For all who want to trade up so bad

[Bill_with_it]

21 hours ago, RPbillsfan said:

The majority of posters seem to want to employ a strategy of trading most of our picks for the right to draft "a franchise QB".

 

The Jets just made a move that almost ensures additional years of losing football with a young QB playing short handed with a weak roster and all the expectations in the world.  No offensive weapons to use, poor offensive line, holes all over the front 7 on defense.

 

The Bills are now in a position to do the opposite, draft to fill the roster with young cost-controlled players to add to the talent base they have.

 

Six picks in the first 96. Chance to get QB, LB, CB, DT, OL and WR.  Why would you choose the pathway the Jets are taking which pretty much ensures competition with the Dolphins for last place in the AFC East.

 

Love to read your thoughts on this.

My thoughts are we have seemingly a good gm for the first time in a long time. Im going to patiently see where he leads the team, because thats what adults do. 

[Boca BIlls]

21 hours ago, RPbillsfan said:

The majority of posters seem to want to employ a strategy of trading most of our picks for the right to draft "a franchise QB".

 

The Jets just made a move that almost ensures additional years of losing football with a young QB playing short handed with a weak roster and all the expectations in the world.  No offensive weapons to use, poor offensive line, holes all over the front 7 on defense.

 

The Bills are now in a position to do the opposite, draft to fill the roster with young cost-controlled players to add to the talent base they have.

 

Six picks in the first 96. Chance to get QB, LB, CB, DT, OL and WR.  Why would you choose the pathway the Jets are taking which pretty much ensures competition with the Dolphins for last place in the AFC East.

 

Love to read your thoughts on this.

They didnt ensure anything other than a chance at a franchise QB.

[SoTier]

7 hours ago, JerseyBills said:

I can get on board with everything Bills related. I'm not knowledgeable enough on cfb players to even post a mock but I definitely like the idea of sitting back or moving up to a spot that doesn't deplete all our draft capital, if it means drafting a highly coveted player.

 

My whole stance on QB is that you can ask 10 different members who have CFB knowledge and a case can be made for all of the big 5. I'm sure it's the same if you ask GM's and scouts,so I just don't see the justification in throwing away such quality draft capital when we can sit back , still get a QB , plus add 4-6 top 100 prospects. That's a recipe for short n long term success imo. 

 

Not blowing your load on one player who has just as many question marks as the next QB, that doesn't equate to consistent success , or the team this young,bright staff has envisioned for the Bills.

 

This is what is concerning about this year's crop of QBs: there's no truly outstanding prospect.  These QBs should have sorted themselves out in some kind of more or less static order this late in the game but that hasn't happened.  Darnold appears to be a lukewarm choice as  the best of a rather warty lot, all of whom have serious concerns.  That suggests that these QBs are more the products of hype than of solid performance.  Trading a lot of picks to get one of them may not be the best idea.

 

7 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

The Jets strategy may cause them problems the next two to three years. Us using that strategy would mean no franchise QB which would mean lots of 7-9 or 8-8 seasons until we get one, which could be a decade if we're very unlucky.

 

If they absolutely can't get one this year, trade back for picks next year and plan to draft somebody then.

 

We had a pretty good roster except for QB in Nix's last year and Whaley's first. What did it get us?

 

The Minnesota Vikings say "hi".  In case you didn't notice, the Vikes almost went to the Super Bowl with an UDFA QB signed as a backup.  Meanwhile, some teams with franchise QBs sucked or were mediocre like Baltimore, Cincinnati, Detroit, Oakland, San Diego, Tampa Bay, and Tennessee.   It takes more than a QB to win football games. 

 

Moreover, in recent years, there have been a significant number of "second tier" prospects that have turned out to be decent starters or better when given the same/similar opportunities usually only accorded first rounders: Andy Dalton, Tyrod Taylor, Russell Wilson, Kirk Cousins, Derek Carr, and Dak Prescott.  I didn't include Nick Foles because he only had one great season, but maybe in the right system he could be one again, so he might be still another second tier prospect who worked out. 

 

The Bills aren't doomed if they don't get one of the top QBs in this draft.  It's not like there won't be a new crop of college QBs next year, and sometimes good things come to those who wait ... like the Patriots gambling a sixth round pick on Tom Brady in 2000 or Packers scooping up Aaron Rodgers late in the 2005 draft or Seattle grabbing Russell Wilson in the 3rd round in 2012.  What the Bills need to do is keep their eyes open for promising QBs even if they think they already have one on the roster (they could always get a better one) rather than ignore QBs in the draft until they feel the need to draft one in the first round to placate the fan base.

Edited March 19, 2018 by SoTier

[The_Dude]

On 3/18/2018 at 11:56 AM, SoTier said:

 

The Jests MIGHT have the better QB.  Historically, most draft classes have yielded 1 quality starting QB with occasional classes yielding a second decent starter.  Most starting QBs, even supposed franchise QBs, resemble Jay Cutler, Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco or Ryan Tannehill more than they do future HOFers like Brees, Rivers or Rodgers. 

 

Obviously, a lot of Bills fans, especially the advocates of trading up at any cost, have failed to consider that about half of all first round QB prospects are more likely to bust than become franchise QBs by any reasonable definition. 

 

Adios.  Arrividerci.  Au revoir.  Sayonara.

 

Well, I’m more of a “Veni. Vidi. Vici.” kinda guy so it’s becoming obvious I picked the wrong team as the Bills are anything but “Veni. Vidi. Vici.”

 

So, vale. 

[MAJBobby]

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 6:53 AM, RPbillsfan said:

The majority of posters seem to want to employ a strategy of trading most of our picks for the right to draft "a franchise QB".

 

The Jets just made a move that almost ensures additional years of losing football with a young QB playing short handed with a weak roster and all the expectations in the world.  No offensive weapons to use, poor offensive line, holes all over the front 7 on defense.

 

The Bills are now in a position to do the opposite, draft to fill the roster with young cost-controlled players to add to the talent base they have.

 

Six picks in the first 96. Chance to get QB, LB, CB, DT, OL and WR.  Why would you choose the pathway the Jets are taking which pretty much ensures competition with the Dolphins for last place in the AFC East.

 

Love to read your thoughts on this.

So are the LA Rams and the Philly Eagles enduring years of losing football right now after their tradeup for Goff and Wentz?

[RPbillsfan]

2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

So are the LA Rams and the Philly Eagles enduring years of losing football right now after their tradeup for Goff and Wentz?

Goff and Wentz went to teams that had many of the pieces already in place.  First year was tough for each.  Then added resources to help build the teams for their current level of success.

 

Also if Goff & Wentz were in this draft they would be head and shoulders above the QB's in this draft.

 

Wentz would be much higher then Josh Allen, Goff would be higher ranked then Darnold.

 

So each year, situations each team is in developmentally help define success.

[MAJBobby]

18 minutes ago, RPbillsfan said:

Goff and Wentz went to teams that had many of the pieces already in place.  First year was tough for each.  Then added resources to help build the teams for their current level of success.

 

Also if Goff & Wentz were in this draft they would be head and shoulders above the QB's in this draft.

 

Wentz would be much higher then Josh Allen, Goff would be higher ranked then Darnold.

 

So each year, situations each team is in developmentally help define success.

So your telling me a Team that made the playoffs is going to have years of losing football because they trade up to get a QB.  That is not going to happen, might have down year next year and the HC even said that, but years of losing football when in 2019 there is 100M in cap space is laughable. And go look at Daniel Jeramiahs rankings guess who is not ranked higher than some of this years QBs.  Goff and Wentz.

 

https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/203276-daniel-jeremiahs-top-ten-qb-prospects-of-the-last-three-drafts/

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by MAJBobby

[What a Tuel]

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 10:22 PM, RFL said:

Yeah that Brady guy was pick #199.....what a hot mess he turned out to be......imagine picking him

 

A total of 3 QBs picked in rounds 4-7 have started in the Super Bowl in the last 30 years. You may like those odds, but I don't. 

[RFL]

Interesting take. Some late round nobodies if I might throw out there....

 

Tom Brady #199

Roger Staubach #129

Bart Starr #199

Joe Theismann #99

Mark Rypien #146

Matt Hasselbeck #187

Brad Johnson #227

Rich Gannon #98

Mark Brunell #118

Mark Bulger #168

 

All multiple Pro Bowlers except for Bulger (just 1 for him) I wont go into the SB wins/appearances.  I have not addressed late round 1, Rd 2 &3 QB picks and what those ‘nobodies’ might have done

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OldTimer1960]

On 3/18/2018 at 9:53 AM, RPbillsfan said:

The majority of posters seem to want to employ a strategy of trading most of our picks for the right to draft "a franchise QB".

 

The Jets just made a move that almost ensures additional years of losing football with a young QB playing short handed with a weak roster and all the expectations in the world.  No offensive weapons to use, poor offensive line, holes all over the front 7 on defense.

 

The Bills are now in a position to do the opposite, draft to fill the roster with young cost-controlled players to add to the talent base they have.

 

Six picks in the first 96. Chance to get QB, LB, CB, DT, OL and WR.  Why would you choose the pathway the Jets are taking which pretty much ensures competition with the Dolphins for last place in the AFC East.

 

Love to read your thoughts on this.

I’m aligned.

[Batman1876]

5 minutes ago, RFL said:

Interesting take. Some late round nobodies if I might throw out there....

 

Tom Brady #199

Roger Staubach #129

Bart Starr #199

Joe Theismann #99

Mark Rypien #146

Matt Hasselbeck #187

Brad Johnson #227

Rich Gannon #98

Mark Brunell #118

Mark Bulger #168

 

All multiple Pro Bowlers except for Bulger (just 1 for him) I wont go into the SB wins/appearances.  I have not addressed late round 1, Rd 2 &3 QB picks and what those ‘nobodies’ might have done

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 guys out of hundreds drafted in those later rounds.

[RFL]

1 minute ago, Batman1876 said:

10 guys out of hundreds drafted in those later rounds.

True, but it happens. Who said Beane will even be drafting a QB that late? Take a look at 2nd and 3rd rounders in the past......My point is if a good deal is there Beane bites, if not sit tight.  Keep in mind the huge cap space the Bills will have after this season. 

[slaphappy]

I don't know what the right answer is. Be much easier to take if we were already in the top 10. What confuses me is people saying we can fill spots with later picks after trading up. That idea seems dubious to me. Your giving up those picks moving up aren't you? Especially if trying to get up to #2.

[BuffaloBob]

1 hour ago, RFL said:

Interesting take. Some late round nobodies if I might throw out there....

 

Tom Brady #199

Roger Staubach #129

Bart Starr #199

Joe Theismann #99

Mark Rypien #146

Matt Hasselbeck #187

Brad Johnson #227

Rich Gannon #98

Mark Brunell #118

Mark Bulger #168

 

All multiple Pro Bowlers except for Bulger (just 1 for him) I wont go into the SB wins/appearances.  I have not addressed late round 1, Rd 2 &3 QB picks and what those ‘nobodies’ might have done

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With all due respect to Bart Starr, the man would never play in this league today (or at least not over the last 30 years) with his under 200 pound body.  He also had mostly losing seasons except those in which Vince Lombardi coached them.  This was a team with Paul Hornung and Jim Taylor running roughshod over everybody!

 

And Roger Staubach was drafted that late because he had a 6 year service commitment to the Navy ahead of him.  Dallas chose him and then waited 6 years until he was 27 to join them!!!!!!

 

Bulger was well under .500 as a starter over his  8 year career, and played three playoff games in which he went 1-2.  He had one really good year going 12-3.  Hi second of 2 pro bowl seasons he went 8-8.  Hardly a remarkable career.

 

Hasselbeck was 85-75 as a starter, and went 5-6 in the playoffs, including one Super Bowl in which he lost with a QBR of 67.  One really good season of 13-3, two at 10-6, and the rest was mediocrity at best.  Again, not a nobody, but hardly remarkable.

 

Gannon had a middling career except for 3 seasons with Oakland, and that was his 13-15 seasons!  In his other 15 seasons he was in the league he was 43-41.

 

Brad Johnson won a Superbowl but was 1-3 in playoffs except for the SuperBowl year.

 

Brunell was 78-73 as a starter.  He did win a Super Bowl at 39. 

 

Rypien also won a Superbowl, and had a decent 3-4 years, but then again so did Trent Dilfer.

 

All this says is that, if you ignore the huge number of players chosen this late and the anomolies that were Starr and Stauback from a bygone era, and if you ignore the really small percentage of guys that actually turned out to be mostly serviceable at best, except for Brady, there really ain't much to get too excited here over all of those years.

Edited March 30, 2018 by BuffaloBob

[noacls]

On 3/18/2018 at 6:32 PM, Reed83HOF said:

 I would go all in this year to go to 2 and keep next year's picks at all costs. We have $100 in cap space next year and if we have a full draft with our top QB, I can live with it. We blew one draft during a tear down....Obviously this is if we are really convinced on this one player, if you are - go all-in...

Dont know how to link this im over 40. Its from spotrac. Bills do not have a 100 mil in cap space in 2019 with free agent signings. 

[Reed83HOF]

3 minutes ago, noacls said:

Dont know how to link this im over 40. Its from spotrac. Bills do not have a 100 mil in cap space in 2019 with free agent signings. 

This post is 10 days old, and 10 days ago we were right around there...It is now about $63million

[noacls]

5 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

This post is 10 days old, and 10 days ago we were right around there...It is now about $63million

Got ya. Not trying to cause drama. Just putting it out there brother been seeing that 100 mil in a few post

[OCinBuffalo]

On 3/18/2018 at 10:02 AM, N.Y. Orangeman said:

 

This really isn't that difficult...

 

I am sick of seeing this used as an argument. Why? It is statistical garbage. It pretends to prove a causal relationship based on probability, when all it does is prove: intent. If I pick a random place to stand outside once an hour, and change every hour, or, I intentionally stand in the street all day, my "chances" of getting hit by a car go up. Well, no ****, Sherlock! 

 

This nonsense pretends that picking a QB in an NFL draft is a random event, when it patently is not. Teams INTEND to pick QBs high, especially if they get a top 5 pick, for the obvious reason that: the best QBs are still available to be picked. It also refuses to control for the fact that teams trade up/down. So, a team trading up to get #1-#5...actually drafts a QB once they get there, not a kicker? Yes, and there's a "chance" that water is wet, too!

 

There is no chance involved when a team 1) has control over the outcome at their spot == pick a QB/another player/trade, 2) foreknowledge of the available players and 3) foreknowledge of the picks before them, but no control over them, other than trading for them, which is, again, INTENTIONAL.

 

1/1, 10/10, 100/100 times ALL teams would have drafted Andrew Luck as the #1 player in that NFL draft(even if they wanted to trade down, because: no trading partner). But, all 32 teams don't get a chance to draft at #1. Only 1 team does. And, 5 teams don't get to pick Andrew Luck, only 1 team does. Thus, the probability of choosing a "likely to succeed in NFL QB" goes down exponentially as we move from #1-#32 because they get picked. If a draft only has 2 "likely to succeed" QBs, then they WILL be taken in 1-5, and the rest of the QBs will be taken: later. Duh!

 

Thus, these statistics are garbage because all they prove is that a tautology is: tautological. Every team needs the best QB they can get, so, they tend to draft them high, IF they can. Also, teams tend to miss on high drafted QBs, about 1/3 of the time, even though they intentionally draft them in spots 1-5.

 

So, please, enough with this crap.

 

EDIT: An example of real probability: what % chance does Josh Rosen have to 1) make an NFL team, 2) have a winning season in his first 3 years, 3) make/win in the playoffs, 4) make/win the SB. One can do the research and come up with %s for each, but, they be: % chances, hence probabilities. 

 

A team sitting in the top 5, that truly needs a QB, has a 100% chance of taking one, a probability of 1.0, a certainty == the obvious. We learn nothing from stating the obvious, to ourselves or others.

 

Thus the gamble is always on the player himself, and never on when he was picked.

Edited March 30, 2018 by OCinBuffalo

[N.Y. Orangeman]

10 hours ago, OCinBuffalo said:

I am sick of seeing this used as an argument. Why? It is statistical garbage. It pretends to prove a causal relationship based on probability, when all it does is prove: intent. If I pick a random place to stand outside once an hour, and change every hour, or, I intentionally stand in the street all day, my "chances" of getting hit by a car go up. Well, no ****, Sherlock! 

 

This nonsense pretends that picking a QB in an NFL draft is a random event, when it patently is not. Teams INTEND to pick QBs high, especially if they get a top 5 pick, for the obvious reason that: the best QBs are still available to be picked. It also refuses to control for the fact that teams trade up/down. So, a team trading up to get #1-#5...actually drafts a QB once they get there, not a kicker? Yes, and there's a "chance" that water is wet, too!

 

There is no chance involved when a team 1) has control over the outcome at their spot == pick a QB/another player/trade, 2) foreknowledge of the available players and 3) foreknowledge of the picks before them, but no control over them, other than trading for them, which is, again, INTENTIONAL.

 

1/1, 10/10, 100/100 times ALL teams would have drafted Andrew Luck as the #1 player in that NFL draft(even if they wanted to trade down, because: no trading partner). But, all 32 teams don't get a chance to draft at #1. Only 1 team does. And, 5 teams don't get to pick Andrew Luck, only 1 team does. Thus, the probability of choosing a "likely to succeed in NFL QB" goes down exponentially as we move from #1-#32 because they get picked. If a draft only has 2 "likely to succeed" QBs, then they WILL be taken in 1-5, and the rest of the QBs will be taken: later. Duh!

 

Thus, these statistics are garbage because all they prove is that a tautology is: tautological. Every team needs the best QB they can get, so, they tend to draft them high, IF they can. Also, teams tend to miss on high drafted QBs, about 1/3 of the time, even though they intentionally draft them in spots 1-5.

 

So, please, enough with this crap.

 

EDIT: An example of real probability: what % chance does Josh Rosen have to 1) make an NFL team, 2) have a winning season in his first 3 years, 3) make/win in the playoffs, 4) make/win the SB. One can do the research and come up with %s for each, but, they be: % chances, hence probabilities. 

 

A team sitting in the top 5, that truly needs a QB, has a 100% chance of taking one, a probability of 1.0, a certainty == the obvious. We learn nothing from stating the obvious, to ourselves or others.

 

Thus the gamble is always on the player himself, and never on when he was picked.

OMG...lol.  Speechless.  Best wishes and moving on..

[mrags]

Because the most important player on a franchise is their franchise QB. Hell, it’s generally the only position in sports where the term “franchise” is labeled when you have one. Some may consider LT added into that. But nobody is talking about their “franchise” RB, or “franchise” WR. Quarterback is the only position in all of sports that gets that title. And it’s the hardest one to find and by far the most important. 

[KRT88]

On 3/18/2018 at 9:53 AM, RPbillsfan said:

The majority of posters seem to want to employ a strategy of trading most of our picks for the right to draft "a franchise QB".

 

The Jets just made a move that almost ensures additional years of losing football with a young QB playing short handed with a weak roster and all the expectations in the world.  No offensive weapons to use, poor offensive line, holes all over the front 7 on defense.

 

The Bills are now in a position to do the opposite, draft to fill the roster with young cost-controlled players to add to the talent base they have.

 

Six picks in the first 96. Chance to get QB, LB, CB, DT, OL and WR.  Why would you choose the pathway the Jets are taking which pretty much ensures competition with the Dolphins for last place in the AFC East.

 

Love to read your thoughts on this.

I know, trading a ton of picks for a QB did the Rams and Eagle so much damage they may never recover.

 

OH wait, the Rams made the playoff last year and the Eagles won the Super Bowl.  Oh, wait, sorry guess it didn't hurt them. 

[nedboy7]

On 3/18/2018 at 8:05 AM, Mr. WEO said:

 

They have had years of losing football because they have had bad QBs (minus the Fitz year, ironically).  So if they turn out to draft a significant upgrade at QB, they are doomed to lose more games than if they did not?

 

 

Really?? The Giants are the only team? 

 

Really?? It was the qb all along?  No other position contributes to wins?  

[BillsMafioso]

1 hour ago, KRT88 said:

I know, trading a ton of picks for a QB did the Rams and Eagle so much damage they may never recover.

 

OH wait, the Rams made the playoff last year and the Eagles won the Super Bowl.  Oh, wait, sorry guess it didn't hurt them. 

Agreed. I respect the OP opinions though, despite undermining the importance of a good QB (let’s go jacksonvill jaguars strategy, NOT). Just ask Brian Daboll, his offenses really did good when he had QBs he didn’t want under center (sarcasm). 

Edited March 30, 2018 by BillsMafioso

[Mojo44]

1 hour ago, mrags said:

Because the most important player on a franchise is their franchise QB. Hell, it’s generally the only position in sports where the term “franchise” is labeled when you have one. Some may consider LT added into that. But nobody is talking about their “franchise” RB, or “franchise” WR. Quarterback is the only position in all of sports that gets that title. And it’s the hardest one to find and by far the most important. 

 There is no position on any team sport played on this planet that is even close to being as important as the quarterback is to football. The closest, maybe, and it’s not even that close, is the starting pitcher in baseball. But they change every game and get relieved every game. So, I guess what I’m saying is, I agree with you. 

[26CornerBlitz]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

 

Sit and wait to add another year before trying to fill the void?  Doesn't look like Beane is thinking that way. 

[Madmax09]

Well the eagles gave up a lot for Wentz and 2 yrs later they won a Super Bowl 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

 

Really?? It was the qb all along?  No other position contributes to wins?  

 

 

Sometimes I don't know if posters like this are serious with comments like this....

[Tatonka68]

12. Mason Rudolph QB Oklahoma St, some say his supporting cast made him look good, well we brought them along also. LOL 

22. Leighton Vander Esch ILB Boise St

53. James Daniels C, Iowa

56. James Washington WR Oklahoma St

65. Kevin Toliver CB LSU

96. Marcel Ateman WR, Oklahoma St

121. BJ Hill DT, NC State

166. Dorian O;Daniel OLB Clemson

187.  Colby Gossett G Appalachian ST

 

[Buffalo Ballin]

On 3/18/2018 at 7:18 AM, terrytate said:

 

 

I am going to let you in on a little secret.  I found a way to improve the offensive line, the wr's, the te, the rb's, and The DEFENSE.  Guess how.  

 

Getting a stud qb, that is how.  

Tell that to Andrew Luck.

[terrytate]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Ballin said:

Tell that to Andrew Luck.

 

you mean the team that finished 2-14 one year  that drafted andrew luck , then proceeded to finish 11-5 the next year?

 

Then that same qb misses the whole season and voila 4-12.  

 

A good qb makes every position on offense and potentially on defense better. 

[Buffalo Ballin]

2 hours ago, terrytate said:

 

you mean the team that finished 2-14 one year  that drafted andrew luck , then proceeded to finish 11-5 the next year?

 

Then that same qb misses the whole season and voila 4-12.  

 

A good qb makes every position on offense and potentially on defense better. 

No. That's not what I meant. I'm talking about right now. Luck got injured because of a crap team. They didn't have a RB, O-Line, Defense, WR, none of that. Having a star QB cover up those holes, but he doesn't fill the void. Get it together, man.

[boater]

Agree with OP's concept.

 

The Jet's imbalanced their roster investment to fill one position.

 

Converse approach: I think the Bills can get a serviceable future QB at pick 12, and fill the rest of their skilled roster needs with remaining draft picks.

 

Also, next year the Bills are out of contractual hell with regard to the salary cap. That will bring in 2019 free agents.

 

It's a good time to be a Bills fan.

[What a Tuel]

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 10:31 PM, OCinBuffalo said:

I am sick of seeing this used as an argument. Why? It is statistical garbage. It pretends to prove a causal relationship based on probability, when all it does is prove: intent. If I pick a random place to stand outside once an hour, and change every hour, or, I intentionally stand in the street all day, my "chances" of getting hit by a car go up. Well, no ****, Sherlock! 

 

The point isn't that it is random or chance. The point is that there is a proven relationship that the consensus top picks are successful more often than the unconventional ones like Wilson or Brady.

 

In other words while the speculators get it wrong a lot, they do not get it wrong so often that we should ignore the top rated QBs to go dumpster diving in the 5th round because...brady.

 

[mileena]

On 3/18/2018 at 7:08 AM, xRUSHx said:

I am worried about Arz.jumping us for Rudolph or Miami grabbing him. He is a big pocket QB with success and a very good college record. IMO he is who they are targeting.  I would love to get Darnold, Rosen or Mayfield but would be fine if they end up with a boat load of picks and Rudolph at12.

 

How is AZ going to jump us when they have way less ammunition?

[What a Tuel]

Just now, mileena said:

 

How is AZ going to jump us when they have way less ammunition?

 

My biggest fear is wasting draft picks to defend pick 12 instead of moving up.

[Boatdrinks]

5 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

My biggest fear is wasting draft picks to defend pick 12 instead of moving up.

We can't assume a move up is possible. Whether due to a lack of a team willing to move down to 12 or if the player is even available at a reachable spot. There are too many variables at this point. Any team in close proximity to the Bills pick at 12 is a minimal threat of beating the Bills to a deal. The Bills could probably give a better offer. 

[nedboy7]

On 3/30/2018 at 10:51 AM, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Sometimes I don't know if posters like this are serious with comments like this....

 

I think you can figure this one out. 

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

I've begun to think recently that all this "moving up" stuff is just smokescreen.  I'm beginning to think they like McCarron and are ready to ride with him (at least for this year).  I think this because I looked at our roster and, reality, we have a lot of holes to fill.  I'm beginning to think they moved up to twelve for a specific player (not a QB). 

 

With six picks in the first three rounds, we can immediately fill (or at least try) to fill all these holes.

 

But nothing McBeane does surprises me anymore.

 

If we move up, it will be for Rosen.  I'm sure of that.

 

We shall see.  But don't be surprised if we stand pat and just draft six players in the first three rounds.

Edited April 1, 2018 by {::'KayCeeS::}

[OCinBuffalo]

On 3/30/2018 at 11:32 PM, What a Tuel said:

 

The point isn't that it is random or chance. The point is that there is a proven relationship that the consensus top picks are successful more often than the unconventional ones like Wilson or Brady.

 

In other words while the speculators get it wrong a lot, they do not get it wrong so often that we should ignore the top rated QBs to go dumpster diving in the 5th round because...brady.

 

No. There isn't. Again: intent destroys any notion of "causality" or "relationship" or whatever. The fact that each player, once picked, is no longer available after each pick destroys the chances of every other team making that pick. Nothing is proven, except a tautology: drafting QB1s, before others get a chance to draft them, is more likely to happen...the higher you are in the draft. No kidding. Contrapositive: a team is less likely to draft a QB1, the lower they are in the first round. Duh! Why? Because all of the QB1s are already drafted.

 

Teams intend to draft QB high, and that has worked 19/33 times. Then, the crap chart starts adding other stats, that have no causal relationship, or even a correlative one, to the draft statistic, which itself proves nothing more than the obvious.

 

Teams intend to draft RBs, Gs, WRs, and DBs, in the 2nd round. Does drafting those players in those spots, and not in the 1st, 3rd, or 4th cause them to be make the Pro Bowl? How about win the SB? 

Edited April 3, 2018 by OCinBuffalo

[Haplo848]

On 3/18/2018 at 9:53 AM, RPbillsfan said:

The majority of posters seem to want to employ a strategy of trading most of our picks for the right to draft "a franchise QB".

 

The Jets just made a move that almost ensures additional years of losing football with a young QB playing short handed with a weak roster and all the expectations in the world.  No offensive weapons to use, poor offensive line, holes all over the front 7 on defense.

 

The Bills are now in a position to do the opposite, draft to fill the roster with young cost-controlled players to add to the talent base they have.

 

Six picks in the first 96. Chance to get QB, LB, CB, DT, OL and WR.  Why would you choose the pathway the Jets are taking which pretty much ensures competition with the Dolphins for last place in the AFC East.

 

Love to read your thoughts on this.

 So pretty much, you want us to take a draft strategy from the Browns' playbook and go winless because were don't have a QB and passed on all the really good ones?