Keep the picks or just get a QB?

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Good catch. So five #1s in 20 years; one every four years on average. How does that compare league wide over that time span?

 

Probably pretty average, or even high. But the difference is in who they targeted. Kelly is the only blue-chip prospect they've ever gone after, and they didnt even get aggressive.

[BananaB]

I don’t understand the love for Darnold, the couple times I watched him his wind up seems like it’s almost  in slo motion.  He’s gonna get picked off a lot in the pros.

 

I liked Mayfield all year, his accuracy and anticipation is insane. He’s beginning to rise though so get him might be a problem. I’m not too sold on any of these to pay the price of moving up.

 

I think we could keep our picks and draft Luke Falk in the second. He could quite possibly turn out to be the best QB in this draft. Great poise, moves well in the pocket, accurate, will take hit to make throw, arm strength not top notch but good enough to make all the throws. Had a slide in production this year but played most of the season with broken left wrist. Sure it wasn’t his throwing hand but still has to an effect when taking some hits to make throws. 

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, K-9 said:

So two on Losman and one each on Rojo and Bedsore. Four in 20 years. How does that compare to others around the league, I wonder? 

 

It was one on Losman.  We used 2005's 1st on him in 2004.  It was only 1 first round pick.  We had already selected Lee Evans with our 2004 1st. 

 

1 on Losman;

1 on EJ;

1 on Rob Johnson;

1 on Bledsoe;

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by GunnerBill

[K-9]

Just now, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Probably pretty average, or even high. But the difference is in who they targeted. Kelly is the only blue-chip prospect they've ever gone after, and they didnt even get aggressive.

I hear you,  but not targeting the position and targeting the wrong prospect are two different animals. 

 

We we were gonna take Big Ben but couldn’t swing the deal with Houston to do so. Man, how that would have changed everything.

[jrober38]

This is an interesting proposition. 

 

Trading the farm for a QB could set us for a decade if they work out.

 

On the flip side, if we keep our picks, and add a couple DTs, a DE, a LB and a RG with our top 5 picks (two first, two seconds, one third), we could have a really good team on our hands in 2018, putting us in a position to trade the farm for a QB in 2019 and insert them into a phenomenal situation with an elite supporting cast around them. 

 

Will be interesting to see what they do. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by jrober38

[ROONDOGG55]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If it wasn't then it should have been in my opinion. We traded out of a spot with good Quarterback prospects available and on the board to gain another 1st round pick. That can only be justified if you see that pick as currency to move up if you need to in order to secure the Quarterback of the future.  

 

I didn't hate the trade back last year, as much as I'd have stayed put and selected Watson, we got an extra 1st in a year when the QB class is good and reasonably deep and we got a player I liked a lot as a prospect in Tre White. If, however, we forego good Quarterback prospects again this draft to pick two positional players I will sour on that initial trade back.  

Teams trade back all of the time and select a variety of players. If the Bills wanted a top QB last year they would have selected one. McDermott wanted to see what he had in TT so they opted to either stay put (select top player on their board) or trade down and accumulate picks. The accumulation of picks has nothing to do with trading up the next year especially if their in the offseason. If that was their goal, then tanking this season would have made a lot more sense as it would have improved their draft position significantly. Now, I'm not saying a trade up won't happen, it's just the justification that I don't agree with.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, ROONDOGG55 said:

Teams trade back all of the time and select a variety of players. If the Bills wanted a top QB last year they would have selected one. McDermott wanted to see what he had in TT so they opted to either stay put (select top player on their board) or trade down and accumulate picks. The accumulation of picks has nothing to do with trading up the next year especially if their in the offseason. If that was their goal, then tanking this season would have made a lot more sense as it would have improved their draft position significantly. Now, I'm not saying a trade up won't happen, it's just the justification that I don't agree with.

 

The extra 1st was the currency to allow them to get a QB in this class without having to tank.  That seemed to me to be part of the calculation.  

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It was one on Losman.  We used 2005's 1st on him in 2004.  It was only 1 first round pick.  We had already selected Lee Evans with our 2004 1st. 

 

1 on Losman;

1 on EJ;

1 on Rob Johnson;

1 on Bledsoe;

 

I think we need to include the total number of picks invested in Losman. One in 2004 and one in 2005 for a total of two invested in the position.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, K-9 said:

I think we need to include the total number of picks invested in Losman. One in 2004 and one in 2005 for a total of two invested in the position.

 

It wasn't one in 2004 and one in 2005 though.  It was 1 first rounder and a 2nd rounder.  We traded our 2005 1st and our 2004 2nd to Dallas for their 2004 1st.  We swapped first rounders with them we didn't give them an extra one.  The extra pick we gave them was our 2004 2nd rounder.  

[ROONDOGG55]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The extra 1st was the currency to allow them to get a QB in this class without having to tank.  That seemed to me to be part of the calculation.  

I guess that could be right. I'm not a GM, but if I was I wouldn't trade down just to trade back up. All I'm saying...

[starrymessenger]

56 minutes ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

And that may be the way to go, I'm not offering my opinion on what I think the Bills should do until FA comes around the Draft is just days away, I was merely pointing out that it seems incongruent to place the tag of "developmental guy" and then list those qualities that make him developmental when those same qualities nearly make him a top 10 QB....so, if we're going to take a developmental guy, he will need to have a larger issue with his quarterbacking skills than some other unknown. If his arm is elite, his accuracy is good to elite, he's a good leader and has the intangibles and is of prototypical NFL QB size, there's not much left to make him a developmental guy, that was my only point. 

 

Edit: in looking through some scouting reviews, so it's not just my take, Mike White's arm is about average, so I would have to disagree that he has a "big" arm, which explains why he's currently projected to go somewhere between the 6th round and UDFA.

 

Yknow, Darnold has the attributes you mention but there is no way he is ready to start IMO. To that extent and depending on how you use the expression Darnold could be referred to as a developmental pick, albeit with a high ceiling.

Mike White has a big arm and can make all the throws (at least according to what I've read). Kizer already has him rated 5th best in this class. He's been invited to the Combine and many expect him to be a draft riser, maybe not like Wentz was, but 6th/UDFA - no way. Or, we should be so lucky. If he lights it up at the Combine/Senior Bowl he could sneak into the back end of the first. Sorta where we pick. Otherwise a day 2 pick in all probability.

Edited January 4, 2018 by starrymessenger

[Mat68]

Go get the best Qb you can get.  I think you keep Taylor so you dont have to be desperate.  The only way to get one of the best QBs is to go get one.  As much as everyone want to ingore it the Buffalo Bills are a playoff team.  The roster will be improved this offseason and they have the draft capital required to go get a guy.  I say go get em.  Keep taylor until the rookie takes his job.  Not in a im going to start Peterman sort of way.  Like Russel Wilson in Seattle or Big Ben in Pittsburgh.  

[Buddo]

Since making the playoffs, the notion we have the draft capital to trade up for one of, or the best, prospect, simply doesn't scan so well. Not only will our 2 first round picks be of lesser value than anticipated, the same applies to the other picks we have accumulated. Iirc, just about every team we traded with, is in the playoffs. I'd say that his probably means we will have to give up an extra pick to make up a value difference, if we did try to move way up, and with the amount of needs still within the roster, I don't think we should be doing that.

 

Tbh, I think it's way too early to be thinking about trades, as nobody knows how the FA market is going to shake out, and there are an awful lot of possibilities there, for QB 'needy' teams, to go out and find themselves a guy they would be happy to have starting for them - and that includes the Bills.

 

I genuinely believe that it is going to cost way too much to move up high enough to get one of the top QB prospects. Too many teams at the top, need one themselves, as do many of the teams just below them. The Colts are probably going to make a killing, if they trade down, and the Giants could also do quite well for themselves, just by dropping a few places, and taking a guy who they could develop behind Eli for a year or two.

 

Currently, I have no real sense of what the best areas of this years draft will be, or if it's actually got any It does sound like there are a fair number of decent QB prospects, and as such, my inclination would be to see if we can get one of those, without giving up the farm. As others have pointed out, we should be able to move up into the low teens without too much trouble - or giving up half this years draft, and I think that doing that isn't going to compromise getting some of the holes of the roster filled.

[Alphadawg7]

7 hours ago, nuklz2594 said:

get a veteran. we really need a rb.  would love to see us get sdsu rb penny

 

Honestly, I think this is very much in play.  I started a thread a week or two ago suggesting I think Penny will be a Bill next year as a backup to McCoy who has the potential to take over in 2019 when I think we likely move on from McCoy due to age and cost.  Seems to be the Beane way.  

 

If we win at Jacksonville and TT has a decent, solid or good game at NE in a win or loss...then I think that Vet is going to be TT.  At that point, they will stay pat with the picks, take a developmental QB they like that falls to them somewhere in the draft, could even still be in the first but wont have to be given there is quite a bit of depth in this draft at QB especially if all declare that are expected to.  

 

If TT flops in Jax in a loss or we go into NE and TT has a like a 124 yard passing game then I think QB reverts to a higher priority with TT likely being moved on from and I think the primary plan will be a quality Vet (One of the Minn QB's, Smith, or Cousins) targeted so we dont have to use all our draft assets to move up to get a QB.  They keep the team playoff caliber while improving the other holes on the team and still scooping up another young QB to develop behind said Vet.

[NewEraBills]

22 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The extra 1st was the currency to allow them to get a QB in this class without having to tank.  That seemed to me to be part of the calculation.  

 

I think you're reading way too much into that.  This roster has holes up and down and the cupboard needs to be stocked.  That's the reason for the trading last year.  They are trying to build a COMPLETE, competitive roster.  You don't do that by selling all your picks for 1 guy.

 

 

Look at what's on the table.  We will need not 1 but 2 starters at DT.  We really need another pass rushing defensive end.  We are as desperate at RG and RT as we are at QB.  We might even have to look at another starting CB if Gaines decides to dip.  So it's just way too much.  We need to build a roster so that means we need as many picks as possible.  Losing the extra 3rd for Benjamin kinda hurt to be honest.

Edited January 4, 2018 by NewEraBills

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, NewEraBills said:

 

I think you're reading way too much into that.  This roster has holes up and down and the cupboard needs to be stocked.  That's the reason for the trading last year.  They are trying to build a COMPLETE, competitive roster.  You don't do that by selling all your picks for 1 guy.

 

The quickest way to a competitive roster is a franchise Quarterback.  

[ganesh]

6 hours ago, May Day 10 said:

they need the picks.  if them and/or the chiefs were lower in the standings i could be enticed to trade up.  not now.  

 

i would go with alex smith maybe to bridge another year (or tyrod)... and if they still see some potential in peterman, or if their scouts have identified an off the radar qb that has the mental goods... they can have on the shelf for a year or 2 to season.  

Why would Alex Smith want to sign here for a One Year Deal.  

[NewEraBills]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The quickest way to a competitive roster is a franchise Quarterback.  

 

No it is not.  We saw that this year. We don't have a franchise QB, yet we are in the playoffs.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, NewEraBills said:

 

No it is not.  We saw that this year. We don't have a franchise QB, yet we are in the playoffs.

 

I didn't say it is the only way.  I said it is the quickest way..... like quicker than 17 years.  

[K-9]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

It wasn't one in 2004 and one in 2005 though.  It was 1 first rounder and a 2nd rounder.  We traded our 2005 1st and our 2004 2nd to Dallas for their 2004 1st.  We swapped first rounders with them we didn't give them an extra one.  The extra pick we gave them was our 2004 2nd rounder.  

Key word for me is “invest.” How many first round picks did we invest in Losman? How many did it take to secure his selection? In my way of thinking it’s two;  the one we used to draft him in 2004 and our 2005 first round pick that it took to make it happen. 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, K-9 said:

Key word for me is “invest.” How many first round picks did we invest in Losman? How many did it take to secure his selection? In my way of thinking it’s two;  the one we used to draft him in 2004 and our 2005 first round pick that it took to make it happen. 

 

No. 1.  All we did was move the 2005 pick forward a year.  The cost to do that was the 2004 2nd rounder.  

 

This is not like Sammy Watkins.... that was 2 1st rounders. The 2014 first which was #9 and the 2015 1st.  

[I_want_2_BILL_Lieve]

15 minutes ago, NewEraBills said:

 

I think you're reading way too much into that.  This roster has holes up and down and the cupboard needs to be stocked.  That's the reason for the trading last year.  They are trying to build a COMPLETE, competitive roster.  You don't do that by selling all your picks for 1 guy.

 

Every roster has holes. Injuries and free agency see to that.

 

I don't think anyone is interested in "selling all your picks." But if the Bills were sold on a guy being a career top 10 QB, then yeah I'm OK with trading 2 #1s and possibly a #2 for that guy.  QB is that only position I'd do that for. By the way, we're not devoid of talent. Nine wins was far more than most thought we'd get. 

 

Just our 2 #1s give us just around 1500 points in the Draft Trade Chart.That gets us into around the 7th pick. See who's there, and who wants to deal.  and Use 'em. We've been wandering the desert since Kelly left. It's time for a real franchise QB to lead us for a good 10 -15 years. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by I_want_2_BILL_Lieve

[K-9]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

No. 1.  All we did was move the 2005 pick forward a year.  The cost to do that was the 2004 2nd rounder.  

 

This is not like Sammy Watkins.... that was 2 1st rounders. The 2014 first which was #9 and the 2015 1st.  

We could argue semantics all day, but what’s the point? I agree to disagree and will let it go at that. 

[NewEraBills]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I didn't say it is the only way.  I said it is the quickest way..... like quicker than 17 years.  

 

 

And I'm saying the claim is mere conjecture.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, NewEraBills said:

 

 

And I'm saying the claim is mere conjecture.

 

Fair enough but the weight of evidence is on my side.  

[NewEraBills]

1 minute ago, I_want_2_BILL_Lieve said:

 

Every roster has holes. Injuries and free agency see to that.

 

I don't think anyone is interested in "selling all your picks." But if the Bills were sold on a guy being a career top 10 QB, then yeah I'm OK with trading 2 #1s and possibly a #2 for that guy.  QB is that only position I'd do that for. By the way, we're not devoid of talent. Nine wins was far more than most thought we'd get. 

 

We've been wandering the desert since Kelly left. It's time for a real franchise QB to lead us for a good 10 -15 years. 

 

 

I'm sorry but when you have multiple games where your defense is 29th in run defense;  your QB is the 3rd most sacked in the league because your OL is 31st in pass protection something is amiss and it ain't just the QB.

 

Again, this is about building a roster.  A QB is definitely A PART of that.  

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

We could argue semantics all day, but what’s the point? I agree to disagree and will let it go at that. 

 

It isn't really semantics though.... it is fact it was 1 first round pick (2005) and 1 second round pick (2004).  

[Mat68]

18 minutes ago, Buddo said:

Since making the playoffs, the notion we have the draft capital to trade up for one of, or the best, prospect, simply doesn't scan so well. Not only will our 2 first round picks be of lesser value than anticipated, the same applies to the other picks we have accumulated. Iirc, just about every team we traded with, is in the playoffs. I'd say that his probably means we will have to give up an extra pick to make up a value difference, if we did try to move way up, and with the amount of needs still within the roster, I don't think we should be doing that.

 

Tbh, I think it's way too early to be thinking about trades, as nobody knows how the FA market is going to shake out, and there are an awful lot of possibilities there, for QB 'needy' teams, to go out and find themselves a guy they would be happy to have starting for them - and that includes the Bills.

 

I genuinely believe that it is going to cost way too much to move up high enough to get one of the top QB prospects. Too many teams at the top, need one themselves, as do many of the teams just below them. The Colts are probably going to make a killing, if they trade down, and the Giants could also do quite well for themselves, just by dropping a few places, and taking a guy who they could develop behind Eli for a year or two.

 

Currently, I have no real sense of what the best areas of this years draft will be, or if it's actually got any It does sound like there are a fair number of decent QB prospects, and as such, my inclination would be to see if we can get one of those, without giving up the farm. As others have pointed out, we should be able to move up into the low teens without too much trouble - or giving up half this years draft, and I think that doing that isn't going to compromise getting some of the holes of the roster filled.

NYG, Indy, CLE all could trade down.  3 first rounders?  They have the ammunition.

[NewEraBills]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Fair enough but the weight of evidence is on my side.  

Where is that evidence?  

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, NewEraBills said:

Where is that evidence?  

 

Well if you look over the last 10 years at the number of times teams with true franchise QBs make the playoffs and the number of times teams without make the playoffs it is pretty evident.  

[NewEraBills]

1 minute ago, Mat68 said:

NYG, Indy, CLE all could trade down.  3 first rounders?  They have the ammunition.

 

Cleveland is not trading this time man.  I'm not sure why people think they will but they set themselves up for this EXACT scenario.  Unless they pay Cousins, they are taking Darnold or Rosen at 1.  Believe it.  Nobody is going to do the Bills favors and pass on a franchise QB when they set themselves up for this just because Bills fans are desperate for a QB (and I'm not saying we shouldn't want one, because we should).

[I_want_2_BILL_Lieve]

9 minutes ago, NewEraBills said:

 

 

I'm sorry but when you have multiple games where your defense is 29th in run defense;  your QB is the 3rd most sacked in the league because your OL is 31st in pass protection something is amiss and it ain't just the QB.

 

Again, this is about building a roster.  A QB is definitely A PART of that.  

 

We also had a TE be our leading receiver with just over 500 yards. A QB that throws with anticipation lowers the sack total.  I think that those are on the QB. And by the way, I like TT. But you and I disagree on how to build a team. 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by I_want_2_BILL_Lieve

[NewEraBills]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Well if you look over the last 10 years at the number of times teams with true franchise QBs make the playoffs and the number of times teams without make the playoffs it is pretty evident.  

 

That's not evidence.  That's an interpretation of what you see.  I could actually make the exact opposing argument based on what I've seen.  It's not evidence, it's an interpretation.

[K-9]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

It isn't really semantics though.... it is fact it was 1 first round pick (2005) and 1 second round pick (2004).  

What about the first round pick we used to pick him in 2004? Why doesn’t that count in the total number of first round picks used? 

I’m not saying we lost a first round pick, only that we used one to pick him and gave up one for the right to do so. That’s two invested. 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, NewEraBills said:

 

Cleveland is not trading this time man.  I'm not sure why people think they will but they set themselves up for this EXACT scenario.  Unless they pay Cousins, they are taking Darnold or Rosen at 1.  Believe it.  Nobody is going to do the Bills favors and pass on a franchise QB when they set themselves up for this just because Bills fans are desperate for a QB (and I'm not saying we shouldn't want one, because we should).

 

Agreed - Cleveland won't trade out this time they have done that twice and missed two franchise altering players.  The Giants however..... I don't think it is the slam dunk everyone presumes that they go Quarterback.  They might but I don't think they are already fixed on that in the way Cleveland is.  It will come down to their evaluations and who Cleveland take at 1.  

[foreboding]

Why do people think Keenum will be available? I cannot imagine he is not the Vikes new QB going forward...

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

What about the first round pick we used to pick him in 2004? Why doesn’t that count in the total number of first round picks used? 

I’m not saying we lost a first round pick, only that we used one to pick him and gave up one for the right to do so. That’s two invested. 

 

That WAS the 2005 pick.  Or else where did it come from?  We didn't go into the 2004 draft with 2 first rounders.  We got the second one used to select Losman by moving our 2005 1st rounder forward a year.  The cost to do that was a 2nd round pick in 2014.  

 

If it is 2 first round picks invested in Losman then in order to select Losman and Evans over a two year period we would have needed 3 First Round picks to start with (2 for Losman and 1 for Evans).  

5 minutes ago, NewEraBills said:

 

That's not evidence.  That's an interpretation of what you see.  I could actually make the exact opposing argument based on what I've seen.  It's not evidence, it's an interpretation.

 

Fine.  I think you interpretation is off.... way off.  

[I_want_2_BILL_Lieve]

11 minutes ago, NewEraBills said:

 

Cleveland is not trading this time man.  I'm not sure why people think they will but they set themselves up for this EXACT scenario.  Unless they pay Cousins, they are taking Darnold or Rosen at 1.  Believe it.  Nobody is going to do the Bills favors and pass on a franchise QB when they set themselves up for this just because Bills fans are desperate for a QB (and I'm not saying we shouldn't want one, because we should).

 

You're right. They wont trade out of #1. 

 

But I think Cleveland's #4 overall is in play. By trading with the Bills (our 2 #1 plus change if necessary),  they really get to address other areas of need twice. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by I_want_2_BILL_Lieve

[BigDingus]

Get a damn QB already! I cannot believe anyone actually thinks because we made it to the playoffs that our QB situation is somehow settled. It's been bad all year, just as it has for years, with Tyrod getting worse & worse each season. 

As the Bengals have shown us, a LOT has to go right in order for a team to make the post season. Every year we're "in the hunt" the last few games of the season but something dumb happens & we blow it. This year we got a ton of help, but that doesn't mean we just ignore the rebuilding process we signed McDermott up for. This just shows he did a lot more with less than most other coaches in the league. TT isn't the worst QB, but man we NEED to take a shot at a franchise QB for once.

[Just in Atlanta]

Keep Taylor, who got us our playoff berth. Do whatever it takes to find our next 10-year franchise QB. Surprising to see so many fans talk about not messing up our draft bank, when the No. 1 reason for our failure has been QB. It’s a rinse and repeat mentality.