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

[The_Dude]

15 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...yet another highly insightful, contributory post which is your signature no matter which site you permeate.......rarified air on that high horse is a two fold danger being (1) a long way down if you fall and (2) brain cell damage due to oxygen deprivation...good Lord I think I've seen it all....SMH.............

 

It wasn’t intended to be insightful or informative you jackwagon. It was intended to be an opinionated comment. I’m not sure who put you in charge of what people can use the internet for but if you don’t like reading what I write, don’t read what I write. 

 

Also, I find comments like yours weird. I have no idea who you are or what your opinions are. I honestly don’t post that often on these things and will go weeks at a time without posting. Maybe the problem is you spend to much time on these boards? Take up hiking is my recommendation. 

15 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Or you can.

 

Let Beane do his job.

 

Is my posting on the internet preventing Beane from ‘doing his job?’ Because if the answer to that is no, your comment was stupid. Do you understand that your comment was stupid and why it’s stupid? Don’t worry, brah — we’ll Socratic-method the f$&@ out of this!

[Shaw66]

14 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

It wasn’t intended to be insightful or informative you jackwagon. It was intended to be an opinionated comment. I’m not sure who put you in charge of what people can use the internet for but if you don’t like reading what I write, don’t read what I write. 

 

Also, I find comments like yours weird. I have no idea who you are or what your opinions are. I honestly don’t post that often on these things and will go weeks at a time without posting. Maybe the problem is you spend to much time on these boards? Take up hiking is my recommendation. 

 

Is my posting on the internet preventing Beane from ‘doing his job?’ Because if the answer to that is no, your comment was stupid. Do you understand that your comment was stupid and why it’s stupid? Don’t worry, brah — we’ll Socratic-method the f$&@ out of this!

That's okay, Dude.  I still love you.  

[BuffaloHokie13]

I believe they will, assuming they have a willing partner. They love a QB, so the cost is basically irrelevant. 

[Shaw66]

39 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I believe they will, assuming they have a willing partner. They love a QB, so the cost is basically irrelevant. 

Umm, the point of the post was that there are no willing partners.   So, yes, the cost is irrelevant, there isn't anything the Bills can give the owners of the top 4 picks that will make them trade out. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

Umm, the point of the post was that there are no willing partners.   So, yes, the cost is irrelevant, there isn't anything the Bills can give the owners of the top 4 picks that will make them trade out. 

They are unwilling to trade now/were prior to finalizing their boards. Things may change as the draft unfolds.

[blacklabel]

15 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

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.

 

For sure. I still maintain that the Giants are just waiting it out to see if they can squeeze another team for more than what the Bills are offering. If the Broncos are now saying they wanna trade down, are they for sure in the QB market? Who knows. Thursday just needs to hurry up and get here haha.

15 hours 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.  

 

I didn't say that there "must be" a good QB in this draft, my assumption was is that the Bills likely have a QB or two on their "must have" list or they've determined that this is the year to finally pull off a trade to get themselves what *they* think is their must-have guy. That, IMO, is why they've put together so much capital. It's the opinion of plenty of others as well. Not many people expect the Bills to sit where they're at and let the board fall to them. Most are convinced that they will do everything in their power to trade up. Their actions over the last 8-10 months kind of point in this direction.

[Shaw66]

27 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

They are unwilling to trade now/were prior to finalizing their boards. Things may change as the draft unfolds.

This is a good point.   We don't know what any team thinks about any player on the board.  

 

Probably the surest bets are that the Browns will make sure they get the QB they want and the Jets will take a QB.   I suppose it's possible the Browns and Giants both take QBs and the Jets really don't want to burn #3 on anyone left, but I doubt it.   I think they're taking the guy they think is the best QB left on the board, regardless of who's left.   

 

I think it's more or less impossible for the Bills to get the #1 pick from the Browns.   

 

If Giants want a QB, they're taking one at 2.  If they want a non-QB, they're taking him at 2 UNLESS the Browns take him at 1.   If the Browns take the guy the Giants want, the Giants MIGHT trade out of 2.   I don't think that's very likely, but possible.   

 

Jets extremely unlikely to trade out of 3, unless they've done a deal with the Browns or Giants to move up, but that doesn't change what's available to the Bills.   Jets are extremely unlikely to do a deal with the Bills to let the Bills get their QB.

 

It just seems to me that the first pick that it makes any sense to talk about the Bills acquiring is #4.   Unlikely, but possible.   #5?   Possible, but only if the Broncos don't want the QB who is left.

 

#6 is probably the first realistic deal the Bills can do.   

 

I do think, however, that it's likely that the Bills will move up from 12.   Too many teams will want the third or fourth QB to hope he'll fall to 12.   

 

 

 

 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

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.   

 

 

I disagree with you pretty strongly about the Giants not wanting just one of a group. Of course if you're at #2 you"re not thinking that you want one of a group of five or so guys. But particularly if the Giants are sticking with Eli for the next couple of years or so in hopes of winning a championship they are very likely to end up trading back and thinking exactly that way. 

 

Yeah, the Browns aren't likely to pick Barkley and hope one guy falls to them. That's not because the method is flawed. It's because they have one priority, quarterback, which far outweighs any other need. So yeah, for three reasons, they're not likely to go RB first, since QB is their need that far overshadows any other need, and also because they're pretty likely to get Barkley at #4 anyway, and because they already have a ton of extra picks. The Giants do NOT have a ton of extra picks, and if they want to win a title in the short run on a tight salary cap, they absolutely need to fill holes in the draft with guys likely to play soon and well. That means they need extra picks in the early rounds this year and next.

 

As for who they would pick at #5 or #6 or #7 if they trade down, yeah, they likely have them ranked in order, but they also likely have a group of three guys that they would be happy to get. There are in fact three or four real difference makers who will likely go around there, Chubb, Quenton Nelson and Barkley. All three are at positions of need and all three are thought of as terrific prospects, guys who will be dominant, and all three at positions the Giants have built their teams around historically, front seven pass rushers, tough OLs (pundits are comparing Quenton Nelson to Hutchinson!!!) and runners to take the pressure off the QB. Any of these guys are likely to make whoever gets them very happy indeed, and the Giants would then also be able to get some excellent extra picks.

 

When you want to win now, in a short window, and you're looking at how the Giants played last year, you're not looking for one guy to change your team from a 3-win team to a Super Bowl champion quickly. You need to fill holes. And with good players.

 

I"m not 100% convinced they won't go QB at #2. My guess is that if Darnold (I assume that's who they want) is there, that's what they do unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer, but if their desired QB is not there, they might easily trade back depending on getting a good enough offer. There are three or four dominant non-QBs likely to go there and the Giants could easily have a group of guys they would be happy to get any of.

 

I think the question is very likely to indeed be exactly that ... will the Bills pay the price the Giants want?

Edited April 23, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I disagree with you pretty strongly about the Giants not wanting just one of a group. Of course if you're at #2 you"re not thinking that you want one of a group of five or so guys. But particularly if the Giants are sticking with Eli for the next couple of years or so in hopes of winning a championship they are very likely to end up trading back and thinking exactly that way. 

 

Yeah, the Browns aren't likely to pick Barkley and hope one guy falls to them. That's not because the method is flawed. It's because they have one priority, quarterback, which far outweighs any other need. So yeah, for three reasons, they're not likely to go RB first, since QB is their need that far overshadows any other need, and also because they're pretty likely to get Barkley at #4 anyway, and because they already have a ton of extra picks. The Giants do NOT have a ton of extra picks, and if they want to win a title in the short run on a tight salary cap, they absolutely need to fill holes in the draft with guys likely to play soon and well. That means they need extra picks in the early rounds this year and next.

 

As for who they would pick at #5 or #6 or #7 if they trade down, yeah, they likely have them ranked in order, but they also likely have a group of three guys that they would be happy to get. There are in fact three or four real difference makers who will likely go around there, Chubb, Quenton Nelson and Barkley. All three are at positions of need and all three are thought of as terrific prospects, guys who will be dominant, and all three at positions the Giants have built their teams around historically, front seven pass rushers, tough OLs and runners to take the pressure off the QB. Any of these guys are likely to make whoever gets them very happy indeed, and the Giants would then also be able to get some excellent extra picks.

 

When you want to win now, in a short window, and you're looking at how the Giants played last year, you're not looking for one guy to change your team from a 3-win team to a Super Bowl champion quickly. You need to fill holes. And with good players.

 

I"m not 100% convinced they won't go QB at #2. My guess is that if Darnold (I assume that's who they want) is there, that's what they do, but if he's not, they might easily trade back depending on getting a good enough offer. 

 

I think the question is very likely to indeed be exactly that ... will the Bills pay the price the Giants want?

Thurm, those are all good points, and you may be right.   

 

I don't agree because it's all based on the premise that the Giants think they can win in the short term.   They may very well be thinking that, but as I've said, I think that's the wrong choice.   When you were pretty bad, actually very bad, on both sides of the ball AND your QB has given two years of clear signs that his best years are behind him AND you have a new coach, it seems to me to be a sucker bet to think you're going to win big in the next year or two by adding a bunch of rookies.  

 

The Bills fielded a better team last season with a better QB, and we've pretty much all been convinced that the Bills need a new QB before they can make a serious Super Bowl run.   I just can't see how I would reach a different conclusion if I'm the Giants GM.  By the time I get all my rookies in the lineup and playing well, it's likely to be 2020, and I just can't believe anyone thinks Eli will be a Giant in 2020.   

 

We'll see.  

[26TrapDraw]

20 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

People need to be prepared that staying at 12 and picking could actually happen......

 

Dont set yourselves up for heartbreak

To be honest I hope they do stay put. The first 4 picks will dictate moving up but getting 5 picks ( potential plug and play starters) on a team that has more holes than Dennis Huff's chicken ranch can only be a good thing. If we listened to Beane's philosophy on building a team by having a bunch of players in their rookie deals holds true. There will be a bunch of pissed off Bills fans by the end of Thursday night. Unpopular decision as it may be. It will be the best one for this team.

[RochesterRob]

1 hour ago, BeefCurtns said:

To be honest I hope they do stay put. The first 4 picks will dictate moving up but getting 5 picks ( potential plug and play starters) on a team that has more holes than Dennis Huff's chicken ranch can only be a good thing. If we listened to Beane's philosophy on building a team by having a bunch of players in their rookie deals holds true. There will be a bunch of pissed off Bills fans by the end of Thursday night. Unpopular decision as it may be. It will be the best one for this team.

  Often the best decisions are the ones that are very unpopular at the time they are made.

[Boatdrinks]

12 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Often the best decisions are the ones that are very unpopular at the time they are made.

Just as often ( especially in Bills history) decisions that were unpopular at the time remain that way . Mostly because they were bad decisions. Bad decisions stay bad , whether they were popular or not . 

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

21 hours ago, TigerJ said:

If I'm Beane, I'm talking to John Elway about #5 before I talk to anybody else.  If Elway is adamant about not trading, that makes me suspicious that he's after a QB.  If I coveted a QB that much, I might then talk with Cleveland about #4.  If Elway is TOO eager to trade, I might suspect he's not interested in a QB.  At that point I might start talking with Indy or even Tampa about the terms of a trade.  The only sticking point about going too low is that in raises the odds of Miami or Arizona jumping ahead of the Bills to snatch  the last of the big 4.  If there are 2 QBs left that I like, after the Jets get theirs, I might be more inclined to take that chance.

Elway has already hinted at trading down.

[TheBeane]

Everyone seems to be talking in absolutes based off a few maybe slightly informed opinions people in the media might have.  Opinions based upon smoke and mirrors that all teams are putting up during the "silly season" in the NFL.

 

So while some theories might have higher probability than others, the only thing we can say for sure is that the bills will draft someone Thursday night.  Other than that, NO ONE on this board knows $#$#@!$#!

[Ayjent]

I think the Bills will move up on draft day if they get an opportunity, but I think they are wise to see how things play out and if they can get a guy they want at 6 through 11 which won't cost nearly as much - then they'll try to move on it.   I think standing pat is the best option if the cost is too high and Mayfield may drop into the 6-11 range because of concerns about his height and talent ceiling.     Realistically though, it does seem like it is going to be a mad scramble and big run to start the draft with several QBs picks.  You could see 5 go in the top 10 picks or less (Allen - Browns, Darnold - Giants, Rosen - Jets, Mayfield - Broncos, Jackson - Cardinals/Bills/Dolphins via Trade).

 

BTW if I were the Browns I'd draft two of the top QBs and hold them for ransom, while also giving yourself a chance to put off your QB of the future decision a little longer.  They'd also up the ante for any QB left over.  The Browns would be silly to draft Barkley - if the Browns were on the cusp of being a real threat to get a Super Bowl, fine get your RB that is the final piece, but drafting a RB (which is the least durable position long term) with their team's talent level makes no sense.  I thought the NFL was getting wise to not drafting RBs so high. 

[BadLandsMeanie]

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Thurm, those are all good points, and you may be right.   

 

I don't agree because it's all based on the premise that the Giants think they can win in the short term.   They may very well be thinking that, but as I've said, I think that's the wrong choice.   When you were pretty bad, actually very bad, on both sides of the ball AND your QB has given two years of clear signs that his best years are behind him AND you have a new coach, it seems to me to be a sucker bet to think you're going to win big in the next year or two by adding a bunch of rookies.  

 

The Bills fielded a better team last season with a better QB, and we've pretty much all been convinced that the Bills need a new QB before they can make a serious Super Bowl run.   I just can't see how I would reach a different conclusion if I'm the Giants GM.  By the time I get all my rookies in the lineup and playing well, it's likely to be 2020, and I just can't believe anyone thinks Eli will be a Giant in 2020.   

 

We'll see.  

Poppycock!!

[SouthNYfan]

3 hours ago, Ayjent said:

I think the Bills will move up on draft day if they get an opportunity, but I think they are wise to see how things play out and if they can get a guy they want at 6 through 11 which won't cost nearly as much - then they'll try to move on it.   I think standing pat is the best option if the cost is too high and Mayfield may drop into the 6-11 range because of concerns about his height and talent ceiling.     Realistically though, it does seem like it is going to be a mad scramble and big run to start the draft with several QBs picks.  You could see 5 go in the top 10 picks or less (Allen - Browns, Darnold - Giants, Rosen - Jets, Mayfield - Broncos, Jackson - Cardinals/Bills/Dolphins via Trade).

 

BTW if I were the Browns I'd draft two of the top QBs and hold them for ransom, while also giving yourself a chance to put off your QB of the future decision a little longer.  They'd also up the ante for any QB left over.  The Browns would be silly to draft Barkley - if the Browns were on the cusp of being a real threat to get a Super Bowl, fine get your RB that is the final piece, but drafting a RB (which is the least durable position long term) with their team's talent level makes no sense.  I thought the NFL was getting wise to not drafting RBs so high. 

 

David Khan tried this in the NBA.

He drafted 3 point guards in the first round one year, 2009, seen as a draft with a handful of top pgs available.

 

Ricky Rubio #5 (seen as a project)

Johnny Flynn #6 (undersized but lots of heart and from a winning college team)

Ty Lawson #18 

 

He passed on pgs:

Steph Curry (went #7. The warriors practically ran to the podium)

Brandon Jennings #10(won rookie of the year)

Jrue Holliday #17 (multiple time all star)

Jeff teague #18 (all star)

 

A couple of others too

 

It went terrible for the wolves though.

Khan thought he could trade the pgs, but everybody knew that you can't start 3pgs, so nobody wanted to pay for them, he wound up being stuck with them.

 

If the browns draft two top QBs, with Tyrod already on the roster, they won't get the same haul they could for say, #4 pick.

 

[transplantbillsfan]

20 hours ago, greeneblitz said:

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.

 

This just feels obvious, to me.

 

All of the things that have unfolded over the last year have been leading up to our 1st pick on Thursday.  The plan just seems so overtly out there for all to see.

 

Shaw's OP with doubts that we could get into the top 4 is something I'm really skeptical about, but it's possible we only trade up to 5 or 6... I still think we're trading up, almost inevitably.

 

And yes, you need trade partners.  But teams like the Colts and Giants, who might think they already have their QBs in place, are significantly more likely to be willing to deal picks, especially to a team like the Bills, who have 6 picks in the first 3 rounds.  Peter Schrager on GMFB this morning proposed (seemingly based on what he's hearing) that the Bills would trade up to the #6 pick with the Colts by giving them 12, 22 and 56 and then get up to #2 by giving the Giants 2 and next year's 1st.  I think we'll need to throw in another pick, at that point.  But if we give the Giants the 6th, they'll still get Chubb, Nelson or Barkley... all considered arguably the best players in this draft and future Gold Jacket players, which the G-Men desperately want.

 

Everything is in play...

[BadLandsMeanie]

On 4/22/2018 at 2:46 PM, 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.  

You seem firm in your beliefs.

 

But you don't go further. What will they then do if the 3 prime Qbs are gone?

 

How will they sell that to the fan base?

[OldTimer1960]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

This just feels obvious, to me.

 

All of the things that have unfolded over the last year have been leading up to our 1st pick on Thursday.  The plan just seems so overtly out there for all to see.

 

Shaw's OP with doubts that we could get into the top 4 is something I'm really skeptical about, but it's possible we only trade up to 5 or 6... I still think we're trading up, almost inevitably.

 

And yes, you need trade partners.  But teams like the Colts and Giants, who might think they already have their QBs in place, are significantly more likely to be willing to deal picks, especially to a team like the Bills, who have 6 picks in the first 3 rounds.  Peter Schrager on GMFB this morning proposed (seemingly based on what he's hearing) that the Bills would trade up to the #6 pick with the Colts by giving them 12, 22 and 56 and then get up to #2 by giving the Giants 2 and next year's 1st.  I think we'll need to throw in another pick, at that point.  But if we give the Giants the 6th, they'll still get Chubb, Nelson or Barkley... all considered arguably the best players in this draft and future Gold Jacket players, which the G-Men desperately want.

 

Everything is in play...

But that would be a horrible deal. 12, 22, 56, a top 10 pick next year and more for - a QB who could not carry his college team to great success- yet many think that magically they will do just that with a Bills team under-talented and strangled by having traded away prime draft picks.