Dan Patrick: Bills have called Browns about #1 pick

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

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.

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

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.

[Mike in Horseheads]

53 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

They already "fleeced' up out of Tyrod

[Radar]

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.

[3rdnlng]

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!

[BADOLBILZ]

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.

[RochesterRob]

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.

[BuffaloRebound]

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. 

[billsbackto81]

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

[YoloinOhio]

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. 

[gobills1212]

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

[BuffaloRush]

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

[gobills1212]

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!

[BillsFan17]

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.

[GunnerBill]

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.  

[CaptnCoke11]

Browns aren’t trading #1 lol

[GunnerBill]

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.  

[Magox]

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.

 

 

[Radar]

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.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Magox said:

 

The value of #2 most likely changed after what transpired this weekend.

 

Yea that is certainly possible - it might have. 

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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.  

Ahh, you have the benefit of British TV.  They don't carry that on BBC America, alas.

 

Since you seem to have a high opinion of Rosen, do you have any significant concerns about his pocket awareness or durability in general.  I'm not really worried about the quirky personality, but the former give me some pause.

[Success]

I think we’re SOL on the first 3 and possibly even the first 4.

 

Browns have to go QB at 1 now.  They are literally the only team who has had a harder time finding a franchise QB than the Bills.  Why would they trade their best chance in years?

 

Eli has 2 more years at best.  Gints would be foolish to trade.

 

We never really had a shot for the top 5.  Indy wants Chubb and weren’t going to trade down as far as 12.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Success

[BuffaloRebound]

7 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

The value of #2 most likely changed after what transpired this weekend.

 

 

 

Very possible it's now worth less since a team going after a QB just traded a whole lot more draft capital than they received to a team whose not taking a QB.  That means less trade capital searching for a QB trade-up.  

Edited March 19, 2018 by BuffaloRebound

[richardb1952]

I believe the Bills have 1 QB they feel is worth moving up for.  If Browns take him at 1, Bills will stay at 12.  If the QB the Bills covet is available at 2, Bills will do everything they can, up to a point, to move up to 2.  A trade with Giants, if Giants are willing, would be contingent on who is available at 2. I believe the value Bills placed on # 2 - #6 rated QBs on their board is not worth trading up for as one of those QBs are likely to be there at 12 or close enough to trade up for in the 9 - 10 range if the board really goes crazy.

Edited March 19, 2018 by richardb1952

[Da webster guy]

i'm sure they called about the #4 pick as well.   

 

We certainly don't need to be #1 here, it's not like there's a clear cut choice at that spot anyway.

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

39 minutes ago, turftoe said:

I think you may be right. Seems that the 2nd pick makes more sense but maybe Gettleman isn't willing to trade down. I think the Jets must have tried to get to #1 and #2 before making the deal with Indy. All is not lost. I think McCarron is going to do better than people think. Don't reach for a QB if a franchise guy isn't there. 

Even if the Jets did try to trade with the Giants (I don’t think they did), they do not have the same draft capital as the Bills. They may have only been open to parting with those 2nd rounders. Giants may have told them it starts with 2 1sts and goes from there, even if only to 6. Because they know they will get 12 and 22 plus more from the Bills. And IF the giants were willing to talk to the Jets about a trade they very likely would squeeze them extra tight with the intra-market rivalry and microscope. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by YoloinOhio

[Kirby Jackson]

20 minutes ago, gobills1212 said:

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

As weird as it sounds I would probably be okay with a 2020 first. I just think that after QB, elite front 4 players are probably the next most important thing. The 2019 draft has stars in that area.  Those guys never hit FA either. You have to add that in the draft (like a top QB).

 

Get your QB now, a star pass rusher next year and keep filling in the roster with FA and the rest of your picks. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[RochesterRob]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

  Until we learn otherwise the leak most likely came from Cleveland so as to drive the price up on the number 1 pick.  It is pointless at present for Beane to tip his hand as to the Bills intentions.  Again, Beane calling the Browns is due diligence at this point and nothing more.

[wppete]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

I'll be surprised if the Browns move out of #1. 

 

I agree. There is no way they move out of #1.

 

Our only hope at trading up and getting one of the top QBs is # 2 Giants or #4 Browns. No other way around this. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by wppete

[gobills1212]

2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

As weird as it sounds I would probably be okay with a 2020 first. I just think that after QB, elite front 4 players is probably the next most important thing. The 2019 draft has stars in that area.  Those guys never hit FA either. You have to add that in the draft (like a top QB).

 

Get your QB now, a star pass rusher next year and keep filling in the roster with FA and the rest of your picks. 

 i get it... but beggers cant be choosers to a degree and IF the LOVE a guy, you need to make your pick. Sometimes you cant have both. 

Who knows if it will come to that, but for the sake of this conversation the potential FQB might have to be in the front seat. I cant imagine a pick 2 yrs down the line has much value at the moment esp bc its easier for us to part w

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Ahh, you have the benefit of British TV.  They don't carry that on BBC America, alas.

 

Since you seem to have a high opinion of Rosen, do you have any significant concerns about his pocket awareness or durability in general.  I'm not really worried about the quirky personality, but the former give me some pause.

 

Pocket awareness, no.  He isn't the best in the draft in that regard but there is nothing there that concerns me.  The durability question - sure. You need to protect him with a good line and limit the hits teams get on him... but I don't know that it is any more true with Rosen than with the others really.  

[Kirby Jackson]

5 minutes ago, gobills1212 said:

 i get it... but beggers cant be choosers to a degree and IF the LOVE a guy, you need to make your pick. Sometimes you cant have both. 

Who knows if it will come to that, but for the sake of this conversation the potential FQB might have to be in the front seat. I cant imagine a pick 2 yrs down the line has much value at the moment esp bc its easier for us to part w

I’d give up 12, 22, 53, 56, and 65 before I’d give up the 2019 1st. It isn’t a case of “beggars can’t be choosers.” The Bills have tons of assets that can get a deal done. They will be picking and choosing which to include. This isn’t a matter of having to sacrifice that pick. That is a choice at this point. It will be a mistake to keep 22 or 53 or whatever instead of the 2019 1st. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Pocket awareness, no.  He isn't the best in the draft in that regard but there is nothing there that concerns me.  The durability question - sure. You need to protect him with a good line and limit the hits teams get on him... but I don't know that it is any more true with Rosen than with the others really.  

Thanks.  I'm under the impression this isn't a particularly deep draft at oline.  Not sure what resources might be needed to get Rosen, but I hope we have something left over to substantially improve RT.  (I am also hoping Miller has a resurgent year under a different OC.)

[BillsFan17]

7 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Until we learn otherwise the leak most likely came from Cleveland so as to drive the price up on the number 1 pick.  It is pointless at present for Beane to tip his hand as to the Bills intentions.  Again, Beane calling the Browns is due diligence at this point and nothing more.

I feel like the phrase "due diligence" is being thrown around like crazy lately.

 

Beane said Buffalo wasn't moving on from Tyrod unless they had a plan in place. They then trade Tyrod and move up to the 12th overall. 

 

We are beyond "due diligence," especially after the Jets moved up and forced every QB hungry teams hand.

 

Beane needs to be making serious inquiries at this point or run the risk of possibly being leaped over yet again.

[BillsfanAZ]

If Beane did call about the #1 pick then he already has an idea of what it will cost to get the #1 pick. The #2 pick may look better knowing it will be cheaper but not cheap. I hope they have one player that they will be willing to spend the capital on and not just getting a top 5 pick so they can get one of the top 4 Qbs. If anyone could work out a deal with Gettleman it would be Beane. Maybe they have a deal ready to go if the Browns do not pick the player the Bills want. 

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Thanks.  I'm under the impression this isn't a particularly deep draft at oline.  Not sure what resources might be needed to get Rosen, but I hope we have something left over to substantially improve RT.  (I am also hoping Miller has a resurgent year under a different OC.)

 

I think if you want a decent OL it has to be 1st or 2nd round.  Good class at the top, drops off quite sharply after that.  Interior OL probably stronger than OT.  

[BillsFan4]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

That’s where I am at. I was positive that the Bills were going up. I am not positive now but think that it is probably still likely. They will ask on 1 & 2. I suspect that the Bills are trying to get up without using the 2019 1st. Something like this: 12, 22, 53, 65 and a 2019 4th (we have 2 of those). That would be a nice return for the Giants. The Giants would have 12, 22, 34, 53, 65, 66, 102, 135, 139, 176 (plus the pick next year). That would give them crazy flexibility too. They can move all over the board if there are guys that they like.

 

The Bills keep 56 and 96 along with next year’s 1. They will get their QB and maybe 2 other starters out of this class. 

Do you think that will get a move from 12 to 2 done? I would absolutely love it if it did! I'd be all over that trade but I'm just not sure that gets it done, especially now that the Jets set the market so ridiculously high. 

 

https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart

 

According to the new draft value chart (which IIRC is the one you like to use) the trade you offered would be 793.48 points, and the #2 overall is worth 717.17. So maybe that does get it done.

 

But the Jets set the market crazy high. Again, looking at the new draft value chart, the 3rd overall pick is worth 514.33. 

 

If all my math is correct, The Jets gave up 725.88 in picks this year, plus whatever you value their 2nd at next year. Say you value it as the 6th pick of the 3rd round (1 round lower than this year for it being a year out), it's worth 69.82. 

 

That would be 795.7 draft points given up for a pick worth 514.33. So they overpaid by 281.37. 

 

For the Bills to match that offer, they'd have to give up 998 draft points for the #2 pick (which is valued at 717.17)

 

Their 6 picks in the first 3 rounds are worth a total of 921.13. That leaves another 76.87 points to make up to match the Jets offer (which probably means adding another 2nd next year, possibly even our 1st to make up the difference between moving from 12 to 2 ans falling out of the top 10 completely, (where as the Jets only moved from 6-3)). But just say a 2nd for arguments sake...

 

If the Giants are looking for someone to match the Jets overpayment, we probably can't do it. Not unless Beane sacrifices his entire draft. 

[gobills1212]

9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I’d give up 12, 22, 53, 56, and 65 before I’d give up the 2019 1st. It isn’t a case of “beggars can’t be choosers.” The Bills have tons of assets that can get a deal done. They will be picking and choosing which to include. This isn’t a matter of having to sacrifice that pick. That is a choice at this point. It will be a mistake to keep 22 or 53 or whatever instead of the 2019 1st. 

i dont even disagree... but everything we are saying here is totally theoretical.

Giants fans want 4 #1s. Bills fans think it should take 2 #1s. It could very well shake out somewhere in between.

BUT if its 3 1's as a starting point you are either in or you aren't.

I'm all in, you are not. Thats ok bc we dont make the call and may never know the discussion. Only the final #'s and we can judge from there

[Chuck Wagon]

19 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I’d give up 12, 22, 53, 56, and 65 before I’d give up the 2019 1st. It isn’t a case of “beggars can’t be choosers.” The Bills have tons of assets that can get a deal done. They will be picking and choosing which to include. This isn’t a matter of having to sacrifice that pick. That is a choice at this point. It will be a mistake to keep 22 or 53 or whatever instead of the 2019 1st. 

 

 

Yeah, I just don't get this mindset of being willing to give up a 2019 1st over #53.  I don't know if people have convinced themselves this is a Super Bowl contender if only they have a 2nd round pick this year, so what does it matter giving up pick #32, or what.  

[Dr. Who]

4 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

If the Giants are looking for someone to match the Jets overpayment, we probably can't do it. Not unless Beane sacrifices his entire draft. 

I don't think any rational front office is going to follow the Jets' lead here.  Offer a reasonable deal.  Overpay some because qb comes with a premium, but if Gmen want the Jets to set the market, I suspect you have to walk away.