What a Tuel

Get 'er done, Beane. It would be so much easier to deal with the Giants with 7.

I was thinking about the same. Maybe a later rounder as well.

And we would be moving 5 spots. Also from 12 to 7. Not 6 to top 3. It shouldn't cost a ton.

What would it cost to get to 7? If 6 to 3 cost 3 2nd rounders, it can't be too bad...

Lets put it this way, let's say we trade 12, 21, 2nd, 3rd to move up. Would a starting MLB, and 2 potential starters be worth a shot at finally getting a top tier QB? I mean come on. The answer HAS to be yes guys. After 18 years it should be a resounding YES!.

I wouldn't call you guys stupid, but gullible, wrong, and yes it is annoying that you guys continuously underestimate and undervalue the position that has held this team back for 18 years.

QB doesn't count in the "holes to fill" category. But put a priority alert on replacing Jordan Matthews STAT!!!!

One of the La Canfora quotes from the other thread is that some believe there are only 17-21 true first round picks in this draft. Not sure what that means for the rest of the draft, but to me it sounds like "loading up on NFL starters" is a long shot.

Pick any 5 picks in the first 3 rounds out of the last 3 years and say you would absolutely not trade them for a starting QB? I get, it is scary that they will botch it. The not so newsflash is we have been botching it for 18 years though.

You think that a player being drafted because they are good and being good because of where they were drafted are saying same thing? Come on man. Again the consensus top QBs are 1st round picks because they have been evaluated. They will not be evaluated because they are projected 1st round picks. So your argument that the chart is meaningless is wrong. The chart shows a proven track record that said evaluations are far more accurate and miss far fewer QB candidates than you can hope for in the later rounds.

Super unrealistic, the Giants rejected my trade to #2

Again the chart isn't saying drafting in a specific round "causes" a player to be good. It is saying that the most highly rated QBs are far more successful at a more frequent rate in the 1st couple rounds. Again they aren't good because of where they were drafted, they were rated so highly (high enough to go in the first round) because they were good. Of course they get it wrong someitmes. But if you think you will get a successful QB drafting exclusively in the 4th round at the same rate as drafting in the 1st round, you are out of your damn mind and that chart proves that.

I wouldn't necessarily listen to much of what he says at these things. He said he didn't really shop Sammy around, and that they haven't really decided anything about QB's the day before the Jets traded up to #3 as well. If either were true, then that is pretty incompetent. Seeing as how he traded Tyrod away before those remarks, I would say he just makes it up as he goes along when he speaks publicly.

Because it gives you maneuverability if you want to trade up further. Waiting until draft night would risk it all falling apart or worse the colts or bucs giving 6 and 7 to someone else.

Giants still have Eli Manning, and could potentially either not like this crop of QBs or like someone they can get at 5, 12 or 22 or in the 2nd round to test out while they try to win with Eli.

My biggest fear is wasting draft picks to defend pick 12 instead of moving up.

The point isn't that it is random or chance. The point is that there is a proven relationship that the consensus top picks are successful more often than the unconventional ones like Wilson or Brady. In other words while the speculators get it wrong a lot, they do not get it wrong so often that we should ignore the top rated QBs to go dumpster diving in the 5th round because...brady.

Isn't King the one that took it upon himself to call a fake punt play?

I think people forget this. The 4 qbs are not be equal in the eyes of any of the teams. They don't want Darnold or Rosen or Allen or Barkley, they want their guy. So if their guy is taken, then they may move to plan B and take a different player on their board. So the QBs may not go 1,2,3,5, like many are predicting. I still think the Bills need to move up so they can get their guy though.

I am not sure what it would do to the poor fans if they went back on that after passing and botching it the last few years.

The only reason they shouldn't do something like this is if they really do want to take a QB. Otherwise, snagging Clevelands 4, even at the cost of 2 means they net a bunch of picks, and STILL get the guy they wanted because Browns/Bills/Jets are going QB. Its a situation that works for everyone except the Browns may need a little sweetener cause Beckham won't be cheap.

Well then he's just the worst, and the Jets botched it like they always do!

Or maybe youll be appointed!

True, but it was a "that guy can really play" type of endorsement. Not the over the top take this guy or bust type of endorsement you'd get from Rex.

Exactly. Why highlight a player that a few teams have shown a desire to have?