Thurman#1

Yeah, this. It's a very fluid situation. I doubt the Broncos do that, but you never really know. Have to go change a diaper.

Well, yeah, if the Bills throw in all their picks for the next three years, nobody can beat them. Agreed. But the question was asked above, whether there was anyone else who could beat what the Bills have this year. And I answered that. Lots of teams can beat that. The Bills could easily have to throw in all of that and then have to start using more if teams are willing to make this competitive. Which could happen. I don't know if it will, but it could. An awful lot is up for grabs here.

Perhaps I phrased that badly. I'll try again. Did any team ever offer so much for such a small outcome as going up three places? RGIII was close, going from #6 to #2 Of course I know teams have traded larger totals. Look at the Ricky Williams trade. The Herschel Walker trade. Point I was poorly trying to make is that you don't have to shy away from digging into the picks from future years. Not if there's a QB you really want.

Very interesting. Thank you. But you overstate what we've learned. The Cards can offer the 2018, 2019 and 2020 firsts and all three 2nds as well. I take that over the Bills offer. The point is, this isn't a gimme. It's not like, well, the Bills already have this in hand. They have a big advantage. But not an advantage that's impregnable. Teams could also offer players, of course, including some very good ones.

Great, you've established that among things that have never happened before, there are some situations are realistic and others aren't. Nice. Did any team make a deal like the Jets did? Was that realistic?

It is realistic, Kirby. Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it won't happen now. If a team wants it bad enough, they could do something like that. Not saying it will happen. But it could. You can't rule it out. Did anyone think the Jets would make that kind of an offer with so many future picks? If I were the Bills bidding against the Cards, and the situations were reversed, I wouldn't mind a bit if the Bills made that kind of an offer. They'd better be right about the guy, of course.

Nearly any team can beat that, or do a hell of a job trying. If you're the Giants do you take that offer from the Bills, or the 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 first rounders from some team? I take the firsts.

Yup, I would. Might be more as there may be a sort of an auction between several teams.

Hope he's OK.

IMHO it came down to the Bills not really having had leverage. They wanted to trade down, it now appears pretty clearly and it can't have been that difficult to figure out even back then. It's hard to read how desperate KC might have been but the vibe appeared to be that they wanted Mahomes but weren't jonesing enough to take advantage of. This year's draft is special, and there are QBs teams are dying to get their hands on. The teams with the picks are in extremely strong positions. They're playing teams off each other. Don't think we were able to do that last year.

There almost isn't one. Assuming we get a franchise guy, I'd give up three #1s plus a lot of our bounty this year. Only if necessary, of course. I'm not dying to get rid of them or anything but this is the key moment on team building for the next fifteen years. Go up high and get a terrific QB. I'm the opposite. I don't generally want one guy for every pick. I want 1.2 or 1.3 guys per pick. Or more. Trade back. Accumulate them. But there's one exception and one only and that's a franchise quarterback. Give what you have to give.

I think you've misstated this. It's not about the worst signings, it's about the worst contracts. Nothing wrong with the article. It's a reasonable opinion. Disagreeing is reasonable too, but his points make sense..

But you folks remember how undersold Trubisky, Watson, etc. were before the draft. "Wait till next season" was all we heard on here. This article is a year old, a pre-draft piece from last year. I bet if you asked him now who he'd rather have, Trubisky, Watson or McCarron, he'd probably have a very different answer. IMHO Polian was underestimating Trubisky, Mahomet, Watson, etc., the way most people did at the time.

Which Smith are you getting? 2017 Smith? Or earlier? If he can play at 2017 level, your problems are solved If it's the earlier Smith I still like him but I draft somebody else as well..

Again, those reports might not be conflicting. The first report said the Bills had contacted them. "Contacted." The second report said there had been no discussions. "Discussions." There's room in there for both to be true if they contacted them but only spoke for a sentence or two. I'm not saying I know what happened, just that these reports could possibly both be true.

You say they mostly wanted the #6 pick, but that doesn't appear to have been true. Peter King says the Colts are now actively looking to trade down from #6. They didn't especially want that pick. "Before we analyze the winner and loser in the big weekend Jets-Colts deal (there is neither, by the way), I’ll make one prediction: There’s a good chance the Colts aren’t done trading yet. After dealing from three to six, I could see them moving down one more time before the April 26 first round. GM Chris Ballard said as much to his team’s website Saturday, and I can add a confirmation to that. Ballard’s going to try." https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/03/19/kirk-cousins-minnesota-vikings-free-agency-guaranteed-contract-mmqb-peter-king No particular reason to think the Bills couldn't have made an offer the Colts would have accepted. Worth noting that King continued, speculating that the Colts might yet trade back to #10 or #12 and specifically talked about Buffalo. "The Colts very much need to maximize this draft. It’s likely their roster is the weakest in the rising AFC South. Ballard knows he needs quantity in this draft. That’s why if he could turn the sixth pick into something in the 10 to 12 range and add another second-rounder, I believe he’d do it. At six, he’d likely have a chance at pass-rusher Bradley Chubb or guard Quenton Nelson. At 11, let’s say, he’d have a chance at a desperately needed rangy linebacker like Roquan Smith or Tremaine Edmunds. A second trade would mean Ballard would have turned the third overall pick into five players who would have a chance to start from this one trade alone. "Colts’ picks in the top four rounds now: 6, 36, 37, 49, 67, 104. If I were Ballard, I might trade down from 6 to Buffalo at 12 if the Bills would deal the 53rd overall pick and maybe the 96th pick as well—seeing that the price for a quarterback is more of a premium. But of course, this is probably a night-of-the-draft deal, because the Bills would have to see a quarterback they’d want here."

"Total." Period. It means "absolute." 100%. There's no room for semantics here. Total means total. The minute you say, "the only reason it's not considered total" you're destroying your own point, admitting there is in fact a reason. Yes, they kept a bunch of vets. Expensive, old vets, exactly the kind who would go in a total rebuild. That means it's not total. It's a partial rebuild. And there's nothing wrong with a partial rebuild.

Exactly. Nicely put.

Not many. But nearly all of them have first round picks over the next five or six years. That's what the next three or four drafts are for. And he's likely to need someone to clean the snow off his spot on the bench more than blockers and receivers. And there's nothing wrong with that.

The Eagles don't win that Super Bowl without having spent most of the season riding Wentz.

Yup. And he does this with five different guys with different teams and different agendas. One guy smoke-screening gets swallowed up by the others. Yeah, maybe one guy wants everyone to stay away from Darnold. The others know their teams aren't involved. Involving a lot of guys levels things out. And yes, McGinn is very good.

Picking an RB this early is weird but defensible because of how good Barkley is. Trading up to do so would all but be evidence of traumatic brain injury. And they don't have to be picking the third QB. They could be very strongly convinced that one of the top two teams isn't going QB. They could also be interested primarily in one QB who they think fits their system, who they are convinced the top two teams value less highly. Mayfield, maybe, or even Rosen if they think the top two go Darold and Allen. I think they're not smoke-screening because smoke-screening this because doing so would be like pretending you're going to date Aileen Wuornos over Kate Upton. Not worth the breath.

Is it contradictory? I haven't gone back and checked, but I think the first story said that they had called, and the second story said they haven't had "discussions," correct? I could definitely be wrong but that's what I thought I read.

In this case, you get correct. Virtually all the evidence points that way.

Shaw, this isn't a semantic discussion. It's cut and dried. Yeah, "rebuild" has a million levels and variations and extents. "Total," on the other hand, is a very unambiguous word. There's no way to look at it that does NOT have it mean "absolute," "complete," and "unequivocal." That's what the word means. It doesn't mean dump everyone good, though. It means dump everyone good and getting older. Most particularly if they're expensive. The general rule is 29 or 30 or so, especially at positions where guys don't last. Particularly the athletic positions like CB, RB, WR, speed LBs, etc. Your team will suck for a while. In probably 80% or more of cases it will be three years or more. Guys getting older will be just old enough to be jettisoned when the good years get here. Less than total is partial. And that's what this is, a partial rebuild. Again, if it weren't, you just wouldn't keep Shady. He'll get you a win or two, he'll cost a lot of money and he'll be gone by the time the team will have a chance to win. Keeping him has no upside in a total rebuild. You trade him for picks. Absolutely Incognito too. He'll be used up three years from now, and you don't re-sign Kyle Williams. He's good, and he's old and reasonably expensive. You also don't do a total rebuild in your second year as GM. You do it going in. It's too painful and too long-lasting. You don't want your owner thinking after your fourth year, "Gee, he hasn't gotten things together yet." And even the patient owners think that after four years these days. You do it coming in. And yeah, total rebuilds are rare. But the Cleveland case is a very recent one that makes it clear that this happens. One win in two years. Immensely painful for the fanbase. But potentially extremely lucrative. So painful that the owner couldn't stay the course with that GM. That's the reason you don't do it in your second year as GM. Even owners who say they understand it will be painful and long-lasting often run out of patience.