Chuck Wagon

Just curious, but say we keep picks 12 / 22 / 53 / 56 / 65, how many impact players do you realistically think we can walk away with? How many guys who'll make a Pro Bowl? Sign a second contract with us? Just taking the 2012 draft for example. It's widely recognized as a very strong draft. Those players have played the majority of their primes by this point. The breakdown I show is: 14 - (26%) - made a Pro Bowl 17 - (31%) - are good starting players 23 - (43%) - are players who are varying levels of disappointments, the majority of which are out of the league already You can pick most any year with a representative sample and I think the breakdown would largely stay the same. So realistically, we are looking at 1 Pro Bowler, 2 good starters, 2 disappointments within the 5 picks. It's one thing to look at "all these draft picks" in an abstract view and such a great opportunity to build a loaded team. The reality is, from what they can reasonably be expected to reap the impact pales in comparison to a true franchise QB.

Logic and history

If the Giants decide they aren't staying at 2, the pick will be traded well before the draft, bottom line.

And my point is saying "oh well, we got locked out, let's overdraft the 6th best QB" is classic Bills.

Right. They are the type of guys you sign in hopes they'll get beaten out in camp.

The optimist in me wants to say they are clearly targeting positions that are "holes" because they don't plan on using day 2 picks on those positions. It certainly makes some level of sense to sign vets in the "holes" positions, then use later round draft picks and udfas to compete for the positions in camp.

Accumulating a ton of trade assets, getting scared off the price tag, selling mediocrity which is happily sucked up by a large portion of the fanbase who just wants a reason to get drunk and break tables. Yep, that sounds like the last 20 years of Bills football.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Don't need to contact the Browns because we've already agreed with the Giants according to some guy who cuts hair.

There are several good QB prospects which means there's no good QB prospects.

I'm not holding my breath.

And so we reach the dumpster diving portion of FA.

It makes about as much sense as the Jets trading three 2nd rounders to live with potentially the 3rd QB available.

It very well might be, but it wouldn't be the first time an exec has sacrificed what's best long term for a franchise over trying to ensure himself another paycheck.

Starting to see A LOT of speculation the Jets move was about getting in front of Cleveland to take Barkley. The line of think is basically McCown has the starter job on lock, they view Bridgewater as a QB of the future, Maccagnan won't survive another down year, so they move up to take Barkley in front of Cleveland for an immediate impact guy and if Barkley goes before them they turn around and flip the pick to a QB desperate team for potentially more than they originally gave up. It makes some sense in that Maccagnan is bad at his job and could certainly be in self preservation mode. If they took QB, they basically used 4 draft picks on a guy who may not even play in a make or break year for him.

The lack of the top 10 pick may have been the deal breaker on the Colts trade, but the Jets fired their gun. Outside of maybe Denver (#5, 2 3s, 2 4s, 3 5s) there's no one else in the top 10 now shopping for QB.

Yeah, I just don't get this mindset of being willing to give up a 2019 1st over #53. I don't know if people have convinced themselves this is a Super Bowl contender if only they have a 2nd round pick this year, so what does it matter giving up pick #32, or what.

When there's a leak, you have to think about who the information benefits. In this case, it potentially benefits the Bills to have the Giants hear they are talking about #1. We clearly have a good business relationship with Cleveland, it's potentially likely Beane and Dorsey have talked about who is going #1 so the Bills know if it's worth going to #2 and as part of the dialogue Beane says "we wouldn't be upset if you told people we were talking about pick #1". It also wouldn't hurt the Browns to have the phones ringing about teams "asking for #1" and have them say "QBs are going 1-3, but we've got this 4th pick hanging out here too". Man, how different would life be if we just traded with Houston instead of KC, we are sitting at 4, potentially even at 2 already with just some minor consideration?

Agreed If there are 4 teams that evaluate one of the top 4 QBs as a franchise guy they are willing to hitch their jobs to, they'll go 1-4.

Draft Day The Browns have to settle at QB, but they flip all their picks around to get Vontae Mack (Chubb) and Ray Jennings (Barkley) and commits to the underappreciated vet at QB, Dorsey then bangs the cap girl in the closet and sends flowers to his mom.

If you know what the price is for 2, you've gotta see if it's similar for the price of 1. If 1 is remotely close, just go to 1 and make sure you get your guy. Also potentially helps with negotiations with the Giants if they think they are in the catbird seat.

Taking Barkley at 4 would go against everything Dorsey has ever done as GM. If someone is willing to offer a "QB value package" to trade up, they do it.

If Beane was talking to all 3 trying to work the best deal, the Colts just taking the Jets offer (which suggests we weren't giving that value, or they just valued staying at 6, which we couldn't offer) could have completely reset the talks for both 1 & 2 (or 4).

It makes sense. If the Browns actually are open to business and want less than the Giants, it makes no sense to trade with the Giants. I highly doubt the Browns and Giants are collaborating on prices of 1 vs 2. I wish Sachi were running their draft, then all we'd have to give is #12 / 2019 1st / 5th round pick and Sachi would happily take Mason Rudolph at #12.