The Bills Have NOT Contacted The Browns Regarding The No. 1 Pick, Per League Source

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Who knows what was offered? The Texans were set on Drafting Dunta Robinson. They took David Carr a couple years before. Seems they weren't the smartest group. 

 

I fully understand what Im posting is easier said than done. I fully understand it takes two to tango with trades.

 

However, I also fully understand the Bills, as a franchise, have always undervalued the QB position. They've NEVER, not once, picked a QB with their original 1st pick of the draft. The times they "tried" to go up and get a guy, they didnt try hard enough and it didnt work out. They've been happy to settle for 2nd-tier guys, and the results are as would be expected.

 

I'm counting on still having a chance to get to #2. If the Giants arent selling, and the Browns arent selling, the FO knows this by now, and they really screwed the pooch.

[Thurman#1]

21 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

You ASSUMED they traded back to get a QB even though Beane wasn't even the GM yet.    You know what you get when you ASSUME, dude.

 

 

In this case, you get correct.

 

Virtually all the evidence points that way.

[SoTier]

51 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

I said it in another thread (no clue which one since there are a million of them on here), this FO will definitely be on the hot seat in fans eyes as a failure if they don't aggressively go after a QB. Last year, kick the can to this year, trade TT, only sign AJ, allow a division rival to upstage you - nope they will get roasted - rightfully so. Also whether they like it or not, just as the no playoffs in 17 years vs Terry's 3 years (only counting his ownership period) will not erase the failures of every administration after Polian's to secure a franchise guy.

 

You already see them getting hammered on twitter. Saturday they posted a Happy St Patty's day tweet and every comment was this is what you are posting? The Jets just got pick 3, you better get to 2 and not screw up QB. Almost every tweet is like that, you can safely assume those comments have been filtered back up (not that they need to listen to the fans, but the point is being made).

 

Can you imagine them trying to sell us Rudolph or Jackson? I can't...

 

 

 

Frankly, I don't want the Bills drafting a QB just to placate the idiot fan base.  They did that all during Ralph Wilson's ownership, and the result was a few years of almost winning it all bookended by seemingly endless years of mediocrity or worse.  I want the Bills drafting to build a winning team.  If they don't like the QBs in this draft enough to pay a ransom for any of them, that's fine with me.  Use the picks to build the rest of the team, which they'll have to do sooner or later anyways.

 

22 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

No but McD was and he was calling the shots...Beane and McD are tied at the hip

 

Another ASSUMPTION without any kind of proof.

 

15 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I dont disagree with anything youve said here. My point wasnt that Watson is so great. My point is that they purposely ignored ALL qb prospects last year until McD had his GM here.

 

Well guess what? McD's GM is here now. So it's time to go hard at a QB.

 

Actually, only Trubiskey was considered a true first round prospect.  Both Mahomes and Watson had significant question marks that made them less than great prospects.  If they were that great, they'd have gone in the top 5.  That they went in the first round doesn't change the evaluations; it just proves that two teams were desperate enough to gamble a lot reaching for very risky prospects.

 

BTW, will you be around if the the Bills "go hard at a QB" who turns out to be a Joey Harrington or Vince Young?  About half of all QBs taken after the #1 pick bust.

 

 

 

 

[Thurman#1]

18 minutes ago, MDH said:

 

Which is just the way the Bills want it I’m sure. Wouldn’t surprise me if they’re the ones purposely putting out contradictory information.

 

 

Is it contradictory? I haven't gone back and checked, but I think the first story said that they had called, and the second story said they haven't had "discussions," correct? I could definitely be wrong but that's what I thought I read.

[Boatdrinks]

Just now, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I fully understand what Im posting is easier said than done. I fully understand it takes two to tango with trades.

 

However, I also fully understand the Bills, as a franchise, have always undervalued the QB position. They've NEVER, not once, picked a QB with their original 1st pick of the draft. The times they "tried" to go up and get a guy, they didnt try hard enough and it didnt work out. They've been happy to settle for 2nd-tier guys, and the results are as would be expected.

 

I'm counting on still having a chance to get to #2. If the Giants arent selling, and the Browns arent selling, the FO knows this by now, and they really screwed the pooch.

We all know what was done in the past. The Bills have passed on QBs too many times ( mostly not first rounders though) that turned out to be good to decent starters. Brees, Flacco, Dalton, Wilson come to mind. They haven't tried to move up that I know of other than the attempt by Donahoe in '04. Though almost every GM during/ post Kelly has tried to address it beginning with Butler ( 1st round pick for R Johnson)  Donahoe ( as mentioned). Nix might be the greatest offender- while there was no way CAR was trading out of drafting Newton, he passed on several good starters. Maybe they've just had too many GMs?  It's a big assumption to think that Beane doesn't place a high value on getting a QB. The trades and accumulation of picks indicate otherwise. It still doesn't mean a team with a high enough pick will want to move down that far. If blame is placed anywhere on the current group, it has to lie with McDermott passing on taking a QB at ten last year when the cost was simply one draft pick. He took a major gamble. We won't know the outcome of that until this draft is in the books, possibly even longer. It depends on the careers of the players, which aren't far enough along yet. 

[Doc]

31 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Don't need to contact the Browns because we've already agreed with the Giants according to some guy who cuts hair.

 

Wally the barber?

[BringBackFergy]

[jimmy10]

3 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

The front page is starting to look like my old Facebook feed (before I shut down my account). Repetitive, ill-informed opinions stated as facts. So much static, there's no real info.

 

It’s become more and more clear why the Bills shut down the BBMB. Why host all that crap on their own dime? Now it’s someone else’s problem. 

[Reed83HOF]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

 

Frankly, I don't want the Bills drafting a QB just to placate the idiot fan base.  They did that all during Ralph Wilson's ownership, and the result was a few years of almost winning it all bookended by seemingly endless years of mediocrity or worse.  I want the Bills drafting to build a winning team.  If they don't like the QBs in this draft enough to pay a ransom for any of them, that's fine with me.  Use the picks to build the rest of the team, which they'll have to do sooner or later anyways.

 

 

Another ASSUMPTION without any kind of proof.

 

 

Actually, only Trubiskey was considered a true first round prospect.  Both Mahomes and Watson had significant question marks that made them less than great prospects.  If they were that great, they'd have gone in the top 5.  That they went in the first round doesn't change the evaluations; it just proves that two teams were desperate enough to gamble a lot reaching for very risky prospects.

 

BTW, will you be around if the the Bills "go hard at a QB" who turns out to be a Joey Harrington or Vince Young?  About half of all QBs taken after the #1 pick bust.

 

 

 

 

Finally found the damn Article:

http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/02/josh_rosen_to_the_buffalo_bills_is_what_ive_heard_repeatedly_says_eric_galko.html

 

"Josh Rosen to the Bills is what I've heard repeatedly," said Galko. "A year ago, the Buffalo Bills were linked to Mitch Trubisky, partially by me. (It was) confirmed many times throughout the process... Doug Whaley (was) their GM at the time in Buffalo. I was told him and part of the front office really liked Trubisky. I think that's well-founded. They were higher on Trubisky than we were, but Trubisky looks pretty good. I think it was a good decision to be aggressive towards him. I know people close to Trubisky who said that, 'Yeah, he believed he was likely going to be a Buffalo Bill of all the teams out there.' You know a lot of teams liked Trubisky, obviously the Bears did too, but he thought himself that the Bills might be his most likely destination."

 

 

Although Whaley was on board with getting Trubisky, Galko said head coach Sean McDermott decided to kick the can on adding a quarterback high in the draft."But when Sean McDermott got there, (he) really won over a lot of that front office, a lot of that ownership group and they believed in McDermott. And McDermott believed in Tyrod Taylor and he said, 'Hey, let's kick the can on drafting a quarterback right now.' They didn't move up for Trubisky. They moved back and the Chiefs go up and get Pat Mahomes and they took Tre'Davious White, which they're definitely happy with, but they passed on basically two quarterback opportunities they had and that's not counting Deshaun Watson either..."

 

And I think the taste of playoffs they had this year, combined with their defense (and) the way they just played throughout the year despite having some things holding them back, they feel that Josh Rosen or one of these quarterbacks, it may not be Rosen, but I believe it is, can be the guy that puts Buffalo over the top and gets them back to the Jim Kelly era. Josh Rosen makes a lot of sense. Sean McDermott is not one to be overly concerned about personality issues, I've been told.

 

[Fred Clause]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I fully understand what Im posting is easier said than done. I fully understand it takes two to tango with trades.

 

However, I also fully understand the Bills, as a franchise, have always undervalued the QB position. They've NEVER, not once, picked a QB with their original 1st pick of the draft. The times they "tried" to go up and get a guy, they didnt try hard enough and it didnt work out. They've been happy to settle for 2nd-tier guys, and the results are as would be expected.

 

I'm counting on still having a chance to get to #2. If the Giants arent selling, and the Browns arent selling, the FO knows this by now, and they really screwed the pooch.

And here you are blaming this GM for all the past failures and saying he’s screwed the pooch if he doesn’t get to 1 or 2. Even if it’s not possible to do so. It may not have even been possible to get to 3 . The world doesn’t end if we don’t get the Qb we need this year if we hit good on 4 or 5 positions we need to upgrade. We can give away the whole draft next year to move up. With  all the cap we will have next year we still will be in a great position.  If this team was a Qb away this would be more important, but we are not, we are not do or die this year. Giving up the house for a pick that is at Best a 30% chance of success is reckless and sets us back further than not getting a Qb at all...

[Buffalo Barbarian]

 

They shouldn't , it would cost a fortune from 12. We would need to move up half way First.

 

 

 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

Actually, only Trubiskey was considered a true first round prospect.  Both Mahomes and Watson had significant question marks that made them less than great prospects.  If they were that great, they'd have gone in the top 5.  That they went in the first round doesn't change the evaluations; it just proves that two teams were desperate enough to gamble a lot reaching for very risky prospects.

 

BTW, will you be around if the the Bills "go hard at a QB" who turns out to be a Joey Harrington or Vince Young?  About half of all QBs taken after the #1 pick bust.

 

Thanks for the breakdown on Watson. I dont see how it applies to anything I said though. Point still stands, we werent taking QB last year no matter what.

 

And yeah, where else am I going? If the Bills trade up to #2 and take a QB and he busts, I'll be disappointed but I'll at least give them credit for seeing a plan through and being aggressive on the most important position in the game. Then, the question becomes how quickly they recognize the mistake and draft another one. But I hope we dont ever have to make those threads.

23 minutes ago, Fred Clause said:

And here you are blaming this GM for all the past failures and saying he’s screwed the pooch if he doesn’t get to 1 or 2. Even if it’s not possible to do so. It may not have even been possible to get to 3 . The world doesn’t end if we don’t get the Qb we need this year if we hit good on 4 or 5 positions we need to upgrade. We can give away the whole draft next year to move up. With  all the cap we will have next year we still will be in a great position.  If this team was a Qb away this would be more important, but we are not, we are not do or die this year. Giving up the house for a pick that is at Best a 30% chance of success is reckless and sets us back further than not getting a Qb at all...

 

No Im not. I'm pointing out that this team, who does not have the strongest history (long or short term), has made the mistake of deprioritizing the QB position. And now, we have this new regime, who has been a breath of fresh air, who up until right now has seemed to "get it". I still have faith that they have something in the works for a move up to #2. But any type of acceptance of "well, we'll just settle for a 2nd-tier guy and build around him", is acting exactly like all the previous failed regimes and the wheels keep spinning.

[ALLEN1QB]

I have an idea why don't we do a 3-way trade with Cleveland and the Giants the Giants move back to four and we pick up the second pick that way the Giants still get their running back everybody's happy except for the Jets LOL

Edited March 19, 2018 by PIP

[BillnutinHouston]

5 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

How does anyone know either way? Unless the league source is Dorsey.

 

Can't see where it's in Dorsey's interest to squelch talk of interest in the #1 spot.  

[ndirish1978]

3 hours ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Don't need to contact the Browns because we've already agreed with the Giants according to some guy who cuts hair.

 

What kind of car does he drive?

[gobills1212]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Thanks for the breakdown on Watson. I dont see how it applies to anything I said though. Point still stands, we werent taking QB last year no matter what.

 

And yeah, where else am I going? If the Bills trade up to #2 and take a QB and he busts, I'll be disappointed but I'll at least give them credit for seeing a plan through and being aggressive on the most important position in the game. Then, the question becomes how quickly they recognize the mistake and draft another one. But I hope we dont ever have to make those threads.

 

No Im not. I'm pointing out that this team, who does not have the strongest history (long or short term), has made the mistake of deprioritizing the QB position. And now, we have this new regime, who has been a breath of fresh air, who up until right now has seemed to "get it". I still have faith that they have something in the works for a move up to #2. But any type of acceptance of "well, we'll just settle for a 2nd-tier guy and build around him", is acting exactly like all the previous failed regimes and the wheels keep spinning.

Very well said imo

[DFT]

But the number 2 and 4 pick....   well.....

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

7 hours ago, dgr81 said:

 

 

They maybe  did contact regarding the no 4 pick? 

 

 

[Alphadawg7]

7 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

That's an absurd underestimation, and I think you know it.

 

Cleveland

NYJ

Broncos

 

AT A MINIMUM will be drafting a QB, and the NYG will likely too.

 

 

I 100% disagree about the Broncos.  They dont have cap space to just give away.  They already had TWO QB's on their roster fully capable of being a bridge QB to anyone they drafted at #5.  They instead elected to use more cap space to get Keenum...why sign Keenum if their guy was going to be the guy they take at #5?  It makes more sense that they are planning to retool now and make another push.  They recently won the SB where Manning and Brock combined to be one of the worst rated passers in the league that year, and Manning had statistically the worst performance ever by a SB winning QB.  

 

Just because you dont think much of Keenum does not mean the Broncos see it the same way.  And the fact they gave up cap space they needed to sign him instead of just sticking with one of the two guys on the roster to be the bridge, suggests to me that Keenum is not the bridge and they are going to commit to him now and look for a QB later if Keenum disappoints.  

 

So I totally disagree with your "MINIMUM" and while I agree the Giants could take a QB, my personal opinion is that they are not going to.  If they were, I think they would have more likely had tried to trade Eli to one of the many QB needy teams this offseason rather than keep him.  I believe they will look to add talent around him, and I think Barkely is 100% their pick if he is on the board still at #2 personally or they will trade down and get more picks.  

 

Ironically, people here BOTH keep saying the Giants will take a QB and also that they will trade down...and most often by the same people.  If they are locked in on a QB, they are not trading down with us or anyone, especially with the Jets at #3.  So these two things dont even make sense, but the same people say both statements all over this board.

6 hours ago, gobills1212 said:

I find it kind of Ironic/funny you chose to call people out in the above bold as you did and then follow it by the underlined.

It was there you lost me...

Its the equivalent of declaring an important proclamation and then just farting.

kinda funny though  

 

How?  I pointed out that people are still saying the same things they were saying BEFORE FA as they are NOW.  Some have not even remotely taken into the context of how the landscape has shifted.  I mean people are still claiming 4 QB's are going to go into the top 5...I mean it doesn't even make sense anymore unless more trade ups happen.  

 

If thats too complicated for you to grasp, sorry...but I thought it was pretty simple.  

[major]