.

I dropped Rogers, picked up Hundley, and then picked up Rogers and dropped Hundley right after last week's game. Worked out!

Just to be clear, it's going to be a fifth rounder. If he's on the roster and the Jags make the playoffs, the pick becomes a fifth.

Oddly, I think Bradford has evolved into a near-elite QB but is not acceptable because of his knee. It's a mess. I wonder if ever even plays again. He may well. Apparently they couldn't locate any tear in his MRI in September because the scar tissue obscured everything.

Have you heard specifically that they like Rosen? Curious to know.

Agreed. Not a great matchup for the Bills. Honestly, I'm counting on the weather helping out plus the fact that Miami is coming off of both a big high (stomping NE) and a short week.

I pretty strongly disagree with your understanding of what an attack constitutes, and I stand by what I said about the weakness of snark as method of argumentation. I'll just leave it at that. We're not going to agree, so it's best to end this.

Saying someone is providing "hot garbage" or is the equivalent of a drunk on Elmwood is by definition insulting them. It's not hard to be polite. Also, why the impulse to tweak me -- "Do you know what an attack is?"; "Sounds like you're a sensitive one as well." What's the point of that? The board is a better place when vigorous and sometimes hot debate is done with at least a modicum of politeness. My general view is that snark is a weapon of the weak and best avoided. It doesn't reflect well on people who rely on it when crafting an argument. It's typically not funny either.

I do. It sounds a bit like this: "Truthfully, this all just sounds like hot garbage. Please tell Cathy and Mark I’m disappointed." "Well, I heard better BS from a drunk on Elmwood on Saturday before the game. Thanks for the laugh." In any (reasonably) polite society, this is generally regarded as an attack -- nasty and dismissive snark.