Shaw66
-
Posts
9,814 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
Just now, HiddenInLight said:
Interesting insight on how those deals happen. I wonder how many other deals he had ready going into the draft. It would be really interesting to be a fly on the wall for the few weeks leading up to the draft.
Not to put you down, but there isn't anything new in that article. Whaley described the process in general on several occasions, and not just about this deal. That's how GMs do it - they talk often about what they're looking for and what they made be willing to do, and as things solidify they get closer to committing. Then, when the time is right, usually on draft day when the team moving up knows their guy is still on the board, they do it.
-
Well, if Mahomes is as good as they say, and they seem to be pretty sure about it, Bills should have taken Mahomes last year, let him learn behind Taylor, and the Bills already would be all set.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Dr. Who said:
Being called out by some posters is actually an indication that you are a good contributor.
I guess. My post was pretty innocuous I thought.
-
4 minutes ago, Irv said:
I didn't think Shaw66's posts could get any worse than they were on BBMB but I stand corrected.
What's wrong with my posts?
-
5 minutes ago, 1st&ten said:
Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man that leads that gains the victory-----George S. Patton
Right. It's the talent of the leader and the character of the men.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, blacklabel said:
Good stuff here, Shaw. There's definitely something to be said for the players that come from small schools and have had to really work for everything they have. I think a mix of players like that and players from big time schools with experience in the biggest games in front of the biggest crowds can be beneficial to a team. If the coaches figure out the best methods to reach and teach their players and are able to combine those elements... then I think they'd stand a pretty good chance of winning.
Coaching makes a huge difference as well. Coaches have to understand how their players learn and figure out what they have to do to get the most out of a player. They can't scream and yell at everyone and expect a 100% success rate. I can't remember the specifics but I read about a coach who had a player join his team and this player was talented. But the player had a difficult time understanding the system the coach was running. They'd practice and prep all week but then on gameday the results just weren't there. Eventually the coach figured out what type of learner this player was and that coach went and taught himself as much as he could on how he could help this player learn. Once he did that, the results they were looking for finally showed up. Interesting that you mention Coughlin, too. He was always known as a hot-head, hard-nosed, "my way or the highway" type of coach who would go bananas over the most mundane things. Players began to tune him out. Coaches finally told Coughlin the vibe in the locker room and Coughlin realized he had to take a step back, reevaluate his methods and find a better way to reach his players. He learned how to keep his temper under control, he showed more interest in players lives off the field and they ended up winning the Super Bowl that year.
Would really be awesome to sit down and talk about this stuff with McBeane, or really any pro coach or GM, just to see what they think the right formula is for a winning team.
I think it's much a more about coaching than players. The example I always give about two generals with armies of 100,000 soldiers. I don't care at all which general has the best soldier, or the ten best soldiers, or even the 100 best soldiers. I want the best general.
Why is it that when Cordy Glen goes down, Dawkins steps in and does fine? Two reasons: (1), the difference in talent is miniscule. They're both big, strong guys in their physical primes. Compared to all of the men in the world their age, they are in the top one tenth of one percent and size and physical ability, and the difference between them isn't great. (2) They aren't asked to do things they can't. They're just asked to execute physical maneuvers efficiently and consistently. When you have good athletes, they all can do that IF they're taught properly and they haev the work ethic to become excellent at executing things that aren't beyond their abilities.
Do you want the BEST offensive tackle? Sure, but that's icing the cake. Teams win with lots of average guys just - are you ready, all you Belichick fans? - doing their job. The coaches know what they want the players to to do, and they get them to do it consistently. Once you have decent NFL talent, it all about coaching and character.
-
1 hour ago, blacklabel said:
Ah, I could've came up with a better title but... brain fart, I suppose... anyways...
At this point, we all know how much emphasis McBeane places on character when considering which players to bring into their locker room. If the 2017 draft is any indication, McBeane want prospects with experience, leadership skills, clean off the field and put the team before their personal achievements.
If I had the chance to ask McDermott or Beane a question, I would ask them what their threshold is for character concerns. How many character traits or personality flaws or off-field incidents/concerns does it take for them to look at a prospect and go, "Can't have him here, doesn't fit what we're building." Obviously, not every player is going to be a boy scout. I just wonder this because how do they weigh a players talent vs. his character, ya know what I mean? Does the prospect need to be 100% squeaky clean and have played at least X number of games, graduated college (or are close to graduating) and be a "fall in line" type of guy?
Again, I'm curious because I'd hate to see them have a chance at a player (and this is just in general, doesn't pertain to the 2018 prospects specifically) who is extremely talented, projects to be an All-Pro, but had an off-field incident or has been outspoken with the media or has whatever type of character red flag and see them pass on said player in lieu of a less talented but higher character player.
If McDermott is constructing this locker room and brewing the chemistry he says he's aiming for, then I would think that they'd be comfortable taking a talented player with a few character issues. They would have to trust that the culture inside the locker room and the team leaders and coaches would be able to kind of take this player under their wing and keep him in line, so to speak.
They can't all be 4-year starters with degrees and 40+ games started while being a model citizen/community contributor, etc. etc.
What do you guys think? How heavily do you think character weighs in on their player evaluations? How much would character concerns affect your decisions if you were the GM?
Hey... look at that... not a thread about a QB. Hope everyone is having a good day.
Marcell Dareus is your answer. He was one of the five most talented guys in the league at his position, and McDermott didn't want him? Was he a felon? No. Was he a drug addict. No, at least not seriously. Did he put his teammates first? No. Did he do his job every play? No. Did he work every day to be as good as he can be? No.
Did Chris Hogan have the right answer to all of those questions? Yes, and if McDermott had been the coach when Hogan was in Buffalo, Hogan would STILL be in Buffalo. Belichick wants guys with those traits, and McDermott does, too.
I say it over and over. Talent is over-rated. (Again, we're excluding the QB here.) Do you need some guys with special talent here and there? Sure. But look at Hyde and Poyer. They're perfect examples. Those guys aren't outstanding safeties, not premier guys every team is drooling over. They are like most players in the league - in terms of talent, they were in the top 5 percent in college. In other words, they ALL have the size, speed and strength to play in the NFL. The question is what do they do with it? And what they do with it is a matter of character. Hogan has it, Dareus doesn't. Now, you can have a Mario Williams every once in a while who is SO outstanding that he can be great without the character McDermott is looking for, but there are very few of those guys.
A good QB and 52 solid NFL-level players will win a lot of games for you.
Yes, you say, but you can stand a few with less than perfrect character. Well, how good were the Bengals when they had 8 felons on the roster? Lotta talent, but they sucked. In his book GM, the Giants gm said you can have one prima donna on your team. When you have two, you're in trouble, when you have three you can't win. He said the Giants had three prima donnas - Strahan, Barber and someone else. Strahan came to an agreement with Coughlin and stopped being a prima donna, and they got rid of one of the other two. As soon as that happened, they won the Super Bowl.
I'd love to hear McDermott on the subject, too. I'd like to know what he looks for. I'm sure he'll tell you he doesn't want guys who are problems. Saban will tell you the same thing, Belichick will. I heard Jim Calhoun say it about basketball. It's hard enough to win with good guys on your team; it's harder still if you have problems.
-
1
-
-
Sometimes I feel sorry for guys who post things like this and then get dumped on by everyone saying "that's ridiculous."
Well, THAT'S RIDICULOUS!
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, consistently puts you in the playoffs from any position except an outstanding quarterback. Nobody. As in N-O-B-O-D-Y. Not Bruce Smith, not J.J. Watt, not Megatron, not Sammy Watkins (certainly not Sammy Watkins), not Troy Polamalu, not anybody.
Now, if you're point is that there's nothing more to say about the QBs, I agree. But this year, for the first time in decades, the Bills are in position to get almost anyone they want in the draft AND there are good quarterbacks to be had. It's foolish to expect that people will stop talking about it.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
Exactly zero Super Bowl rings on that list.
-
23 minutes ago, kdiggz said:
In other news, Aaron Williams' current salary is $0. Seems fair
Not sure that's completely fair to Landry, but it certainly is an interesting circumstance to contemplate.
Williams wasted a couple of years as a pro, but he turned it around. Landry changed the course of his career, for sure.
-
4 minutes ago, gobills1212 said:
Well thought out- but I haven't once thought McCarron signified that at all.
They needed a qb. They waited, allocated as little as possible resources to the position and now have essentially an unknown and unproven commodity along with an unproven rookie.
That seems like either could be the starter, but both are ripe to be beat out by a rookie.
If not, either can play for half a yr/yr until the rookie proves he is ready or the season is lost and it's just about experience.
I guess we will see;)
I think that's what I meant.
McCarron is the best insurance Beane could buy for 2018 at a low price. But McCarron is not evidence that the Beane wants to trade up to #2 or anything else. He's just the guy who's gonna be the QB if the rookie, wherever he's drafted, doesn't step up to start. If it hadn't been McCarron, it would have been McCown or some other inexpensive recognizable name. It's almost as though Beane waited out the QB music chairs until there was only one guy left - didn't matter which it would be, only that it would be a guy left with no bargaining power.
-
1 hour ago, Logic said:
The thing that is key to remember, in my opinion, is that the Bills have set themselves up in such a way that they can trade up for a QB and STILL have a nearly full complement of draft picks. Now, it maybe true that if they have to way overpay to move all the way up to #2, this may not be the case. But let's say they give up their two 1sts, a 2nd , and a 3rd to move to the #5 spot. They would still have a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, two 5ths, and a 6th basically a full draft.
Another thing to remember, as others have pointed out, is that the Bills aren't going to be able to completely build their roster up in just one offseason, even IF they use all of the draft picks they currently possess. I think that McDermott's comment about "not as far along as people think" was meant to temper expectations for the 2018 season. This is year two of a rebuild. I believe they get their QB this year and let him learn on the job for a year. Then NEXT season, the Bills spend a bunch of the $90million in cap space they have and their full complement of draft picks to really "complete" the roster, as much as a roster ever CAN be completed in the NFL. They are following the model of "get a rookie QB on a cheap contract for 5 years, and use that window of low QB cost to build the roster around him". It's the best bet, in my opinion, and I'm glad that OBD seems to agree.Excellent, Logic. Just damn excellent.
I've thought for a while that it's more likely that the Bills sit tight or trade up between 5 and 11 than it is that they make a deal with the Giants. It just seems to me that this is the Giants best chance to get the successor to Eli, and they aren't going to trade that chance just for a boatload of picks that won't be good enough to get them back up to the top of the draft next year. Especially if they trade with the Bills, because they know then that 1, 2 and 3 will be QBs, and that will leave the Giants with their fourth choice at QB instead of second.
Beane is careful and deliberate. He isn't likely to blow all his draft capital in a deal with the Giants unless his absolute favorite, can't-miss QB is at #2, whoever that may be. (He may not even HAVE a can't-miss favorite.)
If the McCarron deal signaled anything, it is that Beane was figuring he'd get his QB someplace after the #4 pick (or I suppose at #4 if the Browns want to deal) and that he's figuring that the QB he drafts in the first round should sit for a year. McCarron can get him through 2018. Plus, maybe McCarron turns out to be a surprise.
But I hadn't thought about your point that by trading up 4-7 picks, Beane still can leave himself with a more or less full draft.
I'd really like to know what went on at last year's draft. We don't really know who was in charge, but it's an interesting scenario to think that the Pegulas told Whaley to do what McDermott told him. Whaley probably already knew what was coming. In any case, passing on Mahomes and moving all the way back to 29 was a gutsy move. Getting White was a bonus, because the real prize was to set up Beane with two first round picks this year. Even though they turned out to be relatively late in the round, those picks set up Beane to make the other deals and get himself to where he is now. He has virtually every choice in front of him now - move to 2 if he wants to pay the price. Move to 5 through 11. Sit at 12. Heck, who knows? It's possible he'd even trade back a few picks from 12. Point is, he has the capital to do whatever he wants, and it all started because the Bills passed on Mahomes.
-
4 hours ago, Nineforty said:
All of their moves in regards to acquiring more draft capital seem to indicate otherwise but doesn't have to mean I'm right either.
I've always felt get the qb, evaluate him and build based off those details and the talent that becomes available next year in FA and the draft.
Get a qb and if you hit, we have time to fill in blanks.
You're right, especially your first sentence.
Frankly, I don't think there's anything to be read into their moves, either way. They felt like they needed to move Glenn, and the opportunity was to get a better draft choice. So they took it. That meant they could trade up more if it made sense, and it also meant they could get the middle linebacker they want. They could go either way.
I keep remembering that McD said a month ago or more that the Bills aren't as far along as some people think. Sounded he was trying to control expectations for 2018. The McCarron signing and that statement can go both ways - "we're gonna have a rookie QB, and either he'll be a typical rookie or we'll go with McCarron. Either way, it'll take another year for us to get better."
-
2
-
-
A first, a second and a fifth, and they can have 'em.
-
5
-
-
Shady packaged with picks in deal with the Giants?
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:
Good god. Who the hell cares about 2 inches. He was the same weight and a lot more mobile.
His problem was accuracy and knowing where to go with the football. His rocket arm and prototypical size amounted for nothing.
People fall inlove with the physical attributes. There's no convincing them otherwise, until they fail.
The Raiders talked themselves out of every possible concern they might have had about Jamarcus Russell.
I have a lot of confidence that McBeane are completely on top of this. If they take Allen it'll be because they know several things we don't know.
I put some stock in the Wonderlic scores, and it's interesting that Allen had the highest of the QBs. Of course, Fitz was off the charts on the Wonderlic and he still threw every critical INT he could.
-
15 minutes ago, Logic said:
I hope you're right about the importance they do or don't place on faith and squeaky clean off-field behavior. I KNOW you're right about how methodical and detail oriented they are. Mr Pegula even mentioned it recently when asked what it's been like to work with Brandon Beane: "It's amazing how methodical he is". He mentioned it a couple times.
It's fair to say that WHOEVER the Bills select at QB, McBeane has done their homework. And no matter who it is, even if it's Allen, I'll be behind him 100% and root for him to succeed. And I will have faith that the these guys must have seen SOMETHING in the prospect, since they're basically staking their jobs on his success.
Me, personally? It's so simple from where I sit: If I'm gonna bank on a set of qualities and stake my job on drafting a QB with said qualities, I'll choose throwing accuracy, competitive fire, chip on the shoulder, leadership, and proven production over cannon arm, ideal build, perceived upside, and projected growth 10 times out of 10. I really, really hope the Bills select Baker Mayfield. In my own opinion -- and it's just that: an opinion -- people will look back in 5 years and not be able to figure out how everyone couldn't tell from afar that Mayfield was the best of the bunch. He has Hall of Fame and "most popular Buffalo Bill of all time" potential. But he's two inches too short and he's borderline arrogant, so we keep seeing him listed as the 4th or 5th best QB prospect. I don't get it.
We'll see. April 26th can't come soon enough.I keep saying I haven't studied any of these guys, but from what little I've seen and read, I'm also completely on board with Mayfield. Whenever I saw him, play over the past couple of years, I saw a flat-out winner. I like his fire, his competitiveness, his ability to find guys when he's flushed. Reports say he's the most accurate thrower in the group. Does he have an edge to him? Yes. So did Big Ben in his early years. Beane can deal with that.
And I would suggest you not believe the reports that say he is 4th or 5th. I think he does too much too well for teams to miss the boat on him. If the Bills got him at 12 I'd be ecstatic, but I think they'll have to go up into the 5-6 range, and maybe that won't be enough.
I think it's too expensive to trade with the Giants. Unless, of course, he is a Hall of Fame player.
-
5 hours ago, Logic said:
Meanwhile, Allen can't play worth a lick but he's a good christian boy from the midwest and he's built like an American Gladiator...so there's legit fear that McBeane is Ga-Ga and trades up for him.
By the way, I think you seriously misperceive McBeane on this one. Yes, they are Christians and they believe there is great value in that, but I don't think Christian is anywhere on their checklist. These guys are detail oriented and methodical. They can tell you without notes exactly what it is they are looking in a QB, and they will evaluate each guy against those criteria. They aren't taking a guy because he's a Christian, and they aren't not taking a guy because he's a Jew. They are way above that.
-
22 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
Well the Packers were able to do it without any issues. I think teams are just too impatient. I don't watch too much hockey but I know in the NHL it's expected that many of your draft picks will not play for a couple years. The Sabres drafted a player in the 1st round who had just graduated high school. Windows in the NFL are so small so teams aren't willing to try that, but the one time they did they got Aaron Rodgers so I'm surprised it isn't tried more.
I do wonder how much depends on the right team drafting you but I generally agree that it doesn't make a difference most of the time. And I don't know if the accuracy issues that Allen has could be corrected in any amount of time. I've seen some people mention that he misses throws even when his mechanics appear to be perfect. Something in our brain allows us to make predictions about where a moving object will be, and maybe his brain just doesn't have that and never will.
It's different when you have a Hall of Fame QB. You can draft a Garopolo or a Rodgers and sit him and work on him. The problem in that situation is what to do when you Hall of Fame quarterback doesn't want to retire on you schedule.
Rodgers would have started as a rookie in Buffalo. Why? Because you have to play your best player, and he would have been the best QB in camp. It's inconceivable that the 2005 Bills would have drafted Rodgers in the first round and then told the fans he wasn't going to play for three years. Bills had NO ONE at QB by that time. Plus, it's inconceivable that Mr. Wilson would have paid him first round money to sit for three years.
-
1 hour ago, Ayjent said:
If you watched EJ Manuel in college you knew he wasn't a great passer and it was a very close to pro system he played in. He often made wide open guys have to adjust to poorly thrown balls, and actually left a lot of plays on the field because of his inconsistent passing and inaccuracy. He could string together some plays, but he would really struggle at other times. He never really passed with any rhythm, and he was really a disappointment to many Noles fans that saw his problems frequently crop up in the biggest games.
I can remember my utter disbelief when he was drafted in the first round. People I know who are FSU Grads and alumni were all calling me up and laughing their asses off at how dumb that pick was. That was a peach of a pick - Nix/Whaley combo didn't know what a good QB prospect looked like. It took Rex freaking Ryan to actually help out to get a decent guy on the roster.
I always defend the Manuel pick, although I agree with what you're saying about his passing.
I defend the pick because if you're the GM of the Bills in that draft, you MUST take a QB, because you don't have one. So you evaluate the talent and make the best pick you can. Manuel probably was the best choice of the group available, and the plan, to have him sit for a season, was the right thing to do for him. Unfortunately, it didn't work out well, but the Bills had to take SOMEONE. Maybe they should have taken two, but the pickins were slim, for sure.
I've always said the Bills didn't manage the QB situation horribly after Bledsoe, they just made bad picks. Moving up to take Losman was addressing the QB situation. Problem was their evaluation of him was wrong. And moving up cost them Aaron Rodgers in the draft the following year. Taking Edwards in the third was a good move, good planning for the position, and it seemed like it was working until his concussion.
The biggest mistake was betting on Fitz. Well, betting on him made some sense, but not immediately drafting the next guy in line was the mistake. Just like they took Edwards when they thought Losman would be the guy, they should have taken someone when they gave Fitz his deal. And that someone was Russell Wilson. Because they didn't draft Fitzy's replacement, the Bills found them sevesin a situation where they were forced to draft someone, and that someone turned out to be Manuel.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, HappyDays said:
You know what I'd do with a guy like Allen, I'd take him in the 2nd round and give him the Aaron Rodgers treatment. Three years on the bench, give him some spot play here and there when games are out of reach. Every day of that 3 years he's be working with a personal coach whose job is to teach him new muscle memory. I think that's the only way you could hope to make it work. And truthfully that MIGHT work, I don't know because NFL teams don't try that very often. It's usually one year on the bench and then you're thrown to the wolves. Usually what happens there is the guy will flash for a few games but eventually revert to his old mechanics.
If only NFL teams would actually try to innovate we could see more guys like Allen get a real shot to improve. But more likely than not he'll be pushed onto the field early. Look at what the Chiefs are doing with Pat Mahomes. He was very similar to Allen coming out of Texas Tech, needs some time to develop NFL traits. So what do they Do? Give him exactly one year then trade away Alex Smith coming off the best season of his career. Now Mahomes is forced to start with nothing but one year of NFL training. Why has Rodgers been the only QB given ample time to develop? It makes no sense to me.
The NFL doesn't do that because of cost. They'd have to expand the rosters or the practice squad, and if there'd have to be a way to protect a guy like Allen on the practice squad. And he'd want a lot of money. It is largely a sink or swim situation.
Yes, they could work on a guy's mechanics like that, but the real skill, the decision making, is learned only on the field in real games. So the guy has to be good enough to get on the field to get that playing time.
The fact is, if you've got it, you make it, and if you don't, you don't. People here often say well, if you put this guy in the right situation, he'll grow into the position. I think that's hogwash. I can't think of a QB who was a failure on his first team and then, under different coaching, miraculously blossomed. Maybe Kurt Warner is one. Most guys move on to their second team and look pretty much the same as they did with their first team. If the situation really changed the fortunes of QBs, there's be lots of stories about how this guy became a star with his second team.
But, as usual, I agree with you. I wouldn't burn a first round pick on Allen, because he he's low probability. But his physical skill apparently are so spectacular that he may be worth taking as a project. He may very well go in the first round, and I doubt he fall past the second.
-
13 minutes ago, jrober38 said:
I was talking about college QBs.
EJ Manuel completed 68% of his throws his Senior year, and he's one of the most inaccurate QBs I've ever seen in the NFL.
Got it.
But, without really knowing, I'd say that in the college the opposite of what I said is true. In college you can have a high completion rate for a season or more and be inaccurate, but it's quite unlikely that an accurate college passer will have a low completion percentage. Maybe Stafford did, but by and large it's pretty easy to throw in college (relative to the pros), and accurate college passers should almost always have high completion percentages.
12 minutes ago, HappyDays said:This is definitely not true. He throws a lot of interceptable balls, he panics under pressure, he makes bad decisions and bad throws when forced to move beyond his first read, he has very poor ball placement and touch at every level of the field, he attempts throws that he has no business making... Literally he checks 2 boxes - strong arm and prototypical size. Every other trait is a long-term project.
So you wouldn't trade up for Allen, but it sounds like you'd love him at 12!
-
48 minutes ago, jrober38 said:
Completion percentage has little to do with accuracy.
You've been an accuracy guy for as long as I can remember, and you've convinced me.
But let's not go overboard. Completion percentage isn't a measure of accuracy, but to to say it has little to do with accuracy is, well, inaccurate.
It may be true that some accurate throwers have low completion percentages for a game or maybe even a season. But virtually NO thrower with a high completion percentage for a season is inaccurate. You simple can't complete 60-65% of 500 passes if you're a fundamentally inaccurate passer.
Completion percentage is the only common stat that correlates in some way with accuracy.
-
9 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
What I've been saying for a while and that is I personally think Mayfield is the best QB in the draft.
I don't get into these draft discussion very much because I'e never studied the QBs nearly enough to form an intelligent opinion.
Some people say Allen will be great. Some say it's Darnold. Some say it's Rosen. Some say it's Mayfield. Some say Jackson. Some say Rudolph. One or more of those opinions will turn out to be correct, and several likely will turn out to be wrong, and there is no way to tell who's right from any of these discussions.
However, I do think a few things:
A lot of the metrics keep pointing to Mayfield. Doesn't mean he's the guy, but I'm sure none of the teams looking for a QB is overlooking him. There is only one reason Mayfield will fall in the draft, and it's the same reason any of these other guys may fall in the draft: teams with access to a lot of film, data, interviews, etc. will all decide that the guy has enough questions about him not to merit a pick in the top 5 or 10.
Parcells and QBase put a lot of weight on QBs graduating from college, starting for three years, posting a lot of wins, as well as accuracy. For whatever reason, it's apparently the case that very few guys who started two years or less turn out to be great in the NFL. Newton has come closest, and Flacco is the only other one who's had any substantial success of any kind.
I'm confused and frustrated, and like Logic, I'm finding it nerve-wracking waiting for the draft.
Article about Mahomes trade, negotiations with Whaley for pick
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I agree. They know what the Giants want, they know what the Colts want, they know what Broncos, Bears, Bucs, Raiders want. They've talked to 'em all. Some of them are probably too pricey, some of them have possible deals shaped up with the Bills and are waiting to see if the Bills call on draft day. Beane knows which guy(s) he wants and how much he's willing to give up for each. He might be willing to pay the price to go to 6 for one QB but only willing to pay the price to go to 9 for another.
By now, Beane has the makings of a plan in place for how he's going to do this. He knows what deals are out there to be had, and he knows which QBs, if any, he likes enough to move up.