Shaw66

I think Gettleman would be nuts to plan of Eli being his QB for the next two years. It's an opinion I've expressed elsewhere. The guy is hopelessly immobile. The guy was the 35th rated passer in 2013, 15th in 2014, 13th in 2015, 22nd rated passer in 2016 and the 26th rated passer last season. In other words, he's been bad to horrible in three of the last 5 years and only mediocre in the other two. I just don't get chasing a lot of talent on the assumption that a bunch of rookies and a QB who hasn't produced since forever are going to win a Super Bowl. That's the most likely big-trade scenario. I still the more likely trade is up to 6-9.

That's a scenario that makes sense to me, if there's only one QB the Giants want. But if you're in the market for a QB, as I assume the Giants are, trading back and getting only your third or fourth choice QB doesn't makes sense. I feel strongly that other than QB, there are no game changers in this or any draft. I mean, there is a guy every once in a while who turns out to be a super stud, like JJ Watt, but nobody seems to be able to tell who those guys are in the draft. They know if there's a game changer, he could be one of about 10 guys. I've come around to thinking that if you're not looking for a QB, trading out of the top spots makes sense. I still think the Giants want a QB. Beast - you could sell live subscriptions for the live video feed of the Beast watching the draft. You could be a star!

Yes, it would be nice to get ahead of the Jets. But unless someone can give the Giants #4, they aren't moving back. And maybe, just maybe, the Bills and Jets want different guys. So the Browns could get their fav at 1, the Jets get their fav at 3 AND the Bills get their fav at 5. Even that seems possible, because there sure doesn't seem to be a clear consensus about the QBs.

I just don't see it. If the Giants want a QB they aren't moving back. If they love some other guy, they aren't moving back, because back means behind the Browns and maybe behind the Broncos. They'll worry that they'll lose their guy. Only way the Giants are trading back is if they don't want a QB and they aren't in love with a non-QB. Seems pretty unlikely.

I'll echo the OP. It's really great that those guys post quality links the way they do. If it's worth knowing, they get it up here. It's great. Thanks.

You can infer all you want. Everyone else will know it's a stupid inference. The man said he didn't want to trade out of the top 10. Six weeks later he trades out of the top 10. Observing those facts, most people conclude that things changed in the intervening six weeks. Why do they do that? Because most people understand that successful people don't tell gratuitous lies.

In your world, maybe. Why couldn't they just change their mind? At the time they made the deal with the Jets, their criteria were they wanted to stay in the top 10. Now, trading out of the top 10 makes sense to them. It just doesn't make any sense to say that because they're willing to do something now, they were always willing to do it. People change their positions about things all the time.

Possible, but I doubt it. I tend to think that any team that wants a QB will take ONLY the one guy they want and not another. If the Giants are in the market for a QB, their second choice at QB this year is almost certainly going to be better than the QB they're going to be able to draft next year. They likely won't have the second pick, and as I understand it the class isn't particularly QB rich.

Okay. I understand. You're saying the Colts GM lied when he made that statement. You can choose to believe that if you want, although I think it's much simpler to believe he told the truth and has since changed his mind. I tend to think that people generally don't lie about things, especially if they don't need to. Why say he wanted to stay in the top 10 when all he needed to say was the Jets made the best offer? Why lie? Now, if he'd said the Jets made the best offer, it makes some sense to have a discussion about what Beane should have done to make a better offer. But since I think it's unlikely the Colts lied about this, I don't see the point in speculating about what Beane might have done.

Never say never, but I think this is correct. It's very difficult to see how any team, except possibly the Colts, could trade into the top 4 at this point. It's quite unlikely that any of the top 4 teams (5 picks), wants to move out, so the price to get them to move gets unreasonable. Colts, Bucs and Bears have the next three picks, so they might have a shot if they REALLY wanted someone in the top 5. Other than that, I don't see how anyone cracks the top 5. always worth reading, even if it's only 5 words!

Well, you just don't understand. Speculation? What is speculation? The Colts GM said after the trade with the Jets that they wanted to stay in the top 10. That's not speculation; it's a quote. The Bills did not have a pick in the top 10. That's not speculation; it's verfiable fact. (They still don't.) So under those circumstances, what was Beane supposed to do to get the Colts to trade with him? Just to refresh your memory: Colts wanted a top 10 pick and the Bills didn't have one. What was Beane supposed to do?

Thanks. That's a pretty good summary by Brownie.

Well, that's all well and good NOW, but at the time they made the trade with the Jets, they said they wouldn't trade out of the top 10. It's the time they made the trade with the Jets that mattered, and at that time the Bills didn't have anything the Colts wanted. So, again, what were the Bills supposed to do differently that would have kept the Jets from getting the #3? How did Beane misplay his hand? If the the Colts told him they weren't interested in dealing with him, what was he supposed to do?

Thurm, those are all good points, and you may be right. I don't agree because it's all based on the premise that the Giants think they can win in the short term. They may very well be thinking that, but as I've said, I think that's the wrong choice. When you were pretty bad, actually very bad, on both sides of the ball AND your QB has given two years of clear signs that his best years are behind him AND you have a new coach, it seems to me to be a sucker bet to think you're going to win big in the next year or two by adding a bunch of rookies. The Bills fielded a better team last season with a better QB, and we've pretty much all been convinced that the Bills need a new QB before they can make a serious Super Bowl run. I just can't see how I would reach a different conclusion if I'm the Giants GM. By the time I get all my rookies in the lineup and playing well, it's likely to be 2020, and I just can't believe anyone thinks Eli will be a Giant in 2020. We'll see.

Are you listening? The Bills didn't have a way to trade to 3. The Colts GM said he wanted to stay in the top 10. The Bills didn't have a way to give the Colts a pick in the top 10. All they had was 21 and 22. What was Beane supposed to do? Try to convince the Colts that 21 and 22 was the same as a top 10 pick?

This is a good point. We don't know what any team thinks about any player on the board. Probably the surest bets are that the Browns will make sure they get the QB they want and the Jets will take a QB. I suppose it's possible the Browns and Giants both take QBs and the Jets really don't want to burn #3 on anyone left, but I doubt it. I think they're taking the guy they think is the best QB left on the board, regardless of who's left. I think it's more or less impossible for the Bills to get the #1 pick from the Browns. If Giants want a QB, they're taking one at 2. If they want a non-QB, they're taking him at 2 UNLESS the Browns take him at 1. If the Browns take the guy the Giants want, the Giants MIGHT trade out of 2. I don't think that's very likely, but possible. Jets extremely unlikely to trade out of 3, unless they've done a deal with the Browns or Giants to move up, but that doesn't change what's available to the Bills. Jets are extremely unlikely to do a deal with the Bills to let the Bills get their QB. It just seems to me that the first pick that it makes any sense to talk about the Bills acquiring is #4. Unlikely, but possible. #5? Possible, but only if the Broncos don't want the QB who is left. #6 is probably the first realistic deal the Bills can do. I do think, however, that it's likely that the Bills will move up from 12. Too many teams will want the third or fourth QB to hope he'll fall to 12.

You keep saying this, but HOW? Bills didn't have what the Colts wanted. Bills don't have, in all likelihood, what the Giants want. Bills MIGHT be able to get #4 from the Browns, but that just means they get their THIRD choice at QB and pay a lot for them. How were the Bills going to be sitting pretty?

This. Plus the Colts GM said this: "Talked to a couple other teams, but we still wanted to stay in position in that top 10 where we could still get a premium player. We feel like at (No.) 6, we'll still be able to get a premium player." The Bills didn't have a pick in the top 10. They still don't, even after the Glenn deal. So, the Bills would have had to pay too much, AND the Bills didn't have what Colts wanted, but Beane still overplayed their hand? What hand?

And what, exactly, was it that the Bills were going to give the Colts for their #3 pick? The Bills didn't have anything to offer that compares with the #6.

Umm, the point of the post was that there are no willing partners. So, yes, the cost is irrelevant, there isn't anything the Bills can give the owners of the top 4 picks that will make them trade out.

That's okay, Dude. I still love you.

As I've said, I certainly may be wrong. MY view is that if I were the Giants GM I'd get my QB now. Gettleman's view may be different. One thing you said and another poster said I think needs a little investigation. You said 5 6 or 7 may be enough to get one of Barkley Nelson, FItzpatrick etc. That's true, I'm sure, but I don't think GMs think about it that way. not in the first five picks. That's how you think in the second round, because the difference in the players gets pretty small there. When you're picking at 2, you aren't thinking "any one of these 5 guys will do." You're thinking about a guy you think will change your team for 10 years. You have a special opportunity. And although it may be true that there are 5 such players in the draft this year, they don't all look the same to you. You almost certainly have rated them 1 through 5, and you almost certainly prefer your #1 to everyone on the list except possibly #2. For example, I think it's highly unlikely that the Browns are sitting at 1 and thinking "any one of three QBs will do, so let's take Barkely at 1 and see which QB falls to us." I think it's very unlikely they'll settle for their third choice at QB when they could have had their first. Maybe their second, but not their third. For the Giants it's probably Barkely and Chubb. If they don't want a QB, their mindset is they gotta get one of those. If that's what they're thinking, then MAYBE they can trade back to 5, IF they assume the Broncos want a QB. However, they could trade back to 5 and be surprised to discover that the Broncos didn't want a QB, and have the Broncos and Browns take Barkely and Chubb. So even 5 is a risk for the Giants unless they KNOW that their trade partner is taking a QB. So maybe the Bills' strategy is trade up to 5, which probably costs them their two firsts, then trade the 5 and next year's first and something else to get to 2. Giants might do that because they know the Bills will take a QB. Still, that's going to get really pricey for the Bills. Again, however, I don't think the question is whether the Bills will pay the price. I think the problem is that it's very likely that the Giants don't want to lose the guy - QB or non-QB - whom they can get at 2.

That's interesting. I see your point. I guess I see it differently because I think Manning has looked horrible for a couple of years. It's not like Brees, who has performed really well. Manning has looked like his body no longer can deliver what his brain might see. You have to get your qb when you see him. Pats apparently are looking to move up because they think they need a qb. Their qb has said, altho not recently, that he's going to play 2 more years. So if the Pats want a qb even tho they may have Brady for two years, why would the Giants not want a qb because they have Manning? Doesn't make sense to me.

You have a fundamental flaw in your logic. Just because they acquired all this draft capital, it doesn't follow that there MUST be a good QB in the draft. For example, now matter how much draft capital the Bills might have acquired in the year he was drafted, EJ Manuel wouldn't have been a better quarterback. The Bills acquired the draft capital because it was the smart thing to do. It wouldn't be a smart thing to do to spend it on some player just because they have it.

As the board stands right now, it could go QB Browns, QB Giants, QB Jets, RB Browns, QB Broncos and the Bills are left out. That's quite possible, if the four teams with the top five picks have differing views about who's the best QB. If Denver's #! choice of QB falls to 5, their pick will not be available in a trade. Four QBs could go in the first five picks. Two QBs could go in the first five.