Buffalo Hasn't Conducted Itself This Offseason Like They'll Trade Most/All High PIcks for #2

[Punching Bag]

1 hour ago, BuffaloMatt said:

Two Words........Thad Lewis.

Two Words.......Not relevant

 

39 minutes ago, BillsMafioso said:

I’m all in with this dude except One correction: you don’t need 20 years...I’ve been a fan for 10 years and it still baffles me how some dudes are against a QB. 1 year bandwagon fans, perhaps ?

 

Considering some against trading up have been on this board for years could it be they just have different opinion than someone who may not even have been a fan last year?

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

16 minutes ago, klos63 said:

those are the qualifiers for trading up? Come on - we need a QB,  Beane trusts his scouts, trusts his own eyes and feels the particular QB is worth it, you have to try to get him. We really , really need a QB.

still a good pick, and they are super bowl contenders now.

....IMO there will definitely be a QB picked......who, when, where or how is in McBeane's good hands.....I think this guy is smart enough to be working with 2018 AND 2019 windows simultaneously....2018 is shaping up to be a lucrative QB class so get your guy period......"his" guy versus TBD posters' "guy"?........roll the dice......we have azzed around with this position since Kelly with J&J band-aids, THE most important position on the field....while also looking ahead to 2019, he can roughly project where Bflo may be drafting and the potential number of picks while examining potential UFA's with $85+ mil to spend....my impression is that he has the instincts to see the sense of urgency in 2018 to select a (hopefully) long term solution at QB, fills other needs and again, is also looking at 2019.....home runs in 2018 & 2019 would be great.....back to back three baggers would suit me just fine and set us up for LONG TERM success.........

Edited April 7, 2018 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

22 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I hope so too, and I hope that means the New Era guys are smart enough to do what it takes to get THE guy instead of settling for Losman again.

 

......thanks for the gas pains making me remember the egotistical DonoHOLE era.............his insistence on being named "El Presidente", the FIRST in club history should have been the first clue to the upcoming epic disaster in OBD lore.....screwing up Big Ben and taking the bait from 2004 draft pundits that Losman was the "heir apparent to Favre going to the Pack at 23 (re-read it)" invoked panic mode to jump in front of them.....followed by rushing the greenhorn into service......like to think (AND HOPE) this gang is far superior to Terrible Tommy (which doesn't take much).....

Edited April 7, 2018 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[Rochesterfan]

2 hours ago, Midwest1981 said:

I thought that the Rams might be mentioned. I would argue are situation isn’t entirely the same because Los Angeles had in place more existing talent, including a couple of top-10 talents in Aaron Donald (THE best defensive player in the NFL) and Todd Gurley. Secondly, the draw and appeal of playing in L.A. greatly trumps the draw and appeal of playing in Buffalo. Even excluding FA’s and talking about guys we could trade for, a Marcus Peters or Talib come to Los Angeles with excitement- they’d come to Buffalo with reluctance.

 

 

This is complete Bull and makes no sense.  The Rams had to trade for most all of their acquisitions this year - none went there willingly - Suh finally agreed on a 1 year deal when everything else was gone.  They lost several big name FA to lesser places like KC.  

 

Cleveland signed more FA than just about anyone - are they the big draw?  

 

Buffalo was a destination when when they were good and became barren when they were bad - just like everyone else.  Heck NYJ with a ton of money and a so called destination city has not been able to draw, but GB and KC have done just fine getting FA as needed.

 

Players look at situation as much or more than final destination- it will factor for some FA, but most want to go to a good team and have a defined role and get paid.  Then other factors come into play.

[formerlyofCtown]

2 hours ago, Midwest1981 said:

Let me preface my post with the recognition that Buffalo has a whopping $30 million in dead cap this year, which leads the league by nearly double.  So our cap space this offseason has been finite.  Still, Buffalo DID spend some $$$ this offseason (5 years, $50 million for Star; up to $27 million for 3 years for Trent Murphy) and very little of it was used in any way that would meaningfully assist or complement a rookie QB, particularly one that we would trade up to #2 for and potentially sacrifice all of our 1st-3rd round 2018 picks (12, 22, 53, 57, 65, & 96) OR both 1st's, our 2019 1st, and a little more.

 

None of that is to say that the Bills won't still do that, but it seems like an odd course of action if they did.  

 

Buffalo still has virtually no speed at WR.  Kaelin Clay- our only move at wideout- may offer some, but he's a marginal player to begin with.  

 

At RB, Chris Ivory is an improvement over Mike Tolbert, but that isn't saying much.  

 

At TE, we've been static but Charles Clay's knee condition is chronic.  

 

And finally along the OL, we're still poor on the right side and our only move was signing Russell Bodine, a player Bengals' fans couldn't were ecstatic to rid themselves of, to compete with Ryan Groy, to replace a better and established player in Eric Wood.

 

Two last notes:  1) I like McDermott but he still hails from the defensive side of the ball.  And our new OC- Brian Daboll- has a little experience with the innovative FBS offenses being integrated in the NFL.  But even granting him little talent to work with in previous stops, he doesn't have a track record of success.

 

Anyway, this just seems like an odd tack to take if you plan to trade all/most of the meaningful draft assets you've amassed for a rookie QB, who needs help even in the BEST situation and with the MOST innate talent.  Which brings me to point #2...

 

2) The fallacy for believing Buffalo can just spend their way out of this problem in 2019 with our cap space ignores many facts, including that many teams will be equipped with considerable cap space (a result of the cap rising $10 million each of the last 5 years with no end in sight, plus the ability to carry over cap from year to year).  AND in the NFL it's rare to spend your way into contention.  It can be done; the Jaguars have demonstrated that.  But with the existence and prevalence of the franchise tag it's generally rare that truly high-quality "unblemished" FA's, guys with no question marks or concerns like age, injury, or character issues, hit the market.  As I heard someone describe NFL free agency this offseason:  "You have to not only buy into the player; you also have to buy into the reason they're a free agent."

 

Eschewing cheap labor in draft picks and trusting the Bills to spend their way to an offense in FA (where players are almost invariably overpaid) seems like a dicey proposition.

Daboll runs the same offense as McDaniels.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

This is complete Bull and makes no sense.  The Rams had to trade for most all of their acquisitions this year - none went there willingly - Suh finally agreed on a 1 year deal when everything else was gone.  They lost several big name FA to lesser places like KC.  

 

Cleveland signed more FA than just about anyone - are they the big draw?  

 

Buffalo was a destination when when they were good and became barren when they were bad - just like everyone else.  Heck NYJ with a ton of money and a so called destination city has not been able to draw, but GB and KC have done just fine getting FA as needed.

 

Players look at situation as much or more than final destination- it will factor for some FA, but most want to go to a good team and have a defined role and get paid.  Then other factors come into play.

 

....yup...hit this one over the center field wall ROCH......how long do we beat the drum of Bflo being the destination of "the destitute"?.......oh woe is us.........right.............

[Midwest1981]

Clearly we need a QB- clearly we’re going to draft a QB. I’d rather attempt a move up at #4 or #6 for Rosen/Mayfield because at least the astronomical cost is reduced. 

 

But the best decisions are rarely made out of desperation and a team like the Giants can smell blood in the water. We “need” a QB but let’s not pigeonhole ourselves and say that- no matter what- we’re moving up for a QB. The last time we earmarked our first pick for a QB, no matter what, was in 2013. At least we moved down but we still predetermined our move. 

 

This QB crop is better, absolutely. But if I’m Buffalo I’m still mindful and cognizant of the cost- I’m not making this move no matter what and expecting to just be able to build around this QB with a slashed draft class this year and following years and through FA where good deals- even good players aren’t frequently found.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Midwest1981

[Boatdrinks]

56 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Because history has proven otherwise. As long as you land THE guy, you'll quickly forget the price we paid.

 

In 2004, we were offering our #22, our 2nd, and 2005 1st to move up for Rothlisberger. Texans got cold feet and backed out. Had we thrown in more picks, let's say 2005 2nd and 2006 1st, to make them an offer they couldnt refuse, would we really have missed Parrish and Whitner (the guys we got with those additional picks) if it meant having Big Ben over the past 14 years?

 

Everyone talks about all the players we could get and holes we could fill. Would you trade Lee Evans, JP Losman, Roscoe Parrish, and Donte Whitner for Ben Rothlisberger? I would.

 

 

Your revisionist history of what happened in 04 couldn't be more wrong though. In 2004 the Bills had pick #13 in the first round. NOT # 22. That pick came from DAL later on in the Losman move. Tom Donahoe coveted Roethlisberger , but knew he had to jump ahead of PIT. He made a deal with HOU to move up to their spot. They accepted the deal per Chris Mortensen if ESPN. He didn't need to offer any more than he did ... they took it. It was about to get phoned into the league. What  transpired was bad luck. HOU needed a CB, and wanted Dunta Robinson. De Angelo Hall was picked by ATL ( worst case scenario happened) and HOU backed out last minute because they thought another CB could go quickly and the Bills pick at 13 wasn't high enough. It wasn't about what TD offered! The Bills FIRST ROUND PICK wasn't HIGH ENOUGH for the team to get the player they coveted after moving back. Sound familiar? ( see Jets trade) Teams want certain players, it's such an ignorant argument to say " well the Bills should just throw in another pick blah blah blah and they'll definitely take it" . That's not how it works. Would be great to have the good fortune  the Steelers did that day. The Giants were going to take Roethlisberger at # 2, then Eli happened. Big Ben fell into PIT lap , for just a single pick. All the way back at # 11 in round one. Those are facts, not some imagined scenario where TD obviously didn't offer enough draft picks to make a move. 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Boatdrinks

[Midwest1981]

7 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Your revisionist history of what happened in 04 couldn't be more wrong though. In 2004 the Bills had pick #13 in the first round. NOT # 22. That pick came from DAL later on in the Losman move. Tom Donahoe coveted Roethlisberger , but knew he had to jump ahead of PIT. He made a deal with HOU to move up to their spot. They accepted the deal per Chris Mortensen if ESPN. He didn't need to offer any more than he did ... they took it. It was about to get phoned into the league. What  transpired was bad luck. HOU needed a CB, and wanted Dunta Robinson. De Angelo Hall was picked by ATL ( worst case scenario happened) and HOU backed out last minute because they thought another CB could go quickly and the Bills pick at 13 wasn't high enough. It wasn't about what TD offered! The Bills FIRST ROUND PICK wasn't HIGH ENOUGH for the team to get the player they coveted after moving back. Sound familiar? ( see Jets trade) Teams want certain players, it's such an ignorant argument to say " well the Bills should just throw in another pick blah blah blah and they'll definitely take it" . That's not how it works. Would be great to have the good fortune  the Steelers did that day. The Giants were going to take Roethlisberger at # 2, then Eli happened. Big Ben fell into PIT lap , for just a single pick. All the way back at # 11 in round one. Those are facts, not some imagined scenario where TD obviously didn't offer enough draft picks to make a move. 

Thanks for pointing that out to Dawk. Yeah, it was never going to take #13, our early 2nd, and a 2005 1st to move up to 10 in 2004. And if the Texans would’ve turned that down... wow.

[DrDawkinstein]

12 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Your revisionist history of what happened in 04 couldn't be more wrong though. In 2004 the Bills had pick #13 in the first round. NOT # 22. That pick came from DAL later on in the Losman move. Tom Donahoe coveted Roethlisberger , but knew he had to jump ahead of PIT. He made a deal with HOU to move up to their spot. They accepted the deal per Chris Mortensen if ESPN. He didn't need to offer any more than he did ... they took it. It was about to get phoned into the league. What  transpired was bad luck. HOU needed a CB, and wanted Dunta Robinson. De Angelo Hall was picked by ATL ( worst case scenario happened) and HOU backed out last minute because they thought another CB could go quickly and the Bills pick at 13 wasn't high enough. It wasn't about what TD offered! The Bills FIRST ROUND PICK wasn't HIGH ENOUGH for the team to get the player they coveted after moving back. Sound familiar? ( see Jets trade) Teams want certain players, it's such an ignorant argument to say " well the Bills should just throw in another pick blah blah blah and they'll definitely take it" . That's not how it works. Would be great to have the good fortune  the Steelers did that day. The Giants were going to take Roethlisberger at # 2, then Eli happened. Big Ben fell into PIT lap , for just a single pick. All the way back at # 11 in round one. Those are facts, not some imagined scenario where TD obviously didn't offer enough draft picks to make a move. 

 

Got my picks confused, not revisionist history, just a typo. Everything else I said is the same. Texans got cold feet, "because they wanted a DB" is the detail I didnt say. And of course it still takes them to accept the deal, but it would have been nice for the Bills to properly value a Franchise QB and make a big offer. But that trend didnt start for a few more years. And like usual, the Bills are late to the trend instead of starting them.

 

The Bills didnt do enough to get their guy. Hope they learned a lesson.

 

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Your revisionist history of what happened in 04 couldn't be more wrong though. In 2004 the Bills had pick #13 in the first round. NOT # 22. Tom Donahoe coveted Roethlisberger , but knew he had to jump ahead of PIT. He made a deal with HOU to move up to their spot. They accepted the deal per Chris Mortensen if ESPN. He didn't need to offer any more than he did ... they took it. It was about to get phoned into the league. What  transpired was bad luck. HOU needed a CB, and wanted Dunta Robinson. De Angelo Hall was picked by ATL ( worst case scenario happened) and HOU backed out last minute because they thought another CB could go quickly and the Bills pick at 13 wasn't high enough. It wasn't about what TD offered! The Bills FIRST ROUND PICK wasn't HIGH ENOUGH for the team to get the player they coveted after moving back. Sound familiar? ( see Jets trade) Teams want certain players, it's such an ignorant argument to say " well the Bills should just throw in another pick blah blah blah and they'll definitely take it" . That's not how it works. Would be great to have the good fortune  the Steelers did that day. The Giants were going to take Roethlisberger at # 2, then Eli happened. Big Ben fell into PIT lap , for just a single pick. All the way back at # 11 in round one. Those are facts, not some imagined scenario where TD obviously didn't offer enough draft picks to make a move. 

You present a good historical record of what transpired in that draft year in which Donahoe sought Roethlisberger. It didn't work out as planned as many drafts are apt to do. That isn't what has marred this franchise thereafter. It has been an inability to find a quality franchise qb. There are years when it was just out of our hands and the chips didn't fall in our favor for a variety of uncontrollable reasons. However, when the lack of success in securing a franchise qb through the draft, free agency or trade stretches for two decades then that is an systemic organizational failure. And it is inexcusable.

 

What no one can say is that the Bills haven't had opportunities. They either made bad choices or let them pass. I still can't figure why Whaley was so passive on this issue. It made no sense. And without question it was a factor why his tenure was abruptly ended. What is obvious is that this new regime is focused on getting a high end prospect from this draft. They clearly have made multiple moves to position themselves to secure a more than credible prospect.

 

No one can say for sure whether things will work out as planned but at least you see the effort. It hasn't always been that way. That's why I am very optimistic about this draft. As far as I'm concerned this is still a multi-year rebuild. But the most important element to the rebuild is getting a legitimate franchise qb. I see it happening this year. 

[Mat68]

Imo Buffalo will look to move half of the their top 6 picks and both 1's for a QB.  For their #1 Qb they will add a pick in 2019 probably there 1st rd pick.  The glaring holes on the team are QB, LB and deep threat Wr.  Making a trade that is 12-22-53-65 2019 1st and swaping of mid rders still leaves Buffalo with top 5, 53 and a third.  Buffalo selects Qb LB and Wr and Buffalo has filled their holes while having mid rd picks to add depth.  This is the best outcome.  They would get a QB they believe is a Franchise Qb the first one since Jim Kelly when the USFL crumbled.

[Boatdrinks]

15 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Got my picks confused, not revisionist history, just a typo. Everything else I said is the same. Texans got cold feet, "because they wanted a DB" is the detail I didnt say. And of course it still takes them to accept the deal, but it would have been nice for the Bills to properly value a Franchise QB and make a big offer. But that trend didnt start for a few more years. And like usual, the Bills are late to the trend instead of starting them.

 

The Bills didnt do enough to get their guy. Hope they learned a lesson.

 

Still, more bad luck than anything else. Pick 13, and a willing (for awhile)partner that was married to picking one particular player. The great Dunta Robinson lol. You just can't know or control what other teams are going to do. If ATL doesn't select Hall, the trade is phoned in and Roethlisberger is a Bill. If the Chargers simply select Rivers at 1 rather than their dalliance with drafting a QB who said he would never play for them Ben is a Giant not a Steeler. The parallels to 2018 are interesting , as the Bills are at 12, just one pick later than what PIT had in 2004. Sometimes waiting for the draft to " come to you" works out. Sometimes you try to move up and the fates conspire against you. It wasn't reported what TD was sending to HOU, but it apparently was properly valued or it wouldn't have gotten to that point. Moving outside of the top ten is a big deal, as the elite ( ranked) prospects go quickly. That led to HOU panic cancellation and TDs subsequent panic move up for Losman. 

[Direhard Fan]

It's a gamble in anything we do.  Why give away the farm for an unknown QB when we can build with six great picks for guys who have a better chance in being starting players.   We worry to much about QB.  We will find our guy and  I hope not give away the farm. 

[Boatdrinks]

19 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You present a good historical record of what transpired in that draft year in which Donahoe sought Roethlisberger. It didn't work out as planned as many drafts are apt to do. That isn't what has marred this franchise thereafter. It has been an inability to find a quality franchise qb. There are years when it was just out of our hands and the chips didn't fall in our favor for a variety of uncontrollable reasons. However, when the lack of success in securing a franchise qb through the draft, free agency or trade stretches for two decades then that is an systemic organizational failure. And it is inexcusable.

 

What no one can say is that the Bills haven't had opportunities. They either made bad choices or let them pass. I still can't figure why Whaley was so passive on this issue. It made no sense. And without question it was a factor why his tenure was abruptly ended. What is obvious is that this new regime is focused on getting a high end prospect from this draft. They clearly have made multiple moves to position themselves to secure a more than credible prospect.

 

No one can say for sure whether things will work out as planned but at least you see the effort. It hasn't always been that way. That's why I am very optimistic about this draft. As far as I'm concerned this is still a multi-year rebuild. But the most important element to the rebuild is getting a legitimate franchise qb. I see it happening this year. 

I agree, the Bills lack of a QB is a greater failing in the organization. It hasn't been lacking the ability to take a big swing due to draft position , rather not taking enough swings and taking the wrong player sometimes. They've never really been in position to get a top prospect with their own 1st round pick. They've ignored others later in round one ( Flacco) and other rounds ( Dalton, Wilson ). They've just not dedicated enough resources to it. Hopefully this all changes in 2018 and the draft falls in a way that they can make a move up. 

[DrDawkinstein]

28 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You present a good historical record of what transpired in that draft year in which Donahoe sought Roethlisberger. It didn't work out as planned as many drafts are apt to do. That isn't what has marred this franchise thereafter. It has been an inability to find a quality franchise qb. There are years when it was just out of our hands and the chips didn't fall in our favor for a variety of uncontrollable reasons. However, when the lack of success in securing a franchise qb through the draft, free agency or trade stretches for two decades then that is an systemic organizational failure. And it is inexcusable.

 

What no one can say is that the Bills haven't had opportunities. They either made bad choices or let them pass. I still can't figure why Whaley was so passive on this issue. It made no sense. And without question it was a factor why his tenure was abruptly ended. What is obvious is that this new regime is focused on getting a high end prospect from this draft. They clearly have made multiple moves to position themselves to secure a more than credible prospect.

 

No one can say for sure whether things will work out as planned but at least you see the effort. It hasn't always been that way. That's why I am very optimistic about this draft. As far as I'm concerned this is still a multi-year rebuild. But the most important element to the rebuild is getting a legitimate franchise qb. I see it happening this year. 

 

And that's what I want to see as well. Which is why I find it so crazy that people want to stop that effort now and not make any more moves to land a QB, or even worse, use all those picks on "other needs" and leave the QB hole open.

 

Time for the Bills to get serious about QB. Enough is enough.

8 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

I agree, the Bills lack of a QB is a greater failing in the organization. It hasn't been lacking the ability to take a big swing due to draft position , rather not taking enough swings and taking the wrong player sometimes. They've never really been in position to get a top prospect with their own 1st round pick. They've ignored others later in round one ( Flacco) and other rounds ( Dalton, Wilson ). They've just not dedicated enough resources to it. Hopefully this all changes in 2018 and the draft falls in a way that they can make a move up. 

 

That all Im saying as well. It just so happens that in this specific draft we're going to have to take a big swing in order to get a guy.

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

And that's what I want to see as well. Which is why I find it so crazy that people want to stop that effort now and not make any more moves to land a QB, or even worse, use all those picks on "other needs" and leave the QB hole open.

 

Time for the Bills to get serious about QB. Enough is enough.

Yep, they need to make the move. This year. Fortunately , I don't see them stopping their quest at this point. It's just a holding pattern until the right team is willing to make a move. Could things fall to them, a la 2004 Ben and the Steelers? Maybe, but this FO doesn't strike me as being passive here. I don't know if they'll sell the farm for pick #2 ( or if the NYG simply aren't moving down) or move to say 5, 6 or 7. They aren't connected to the mistakes of the past, but I think they'll get a guy they want. They're not staying at 12 and going non- QB imo 

[Chuck Wagon]

Nothing has changed, but it all depends on the Giants and Broncos.  If they both stay and go QB we are screwed.  If they both pass on QB, the price to move up could end up being VERY reasonable.

 

For that reason I think there's a bit of a stalemate in trade talks.  The Giants and/or Broncos likely would want a ransom to move out, but their willingness to move out would indicate they aren't taking QB anyway, creating a catch 22.  

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Chuck Wagon said:

Nothing has changed, but it all depends on the Giants and Broncos.  If they both stay and go QB we are screwed.  If they both pass on QB, the price to move up could end up being VERY reasonable.

 

For that reason I think there's a bit of a stalemate in trade talks.  The Giants and/or Broncos likely would want a ransom to move out, but their willingness to move out would indicate they aren't taking QB anyway, creating a catch 22.  

 

I never expected to see movement at #2 until after Cleveland's card is in for the #1 pick.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

3 hours ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

We shouldn't be using statistics from 30yrs ago to base our draft strategy especially since the game has changed drastically since then . Maybe they should do it based on the last 7 yrs . If so i don't have the numbers in front of me but the success rate should go up past 50% . Teams are starting to use these young QBs more and more with elements of the college gm and its making it much easier to transition to the NFL. 

 

Did you read the article the other day in the BN? He listed every year out so would be easy to look at the last 7 years to see if that changes the numbers.  Admittedly 10% of the QB's were still in the category of "Too soon to tell" so looking at the past 7 years only would be a more limited set.

 

Found the article, it was by Nick Veronica

 

His criteria was he looked back at the past 30 drafts, but only drafts with more than 4 QB's in round 1 or 5 in the first two rounds.  His point of the article was to show that just because there are many QB's that are going to be take nearly doesn't mean success.  So to your point of looking back only 7 years within that window the only years that qualified were 2014, 2012, 2011, 2007  To get a little more data I also threw in 2004 which without 2004, the data would have been even worse as there were 3 franchise guys that year.  Admittedly Wentz class isn't included as not enough QB's taken that year to meet his criteria

 

Based on his rating ( and I felt were pretty accurate) there were 25 total QB's taken in that window that he rated as follows:

 

6 Too soon to tell

4 Franchise

1 Average

3 Journeyman

11 Busts

 

 

I just looked at all 1st round QB's back to 2007 in 1st round, there were 13 more taken in the years not included for his article so that would change the numbers some.   I also took the six he ranked too soon to tell and rated them in which I gave 4 of those 6 franchise/average grades to.  I combined the franchise and average together as felt if I'm rating the "guys too soon to tell" would I call for example Jameis Winston a franchise guy or just average.  But felt by combining those groups into one, was comfortable placing him there. The numbers then came out as shown below:

 

38 Total

17 Franchise/Average  45%

5 Journeyman  13%

16 Busts  42%

 

Basically have about the same shot at a bust as a franchise/average guy.  Really worse when you add in journeyman as really wouldn't want to be using a top 10 pick that you even gave up extra picks for to end up getting a journeyman.

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Ed_Formerly_of_Roch
add more info