3rdand12 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Spelling is optional for twitter and millenniums. oh sure. us old farts have ti actually try to spell correctly. Not Fair ! Disagree, if the team doctors clear him, he's arguably the best player in the draft and plays a position of dire need for this team. I don't believe the hype about his knee (or about this trade up scenario if I'm being honest. I'm just saying if the Bills do trade up to 2 (and I doubt they will) I would hope it's for Jack and not a QB. If his knee is clean then yes, but good lord you better be sure and trade back down one or two so someone can grab Goff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Billieve Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Look at the keyboard and see that i is next to o. Obvious typo. writers who think what they have to say is important are less likely to make errors, and more likely to read what they've wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 writers who think what they have to say is important are less likely to make errors, and more likely to read what they've wrote. In long form, I agree with you. But a tweet? No big deal IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 If his knee is clean then yes, but good lord you better be sure and trade back down one or two so someone can grab Goff I agree they don't need to go to 2 for Jack. But they definitely would need to crack the top 5. That kind of wheeling and dealing would be fun to watch over draft weekend for sure, but I don't think the Bills will be moving up when the dust settles. Like others have said, it really only pays to move up for a guy you're certain is going to be not just good but a star -- and even then it's usually only worth it to move up that far for a QB. I think the Bills have a QB who can win this coming year, so for me if they moved up I hope it wouldn't be to get a guy who won't see the field in 2016. ...Then again, if they're convinced Wentz is the guy (Goff I think will go 1), he's worth getting even if you sit him for a year. I just don't think Wentz is the guy. But what do I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Buffalo Wings Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Could you imagine if we draft Wentz and EJ gets the starting job this season while Wentz gets comfy. Like 26 said...the trade would surprise me but I wouldn't be upset if it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 I agree they don't need to go to 2 for Jack. But they definitely would need to crack the top 5. That kind of wheeling and dealing would be fun to watch over draft weekend for sure, but I don't think the Bills will be moving up when the dust settles. Like others have said, it really only pays to move up for a guy you're certain is going to be not just good but a star -- and even then it's usually only worth it to move up that far for a QB. I think the Bills have a QB who can win this coming year, so for me if they moved up I hope it wouldn't be to get a guy who won't see the field in 2016. ...Then again, if they're convinced Wentz is the guy (Goff I think will go 1), he's worth getting even if you sit him for a year. I just don't think Wentz is the guy. But what do I know. Deranged, If they are going for a QB that is altogether different for me. and that why I say wait till next year to go ALL IN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Spelling is optional for twitter and millenniums. That is "millennials". Points for irony. Yes, please. Really? That trade idea was on NFLN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 What is going on at OBD https://twitter.com/AllbrightNFL/status/722452478332014598 The one year since Kelly retired we potentially have a legit QB and they wanna move up. This franchise is a joke Why would you fault them for investigating it? Taylor looks good so far, but he's not under long term contract and he might price himself right out of Buffalo. It never hurts to have a plan B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 I have a feeling we stay at 19 and take Lynch. We aren't paying Taylor as evidenced by the lack of extension. Lynch sits behind Taylor to learn Romans offense and is named starter by week 10 after Taylor inevitably gets injured. I like TT but he's not the guy, great off the bench though. Again, just my two cents..... Or best available WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Why do you assume the trade up is for a QB?? Maybe they trade up to #2 and start talking about Wentz, but then field an offer from a team that really wants Wentz between 4-10. Then we slide back down, get to pick between 4-10 and get an extra second rounder or third rounder. If they trade up it had better be for a QB, otherwise it's bad draft management IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Okay guys, here it is. We're going to trade up for Tunsil so we don't have to pay Glenn, so we can pay Tyrod. /s What if it's Ramsey to not pay Gilmore? Have the FSU corners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 I have a feeling we stay at 19 and take Lynch. We aren't paying Taylor as evidenced by the lack of extension. Lynch sits behind Taylor to learn Romans offense and is named starter by week 10 after Taylor inevitably gets injured. I like TT but he's not the guy, great off the bench though. Again, just my two cents..... Or best available WR. No, they aren't paying TT because they a) have him under contract for another year and don't need to extend him at the moment, b) have no cap room to extend him anyway, and c) want to see if he can put together another good season before paying him big money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 I have a feeling we stay at 19 and take Lynch. We aren't paying Taylor as evidenced by the lack of extension. Lynch sits behind Taylor to learn Romans offense and is named starter by week 10 after Taylor inevitably gets injured. I like TT but he's not the guy, great off the bench though. Again, just my two cents..... Or best available WR. we aren't paying Taylor (yet) as evidenced by lack of 2016 cap space and limited evaluation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Totally legit guy. @AllbrightNFL San Fran, Dallas, Philly, NYJ & Buffalo all have looked into cost of moving up. Cost to mive to #2 expected to be significantly less than #1 To be fair it doesn't say explicitly bills to 2, simply bills moving up and cost of 2 would be lower than 1 was. If they have a guy that they think is a cornerstone I'm fine with a trade up but probably not to 2 unless behind closed doors they love a qb on the board and tyrod is a mess that we haven't been privy to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyC81 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 move up to 8 - 10 and grab joey Bosa, plug and play with your first pic!!!!!!!!!! You should try using a larger font to make your post more legible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 No, they aren't paying TT because they a) have him under contract for another year and don't need to extend him at the moment, b) have no cap room to extend him anyway, and c) want to see if he can put together another good season before paying him big money. B is false, they tried to pay him but he wants more money then they are willing to offer right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 B is false, they tried to pay him but he wants more money then they are willing to offer right now. Semantics. They don't have the cap room to give him the deal he/his agent want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) Semantics. They don't have the cap room to give him the deal he/his agent want. No they placed a value on him. Anyone can be paid, this is the NFL any team can pay a guy if they really wanted to. The Jets could pay Fitz what he wants... But they won't b.c they placed a value on him. Edited April 20, 2016 by Beef Jerky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Semantics. They don't have the cap room to give him the deal he/his agent want. To be fair, we do, but it'd be painful if we missed on him after giving that deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r00tabaga Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 That is "millennials". Points for irony. Really? That trade idea was on NFLN? No, and all three pairs have already denied it. FAKE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts