DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, xRUSHx said: So after all this trading and moving players you are ok with this team once again using a backup QB from another team as it's starting QB. To wish for that one miracle, yippy not my business really and no real baring but you seem to be going right back down that negative trail. why presume the worst before anything even happens? are you going to be just as repetitive and negative with the "back up" rambling all the way up until draft day? you, I or no one knows at this point, all speculation but until the they fail at getting a qb, they have not failed. as I said, really not my business but 6 weeks is a long time to be negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 19, 2018 Author Share Posted March 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Chuck Wagon said: When there's a leak, you have to think about who the information benefits. In this case, it potentially benefits the Bills to have the Giants hear they are talking about #1. We clearly have a good business relationship with Cleveland, it's potentially likely Beane and Dorsey have talked about who is going #1 so the Bills know if it's worth going to #2 and as part of the dialogue Beane says "we wouldn't be upset if you told people we were talking about pick #1". It also wouldn't hurt the Browns to have the phones ringing about teams "asking for #1" and have them say "QBs are going 1-3, but we've got this 4th pick hanging out here too". Man, how different would life be if we just traded with Houston instead of KC, we are sitting at 4, potentially even at 2 already with just some minor consideration? Either Mahomes and Watson weren't that highly regarded in the draft last year compared to this group, or we got screwed only getting one future #1 moving down 17 spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Horseheads Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 53 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said: They already "fleeced' up out of Tyrod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 I'm against trading up for what cost would be. None of these quarterbacks is such a sure thing to warrant what it would require to get to top four picks. Everyone of these guys have enough question marks to make them a huge risk for the price. Seems like this would set our team back years if the pick doesn't turn out to be more than just a good quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, pgrace245 said: Most likely scenario is Bills trading for the Browns #4 pick and then trading that pick to the Giants for their #2. We get the 2nd spot and the giants still get Barkley. They know picks 1-3 are QB's. Great first post! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said: When there's a leak, you have to think about who the information benefits. In this case, it potentially benefits the Bills to have the Giants hear they are talking about #1. We clearly have a good business relationship with Cleveland, it's potentially likely Beane and Dorsey have talked about who is going #1 so the Bills know if it's worth going to #2 and as part of the dialogue Beane says "we wouldn't be upset if you told people we were talking about pick #1". It also wouldn't hurt the Browns to have the phones ringing about teams "asking for #1" and have them say "QBs are going 1-3, but we've got this 4th pick hanging out here too". Man, how different would life be if we just traded with Houston instead of KC, we are sitting at 4, potentially even at 2 already with just some minor consideration? Yeah it was mega-foolish for the Bills to wait until after the draft to hire Beane. They got a bunch of kudos for the timing........with some people saying other teams might do the same in the future?...........a weird conclusion which left me kinda' cross eyed. The situation now is that they are in a pickle because of a draft day decision last spring that the HC made final say on while playing de facto GM. As a result of that trade turning out to be the wrong one......Beane kinda' stepped into the box with one strike on him............he and McD are tied at the hip.........they should have just hired him last winter........Whaley knew he was gone once they hired McD anyway it's entirely possible he wasn't totally invested in the deal they made on draft day.........especially if(because) he wanted to take a QB. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 56 minutes ago, Success said: Due diligence. More and more I feel like we won’t be trading into the top 5. That is what I feel as well. As a businessman I pick up the phone if I see an opportunity and let the details tell me if any potentials are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, Radar said: I'm against trading up for what cost would be. None of these quarterbacks is such a sure thing to warrant what it would require to get to top four picks. Everyone of these guys have enough question marks to make them a huge risk for the price. Seems like this would set our team back years if the pick doesn't turn out to be more than just a good quarterback. How would it set our team back years? You can argue that pick 12, 56, and 65 are completely house money. Pick 12 is basically Cordy Glenn plus s trade down that netted you a top 10 CB. Pick 56 is the ghost of Sammy who we wouldn't have resigned anyway. Pick 65 is Tyrod who was replaced with a cheaper AJ McCarron. Oh, and we ended a 17 year playoff drought last year all while getting the salary cap in good shape. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsbackto81 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 I just hope next years 1st isn't part of the equation. 12, 22, 53 and next years first is just too much IMO. When was the last time 3 first round picks were part of a draft day trade up? Too lazy to look it up right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 19, 2018 Author Share Posted March 19, 2018 Just now, BuffaloRebound said: How would it set our team back years? You can argue that pick 12, 56, and 65 are completely house money. Pick 12 is basically Cordy Glenn plus s trade down that netted you a top 10 CB. Pick 56 is the ghost of Sammy who we wouldn't have resigned anyway. Pick 65 is Tyrod who was replaced with a cheaper AJ McCarron. Oh, and we ended a 17 year playoff drought last year all while getting the salary cap in good shape. Absolutely. They own other teams draft capital at 22, 56, 65, 96 and 166. If they have to go into next year they will have uber cap space to recoup non-QB talent they would have taken in the 1st. They purposely set it up so that it would NOT set them back to trade up for their guy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobills1212 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 22 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: That 1 next year is the deal breaker for me. It may be a top 10 pick in a draft with ELITE DL prospects. They are the next most impactful players. I’d continue adding assets from this draft before I gave up the chance for Oliver, Bosa or Gary. I will go as far as to say that I think their 2019 1st is the most valuable asset that they have. That's my line. 3 #1 isn't unheard of and as I have mentioned for me personally, I plan on it taking 3 and anything less is a pleasant surprise. Like I said, I like that it allows them to make picks both years as well rather than one of the years be depleted. Just different views and personal preferences. People say at all costs and that's not true. 3 #1 is my limit I'd be happy w. I'm excited to see how it plays out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRush Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said: I'll be surprised if the Browns move out of #1. Unless Dorsey wants to get fired, he is keeping #1 and taking Darnold. Cleveland has a history of passing on QB’s early in the draft. They won’t do it this year. Now I can see him trading out of #4, but Cleveland has so many picks as it is, I don’t see how that will help much. Maybe it’s a plan to package some picks to jump up earlier in rounds 1-3. It doesn’t make sense to me because if they stand pat, they can draft a QB and RB combo for the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobills1212 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 34 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said: Draft Day The Browns have to settle at QB, but they flip all their picks around to get Vontae Mack (Chubb) and Ray Jennings (Barkley) and commits to the underappreciated vet at QB, Dorsey then bangs the cap girl in the closet and sends flowers to his mom. I just watched that yesterday again bc I had an itch for draft stuff. Free w ads on vudu to boot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan17 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Hopefully the call was the see the cost of #1 and going from there they can have a barometer on what the 4th overall will cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 54 minutes ago, TheTruthHurts said: Sad part about this is it seems pick 2 is not available. I don't think it does at all. As I keep saying... I think Beane has known for some time what the price for #2 is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptnCoke11 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Browns aren’t trading #1 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 12 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: Yeah it was mega-foolish for the Bills to wait until after the draft to hire Beane. They got a bunch of kudos for the timing........with some people saying other teams might do the same in the future?...........a weird conclusion which left me kinda' cross eyed. The situation now is that they are in a pickle because of a draft day decision last spring that the HC made final say on while playing de facto GM. As a result of that trade turning out to be the wrong one......Beane kinda' stepped into the box with one strike on him............he and McD are tied at the hip.........they should have just hired him last winter........Whaley knew he was gone once they hired McD anyway it's entirely possible he wasn't totally invested in the deal they made on draft day.........especially if(because) he wanted to take a QB. The supposes the trade with Houston was available at #10. The story I hear and Peter King repeated on British TV was that the Texans had Watson as their #1 and Mahomes a close #2 (didn't like Trubisky at all according to him). While both were there they were comfortable to wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: I don't think it does at all. As I keep saying... I think Beane has known for some time what the price for #2 is. The value of #2 most likely changed after what transpired this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 8 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said: How would it set our team back years? You can argue that pick 12, 56, and 65 are completely house money. Pick 12 is basically Cordy Glenn plus s trade down that netted you a top 10 CB. Pick 56 is the ghost of Sammy who we wouldn't have resigned anyway. Pick 65 is Tyrod who was replaced with a cheaper AJ McCarron. Oh, and we ended a 17 year playoff drought last year all while getting the salary cap in good shape. I think our team has more holes in it apparently than many of our posters. Just now, Magox said: The value of #2 most likely changed after what transpired this weekend. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Just now, Magox said: The value of #2 most likely changed after what transpired this weekend. Yea that is certainly possible - it might have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts