Moving up to #2 = No Playoffs for the next three years

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

A combination of poor picks, coaching/scheme turnover, and an unwillingness to pay up once the rookie contract ends.

 

The larger reason is that they never had a QB to hold the team together, IMO.

 

If you don't have a franchise QB, coaches tend to last 3 years, max. When new coaches come in, they want new guys.

 

[billsfan_34]

5 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Did they say that about Philly???  

Iggles didnt have nearly as many holes then plugged in 2 power running backs via FA and trade.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, joesixpack said:

The larger reason is that they never had a QB to hold the team together, IMO.

 

If you don't have a franchise QB, coaches tend to last 3 years, max. When new coaches come in, they want new guys.

For whatever it may be worth (probably nothing) here's the positional breakdown:

WR: 9

DE: 8

LB: 7

CB: 6

DT: 6

S: 5

OT: 5

RB: 4

QB: 3

G: 2

TE: 1

C: 1

[mjt328]

2 hours ago, Domdab99 said:

Good points. But how many years does it set us back if the QB you move up for us isn't anything special?

 

The same can be said for any other position.

 

The Rams were overloaded with picks from the RGIII trade.  They drafted some good and some bad.  But they were stuck in a perpetual state of 7-9, until THEY decided to make the "desperate" move up for a QB.  How many picks have the Browns stockpiled over the last few years?  They have exactly one win in two seasons.

 

Making the playoffs does nothing for me.  Winning the division does nothing for me.  All I want is a Super Bowl championship.

The chances of us EVER doing that without a franchise Quarterback are very, very small.

I will gladly sacrifice 2-3 seasons of "just making" the playoffs, if it gives us the chance to ultimately land the right guy.

 

Now... If the Bills are extremely confident in someone like Lamar Jackson or Mason Rudolph (who they can get at #12 or #22), then I would be OK without them trading up.  But if they are just willing to settle for a lesser prospect - simply for the sake of keeping picks and drafting another Linebacker or Tackle - then I think they are being foolish in the long-run.

 

[gobilz]

Let's keep plugging holes 

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, gobilz said:

Let's keep plugging holes 

eventually, you are going to run out of fingers.

[MAJBobby]

1 hour ago, Tyrod's friend said:

After the 2016 season they went out and got themselves a damned good LT, a couple of WR, and a pretty brilliant offensive mind.

I don't think anyone in LA was saying "Hi" before then and I know my RamsFanSinceWarner  son wasn't crowing too much.

 

So I guess Rams are the only team that after they trade up for a QB are allowed to make other moves in year two. 

 

Apparantly we cant. We can only draft

[The Jokeman]

6 hours ago, jr1 said:

people have already written off AJ

The Bills didn't give him starting QB money so not sure we really feel he's writing up to begin with.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

46 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Why do you figure that is?

 

I know the answer, but I wanna see if you think the same way I do on this.

 

9-7 7-9 7-9 8-8 ????

[Hebert19]

This I agree with wholeheartedly.  This is why I have been saying all along.  Take best qb available and draft a good core of players. 

[Mango]

Please. The Bills might not make the playoffs next year even if the roster stayed exactly the same as last year. 

[row_33]

i don't mind missing the eking out of a fluke playoff spot for a few years if they build a real contender

 

 

[Domdab99]

3 hours ago, Boca BIlls said:

Wrong

 

Whew! That's good to know. Thanks.

2 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

QB: Josh Rosen

LB: Roquon Smith

RB: Derrius Guice

WR: DJ Moore

 

I know it.

 

LOL we have a shot at ONE of these players. Maybe two. 

2 hours ago, Logic said:

That question makes it sound as if Free Agency doesn't exist, and that the Bills don't have $90 million going into it next year. 

Additionally, the picks we would use to move up would only be from this year's -- and potentially next year's -- draft. If we hit on the right QB, he could be here for 10+ years. That being the case, the notion of being temporarily minorly hamstrung in terms of draft picks does not dissuade me from wanting to identify and select said QB. Besides, if said QB is good enough, he will elevate the receivers already on the roster (Benjamin, Jones, Reilly, Clay for starters). 

 

Okay, what No. 1 receivers are going to be on the market in FA next year? And LOL at including Reilly. 

1 hour ago, BuffaloRush said:

“It’s whats for dinner?”  WTF stupid kind of verbiage is that?  Terrible

 

I deeply apologize. I hope your snowflake didn't melt. 

[Domdab99]

1 hour ago, mjt328 said:

 

The same can be said for any other position.

 

The Rams were overloaded with picks from the RGIII trade.  They drafted some good and some bad.  But they were stuck in a perpetual state of 7-9, until THEY decided to make the "desperate" move up for a QB.  How many picks have the Browns stockpiled over the last few years?  They have exactly one win in two seasons.

 

Making the playoffs does nothing for me.  Winning the division does nothing for me.  All I want is a Super Bowl championship.

The chances of us EVER doing that without a franchise Quarterback are very, very small.

I will gladly sacrifice 2-3 seasons of "just making" the playoffs, if it gives us the chance to ultimately land the right guy.

 

Now... If the Bills are extremely confident in someone like Lamar Jackson or Mason Rudolph (who they can get at #12 or #22), then I would be OK without them trading up.  But if they are just willing to settle for a lesser prospect - simply for the sake of keeping picks and drafting another Linebacker or Tackle - then I think they are being foolish in the long-run.

 

 

Don't be disingenuous. No it can't. You can't say that a franchise QB is the difference maker, and then say that a pick we give up so many other picks for ,who doesn't work out, is the same as another pick not working out. 

 

And I agree with you on most things. The difference is this front office making the decisions and the picks seems like they know what they are doing. That's the difference between them and the other regimes clicking buttons and not going after a franchise guy. I have to assume that if they do not trade up, that they know what they're doing. But that's not a given, of course. 

[Tyrod's friend]

37 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

So I guess Rams are the only team that after they trade up for a QB are allowed to make other moves in year two. 

 

Apparantly we cant. We can only draft

They've already lost one of the WR. The LT is in decline.

The point here is that their QB move was considered a, failure after the 16 season and their success today isn't because of him. If the HC doesn't come along, it's completely a different song. We'll see if Mr. Goff has what it takes but their HC has more to say about his success than the decision to move up to get him.

And the ultimate irony here is that part of the treasure trove the Rams gave up came from the Redskins, when DC blundered their way to "moving up" and getting RGIII. I doubt the Skins are saying "hi". Who knows. If the Skins didn't move up to get Griffin, maybe Cousins is the starter and maybe the Skins are taking Aaron Donald in 2014 instead of the Rams. 

Oh, the hidden costs of moving up. But hey take a shot. What can possibly go wrong?
 

[Logic]

8 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

 

Whew! That's good to know. Thanks.

 

LOL we have a shot at ONE of these players. Maybe two. 

 

Okay, what No. 1 receivers are going to be on the market in FA next year? And LOL at including Reilly. 

 

I deeply apologize. I hope your snowflake didn't melt. 

Sorry. For some reason, I was under the impression that you actually wanted to have a discussion. Ya know, since you were the one who started the topic and all.

I should have remembered: there are two types of posters on football message boards:

Those who want to have earnest and multi-faceted discussions about various topics and who are open to input, contrary opinions, and who treat others with respect since, ya know, it's just a football message board after all.

-- and --

Those who only make posts to prove a point, and who will reply as many times as it takes to tell everyone with contrary opinions that they're wrong. These types of posters aren't interested in actual discussion, only with making sure everyone knows how correct and smart they are. These types of posters also often belittle, mock, and name-call. It's their go-to weapon. And if anyone dares point out that they're acting like a know-it-all bully, they go with the old standby "sorry, snowflake!"

I'm done wasting time with this. You are clearly a world class intellect. None of us are worthy. Have a lovely day.

 

[Domdab99]

3 minutes ago, Logic said:

Sorry. For some reason, I was under the impression that you actually wanted to have a discussion. Ya know, since you were the one who started the topic and all.

I should have remembered: there are two types of posters on football message boards:

Those who want to have earnest and multi-faceted discussions about various topics and who are open to input, contrary opinions, and who treat others with respect since, ya know, it's just a football message board after all.

-- and --

Those who only make posts to prove a point, and who will reply as many times as it takes to tell everyone with contrary opinions that they're wrong. These types of posters aren't interested in actual discussion, only with making sure everyone knows how correct and smart they are. These types of posters also often belittle, mock, and name-call. It's their go-to weapon. And if anyone dares point out that they're acting like a know-it-all bully, they go with the old standby "sorry, snowflake!"

I'm done wasting time with this. You are clearly a world class intellect. None of us are worthy. Have a lovely day.

 

 

 

LOL I am discussing things, where am I not? In fact, I agree with a lot of what people are saying. I want a franchise guy, too. 

 

 The first response was to someone who only replied "wrong." The last response was for - well, you can read, can't you? Maybe you meant this response for them? Or did your snowflake melt, too? 

[Happy]

I want a franchise QB like everyone else, but the OP is correct in that there are too many holes to fill by trading up to the top five and giving up our other first (#22), a bunch of other picks, and a first NEXT draft.  Next year's draft will be a bit lean for us if we move up that high, and why the OP is correct in saying the next 2-3 years will be disappointing.  If we have to move up a couple (9-10) to get a guy we are really high on then fine, it won't cost too much.  I'd prefer to stay at 12 and 22 and draft BPA.

 

To those saying the Rams did it with Goff, well yeah, but they were one and done in the playoffs.  Also, no one has been more active in FA than the Rams.  McD and Beane have stated they want to build through the draft.  Giving away picks on a gamble isn't building through the draft.  And the Eagles were lucky that they had a good backup QB in Foles that happened to outscore Brady.  The Eagles secondary is still a huge hole they haven't been able to fill, most likely because they haven't had the picks to do so the past two drafts.

[Teddy KGB]

8 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Anyone notice what a real QB did for San Fran ONCE the trade for Jimmy G was made. 

 

Instant upgrade. 

 

But in Buffalo land it means no playoffs for 3 years 

 

OP Must have missed that 

[Beast]

8 hours ago, BBills88 said:

Dont forget Jimmy G was brewing in New England behind Tom Brady for 4 years.

 

Brewing doing what? Standing on the sidelines for 4 seasons holding a clipboard?

 

I can make a very long list of QB’s that have done that and turned out to be no good at all.

 

Either you are or you aren’t. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Binghamton Beast