Dr. Who

Hard not to at least get a more decent person out of it. They ought to give Frank Reich a shot, imo.

Oops. I personally have very little awareness of that sort of thing. I guess I missed those threads ad nauseum.

Well, SaviorPeterman at least will be happy. You're one of the best posters here, imo, so this is plausible, I suppose, but it won't please me if that is what happens at qb. Clay and Wallace predictions make sense, but I would rather keep Clay, unless we draft Mark Andrews. It is better than another year of Tyrod . . .

I'd be happy to put my name on the check if she doesn't want to deal with the hassle.

Jackson is the only qb worth taking in the first that has a chance to fall to 21, imo. I am hoping we sign a good DT in FA and some Oline help. Personally, I want to trade up to secure one of the better qbs. This becomes more palatable if you've filled some significant holes in free agency. Fella who is arguing against trading up for the fourth best qb is missing the point. If this draft has four potential franchise qbs, you should trade up to get one. Getting fourth best is only bad if there are only one or two or no franchise qbs available. (I see that you may be the fella I was thinking of, though you say top five. The number really doesn't matter. You judge the quality of the player. If there's a qb you believe in, go get him if possible. It's the hardest position to secure.)

I think it's really difficult to compare eras. Brady is obviously the best for this era -- on the deficit side, you lose players to free agency and salary cap considerations make keeping a team together harder; on the favorable side for Brady, he plays in an era that caters to the passing game, I believe there generally is a ref bias for Pats*, and some degree of cheating beyond the norm (I take trying to steal signals okay for both sides) has benefitted his record. Mainly, I believe Brady would have been broke in half in the seventies and if there is Pats* bias, there is also Brady treatment. You can give Cam Newton multiple concussions, and not just because he runs a lot, and its okay, but if you breathe hard on Brady, you risk a fifteen yard penalty.

I didn't watch and I have no desire to see any of it. Glad for Frank Reich, otherwise, couldn't care less.

The thought of Taylor for one more year makes me ill, so I hope another path opens up. I understand the rationale for your thinking there, however.

I'm not disputing the need to bolster DT and LB. Even gaming worst case scenarios, I think you have to give some nod to qb and it seems to me you did not. I like Rosen, Darnold, and Mayfield. First two will go top five, Mayfield probably top ten, so it would be a challenge and expensive to get up there. I'm in the camp that is dubious about Allen, though if he matches physical talent to everything else needed to be a successful NFL qb, he will be lights out. We're in a tough spot, because there are a lot of holes. Have to be good and lucky in FA to allow a trade up that would not leave much of the team needs unaddressed.

Mr. Glass does not inspire confidence, though he would likely play well for four or five quarters before being put on IR for the year.

I agree with the Gaines scenario and also the unhappy prognostication. Doubt we see Cousins coming here. Who is your qb under this hypothetical, because I highly doubt it will be Tyrod?

How can anyone read that list and not want to either cry or fall asleep from boredom?

As you note, unrealistic, but that is one nice draft. As an UGA fan, I feel compelled to point out it is Roquan Smith. Seems to be a hard name to get right.

Yeah, if the criteria you have artificially tied yourself to produce a situation where you can't address the most significant position for overall team success, I'd pass on the criteria and think outside that particular box. I do agree that FA will alter priorities. I think we should try and address OL and DL particularly.

Well, we've got several coaches at RT and RG right now.

Umm, I'm not interested in simulations or mocks that entirely ignore the qb position. I doubt OBD will.

Little known fact: an osterich's eye is larger than its brain.

If I think Luck is healthy, I'm trading 21 and 22 all day. Just for comparison, I think Luck is much better than Kirk, he's two years younger than Cousins and his cap hit is going to be millions less than the contract Cousins will get.

If he's healthy, which seems to be still very much in question, you absolutely want Luck if Colts are willing to deal. Seems to me they would only be willing, however, if health is going to be an on-going issue.

I watch often. I actually got angry, which is an irrational response, I suppose. But what do you expect? The young fella is like a white Urkel and the other guy a bow-tie wearing English teacher who apparently never heard of Jack Kerouac. Chauvanism, perhaps, but I didn't hold it against the gal for knowing nothing about football. Agreed. He's the best.

The sum is less than the parts. It might change, but odds are against it.

I agree that the oline is important and I would expect it to be addressed in FA and the draft. OTOH, Groy did play well when he filled in for Wood in 2016 and Miller may rebound if they change to a blocking scheme more suited to his abilities. I surmise some of the draft capital is needed to move up for that new Qb unless Cousins is coming here. (We could probably stick at #21 and take Rudolph. I think he'll be there, but I don't like him.)

Highly doubtful he will be back -- and high doubtful someone who starts with "hate to say it" actually does.

Of course, one can simply deny the premise of the question. You're not forced to choose between Bradford or Smith. Get a wily vet who shakes loose for cheap and move up to get a potential franchise qb that could plausibly start (Mayfield, for example.)

Reply to (a) If sooner is not sometime in the first three games, you're likely going to be disappointed in your investment.