@the-gipper said:

And they have a department for that:   The Department of Redundancy Departmet.

And they only hire dunces to work there.

@sissyboyfloyd said:

Redundancy is the unnecessary use of either needless, superfluous or unnecessary text, by which one repeats, in duplication, the same, identical, aforesaid things over and over and over and over and over again, beyond what would be needed or required to explain, or make comprehensible, the intended or signified meaning of that which one wishes to convey. These things can be and most likely will be referred to as being redundant. Usually, it is often common in redundancy to repeat, sometimes with different phrasing or words, the same idea or reasoning, thus restating one's thoughts, sometimes paraphrasing oneself and effectively saying the same thing twice, or double, or thrice, or three times, or triply so, or a small handful of times, or any number of excessive, unnecessary restatements greater than zero.

And they have a department for that:   The Department of Redundancy Departmet.

@the-gipper said:

Isn't this like the 10th time we have had a redundant thread of this nature?

Redundancy is the unnecessary use of either needless, superfluous or unnecessary text, by which one repeats, in duplication, the same, identical, aforesaid things over and over and over and over and over again, beyond what would be needed or required to explain, or make comprehensible, the intended or signified meaning of that which one wishes to convey. These things can be and most likely will be referred to as being redundant. Usually, it is often common in redundancy to repeat, sometimes with different phrasing or words, the same idea or reasoning, thus restating one's thoughts, sometimes paraphrasing oneself and effectively saying the same thing twice, or double, or thrice, or three times, or triply so, or a small handful of times, or any number of excessive, unnecessary restatements greater than zero.

@the-gipper said:

Isn't this like the 10th time we have had a redundant thread of this nature?

I would of said more than 10

@darren15 said:

I went Barkley and Fitzpatrick.....but in my scenario in my head I had us paying Kirk Cousins

Same here on January 18, 2018. With 11 members putting in their 2 cents it's pretty close. 

OK Dutch time for the beating a dead horse pic.....

Remember when Big Ben was first drafted.  He took them to the super bowl and they hardly let him do anything that first year of two.  His playbook was so shortened and he wasn't allowed to throw very often.  But they won with the recipe I just mentioned.  Ben was like the 3rd or 4th ranked Qb that draft.  Surround your qb with talent and let him grow into the position.  That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.  Not to take Barkley would be a big mistake and whoever your qb is will be effected negatively by it throughout the years of his pro career.

@dutch-oven said:

You are just begging me to reinstate the "beating a dead horse" gif, aren't you?

He's in love with Saquon- Dutch, you're not going to change his mind. I'd as soon draft one of the QBs @ #1, go defense with #4, and pick a RB in the second round. I could live with Barkley @ #4. 

Did see one trade scenario for our #1 overall that I might buy...  It would be with the Bills. We get both their first round picks this year, a second, and a second next year. We keep the #4, assuming we think there's not that much difference in the top Qbs.But if QBs go in the top three picks (Denver trades with the Colts) we're screwed in that scenario.