Jump to content

Rumor: Trade up discussion with Giants


Recommended Posts

Just now, Floydboy12 said:

The Bills have a position of strength on this thing. I don't think there are going to be that many teams involved in going up to 2. I tell you what lost its value with the Jets move. The Browns #4. 

I disagree. If NYG stay put and go non QB, Dorsey has a straight flush. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Floydboy12 said:

Denver isn't selling the farm to trade up to 2. They like Keenum and will take their chances that the guy they want will be there at 5 or they may trade down themselves. Miami may trade up but they have don't have the Bills draft capital. 

  Denver's 5th overall and second round pick are of high quality so don't think that they have to match somebody such as the Bills pick for pick.  We can guess that they like Keenum but only Elway and Co know for sure.  I would not assume that the Bills have the Giants by the tail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not taking him seriously but I think it's a reasonable assumption anyone can make that the Bills are considering all their options. 


Denver is being mentioned, but would they take a QB that high, or even move up to 2, given the Keenum signing?  I have my doubts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I’d feel the same way if I were the Giants I think (especially knowing that the Browns don’t want to deal 1). If I’m the Bills I am working with the Browns and trying leverage the Giants. It probably won’t work but maybe if the Giants think that the Bills would be happy at 4 they’ll pull the trigger? The Giants can’t get the Bills package elsewhere. If they overplay their hand and the Bills go to 4 with the intent of Allen or Baker the Giants are “stuck” at 2. 

 

 

If Cleveland is open to going down to 12 from 4, then a 3 team trade certainly makes some level of sense.  You sell the Giants that they'll get the exact same player at 4 as 2, they get some incentive to make the move, while the Browns get #12 & #22 and the bulk of the later picks.  Plus the Bills and Giants get the bonus incentive of the Jets screw job.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

 

Completely agree Denver is the true threat here.  That's why we are going to need to overpay.  The very real possibility exists of the Giants just taking #5, a future 1st, a 2nd this year and possibly something else and walking out with the exact same player they would at 2.

I think you're right about the overpayment, which could mean that 2019 1st. As others have pointed out, no team can likely beat out the Bills overall compliment of picks. But a smaller move back to 5 essentially providing picks for free ( a la Colts) would be a strong consideration for the G men. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  The pressure game works for either side potentially.  

 

Certainty helps the Giants too.  If there's 2 or 3 teams with different deals on table, it makes it harder for Giants to have a completely well thought out plan for what they're gonna do with the picks they get.  Do the deal now and Giants have 5 weeks to prepare for who exactly they want to pick with all those picks.  Yes, you can have contingency plans for different scenarios but there's still value in knowing exactly what your picks are gonna be 5 weeks out instead of 1 day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

I disagree. If NYG stay put and go non QB, Dorsey has a straight flush. 

 

True. I'm just speaking in terms of the trade value of the pick. There was a chance that pick could net the second QB before the Jets deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Virgil said:

It’s a lot, but we still get our first next year and have picks in rounds 2 and 3.  

 

I’d do it. If we get our QB (not Allen), and we get two starters with our other two picks, that’s a win. 

 

I really want Mayfield, but I think this would solidify Rosen. 

  Not for a guy who may have to sit for the better part of two years.  Maybe we sign him before his final year in his rookie contract or the whole thing becomes a headache complete with franchise tagging and so forth.  Guys here can talk about holding a guy here for 10-15 years but by the modern CBA if a player is exit minded he is leaving well before that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

It’s a fair point for sure.  Personally I’d rather have the bird in the hand with the QB and buy the equivalent of a first round talent in FA with our cap space next year.  My counter to your point (which, again, I respect) is that I’d rather have a a top end skill talent than a middle of the first round OL, LB, etc.  

 

This board debated the Sammy trade to death, but it’s inarguable that we acquired a $16/mil/year player for a CB and a C that I can’t even name.  It was a big price to pay, but no nobody would flip Watkins for those two players.

Yep! We survived no 1st the following year for sammy... We will survive again. I maintain that 19 1st is what separates us from anyone else - the ability to package 3 #1s. Sure we would rather not give it up...BUT...If that's the price and it allows them to get their guy SO BE IT. Get it done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

 

Certainty helps the Giants too.  If there's 2 or 3 teams with different deals on table, it makes it harder for Giants to have a completely well thought out plan for what they're gonna do with the picks they get.  Do the deal now and Giants have 5 weeks to prepare for who exactly they want to pick with all those picks.  Yes, you can have contingency plans for different scenarios but there's still value in knowing exactly what your picks are gonna be 5 weeks out instead of 1 day.  

 

From the Giants POV, if you do the deal now you also get 5 weeks to potentially work back up from 12 into the "elite" tier.  

13 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

This has the least likelihood of happening imo 

 

 

Yep, not going to happen.  Turning down ~5 high value picks to take a guard or even a RB #2 overall is not how you start a regime as GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chuck Wagon said:

 

From the Giants POV, if you do the deal now you also get 5 weeks to potentially work back up from 12 into the "elite" tier.  

I could see that. Depending on who they want to take, they could get that guy plus the rest of the picks from the Bills just by packaging say 12 and 53. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

No way you'd know this, but I pay very close attention, and it is a king's ransom....and we can go back and forth about how to identify a "franchise QB", but since this discussion has essentially been rehashed to the point it nearly nauseates me, we'll just agree to disagree. 

 

Then you would know it's not a "king's ransom". It's going rate for that type of move. Check the charts. It's one thing to not want to do something. It's another to say that it's not fair market value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

This has the least likelihood of happening imo 

I'd tend to agree, but they could just simply love Barkley. It's a possibility right now. I do not think they stay put at 2 for an OG or even Chubb. If they don't trade out of #2, it's a QB or Barkley. With their lack of picks, anything else is a huge head scratcher. I hope Elway is truly in win now mode and will want an immediate contributor, maybe in the secondary or a pass rusher. That seemed like the early word out of DEN with the Keenum signing, then suddenly they had a strong interest in QB at 5. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

 

From the Giants POV, if you do the deal now you also get 5 weeks to potentially work back up from 12 into the "elite" tier.  

I'm really glad someone else mentioned this, the Giants could then trade up from 12th overall and get back into the top ten. If the Colts are looking to move down again from six, there ya go.

 

Especially since they traded two picks for a mediocre LB leaving them with only five picks and a less than desirable cap situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DCOrange said:

 

The beauty and curse of rumors is that if they don’t pan out, there’s no actual proof that they weren’t true at the time. We’ll never be able to disprove IB’s assertion that the Bills offered a 2nd round pick for Foles. 

 

Edit: I personally take IB with a major grain of salt, but I do trust him when it involves NYC teams like the Giants. He’s proven to have good connections there IMO.

 

Maybe I'm naive or simply  forgetful .  But do we have any proven recent rumors by him? Because  I want to believe the rumor. I want to trade up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I haven't liked a prospect more than Darnold since Andrew Luck. I think he has greatness in him. We shall see.

 

Even the school doesn't scare you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

I'd tend to agree, but they could just simply love Barkley. It's a possibility right now. I do not think they stay put at 2 for an OG or even Chubb. If they don't trade out of #2, it's a QB or Barkley. With their lack of picks, anything else is a huge head scratcher. I hope Elway is truly in win now mode and will want an immediate contributor, maybe in the secondary or a pass rusher. That seemed like the early word out of DEN with the Keenum signing, then suddenly they had a strong interest in QB at 5. 

It would be like using 2 1st rd picks, 2 2nd round picks, plus the 1st pick in the 3rd on a RB, in the deepest RB draft in recent memory. 

 

They would be egregiously wasting the value of the #2 pick if that offer is on the table and the decline to take a RB. The only way they maximize it by staying put is taking their QB of the future. Falling in love with any one player so much that you ignore positional value and overall team building is a huge no no. 

Edited by YoloinOhio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BillsFan17 said:

I'm really glad someone else mentioned this, the Giants could then trade up from 12th overall and get back into the top ten. If the Colts are looking to move down again from six, there ya go.

 

Especially since they traded two picks for a mediocre LB leaving them with only five picks and a less than desirable cap situation.

 

The Giants moves all offseason have felt like they expect to get a big infusion of draft picks.  For all we know, Beane and Gettleman could have agreed to a deal a month ago and decided to just watch the speculation run crazy.  The way we played free agency with QBs certainly felt like we had something up our sleeve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Not taking him seriously but I think it's a reasonable assumption anyone can make that the Bills are considering all their options. 


Denver is being mentioned, but would they take a QB that high, or even move up to 2, given the Keenum signing?  I have my doubts.

  Everybody has a Madden mentality and last I knew Keenum does not have a no trade clause.  Give the rookie a year to sit then ask Keenum where he would like his next stop to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had better be REALLY sure that:

1. Cleveland isn't going to take they guy that they want

2. The guy they take needs to be so good that he can CARRY a team - not just good enough to win with, but to carry those around him to victory.  Would people be OK to trade that much for Phillip Rivers (who really has never won anything, but has been good) when he came out?  Or is it only OK to trade that much to get Brady or Rodgers?

3. There needs to be a significant difference in how the Bills view the QB that they trade up for and guys like Mayfield, Allen or Jackson one or more of whom might be available close to 12.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I don’t like it still personally. I’d rather 12, 22, 53, 56 & 2019 2nd. I think if they go up and get Rosen now and then Bosa/Oliver/Gary etc... with the 2019 1st they are heading in the right direction. I think that star DL are tough to get. They are probably 2nd only to QB in terms of scarcity. I’d give the picks this year and hope to hit at 65 (or 53/56) and 96. I’m assuming that the Bills will have to give 4 of their first 5 picks from this draft. That’s okay with me.

 

The point values IMO dont work out that favorably if I am reading this right, using the either the point value charts (Hill or Johnson) when comparing the cost of the Jets trade (34% increase/23rd pick value). Adding another 3rd is comparable and still less than the Jets trade. I agree completely about keeping the 2019 1st 100%.

 

Im pretty sure using the Jets trade as a comparison, its going to cost more that people think to move up to #2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I like Darnold too, in spite of the unorthodox throwing motion and carrying the ball low which makes him prone to fumbling.  The latter, I think, you can unlearn and I wouldn't mess with the former, because it works for him.  I haven't really considered Darnold, however, because I'm just sure he's going to the Browns at #1 overall.

I would bet a lot of  money that he ends up going #1 to the Browns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  You know for a fair amount of posters here that they are "self-servicing" themselves over the possibility.  

Well in an odd way the fact that someone as BS as him went into such specifics kind of lends the report a weird credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BillsFan17 said:

Whoever he/she is blocked on me on Twitter. I really don't give much credence to what that individual says.

 

I'm just stating if that was in fact the package we would still have a perfectly fine draft.

Someone here on TBD posted a story of who ICB is. Just a guy in New Jersey who realized he could hook fish with his rumour tweets. In other words, a professional troll. But just like a broken clock, once in a great while he guesses correctly, so he uses that as proof that he's "plugged in."

 

If it were up to me I wouldn't allow any ICB stuff here.

Edited by PromoTheRobot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OldTimer1960 said:

They had better be REALLY sure that:

1. Cleveland isn't going to take they guy that they want

2. The guy they take needs to be so good that he can CARRY a team - not just good enough to win with, but to carry those around him to victory.  Would people be OK to trade that much for Phillip Rivers (who really has never won anything, but has been good) when he came out?  Or is it only OK to trade that much to get Brady or Rodgers?

3. There needs to be a significant difference in how the Bills view the QB that they trade up for and guys like Mayfield, Allen or Jackson one or more of whom might be available close to 12.

 

 

Philip Rivers is a GREAT player who has been snakebitten. One name captures his bad luck: Marlon McCree. All you need to know. If not for him, the Chargers are likely the 2006 season SB winner. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...