Chuck Wagon Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 there would be little, if anything, that we could do with the picks to beat getting a stud qb this year (unless we get one in the 3rd, i suppose) thats not me endorsing mahomes -- just the hypothetical comparison down the line IF he was good Its why the Browns trade downs the last two years are either brilliant or will lead to a few guys working for what's left of ESPN. If Wentz / Trub / Watson are all busts, the Browns are brilliant. If Wentz is playing Watson in the Super Bowl in 3 years and the Browns still don't have a QB, their entire braintrust will be radioactive. There's more pressure on them to find a QB as any team in the league and they've got 3-4 guys who any one would make them look really really bad (not to mention Cody Kessler over Dak). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPT Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Infallible? Now not only are you making a scarecrow argument, you're inventing new nonsense words. Instead of simply looking up a word you didn't know, you claimed it doesn't exist. That is a pretty strong indicator of your level of debate. It is not "infallible" it is a guideline. Yeah, that's exactly what we've been trying to tell you. The Bills did not get enough in return on allowing the Chiefs to move up 17 spots as compared to the history of actual NFL trades made by actual NFL GMs. There are examples of worse trades and examples of better trades. But they are all eventually determined by the actual value of players that each team acquired, which generally isn't known until the players get on the field. They can not be fairly judged based on chart values, because each one is based on a hundred variables independent of the nominal pick. You think a player we could have gotten at #10 is worth more than the one we got at #27 plus the ones we'll get in the 3rd round and next year's 1st round? Fine. I disagree, but everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just don't think basing your opinion on a static chart value holds much merit when we see the true values of draft trades fluctuate so wildly compared to the chart values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 If we have a QB of our own, it's no big deal. If we don't then he'll replace the "We could have drafted Aaron Rodgers" narrative. If he's a franchise QB and we still don't have one, what we do with the picks is entirely irrelevant. Anyone without a QB would trade a pro bowl corner and 2 other good players for a franchise QB. This is missed so much, because people focus on value of the picks. In the top 10-15 of the first you should be going after game changers, players who play a position that are directly tied to wins and losses and can have a huge impact on the success of your team. You are drafting not only for demonstrated skill but for Potential as well. The 2 positions most directly tied to wins and losses are Pass Rushers and QBs. A Probowl corner, safety, coverage/run-stopping LB, and OL are not good value here. This is the time for Bruce Smiths, Von Millers and QBs... The highlighted portion of Chuck's post is so correct.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 there would be little, if anything, that we could do with the picks to beat getting a stud qb this year (unless we get one in the 3rd, i suppose) thats not me endorsing mahomes -- just the hypothetical comparison down the line IF he was good If the Bills parlay KC's 2018 #1 into a package that lands them their own Franchise QB it'll be a big key in ultimately winning the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPT Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 I agree that it looked like a lot to pay to move up one spot, especially when the 49ers presumably had no interest in picking a QB. However, I believe what the Bears paid for was the right to block another team jumping up and taking the 2nd spot and drafting Trubisky. SF was likely taking offers on that pick, and the Bears knew if they didn't pay up, the spot would go to someone else looking for the QB. Correct. They paid a lot to move up one spot for reasons that did not in any way include an arbitrary chart value. If another team were willing to give up more, the cost would have been higher. If no other teams were interested, the cost would have been lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 The Bills are also admitting that they're going to (try to) suck in '17. Or they feel that most of the tools needed to succeed are already in place and good coaching can help us make the necessary improvements to be a competitive team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 If the Bills parlay KC's 2018 #1 into a package that lands them their own Franchise QB it'll be a big key in ultimately winning the trade. This is true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 @BuffRumblings Draft experts praise Buffalo Bills: http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/4/28/15473664/2017-nfl-draft-round-one-tredavious-white-experts-praise-buffalo-bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Rosen is interesting. He throws the ball so beautifully. But he is a California QB that doesn't like to get hit. If you draft him and give him a great line he can be insanely good. The issue is if you ever let him take hits he will give up.I don't want any of those Cali QBs either. No way would I take a Brady, a Rodgers, a Carr, a Palmer. And the Bills better not have those Cali guys Darnold or Rosen on their board next draft. No sir, I want a QB who likes to get hit. A manly man, a Texas man like Osweiler or Manziel. And I wish we could erase our history so there were no California QBs in our past, like Kemp and LaMonica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 If the Bills parlay KC's 2018 #1 into a package that lands them their own Franchise QB it'll be a big key in ultimately winning the trade. If kc got theirs a year earlier then we still probably didn't "win" but it wouldn't be a loss either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) I've shown many times that it is true. You would need to remove any standard discount on future picks in order for the numbers to work. Which shows the Bills didn't value their #10 in alignment with historical NFL trades by actual NFL GMs. They gave Andy Reid a deal he couldn't refuse and the Bills didn't get as much in return as other GMs get in return for their draft picks. Every draft pundit said the Bills did better in value than any other trade last night. You have a different opinion. Everyone vs you. Edited April 28, 2017 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) If kc got theirs a year earlier then we still probably didn't "win" but it wouldn't be a loss either Given how much development Mahomes requires, KC needed to get him now with the hope he'll be ready in a season or two. Edited April 28, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Instead of simply looking up a word you didn't know, you claimed it doesn't exist. That is a pretty strong indicator of your level of debate. That is embarrassing Yeah, that's exactly what we've been trying to tell you. No you're trying to tell me that I told you the chart is infallible. I never said that. You've taken your scarecrow argument back around full circle. There are examples of worse trades and examples of better trades. But they are all eventually determined by the actual value of players that each team acquired, which generally isn't known until the players get on the field. They can not be fairly judged based on chart values, because each one is based on a hundred variables independent of the nominal pick. You think a player we could have gotten at #10 is worth more than the one we got at #27 plus the ones we'll get in the 3rd round and next year's 1st round? Fine. I disagree, but everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just don't think basing your opinion on a static chart value holds much merit when we see the true values of draft trades fluctuate so wildly compared to the chart values. Incorrect. We're not debating the success of the players in the trade. We are discussing the value that the Bills organization received for a #10 overall pick as compared to historical NFL trades and trades in the 2017 NFL draft. The Bills as compared to relative NFL trades did not get as much value as other NFL franchises have received for their picks. I hope White and the 3rd round pick this year and the 2018 1st round pick are Hall of Famers. I believe that the Bills should have gotten one more crack at a Hall of Famer based on the relative value of the #10 overall pick and the #27 overall pick over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Every draft pundit said the Bills did better in value than any other trade last night. You have a different opinion. Everyone vs you. Every account I've read has us winning and it's no contest. If the Chiefs get a Franchise QB, well, then that's all out the window. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) Every draft pundit said the Bills did better in value than any other trade last night. You have a different opinion. Everyone vs you. I know how to do math. It is funny how the pundits knew how to discount future picks during the Sammy Watkins trade but forgot on the White trade. One last thing - the "discount future picks by a round" thing drives me crazy. Coaches/GMs do that for 2 reasons: 1.) They can never be 100% certain they'll be around to make future picks, so those inherently have less value to them, and 2.) That's how everyone else does it, and most NFL people haven't had an original thought since kindergarten. But as fans, we have much higher job security - unless the team moves or I die, I can guarantee that I'll still be a fan in 2018. The chances of the team moving by then are remote, and if I die, I won't really care about the Bills one way or another. So there's no reason for a fan (or an owner!) to discount the value of a future pick. When next year rolls around, that first-rounder will fall in the first round, not the second. Draft picks aren't subject to inflation the way money is. I like to think of it this way: would you rather have: It does matter as a fan. Do you want the Bills to win more games or less in 2017? I'd like the Bills to make the playoffs in 2017. How does that 2018 1st round pick help the Bills win more games in 2017? It should be discounted by fans because the time to value on wins, which is what Fans should care most about, is delayed. Edited April 28, 2017 by 1B4IDie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manther Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Its why the Browns trade downs the last two years are either brilliant or will lead to a few guys working for what's left of ESPN. If Wentz / Trub / Watson are all busts, the Browns are brilliant. If Wentz is playing Watson in the Super Bowl in 3 years and the Browns still don't have a QB, their entire braintrust will be radioactive. There's more pressure on them to find a QB as any team in the league and they've got 3-4 guys who any one would make them look really really bad (not to mention Cody Kessler over Dak). Yep....time will tell. I think the Browns should have grabbed a QB at #12 last night even if they didn't love him. Don't like what they did with the trade down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Yep....time will tell. I think the Browns should have grabbed a QB at #12 last night even if they didn't love him. Don't like what they did with the trade down. So, copy the Jests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Given how much development Mahomes requires, KC needed to get him now with the hope he'll be ready in a season or two. Fiiine if he takes 3 years and we get an instant all pro we will clearly win even if he's successful. You clearly got the point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJB Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 With the Browns taking Kizer hopefully that's one less team we need to compete with for our first round qb next year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 With the Browns taking Kizer hopefully that's one less team we need to compete with for our first round qb next year!that is my thought as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOboy Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 With the Browns taking Kizer hopefully that's one less team we need to compete with for our first round qb next year! that is my thought as well. Great point! You've got to figure all the teams who've drafted QB's early this year will be out of the running. Who does that leave to compete for QB's next year? Obviously teams like Pitt or LAC with vet QB's could jump in, but it leaves only a few obvious teams. NYJ, Arizona, SF, maybe Jax or Den? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Great point! You've got to figure all the teams who've drafted QB's early this year will be out of the running. Who does that leave to compete for QB's next year? Obviously teams like Pitt or LAC with vet QB's could jump in, but it leaves only a few obvious teams. NYJ, Arizona, SF, maybe Jax or Den? SF is going to go hard after Cousins. I doubt they will be in the market next year unless they miss out on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts