The realities of moving up. (it won't be easy)

[Zerovoltz]

Not many people realized it at the time, but when the NFL went to a slotted payscale for draft choices, and that system allowed for a 5th year team option on all rookie contracts for players drafted after round 1, the value of draft choices weren't the same anymore.  Teams have slowly but surely began to realize this and it's reflected in how more and more teams are doing business on draft day.  Let me break down what changed, and then how that applies to the Bills situation this year.

 

The slotting system has made it MUCH MORE APPEALING to take a chance on a QB.  The mistake used to cost your franchise millions and millions of dollars, setting everything back years, costing coaches and GMs their jobs, scaring off fans from buying tickets...it was an incredibly risky proposition all the way around.  Now, if you swing and miss, you have a player who isn't killing your cap or your willingness to turn around and try again to find his replacement.  Given that more and more teams have come around to the reality that if you don't have a QB, you are facing a steep uphill battle to compete, and given that there are plenty of teams who need to find that guy, the market for QB's in the draft is as strong or stronger now, than it has ever been.  

 

At the same time you have these forces at work, the picks in round 1, that teams are sitting with, once the "sure things" have been drafted, are not worth nearly what they once were.  Here is why.  Lets say you have pick 18.  Your scouts/gm etc have decided that the draft has 10-12 really good, blue chip, can't miss, start day one, plug and play guys in it.  After pick 12, those guys are off the board and you pick at 18.  You are drafting a guy who may have a 1st round grade, but he might be every bit as good or the same as the guy who will go at 33.  (first pick of round 2)  The big difference being, the guy picked at 33 will have a contract that includes the magical "5th year option".  An extra year of club control, that is almost certainly going to be at a bargain rate if the player is any good.  The market is now set up in such a way that the 33rd pick is considered at least equal to pick 18, 14, 22...whatever the case may be...and in many teams thinking, pick 33 is the better pick to have.  Again...I can take a guy who grades well, who may or may not pan out at 18, or I can take a guy with the same grade, same expectation of success, but get him a little cheaper to start with, and again, the magical extra year of club control.

 

Now lets apply these dynamics to this years upcoming draft.

 

At the top, you have the Browns, who should be taking a QB at 1.  (I just don't see how they don't at this point)  At 2, the Giants are in great shape here to basically trade down a few spots.  If Allen is on the board especially, the Broncos will move up to 2.  The Giants will move back to 5.  they will get a 1st in 2019, and you can be sure they will get the Broncos 2nd rounder this year.  40th Overall (8th pick in round 2) that carries that contract value I just mentioned.  ....I'll get back to the Giants in a moment.  With two QB off the board, the Jets will be hot on the phone to move up to 3. This could very well be Baker Mayfield.  The Jets will of course be trading a 2109 1st, but also that valuable early 2nd rounder.  37th Overall.  The Browns now sitting at 4 take Saqon Barkley.  Everyone in Cleveland is happy for a day.  Then the Giants pick at 5.  Having gotten a nice haul out of Denver to move down three spots, they still get a choice of Chubb, Minkah, or that Ellis guard from ND.  They still get the blue chipper.  The colts, Also, are still in line for Chubb, or Minkah etc....one of the blue chips.  

 

Lets examine these circumstances cloesly.....If the Bills want to move up to 2 or 3, is their ammo of 21 and 22, and a 2019 1 (and more) really more attractive than say the Giants taking 3 steps back, a 2019 first, and an early 2nd.....with the guarantee you end up with one of the few can't miss prospects in this draft?  Same with the Colts..step back a few spots, get a 2019 1st, and an early 2nd this year....and still get one of the few cant miss guys now....is that better or worse than 21, 22, and 2019 1st?  That is the reality the Bills are facing.  Ok...now continuing....

 

Pick 7, Tampa.  This may well be the last spot to grab a "Can't miss" blue chip guy...either Ellis, or if the Giants took him already, then whoever the last man standing is..Chubb, Minkah.  There are still 2 teams.....and certainly 1 for sure, in the QB market.  ARIZONA, sitting at 15.  for the sake of argument, the Bucs take the last big time blue chip, and now we are on to 8.  Chicago.  This will be the first spot where the can't miss guys are gone, and you also have a team that either likes Calvin Ridley here or they think they can get him or some other WR a little later.  They have holes to fill and need more picks.  Right here the question becomes, WHO are the QB still on the board?  Is he "the man" according to your board?  and Is Arizona going up to get him?  

 

Sitting at 21 and 22.....isn't quite the AMMO that it would have been 10 years ago when you look at it like this.  You are also looking at a near impossible climb to 2 or 3 and after that, you are realistically looking at takign the FOURTH QB OFF THE BOARD even if you can get up to 7, or 8.  That is the reality of the situation.  And as if this wasn't enough to consider....Arizona can stand pat, or move up and get that 4th QB if the Bills do stay put.....and lurking in front of the Bills are.........

 

12. Cincinnati Bengals     They can walk away from Dalton after this year when his contract no longer is a cap killer.  MaCaron is gone.  I don't think they will go QB, but....
15. Arizona Cardinals   They stay in place and grab one or trade up and grab one..but here they are in dire need of a QB.
16. Baltimore Ravens   They can walk on Flacco after this year and that awful contract.  Ozzie Newsome is retiring after this season, so I would suspect he won't go QB, and leave that problem up to the next guy....but can't rule it out.  Newsome might see it as a chance to extend his legacy by drafting the next guy.
17. Los Angeles Chargers  Phillip Rivers isn't getting younger...and they could draft a guy to sit and learn, so a project isn't a concern here....Could totally see Mason Rudolph.

 

Given all of this, as a big picture, it seems UNLIKELY the Bills will emerge from this draft with their present/future QB when it's said and done.  

[1st Ammendment NoMas]

agreed on all counts. very good analysis. I think that is why they are looking at Foles. At least I hope so. Then it may be a flyer on White or Lauletta.

[El Guapo]

Good take on this. For everyone yelling that we have to move up and get a QB, they need to remember that it takes two to tango. We can’t get on the phone with the Giants and tell them to trade us their pick. They have to agree. Same with any other team. What those teams want/demand in return for such a trade is the kicker.

 

Could we go all in with everything and move up? Probably, but be careful what you ask for. I’d hate to blow this year’s entire draft (and next year possibly) to move up that high. 

[Thurman#1]

Yup, it's so hard to trade up in the first round and teams are realizing it more and more. That's why last year there were two teams trading back out of the first five picks. That's 40%. It's why we traded back from pick 10. It's why the Texans were able to trade up to #12 to get Watson. It's why the Eagles were able to acquire the #14 in the Bradford deal. 

 

That's almost 50%, 6 of the top 14 picks, that were traded. Last year as it is getting so hard and teams are realizing yadda yadda yadda. All those factors you're talking about haven't slowed up trades. They haven't even cranked the price up all that much.

 

Twelve of the first 32 picks were traded. Last year. 

 

 

 

 

The years people are saying that we should trade down, people always are on here saying "It won't be easy. Everybody wants to trade down, it's hard to find people who want to trade up."

 

And now we want to trade up and we hear the same thing, the other way around.

 

It's a bit hard, but not that hard. There are people who want to trade down. The problem isn't so much going to be finding a partner as it is paying the price.

 

Oh, and your contention that the #18 guy and the #33 guy are equal in talent is simply not something GMs are thinking. If it were, we'd see FOs trading back from around #18 to around #33 all the time and not demanding much in trade. That doesn't happen, and the reason it doesn't happen is the huge amounts of information available on these players and natural human confidence give the GMs the feeling that they can draw distinctions in value here and more, a real confidence that it's possible. Just go back and look at the people in several drafts who were drafted #15 - #25. Now look at the people in the same draft who were drafted #32 - #42. There won't be many drafts where you'd trade the second group for the first.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Thurman#1

[El Guapo]

7 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

The years people are saying that we should trade down, people always are on here saying "It won't be easy." Everybody wants to trade down, it's hard to find people who want to trade up.

 

And now we want to trade up and we hear the same thing.

 

It's a bit hard, but not that hard. There are people who want to trade down. The problem isn't so much going to be finding a partner as it is paying the price.

That’s my point. We can find a partner, but is it worth mortgaging the franchise to do it?

And there are folks here who will say it is worth any price. I am not one of those. 

[Thurman#1]

11 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

That’s my point. We can find a partner, but is it worth mortgaging the franchise to do it?

And there are folks here who will say it is worth any price. I am not one of those. 

 

 

Giving up those picks is not mortgaging the franchise. Not even close.

 

We're likely to be able to do it nearly completely with picks we have this year, with the trades we made exactly to put us in position to trade up and find a QB in this QB-rich draft. If it can't be worked out with only picks from this year, it won't be more than a pick or at absolute most two from next year. 

 

That's not mortgaging the franchise. That's paying what a franchise QB is worth.

 

It's not worth any price whatsoever. Just to pick a random number, it's not worth the next six #1 picks, for instance. That would be mortgaging the franchise. What we have to pay will hurt us. But it won't destroy our ability to bring in good players, and pretty quickly. Somewhere between what it will probably cost and my outrageous number here there should be a line. But we're very likely to find a team that will trade down for a reasonable amount. Painful. It's painful to give up picks. But worth the try if there's a QB there they think will be a franchise guy.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, Zerovotlz said:

Not many people realized it at the time, but when the NFL went to a slotted payscale for draft choices, and that system allowed for a 5th year team option on all rookie contracts for players drafted after round 1, the value of draft choices weren't the same anymore.  Teams have slowly but surely began to realize this and it's reflected in how more and more teams are doing business on draft day.  Let me break down what changed, and then how that applies to the Bills situation this year.

 

The slotting system has made it MUCH MORE APPEALING to take a chance on a QB.  The mistake used to cost your franchise millions and millions of dollars, setting everything back years, costing coaches and GMs their jobs, scaring off fans from buying tickets...it was an incredibly risky proposition all the way around.  Now, if you swing and miss, you have a player who isn't killing your cap or your willingness to turn around and try again to find his replacement.  Given that more and more teams have come around to the reality that if you don't have a QB, you are facing a steep uphill battle to compete, and given that there are plenty of teams who need to find that guy, the market for QB's in the draft is as strong or stronger now, than it has ever been.  

 

At the same time you have these forces at work, the picks in round 1, that teams are sitting with, once the "sure things" have been drafted, are not worth nearly what they once were.  Here is why.  Lets say you have pick 18.  Your scouts/gm etc have decided that the draft has 10-12 really good, blue chip, can't miss, start day one, plug and play guys in it.  After pick 12, those guys are off the board and you pick at 18.  You are drafting a guy who may have a 1st round grade, but he might be every bit as good or the same as the guy who will go at 33.  (first pick of round 2)  The big difference being, the guy picked at 33 will have a contract that includes the magical "5th year option".  An extra year of club control, that is almost certainly going to be at a bargain rate if the player is any good.  The market is now set up in such a way that the 33rd pick is considered at least equal to pick 18, 14, 22...whatever the case may be...and in many teams thinking, pick 33 is the better pick to have.  Again...I can take a guy who grades well, who may or may not pan out at 18, or I can take a guy with the same grade, same expectation of success, but get him a little cheaper to start with, and again, the magical extra year of club control.

 

Now lets apply these dynamics to this years upcoming draft.

 

At the top, you have the Browns, who should be taking a QB at 1.  (I just don't see how they don't at this point)  At 2, the Giants are in great shape here to basically trade down a few spots.  If Allen is on the board especially, the Broncos will move up to 2.  The Giants will move back to 5.  they will get a 1st in 2019, and you can be sure they will get the Broncos 2nd rounder this year.  40th Overall (8th pick in round 2) that carries that contract value I just mentioned.  ....I'll get back to the Giants in a moment.  With two QB off the board, the Jets will be hot on the phone to move up to 3. This could very well be Baker Mayfield.  The Jets will of course be trading a 2109 1st, but also that valuable early 2nd rounder.  37th Overall.  The Browns now sitting at 4 take Saqon Barkley.  Everyone in Cleveland is happy for a day.  Then the Giants pick at 5.  Having gotten a nice haul out of Denver to move down three spots, they still get a choice of Chubb, Minkah, or that Ellis guard from ND.  They still get the blue chipper.  The colts, Also, are still in line for Chubb, or Minkah etc....one of the blue chips.  

 

Lets examine these circumstances cloesly.....If the Bills want to move up to 2 or 3, is their ammo of 21 and 22, and a 2019 1 (and more) really more attractive than say the Giants taking 3 steps back, a 2019 first, and an early 2nd.....with the guarantee you end up with one of the few can't miss prospects in this draft?  Same with the Colts..step back a few spots, get a 2019 1st, and an early 2nd this year....and still get one of the few cant miss guys now....is that better or worse than 21, 22, and 2019 1st?  That is the reality the Bills are facing.  Ok...now continuing....

 

Pick 7, Tampa.  This may well be the last spot to grab a "Can't miss" blue chip guy...either Ellis, or if the Giants took him already, then whoever the last man standing is..Chubb, Minkah.  There are still 2 teams.....and certainly 1 for sure, in the QB market.  ARIZONA, sitting at 15.  for the sake of argument, the Bucs take the last big time blue chip, and now we are on to 8.  Chicago.  This will be the first spot where the can't miss guys are gone, and you also have a team that either likes Calvin Ridley here or they think they can get him or some other WR a little later.  They have holes to fill and need more picks.  Right here the question becomes, WHO are the QB still on the board?  Is he "the man" according to your board?  and Is Arizona going up to get him?  

 

Sitting at 21 and 22.....isn't quite the AMMO that it would have been 10 years ago when you look at it like this.  You are also looking at a near impossible climb to 2 or 3 and after that, you are realistically looking at takign the FOURTH QB OFF THE BOARD even if you can get up to 7, or 8.  That is the reality of the situation.  And as if this wasn't enough to consider....Arizona can stand pat, or move up and get that 4th QB if the Bills do stay put.....and lurking in front of the Bills are.........

 

12. Cincinnati Bengals     They can walk away from Dalton after this year when his contract no longer is a cap killer.  MaCaron is gone.  I don't think they will go QB, but....
15. Arizona Cardinals   They stay in place and grab one or trade up and grab one..but here they are in dire need of a QB.
16. Baltimore Ravens   They can walk on Flacco after this year and that awful contract.  Ozzie Newsome is retiring after this season, so I would suspect he won't go QB, and leave that problem up to the next guy....but can't rule it out.  Newsome might see it as a chance to extend his legacy by drafting the next guy.
17. Los Angeles Chargers  Phillip Rivers isn't getting younger...and they could draft a guy to sit and learn, so a project isn't a concern here....Could totally see Mason Rudolph.

 

Given all of this, as a big picture, it seems UNLIKELY the Bills will emerge from this draft with their present/future QB when it's said and done.  

 

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis.  My thoughts align with yours on the point that teams that are trading back, don't want to trade back too far, so it will be tough to move up into the top 5 picks from #21 and #22.

 

You also have a good point that team's willingness to pull the trigger for a high pick QB has increased since 2011.  That can be seen objectively through the number of top 15 picks used on QB before and after 2011.

 

Questions: how do you conclude there are 10-12 "blue chip" picks?  I think the general conclusion is that guys drafted at the top of the draft have better odds of success, but what puts the line (for you) at 12 and not 15-16? (I note this doesn't affect your overall logic)

 

Places where I think your assessment breaks down a bit is:

1) the specific QBs in question (despite all the Allen love, I do think he's this year's Blaine Gabbert).  I don't think teams trade up into the 1st 5 picks for QB who are perceived as having serious gaps in their game or question marks.  I think Allen will likely go in the 1st, but not in the top 5 and not to a team trading up to get him. 

2) I think you overestimate the desire of teams holding a top pick to trade up only a few slots and give up draft capital AND the desire of teams holding a top pick to grab a top player and more draft capital over the chance to stay put and have their free choice of players other than QB....I don't think most teams think there are 10-12 players that are "blue chip can't miss" for them...they may have 2 or 3 players they really feel are worth that top 5 pick, with 1 strongly preferred.

3) Draft history .... every year there's a good crop of QB, pundits predict that there will be FOUR QB OFF THE BOARD BY PICK 7 or something similar.  The closest would be 2011 where there were 4 picks off the board by #12 and that worked out so well for the drafting teams (sarcasm) that it hasn't happened since.   Other examples would be 2004 where there were 3 QB off the board by 11, last year (3 QB by 8), 2012 (3 QB by #8).

4) Overestimating the desire of teams that have a functional QB under contract and feel they can contend, to use a top draft pick on QB rather than some other position and take a developmental guy who might be the next Garappolo, later on.  GMs and coaches know they have a shelf life...if they have a guy under expensive contract and a bunch of holes, the pressure is on to give that guy a top RB or a top OLmen or a top WR and "win now" vs drafting a QB who will play in 2 years....after they're fired.

 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

That was a long winded way of saying you don’t think there will be a trade. But in the end it’s just your opinion, not a fact. There are way too many variables in this equation to solve it in a chat room thread. In 2018 the key is whether there’s a team at the top of the board who doesn’t particularly want/need a QB, after free agency has run its course. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Oh, and your contention that the #18 guy and the #33 guy are equal in talent is simply not something GMs are thinking. If it were, we'd see FOs trading back from around #18 to around #33 all the time and not demanding much in trade. That doesn't happen, and the reason it doesn't happen is the huge amounts of information available on these players and natural human confidence give the GMs the feeling that they can draw distinctions in value here and more, a real confidence that it's possible. Just go back and look at the people in several drafts who were drafted #15 - #25. Now look at the people in the same draft who were drafted #32 - #42. There won't be many drafts where you'd trade the second group for the first.

 

In general, I agree.  Unfortunately, it also applies to QB and higher groups...in the last say 5 years, the QB drafted from picks 16-32 are a generally much less appealing group than the QB drafted from picks 1-15.

 

The harsh reality is that in the last 20 years, there has only been 1 QB I categorize** as a "yes" drafted between pick 21 and 32: Aaron Rodgers.  There have been 12 QB drafted in that range (8% success) with a couple in the "no" slot some people might argue about (Teddy Bridgewater, Jason Campbell).

 

The success rate is actually better (20%) for QB drafted in the 2nd round (skewed of course towards the top of the 2nd round), where "yes"  includes Derek Carr, Garappolo, Dalton, Kaepernick (yes Kaepernick) and Brees and "no" includes 18 other guys.

 

Which is why I say we should NOT draft one of the pundit's consensus top 4 QB....if there's a guy we have strong enough convictions about to trade up to the top 2, maybe the top 4 picks and grab .... great, do it.  But otherwise, we're in the area where hopefully we can get a guy who can play with some careful development, and we'll keep looking to try to get better, and we might be better off keeping our picks and taking more shots.

 

**the categorization is based on 3 statistics: completion percentage, YPA, and TD/INT.  See my QB Draft post mid January for details.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[BadLandsMeanie]

27 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

.......

1) the specific QBs in question (despite all the Allen love, I do think he's this year's Blaine Gabbert).  ........

 

 

 

In continuing what I intend to be a running joke amusing only to me (but also strangely true):

 

 

"Blaine Gabbert" is a goofy name.  His parents looked down on baby Gabbert, and knowing that he already had the last name "Gabbert" to contend with, decided he looked like a "Blaine".  

 

Now Josh Allen, he has a non-goofy name. He isn't likely to turn out the same way as somebody who a) is named Blaine Gabbert b) decided to stick with the name Blaine Gabbert.

 

I lean towards quarterbacks who had parents that didn't think it was a good idea to name their kid something goofy.

 

I say we shy away from "Baker" Mayfield for example.

[GunnerBill]

I don't agree.  The Bills have a lot of capital available, the price is cheaper than it has ever been an there are at least two teams in the top 5 not picking Quarterbacks.  

 

If the will is there then there is definitely a way.  It isn't at all hard to fathom.  

[BuffaloHokie13]

3 1sts over the next 2 years is definitely more appealing than 2 1sts and a later pick for several reasons, one of which you touched on. All 3 of those picks will have the 5th year option available. I have valued out many trades to get to pick 2, 3, or 4 even factoring in as much as 40% inflation and that's without considering adding players. A move into the top 5 is most certainly doable.

[aristocrat]

yea there are a lot of teams ahead of us that probably value the qb position as much and can offer more valuable picks.  

[thebandit27]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Yup, it's so hard to trade up in the first round and teams are realizing it more and more. That's why last year there were two teams trading back out of the first five picks. That's 40%. It's why we traded back from pick 10. It's why the Texans were able to trade up to #12 to get Watson. It's why the Eagles were able to acquire the #14 in the Bradford deal. 

 

That's almost 50%, 6 of the top 14 picks, that were traded. Last year as it is getting so hard and teams are realizing yadda yadda yadda. All those factors you're talking about haven't slowed up trades. They haven't even cranked the price up all that much.

 

Twelve of the first 32 picks were traded. Last year. 

 

 

 

 

The years people are saying that we should trade down, people always are on here saying "It won't be easy. Everybody wants to trade down, it's hard to find people who want to trade up."

 

And now we want to trade up and we hear the same thing, the other way around.

 

It's a bit hard, but not that hard. There are people who want to trade down. The problem isn't so much going to be finding a partner as it is paying the price.

 

Oh, and your contention that the #18 guy and the #33 guy are equal in talent is simply not something GMs are thinking. If it were, we'd see FOs trading back from around #18 to around #33 all the time and not demanding much in trade. That doesn't happen, and the reason it doesn't happen is the huge amounts of information available on these players and natural human confidence give the GMs the feeling that they can draw distinctions in value here and more, a real confidence that it's possible. Just go back and look at the people in several drafts who were drafted #15 - #25. Now look at the people in the same draft who were drafted #32 - #42. There won't be many drafts where you'd trade the second group for the first.

 

Zero teams moved out of the top 5 last year.  Chicago moved from 3 to 2 with SF dropping from 2 to 3; that was it.

 

Tennessee had the Rams' pick from a 2016 trade.  Only one team moved from outside the top 10 into it, and only 2 teams moved from outside the top 24 into it.

 

The 2017 first round featured 6 total trades--3 that involved top 12 picks, and 3 that involved picks 25-31.

 

All of that is to say that your numbers are off.

 

Now, is it hard to move into the top 5? No, not hard at all.  It's costly, but finding a dance partner isn't tough.  There's plenty of reason to believe that any of NYG, Indy, and Cleveland (4) would be willing to move out if given the right ransom.

Edited March 8, 2018 by thebandit27

[Chuck Wagon]

10 hours ago, Zerovotlz said:

At the same time you have these forces at work, the picks in round 1, that teams are sitting with, once the "sure things" have been drafted, are not worth nearly what they once were.  Here is why.  Lets say you have pick 18.  Your scouts/gm etc have decided that the draft has 10-12 really good, blue chip, can't miss, start day one, plug and play guys in it.  After pick 12, those guys are off the board and you pick at 18.  You are drafting a guy who may have a 1st round grade, but he might be every bit as good or the same as the guy who will go at 33.  (first pick of round 2)  The big difference being, the guy picked at 33 will have a contract that includes the magical "5th year option".  An extra year of club control, that is almost certainly going to be at a bargain rate if the player is any good.  The market is now set up in such a way that the 33rd pick is considered at least equal to pick 18, 14, 22...whatever the case may be...and in many teams thinking, pick 33 is the better pick to have.  Again...I can take a guy who grades well, who may or may not pan out at 18, or I can take a guy with the same grade, same expectation of success, but get him a little cheaper to start with, and again, the magical extra year of club control.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, pretty sure this is wrong.  Only 1st round picks have a 5th year option.  The 18th pick is worth more than the 33rd pick under any sort of convoluted math.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Chuck Wagon

[CraigD]

Agree with the last poster. You need to research better only round 1 picks have the 5th year option that can be apllied

[section122]

21 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

3 1sts over the next 2 years is definitely more appealing than 2 1sts and a later pick for several reasons, one of which you touched on. All 3 of those picks will have the 5th year option available. I have valued out many trades to get to pick 2, 3, or 4 even factoring in as much as 40% inflation and that's without considering adding players. A move into the top 5 is most certainly doable.

 

People keep skipping over the bolded.  Teams can offer 2 first rounders.  Only the Bills can offer 2 first this year.  In a win now league 21 and 22 is more valuable imo that 10 and next year's first. The Bills can offer 4 picks in the top 55 this year!  Only Cleveland can offer such a deal and they won't be competing with the Bills for draft slots.

 

To get to #3 the Bills would simply have to give up their 2 first and 2 seconds.  In return they would receive an extra 4th.  The Bills could overpay for 3 and still be left with 3, 96, 104, 121, 158, and 166. That is under the old chart.

 

Under the new chart the deal is even more friendly.  To get #3 the Bills only need to give up 21 and 22.  

 

I think they will have to blend the 2 and do something like 21, 22, and 55 for 3 and 67 which would be a dream scenario for the Bills.  Bottom line trading isn't very far fetched and the Bills can get high pretty easily with the capital they have.

[GunnerBill]

12 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

People keep skipping over the bolded.  Teams can offer 2 first rounders.  Only the Bills can offer 2 first this year.  In a win now league 21 and 22 is more valuable imo that 10 and next year's first. The Bills can offer 4 picks in the top 55 this year!  Only Cleveland can offer such a deal and they won't be competing with the Bills for draft slots.

 

To get to #3 the Bills would simply have to give up their 2 first and 2 seconds.  In return they would receive an extra 4th.  The Bills could overpay for 3 and still be left with 3, 96, 104, 121, 158, and 166. That is under the old chart.

 

Under the new chart the deal is even more friendly.  To get #3 the Bills only need to give up 21 and 22.  

 

I think they will have to blend the 2 and do something like 21, 22, and 55 for 3 and 67 which would be a dream scenario for the Bills.  Bottom line trading isn't very far fetched and the Bills can get high pretty easily with the capital they have.

 

Correct.  Two 1st this year is infinitely more valuable by all draft charts than a 1st this year and a 1st next.  The Bills have loads of capital.  

[The Now Moment]

We have more assets to trade up than any of those teams.  We could jump up to a team begging for talent and get our guy.  I'd let some of our free agents walk this year and get the compensatory picks.  Let the QB play out his rookie year and whatever happens, happens.  Next offseason when we have tons of money and the compensatory picks, we could fill in the needs of the rest of the roster.  That's pretty close to what Philly did.  They traded up for wentz.  Got a lot of free agents after his rookie year including Alshon Jeffrey.  I hope this is the plan.  I have no problem trading most of our picks this year to get a guy.  Maybe we get lucky and don't have to trade all of them.  Who knows...

[elltrain22]

Difficult decisions involve  difficult situations! There are alot of dynamics like you have VERY correctly & informatively pointed out. These dynamics  make it difficult, but....

 

1. we have more draft capital than any team in the NFL

2. IMHO, we want a top tier franchise QB at the top of this draft

3. we realize the cost, but the cost of not taking advantage of our draft capital & this strong QB class is very foolish

4. Beane & McDermott are very smart & methodical, and they know how important it is for this franchise to move forward, and the best way to do that, is by having a very good QB