A “Good Year” to trade up. The quality of “the one”, not the quantity of “maybes”

[Original Byrd Man]

20 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I know people call me unnecessarily verbose, but I think folks can usually figure out what my point is.  I can't follow this.

 

Generational draft talents, by definition, appear once every generation (or 20 years) and are a tad unpredictable as to being recognized prior to draft day.  There are 32 teams who need QB.  Logic says therefore, teams can't wait for Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck.  They have to take their shots on Matt Stafford and Deshaun Watson and Mitch Trubisky and Josh Rosen and Baker Mayfield - talented prospects who have recognized flaws prior to the draft

 

Drafting a QB in the top 2 picks is not a certainly - it gives you roughly 2 out of 3 odds of success, and maybe you don't draft Peyton, you draft Matt Ryan.  Drafting in the middle of the first, gives you roughly 1 out of 3 odds of success. 

 

This I know:  You never hit the shot you don't take.  The problem with the Bills drafting has not been that they took risky shots; it's that they haven't taken enough shots.

We have drafted 2 1st round QB in the last 18 years, both in the mid to late picks where the odds off success are at best 1/3, means that the odds of failure are 2/3.

 

That means by drafting 2 QB in 18 years, we have 4/9 odds that neither would succeed or 44%.  If we'd simply done our best assessment and chosen a QB in the 1st every 3 or 4 years,  it would be something like (2/3) to the 6th power, or 91% chance of success by now.  All this is assuming random chance - the odds could be improved, of course, by having better than average talent evaluation and draft judgement or by drafting only in years where the QB talent is evaluated as deep.

 

Bottom line: Trade up.  Don't trade up.  Trade down.  But pull the D*** Trigger!

 

The post didn't say don't take a QB,  it said not to give away assets to move up when there is not a clear stand out.  The recommendation I believe was to take one or even two QB's.

[bigduke6]

7 minutes ago, NewDayBills said:

I want Baker Mayfield at 10, I think he'll be there, the price won't be too bad at that point. 

and that would be fine,  my point all along has been about risk aversion.    of course we need a QB,  and it would be great to get a top prospect, no doubt.

 

if mayfield fell to 10,  sure go for it.

 

if,  and only if,  thats who OBD all loved from the start.

 

dont overreach just to get a guy, cuz the  real guy u wanted is gone.  

 

many thing to like about mayfield,   his college offensive scheme is not one of them though.

 

not a fan of the spread offense.   dont care about his height,   swagger,    his tiny bit of off field issues.

 

he can throw,  but can he read the whole field?.   thats what ive been looking for in a QB since Kelly walked away.

 

all the arm talent in the world means nothing if u cant make the right decisions before the ball lets loose.

Edited March 11, 2018 by bigduke6

[PrimeTime101]

1 hour ago, simpleman said:

A “Good Year” to trade up. The quality of  “the one”, not the quantity of “maybes”

A Great year to trade up to pick a QB is a year where:

1.) There is a generational talent at QB who is as close to a “sure thing” as possible.

2.) You have the trade capitol to spend to get that talent, without setting back the rest of your team for multiple years by spending that trade capitol you desperately need elsewhere. You are almost a franchise QB away from having a solid team.

3.) There is minimal need and competition from other teams for that player, driving up the cost of the trade to you.

4.) Your potential trade partner does not need that franchise QB, since they already have one. And there are no other generational “sure thing” choices at a position of need for them available at their draft position during the draft.

It is not about quantity, it is about quality when you trade up. This is a year of a quantity of “maybes”, and no quality “sure things”.

There is no consensus generational QB talent this year. All the top picks are flawed in some way or other. The last time there was as close to a “sure thing”, was when Andrew Luck was in the draft. There is no Andrew Luck in this draft. Just a lot of flawed “maybe” QB’s.  No “sure thing” generational talent.

 When you trade up, you do it for a specific player. Unlike being lucky in a year when you have a high pick, where you at least have better odds of the player you want being there when your pick comes up. The odds are no better that you will get “the one” during that single trade up to get there, since you choose when, and who to do it for. It is about just one player, the one that you are positive is the one. Not about how many  “maybes” there are to choose from.

We may have draft capitol, but we do have so many serious holes everywhere, few teams except the Browns have more holes than we do.  We have been exposed to almost 20 years of “3 year planned rebuilds”. And you want us to believe we should wait yet another 3 years, and expect for this one to turn out any different than it has for the last almost 20 years?

This is a year when there are an exceptionally large number of teams also desperately looking for their “Franchise QB”.

About the only thing you possibly have going for you this year is that there are 3 or 4 teams with high draft picks who don’t absolutely “need” a Franchise QB and are willing to trade.

A “Good Year” to trade up is not about the “quantity of maybes” available that year. It is  a year where there that “one” who you believe is as close to sure thing as possible for your team is available, and you are in the best position in the league to get that “one”.

#1. Luck was as close to a sure thing as possible.. and further down you admit that thus #1 comment makes 0 sense.

#2. Our trade capital is not as good as everyone says. If we had say a 15 and a 22 I would agree but no.. Its not bad but its not GREAT either.

 

This is the year where there will be potential for many franchise free agents where we know how good they play.. Bridgewater, Case, Kirk Cousins(witch we cant afford)

 

so this year I say we go after an AJ McCarron/Foles or an Case or an Bridgewater and then take 6 picks in 3 rounds and build around the person..  Trading draft picks this year unless your moving up maybe 10 spots or so is a really bad idea.. Do you realize we give up a first this year, one in 2019 with the potential of a bust? That sets us back 3 more years. 

 

in short. Case or Bridgewater or Foles would be best move.

[Virgil]

There is no Luck this year, but this is probably one of the better overall QB classes of the past decade to me going into the draft. 

 

I think Rosen, Darnold, and Mayfield will be solid QB’s. I see their floor as a Marriotta. 

 

Jackson could be a Winston, and there’s a lot of other maybes.  If you remove the top 4 qb’s, I still think you’d have 2 1st rounders. 

 

Even Luck hasn’t turned out to be Luck. 

 

 

[SouthNYfan]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I know people call me unnecessarily verbose, but I think folks can usually figure out what my point is.  I can't follow this.

 

....(edited to save space)....

 

Bottom line: Trade up.  Don't trade up.  Trade down.  But pull the D*** Trigger!

 

 

Agreed man!!

I like your being verbose, I am too, and I'm okay with reading it, as you clearly make your points, so even when we don't always agree, I can at least see where your side comes from!!

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I don't think anyone, not one player,  from the 2106 draft is on the team now.

But we went to the playoffs last year. From that I can figure that teams can and do recover from gaps in the draft.

 

Badlands, you raise a great point. 

 

You're right - changing coaches and schemes every 2 years for the last 6 years, despite some good drafts, has had the same effective impact on our team as giving up draft picks.  It's no longer that we've had bad drafts, we can see that by the fact that players we've let walk or traded or even cut are all over the league, many on playoff teams.

 

I hadn't thought of it that way before.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[bigduke6]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Badlands, you raise a great point. 

 

You're right - changing coaches and schemes every 2 years for the last 6 years, despite some good drafts, has had the same effective impact on our team as giving up draft picks.

 

I hadn't thought of it that way before.

wholeheartedly agree with this,   regime change sets teams back faster than missing on picks.     gotta give time to people.    good working relationships arent made overnight.  

 

 

[Victory Formation]

1 minute ago, bigduke6 said:

and that would be fine,  my point all along has been about risk aversion.    of course we need a QB,  and it would be great to get a top prospect, no doubt.

 

if mayfield fell to 10,  sure go for it.

 

if,  and only if,  thats who OBD all loved from the start.

 

dont overreach just to get a guy, cuz the  real guy u wanted is gone.  

 

many thing to like about mayfield,   his college offensive scheme is not one of them though.

 

not a fan of the spread offense.   dont care about his height,   swagger,    his tiny bit of off field issues.

 

he can throw,  but can he read the whole field.   thats what ive been looking for in a QB since Kelly walked away.

 

all the arm talent in the world means nothing if u cant make the right decisions before the ball lets loose.

I like Baker's attitude, he is fiesty and competitive. Other people see 'character issues', I see swagger! The trade up then the trade down scenario mitigates all risks involved. 21 + 53 to Oakland for Mayfield and then pray to God that Lamar Jackson is there at 22 and somebody wants to move up for him. Could recoup a 2nd and a 3rd back, maybe even an early 2nd that is higher than the 53rd pick we hypothetically dealt to Oakland.

 

1.) Mayfield

2.)

2.)

3.)

3.)

3.)

 

Franchise QB or not, even if Mayfield busted, we would not be set back at all. No risk, high reward. We get our QB and we fill our holes.

[SouthNYfan]

19 minutes ago, bigduke6 said:

u know when its a good time to take a flyer on a top QB that has a less than 50% chance to succeed?  its when u dont give up six fricken picks to take that chance.    ffs if had to explain that to too u.....like i said  read the thread.

 

u give 2 examples of guys who've done absolutely nothing in this league to this point.   and their respective teams gave up little to get them....

 

its about how much u need to give up to gamble on an unknown commodity.   ffs.

 

we get it,  u want a top QB,  and nobody elses opinion matters.

 

must be a wonderful world u live in.

 

Must be a wonderful world you live in, that you think you can consistently succeed without a top QB on this league.

 

Why are you getting so angry?

When did I say to give up "six fricken picks"?

I gave two examples of QBs who look like they were mistakes for us to pass on.

You didn't "have to explain" anything to me.

I didn't advocate to give up SIX PICKS.

I was pointing out that last year we passed on TWO guys who look good, why? So we could get draft picks THIS YEAR to TRADE UP AND GET A QB.

If we pass this year, then what?

Wait until next year?

Oh, right, it's a crap class next year, that's why we aimed at this year, but I guess we should pass this year, then pass next because it's not a great class, and hope 2020 is decent.

[Chuck Wagon]

"Generational can't miss QB prospects" aren't traded, bottom line.  When Luck came up, the Colts let Peyton Manning walk and laughed at attempts to trade up.  Bottom line, you don't get the "can't miss" prospects unless you happen to be the worst team in the league the year they come around.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

I don't buy into the narrative that their are no top QBs in this draft like previous drafts. I think the issue is that their are legitimately 4-5 that all have similar grades which drives the narrative that we don't know who is the best of the bunch and therefore there must mean there are no top QBs. If this was your typical year that only has two top QBs then any of the two would be considered the obvious number 1 and number 2 picks. Selecting franchise QBs in the draft is not an exact science. You just never know what you are going to get. I don't see how these 4-5 prospects are any worst than Goff and Wentz two years ago. Or Winston and Marriota a couple years before that. But since those drafts only had two top QBs it made it appear as if things were more clear and straightforward.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

36 minutes ago, Original Byrd Man said:

The post didn't say don't take a QB,  it said not to give away assets to move up when there is not a clear stand out.  The recommendation I believe was to take one or even two QB's.

 

Thanks for translating.  I thought the point was "don't move up unless there is a generational standout"

 

I'm not sure what is meant by "clear stand out".  Do you mean, guys who stand out from the rest of the QB field in terms of passing ability, demonstrated performance on the field etc?  Or do you mean guys with no drawbacks or downside at all?  There are certainly guys with obvious talent this year, no obvious "warning, raging flameout!" signs, and I think we have the right talent evaluators to sort them and decide which one or two are best.  (Guys with no drawbacks or downside to offset their demonstrated abilities and physical gifts - we call those "generational talents" and they're rare.)

 

Let's look at it this way - there's another post that gives the recent data to make this point, and I and others have done more detailed draft analysis reaching the same conclusion.

 

In the top 2 picks of the draft, the odds of landing a successful NFL QB - not a generational talent like Peyton Manning, but a guy who can win you games, including tough games and championship games with the pieces around him - is 65-75%.  That means the odds of not getting a guy who can do that are 25-33% each year.  To drop our odds of not getting a guy to <6%, we need to draft a QB in that position 2-3x (this is assuming our talent e v a l and draft decision making are average, of course)

 

From pick 5-20 - the part we're just under - the odds of success drop to 25-33%.  That means the odds of not getting a guy who can do that are 66-75%.  To drop our odds of not getting a guy to <6%, we need to draft a QB in that position 7-10x.

 

So fundamentally, and again, assuming we have at least average talent evaluation and draft decision making, we have to use ~3x as many picks to have the same odds of success, drafting between pick 5-20, as we would to TRADE 3 FIRST ROUND PICKS and move up to the first 2 picks. (3 1st round picks traded to move up per draft x 2 drafts = 6 picks)

 

Kind of a wash, isn't it?  Except of course, that each time you take a shot you've got to give the guy a couple years to sort himself out, so the fewer drafts you need to achieve a result, the better.

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Green Lightning]

54 minutes ago, bigduke6 said:

u know when its a good time to take a flyer on a top QB that has a less than 50% chance to succeed?  its when u dont give up six fricken picks to take that chance.    ffs if had to explain that to too u.....like i said  read the thread.

 

u give 2 examples of guys who've done absolutely nothing in this league to this point.   and their respective teams gave up little to get them....

 

its about how much u need to give up to gamble on an unknown commodity.   ffs.

 

we get it,  u want a top QB,  and nobody elses opinion matters.

 

must be a wonderful world u live in.

Boo frickity hoo. Here's the world we live in. It's a quarterback-driven league bottom line. You're going to overpay for the position. Second and third round talent will likely go in the first round this year at the quarterback position. So that's the price of admission to the modern NFL. So you're either willing to pay the price or suck.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Green Lightning

[bigduke6]

1 minute ago, Green Lightning said:

Boo frickity hoo. Here's the world we live in. It's a quarterback-driven league bottom line. You're going to overpay for the position. Second and third round talent will likely go in the first round this year at the quarterback position. So 

youre so late to the party in this thread that ill give u a pass on this brilliant post.  u clearly havent read everything.

 

and of course its a QB driven league....

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, Green Lightning said:

Boo frickity hoo. Here's the world we live in. It's a quarterback-driven league bottom line. You're going to overpay for the position. Second and third round talent will likely go in the first round this year at the quarterback position. So 

 

I doubt we're giving up 6 picks.  But even if we give up 3 first rounders-we gained one of them by trading down and still landed a very good player last year, so it's kind of "found money" to me.

 

And there's this - if you're drafting at #1 or #2 and not #21 - it means you Suck, Man.  You're overmatched all over the field.  Don't you think that means you need at least 6 more picks just to fill the additional holes you have as demonstrated by your overall suckage?

[lookylookyherecomescookie]

I don't know which qb's the Bills value or want. They have (hopefully) many skilled football people who know far more than me. I do know, however, what Mcbean says and does.

1. The NFL is a quarterback driven league.  Just look at rules and rule changes over the years, to say nothing of league standings. 

2. You can win with a mid-level qb, just not consistently.

3. Mcbean has said the Bills want to be long term consistent winners.

4. To be long term consistent winners , you need a stud qb  (a consensus  consistent top 10 qb). I'm pretty sure Mcbean didn't get to where they are without knowing this.

5. You can get a qb through trade, FA, or the draft.

6. Chance of stud qb through trade or FA is low. I know-Brees, maybe Cousins. But true stud qbs are rare by this route. If you are a gm, and have your stud, you are not going to trade him, or let him go FA, (unless you screw up like the redskins-and even there, not sure cousins is your stud).

7. Draft- you can go for a day one starter (extremely rare) or go for qb with a high ceiling who will probably need to sit behind a bridge qb for awhile.

8. The Bills just traded TT (truly the definition of a bridge  qb who is serviceable while you are rebuilding your team and letting your high ceiling draft pick, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, etc sit and learn) They are going for a day one starter. If not, they would have kept TT.

9. only possible day one starters are Rosen, Mayfield, maybe Darnold 

10. The draft-  Browns just got their bridge qb, if they go qb at 1 or 4, probably go Darnold or Allen                           

                                  Giants don't have to go qb, have lots of holes, could definitely trade down

                                 Colts     Possible trade down if Luck is ok,  qb if they doubt Luck

                                Browns

                                Broncos are in win now situation, probably don't draft a qb, go with the best established vet they can put on the field today

11. The bills will trade up to #1,2,or 3 if they feel  Rosen, Mayfield or Darnold is a day one starter

12. Most likely trade partner is giants where Beane knows and presumably trusts their gm and vice versa. (my guess is the deal is already in place).

13. All this is predicated on the Bills feeling Rosen or Mayfield is a day one starter. They haven't been collecting draft choices since they got here to pick a game-changing DT or linebacker. They're nice but don't win championships . They're here to get a long term stud QB. They may hit, they may miss, but look at their words and actions.

[Green Lightning]

1 minute ago, bigduke6 said:

youre so late to the party in this thread that ill give u a pass on this brilliant post.  u clearly havent read everything.

 

and of course its a QB driven league....

Gosh how swell of you!  We compliled picks to grab a franchise QB which haven't had for decades. Much smarter football people than you or I have deemed this an outstanding year to draft a QB. So you're weak-kneed on using our draft capital in a QB rich year. That's fine, maybe you can compile the lists of LBs, DBs or any position that made their team champions. If McBeane deems trading picks to move up, excellent. I'm tired of mediocrity. 

13 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I doubt 

 

And there's this - if you're drafting at #1 or #2 and not #21 - it means you Suck, Man.  You're overmatched all over the field.  Don't you think that means you need at least 6 more picks just to fill the additional holes you have as demonstrated by your overall suckage?

 

Hell yes. But I'd rather have the key position locked down to lead us out of suckage.  Bad teams with great QBs often contend. 

[White Linen]

2 hours ago, simpleman said:

The point is that a majority of those who are so hot to "bet the farm" this year to trade up are doing so out of sheer desperation, not out of logic or straight thinking. An intelligent "process" does not do things out of desperation. Unless the team truly thinks there is "the one" there in the draft, they should not bet the farm to get a "QB". A good year to draft a QB is not about the quantity of the players to gamble on, it is about the availability of "the one"  you believe in that year. Desperation is a poor reason to justify" betting the farm".

 I agree about bridge QBs, Kap is probably among the best Vet options available, but it is the inability of so many to separate their politics from their sport that removes that choice. There is  no " the one" option truly available this year in the draft, nor as a FA. If that is the case, I would rather stay put and choose the best options available at our draft positions, or if the team felt there was no player worth the risk at that position, trade down and get more options to build the team. I would not be opposed to multiple QB picks this year, a 2nd round or late first via a trade down, and a later round pick. I think any pick this year should be considered developmental, since none is a sure thing to start.

 

Of course each team has to identify the guy they like.  The thought is this year there's more of them to choose from.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

There is one this year. He is the chosen one. The Rosen one. And he is coming.....

[lookylookyherecomescookie]

you're right Bill

[Niagara Dude]

2 hours ago, simpleman said:

Personally I would make that trade for Mayfield. But I really doubt it would ever come that cheap.  You might be able to make that trade down, but I doubt you could make that trade up so cheaply.

 

No Mayfield please

[I_want_2_BILL_Lieve]

1 hour ago, PrimeTime101 said:

 

 

in short. Case or Bridgewater or Foles would be best move.

 

Shortened for space.

 

I see this quite a bit; Lumping Case, Bridgerwater and Foles together. Case and Bridgerwater are UFA and will cost nothing in terms of draft capital. Expensive in terms of the cap however. Case had a great year on a VERY good team. Bridgewater hasn't played since God knows when. He's a risk. 

 

Foles is under contract. Great year for him. But rumor has it Eagles want a 1st and 4th for him. Is his production repeatable? Not sure. And how much more in draft capital are we from using said 1st and 4th to move up and get our guy? Another 1st, maybe a 2nd? 

 

I don't need a generational talent. By definition that comes around every 20 years. I need a consistant top 5-10 guy that makes every player around him better.

 

We're in a perfect storm. There are a lot of QBs available in FA, some of whom will cause teams to lessen their demand for a QB. This draft year there is an unusually large supply of quality QBs available in the draft. Finally, we have the draft capital to move up without it being a "Full Ditka". Even with a trade using draft capital, some quality picks will remain to address other needs. 

 

What better place than here

What better time than now.

 

[MJS]

Every QB gets picked apart to death these days. I predict that there will never be a draft again where there is a consensus "generational talent". Not because QB's aren't as good, but because we can pick apart their faults and strengths unlike ever before.

 

Goff and Wentz weren't viewed as generational guys. They were picked apart to death, just like every other class. Wentz looks like a top 5 QB now and Goff is looking pretty good too.

 

The last "generational talent" draft was Luck and RGIII, right? RGIII flamed out quickly and Luck, despite having some promising signs, has never quite been what we expected either.

 

So no. I disagree. It is ALWAYS a guessing game in the draft. You simply don't know if there are generational guys or not. Guessing beforehand doesn't make a difference.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, lookylookyherecomescookie said:

I don't know which qb's the Bills value or want. They have (hopefully) many skilled football people who know far more than me. I do know, however, what Mcbean says and does.

1. The NFL is a quarterback driven league.  Just look at rules and rule changes over the years, to say nothing of league standings. 

2. You can win with a mid-level qb, just not consistently.

3. Mcbean has said the Bills want to be long term consistent winners.

4. To be long term consistent winners , you need a stud qb  (a consensus  consistent top 10 qb). I'm pretty sure Mcbean didn't get to where they are without knowing this.

5. You can get a qb through trade, FA, or the draft.

6. Chance of stud qb through trade or FA is low. I know-Brees, maybe Cousins. But true stud qbs are rare by this route. If you are a gm, and have your stud, you are not going to trade him, or let him go FA, (unless you screw up like the redskins-and even there, not sure cousins is your stud).

7. Draft- you can go for a day one starter (extremely rare) or go for qb with a high ceiling who will probably need to sit behind a bridge qb for awhile.

8. The Bills just traded TT (truly the definition of a bridge  qb who is serviceable while you are rebuilding your team and letting your high ceiling draft pick, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, etc sit and learn) They are going for a day one starter. If not, they would have kept TT.

9. only possible day one starters are Rosen, Mayfield, maybe Darnold 

10. The draft-  Browns just got their bridge qb, if they go qb at 1 or 4, probably go Darnold or Allen                           

                                  Giants don't have to go qb, have lots of holes, could definitely trade down

                                 Colts     Possible trade down if Luck is ok,  qb if they doubt Luck

                                Browns

                                Broncos are in win now situation, probably don't draft a qb, go with the best established vet they can put on the field today

11. The bills will trade up to #1,2,or 3 if they feel  Rosen, Mayfield or Darnold is a day one starter

12. Most likely trade partner is giants where Beane knows and presumably trusts their gm and vice versa. (my guess is the deal is already in place).

13. All this is predicated on the Bills feeling Rosen or Mayfield is a day one starter. They haven't been collecting draft choices since they got here to pick a game-changing DT or linebacker. They're nice but don't win championships . They're here to get a long term stud QB. They may hit, they may miss, but look at their words and actions.

 

Good post, post more.

 

The only thing I will add to your assessment is that I believe Beane is a long-term strategic thinker.  He was in Carolina as "Director of Football Operations" and presumably had a seat at the table when Carolina drafted The Pickle #48 overall (rd 2), then shook their heads, said "not our guy", threw him back in the pond, and pulled the trigger next year for Cam Newton.  If I recall, Carolina didn't have 1st round picks in 2009 and 2010 because they traded up for someone (RB?  OT?) in 2008?  The point is he's BT, DT on the plusses and minuses of gathering picks and spending them.

 

So if Beane isn't sold on someone in this year's class to trade up for, his background says won't do it 'just because'.  He'll be perfectly willing to either use the picks elsewhere, or to trade down and gather another pick for next year.  But he won't hesitate to go after someone he wants, either.

 

[lookylookyherecomescookie]

you're right.  this is all predicated on Mcbean feeling there is a day one starter in the draft.   If he does, he'll trade up, I think for Rosen.  If he doesn't, he won't.  One other point.  Pegula didn't get where he is without taking calculated (not wild) risks. He hired Mcbean who has shown he's willing to take risks (i.e. watkins, darby, dareus).  Mcbean is strategic in his thinking, but he's shown a willingness to be bold.

[John from Riverside]

I honestly believe that this is a year where several quarterbacks have a ton of potential to be the guy.  I am still high on Lamar Jackson in the right situation.

 

However

 

This all goes back to the trade down last year to have two 1sts this year where we picked up tre....then started offloading our talent for draft picks........coupled with the anticipation that this was the year to find a generational talent.

 

I dont think it went perfectly for Bean because I dont think he expected us to do as well as we did....that is a credit to our coaching.

 

but the fact remains......the ammo is there.....we conceivably could walk out of this draft with Josh Rosen.

[Bornafan66]

6 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

Ridiculous. So when is it a good time to go after a qb?

It's this year for sure. We bringing in at least two new QBs. Wheather its two FA's, a FA and a draft pick or what ever. This isn't the regime to sit on their thumbs and hope something happens. I seriously doubt they reach in the draft. We're going to be the team to watch next week and in the draft for sure.

[lookylookyherecomescookie]

    If they think Rosen is a starter from day one, they will get him.  while I think trading up is almost always a losing proposition, if you think you can get a long term stud at qb cost becomes meaningless. 

 

    You can always fill in around your qb through the draft, through midlevel  FA signings, or through trades.  If you don't have enough draft choices because you spent so much to move up in the draft, you can meet your other needs through free agency, as you will be in good shape capwise when your usually most expensive player (qb) is on a rookie salary.

 

    There are always ways to get any position filled except qb.   For the right qb, cost doesn't matter.  The problem is identifying the right qb. If you've done that, you can dicker with a trade partner about what you have to give up to get your guy, but beyond that, the process is pretty much a foregone conclusion.  That's why I believe the Bills have already come to terms with the giants.  In the giants, the Bills will have a trade partner who can provide them what they need, (Rosen or Mayfield) and the Giants have a trade partner who can give them what they want (many draft choices, and possibly Cordy). There is no reason the details couldn't have been worked out already. Again, this is all predicated on Rosen being the choice.  ( Mayfield doesn't seem to be a Mcbean type of guy)

 

   The right qb is literally priceless

[gobills1212]

I just don't understand how it can even be argued any other way. Now that Tyrod is gone, the #1 argument is they have SO MANY HOLES to fill and trading away the picks don't allow for them to be filled. 

But the opposite is..... getting a FA guy drafting to fill holes... and then rather than filling holes w next yrs 90 mill in cap space - THEN we go try and buy a QB? Seems a little all too familiar. 

IF you love a guy, go get him. Let him learn this yr and go fill holes next year. Maybe it just makes too much sense... Maybe people are afraid of change? Either way, this argument scares the heck outta me...

[simpleman]

7 hours ago, PrimeTime101 said:

#1. Luck was as close to a sure thing as possible.. and further down you admit that thus #1 comment makes 0 sense.

#

 

 So many keep saying this is such a great year to trade up by "betting the farm" to draft a QB. I listed a few things that might actually define such a great year.   And then I showed how this was not such a great year, since other than desperation and wild hunches, few of those things that might define a good year exist this year for the Bills. 

Just having a quantity of flawed "maybes" and no "sure things" does not qualify this as a great year for trading up by "betting the farm". No one is mentioning any other reasons to define it as a great year, other than out of desperation and their wild hunches. I said it is not logical to "bet the farm" unless it is a sure thing. I don't think too many actually think any of the first tier QBs this year is close to even a Luck type "sure thing".  How does that invalidate  statement #1?

  A good gambler never " bets the farm" on anything short of a sure thing. He only makes reasonable bets that he is 100% positive he can afford to lose, when he is betting on "longshots". It it not about never trading up, it is about being rational and taking risks that are reasonably proportionate to the rewards, not "betting the farm" out of sheer desperation.

Edited March 11, 2018 by simpleman

[lookylookyherecomescookie]

1.  It's possible the Bills think one of the qb's is a sure thing.  They could be right, could be wrong, but they probably are better informed and better evaluators than anyone on        this board.  

2. a good gambler doesn't bet the farm because if he is wrong, game is over, he goes home (if he still has one).

      an nfl gm can bet the farm, because if he is wrong, especially early in his tenure, he still has his job tomorrow,and has (in Mcbean's case) several years to recover from his          mistake.

[bigduke6]

8 hours ago, Green Lightning said:

Gosh how swell of you!  We compliled picks to grab a franchise QB which haven't had for decades. Much smarter football people than you or I have deemed this an outstanding year to draft a QB. So you're weak-kneed on using our draft capital in a QB rich year. That's fine, maybe you can compile the lists of LBs, DBs or any position that made their team champions. If McBeane deems trading picks to move up, excellent. I'm tired of mediocrity. 

 

Hell yes. But I'd rather have the key position locked down to lead us out of suckage.  Bad teams with great QBs often contend. 

again, u seem to be using me to push your agenda and you didnt read anything i previously posted.  you cherrypicked one line out of context and went to town.

 

the discussion was about risk aversion.   take your weak knee crap elsewhere.   at no point did i say definately dont take a QB.

 

few of u around this forum seem to jump in late without taking the time to read the discussion thoroughly.   its like youre itching for a fight and gonna try to stir one up no matter what.

 

its a discussion,  not a winner take all.   grow up.

 

 

[Lurker]

11 hours ago, simpleman said:

 

1.) There is a generational talent at QB who is as close to a “sure thing” as possible.

 

 

I stopped reading right there.   I presume you're speaking about Rosen?

 

I have yet to hear any credible scout call him 'generational.'   Let's not get carried away on the talent pool available this year, even though it looks likely the Bills are going to draft a QB...

[Green Lightning]

17 minutes ago, bigduke6 said:

again, u seem to be using me to push your agenda and you didnt read anything i previously posted.  you cherrypicked one line out of context and went to town.

 

the discussion was about risk aversion.   take your weak knee crap elsewhere.   at no point did i say definately dont take a QB.

 

few of u around this forum seem to jump in late without taking the time to read the discussion thoroughly.   its like youre itching for a fight and gonna try to stir one up no matter what.

 

its a discussion,  not a winner take all.   grow up.

 

 

You're the belligerent one my friend

 I get along with everyone and even often calm the convo down. QB is a sensitive topic in these parts and bristling posts  beget bristling responses. Clearly we see this topic differently and I am excited for what's to come. I trust you are as well. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

57 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

I stopped reading right there.   I presume you're speaking about Rosen?

 

I have yet to hear any credible scout call him 'generational.'   Let's not get carried away on the talent pool available this year, even though it looks likely the Bills are going to draft a QB...

 

I think you're misunderstanding our "op" friend.  I think if you read again you'll see he's creating a list of reasons why we should NOT draft a QB this year, due to lack of "generational" talents worthy of trading our magnificant valuable picks.

[Ga boy]

4 hours ago, lookylookyherecomescookie said:

    If they think Rosen is a starter from day one, they will get him.  while I think trading up is almost always a losing proposition, if you think you can get a long term stud at qb cost becomes meaningless. 

 

    You can always fill in around your qb through the draft, through midlevel  FA signings, or through trades.  If you don't have enough draft choices because you spent so much to move up in the draft, you can meet your other needs through free agency, as you will be in good shape capwise when your usually most expensive player (qb) is on a rookie salary.

 

    There are always ways to get any position filled except qb.   For the right qb, cost doesn't matter.  The problem is identifying the right qb. If you've done that, you can dicker with a trade partner about what you have to give up to get your guy, but beyond that, the process is pretty much a foregone conclusion.  That's why I believe the Bills have already come to terms with the giants.  In the giants, the Bills will have a trade partner who can provide them what they need, (Rosen or Mayfield) and the Giants have a trade partner who can give them what they want (many draft choices, and possibly Cordy). There is no reason the details couldn't have been worked out already. Again, this is all predicated on Rosen being the choice.  ( Mayfield doesn't seem to be a Mcbean type of guy)

 

   The right qb is literally priceless

The right guy with the right stuff is priceless;  but, the price is too high for a maybe great.   I would trade our 2 firsts, and a 2nd, to move up to get a maybe, but nothing more.  We got more holes than swiss cheese.

[bigduke6]

4 hours ago, Green Lightning said:

You're the belligerent one my friend

 I get along with everyone and even often calm the convo down. QB is a sensitive topic in these parts and bristling posts  beget bristling responses. Clearly we see this topic differently and I am excited for what's to come. I trust you are as well. 

clearly you and i see the definition of belligerent differently.