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

[Tyrod's friend]

On 4/22/2018 at 3:08 PM, McBean said:

Stay at 12 and draft Edmunds then Rudolph at 22.

 

OR

 

Jackson at 12 and Vander Esch at 22.

 

We aren’t moving to 2 because the Giants are taking a QB. The media is fake news. They know about as much as Dunkirk Dufus and just throw crap at the wall hoping some of it sticks.

 

Let me ask you this, how many media members mocked Trubisky to Chicago last year? ZERO!

 

I’ll tell you another thing as well. Not only are the Giants taking a QB, but the Broncos will as well. That’s my bold prediction. 4 QB’s go inside the top 5.

 

 

If four of the first five picks are QBs, then at least two teams f'd up: the Giants, and whomever took Josh Allen in the top five. 

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, OldTimer1960 said:

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.

 

Have our picks for next year come out already? 

 

Last I checked, we don't know where we're picking next year. I highly doubt it's going to be a top 10 pick.

 

Keep wallowing in mediocrity. Thankfully, I don't think Beane plans to.

Edited April 24, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[Straight Hucklebuck]

It took three 2nds for the Jets to move up from 6 to 3.

 

For the Bills to get to 12 to 2? It will take 12, 22, 53, 56 and probably next years first. 

[Boatdrinks]

7 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

It took three 2nds for the Jets to move up from 6 to 3.

 

For the Bills to get to 12 to 2? It will take 12, 22, 53, 56 and probably next years first. 

It will take a team being willing to do it, and the Bills willing to pay what that team decides is enough. Otherwise no deal. 

[Thurman#1]

10 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.  

 

 

We'll see. It may well be the wrong choice. I don't think so. It's a reasonable choice, IMO

 

But Eli has been up and down his whole career. It's not just the last couple of years he's had problems. It's when he's in a bad situation, which he certainly was last year. The Giants were 26th in running and averaged 3.9 YPC. Teams could focus on stopping Eli and it got a lot easier with Beckham out. Their OL had some serious weaknesses.

 

And Eli won't turn 38 till January. He's still a bit younger than aging generally hits most QBs.

 

This is a reasonable choice. Either way. When you have a QB like Eli, you're in a great position. It's fairly unusual. Making taking advantage of it your priority is a very reasonable way to go about things. Plenty of non-QB rookies, particularly first and second rounders, play very well very early. Comparing Eli and Tyrod ... you left me a bit speechless there for a second. There's no comparison. Eli has two Lombardis.  That's why it's reasonable to think he might play better in the next couple of years. Gettleman is on record as saying he thinks they can get two more good years out of Eli. Maybe he's wrong about that, but with full access to the coaching staff he has a lot more info on the situation than we do. And if he's right, he might well be doing the right thing to take the chance of working towards a title in the next few years (and maybe bringing in someone like a Lauletta and developing him).

 

I wouldn't do it myself. I'd go QB early. But either way is reasonable.

[Buffalo Ballin]

14 hours ago, Ayjent said:

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. 

Damn, dude. You've been watching too much...

 

[Sweats]

Why don’t we just pull a “Ditka” while we’re at it.

 

I mean, like who in the hell needs all those damn picks anyways.

[billsredneck1]

On 4/22/2018 at 2:54 PM, KRT88 said:

This just isn't going to happen.  Buffalo seems far more likely to move up to 6 thu 9! They are not staying at 12.

i have the feeling they will have to do this just to get ahead of the fins. i have a bad feeling about them sitting right in front of us.

On 4/22/2018 at 3:47 PM, BobDVA said:

I do not have a problem with that.

neither do i and i'd like to add that unless a.j. gets hurt, there will be zero reason to put a rookie on the field.

[billsredneck1]

On 4/22/2018 at 4:01 PM, 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.

i think the giants would be stupid to not take darnold or more so rosen. if they bolster their line a bit, they could transition from eli after this season and i think the chances are very high with that. it would be a wise investment. rosen would be perfect for them. i don't see them moving at all.

[Thurman#1]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 11:23 PM, 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.  

 

 

I agree with most of your post here, but not the main point.

 

Yeah, you have to think the Giants can win in the short term to not pick a QB here, IMHO. Agreed.

 

Simply, it looks to me like the Giants think just that. They seem to think that it was a few key injuries and a few areas of severe need that caused this, along with a serious locker room / coaching problem. IMO they may be right. I think it's a very reasonable argument. And Nate Solder and Jonathan Stewart (more as a leader than an RB) are decent steps in the right direction. Should depend how quickly they can get their new 3-4 defense to work and that should depend partly on how many good young fits they can draft.

 

As I say, if I were their GM, I'd pick a QB. But I think there's a very reasonable argument both ways. Which is why nobody is sure what they'll do. It's just not as obvious as you're saying here.

 

Agree with your finish. We'll see. Should be interesting, either way.

[GreggTX]

On April 22, 2018 at 1:56 PM, 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. 

He's right. It takes 2 to tango, but it would be a huge disappointment if we didn't get Darnold, Rosen or Mayfield. I could live with Allen and hope the rest of his game matches his arm talent.

I think we pick at 5 or 6 and get Allen or Mayfield. Best guess.

[GreggTX]

On April 23, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

We'll see. It may well be the wrong choice. I don't think so. It's a reasonable choice, IMO

 

But Eli has been up and down his whole career. It's not just the last couple of years he's had problems. It's when he's in a bad situation, which he certainly was last year. The Giants were 26th in running and averaged 3.9 YPC. Teams could focus on stopping Eli and it got a lot easier with Beckham out. Their OL had some serious weaknesses.

 

And Eli won't turn 38 till January. He's still a bit younger than aging generally hits most QBs.

 

This is a reasonable choice. Either way. When you have a QB like Eli, you're in a great position. It's fairly unusual. Making taking advantage of it your priority is a very reasonable way to go about things. Plenty of non-QB rookies, particularly first and second rounders, play very well very early. Comparing Eli and Tyrod ... you left me a bit speechless there for a second. There's no comparison. Eli has two Lombardis.  That's why it's reasonable to think he might play better in the next couple of years. Gettleman is on record as saying he thinks they can get two more good years out of Eli. Maybe he's wrong about that, but with full access to the coaching staff he has a lot more info on the situation than we do. And if he's right, he might well be doing the right thing to take the chance of working towards a title in the next few years (and maybe bringing in someone like a Lauletta and developing him).

 

I wouldn't do it myself. I'd go QB early. But either way is reasonable.

I could see the Giants going Barkley or QB. If they want OL help, trading back with us makes a lot of sense for them.