Shaw66

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.

Wow, I can't imagine that they won't take a QB in the first round. I suppose it could happen. But you're right, it would be a good strategy, if the Bills get shut out of their best QB choices, to trade out of 12 and pick up a first for next year, figuring that they'll have to postpone their run a top QB for a year.

Taylor's receiving corps was equal to or worse than Mannings, Taylor was 16th in passer rating and Manning was 26th. Manning's passer rating was solidly in EJ Manuel territory. Manning was terrible last year. Oh, and Taylor ran for 400 more yards and 3 more touchdowns. I can't believe there is a coach in the NFL who would have taken Manning's year over Taylor's, even though Manning threw for more yards. But all that is beside the point. At his absolute BEST, at his age, Manning is a mediocre starter in the NFL playing on a team that had MORE problems than the Bills had. So if it makes sense for the Giants to ride their mediocre quarterback and draft a lot good rookies, it would make sense for the Bills, with a younger, more versatile mediocre QB and a better defense, to draft a bunch of young guys and make a run at the Super Bowl.

I'm with you, I guess. I really am trusting the process. I have my preferences, but when Beane pulls the trigger one, I will start with the assumption he knows what's he doing. The only thing I won't like is if he has an opportunity and passes on Mayfield, Rosen or Darnold. One of those is on the board when the Bills are on the clock, I think the Bills have to take him.

I really have no idea what the Giants will do. If it were me, I'd take a QB. But I recognize that other people, particularly their GM, may have another view. But if they're NOT taking a QB, then the question is whether there are 0, 1, 2 or 3 non-QBs that look so good to them that they'll take them at 2. If there are none, then the Giants should trade out of 2. But if that were true, it probably would have happened already. The rumor today is that they said no to the Bills' offer of three firsts. Since it hasn't happened yet, I'm assuming the Giants have SOMEONE they want at 2. Okay, if they have someone they want at 2, the only way they're trading out of 2 is if the Browns take that guy at 1. That isn't likely, because taking a non-QB at 1 means the Browns could be left with their third choice of QB at 4, so I'm pretty sure the Browns will go QB at 1. Browns go QB, Giants aren't trading out. Only way the Giants are trading out of 2 is if they don't want a QB or don't like any of them AND they don't like any non-QB at 2. That seems really unlikely. Bottom line, if there is no one the Giants want at 2, they likely would have traded out already. If there is only one guy they want at 2, they are trading out only if the Browns take that guy. If there are 2 guys they like at 2, they aren't trading out, at least not to 5 or worse. .

I understand that approach, but personally I think it would be foolish. The Giants were not a team that was one player away from the Lombardi in 2017. They were a mess. They 21st in yardage offense, 31st in points offense, 31st in yardage defense and 27th in points defense. They have a temperamental and unpredictable wideout, no running back and an old QB whose play has declined seriously for two years. If trading back for more picks and making a run at the Super Bowl in 2018 is the right strategy for the Giants, then McBeane should be fired right now. If that's the right strategy for the Giants, then why isn't it the right strategy. Tyrod Taylor was a much better QB than Manning over the past two years, the Bills defense was way better than the Giants, and the Bills have a much better running back. It makes no sense for a team that was totally ineffective on both sides of the ball in 2017 to believe they should ignore the future of the most important position on the team because they think a bunch of rookies are going to win the Super Bowl for them.

It would be ironic indeed for the Bills to have traded out of 10 in 2017 so that Andy Reid could take Mahomes and then trade UP to 5 in 2018 to take a QB John Elway didn't want.

That's fine. I'm not trying to predict what the Giants are going to do. If the Giants aren't taking a QB at 2, then they are NOT trading out of 2, because there will a great player waiting for the Giants at #2. I think the only way the Giants trade out, at least to a place beyond 4, is if they don't want a QB AND at #1 the Browns take whomever the Giants DO want. That's the only scenario where the Giants won't want to stay at #2. I DO think the Giants are taking a QB at 2, because I think it's the right way to handle their QB situation. But that's just my take on it, and I'm completely comfortable with the fact that the Giants may be taking a different view of it. My whole point in posting was not to predict what the Giants want. My point was that I don't think the Bills can get to 2 because it's quite unlikely that the Giants are willing to leave 2, except maybe to swap with the Jets.

1. Eli hasn't done much of anything for two years and clearly seems to be declining. 2. Eli is 37 and his brother and Brady are the only QBs in the history of the game to have had any real success in the league after 37. 3. Eli has only two years left on his contract. 4. No way to know when they will have another opportunity this good to get a top QB. Sure seems like the Giants are set up perfectly to draft the next QB now, have him sit for a year and start in 2019.

I think something like this already has happened. That's what GMs are doing all day. So Beane's already talked to the Giants and found out how far down the Giants are willing to move (more about that in a second). So the Giants said "we might be interested if you could get us to 7." So then Beane calls whoever has 7 and talks to them about whether they'd be willing to move back to 12 on draft night, and what it might cost. So they maybe put together a tentative deal that they agree they'd be willing to finalize once the Giants are on the clock. Then everyone waits for Thursday night. If the guy the Giants want gets taken by the Browns, they talk to the Bills and say "if you can get 7, we'll do the deal." Bills call #7 and say "we'll do it if you'll do it." Done deal, Bills call the Giants (they're probably actually waiting on the other line), finalize, notify the league and take their QB. However, I think that only happens if (1) the Giants don't want a QB and (2) the guy they do want (Barkely, probably) gets taken by the Browns at 1. If the Giants want a QB, they're going to take their first choice at 2 or, if the Browns take him, they'll take their second choice. That was the point of my original post. If there are one or two guys the Giants want at the top of the draft, the Giants aren't trading out of 2 unless they're trading to 3 or possibly 4. So although, yes, it's possible that something could happen like you describe, I think it's very unlikely, because the Giants just aren't going to want to move that far back.

Yeah, Darnold is my third. Any one of those three, I'm okay if they make a big deal with the Broncs. But as someone said and I echoed, 3 or 4 could go in the first 4 or 5 picks.

5/6 is correct. 5 is the first spot where a deal could happen, and then only if the Broncos aren't in the QB market or don't like what's left. I like Mayfield first and Rosen second. There's some chance one falls to 5 and possibly even 6. That's why I think that if the Bills trade up, it'll be to 5, 6, 7, 8, and then only if the right guy is still on the board.

Hello? You're not listening. It isn't a question of whether the Bills have enough to offer to move up. It's a question whether the Giants will take ANYTHING to move out of the second pick. The Giants are playing Eli this year, apparently, and maybe next year. But pretty soon, they're going to need a QB, and they aren't likely to have another opportunity as good as they have this year. So the Giants are saying "screw the draft trade chart." The Giants don't want five picks starting at 12; they want one pick at 2. And if they don't a pick at 2, they want one at 3 or 4. The chances of putting together a deal with the Giants and the Browns to get the Giants to 4 are very, very slim. That's what I explained in my post. NickelCity is right. There probably are going to be a lot of broken hearts around 10 pm on Thursday. Mason Rudolph, here we come.

I agree with this too. I just can't see how the Giants can afford to pass on a QB. So three QBs go in the top 4, and as you say maybe 4 in 5. So if the Bills' favorite QB is available at 4, MAYBE they can put together a deal with the Browns to get ahead of the Broncos. All seems pretty remote to me.

That's a good point. I agree. I think the Bills have to worry that the Dolphins want a QB or someone else will trade up. Of course, there has to be a QB the Bills want.