Shaw66
-
Posts
9,907 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
I'll echo the OP. It's really great that those guys post quality links the way they do. If it's worth knowing, they get it up here. It's great. Thanks.
-
1 minute ago, CuddyDark said:
We disagree. If they make a trade out of the top ten I can infer Beane **** the bed. You can disagree, that's your right.
You can infer all you want. Everyone else will know it's a stupid inference. The man said he didn't want to trade out of the top 10. Six weeks later he trades out of the top 10. Observing those facts, most people conclude that things changed in the intervening six weeks. Why do they do that? Because most people understand that successful people don't tell gratuitous lies.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:
Very plausible and one I hope is true as well given I only believe in Mayfield and Darnold.
Call it whatever you want. Colts right now are saying they're open to trading out of the top ten. So it was never about a top ten player.
In your world, maybe. Why couldn't they just change their mind? At the time they made the deal with the Jets, their criteria were they wanted to stay in the top 10. Now, trading out of the top 10 makes sense to them.
It just doesn't make any sense to say that because they're willing to do something now, they were always willing to do it. People change their positions about things all the time.
-
3 minutes ago, QuoteTheRaven83 said:
The way I see it is that the Bills and Giants have a trade in place ONLY IF Darnold is taken by the Browns. If Darnold falls to the Giants, the Giants are taking him. If the Browns take him number 1, i think the Giants are going to pull the trigger on the trade with the Bills.
Just a hunch.
Possible, but I doubt it. I tend to think that any team that wants a QB will take ONLY the one guy they want and not another.
If the Giants are in the market for a QB, their second choice at QB this year is almost certainly going to be better than the QB they're going to be able to draft next year. They likely won't have the second pick, and as I understand it the class isn't particularly QB rich.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:
I disagree with this as I've said twice. I'm saying if they said they won't move because they want a bluechip player and now they're saying they'll move that means it was never about the blue-chip player or the "top 10."
Okay. I understand.
You're saying the Colts GM lied when he made that statement. You can choose to believe that if you want, although I think it's much simpler to believe he told the truth and has since changed his mind.
I tend to think that people generally don't lie about things, especially if they don't need to. Why say he wanted to stay in the top 10 when all he needed to say was the Jets made the best offer? Why lie?
Now, if he'd said the Jets made the best offer, it makes some sense to have a discussion about what Beane should have done to make a better offer. But since I think it's unlikely the Colts lied about this, I don't see the point in speculating about what Beane might have done.
-
5 minutes ago, stuvian said:
this is an important and overlooked point. Barring a sub prime mortgage on OBD we have the means to get between Miami and Denver and no further
Never say never, but I think this is correct. It's very difficult to see how any team, except possibly the Colts, could trade into the top 4 at this point. It's quite unlikely that any of the top 4 teams (5 picks), wants to move out, so the price to get them to move gets unreasonable. Colts, Bucs and Bears have the next three picks, so they might have a shot if they REALLY wanted someone in the top 5. Other than that, I don't see how anyone cracks the top 5.
18 minutes ago, teef said:when angry threads go south...
always worth reading, even if it's only 5 words!
-
3 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:
You're speculation more then I ever did. I don't know any of this you want about Beane to be true is actually true.
Well, you just don't understand.
Speculation? What is speculation? The Colts GM said after the trade with the Jets that they wanted to stay in the top 10. That's not speculation; it's a quote. The Bills did not have a pick in the top 10. That's not speculation; it's verfiable fact. (They still don't.)
So under those circumstances, what was Beane supposed to do to get the Colts to trade with him? Just to refresh your memory: Colts wanted a top 10 pick and the Bills didn't have one. What was Beane supposed to do?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Thanks. That's a pretty good summary by Brownie.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, CuddyDark said:
Are you listening? I said I believe this isn't true because the Colts are saying they want to trade out of the top 10, now.
Well, that's all well and good NOW, but at the time they made the trade with the Jets, they said they wouldn't trade out of the top 10. It's the time they made the trade with the Jets that mattered, and at that time the Bills didn't have anything the Colts wanted.
So, again, what were the Bills supposed to do differently that would have kept the Jets from getting the #3? How did Beane misplay his hand? If the the Colts told him they weren't interested in dealing with him, what was he supposed to do?
-
1
-
-
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.
-
13 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:
Nearly the same as the Bills.
If they traded to 3? The 3rd QB is probably a lot better than the 5th, or sixth.
Are you listening? The Bills didn't have a way to trade to 3. The Colts GM said he wanted to stay in the top 10. The Bills didn't have a way to give the Colts a pick in the top 10. All they had was 21 and 22.
What was Beane supposed to do? Try to convince the Colts that 21 and 22 was the same as a top 10 pick?
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:
But they'll get a franchise QB. Lets see what desperation does to the Bills. Could have been sitting pretty.
You keep saying this, but HOW? Bills didn't have what the Colts wanted. Bills don't have, in all likelihood, what the Giants want. Bills MIGHT be able to get #4 from the Browns, but that just means they get their THIRD choice at QB and pay a lot for them.
How were the Bills going to be sitting pretty?
-
3 minutes ago, Doc said:
Assuming the 2019 2nd rounder is worth a 2018 3rd rounder at the Jets' spot (5th), the amount they gave the Colts to move up 3 spots was 1175. To make up that, the Bills would have had to give up both 1st rounder, their 1st next year, and their 2nd this year. If so, I'm glad Beane cost them the 3rd pick.
This.
Plus the Colts GM said this: "Talked to a couple other teams, but we still wanted to stay in position in that top 10 where we could still get a premium player. We feel like at (No.) 6, we'll still be able to get a premium player."
The Bills didn't have a pick in the top 10. They still don't, even after the Glenn deal.
So, the Bills would have had to pay too much, AND the Bills didn't have what Colts wanted, but Beane still overplayed their hand? What hand?
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:
Something I've been thinking. Bills fell asleep at the wheel. Why do I say this? Everyone said Colts didn't want to trade out of the top 10. I believed this also, but the more I see mock drafts and hear the Colts GM saying he's not apposed to moving down the more I think Beane overplayed his hand for the 3rd pick. Beane probably tried to haggle and they said, screw you and took a deal with the Jets.
Now here's the hard part.
I believe if Whaley is the GM we have the 3rd overall pick today and everyone is projecting we get Darnold or Rosen. It's sickening. Whaley would have given up "too much" but we'd be in a better position. JMO.
And what, exactly, was it that the Bills were going to give the Colts for their #3 pick? The Bills didn't have anything to offer that compares with the #6.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
Just now, blacklabel said:
They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize.
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.
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, DefenseWins said:
I think any talk about the Bills not drafting one of the top 4 QB's is pure nonsense.... The absolute lowest they eventually trade for is pick #5 IMHO... Even then do they not need to worry about Miami trying to outbid them for pick #4? I really don't think that the Bills need worry about Cleveland drafting 2 QB's as some are now speculating about. 4 more days...
As the board stands right now, it could go QB Browns, QB Giants, QB Jets, RB Browns, QB Broncos and the Bills are left out. That's quite possible, if the four teams with the top five picks have differing views about who's the best QB. If Denver's #! choice of QB falls to 5, their pick will not be available in a trade.
Four QBs could go in the first five picks. Two QBs could go in the first five.
-
11 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:
I think that Rudolph is a borderline 1st/2nd round QB. I don’t think taking him at 22 is a terrible reach. I do think that Falk is a 4th/5th round pick.
i could accept coming out of this draft without a QB, depending on who went before the Bills’ pick. I think it is likely that the Bills don’t like at least one of the big 4 QBs. In that scenario, I could see them trading out of 12 for a first next year or a later 1 and 2nd or third this year.
It it would suck for sure to not get a QB, but if the price is exorbitant and you can’t get one they like, then what can you do?
Wow, I can't imagine that they won't take a QB in the first round. I suppose it could happen.
But you're right, it would be a good strategy, if the Bills get shut out of their best QB choices, to trade out of 12 and pick up a first for next year, figuring that they'll have to postpone their run a top QB for a year.
-
8 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
Well, I think you are distorting things maybe. Yes Eli is older and his passing production has dropped severely. He only threw for about 24% more yards and touchdowns than Tyrod last year. So yeah pretty bad. I don't see how the translates into Tyrod being way better, except as always, unless one ignores that Tyrod's passing problem. Setting that aside he is pretty good. And Eli was without Beckham who was injured for a good part of last year. But like I say, I don't know about Eli now.
I do know that the Giants main needs are by consensus, Offensive line and running back and outside linebacker.
And as I mentioned, this draft is deep at those potions.
Also Offensive line and running back can and do come in and help right away. So yes, rookies can help right away at some positions.
So to me at least it is't so cut and dry what the best course of action is.
Taylor's receiving corps was equal to or worse than Mannings, Taylor was 16th in passer rating and Manning was 26th. Manning's passer rating was solidly in EJ Manuel territory. Manning was terrible last year. Oh, and Taylor ran for 400 more yards and 3 more touchdowns. I can't believe there is a coach in the NFL who would have taken Manning's year over Taylor's, even though Manning threw for more yards.
But all that is beside the point. At his absolute BEST, at his age, Manning is a mediocre starter in the NFL playing on a team that had MORE problems than the Bills had. So if it makes sense for the Giants to ride their mediocre quarterback and draft a lot good rookies, it would make sense for the Bills, with a younger, more versatile mediocre QB and a better defense, to draft a bunch of young guys and make a run at the Super Bowl.
-
Just now, Dr. Who said:
I like Allen, so there are 4 guys that have to go before desperation time for me. I'm not convinced qb is a lock for Giants and Broncos. Taking Rudolph at 12 or 22 is taking a third round qb in the 1st, imo. I don't think Beane is that dim. Wait on Luke Falk, Mike White or Lauletta if you're going that route. Jackson is a risky pick, but he has a high ceiling at least. Personally, I don't think 2, 4, 5, or 6 are locked down yet, so I'm not giving up hope.
I'm with you, I guess. I really am trusting the process. I have my preferences, but when Beane pulls the trigger one, I will start with the assumption he knows what's he doing.
The only thing I won't like is if he has an opportunity and passes on Mayfield, Rosen or Darnold. One of those is on the board when the Bills are on the clock, I think the Bills have to take him.
-
1
-
Allbright: "It's Darnold" UPDATE: He admits he was wrong
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I just don't see it. If the Giants want a QB they aren't moving back. If they love some other guy, they aren't moving back, because back means behind the Browns and maybe behind the Broncos. They'll worry that they'll lose their guy.
Only way the Giants are trading back is if they don't want a QB and they aren't in love with a non-QB. Seems pretty unlikely.