NoSaint Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) From recent reports, it's going to take much much more than that to move up. A better question would be, what is the maximum you are willing to spend to move up? This years 1st and 2nd, and next years 1st and 3rd? What then? and to be honest, that is probably the type of talk starting out for the browns, we would have to match (and likely exceed) the extra value of falling to 10 instead - thats a good bit of value as the rams are now debating getting a guy thats 7-8 on their board, instead of potentially the number 1 guy they want in the entire draft at 4 (assuming you knock the 2 qbs off their board, and minny doesnt steal that guy) for their sake and the value involved trading back to 4, is about on par with going from 1 to 2, assuming they didnt want either qb. Edited February 29, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Your lack of reading comprehension is legendary. The sentences with the question marks at the end....try responding to those not that you have any rebuttal to them. Your sophomoric simplification of the statement lacks the nuance of the point I made. You need an offense that outscores what your defense allows by a significant margin. To phrase it another way we need a defense that gives up less than our offense scores by a significant margin. This my simple man gives you two options; improve an offense that despite the incredible rash of injuries yet again this year averaged 23.2 pts per game which was 14th best in the league OR improve the defense that gave up on average 27.1 pts per game and was 30th in the league. For comparison sake the 5th ranked offense in weekly scoring only scored 25.4 pts a week. Even if we improved our offense to 5th best in the ENTIRE league we would score a whopping 2 additional pts a week and STILL average less than our defense gives up! The choice once again is obvious If you don't get that ...I guess you don't get it. Give me an offense that scores 1 point more than we allow in every game and I'll be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Why not trade up for Luck? Because the Colts would never give up that Pick in a million years... Period... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I hate the Bills ! Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Sure cut Fitz save 49 million and go after RG3 suffer with him for a year until he figures out the Pro game ! If we found a draft pick that was the face of the franchise for 10 years i think everyone would be ok with that as long as he was a winner ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Give me an offense that scores 1 point more than we allow in every game and I'll be happy. Give me a defense that allows one less point than the offense scores in every game and I'll be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Your lack of reading comprehension is legendary. The sentences with the question marks at the end....try responding to those not that you have any rebuttal to them. Your sophomoric simplification of the statement lacks the nuance of the point I made. You need an offense that outscores what your defense allows by a significant margin. To phrase it another way we need a defense that gives up less than our offense scores by a significant margin. This my simple man gives you two options; improve an offense that despite the incredible rash of injuries yet again this year averaged 23.2 pts per game which was 14th best in the league OR improve the defense that gave up on average 27.1 pts per game and was 30th in the league. For comparison sake the 5th ranked offense in weekly scoring only scored 25.4 pts a week. Even if we improved our offense to 5th best in the ENTIRE league we would score a whopping 2 additional pts a week and STILL average less than our defense gives up! The choice once again is obvious If you don't get that ...I guess you don't get it. I dont care how much our offense improves......if our defense does not then we aren't going anywhere. And I could see a guy like Dave W. getting very upset if he isnt given any groceries to work with......this guy is not some linebackers coach from another team that is grateful to have a job.....he is a Assistant HC/Defensive coordinator who has had rock solid defenses where every he has been IF HE IS GIVEN the tools that are needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KollegeStudnet Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Just to point out, I've seen several posts about the Bills trading up for RGIII on The Stadium Wall. However, I'm intrigued by this post, because IF Fitz is cut and/or traded by March 19th, the Bills save $49 million of the $59 million! The Bills trading up to get the number two spot would take the majority of 2012's picks--along with several early picks in 2013--including players! I doubt this will happen, but the Chix regime needs to take action on tooling this team for a 2012 playoff run! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Sign me up Fitz is done....RG3 all in ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I dont care how much our offense improves......if our defense does not then we aren't going anywhere. And I could see a guy like Dave W. getting very upset if he isnt given any groceries to work with......this guy is not some linebackers coach from another team that is grateful to have a job.....he is a Assistant HC/Defensive coordinator who has had rock solid defenses where every he has been IF HE IS GIVEN the tools that are needed. I obviously agree. It is refreshing to be engaged on the issues whether positive or negative as opposed to childish banter. You bring up a great point. The Stache is obviously known for his DC success and it would be a travesty if we didn't give him more to work with. This is especially important considering the scheme switch. That being said the scheme switch might also help get better production out of some defenders we already have. For example, I'm losing hope for him but McKelvin seemed to struggle with the switch to the 3-4. Maybe with some luck and some coaching we can get something out of that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Even if only the browns are chasing(they won't be the only), they still can hold them hostage for quite the ransom. How so? If they tell the Rams to go pound sand, the Rams will have to use the #2 pick, meaning the Vikes get the chance to make a trade with the Browns for something more reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I obviously agree. It is refreshing to be engaged on the issues whether positive or negative as opposed to childish banter. You bring up a great point. The Stache is obviously known for his DC success and it would be a travesty if we didn't give him more to work with. This is especially important considering the scheme switch. That being said the scheme switch might also help get better production out of some defenders we already have. For example, I'm losing hope for him but McKelvin seemed to struggle with the switch to the 3-4. Maybe with some luck and some coaching we can get something out of that guy. Switching to a 3 - 4 ruined his cover skills? I'll play your game. I hope we draft 100% defense, so we improve as you say. Then we should be a playoff team within 2 years. If not, EPIC FAIL for 14 years and counting. Where will you look then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourbonboy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Interesting discussion - but the problem is that you'd have to cut Fitz before you had RGIII. If you cut him by 3/19, then you have abolutely no leverage in trade talks...and if you don't, then you have too much $$ invested in your QB to go after RGIII. This whole scanario only makes sense if Fitz's cut date was after the draft, or if the Bills don't mind paying Fitz to mentor RGIII for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
808 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 its a hypothetical question for you people asking why not trade for luck is cause indy hasnt come out to say they were gonna shop it like the rams have. i was thinking it would take this years 1,3,5 round picks and next years 1st and a conditional 3rd or 4th. id be gung ho for that trade if the money the bills save they go after mario williams or other pieces to get this team going. so if it could happen and it wont then yes id do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I obviously agree. It is refreshing to be engaged on the issues whether positive or negative as opposed to childish banter. You bring up a great point. The Stache is obviously known for his DC success and it would be a travesty if we didn't give him more to work with. This is especially important considering the scheme switch. That being said the scheme switch might also help get better production out of some defenders we already have. For example, I'm losing hope for him but McKelvin seemed to struggle with the switch to the 3-4. Maybe with some luck and some coaching we can get something out of that guy. Actually.....I think the problem McKelvin has is his inability to make a play on a ball.....he can run with anyone but when it is time to actually make the play.....he just doesnt have the last piece in "cover skills" I would like to find a way to trade McKelvin.....and let Justin Rogers get his reps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 How so? If they tell the Rams to go pound sand, the Rams will have to use the #2 pick, meaning the Vikes get the chance to make a trade with the Browns for something more reasonable. because unless about 20 other teams come out and announce and sign documentation vowing not to pursue the pick - there will always be other suitors. Further, just because it might not be 12 first rounders a probowl corner, and a starting left tackle, they will still have someone from later in the round very willing to jump at a decent price. no one willing to go huge today, does not mean no one is willing to go after this kid. laaast, even if there are no other bidders, there will always be phantom bidders out there. if real they could just be trying to drive up the price, or the rams could very easily create them. even if the browns tell them to "go pound sand" they can easily draft the guy and open the bidding. someone will give up a first and then some in order to trade firsts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Interesting discussion - but the problem is that you'd have to cut Fitz before you had RGIII. If you cut him by 3/19, then you have abolutely no leverage in trade talks...and if you don't, then you have too much $$ invested in your QB to go after RGIII. This whole scanario only makes sense if Fitz's cut date was after the draft, or if the Bills don't mind paying Fitz to mentor RGIII for a year. the easiest answer, make the trade by 3/19 nothing stopping you, and the only risk being if RG3 either has a mystery heart condition that comes out between that day and the draft, or the colts take him (imagine being stuck with luck....) that said, itd be foolish not to go into the season with both on the roster. Edited February 29, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsrhody Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 So I was just throwing out a trade scenario, but in all likelihood it would take 4 early round picks to move up to get RG III. Its a steep price to pay, especially for a rebuilding franchise. But havent we been rebuilding for over a decade? Isn't it time to take a chance on getting a franchise quarterback?? This team isn't going anywhere fast without a top notch signal caller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Actually.....I think the problem McKelvin has is his inability to make a play on a ball.....he can run with anyone but when it is time to actually make the play.....he just doesnt have the last piece in "cover skills" I would like to find a way to trade McKelvin.....and let Justin Rogers get his reps. As I said I have pretty much given up on the guy but he was okay early in his career when we were playing Cover 2(4-3). He definitely doesn't seem comfortable or have his feet under him as you would like to see. I'm not sure if he just got worse, got exposed or perhaps some subtle change in how the corners played make him always look uncomfortable or out of place. He is likely a lost cause but I was trying to be optimistic. Switching to a 3 - 4 ruined his cover skills? I'll play your game. I hope we draft 100% defense, so we improve as you say. Then we should be a playoff team within 2 years. If not, EPIC FAIL for 14 years and counting. Where will you look then? 4-3 may have been a factor or he could have just regressed in the last 2 years. Likely a lost cause. I would consider it a huge failure if we aren't in the playoffs in 2 years. I say this despite having to play against the Pats twice a year which basically means we are playing for a wild card spot as the Pats will likely win the division every year until Brady starts to decline or retires. The Pats defense keeps opponents under 21.4 points a game. Although middle of the pack average it was good enough to provide them with a +11 pts margin to their offense. Our margin is -4.1 points. That can be improved by improving either side of the ball but going from the 14th best offense to the 5th best offense gives us 2 pts a week. Improving our 30th ranked defense to just be average gives us 6 pts a week. We should improve both but by far our biggest weakness and biggest bang for our buck is improving the defensive side of the ball. As an intermediate step trying to build an average defense is a lot easier than trying to build a top 5 offense. We should look to improve in all areas but fixing the defense is job 1 and will get the fans behind the team. Edited February 29, 2012 by PDaDdy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I know this is a message board and people express off the wall opinions. That said, I struggle to comprehend why people bother to take positions that have little or no relevance to what will actually happen in the real world. Does anyone think we are actually going to cut a player we just signed to an extension and who has received support from the FO and HC ad nauseum? Then, we argue over this proposition for 9 pages of posts, I really don't get it. I understand talking about even outlandish ideas, like signing Mathis (which I would love), which won't happen because we simply don't attract top-tier FAs. But why spend time discussing something that has less than zero chance at actually happening? How would this signing not set us back another 2-3 years? We'd have to give up at least two 1st rd draft picks and 2 more high picks as well. Fitz isn't great, but he's decent enough. We have ZERO pass rush, need 1 lb, 2 DEs, LT, WR2, another good CB. We can't and don't sign top level FAs, so how are we going to fill all those holes if we give up what is going to require at least 4 of our top picks over the next 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddenboy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Why not TRADE fitz and some picks to Saint Louis for RGIII? St. Louis can always use a good backup behind bradford. And by trading fitz you solve 2 problems. You dump his salary, and you have to give up fewer picks to move up. In fact, throw freddy in too. They can use somebody behind Steven Jackson. Lets think outside the box a little here, fellas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts