I agree with Peter King

[Coach Tuesday]

If we trade 4 picks to have a QB for 4 years max then we have lost 4 potential impact players for 5-6 years

 

And Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, and Chad Henne would disagree with the bolded statement

 

Yes but we might actually win some games during those 5-6 years. The Bills have been 3-4 years away for about 15 years. For some reason the fans have now bought into that strategy.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Not that I'm saying I'm in favor of the trade, but putting McNabb behind a weak line with one receiver does make them better. As a defense, you have to respect McNabb, where as a guy like Edwards, you can just blitz the kitchen sink at him and your success rate will be high enough to be worth it. Trying that behind McNabb, the odds are he'll make you pay for that stratagy too often for it to be worthwhile. If the line were to improve hecould become real sucessful as would anyone in that situation.

 

If they could get him for less than a 2nd rounder, then may be worthwhile. One of your early round picks you were going to use on a offenseive lineman, you may be able to get away with a lesser skilled player with McNabb back there.

 

 

What good would McNabb do behind a weak OL and with just one true WR? We've seen that movie before.

 

This team is going to be built through the draft, even if it takes 2-3 more years. No more quick fixes.

[Orton's Arm]

He makes a good case:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...mmqb/index.html

 

Let's say we could get McNabb for a 2nd and 5th or 6th this year, plus a 3rd next year. This team hasn't had a QB in more than a decade. Why wouldn't we make that deal??

The Bills are a rebuilding team. Rebuilding teams should not trade away valuable draft picks to acquire aging veterans. The proposed McNabb trade is no exception, and should not be seriously considered.