RochesterRob

With our recent signings we are just under 63M for 2019. So we are not as flush with cash as we were a month ago. 63M is not a lot with the probable holes to fill on our roster.

Which is an example of pretty much taking the best player regardless of the position most of the time. Having the best guy available on most of the starting 22 made the difference. Taking exotic gambles such as trading a boatload of picks for a top 5 QB would most likely have meant no Thomas, Miller, etc. so the Broncos would have had seasons where the passing game had pretty good stats and maybe an 8-8, 9-7 finish but bounced out early in the playoffs. But justing getting into the playoffs is good enough for many but not for me. So there is more than one way to cut the cake (win a SB)?

Where were the Broncos before Manning? Getting key support players. Where are they now? Relishing the Lombardi they got a couple of seasons ago while opening a new chapter in their history. I don't know what to tell you. If it is not there in the draft then it is not there. The Broncos would not have their Lombardi if they had acted irrationally as to acquiring a QB at all costs. That probably would mean no Von Miller among other players.

First round picks are a gamble? Not especially. I'll give you Eric Flowers but not the rest. Mike Williams had motivation problems that were well known before the draft. The signs were there to steer clear. Roscoe Parrish did not have the measurables desired for for a featured receiver, Again, the signs were there to steer clear. McCargo? His back problems were known ahead of the draft and Mangold who was pretty much a plug in and play player was right there with us having a need for him. Yet again the signs were there to steer clear of McCargo. And right down the list through Whitner and Maybin. Had we chosen some what close to wisely the results would have been very different. So having said that why do you say that I want to do the same failed thing over and over again which is trying to plug square pegs into round holes? Sometimes the QB has to be the icing on the cake versus the first layer on the bottom. That approach worked for the Eagles and the Manning lead Broncos to name a couple of teams.

What the top teams do and if they choose to keep their picks is out of our hands. We can't assume Mayfield and Rosen will be available to us. I'd be worried that if the rookie sat all of 2018 that his following season will still have ample growing pains.

And Eric Flowers, Mike Williams (OT), Roscoe Parrish, John McCargo, Donte Whitner, and Aaron Maybin had nothing to do with this? Peyton Manning could not have won with that supporting cast. Stop pizzing away high round picks on high ceiling guys who most likely cannot carry the water for the franchise.

This is all part of the self delusion by the trade up at all costs folks as they believe that they are the smartest people out there.

The only package that matters is the one that actually gets done which could be considerably more expensive than what you suggest if these QB's are of high quality as some seem to suggest here. It does not matter as to the speculation by some blowhard roid'd talking head says at ESPN or what some clown says on his blog.

You have to have a QB to build your defense? You have to have a QB to build your running game? You have to have a QB to build the interior of your O Line? All that aside your statement would be news to the SB Champion Eagles who had most of their pieces before they acquired Wentz. Being shrill on this board is going to have no effect on Beane so you might as well chill out.

They do if the team feels they have that QB's replacement on the roster. Jimmy G went to the 49'rs in part because he was due to get paid because his original contract was going to run out. So there is that as well as a vet getting moved in favor of a rookie. Further, I am not opposed to drafting a QB this year but I don't want to give up the farm and Spotrac has us just under 63M in cap for 2019 so no more visions of 10 elite FA's as some had envisioned for next year to soften the blow for giving everything away this year and part of next year draft-wise. 63M will go rather quick with a couple big FA's and a half dozen second shelf players.

I am not sure that the premium is the same as you move down the board. In picks 1-5 I would expect the premium to be on par with what the Jets paid. What it would take to move to 7,8, or 9 I am not sure of but am skeptical that it would involve both firsts. The players that teams go to the mat over are usually off the board by that point.

I don't like the Bengals argument as there is no bylaw in the NFL that says you can't replace any starting QB. The Bengals were free at anytime to upgrade the position via the draft or free agent signing. Something to keep in mind for 2019 where that draft is considered shallow and we might be better off trading for another QB that is already on an NFL roster but needs to go because of contract.

Dr. Nick (The Simpson's) "Inflammable means flammable?"

"The other side" said all those things and every last one agreed on all your "points?" I doubt it. Who is this majority you speak of and what are their talking points? "DARE TO BE GREAT, MCBEANE!"? Just like I said call out someone's manhood when logic fails to support your argument.

All damnable lies according to them. If the Bills do not pick in the top 5 it will be due to incompetence, being tight with picks, or lack of manhood in the matter. There is no excuse even if the cost is way out of wack with the projected value. They are all HOF QB's who will be around for 15 years or more so two full drafts should be no problem as payment according to them.

Anything involving a human being is anything but being scientifically precise. The Jets may get a QB due to analysis or they may get a QB due to dumb luck. But one thing is for sure in this day and age and that is they will never admit to dumb luck to give their competition any satisfaction. Bill Belichick lives by doing that. He will never admit that his success is tied to Brady. He would rather have everybody here believe it is due to some dark force named "The Patriot Way." And if the Jets strike gold then for God's sakes build a defense that can counter that QB. We might have taken more games from the Pats if we did not have McCargo's, Whitner's, and Maybin's leading the way.

That statement applied to if there were a number one consensus player which there can only be one of. My statement was of course much broader than discussing a clear number one option. As much was said when I stated 20 teams are looking for QB's and most will miss which really is the heart of the matter as there is no clear system that works most of the time. But you keep playing "big city lawyer" and isolate sentences from paragraphs which have a broader meaning. Again, I would ask you if you have special talents that the NFL critically needs then why spend time with the bumpkins and rubes on TBD?

Yep, if the net was as big at that point as it is today this board would have been flooded with "I'm quitting this team" threads. And the drama would have been far more intense than what it was over Whaley or Tyrod.

I am failing to see your "logic" as none of the names you have listed have several years of stats to analyze in terms of the NFL. Get back to me when they have faced a multitude of defensive players and coordinators and maintain elite statistics. When they have a few offensive teammates go down and they have to carry a team. Do you have a system "to get it right" in terms of selecting a QB? If you do you need to be E mailing your resume to all 32 NFL teams pronto. Honestly, your argument boils down to "if it is new and shiny then it has to be better." If you are really concerned about the Bills not getting it right then you might as well undertake a new home improvement project or see what needs doing with the lawn as it will be time better spent and stress saved versus agonizing over what Beane will do or not do.

There is certainly nothing in the way of being foolproof when it comes to the QB's in this class. As was said yesterday there are probably twenty organizations looking for QB's this spring and the fact that most will miss on such a prospect is testimony to how hard it is when there are no clear cut leaders. If there were a consensus number 1 then the Brown's would have been flooded with trade offers for the number one overall pick. If it is worth giving up the farm to those here on those board to go to one then many competitors would have the same notion with substituting players for picks where an organization does not have a wheelbarrow full of selections to trade.

OK, counting rookies there are 32 names on that list. Can somebody give 22 names that they consider franchise QB's. I would argue that somebody such as Mariotta grades incomplete at this point but I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt on a couple of names. Again, I would say that the rookies should not be considered franchise QB's even thought they are on the list. Can somebody give me 18 or 19 names to make 67 percent of 28?

I only see 25 percent of that list in terms of being a franchise QB. Too early to ink the Titans or Bucs QB's in. Maybe they will and maybe they will not be franchise QB's. Then of course you can't ink the rookies in as they have not even played a down of NFL football. Eli Manning in my mind has barely played to that standard and if the Giants did not win two SB's then the definition of franchise QB fits even poorer. Yes, Eli has had strong years but then he has had periods where he was pretty mediocre.

Why does it have to be awful if we don't reach on a QB this month. We still have considerable cap room for next year and if we have all our picks we could trade for a player next year. This may not have been likely under Ralph and Buddy but I think Beane is watching other teams with that possibility in mind.

Denial is one heck of a drug for the trade up at all costs crowd. I could see some of these people dispensing advice to other people on important life matters while their own lives are a tire fire. The Colts pick at 6 given your price would be very tempting IF the Bills were 100 percent convinced that was their guy. Any doubts and walk away from doing it. The Manziel thread makes me think that there is all too often a wishful thinking stance teams take with top problematic prospects in that they expect a person to change their life long ways even thinking that money will now be the carrot. I've seen too many down here in everyday America throw away money and marriage because they could not learn self control and self discipline. I've seen too many people in a marriage think that they can change their partner and that certainly happens less than 50 percent of the time.

Not only for his on field contributions but if what is true that he was nailing another player's wife and that was the real reason for his trade to Oakland. The latter half of the 1960's might have been less painful for Buffalo but odds are we still would have not won a lot. The team was fairly devoid of talent by 1968 and we would not have been able to draft Simpson had we not hit bottom.