SoTier

They just redid his contract to make it more cap friendly. I don't think he's going anywhere.

The fault in your logic is that the Browns have both the #1 and the #4 pick. That the Browns have hinted that they were "open" to trading the #1 suggests that they don't think one of the QBs is so special they have to have him. If the Browns don't love a particular QB, then why would they take him #1 over Saquan who is easily the best prospect in the draft? It's not like they don't get another crack at a QB until round 2.

That's all fine and dandy but drafting JP Losman or EJ Manuel at #1 wouldn't have made either significantly better (although Losman might have been better playing for somebody other than Jauron). Being drafted #1 overall didn't prevent David Carr or JaMarcus Russell from busting. Draft position isn't what determines a QB's success or failure.

Unless they really love one of the QB prospects, I think the Browns take Saquan at #1 and then grab a QB at #4. IMO, the Giants want Barkley, and Cleveland knows that. I don't think they're all that interested in a QB, especially if the Browns take the one they like best, so they could be open to trading down.

Lie to yourself but Brady, Brees, and Rodgers would have struggled playing with our WR corps from 2017. The Bills absolutely need to get better at WR, but there are still quality WRs out there ... and likely more to be added.

This is seriously flawed logic. It's as easy to miss on a QB in even in the greatest QB draft ever -- as they did in 1983 -- as it is to miss a QB in an average QB draft. More importantly, a great QB draft isn't about the number of prospects in the first round but how many good/great QBs actually come out of the draft. The team needs to judge prospects on their own merits, judged against an ideal, not judged against the other QBs in the class. If you can't get the QB you want, then it might be a wiser move to pass on the pretenders in the first round and take a lesser guy later in the draft, especially since some good QBs have come out of the later rounds in recent years.

I haven't heard anything but the trade didn't become official until 4pm today.

My screen saver is a slide show of my favorite nature shots.

I agree. I'm not complaining about trading Glenn to move up to #12, making a further move into the Top Five infinitely more feasible than it seemed last week. I just wanted to remind all the idiots who wanted Glenn gone because "he wasn't worth the money" that good LTs are almost "priceless". That's why Cinci was willing to swap #12 for #21 (and change) to get Glenn despite his foot question.

Except for Brady, all of these QBs played their college football more than 20 years ago, and some more than 30 years ago. Both the college and pro passing games have changed significantly since.

It's the going rate for quality LTs which is why I was against trading Glenn for any reason except to move up for a QB.

Teef, use KBB.com to get a price on your current car. Then use KBB or TrueCar to price out your new car ... including the options you absolutely need to have, those you'd like to have, and those you don't care much. All the pricing sites are zip code specific, so that will give you a ball park figure about the cost of the new car and what you're likely to get for your old car in your area. The difference in prices will be what you pay out of pocket, and is a good measure of what kind of deal you're getting from each dealer. Two points to remember: since you are buying a new car, keep in mind that you can always walk away if you don't like the deal; a good service department is worth paying a few extra dollars for, especially if you buy one of the many new models with maintenance included. Happy car hunting.

No, it doesn't. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion around the league that the Bills are angling for a first round QB in the draft, so any veteran QB who signs here has to accept that he's here for a placeholder for that young QB. Backup QBs with aspirations to be starters don't want anything to do with the Bills; they're going to be interested in signing with teams where they have better opportunities to become starters. Think of Ryan Fitzpatrick signing first with the Bills and then with the Jests.

EJ Manuel. Blaine Gabbert, and Christian Ponder all have NFL practice and preseason experience plus they have significant NFL regular season experience, too. Whoopty-doo.

What "talent" are the Bills "watching ... walk away"? Get a grip, dude! If AJ McCarron was such a great talent, he'd have been drafted higher than the fifth round. The Bills are looking for a modest veteran FA QB to serve, at best, as a placeholder for a season or part of one before they turn the reins over to the young QB they traded up for in 2018. "Veteran" means a player with more than 3 games of NFL experience. Somebody like Hoyer is adequate, and better than some others whose names have been bandied about.

What the hell is the fascination with AJ McCarron????? He's started 3 NFL games and played in 11 games, total, in 4 NFL seasons. He's attempted all of 133 passes. At best, he's a replacement for Peterman as as backup QB but a "bridge QB" he's a joke ...

If I were the Browns GM, I wouldn't do it. If I really loved one of the QBs, I'd take him at #1 and possibly consider trading #4 for the right price. If I wasn't in love with one of the QBs, then I'd take Barkley at #1 and the QB I liked best of the ones left at #4 (all 4 could be available if the Giants and Colts pass on QBs and don't trade away their picks).

If you think the Bills had one of the top ten best OLs in the NFL in 2017, you obviously watched Bills game with your beer goggles on. PFF is clueless in its statistical evaluation of OLs. They totally lacked consistency, they failed way too often to provide adequate holes for the RBs, and they were saved from giving up many more sacks by having a QB with ultimate escapability. Furthermore, the only reason that this unit improved in the second half of the season was because it played so poorly in the first half.

It's not funny. It's reprehensible that the OP would proffer such an idea even as a joke.

Good LTs don't come cheap! Moreover, while Dawkins played well for a rookie, he certainly didn't play well enough to be considered one of the better LTs in the league -- and there's no guarantee that he will even play as well in 2018 as he did in 2017. It's just not QBs who can look great before defenders get their numbers. As for how "well" the Bills OL did without Cordy Glenn last year, consider how many times Shady was stopped for 0 or minus yards (I think he may have led the league in those) and how often the pass rushers were in the backfield almost before Taylor got the ball.

I can see the Browns taking Barkley at #1 (to get ahead of the Giants) and then using #4 on a QB, meaning neither Cleveland pick would be available for trade. Too many trade up advocates seem not to understand that a team cannot trade up if the teams at the top aren't willing to trade down. In both 2011 and 2012, there was no way that either Carolina or Indy were going to trade out of the #1 pick no matter how much another team offered them.

How, exactly, is McCarron a "viable answer" to anything? He was a fifth round draft pick who hasn't started/played in a dozen games in his career, so he's more like the legendary franchise saviors like Rob Johnson and Matt Flynn.

No, it's not a reprise of 1983. It's also not a reprise of the next best QB class of 2004. Both of those classes had consensus #1 prospects who were clearly superior to all the other prospects (Elway in '83 and Eli in '04), including being pro-ready. They also had at least one other pro-ready QB prospect (Marino in '83 and Roethlisberger in '04). Because most of the top propsects played in pro-style collegiate offenses, there were many fewer question marks about the prospects in '83 and in '04, and still teams managed to find first round busts like Blackledge and Losman. All of the 2018 top QBs come with serious questions about how they'll adapt to the NFL. These is no consensus "best prospect" likely to go #1 or at least first among the QBs. Most have not played in pro-style offenses, so there are all kinds of questions about how these kids will adapt to the style and complexities of the pro game. None are nearly as pro-ready as the top QBs from 1983 or 2004. Additionally, most of the top QBs seem to also have mechanical or technical flaws that are probably going to have to be "fixed" if they're going to have real shots at NFL success. IMO, 2018 is more like 2011 than 1983 or 2004: probably 1 bonafide top prospect (Newton) and a flock of pretenders (Locker, Gabbert, Ponder) being pushed by hype machines courtesy of self-styled "draft experts", 24/7 sports networks, and social media.

Famous last words. 2011 and 2012 were both supposed to be "QB rich drafts", too, except that they really weren't when NFL reality bit. 2011 had 4 QBs taken in the first 12 picks, but only #1 pick Cam Newton wasn't a bust ... and he's a good NFL starting QB but not a great one. The only other successful NFL QBs from 2011 were 2nd rounder Andy Dalton and 6th rounder Tyrod Taylor. This success rate is pretty much par for most drafts in terms of successful QBs since 2000. 2012 also had 4 QBs taken in the first round, 3 in the first 8. Andrew Luck as the supposed "greatest prospect ever" at #1 has been somewhat of a disappointment in living up to his expectations, and he's been hurt the past season plus. If his shoulder prevents him from playing again, then he will definitely not be the best QB from 2012. Robert Griffin III had a good rookie season in an offense that was tailored to him, but he was injured and never regained his rookie season form, which was mostly, IMO and contrary to legend, because he didn't/couldn't develop or master the skills a successful NFL QB needs. Ryan Tannehill has been a fairly successful NFL QB but as rumors persist that Miami is looking to upgrade the position, that suggests he's been a disappointment not unlike Jay Cutler who was Denver's pick at #11 in 2006 -- too good to jettison but not quite good enough. Brandon Weeden was a bust. The real value in 2012 came in the rounds after the first. Seattle hit the jackpot with Russell Wilson, easily the most successful QB from that draft, and definitely the epitome of a franchise QB who "carries" his team. Kirk Cousins came out of the 4th round in that draft, and "super sub" Nick Foles became a "legend in his own time" with his 2017 playoff heroics. Any semblance of success that Washington has had since 2013 has come from the arm of Kirk Cousins BTW. The lesson from both these drafts is that contrary to myth, the world doesn't necessarily end if a team doesn't "mortgage the future" to trade up in a supposedly "QB rich draft". I disagree with this primarily because the risk in a trade up is magnified by the number and quality of the picks given up. Swapping first round picks and throwing in one or two additional picks is much less risky than swapping a higher first for 2 firsts and additional Day 2 picks (rounds 2 or 3), and both are infinitely more risky than already having the target pick (say #2 or #3).

Well, this is one train I'll miss. While a great arm doesn't guarantee QB success, lacking an NFL caliber arm pretty much guarantees QB failure as a starter. Well, I suppose "played well" depends your definition of "played well".