Luxy312

Is it the Houston Cowboys or the Dallas Texans now?

I really don't get it either. I think this could easily be just like: 2011 - Newton, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder 2003 - Palmer, Leftwich, Boller, Grossman 2007 - Testaverde, Stouffer, Miller, Harbaugh There were questions about every QB in all of those drafts, just like there are in this draft. Just because they are picked early doesn't mean that they're all going to have success. In every one of those drafts, players could have gone in almost any order. I feel that the same holds true this year. There's 4 guys that might be worthy of being picked first. The 1983 draft certainly turned out great in hindsight, but there were some chunks of stool in there as well. Do we trade up to get our Todd Blackledge or stay where we are at #12 for our Tony Eason? We can also skip picking QB and get our Ken O'Brien at #22. All sounds awesome. LOL.

I take it with a grain of salt as fantasy and simply a statement that fits your narrative.

Just an ignorant statement. By your words, every team has a LeSean McCoy. Every team has an Antonio Brown and a Von Miller. So many more examples that pointing out the ridiculousness of this statement is almost not even necessary.

I don't think they take Jeff Allen. Probably pass on Jeremy Allen and Jaime Allen as well. None of those guys are first round material. LOL.

I thought 2000 was pretty interesting with the Raiders taking Sebass with the 17th pick in the first round. Not to be outdone with a kicker, the Saints took Russell Erxleben (Punter) with the 11th pick in 1979. My draft experience doesn't go much earlier than that. There's always interesting trades and picks every single year.

So by that assumption, you should be willing to take odds. $50 bet gets you $150 if they trade down. You would be giving away money.

I concur 100%. They're not trading down for "even money" based on the pick value chart. They're going to want as much of a premium as the Jets paid to move up. To boot (and mostly based on their needs), I'm not sure they would be willing to move down into the bottom half of the draft, unless they get even more. I think we can pretty much assume that the top-2 QB's go with #1 and #3. Moving down past #5 could mean that they lose out on Chubb/Barkely/Fitzpatrick. On my board, those are the only 3 "can't miss" QB prospects worthy of picking that high. I have Nelson as a can't miss as well, but there's no way EVER that I have a guard in the top ten.

I don't know why people simply ignore the GM's that are making the calls and play Madden with their picks. Gettleman has a history of two things. First, he doesn't trade down in the draft. Second, he builds his defense through the draft early and often. All signs for the Giants point not to QB with that second pick in the draft, but to Chubb. By many scouting reports, Chubb is a "can't miss" prospect in this draft and immediately fills the void from trading JPP to the Buccs, way more so than the second best QB on the board. As for the 1983 draft class, I don't believe for a second that this draft will yield 3 HOF quarterbacks. We'll likely see a repeat of the likes of Todd Blackledge, Tony Eason, and Ken O'Brien though.

This in a nutshell. It's not even CLOSE to #2 pick value. Stupid thread.

This is interesting to say the least. They only get a total of 30 visits. I don't know if there's a "master list" thread out there that records this, but I believe that in the last 10 years or so, the Bills first round picks were all in the scheduled visits. I can easily list out a bunch of players that gets Smith to #12 or that gets the Bills the quarterback that they want. There's a lot of talent in this draft and linebacker is certainly a position of need.

My take is admittedly different than many others that believe that this accumulated draft capital will all be bundled up and shipped off for a shiny new quarterback. Right now, I see the Bills signing younger starters to longer deals and older starters to shorter deals to fill out the starting roster. The exception (obviously) is A.J. McCarron. He's playing on a "show me" contract. At 27 years old, he's pretty much betting on himself. When I think about WHY the Bills brass would want to have starters ready at each position, I immediately think about draft flexibility. If I want to take "best player available" regardless of position, I do not want to be in a position from a roster perspective where I'm taking guys ahead of where they should go because I'm extremely thin at one or more positions. Davis, Latulelei, Murphy, McCarron, Newhouse, and Bodine are all starters right now. In addition, if you have huge holes to fill, other teams are going to know that. Gives them leverage if and when you try to trade up to get the guys that you want. If 12, 22, 53, 56, 65 are all best available player, the Bills could land 3-4 immediate starters and potential studs to build this team around. I can't say I hate that at all, even if one of the picks is used on one of these 5 flawed QB's. Certainly better than giving away 4-5 picks and still ending up with a flawed QB that may never develop.

I like both of these signings. Not super expensive and they targeted guys that have the right skillset for the system that Daboll will be running.

This can also be said of all of the top 5-6 QB's that could possibly go in the first round. Absolutely none of them are "Andrew Luck" type of guys.

I question why this team needs to be desperate. I'll type here what I've typed elsewhere. If the front office doesn't believe that there's a clear cut #1 QB that's miles ahead of the next two guys, you don't get crazy with trying to get that #1. Every armchair GM will sit there and ask why they're not trading up to #2 because, of course, they MUST. Look at what McCarron did in college and compare him to what the current guys did in college. He's up there in every major statistical category. I think the Bills at this point are sitting at #12 and letting the draft come to them. A.J. got a two year "show me" deal and the Bills have the luxury of drafting the 3rd or 4th QB on the board at #12 if they want or even waiting until the second round. They should pull 3 starters out of the first 4 picks and I can't say I mind that at all.

This is probably wrong at this point now that they've signed McCarron. Tannehill restructuring to lock the Dolphins into him for 2 years. More and more, my original post is looking more accurate. The Bills are going to have the shot at the #2 or #3 QB in the draft at pick 12 and will not have to trade.

We've also identified the highest poster. LOL.

That's a wildcard, but still has to be a team that is looking for their signal caller of the future, AND has the draft capital to do it. The latter is a problem for many teams that would have to basically address holes in their line-up completely through free agency. Everyone is speculating. I'm merely sharing my opinion. For those that think that we MUST trade up from where we are now, I will simply disagree.

The point of moving Tyrod could be to upgrade the position, but also simply be to move on from what didn't work.

Spits not swallows. Say 'NO' to Siemian.

It's hard to read what the Browns are trying to do right now. The deal for Hyde is decent, but not a bank breaker. I certainly don't read anything into that signing that they're not still thinking Barkley, anymore than I read into the trade for Taylor that they're not thinking about quarterback with one of those first two picks. Consistent with every year of the draft that I can remember, I would expect to be shocked early and often.

I don't mind this plan at all. Basically skip the retread QB route and draft two guys to go with Peterman. #12 and 22 will get you two of the top six candidates.

There is no urgency to sign anyone, and it's pretty straight forward as to why. Look at the teams that draft before the Bills at #12. Cleveland holds the #1 and #4 pick right now. Yes, they acquired Tyrod, but they will in all likelihood take a QB with one of those two picks. I expect Barkley to be the #1 pick in the draft as he's not making it to #4. Eli Manning has said he wants to play 3-4 more years minimum and the Giants have endorsed that. There's no reason for them to take QB at #2. The Colts have Andrew Luck and thus far I've read nothing that suggests he won't be ready to go at the beginning of the season. Let's check the box with Denver giving Keenum a big contract, so no QB for them at #5. The Jets now have McCown, Petty, Hackenberg, AND Bridgewater on their depth chart. Does drafting a FIFTH QB for their roster at #6 make sense? Nope. TB has Winston. Chicago has Trubisky. SF has Garropolo. Oakland has Carr. See where I'm going here? Maybe Miami isn't happy with Tannehill, but that makes only 2 QB's off the board before the Bills pick at #12 and possibly only one. The free agent situation for QB's right now is and should be pretty quiet. If the Bills sign any of the myriad of retreads that are available, I think it's distinctly possible that they're still just a backup at the beginning of the season. If the plan was a journeyman "bridge" for a year, I think they would have just kept Tyrod. What does Moore, Henne, Stanton, Anderson, Sanchez, Gabbert, Osweiler, Siemian, Cutler, or Yates add that Taylor didn't? There's probably a half dozen other names that I missed, but the point is made.

This is unbelievable. They're positioned to make another deal with the Browns.

In the last 20 years, there have never been 6 QB's to go in the top 20. I think the chances are really good that one or two will be there when they pick.