Why the Bills Won't Trade Up to #2 (or 3 or 4)

[US Egg]

It'll break hearts for some in here if the Bills don't trade up ?

 

Jeez....just go jump off a very high building or bridge now. 

 

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, BuffaloRush said:

 

Well that makes sense.  I can totally see Gettleman staying at 2.  I’m just curious as to why you think the Giants will take a QB, when every reporter in the know says they are not interested.  

 

The only scenario that I can see happening is if that 3 way trade comes to fruition where the Giants drop to #4, pick up an extra pick and still get Barkley.  

I really have no idea what the Giants will do.   If it were me, I'd take a QB.   But I recognize that other people, particularly their GM, may have another view.   

 

But if they're NOT taking a QB, then the question is whether there are 0, 1, 2 or 3 non-QBs that look so good to them that they'll take them at 2.  If there are none, then the Giants should trade out of 2.   But if that were true, it probably would have happened already.   The rumor today is that they said no to the Bills' offer of three firsts.   Since it hasn't happened yet, I'm assuming the Giants have SOMEONE they want at 2.   

 

Okay, if they have someone they want at 2, the only way they're trading out of 2 is if the Browns take that guy at 1.   That isn't likely, because taking a non-QB at 1 means the Browns could be left with their third choice of QB at 4, so I'm pretty sure the Browns will go QB at 1.   Browns go QB, Giants aren't trading out.   

 

Only way the Giants are trading out of 2 is if they don't want a QB or don't like any of them AND they don't like any non-QB at 2.   That seems really unlikely.  

 

Bottom line, if there is no one the Giants want at 2, they likely would have traded out already.   If there is only one guy they want at 2, they are trading out only if the Browns take that guy.   If there are 2 guys they like at 2, they aren't trading out, at least not to 5 or worse.  .   

[Dr. Who]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Mason Rudolph, here we come.  

I like Allen, so there are 4 guys that have to go before desperation time for me.  I'm not convinced qb is a lock for Giants and Broncos.  Taking Rudolph at 12 or 22 is taking a third round qb in the 1st, imo.  I don't think Beane is that dim.  Wait on Luke Falk, Mike White or Lauletta if you're going that route.  Jackson is a risky pick, but he has a high ceiling at least.  Personally, I don't think 2, 4, 5, or 6 are locked down yet, so I'm not giving up hope.

[BuffaloRush]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I really have no idea what the Giants will do.   If it were me, I'd take a QB.   But I recognize that other people, particularly their GM, may have another view.   

 

But if they're NOT taking a QB, then the question is whether there are 0, 1, 2 or 3 non-QBs that look so good to them that they'll take them at 2.  If there are none, then the Giants should trade out of 2.   But if that were true, it probably would have happened already.   The rumor today is that they said no to the Bills' offer of three firsts.   Since it hasn't happened yet, I'm assuming the Giants have SOMEONE they want at 2.   

 

Okay, if they have someone they want at 2, the only way they're trading out of 2 is if the Browns take that guy at 1.   That isn't likely, because taking a non-QB at 1 means the Browns could be left with their third choice of QB at 4, so I'm pretty sure the Browns will go QB at 1.   Browns go QB, Giants aren't trading out.   

 

Only way the Giants are trading out of 2 is if they don't want a QB or don't like any of them AND they don't like any non-QB at 2.   That seems really unlikely.  

 

Bottom line, if there is no one the Giants want at 2, they likely would have traded out already.   If there is only one guy they want at 2, they are trading out only if the Browns take that guy.   If there are 2 guys they like at 2, they aren't trading out, at least not to 5 or worse.  .   

 

It all depends who they want at #2.  There is a lot of speculation that they want Barkley.  If they trade out of #2, there’s no gurantee he makes it past Cleveland at #4.  I am convinced they won’t take a QB and will end up with Barkley because they legit think he can be a HOF’er

[Shaw66]

Just now, Dr. Who said:

I like Allen, so there are 4 guys that have to go before desperation time for me.  I'm not convinced qb is a lock for Giants and Broncos.  Taking Rudolph at 12 or 22 is taking a third round qb in the 1st, imo.  I don't think Beane is that dim.  Wait on Luke Falk, Mike White or Lauletta if you're going that route.  Jackson is a risky pick, but he has a high ceiling at least.  Personally, I don't think 2, 4, 5, or 6 are locked down yet, so I'm not giving up hope.

I'm with you, I guess.   I really am trusting the process.   I have my preferences, but when Beane pulls the trigger one, I will start with the assumption he knows what's he doing.   

 

The only thing I won't like is if he has an opportunity and passes on Mayfield, Rosen or Darnold.   One of those is on the board when the Bills are on the clock, I think the Bills have to take him.  

[3rdand12]

i was full on, that Giants want Barkley as awin now and into the future player. I do not feel that so strongly anymore. I think it is some well placed smoke. Trade down if Cleveland takes Gettleman's QB. And they up and get bpa at 4,5, or 6

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm with you, I guess.   I really am trusting the process.   I have my preferences, but when Beane pulls the trigger one, I will start with the assumption he knows what's he doing.   

 

The only thing I won't like is if he has an opportunity and passes on Mayfield, Rosen or Darnold.   One of those is on the board when the Bills are on the clock, I think the Bills have to take him.  

yes. they most certainly must.

[oldmanfan]

11 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm with you, I guess.   I really am trusting the process.   I have my preferences, but when Beane pulls the trigger one, I will start with the assumption he knows what's he doing.   

 

The only thing I won't like is if he has an opportunity and passes on Mayfield, Rosen or Darnold.   One of those is on the board when the Bills are on the clock, I think the Bills have to take him.  

Not if Beane doesn't think they're that good.  He and his scouts have been killing themselves evaluating these guys.  Not just on the field but off.  If they think a guy like Rudolph has a better future then that's who they should take, regardless of fan reaction.

 

My guess is their guy is Rosen and they'll trade to 7 or 9 and get him.  But regardless Thursday night is going to be interesting.

[BadLandsMeanie]

29 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I understand that approach, but personally I think it would be foolish.   The Giants were not a team that was one player away from the Lombardi in 2017.   They were a mess.    They 21st in yardage offense, 31st in points offense, 31st in yardage defense and 27th in points defense.   They have a temperamental and unpredictable wideout, no running back and an old QB whose play has declined seriously for two years.  

 

If trading back for more picks and making a run at the Super Bowl in 2018 is the right strategy for the Giants, then McBeane should be fired right now.   If that's the right strategy for the Giants, then why isn't it the right strategy.   Tyrod Taylor was a much better QB than Manning over the past two years, the Bills defense was way better than the Giants, and the Bills have a much better running back.   

 

It makes no sense for a team that was totally ineffective on both sides of the ball in 2017 to believe they should ignore the future of the most important position on the team because they think a bunch of rookies are going to win the Super Bowl for them.  

Well, I think you are distorting things maybe. Yes Eli is older and his passing production has dropped severely. He only threw for about 24% more yards and touchdowns than Tyrod last year.  So yeah pretty bad. I don't see how the translates into Tyrod being way better, except as always, unless one ignores that Tyrod's passing problem.  Setting that aside he is pretty good. And Eli was without Beckham who was injured for a good part of last year. But like I say, I don't know about Eli now.

 

I do know that the Giants main needs are by consensus, Offensive line and running back and outside linebacker.

And as I mentioned, this draft is deep at those potions. 

Also Offensive line and running back can and do come in and help  right away. So yes, rookies can help right away at some positions.

 

So to me at least it is't so cut and dry what the best course of action is.

 

 

 

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Not if Beane doesn't think they're that good.  He and his scouts have been killing themselves evaluating these guys.  Not just on the field but off.  If they think a guy like Rudolph has a better future then that's who they should take, regardless of fan reaction.

 

My guess is their guy is Rosen and they'll trade to 7 or 9 and get him.  But regardless Thursday night is going to be interesting.

each and every ten minute, 'on the clock' block is going to seem like an eternity. especially if no trade has been made and qbs start to come off the board..

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, Foxx said:

each and every ten minute, 'on the clock' block is going to seem like an eternity. especially if no trade has been made and qbs start to come off the board..

I expect a number of trades Thursday night

[OldTimer1960]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I like Allen, so there are 4 guys that have to go before desperation time for me.  I'm not convinced qb is a lock for Giants and Broncos.  Taking Rudolph at 12 or 22 is taking a third round qb in the 1st, imo.  I don't think Beane is that dim.  Wait on Luke Falk, Mike White or Lauletta if you're going that route.  Jackson is a risky pick, but he has a high ceiling at least.  Personally, I don't think 2, 4, 5, or 6 are locked down yet, so I'm not giving up hope.

I think that Rudolph is a borderline 1st/2nd round QB.  I don’t think taking him at 22 is a terrible reach.  I do think that Falk is a 4th/5th round pick.

 

i could accept coming out of this draft without a QB, depending on who went before the Bills’ pick.  I think it is likely that the Bills don’t like at least one of the big 4 QBs. In that scenario, I could see them trading out of 12 for a first next year or a later 1 and 2nd or third this year.  

 

It it would suck for sure to not get a QB, but if the price is exorbitant and you can’t get one they like, then what can you do?

[blacklabel]

Staying where they're at with the picks they have isn't the worst thing that could happen. Two picks in rounds 1-3 ain't too shabby. But I just don't believe that they did all that legwork starting last summer up through the Glenn trade to sit back and take whatever's left to them. It may not be the Giants but at this point I'm more convinced that they'll manuever into the top seven, at least. The Giants don't have very many picks and still believe Eli has a few good years left. They could rake in a haul and fill a bunch of spots over these next two drafts and then go for their next QB with a readymade team already set around him. Giants are just waiting it out because they wanna see if anyone else comes at them with a better deal. I actually don't buy that they have legitimate interest in any of the top QBs. They're just posturing like they do because of the position they're in. 

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, OldTimer1960 said:

I think that Rudolph is a borderline 1st/2nd round QB.  I don’t think taking him at 22 is a terrible reach.  I do think that Falk is a 4th/5th round pick.

 

i could accept coming out of this draft without a QB, depending on who went before the Bills’ pick.  I think it is likely that the Bills don’t like at least one of the big 4 QBs. In that scenario, I could see them trading out of 12 for a first next year or a later 1 and 2nd or third this year.  

 

It it would suck for sure to not get a QB, but if the price is exorbitant and you can’t get one they like, then what can you do?

Yeah, they might not have a choice.  I just don't have a high opinion of Rudolph, sorry.

[OldTimer1960]

4 minutes ago, blacklabel said:

Staying where they're at with the picks they have isn't the worst thing that could happen. Two picks in rounds 1-3 ain't too shabby. But I just don't believe that they did all that legwork starting last summer up through the Glenn trade to sit back and take whatever's left to them. It may not be the Giants but at this point I'm more convinced that they'll manuever into the top seven, at least. The Giants don't have very many picks and still believe Eli has a few good years left. They could rake in a haul and fill a bunch of spots over these next two drafts and then go for their next QB with a readymade team already set around him. Giants are just waiting it out because they wanna see if anyone else comes at them with a better deal. I actually don't buy that they have legitimate interest in any of the top QBs. They're just posturing like they do because of the position they're in. 

If that is a good strategy, then why shouldn’t the Bills just sit tight and load up the roster aside from QB then go “all in” next year for a QB?

[Shaw66]

8 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Well, I think you are distorting things maybe. Yes Eli is older and his passing production has dropped severely. He only threw for about 24% more yards and touchdowns than Tyrod last year.  So yeah pretty bad. I don't see how the translates into Tyrod being way better, except as always, unless one ignores that Tyrod's passing problem.  Setting that aside he is pretty good. And Eli was without Beckham who was injured for a good part of last year. But like I say, I don't know about Eli now.

 

I do know that the Giants main needs are by consensus, Offensive line and running back and outside linebacker.

And as I mentioned, this draft is deep at those potions. 

Also Offensive line and running back can and do come in and help  right away. So yes, rookies can help right away at some positions.

 

So to me at least it is't so cut and dry what the best course of action is.

 

 

 

Taylor's receiving corps was equal to or worse than Mannings, Taylor was 16th in passer rating and Manning was 26th.   Manning's passer rating was solidly in EJ Manuel territory.   Manning was terrible last year.    Oh, and Taylor ran for 400 more yards and 3 more touchdowns.    I can't believe there is a coach in the NFL who would have taken Manning's year over Taylor's, even though Manning threw for more yards.  

 

But all that is beside the point.  At his absolute BEST, at his age, Manning is a mediocre starter in the NFL playing on a team that had MORE problems than the Bills had.   So if it makes sense for the Giants to ride their mediocre quarterback and draft a lot good rookies, it would make sense for the Bills, with a younger, more versatile mediocre QB and a better defense, to draft a bunch of young guys and make a run at the Super Bowl.  

[DefenseWins]

I think any talk about the Bills not drafting one of the top 4 QB's is pure nonsense.... The absolute lowest they eventually trade for is pick #5 IMHO... Even then do they not need to worry about Miami trying to outbid them for pick #4? I really don't think that the Bills need worry about Cleveland drafting 2 QB's as some are now speculating about.  4 more days...

 

[Shaw66]

11 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

I think that Rudolph is a borderline 1st/2nd round QB.  I don’t think taking him at 22 is a terrible reach.  I do think that Falk is a 4th/5th round pick.

 

i could accept coming out of this draft without a QB, depending on who went before the Bills’ pick.  I think it is likely that the Bills don’t like at least one of the big 4 QBs. In that scenario, I could see them trading out of 12 for a first next year or a later 1 and 2nd or third this year.  

 

It it would suck for sure to not get a QB, but if the price is exorbitant and you can’t get one they like, then what can you do?

Wow, I can't imagine that they won't take a QB in the first round.   I suppose it could happen.

 

But you're right, it would be a good strategy, if the Bills get shut out of their best QB choices, to trade out of 12 and pick up a first for next year, figuring that they'll have to postpone their run a top QB for a year.   

[Lfod]

If the Giants don't trade back and take a QB at #2, then I have to assume that by pick #4 that 3 QBs have already been selected. If they trade out of #2 I will assume it's to a team picking a QB. So even if the Browns make #4 available I wouldn't be interested. Your paying extra capital to pick the last of the Top 4 behind a division rival. You might as well stay in your spot and let whatever is left fall to you. 

 

It's been my view for awhile now. If you can't get to #2 then forget trading up. It was trade for #1,#2 or #3 or it's not really worth it. 

Edited April 22, 2018 by Lfod

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, DefenseWins said:

I think any talk about the Bills not drafting one of the top 4 QB's is pure nonsense.... The absolute lowest they eventually trade for is pick #5 IMHO... Even then do they not need to worry about Miami trying to outbid them for pick #4? I really don't think that the Bills need worry about Cleveland drafting 2 QB's as some are now speculating about.  4 more days...

 

As the board stands right now, it could go QB Browns, QB Giants, QB Jets, RB Browns, QB Broncos and the Bills are left out.   That's quite possible, if the four teams with the top five picks have differing views about who's the best QB.   If Denver's #! choice of QB falls to 5, their pick will not be available in a trade.   

 

Four QBs could go in the first five picks.   Two QBs could go in the first five.   

[oldmanfan]

Stay where they are, get a bunch of good young players, then take their huge amount of cap $$ next year, and throw it at the new minority owner of the Milwaukee Bucks.

[blacklabel]

6 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

If that is a good strategy, then why shouldn’t the Bills just sit tight and load up the roster aside from QB then go “all in” next year for a QB?

 

They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize. 

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, blacklabel said:

 

They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize. 

You're right, but it's possible the Giants decide to take a qb at 2 and the Broncos take a qb at 5.  I don't think it's likely, but it's also not implausible.  Lots of draft capital, but maybe no trade partner.

[Shaw66]

Just now, blacklabel said:

 

They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize. 

You have a fundamental flaw in your logic.   Just because they acquired all this draft capital, it doesn't follow that there MUST be a good QB in the draft.    For example, now matter how much draft capital the Bills might have acquired in the year he was drafted, EJ Manuel wouldn't have been a better quarterback.   

 

The Bills acquired the draft capital because it was the smart thing to do.   It wouldn't be a smart thing to do to spend it on some player just because they have it.  

[OldTimer1960]

4 minutes ago, blacklabel said:

 

They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize. 

Well sure, if they can get up for a QB that the like, that should be the plan.  However, there is a real chance that they can’t get into position to beat a QB that they like.  Let’s say that they like 3 QBs a lot - in that scenario, there is a good chance that they will get shut-out.  If that happens, and I’d say it is a 50-50 chance, it would be worse to just tak a QB to get one than to trade out or to take a very good prospect at another position.

[Foxx]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

You have a fundamental flaw in your logic.   Just because they acquired all this draft capital, it doesn't follow that there MUST be a good QB in the draft.    For example, now matter how much draft capital the Bills might have acquired in the year he was drafted, EJ Manuel wouldn't have been a better quarterback.   

 

The Bills acquired the draft capital because it was the smart thing to do.   It wouldn't be a smart thing to do to spend it on some player just because they have it.  

the fundamental flaw in this logic is the basic assumption that the draft capital wasn't acquired with a qb target in mind.

Edited April 22, 2018 by Foxx

[BuffaloBob]

2 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Something else to consider....we dont know how much influence our new OC is having with the HC and Beane.....the offense he brings from college is taylor made for Lamar Jackson.

 

I also think Rosen can run it well and he is more scheme diverse......so there is that.  Once again its all about what Bean is willing to give up.

Or is the offense he brings from college Jackson made for Tyrod Taylor?

Edited April 22, 2018 by BuffaloBob

[BuffaloBob]

29 minutes ago, blacklabel said:

 

They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize. 

You mean it isn't an intelligent strategy to get rid of players you don't think fit, or to eliminate players with untenable cap hits, for assets such as draft picks unless you are going take a QB?  That would seem an intelligent strategy EVERY year regardless of a team's need at the QB position. 

 

Moreover, few QB prospects are worth trading "whatever it takes" to get them, no matter the cost.  What matters is their assessment as to the value of each QB prospect (taking into account the premium nature of the position), and if it's going to cost much more, you cannot chase.  Are the guys in the top 3 worth that much more than a guy they can have at 12?  If yes, then make the trade, and if not, don't.  But I do not see this management team chasing a prospect way beyond the value they have assigned him simply to appease the fans and the media.

[OldTimer1960]

1 hour ago, blacklabel said:

 

They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize. 

But, the original post suggested that the Giants should not do the exact thing that we want the Bills to do.  I honestly think it will be a long-term mistake if the Giants trade 2 instead of taking a QB.  My reasoning is that Eli is close to done, if not done and they won’t likely be picking as high as 2nd again anytime soon.

 

My view is that, while we’d like the Giants to pass on a QB and trade 2 for 12 & 22 & ?, we would all be furious if we were Giants fans and they did that.

[purple haze]

3 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  I have been trying to get this point across for weeks now.  The Giants may want to get their QB of the future now while the cost is cheap.  Rosen, Darnold >>>>>>>>>>> Webb.

They don't know what they have in Webb.  Can't say and draftee is better than him at this point.

[Mickey]

4 hours ago, NickelCity said:

 

Are you kidding me? I think it's pretty clear that a huge portion of us are fully committed to the trade up option. Make no mistake, staying at 12 and missing on the big 3 will break hearts left and right. 

I agree. I certainly see that moving up high enough might not be possible so I won't be shocked at all if we end up stuck at 12. I'll be absolutely sick about it but I won't be shocked. Ugh.

[OldTimer1960]

2 minutes ago, purple haze said:

They don't know what they have in Webb.  Can't say and draftee is better than him at this point.

If that is true, then Bills should not trade up for any of these guys if they aren’t better prospects than Davis Webb.

[purple haze]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

the fundamental flaw in this logic is the basic assumption that the draft capital wasn't acquired with a qb target in mind.

Because that capital was acquired with a QB in mind does not mean they will use that capital  on just any QB.  Say Beane likes Darnold and Allen, but can't get the Giants to deal; and both of those QBs are taken; using that capital to acquire Rosen or Mayfield might be a non-starter for Beane, in spite of what some fans think of those two players, because he does not think they are worth it based on his study of their skills/personality etc.

Edited April 22, 2018 by purple haze

[oldmanfan]

They probably accumulated picks to try and get a QB this draft.  Might have even had a guy in mind last year.  But things change.  Darnold for example threw a lot of picks this past season.  

 

Ultimately having a lot of picks gives you flexibility as a GM.  And that is a valuable commodity.

[purple haze]

4 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

If that is true, then Bills should not trade up for any of these guys if they aren’t better prospects than Davis Webb.

Eli's presence along with the unknown in Webb could be why Giants aren't going QB.  The top QBs are better prospects than Webb was, but Webb is no longer a prospect; he's a guy who will be a young vet in the league, who has experience and knowledge of the game that this year's prospects dont have.

[Foxx]

3 minutes ago, purple haze said:

Because that capital was acquired with a QB in mind does not mean they will use that capital  on just any QB.  Say Beane likes Darnold and Allen, but can't get the Giants to deal; and both of those QBs are taken; using that capital to acquire Rosen or Mayfield might be a non-starter for Beane, in spite of what some fans think of those two players, because he does not think they are worth it based on his study of their skills/personality etc.

I agree. my response was in regard to the quoted material omitting the thought that there was a plan in mind when said draft capital was obtained.

[OldTimer1960]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

the fundamental flaw in this logic is the basic assumption that the draft capital wasn't acquired with a qb target in mind.

I’ve saved a lot of my income with a plan to retire at 55, but I am now closing in on 58 and circumstances have prevented me from retiring and likely won’t for at least 5 more years.

Point is plans are plans, don’t confuse them with reality.

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, OldTimer1960 said:

I’ve saved a lot of my income with a plan to retire at 55, but I am now closing in on 58 and circumstances have prevented me from retiring and likely won’t for at least 5 more years.

Point is plans are plans, don’t confuse them with reality.

:sigh: what does that even remotely have to do with my statement? where in there did i say that the plan will go off as designed? 

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, Radar said:

I'm so sick of that draft chart.

 

Why?

 

Because 3 1sts just sounds sooOOooo unreasonable to let go of?

[DefenseWins]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

As the board stands right now, it could go QB Browns, QB Giants, QB Jets, RB Browns, QB Broncos and the Bills are left out.   That's quite possible, if the four teams with the top five picks have differing views about who's the best QB.   If Denver's #! choice of QB falls to 5, their pick will not be available in a trade.   

 

Four QBs could go in the first five picks.   Two QBs could go in the first five.   

 

Denver has already publicly stated their willingness to trade out of the 5 pick. And no one knows the Giants intentions for #2 yet as far as we know. Beane might have some clue or he might not. A smart GM which I believe Beane to be based on his moves made so far will be in contact with all the teams with the top 7 picks to have contingency plans ready to go. We are not waiting till next year or any year after that. You'll see by Thursday night is my prediction.

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, NickelCity said:

 

I'll put it this way: if we draft Darnold or Rosen, I'm thrilled. If we draft Mayfield, I'm excited (close to thrilled tbh).  If we draft Allen or Jackson, I will be disappointed but as a coping mechanism will talk myself into liking it. If draft anyone else, I think that disappointment will be enduring. Whoever we draft, I will root for of course. 

 

Exactly how I feel, but swap Rosen and Mayfield and put Jackson up there with Rosen, assuming we draft him at 12