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

[RochesterRob]

8 minutes ago, DefenseWins said:

 

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.

  Denver "trading out" of 5 does not preclude moving up as opposed to the more widely held view of moving down.  Keenum and Lynch do not have no trade clauses after all.  Only Elway and a couple of others know for sure if Lynch is worth spending more roster time for.  Signing Keenum is not a vote of confidence for Lynch.  Elway might be biding his time with Lynch looking for a window to move Lynch.

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, OldTimer1960 said:

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.

If Eli Manning is as done or close to done as you imply, the Giants will be picking pretty high again in short order. Giants fans were furious that Manning was benched by McAdoo last year. The Giants offseason actions as an organization don't seem to line up with one that believes Eli Manning is finished at QB. We'll see, but my gut tells me they don't go QB in round 1. 

[OldTimer1960]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

: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? 

Perhaps I was wrong, but I thought that your point was that the Bills wanted a QB this year, so they acquired extra picks to try to trade up for one.  That was their PLAN, but circumstances may preclude them from making good on that plan.

[Domdab99]

6 hours ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

The Jets might have overpaid for the 3rd pick to making it harder for a team to trade up in front of them. My ideal draft is for Darnold and Mayfield gone at picks 1 and 2 leaving the Jets with the ????????? QB's.

 

Why is this ideal? It would mean the Bills will either have to sit T 12 and take Jackson, or overpay for Allen.

 

this is a nightmare for the Bills, not ideal!

[mead107]

They don’t have to trade up for Riley 

[greeneblitz]

funny, I'm of the mind that if there is any way human possible, they're gonna trade up as far as they can to get the exact QB they desire.

[DefenseWins]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  Denver "trading out" of 5 does not preclude moving up as opposed to the more widely held view of moving down.  Keenum and Lynch do not have no trade clauses after all.  Only Elway and a couple of others know for sure if Lynch is worth spending more roster time for.  Signing Keenum is not a vote of confidence for Lynch.  Elway might be biding his time with Lynch looking for a window to move Lynch.

 

Denver has indicated the willingness to trade down for additional draft picks. There have been no rumors of them wanting to trade up. And they need to surround Keenum with as much good talent as they can. They have plenty of holes to fill on that team... But don't listen to me... We'll see which one of us is right Thursday night between 8 and 9 pm...

Edited April 23, 2018 by DefenseWins

[Domdab99]

The key is Denver. If they pick Rosen at #5, it's going to be a long night for Bills' fans who are saying "franchise QB or bust!"

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree with this too.   I just can't see how the Giants can afford to pass on a QB.   So three QBs go in the top 4, and as you say maybe 4 in 5.   

 

So if the Bills' favorite QB is available at 4, MAYBE they can put together a deal with the Browns to get ahead of the Broncos.  

 

All seems pretty remote to me.   

 

I don't understand how anyone would think a team with a 2 time Super Bowl mvp who's 37 in a league where the last few QBs retiring were 39 or 40 thinks that team is drafting a QB at 2, rather than a supplemental player.

[formerlyofCtown]

7 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Like lots of people here, I've been thinking about what might happen between now and Thursday night.  

 

We've seen some rumors about the Bills talking to the Giants and some rumors about there being no deal with the Giants.  

 

Well, as I think about, it seems clear that there'll be no deal with Giants because the Bills can't offer the Giants anything that works for the Giants.  

 

Either the Giants want one of the good QBs or they don't.   If they want one of the good QBs, then the only trade they'll do is to move to 1, 3 or possibly 4.   If they trade down below 4, the QB they want could be gone.   If they want one of the stud non-QBs, they can't move to 5 because the Browns may take the best stud non-QB at 4.   

 

So it seems likely the only way the Bills could get to #2 would be if the Bills first traded to 4 and then traded up again.   But getting to 4 will be expensive - probably at least the 12 and 22, and that would be only if the Browns didn't like any of the studs at the top of the draft.   Then from 4 to 2 probably would cost next year's first.   

 

There's a rumor that the Bills actually offered those three firsts to the Giants and the Giants said no.   The Giants said no, probably, because they know they don't want to pick below 3 or 4 at the worst, and getting those three firsts doesn't help them UNLESS THEY have a deal with the Browns for 4.   

 

So that means to me the only route there is for the Bills to get to #2 is essentially a three-team trade, where the Bills go to #2, the Giants go to #4 and get the Bills' first round pick next year, and the Browns get the Bills' #12 and #22.   (Maybe a few late-round picks thrown in here and there to grease the skids.)   That seems to me to be a very, very hard deal to make.   Giants more or less won't do it if they want a QB, because it lets Buffalo and the Jets get in the QB line ahead of the Giants.   Only can work if the Giants want one of the top-of-the-draft non-QB studs AND the Browns don't want any of them.   

 

And it's much easier for the Giants to tell the Jets they're looking to trade out of #2, and to protect themselves the Jets would need to trade up.   So the Giants can easily pick up another nice pick by moving back to #3, at no cost to them so long as they don't want a QB.   

 

So the Bills are picking, at the very best, 4th.   Even that seems like a stretch.   The QB they want would have to be there (after the Browns, Giants and Jets have taken two or three of the QBs), and the Bills would have to be willing to give 12 and 22 to get there.   Possible, not likely.  

 

Can the Bills get to 5?   Only if the Broncos don't want the QB the Bills want. 

 

So it looks to me like Bills will be picking after at least 3 QBs have come off the board.  

 

If the Bills actually did offer the Giants three first round picks (12, 22 and 2019) for #2, I wonder this:   Two months ago, that was  21, 22 and Cordy Glenn.   Did the Bills offer THAT to the Colts for #3?   THAT's the deal the Bills should have made, if it was possible.   The problem always was that the Jets had a much more attractive first-round pick to offer.  

the giants want a QB or Chubb.  Chubb will have a Gold Jacket some day.

They may also feel than Barkley is the key to Manning being successful.  Some may think it's dumb but if they think they can fix their line without trading down then they may believe adding Barkley puts them over the top.

Consider what the bills had in Thurman, Kelly and Reed or consider what we had in Bruce.  Those players where a big part of a dynasty.

Manning, Barkley and OBJ is really scary and this draft is deep at interior OL.  They may feel a weak middle has made their Tackles look bad.

7 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

#3? With the NYJ?  You don't say.  I highly doubt the the NYG and NYJ work together on any deal. 

I have heard that a lot but the only arguement that might make a small amount of sense is they are in the same market but NY/NJ is a big market and the Yankees and Mets have made trades.

[Shaw66]

13 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I don't understand how anyone would think a team with a 2 time Super Bowl mvp who's 37 in a league where the last few QBs retiring were 39 or 40 thinks that team is drafting a QB at 2, rather than a supplemental player.

That's interesting. I see your point.   

 

I guess I see it differently because I think Manning has looked horrible for a couple of years.  It's not like Brees, who has performed really well.  Manning has looked like his body no longer can deliver what his brain might see.  

 

You have to get your qb when you see him.

 

Pats apparently are looking to move up because they think they need a qb.  Their qb has said, altho not recently, that he's going to play 2 more years.  So if the Pats want a qb even tho they may have Brady for two years, why would the Giants not want a qb because they have Manning?  Doesn't make sense to me. 

[formerlyofCtown]

7 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Like lots of people here, I've been thinking about what might happen between now and Thursday night.  

 

We've seen some rumors about the Bills talking to the Giants and some rumors about there being no deal with the Giants.  

 

Well, as I think about, it seems clear that there'll be no deal with Giants because the Bills can't offer the Giants anything that works for the Giants.  

 

Either the Giants want one of the good QBs or they don't.   If they want one of the good QBs, then the only trade they'll do is to move to 1, 3 or possibly 4.   If they trade down below 4, the QB they want could be gone.   If they want one of the stud non-QBs, they can't move to 5 because the Browns may take the best stud non-QB at 4.   

 

So it seems likely the only way the Bills could get to #2 would be if the Bills first traded to 4 and then traded up again.   But getting to 4 will be expensive - probably at least the 12 and 22, and that would be only if the Browns didn't like any of the studs at the top of the draft.   Then from 4 to 2 probably would cost next year's first.   

 

There's a rumor that the Bills actually offered those three firsts to the Giants and the Giants said no.   The Giants said no, probably, because they know they don't want to pick below 3 or 4 at the worst, and getting those three firsts doesn't help them UNLESS THEY have a deal with the Browns for 4.   

 

So that means to me the only route there is for the Bills to get to #2 is essentially a three-team trade, where the Bills go to #2, the Giants go to #4 and get the Bills' first round pick next year, and the Browns get the Bills' #12 and #22.   (Maybe a few late-round picks thrown in here and there to grease the skids.)   That seems to me to be a very, very hard deal to make.   Giants more or less won't do it if they want a QB, because it lets Buffalo and the Jets get in the QB line ahead of the Giants.   Only can work if the Giants want one of the top-of-the-draft non-QB studs AND the Browns don't want any of them.   

 

And it's much easier for the Giants to tell the Jets they're looking to trade out of #2, and to protect themselves the Jets would need to trade up.   So the Giants can easily pick up another nice pick by moving back to #3, at no cost to them so long as they don't want a QB.   

 

So the Bills are picking, at the very best, 4th.   Even that seems like a stretch.   The QB they want would have to be there (after the Browns, Giants and Jets have taken two or three of the QBs), and the Bills would have to be willing to give 12 and 22 to get there.   Possible, not likely.  

 

Can the Bills get to 5?   Only if the Broncos don't want the QB the Bills want. 

 

So it looks to me like Bills will be picking after at least 3 QBs have come off the board.  

 

If the Bills actually did offer the Giants three first round picks (12, 22 and 2019) for #2, I wonder this:   Two months ago, that was  21, 22 and Cordy Glenn.   Did the Bills offer THAT to the Colts for #3?   THAT's the deal the Bills should have made, if it was possible.   The problem always was that the Jets had a much more attractive first-round pick to offer.  

Another thing I have considered is that Gettlemen knows Beane and maybe he feels Beane and McD will field a better team than people think (Some have said first overall pick next year).  After so many years of loosing I am excited and content to be patient and see what they do.  They may not get the QB this year maybe they get one in 2 years or maybe QBs in next years draft turn out to be better than expected.  Maybe we sign Foles next offseason to compete.  It just seems like people feel like it's the end of the world if we don't get Mayfield, Darnold or Rosen.  Although I feel the individual view of the QBs is a bit over-hyped I belive this draft is loaded with QBs that have a good chance of success.  I am more nervous about our QB coach than not getting one of the popular top 4.  I believe most  QBs fail due to an inability of a team to lead them to success.  Look at Kurt Warner he was great with the Rams and then sucked with the Rams and then in the SB with AZ.  Brees was good in SD and HOF in New Orleans.  Ryan Leaf was a great college QB, he got drafted by SD and bombed.  Manning didn't want to go to SD may have also had something to do with there organization.  Sometimes I think Marone ruined EJ.  People want to blame or lack of a QB for our struggles but I think it has been cheap coaches and GMs brought in by a Buffalo loyal but cheap owner.  I also don't believe our Team is as bad as people think.  The players we have aquired have had success in the past and McD seems to be Belicheckian in getting production out of players.

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

That's interesting. I see your point.   

 

I guess I see it differently because I think Manning has looked horrible for a couple of years.  It's not like Brees, who has performed really well.  Manning has looked like his body no longer can deliver what his brain might see.  

 

You have to get your qb when you see him.

 

Pats apparently are looking to move up because they think they need a qb.  Their qb has said, altho not recently, that he's going to play 2 more years.  So if the Pats want a qb even tho they may have Brady for two years, why would the Giants not want a qb because they have Manning?  Doesn't make sense to me. 

I don't think the Patriots will move up to draft a QB in round one. If they felt that strongly about the need for a QB , I think they would have tagged Garoppolo and bit the bullet . Or just traded Brady like practically every other team has done when a great QB was near the end and they had another QB in hand. 

[formerlyofCtown]

28 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I don't understand how anyone would think a team with a 2 time Super Bowl mvp who's 37 in a league where the last few QBs retiring were 39 or 40 thinks that team is drafting a QB at 2, rather than a supplemental player.

I will say that Greenbay drafted Rogers with Favre in place.

I will also say that it is the view of the Manning Family that a QB drafted that high should start.  That is why Peyton and the Colts parted ways.  If they take a QB a Manning release or trade is likely. 

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

That's interesting. I see your point.   

 

I guess I see it differently because I think Manning has looked horrible for a couple of years.  It's not like Brees, who has performed really well.  Manning has looked like his body no longer can deliver what his brain might see.  

 

You have to get your qb when you see him.

 

Pats apparently are looking to move up because they think they need a qb.  Their qb has said, altho not recently, that he's going to play 2 more years.  So if the Pats want a qb even tho they may have Brady for two years, why would the Giants not want a qb because they have Manning?  Doesn't make sense to me. 

 

See, I think a new coach and GM would see Manning as a puzzle piece, the most important one, filled and the need to fill other positions to supplement him. 

 

But who knows.

[NastyNateSoldiers]

11 hours ago, Logic said:

While I can't say definitively whether the Bills made the offer to the Colts or not, I CAN say this...Colts GM Chris Ballard is on the record as saying that, while he's willing to move back, he doesn't want to move back so far that he's out of "premiere player" range. He has stated that he believes there are only 8 "premiere level" non-QB players in this draft. As such, I doubt the Colts would've agreed to move down that far. I even doubt that they'd be willing to move back to 12, since that's right on the edge of being out of "premiere player" range, according to Ballard.

 

Basically if they see 3 QBs off the board by 6 then they could be willing to move bk to 12 because there's a great chance they get 1 of those 8. Actually it's guaranteed because the Bills move up and grab the 4th QB that leaves 6 postional players left. 

 

The Colts will not accept anything less then a extra 1 at this pt. They won't trade bk from there original spot at 3 to 12 for 4 2s no way no how . Not even if we offered 2 2s . I'm pretty sure the Bills offered them a couple 1s 12,22 and a couple of 2s in the first place before they traded with the Jets.

[transplantbillsfan]

11 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

5/6 is correct.   5 is the first spot where a deal could happen, and then only if the Broncos aren't in the QB market or don't like what's left.   

 

I like Mayfield first and Rosen second.   There's some chance one falls to 5 and possibly even 6.   That's why I think that if the Bills trade up, it'll be to 5, 6, 7, 8, and then only if the right guy is still on the board.  

 

So, first of all, I strongly disagree that the Giants wouldn't be willing to trade down to 5 or 6, but might be willing to trade down to 4, as you insinuate in the OP.

 

Chubb, Barkley or Nelson are guaranteed to be there at 5, probably 6. And all are positions of need for the Giants. And stockpiles of other picks could be viewed as very valuable if a GM trusts his scouting department.

 

If I had to put money down on 5 spots we're drafting on Thursday with our 1st pick, #12 wouldn't even be my 1st or 2nd spot to put money on because I legitimately think staying at 12 is viewed as kinda a last resort for Beane. Not last resort like end of the world, but last resort like clearly not what he planned to do.

 

If I could wager on 4 different spots we're drafting, it's 2, 4, 5 & 6. As I said before, I think there's a price for everything, and a Giants team that has a QB they might still perceive as a Franchise QB (look what Shermur pulled outta Case Keenum) ready to make at least one more SB run, a Browns team that's drafted it's Franchise QB at 1 and is ready to continue loading the team up, a Broncos team not so far removed from a SB and ready to go again with more competent QB play from a guy who came to life last year, or a Colts team clearly ready to wheel and deal are all teams that I think Beane is looking at and trying to find the right price.

 

GMs are cocky, don't forget. They all think they know who the best players are and can get them later than everyone else... just look at the hoodie always stockpiling picks trading back. Beane can play on that and still get up and get "his guy."

 

We can still get to 4 or 2.

Edited April 23, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Like lots of people here, I've been thinking about what might happen between now and Thursday night.  

 

We've seen some rumors about the Bills talking to the Giants and some rumors about there being no deal with the Giants.  

 

Well, as I think about, it seems clear that there'll be no deal with Giants because the Bills can't offer the Giants anything that works for the Giants.  

 

Either the Giants want one of the good QBs or they don't.   If they want one of the good QBs, then the only trade they'll do is to move to 1, 3 or possibly 4.   If they trade down below 4, the QB they want could be gone.   If they want one of the stud non-QBs, they can't move to 5 because the Browns may take the best stud non-QB at 4.   

 

So it seems likely the only way the Bills could get to #2 would be if the Bills first traded to 4 and then traded up again.   But getting to 4 will be expensive - probably at least the 12 and 22, and that would be only if the Browns didn't like any of the studs at the top of the draft.   Then from 4 to 2 probably would cost next year's first.   

 

There's a rumor that the Bills actually offered those three firsts to the Giants and the Giants said no.   The Giants said no, probably, because they know they don't want to pick below 3 or 4 at the worst, and getting those three firsts doesn't help them UNLESS THEY have a deal with the Browns for 4.   

 

So that means to me the only route there is for the Bills to get to #2 is essentially a three-team trade, where the Bills go to #2, the Giants go to #4 and get the Bills' first round pick next year, and the Browns get the Bills' #12 and #22.   (Maybe a few late-round picks thrown in here and there to grease the skids.)   That seems to me to be a very, very hard deal to make.   Giants more or less won't do it if they want a QB, because it lets Buffalo and the Jets get in the QB line ahead of the Giants.   Only can work if the Giants want one of the top-of-the-draft non-QB studs AND the Browns don't want any of them.   

 

And it's much easier for the Giants to tell the Jets they're looking to trade out of #2, and to protect themselves the Jets would need to trade up.   So the Giants can easily pick up another nice pick by moving back to #3, at no cost to them so long as they don't want a QB.   

 

So the Bills are picking, at the very best, 4th.   Even that seems like a stretch.   The QB they want would have to be there (after the Browns, Giants and Jets have taken two or three of the QBs), and the Bills would have to be willing to give 12 and 22 to get there.   Possible, not likely.  

 

Can the Bills get to 5?   Only if the Broncos don't want the QB the Bills want. 

 

So it looks to me like Bills will be picking after at least 3 QBs have come off the board.  

 

If the Bills actually did offer the Giants three first round picks (12, 22 and 2019) for #2, I wonder this:   Two months ago, that was  21, 22 and Cordy Glenn.   Did the Bills offer THAT to the Colts for #3?   THAT's the deal the Bills should have made, if it was possible.   The problem always was that the Jets had a much more attractive first-round pick to offer.  

 

 

No particular reason the Giants would want only #4. Probably #5 or #6, perhaps even #7 might be fine for them, enough to get one of Chubb, Barkley, Quenton Nelson or Minkah Fitzpatrick, or Ward or whoever.

 

IMO the reason they didn't accept the three 1sts (assuming the rumor is true) could just as easily be that they think they can get a bit more as that they don't want to trade below 4th. 

 

Bucky Brooks has an article out now about why the Giants won't go QB. It's convincing. Not slam-dunk of course, but it makes a ton of sense.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000927745/article/aaron-rodgers-deserves-better-giants-wont-take-a-qb-at-no-2

 

My guess is that a tradeup to #2 is most likely, #5 next, and #4 third most likely. I'd put #6 higher but I feel the top three QBs and maybe even the top four are gone by #5.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Thurman#1

[The_Dude]

16 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  The Bills can't force teams to do a trade that they don't want to do.

 

....well thanks for that info. 

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

No particular reason the Giants would want only #4. Probably #5 or #6, perhaps even #7 might be fine for them, enough to get one of Chubb, Barkley, Quenton Nelson or Minkah Fitzpatrick, or Ward or whoever.

 

IMO the reason they didn't accept the three 1sts (assuming the rumor is true) could just as easily be that they think they can get a bit more as that they don't want to trade below 4th. 

 

Bucky Brooks has an article out now about why the Giants won't go QB. It's convincing. Not slam-dunk of course, but it makes a ton of sense.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000927745/article/aaron-rodgers-deserves-better-giants-wont-take-a-qb-at-no-2

 

My guess is that a tradeup to #2 is most likely, #5 next, and #4 third most likely. I'd put #6 higher but I feel the top three QBs and maybe even the top four are gone by #5.

As I've said, I certainly may be wrong.  MY view is that if I were the Giants GM I'd get my QB now.  Gettleman's view may be different. 

 

One thing you said and another poster said I think needs a little investigation.  You said 5 6 or 7 may be enough to get one of Barkley Nelson, FItzpatrick etc.   That's true, I'm sure, but I don't think GMs think about it that way.  not in the first five picks.   That's how you think in the second round, because the difference in the players gets pretty small there.   

 

When you're picking at 2, you aren't thinking "any one of these 5 guys will do."  You're thinking about a guy you think will change your team for 10 years.   You have a special opportunity.   And although it may be true that there are 5 such players in the draft this year, they don't all look the same to you.   You almost certainly have rated them 1 through 5, and you almost certainly prefer your #1 to everyone on the list except possibly #2.   For example, I think it's highly unlikely that the Browns are sitting at 1 and thinking "any one of three QBs will do, so let's take Barkely at 1 and see which QB falls to us."   I think it's very unlikely they'll settle for their third choice at QB when they could have had their first.   Maybe their second, but not their third.  

 

For the Giants it's probably Barkely and Chubb.   If they don't want a QB, their mindset is they gotta get one of those.   If that's what they're thinking, then MAYBE they can trade back to 5, IF they assume the Broncos want a QB.   However, they could trade back to 5 and be surprised to discover that the Broncos didn't want a QB, and have the Broncos and Browns take Barkely and Chubb.  So even 5 is a risk for the Giants unless they KNOW that their trade partner is taking a QB.   

 

So maybe the Bills' strategy is trade up to 5, which probably costs them their two firsts, then trade the 5 and next year's first and something else to get to 2.   Giants might do that because they know the Bills will take a QB.   Still, that's going to get really pricey for the Bills.   

 

Again, however, I don't think the question is whether the Bills will pay the price.   I think the problem is that it's very likely that the Giants don't want to lose the guy - QB or non-QB - whom they can get at 2.   

Edited April 23, 2018 by Shaw66