That Aud Smell

I agree that there are only a handful of people who feel the way you do about Tyrod. Trent Murphy, huh? $7M annually is real money.

Wait, wait -- a few days out, and now the Tyrod trade stinks?

This makes sense. The future is now. Moore is there if the future isn’t quite now. Peterman is ... there.

I'm not sure I follow.

Hmmm. That’s not ideal. I prefer the Chiefs’ approach with Mahomes. Rookie QBs have a way of getting ruined in the NFL. Stop it.

Nah. Forget it. NFW this regime gives up the sort of value that the Eagles are evidently demanding for Foles. I mean - Tyrod fetched the 65th pick overall. 65th! Eagles would probably demand a top-50 pick and then maybe another pick in the 4th or 5th rounds. I'm asking, though. What is the plan at QB in 2018?

So. Foles?

Yeah - I'm disappointed the Bills missed out on the top tier of FA QBs, but I also like that they didn't throw money around like a sailor on leave. And, hey - not getting a good NFL QB in FA might mean that they're leaning toward getting a more NFL-ready prospect (i.e., staying away from Josh Allen).

Shucks.

Good for him. Well, it's really $30M - which, I believe, works out to $10M/yr. with the way NFL contract salaries and bonuses are amortized. The guaranteed money is all that matters in NFL deals. As for it being ridiculous, I put some serious stock in the fact that Andy Reid is the guy bringing the player in. He's one of the greatest O-coaches in the league's history. He must see something in the guy. The Chiefs could be scary good with the team they've assembled. Hill/Kelce/Watkins/Hunt. Yikes. They've got a ~3 year window to win a Super Bowl, basically -- while they still have Mahomes on his rookie deal. This is the way the Seahawks did it with Wilson. And it's the way the Bills are trying to do it with [QB drafted in 2018].

This is good work - thanks for doing it. I'd noticed that anomaly as well when looking at another chart a while back.

Is the big Star fella any good anymore? I read that PFF (for whatever they're worth) is not a fan of his recent work. Bradford is a competent NFL quarterback. I'm just nervous over whether his body can hold up.

Yeah, it is tricky. I was basically going off of the idea that a "hit" was someone who had a run as a good starting QB. So, Dalton would be in that cohort. So would Alex Smith.

From 1990 to date, it looks like the "hit rate" on getting a good or better than good NFL quarterback within the top 10 of the draft is right around 50% -- maybe a bit better than 50% now that Goff and Wentz are doing well. Trickier to divine what the hit rates are beyond the top-10. Again, I'd bet dollars to donuts that it ain't anywhere near 50%.

Haha - here's what I had said in January about drafting a QB at the top of the draft. I see that I was somewhat equivocal back then -- but my current point remains: Take your shot!

And I think we have seen what comes of assembling a team of good (or better than good) NFL starters at positions other than QB. If you don't have your QB, then you are lost and you almost certainly aren't contending for titles (there's a slim outside chance, sure). So you gotta find your QB. It's a challenge rife with risk and uncertainty. But you have to take your shot. I posted an overview a while back of some metric of QB success that I found somewhere. There are obviously failures with QBs picked in the top-10. But how do teams fare with QBs picked outside the top 10? Top 20? First round? I'd bet dollars to donuts that the best bet is to take someone toward the very top of the draft. No guarantees, obviously. But, again: Take your shot.

I understand that there are risks. But the idea of waiting around until there's a sure-fire prospect available is not a workable strategy, as far as I'm concerned. What if the year there is a Luck-like prospect at QB (or even 2!), your team is slotted to draft 9th, 14th, or even 21st, and there's NO way the teams in the top-3 are trading out because they each need a QB? That's the most likely scenario, in fact. This is a year with several promising QB prospects. Figure out which one you like the best, and then take your shot. Sign a veteran so that, hopefully, you don't need to play the kid in year 1 (e.g., Mahomes), and then develop the prospect into an NFL-ready QB. And say a few Hail Mary's, too. Term worries me not. Gotta hear about the guaranteed money.

I’m sorry. What? Are you saying there’s a better chance that the guy (QB) they really want at 2 or 3 will flame out than there is a chance that a guy (QB) they pick at 12, 21, or 53 will flame out? I’m asking. What you posted is confusing, to me.

Good point.

Although, I just read something about how the Bills want Josh Allen. I’m not on board with this process if it ends with that guy.

It’s difficult for me to fathom that there are fans who would rather the team draft a bunch of potential positional starters rather than take a shot at getting a franchise QB. I’ve had enough of teams that max out at 8, 9 wins. Maybe Rosen/Darnold/Mayfield flames out. But, goddammit, take your shot, Bills.

I heard a report weeks ago about a conversation with a high ranking NFL FO type who was (anonymously) asked what the biggest misconception about the draft is. The response was something about how people still manage to discount how much teams will spend to get a QB prospect. The exec predicted that all of the top-ranked QBs (I think he cited 6, and the next tier probably started with Rudolph) would go in the top 10. I’m all in. The Bills should swing for the fences, and they look prepared to do so. They ended the drought. Now let’s end this QB purgatory.

With the Watkins draft (ugh), it cost that year's 9th and the following year's first to get up to 4th? Was that it? What would it cost to go from 12 to, say, 2 or 3? Is it, as Taro suggests, 12 and 22 to get into the top 5? Maybe also have to throw in a second-day pick as well?

The guy's a full blown sociopath.