Shaw66
-
Posts
9,888 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
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
-
-
1 minute ago, BuffaloRush said:
Well that makes sense. I can totally see Gettleman staying at 2. I’m just curious as to why you think the Giants will take a QB, when every reporter in the know says they are not interested.
The only scenario that I can see happening is if that 3 way trade comes to fruition where the Giants drop to #4, pick up an extra pick and still get Barkley.
I really have no idea what the Giants will do. If it were me, I'd take a QB. But I recognize that other people, particularly their GM, may have another view.
But if they're NOT taking a QB, then the question is whether there are 0, 1, 2 or 3 non-QBs that look so good to them that they'll take them at 2. If there are none, then the Giants should trade out of 2. But if that were true, it probably would have happened already. The rumor today is that they said no to the Bills' offer of three firsts. Since it hasn't happened yet, I'm assuming the Giants have SOMEONE they want at 2.
Okay, if they have someone they want at 2, the only way they're trading out of 2 is if the Browns take that guy at 1. That isn't likely, because taking a non-QB at 1 means the Browns could be left with their third choice of QB at 4, so I'm pretty sure the Browns will go QB at 1. Browns go QB, Giants aren't trading out.
Only way the Giants are trading out of 2 is if they don't want a QB or don't like any of them AND they don't like any non-QB at 2. That seems really unlikely.
Bottom line, if there is no one the Giants want at 2, they likely would have traded out already. If there is only one guy they want at 2, they are trading out only if the Browns take that guy. If there are 2 guys they like at 2, they aren't trading out, at least not to 5 or worse. .
-
19 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
1) Eli is 37 and they had him behind a lousy line. He had no viable running game.
2) 2 quarterbacks have won superbowls at his age
3) Soon they will lose Eli to age or contract issues or both.
4) No way to know when you will have an opportunity to get another Superbowl caliber QB.
The Giants were expected to be playoff team last year. This years draft is set up perfectly for them to repair the major problems and make a run for it.
I understand that approach, but personally I think it would be foolish. The Giants were not a team that was one player away from the Lombardi in 2017. They were a mess. They 21st in yardage offense, 31st in points offense, 31st in yardage defense and 27th in points defense. They have a temperamental and unpredictable wideout, no running back and an old QB whose play has declined seriously for two years.
If trading back for more picks and making a run at the Super Bowl in 2018 is the right strategy for the Giants, then McBeane should be fired right now. If that's the right strategy for the Giants, then why isn't it the right strategy. Tyrod Taylor was a much better QB than Manning over the past two years, the Bills defense was way better than the Giants, and the Bills have a much better running back.
It makes no sense for a team that was totally ineffective on both sides of the ball in 2017 to believe they should ignore the future of the most important position on the team because they think a bunch of rookies are going to win the Super Bowl for them.
-
3 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:
Well thought out, sir.
As to the Broncos possibly trading out of pick 5 - the Broncos surely need a QB to be the long-term answer as I can’t imagine that they think that Case Keenum is that answer. So, if the Broncos are willing to trade from 5 to 12, it very likely means that they don’t think that whomever is left at QB is a long-term answer that is better than Keenum. While it is true that the Broncos may not be the be-all-end-all at evaluating QBs, it would leave me with great concern that a team that really needs a “franchise” QB would be willing to trade out of a spot that we want in to so that we can get a QB.
It would be ironic indeed for the Bills to have traded out of 10 in 2017 so that Andy Reid could take Mahomes and then trade UP to 5 in 2018 to take a QB John Elway didn't want.
-
2 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said:
You will be wrong @Shaw66. I’ll make a bet with you that NYG wont draft a QB at #2. I suggest a $40 gift card to Tim
Horton’s or $50 to Chic-Fil-A
That's fine. I'm not trying to predict what the Giants are going to do. If the Giants aren't taking a QB at 2, then they are NOT trading out of 2, because there will a great player waiting for the Giants at #2. I think the only way the Giants trade out, at least to a place beyond 4, is if they don't want a QB AND at #1 the Browns take whomever the Giants DO want. That's the only scenario where the Giants won't want to stay at #2.
I DO think the Giants are taking a QB at 2, because I think it's the right way to handle their QB situation. But that's just my take on it, and I'm completely comfortable with the fact that the Giants may be taking a different view of it.
My whole point in posting was not to predict what the Giants want. My point was that I don't think the Bills can get to 2 because it's quite unlikely that the Giants are willing to leave 2, except maybe to swap with the Jets.
-
10 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
The Giants pass on a QB high if Eli has gas in the tank. To me that is obvious. This draft is perfect for the Giants because their major needs are O-line and running back. This draft is deep in both. They could be a Superbowl contender in one swoop if Eli still has it.
Picking a QB is at best a 50-50 chance at a good QB and you usually have to wait years to find out. Take the linemen and an RB and go for it.
1. Eli hasn't done much of anything for two years and clearly seems to be declining.
2. Eli is 37 and his brother and Brady are the only QBs in the history of the game to have had any real success in the league after 37.
3. Eli has only two years left on his contract.
4. No way to know when they will have another opportunity this good to get a top QB.
Sure seems like the Giants are set up perfectly to draft the next QB now, have him sit for a year and start in 2019.
-
2 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
A thought provoking post. I of course, have no idea what anybody will do, besides being very sure the Jets will take a QB.
Here is my take on what the Giants might do if they do not want a QB at #2, and how the Bills could get that #2 pick.
Let's say the Bills will only trade the farm for one player so they can't make a deal until the Browns pick.
A giant swap of picks when the Giants go on the clock could lead to disaster for the Giants if they want to pick higher than #12 and plus then they have a whole different draft board profile working with a hugely different set of picks (The Bills old ones). It would be a lot to contend with during the draft with the clock ticking I think. Maybe not a smart thing to do.
Except if the Bills have done that work for them already, without anyone knowing. The Bills could and should already know pretty much what it will take to get to picks 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 based on the picks they have. So the Bills could offer in effect, the 7th overall pick, plus added picks, to the Giants for their #2. They wouldn't give the Giants that 7 pick directly but they would give them the picks to get it, plus whatever else they had to add to make it worth the jump from 7 to 2.
No one in the Giants division picks before #13 so there would be no complication there.
In sum, the Gaints probably can't react quickly enough to re-plan their draft carefully if they trade on draft day. But the Bills could already have the deals worked out in principle for the Giants so they just hand them the keys so to speak. And they could do this because Gentleman and Beane are friends who trust each other.
What do people think?
I think something like this already has happened. That's what GMs are doing all day. So Beane's already talked to the Giants and found out how far down the Giants are willing to move (more about that in a second). So the Giants said "we might be interested if you could get us to 7." So then Beane calls whoever has 7 and talks to them about whether they'd be willing to move back to 12 on draft night, and what it might cost. So they maybe put together a tentative deal that they agree they'd be willing to finalize once the Giants are on the clock.
Then everyone waits for Thursday night. If the guy the Giants want gets taken by the Browns, they talk to the Bills and say "if you can get 7, we'll do the deal." Bills call #7 and say "we'll do it if you'll do it." Done deal, Bills call the Giants (they're probably actually waiting on the other line), finalize, notify the league and take their QB.
However, I think that only happens if (1) the Giants don't want a QB and (2) the guy they do want (Barkely, probably) gets taken by the Browns at 1. If the Giants want a QB, they're going to take their first choice at 2 or, if the Browns take him, they'll take their second choice.
That was the point of my original post. If there are one or two guys the Giants want at the top of the draft, the Giants aren't trading out of 2 unless they're trading to 3 or possibly 4. So although, yes, it's possible that something could happen like you describe, I think it's very unlikely, because the Giants just aren't going to want to move that far back.
-
1 minute ago, LeGOATski said:
This is what I've expected to happen since Elway announced that they're looking to trade.
Hopefully Rosen or Mayfield are there. I wouldn't mind Darnold, either.
Yeah, Darnold is my third. Any one of those three, I'm okay if they make a big deal with the Broncs. But as someone said and I echoed, 3 or 4 could go in the first 4 or 5 picks.
-
8 minutes ago, Dalton said:
The Giants and Browns GMs seem more old school - quality over quantity.
Broncos could be in play as they need to win now and two picks fill more holes.
Colts need volume and may take more picks vs 2 #1s.
So Beane needs to target 5/6 and hope only 2 QBs go in top 4.
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.
-
7 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:
Shaw, I think you're just looking at "3 1st round picks!!!" too superficially. Where those picks are and what their valued at is what matters.
Shaw, I think you're looking at "3 1st round picks!!!" too superficially. Where those picks are, what they're valued at, and most importantly, Beane's intentions and goals are what matters.
I've been assuming from the moment we acquired an extra 1st round pick last year in the draft that McDermott wanted to wait 1 year to pursue getting a Franchise QB since Whaley, not Beane was still our GM and, therefore, in charge of college scouting for the 2017 QBs.
And then when Beane got here, he kept compiling picks... shrewdly getting them for players McDermott and Beane inherited and didn't really want.
Our #12 pick was the result of swapping 1sts and trading away a player who may have played well for this team in years past but almost never saw the field (did he ever?) in 2017, our first playoff year in 17 years as a rookie filled in capably for the year and will only get better.
One of our 2nd rounders was acquired trading away a talented but oft-injured WR who then wasn't even resigned by the same team who traded for him. And based on Sammy's new salary with KC, he wouldn't be with the Bills even if McDermott exercised his 5th year rookie option.
One of our 3rd rounders... the 1st one in the 3rd round, was acquired by trading away a QB that there was absolutely no long term plan on and filled in his slot with a QB who is at least capable of competing for the starting QB job at less than 1/3rd the cost of the guy we just traded away.
I say we take those 4 picks and trade them all to the Giants for the #2 pick to grab Rosen/Darnold/Mayfield (please GOD not Allen!!!) and Beane still has all of Buffalo's original picks with a pick in all the remaining rounds other than the 7th.
We can and should still get a couple other good players in the 2nd and 3rd round even in doing that.
According to the draft chart:
#12 = 1200 points
#22 = 780 points
#53 = 370 points
#65 = 265 points
Grand total = 2615 points
#2 pick = 2600 points
So we're giving away picks Beane has been shrewdly acquiring, not picks we were already going to naturally possess.
So the Bills maybe already offered next year's 1st and both our 1sts this year? A pick in the ensuing year is supposedly valued 1 round lower than the same pick this year. So, our 1st next year is actually valued as a 2nd rounder, not a 1st.
Let's say our 2nd next year will be roughly the same as our 2nd this year... maybe make it a little more valuable at 400 points.
Suddenly those "3 1st round picks!!!" are 2380 points to the Giants 2600 points and we need to throw in at least a 3rd rounder this year if not a 2nd.
Who knows what really happens, but it's weird the way a lot of Bills fans are saying "the price is too steep to trade up!!!" Seems a bit disingenuous. When was the last time we had a Franchise QB? When we're we last a viable contender?
Hello? You're not listening. It isn't a question of whether the Bills have enough to offer to move up. It's a question whether the Giants will take ANYTHING to move out of the second pick.
The Giants are playing Eli this year, apparently, and maybe next year. But pretty soon, they're going to need a QB, and they aren't likely to have another opportunity as good as they have this year.
So the Giants are saying "screw the draft trade chart." The Giants don't want five picks starting at 12; they want one pick at 2. And if they don't a pick at 2, they want one at 3 or 4. The chances of putting together a deal with the Giants and the Browns to get the Giants to 4 are very, very slim. That's what I explained in my post.
NickelCity is right. There probably are going to be a lot of broken hearts around 10 pm on Thursday.
Mason Rudolph, here we come.
-
27 minutes ago, 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.
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.
-
2
-
-
38 minutes 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.
That's a good point.
34 minutes ago, 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 agree. I think the Bills have to worry that the Dolphins want a QB or someone else will trade up. Of course, there has to be a QB the Bills want.
-
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.
-
That's excellent! Thanks for taking the time to put it together.
Quite nice.
-
13 hours ago, dollars 2 donuts said:
Shaw, I hate to see you like this.
why don't you just post your telephone number here in this thread and we'll call you when something is up?
TSW Members please do not abuse Shaw's number and his easy availability to chat when it's posted. It is to be used only for news purposes and not rides to the airport.
860-555-HELP
Solid news and 0% interest calls only.
-
31 minutes ago, MiltonWaddams said:
Retirement at 40? I'm in. Now if I could only convince my business to run itself....
Delegate
-
1 minute ago, Bleedingreennc said:
Do you really want him? Dude caught lightning in a bottle on a stacked team.
Foles has had two good seasons as a pro. That's more than catching lightning.
I'm not a huge Foles fan, but if the Bills won't or can't pull the trigger on a deal to move up for the QB they want in the draft, then I've always thought the other option is to send a pick to the Eagles for Foles, or a player, and keep looking for a rookie in the next few years. In the meantime, see if Foles pans out.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Bleedingreennc said:
I'm with you, but I had no idea the Jets would trade so early, seems like a good move after all. I'm waiting to get the notification that you guys traded up.
It was a good move by the Jets. It cost them a lot to do it, and they had the #6. I'm sure the Bills were talking to the Colts, but the cost to the Bills would have been out of sight.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, MiltonWaddams said:
My work days are an easy hour longer due to this fixation
You should retire. Then you can watch this stuff all day and not feel guilty.
-
1
-
-
Rewarded! Keep looking and something happens. Foles gets a new deal. Still doesn't sound like a deal that would bar a trade, so the Foles option is still out there, I think.
Why the Bills Won't Trade Up to #2 (or 3 or 4)
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
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.