Rumor: Trade up discussion with Giants

[GG]

7 minutes ago, BuffaloBob said:

Waiting until the 12th, the 22nd or even the second round is hardly blowing off the QB position.  It is all about value.  Teams that chase guys and grossly overpay in value are not successful over the long term.

 

All you need to do is hit on one of those chances.

 

I disagree with BADOL on a lot of things.  But on the QB issue, he's spot on.

 

Also ignored in this discussion is that Bills tried to trade up for Trubisky AND passed up two very good prospects last year.  If they don't come away with at least equal value to what they missed last year, it will be criminally reckless.

[#34fan]

1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:

 

How can you be missing the point this badly? His point is that giving up picks to move up doesn't set the team back at all.  With every post you reiterate that his point is salient...if the guy that they traded a future #1 pick and a 4th round pick to move up and acquire wasn't even on the team 3 seasons later when they made the playoffs, how is trading multiple assets to move up mortgaging he future?

 

 The playoff drought was broken by the law of averages, with a little help from a kind ginger knight...

 

The Sammy trade did not in any way make this team better, as evidenced by our performance in that one playoff game.

 

Yet,  here we are again ready to unnecessarily sacrifice our firstborn for rains that are bound to fall regardless, SMMFH...

 

 

[Wayne Cubed]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

There's only one way to guarantee to never get a hit, and that's never taking a swing.  Keep battling against the odds and enjoy another 17 years of futility, Buddy.  

 

One of these days you'll show off the baby.

 

Jim Kelly landed in the Bills lap 35 years ago... so maybe it could happen again?!? 

 

Thats just crazy to think.

[HappyDays]

51 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

For me, I'm looking at the percentage of "franchise QBs" (so defined as guys that a team could win a Super Bowl with as their starter) across the league, and what percentage of those guys are premium picks in the draft.  We could debate who counts and who doesn't, but I come up with around 20 guys that fit the description (I do not count anyone from the 2017 draft, nor am I including Mariota or Winston for reference).  Of those 20, only 6 come from outside the 1st round, and another 4 come from outside the top 8...which  means that 50% of the franchise QBs in the NFL come from the top 8 picks.

 

If I'm playing the percentages, that's where I want to be picking.

 

Here's how I look at it. Picking a QB in the top 3 is more likely to bust than not. I don't know where everyone gets the 50/50 thing from. I'm guilty of using that percentage myself but when you really look at it it's a lot less than 50/50. Looking at every QB drafted between 1 and 3 going back to 2000, here's how I see the successes and failures with the assumption that we traded the farm to get them (since that's what this discussion is about):

Clear successes: Luck, Stafford, Ryan, Manning

Clear busts: Bortles, RGIII, Newton, Bradford, Russell, Young, Smith, Palmer, Carr, Vick

Too early to say but leaning towards success: Wentz, Goff

Too early to say but leaning towards bust: Winston, Mariota

You can quibble with this list. Like Alex Smith and Carson Palmer had more success with other teams later on so I put them in the bust category. Bortles I'm on the fence about but in terms of trading the farm for him I think you have to classify that as a bust. Then you have Cam Newton who has one great season and nothing else to show up for it which to me is not worth trading the farm for.

But I think you'll agree with the 4 I chose as clear successes. That's 4 QBs drafted between 1 and 3 since 2000 that clearly would have been worth a big trade up for. None of those 4 QBs are considered among the very best at their position (that would be Brady, Brees, and Rodgers) but they're franchise level. Thats 4 out of 18. Lets say Wentz and Goff both count as successes, that's 6 out of 18, or 33%. That's what we're selling the farm for. I'm completely against that.

[thebandit27]

1 minute ago, #34fan said:

 

 The playoff drought was broken by the law of averages, with a little help from a kind ginger knight...

 

The Sammy trade did not in any way make this team better, as evidenced by our performance in that one playoff game.

 

Yet,  here we are again ready to unnecessarily sacrifice our firstborn for rains that are bound to fall regardless, SMMFH...

 

 

 

Okay, now I am 100% convinced that you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

Let me simplify for you:

 

Team give up picks to move up, take player

Player acquisition not work out, end up getting traded

Team still improve enough to have winning record in same season player leaves

Team clearly not set back years and years from big trade up

 

Get it now?

[#34fan]

8 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

You said that giving up draft assets could set this franchise back 10 years.

 

 

Yah... NOT what I said.

 

Kindly stop making yourself look like an idiot.

 

 

 

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Top 3 guys are roughly 50%.

 

According to what metric?

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Here's how I look at it. Picking a QB in the top 3 is more likely to bust than not. I don't know where everyone gets the 50/50 thing from. I'm guilty of using that percentage myself but when you really look at it it's a lot less than 50/50. Looking at every QB drafted between 1 and 3 going back to 2000, here's how I see the successes and failures with the assumption that we traded the farm to get them (since that's what this discussion is about):

Clear successes: Luck, Stafford, Ryan, Manning

Clear busts: Bortles, RGIII, Newton, Bradford, Russell, Young, Smith, Palmer, Carr, Vick

Too early to say but leaning towards success: Wentz, Goff

Too early to say but leaning towards bust: Winston, Mariota

You can quibble with this list. Like Alex Smith and Carson Palmer had more success with other teams later on so I put them in the bust category. Bortles I'm on the fence about but in terms of trading the farm for him I think you have to classify that as a bust. Then you have Cam Newton who has one great season and nothing else to show up for it which to me is not worth trading the farm for.

But I think you'll agree with the 4 I chose as clear successes. That's 4 QBs drafted between 1 and 3 since 2000 that clearly would have been worth a big trade up for. None of those 4 QBs are considered among the very best at their position (that would be Brady, Brees, and Rodgers) but they're franchise level. Thats 4 out of 18. Lets say Wentz and Goff both count as successes, that's 6 out of 18, or 33%. That's what we're selling the farm for. I'm completely against that.

You put a league MVP as a clear bust?!? 

 

 

[GG]

1 minute ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

Jim Kelly landed in the Bills lap 35 years ago... so maybe it could happen again?!? 

 

Thats just crazy to think.

 

And if this draft had the same caliber of QBs that the 1983 draft had, there's no way that Kelly gets out of top 10, or even top 6.   

 

Look at what the Seahawks were doing before they landed Wilson.  The point isn't that Wilson fell in their lap.  The point is they kept on adding QBs with potential to the roster until one hit.  Look at Jets' investment in the QB position in the last 3 years.  Do you think anybody is going to care about the wasted picks if they hit on the franchise QB.

 

Please tell me sad you'd be if the Bills pass up the chance to draft the next Shaq Lawson, Reggie Ragland & Co at the expense of finding the next Jim Kelly?

[HappyDays]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

You put a league MVP as a clear bust?!? 

 

 

 

Newton was the hardest one for me. He had one MVP season but otherwise has been average at best. I think I'd say he was worth the 1st overall pick, but would not be worth say 3 1sts and 2 2nds which is what we'll need do give up. So by "bust" I mean he isn't worth the value we're talking about to get to #3. Part of me wanted to be snarky and put him in the "too early to say" column but in a way that's actually true.

[K-9]

58 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:

#1 Tom Brady was a 6th round pick.- WON 6 SBs

#2 Aaron Rodgers was a late 1st, 22nd overall. WON SB

#3 Ben Rothlisberger was a mid-round pick, 11th overall. WON 2 SBs

#4 Drew Brees was a second-round pick, 32nd overall. WON SB

#5 Carson Wentz, first round, 2nd overall pick in 2016.

#6 Russell Wilson was a 3rd pick, 75th overall. WON 2 SB

#7 Cam Newton, 1st overall. went to an SB

#8 Matthew Stafford, 1st overall. playoffs

#9 Andrew Luck, 1st overall. playoffs

#10 Phillip Rivers, 1st round 4th overall. Playoffs

#11Jimmy Garappolo, 2nd round, 62nd overall.

#12 Kirk Cousins, 4th round, 102nd overall.

#13 Jamis Winston, 1st overall.

#14 Dak Prescott, 4th round, 135th overall. Playoffs. 

#15 Marcus Mariota, 1st round, 2nd pick overall. Playoffs

#16 Derek Carr, 2nd round, #36 overall.Playoffs. 

#17 Alex Smith, 1st round, 1st overall. playoffs

#18 Deshaun Watson, 1st round, 12th overall. 

#19 Jared Goff, 1st round, 1st overall.

#20 Andy Dalton, 2nd round, 35th overall. playoffs.

#21 Tyrod Taylor, 6th round,180th overall. playoffs.

#22 Ryan Tannehill, 1st round, 8th overall.

#23 Joe Flacco, 1st round, 18th overall. WON SB

#24 Eli Manning, 1st round, 1st overall. WON 2 SB

#25 Mitch Turbisky, 1st round, 2nd overall. 

#26 Sam Bradford, 1st round, 1st overall. 

#27 Case Keenum -UNDRAFTED

#28 Jay Cutler, 1st round, 11th overall. 

#29 Carson Palmer, 1st round, 1st overall. Playoffs

#30 Deshone Kizer, 2nd round, 52nd overall. 

#31 Trevor Siemian, 7th round, 250th overall.

#32 Blake Bortles, 1st round, 3rd overall. Playoffs

#33 Nick Foles, 3rd round, 88th overall. WON SB 

 

Think I got this pretty close.

 

Looking over all those QBs who have been picked in the top 5 only Eli Manning has won 2 super bowls. Almost half that have been picked very early and made the playoffs. Six QB's have won super bowls have been picked later than the top 5, three are first round picks. 

 

I think the point here is not the fact that Buffalo hasn't spent the picks to find that franchise QB because they did try with first-round pick JP Losman, or third-round pick Trent Edwards. I think it's more of a testimony of their scouting/talent evaluation incompetence since the Jim Kelly days.

 

You don't NEED to draft a QB with the first or second overall pick. You just NEED to know what the hell you are doing when you evaluate them. 

 

Once again, an interesting list to read but none if it relevant to these QBs and these teams in this draft. 

[thebandit27]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Here's how I look at it. Picking a QB in the top 3 is more likely to bust than not. I don't know where everyone gets the 50/50 thing from. I'm guilty of using that percentage myself but when you really look at it it's a lot less than 50/50. Looking at every QB drafted between 1 and 3 going back to 2000, here's how I see the successes and failures with the assumption that we traded the farm to get them (since that's what this discussion is about):

Clear successes: Luck, Stafford, Ryan, Manning

Clear busts: Bortles, RGIII, Newton, Bradford, Russell, Young, Smith, Palmer, Carr, Vick

Too early to say but leaning towards success: Wentz, Goff

Too early to say but leaning towards bust: Winston, Mariota

You can quibble with this list. Like Alex Smith and Carson Palmer had more success with other teams later on so I put them in the bust category. Bortles I'm on the fence about but in terms of trading the farm for him I think you have to classify that as a bust. Then you have Cam Newton who has one great season and nothing else to show up for it which to me is not worth trading the farm for.

But I think you'll agree with the 4 I chose as clear successes. That's 4 QBs drafted between 1 and 3 since 2000 that clearly would have been worth a big trade up for. None of those 4 QBs are considered among the very best at their position (that would be Brady, Brees, and Rodgers) but they're franchise level. Thats 4 out of 18. Lets say Wentz and Goff both count as successes, that's 6 out of 18, or 33%. That's what we're selling the farm for. I'm completely against that.

 

I can't agree with that list of busts.  If a QB is good enough to take you to a conference championship game, then he's not a bust.  I guess we're pretty darn far apart on this one.

 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:

 

I can't agree with that list of busts.  If a QB is good enough to take you to a conference championship game, then he's not a bust.  I guess we're pretty darn far apart on this one.

 

What about a guy that won the MVP, was 15-1 and played in the Super Bowl? Clear bust?

[Mrbojanglezs]

36 minutes ago, Kelly101 said:

LOL at bloggers...Sal on WGR stated he suggested this on social media

a few days back, then this flunkie reported it coming from his "sources"....

THIS IS EXACTLY HOW THE MEDIA REPORTS THE NEWS!!!!!

 

Yup always unnamed sources, most of it is made up

[thebandit27]

20 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

Just stop, the point has completely sailed over your head and you’re embarrassing yourself. You can use as many emojis as you like, it still doesn’t make it funny to anyone but you.

 

You said that giving up draft assets could set this franchise back 10 years. The Bills gave up draft assets to select a WR and 3 years later, without that WR, without their 2nd round pick from the following year, without their 2011 1st round pick on the team, they made the playoffs.

 

Tell me more about giving up draft assists and keep banging the drum, you’re doing an excellent job.

 

Here’s to another 10 year set back.

 

? <——— see what I did there?

 

 

9 minutes ago, #34fan said:

 

Yah... NOT what I said.

 

Kindly stop making yourself look like an idiot.

 

 

 

 

Yep, literally what you said:

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Newton was the hardest one for me. He had one MVP season but otherwise has been average at best. I think I'd say he was worth the 1st overall pick, but would not be worth say 3 1sts and 2 2nds which is what we'll need do give up. So by "bust" I mean he isn't worth the value we're talking about to get to #3. Part of me wanted to be snarky and put him in the "too early to say" column but in a way that's actually true.

If you think that Smith, Palmer, Vick or Newton is a clear bust we just aren’t going to agree.

[Wayne Cubed]

4 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

 

 

Yep, literally what you said:

 

 

He's being obtuse on purpose, right?

 

11 minutes ago, GG said:

 

And if this draft had the same caliber of QBs that the 1983 draft had, there's no way that Kelly gets out of top 10, or even top 6.   

 

Look at what the Seahawks were doing before they landed Wilson.  The point isn't that Wilson fell in their lap.  The point is they kept on adding QBs with potential to the roster until one hit.  Look at Jets' investment in the QB position in the last 3 years.  Do you think anybody is going to care about the wasted picks if they hit on the franchise QB.

 

Please tell me sad you'd be if the Bills pass up the chance to draft the next Shaq Lawson, Reggie Ragland & Co at the expense of finding the next Jim Kelly?

 

Yea I wouldn't be sad one bit.

 

And I agree if you are aren’t doing anything at the QB position, when you don’t have one, you aren’t going anywhere. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Wayne Cubed

[EmotionallyUnstable]

Is there a spark notes version of this thread available? 

 

[Nihilarian]

35 minutes ago, Foxx said:

just looking for factual accuracy here. there was another player selected in the top 5 that also won 2 Superbowls.

That list was all about the starting QB's for last year (2017) and not about past QB's. I haven't researched it but I'm pretty sure you don't NEED a top-five pick at QB to win the super bowl. 

 

Okay, I'll research it!

 

26 of 47 super bowl winning QB's were taken in the first round. Six first-round overall picks have won one or more SB's, Bradshaw 4, Aikman 3, Plunkett 2, Elway 2, Manning 2, Manning 2. 

 

The thing is, that none of this year's QB's are in the same grade as any of those six overall picks. Darnold grades as a 7.0. Rosen grades as a 6.1. Both Mayfield and Allen a 6.0. Jackson a 5.9.

 

 Elway like Andrew Luck was considered a once in a decade blue-chip prospect with both a solid 10.

NFL.com Grading Scale

GRADE	TITLE
9.00-10	Once-in-lifetime player
8.00-9.00	Perennial All-Pro
7.50-7.99	Future All-Pro
7.00-7.49	Pro Bowl to All-Pro ability
6.50-6.99	Good NFL starter with Pro Bowl potential
6.00-6.49	Chance to become good NFL starter
5.70-5.99	Could become early NFL starter
5.30-5.69	Backup or eventual starter
5.15-5.29	Developmental prospect or special teams potential
5.01-5.14	Back end of the roster
5.00	50/50 chance of making the roster

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Nihilarian

[#34fan]

26 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

Okay, now I am 100% convinced that you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

Let me simplify for you:

 

Team give up picks to move up, take player

Player acquisition not work out, end up getting traded

Team still improve enough to have winning record in same season player leaves

Team clearly not set back years and years from big trade up

 

Get it now?

 

The top QB's in this draft have significant deficiencies.

Some may fall.

Based on that, we should Keep both first rounders, AND both seconds.

Those picks may prove in the long run to be better than the kid you trade up for.

In the last 5 years, 2 third round QB's from arguably the highest-touted first round QB bonanza ever, have won superbowls.

This team has CLEARLY been set back by trades for players that were supposed to be the answer. (EJ, Sammy,)

Another bust sets us back even longer.

 

Get it now?

Edited March 20, 2018 by #34fan

[K-9]

1 hour ago, thebandit27 said:

 

That entire future scenario is predicated on the idea that drafting a QB this year precludes you from doing so again next year--and it doesn't.

 

Not getting it right in a trade-up is no more likely to set the team back than the scenario where you stay at 12 and 22, draft non-QBs, play out the 2018 season with below-average QB play winning 7-9 games, and end up picking 18-20 again next season.  Then what?

 

You have a chance to go get your guy right now; we don't know when we'll have the chance again.

People need to better understand that even if we pay the price quoted in this thread, we STILL have picks in every round which makes it look like a traditional draft, anyway. And in a purportedly deep draft, this is the BEST opportunity to spend the capital on a QB while STILL being able to add pieces in the draft. No brainer from where I sit. Imo, the ONLY thing hindering a move up to 2 would be if McBean have ONE prospect CLEARLY ranked above all others and the rest are so closely rated and he knows a good prospect would fall. It's a question of their commitment to the prospect they have targeted. I can't see this deal being a hindrance to trying to go up and get him. 

[TheFunPolice]

3 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:

That list was all about the starting QB's for last year (2017) and not about past QB's. I haven't researched it but I'm pretty sure you don't NEED a top-five pick at QB to win the super bowl. 

 

Okay, I'll research it!

 

26 of 47 super bowl winning QB's were taken in the first round. Six first-round overall picks have won one or more SB's, Bradshaw 4, Aikman 3, Plunkett 2, Elway 2, Manning 2, Manning 2. 

 

The thing is, that none of this year's QB's are in the same grade as any of those six overall picks. Darnold grades as a 7.0. Rosen grades as a 6.1. Both Mayfield and Allen a 6.0. Jackson a 5.9.

 

 Elway like Andrew Luck was considered a once in a decade blue-chip prospect with both a solid 10.

NFL.com Grading Scale

GRADE	TITLE
9.00-10	Once-in-lifetime player
8.00-9.00	Perennial All-Pro
7.50-7.99	Future All-Pro
7.00-7.49	Pro Bowl to All-Pro ability
6.50-6.99	Good NFL starter with Pro Bowl potential
6.00-6.49	Chance to become good NFL starter
5.70-5.99	Could become early NFL starter
5.30-5.69	Backup or eventual starter
5.15-5.29	Developmental prospect or special teams potential
5.01-5.14	Back end of the roster
5.00	50/50 chance of making the roster

 

 

I get what you're saying but I also wonder where Brady would have graded out... Or Brees... Or Rogers, given his slide on draft day.

 

It's all an inexact science, and putting these types of numbers on them is totally subjective.

[Chuck Wagon]

13 minutes ago, #34fan said:

 

The top QB's in this draft have significant deficiencies.

Some may fall.

Based on that, we should Keep both first rounders, AND both seconds.

Those picks may prove in the long run to be better than the kid you trade up for.

In the last 5 years, 2 third round QB's from arguably the most highly-touted first round QB bonanza ever, have won superbowls.

This team has CLEARLY been set back by trades for players that were supposed to be the answer. (EJ, Sammy,)

Another bust sets us back even longer.

 

Get it now?

 

 

We GOT extra players in the trade for EJ.

 

Look, no one is saying we are trading up for a sure thing.  But to stick your head in the sand and pretend the odds aren't significantly higher to find a true franchise QB at the top of the draft, or to cite clear outliers about the ability to find QBs later, or to even pretend we are trading away sure impact players for a sure bust at QB is just utterly ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

[Dr. Who]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

People need to better understand that even if we pay the price quoted in this thread, we STILL have picks in every round which makes it look like a traditional draft, anyway. And in a purportedly deep draft, this is the BEST opportunity to spend the capital on a QB while STILL being able to add pieces in the draft. No brainer from where I sit. Imo, the ONLY thing hindering a move up to 2 would be if McBean have ONE prospect CLEARLY ranked above all others and the rest are so closely rated and he knows a good prospect would fall. It's a question of their commitment to the prospect they have targeted. I can't see this deal being a hindrance to trying to go up and get him. 

I agree with your general point.  I don't think this is a particularly deep draft from my reading, but that actually means you should concentrate your resources early in the draft.  Regardless, if we don't take a shot at franchise qb this draft, I don't think we ever will.

[#34fan]

10 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

 

 

Yep, literally what you said:

 

 

 

A decade is ten years... The "better part" of anything (more than half) is always less than the whole. -You may have been a mathlete in another life.

 

But not this one.

[Nihilarian]

Just now, TheFunPolice said:

 

I get what you're saying but I also wonder where Brady would have graded out... Or Brees... Or Rogers, given his slide on draft day.

 

It's all an inexact science, and putting these types of numbers on them is totally subjective.

It's not when you have an Elway or a Luck that is actually worth giving up 3 first rounders for, or 5, 6 very early picks for. but to give up that many early picks for players who simply don't grade that high. It's foolish! 

 

If any of this years QB's graded out higher I'd be "all in"! They don't! They... all ...have... warts! 

 

 

[Chuck Wagon]

9 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:

It's not when you have an Elway or a Luck that is actually worth giving up 3 first rounders for, or 5, 6 very early picks for. but to give up that many early picks for players who simply don't grade that high. It's foolish! 

 

If any of this years QB's graded out higher I'd be "all in"! They don't! They... all ...have... warts! 

 

 

 

 

THOSE TYPES OF QB PROSPECTS ARE NEVER EVER TRADED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[K-9]

Just now, Dr. Who said:

I agree with your general point.  I don't think this is a particularly deep draft from my reading, but that actually means you should concentrate your resources early in the draft.  Regardless, if we don't take a shot at franchise qb this draft, I don't think we ever will.

Any time you have 70 rated potential starters at the top, it's a deep draft, at least on paper, which is all any of these prospects are. That said, there will be players in that 70 who bust, players on nobody's radar will become All Pros, and some will be exactly what's projected. 

[Wayne Cubed]

2 minutes ago, #34fan said:

 

A decade is ten years... The "better part" of anything (more than half) is always less than the whole. -You may have been a mathlete in another life.

 

But not this one.

 

Oh wow, let me rephrase.

 

You said giving up draft assists could set back this team 9.99 years...

 

How’d I do?

[Dr. Who]

4 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:

It's not when you have an Elway or a Luck that is actually worth giving up 3 first rounders for, or 5, 6 very early picks for. but to give up that many early picks for players who simply don't grade that high. It's foolish! 

 

If any of this years QB's graded out higher I'd be "all in"! They don't! They... all ...have... warts! 

 

 

If you're waiting for Elway or Luck to justify trading significant resources for a chance at franchise qb, you will wait a long time.  Not only are they rare, whoever is bad enough to merit the first pick is surely not going to trade away the pick unless forced as the Colts were with regards to Elway.  The top fellas in this draft have enough good qualities to be considered potential franchise guys and that's enough.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Dr. Who

[Nihilarian]

1 minute ago, Chuck Wagon said:

 

 

THOSE TYPES OF QB PROSPECTS ARE NEVER EVER TRADED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS YEARS QBs DON"T EVEN COME CLOSE!!!!!!!!!!! 

 

a grade of 7.0 is a far cry from a 10.0. and Darnold is barely a 7.0

[TheFunPolice]

4 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:

It's not when you have an Elway or a Luck that is actually worth giving up 3 first rounders for, or 5, 6 very early picks for. but to give up that many early picks for players who simply don't grade that high. It's foolish! 

 

If any of this years QB's graded out higher I'd be "all in"! They don't! They... all ...have... warts! 

 

 

 

If there WAS another Andrew Luck or Peyton Manning, the team sitting at #1 is not trading for ANY price.

 

Would you?

 

Imagine: you're the Bills of 2018, and somehow you are sitting there with the #1 overall pick. A guy that pretty much everyone is saying is the next Elway/Manning type prospect is sitting right there, ready to draft.

 

Are you trading that once in a lifetime type QB for 3 1st rounders? NO WAY!

 

Look at the Bills recent top 5 picks... Dareus, Big Mike, Sammy...

 

Would you rather have all 3 of them at the same time or Peyton Manning in his rookie season, with 18 years of HOF play to look forward to? I wouldn't trade a pick like that for ANYTHING. You could offer me you entire draft for 2 seasons and I'd rather get my QB and go win for a generation.

 

But a guy also doesn't have to be a generational, HOF type talent to be a great QB for your team.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by TheFunPolice

[Chuck Wagon]

10 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Any time you have 70 rated potential starters at the top, it's a deep draft, at least on paper, which is all any of these prospects are. That said, there will be players in that 70 who bust, players on nobody's radar will become All Pros, and some will be exactly what's projected. 

 

 

Exactly.

 

Just looking at averages, of those 5 picks, you are likely looking at 1 pro bowler, 1 guy who is borderline pro bowler / sure starter, 1 starter, 2 busts.  That's simply the law of averages of the normal players taken between 12 - 65.  If you trust Beane's ability to beat the average, why would you not trust his ability to pick the right QB?  

[#34fan]

2 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

Oh wow, let me rephrase.

 

You said giving up draft assists could set back this team 9.99 years...

 

How’d I do?

 

OK... So by your own silly estimation, that's what I meant.

[RochesterRob]

24 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

If you think that Smith, Palmer, Vick or Newton is a clear bust we just aren’t going to agree.

  Did they deliver a title to the team that drafted them?  Again, I would point out that under the current CBA there is no way to keep a player 10-15 years if he is of the mindset he wants to leave.  Unfortunately, the Bills have seen a fair amount of that in their existence.

Edited March 20, 2018 by RochesterRob

[Wayne Cubed]

1 minute ago, #34fan said:

 

OK... So by your own silly estimation, that's what I meant.

 

Don't say “better part” of a decade when you mean 5 years then and you won’t end up looking silly.

 

Even if you did mean 5 years the Watkins trade of draft assests set the Bills so far back, they ended a 17 year playoff drought 3 years later.

 

??<——— I can do this game too

[TheFunPolice]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  Did they deliver a title to the team that drafted them?  Again, I would point out that under the current CBA there is no way to keep a player 10-15 years if he is off the mindset he wants to leave.  Unfortunately, the Bills have seen a fair amount of that in their existence.

 

Football is too much of a team sport to guarantee anything (look at how the Packers have almost totally wasted Rogers career) but all of those guys had their teams in the discussion multiple times. All you can ask for is a shot to make a few runs and hope to have a healthy team when crunch time comes.

[Chuck Wagon]

15 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:

THIS YEARS QBs DON"T EVEN COME CLOSE!!!!!!!!!!! 

 

a grade of 7.0 is a far cry from a 10.0. and Darnold is barely a 7.0

 

 

So never draft a QB high unless he's a once in a lifetime prospect, otherwise just take QBs in round 6 because of Tom Brady.  Thanks for your valuable contributions to the community here.

 

[HappyDays]

14 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

If you think that Smith, Palmer, Vick or Newton is a clear bust we just aren’t going to agree.

 

If you sell the farm for a QB and they don't win a Super Bowl or clearly establish themselves as a top 10 QB for several years I would consider that move a bust. If we already had the #1 or #2 pick I would be all for picking a QB. I'm cool with picking one at 12, or trading up a few spots. I am not willing to pay the same premium the Jets paid to get to #1 or #2 when recent history shows that is a losing proposition.

[cudi]

I'd be patient.  I'd just keep the picks and take whats there at 12.  There's the opportunity to get a bunch of promising players in these high rounds rather than a promising QB that's probably not going to work out for us anyways.  But hey if the deal gets done and whoever we get works out that's great too.