Shaw66

This is where you are wrong. Professional sports are simultaneously a business and a game. Listen to the players; they tell us this all the time. they play the game, they love the game, they love the competition. They don't like the business part of it, but they recognize that business IS part of it, and they live with that. And you know what? The teams aren't interested in the guys who think it's a business, because guys who aren't in it for the pure love of the game won't subject themselves to the rigors, and indignities, of that life. That's a point that Kapernick and his supporters don't understand. Kapernick doesn't have a job not because he won't stand for the flag; he doesn't have a job because his focus isn't 100% on playing the game.

Geometrically speaking, when two lines are parallel, they are NOT the same line. Give me five minutes, and I'll give you parallels between Joseph Stalin and Barack Obama. Parallels don't make Obama a butcher. Just because there are parallels between slave auctions and the draft doesn't make the draft a slave auction. It's far from it.

When's the last time you or your child applied to college? It's the same meat market. What are your scores? What are your grades? What are your extra-curriculars? Are you the right race, the right culture, the right religion? Applied for a job lately? Is there anything more impersonal than modern human resources procedures?

Fergy - That's an interesting way to look at it, and of course there's some truth in it. Of course, it's not just pro football. It's all of pro sports and the entertainment world in general. Future entertainers are put through a similar meat market, and if you're a women in that field, it's not just your mouth that has things stuck in it. But we're living in a modern world where to reach the top of the heap there are occasional indignities we must endure. People WANT to get to the top of the heap, and they choose to endure the indignities. It's all driven by money. If I'm going to pay you $3 million a year for the next five years, I want to know if your teeth are straight. Do you want the money or don't you?

I think I missed the signups for that.

Yup. Three way deal with the Giants and either the Browns or the Broncos. Keeps the Giants in the top 5 along with another nice pick somewhere, gives the Browns or Broncos some nice picks and moves the Bills up. Not beyond the realm of possibility.

I'd love it. I think it's impossible. As I've said, I don't think the Giants are trading out of 2, but if they are, it's because they don't want a QB. The safe trade for them is with the Jets. If the Giants tell the Jets the Giants are trading out, the Jets can't afford to sit at 3. The Jets don't have a second round pick, so the Giants probably could pry the Jets' 2019 first round pick out of them. That's a much better trade for the Giants, because they still get the best non-QB in the draft AND they get an extra first rounder next year. In terms of pure draft value, the Bills have capital to deal with. They could offer, as was rumored, two first rounders this year and one next year, a really hefty price to pay, as far as the Bills are concerned. But that deal leaves the Giants outside the top 10, and I doubt they want that. So for the Bills to get to #2, I think they need a three-way deal with the Browns. The Browns might be willing to move back to 12 and 22 in exchange for #4, and the Giants might be willing to move back from #2 to #4 in exchange for the Bills first rounder next year. That still leaves the Giants in position to take the first non-QB. The Giants' risk in that deal is that the Browns and Bills take the two QBs the Jets want, so at 3 the Jets decide not go QB.

I agree something could happen at #1. As to why the Browns haven't announced, I think in many drafts it isn't until the day or two before the draft that word leaks about the #1 overall pick. I'm expecting that we'll hear sometime today that the Browns will take X.

I don't know about only 4 or 5 wins, but I think they're under .500. 2018 is just one of those seasons where so many things have to come together that it simply isn't likely to happen. First, I keep remembering that a month or two ago McDermott said something like "we're not as far a long as people think." That was his way of saying "lower your expectations. We're rebuilding, and we're going to get worse before we get better." Second, there's a new offensive coordinator, new system. Third, position-wise, there are question marks, if not flat out holes at positions all over the lineup. QB, for sure. Wideout, for sure. Offensive line, for sure. Defensive line. Linebacker. Fourth, the Bills have no cap room, so they aren't plugging holes with decent veterans. If the Bills get above .500, McBeane should be coach of the year and GM of the year. 2018 is setting up 2019. The Bills should have their QB by 2019, and they'll probably have a top-10, top-12 pick in the draft, as well as a lot of cap room. The 2019 roster will have the players McBeane actually want.

This, and more. This draft is unique in my memory. The trade possibilities are endless. Because they have #4, Browns could trade out of #1. Possible, not likely. Giants could trade up to #1 or trade back to #3, #4 or anyplace else. Jets could trade up to #1 or #2. They could trade back if #1 and #2 don't work out as they're hoping. Browns certainly could trade out of #4. Broncos could trade up or back. Colts could trade up or back. They could move to #4 to get ahead of the Broncos. After #6, anything could happen, because there are four teams not looking for a QB. There are plenty of teams looking for a QB or that may want to get into the top 10 just because they want a guy who's there. Or everyone will stay where they are. Actually, #1 through #12 staying where they are almost seems like the most unlikely scenario. I think there will be multiple trades in the top 10.

If this is true and the Giants are dealing, Bills will have outbid the Jets. It's a problem for the Jets because they dont n have a second round pick to package with their third pick overall. Bills have the assets to outbid them.

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.