Emerging Sub Plot in Draft could effect Bills ...

[1B4IDie]

Didn't say he was. Objecting to your words that he's "clearly not" a franchise QB as if that were some kind of league-wide view. To me book is still open on him. What is clear is that he has a contract that's above market having been executed one year prior to the rookie cap. Accepting that and giving up a 2nd (which you take for granted) is unrealistic IMO

It's much more realistic than the Rams passing on taking Andrew Luck.

 

The Rams can't renegotiate the contract because it shows they don't have faith in Bradford and need Bradford to have the full support of the organization if he is going to stay in St. Louis.

 

But if the Rams trade Bradford the new team can renegotiate the contract. It works for Bradford's camp because generally in a renegotiation you get a signing bonus, which can give him more upfront money.

 

A 2nd for Bradford is pretty cheap, I'm surprised you would think that is steep in your opinion.

 

A 2nd for Bradford is very realistic. Most likely the Rams wouldn't let him go that cheap.

 

Now the real reality conflict is around the Market. What team would make this trade? It would have to be a team that feels that have near term potential, no QB. and are willing to spend. So it's really a limited market; Seattle, maybe Kansas City, Depending on JAX, maybe Miami The Browns got a whole bunch of extra picks. Redskins, might make a move like that.

 

Out of all the scenarios presented. I think if the Rams get the #1 overall; trading Bradford to the Browns for a 1st and the Browns renegotiating the Bradford contract, and the Rams take Luck is a reality based fantasy possibility.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[Observer]

Fascinating. The Bills need two more DL for their 3-4, really?

 

Was it Kyle Williams or Marcell Dareus you wanted to bench/cut???

 

Dareus has been playing NT since midway through this season. If they move him to DE, then they need a NT. Whatever the case, they need 2 linemen for the 3-4 unless you have more confidence in Kyle Williams's achilles than me. It doesn't matter much since they couldn't hope to find both DEs in the same draft. If they grabbed one and then Williams comes back 100%, all the better.

 

If you don't think the Bills are in dire need of drafting a QB you are insane. I imagine this is going to be an ongoing argument, but if you look at the Bills over the last decade, there is a sickening amount of consistency. Outside of ownership problems, which is the main reason this team has been terrible, poor QB play has been the biggest problem (and yes, I remember the Bledsoe year). Very...VERY few teams have proven capable of winning without a top rate QB.

 

If the Bills have a shot at landing Luck/RGIII and even Barkley, they shouldn't think twice. Just pull the trigger baby.

 

On a quick side note. Anyone who wants the Bills to stay in Buffalo post-Wilson should really be rooting for them to acquire a face for the franchise. A guy that people think of immediately when they think of the Buffalo Bills brand. Not to say that w/o said player, they won't stay in Buffalo. I think regardless the NFL will find a buyer. I'm just saying, if you want a serious person to take a shot on owning the Bills, they need to have some marketable assets on the team in terms of personnel. Again, I'm not saying the Bills should draft a player who doesn't fit their plans solely to benefit from his marketability. But I am saying that having a big time playmaker at QB would be a really good thing for the franchise. And not just in terms of performance on the field.

 

I have zero problem drafting a QB--if they think a really good QB is there for the taking. What I have a problem with is trading away picks to take a chance on someone when the Bills have a lot of needs.

 

Do you honestly think Andrew Luck would lead this team to the playoffs if the Bills have nothing before a 3rd round pick for the next 2 years? I don't.

[Hplarrm]

Dareus has been playing NT since midway through this season. If they move him to DE, then they need a NT. Whatever the case, they need 2 linemen for the 3-4 unless you have more confidence in Kyle Williams's achilles than me. It doesn't matter much since they couldn't hope to find both DEs in the same draft. If they grabbed one and then Williams comes back 100%, all the better.

 

 

 

I have zero problem drafting a QB--if they think a really good QB is there for the taking. What I have a problem with is trading away picks to take a chance on someone when the Bills have a lot of needs.

 

Do you honestly think Andrew Luck would lead this team to the playoffs if the Bills have nothing before a 3rd round pick for the next 2 years? I don't.

Agreed. If a prime QB falls into your laps one would be silly not to take him. However, this is a very different thing from trading up to rest an even larger amount of your future on the knees and shoulders of one player. Given the mediocre record of performance of many highly drafted QBs and given the record of achievement of many late (or even non-drafted) QB it seems pretty insane to trade away even more value on a team that desperately needs value from multiple positions.

 

Yes, pick a franchise QB IF you identify one and he is available but given the Bills track record at identifying must have talentover the past decade picking decade, making such a high risk move at trading away additional resources seems pretty foolish.

[Ozymandius]

Agreed. If a prime QB falls into your laps one would be silly not to take him. However, this is a very different thing from trading up to rest an even larger amount of your future on the knees and shoulders of one player. Given the mediocre record of performance of many highly drafted QBs and given the record of achievement of many late (or even non-drafted) QB it seems pretty insane to trade away even more value on a team that desperately needs value from multiple positions.

 

Yes, pick a franchise QB IF you identify one and he is available but given the Bills track record at identifying must have talentover the past decade picking decade, making such a high risk move at trading away additional resources seems pretty foolish.

 

If we can trade for Luck -- realistically, we can't -- we have to do it. The entire NFL has scouted this guy for us. It's like getting all the answers to the exam beforehand. Our crappy front office and scouts don't even have to lift a finger to evaluate this guy.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Rams have too much invested in bradford to take on another. There's some risk vikes could give up on ponder after 1 year but I'll only believe it when I see it.

It doesn't matter who selects first, if they trade up to select him, they will keep him. If the Colts (or any other team) don't want him but still have the first pick, they will still select him then trade his rights to the highest bidder. I don't see how this opens the door for the Bills, anymore than it's already opened.

 

If I was a GM with the top pick but didn't need a QB, I would select him, let the draft finish, and then see what packages teams can put together for a trade.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Matthews' Bag

[thewildrabbit]

Rams have too much invested in bradford to take on another. There's some risk vikes could give up on ponder after 1 year but I'll only believe it when I see it.

Speaking of Sam Bradford, looking at his performance on that team is kinda like watching what would happen should the bills take a QB with the first pick this year.

 

The Rams don't have a good receiver corps, they don't have a good O line, they don't have a good defense, the QB is always getting hurt, always under duress,...sound familiar?

 

The Rams coaching stinks, the game plans stink, the schemes stink...sound familiar?

 

I'm not as enamored with taking a QB in this years draft as the rest of you, as I know he will just get beaten down and cast off in another 3 years. This GM & HC have already proven they don't know how to build a line, build a defense, build a good team.

[BobChalmers]

Whatever the case, they need 2 linemen for the 3-4 unless you have more confidence in Kyle Williams's achilles than me.

 

In fact, I have complete confidence in KW and expect him to be 100% next year.

 

This wasn't an achilles tear - they saw a problem and addressed it proactively. He'll be fine.

 

 

If this is still a base 3-4 team they don't need to draft a DE before they've brought in TWO OLB's. Right now they have two very good DL's and some other solid ones (Johnson, Edwards, Carrington).

 

They have ZERO actual OLB's unless Merriman comes back strong, which I have a lot less confidence in than Williams.

[Fan in San Diego]

Joe,

 

That is a great post man. But with this bumbling management, the worst owner in the league, and a coaching staff that could not pour piss out of a boot with the directions on the heel, I dont bank on anything anymore. Bust after bust....

 

 

Good one.

[starrymessenger]

Looks very much to me like the Bills will get a shot at Barkley or RGIII . the issue is whether you do it or not.

You do it. They will do it.

[Observer]

In fact, I have complete confidence in KW and expect him to be 100% next year.

 

This wasn't an achilles tear - they saw a problem and addressed it proactively. He'll be fine.

 

 

If this is still a base 3-4 team they don't need to draft a DE before they've brought in TWO OLB's. Right now they have two very good DL's and some other solid ones (Johnson, Edwards, Carrington).

 

They have ZERO actual OLB's unless Merriman comes back strong, which I have a lot less confidence in than Williams.

 

If you are making the argument that OLB is a bigger priority than DE, you'll get no argument from me. I see them as 1 and 1A positions of need. If they take either one with the first pick, I'll be happy.

 

A partially sheared achilles tendon, to me, does not sound 100% but I'll be happy to be wrong. I love Williams.

[truth on hold]

It's much more realistic than the Rams passing on taking Andrew Luck.

 

The Rams can't renegotiate the contract because it shows they don't have faith in Bradford and need Bradford to have the full support of the organization if he is going to stay in St. Louis.

 

But if the Rams trade Bradford the new team can renegotiate the contract. It works for Bradford's camp because generally in a renegotiation you get a signing bonus, which can give him more upfront money.

 

A 2nd for Bradford is pretty cheap, I'm surprised you would think that is steep in your opinion.

 

A 2nd for Bradford is very realistic. Most likely the Rams wouldn't let him go that cheap.

 

Now the real reality conflict is around the Market. What team would make this trade? It would have to be a team that feels that have near term potential, no QB. and are willing to spend. So it's really a limited market; Seattle, maybe Kansas City, Depending on JAX, maybe Miami The Browns got a whole bunch of extra picks. Redskins, might make a move like that.

 

Out of all the scenarios presented. I think if the Rams get the #1 overall; trading Bradford to the Browns for a 1st and the Browns renegotiating the Bradford contract, and the Rams take Luck is a reality based fantasy possibility.

Why in the world would Bradford renegotiate his contract and take a lot less money to move from one stink bomb to another ? You keep resting your arguments on these casual unrealistic assumptions.

 

Speaking of Sam Bradford, looking at his performance on that team is kinda like watching what would happen should the bills take a QB with the first pick this year.

 

The Rams don't have a good receiver corps, they don't have a good O line, they don't have a good defense, the QB is always getting hurt, always under duress,...sound familiar?

 

The Rams coaching stinks, the game plans stink, the schemes stink...sound familiar?

 

I'm not as enamored with taking a QB in this years draft as the rest of you, as I know he will just get beaten down and cast off in another 3 years. This GM & HC have already proven they don't know how to build a line, build a defense, build a good team.

How do you know it's not the QB that's making the offense look bad? And hence also hurting the defense keeping them on the field too long and making key turnovers?

 

Are you attacking the Patriots' record of success?

 

I guess you'd prefer the Bills trade up into the first again for JP Losman redux.

 

Thanks for making my point so perfectly about the luck of the draft and needing more picks by citing Brady. He was of course a 7th rounder. Rodgers was a low first. Brees a high second. Romo was undrafted. Schaub a 3rd rounder. Those are the top 5 NFL passers this year. The NFL draft is an informed crapshoot. The better teams don't make less picks if they have the choice.

 

To move up to #1 from 8-12 will cost the Bills more than a 2nd rounder. It would probably take multiple seconds and at least next year's first. On a team riddled with holes, that would be stupid beyond belief. Just use the picks and keep building.

Those citing losman forget it was steelers trading up ahead of us to get rothlesberger that triggered this

[truth on hold]

It doesn't matter who selects first, if they trade up to select him, they will keep him. If the Colts (or any other team) don't want him but still have the first pick, they will still select him then trade his rights to the highest bidder. I don't see how this opens the door for the Bills, anymore than it's already opened.

 

If I was a GM with the top pick but didn't need a QB, I would select him, let the draft finish, and then see what packages teams can put together for a trade.

Its risky because you may not get the players you want this way.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack

[Cornerville]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[SactoBillFan]

Excuse me?!!! You have to have a QB! The Patriots are a team that has the ultimate franchise QB. You are nothing in this league unless you have one of those.

 

The Steelers knew this. Were the Steelers stupid in trading up for Rothlesburger?

 

BTW, the Patriots have done squat with all of those extra picks and should have been using them to trade up for impact pro bowl type players. Have you seen their defense?

Patriots were lucky. Brady was a 6th rounder. They had no clue until Bledsoe went down.

[John from Riverside]

I would take Sam Bradford in a heartbeat

[Best Player Available]

Andrew Luck would never sign with Buffalo.

 

 

 

 

True story. he even said so in 2010

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Its risky because you may not get the players you want this way.

 

I think that is the way to insure you get max value. That way you can finish your draft, figure out what you need, and other teams can do the same. It would probably involve veteran players and future draft picks. This may not be the tact that is taken, but it is either that, or select him then trade for later picks to a team that is about to select when a player you covet is available.

 

He WILL be selected first, regardless of whether or not the team intends to keep him.

[truth on hold]

I think that is the way to insure you get max value. That way you can finish your draft, figure out what you need, and other teams can do the same. It would probably involve veteran players and future draft picks. This may not be the tact that is taken, but it is either that, or select him then trade for later picks to a team that is about to select when a player you covet is available.

 

He WILL be selected first, regardless of whether or not the team intends to keep him.

Of course there's a bidding but it's most often done before a pick takes place. This way the team knows what it's getting by trading down to a spot they're comfortable the player or players they want will be available. If you let someone else draft them there's a much larger risk of the team drafted them may not be interested in dealing them to you.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Of course there's a bidding but it's most often done before a pick takes place. This way the team knows what it's getting by trading down to a spot they're comfortable the player or players they want will be available. If you let someone else draft them there's a much larger risk of the team drafted them may not be interested in dealing them to you.

 

That is certainly how I expect it to happen, but I think Luck is a valuable enough prospect that it could be approached a better way.

 

It may also be approached like the Manning/Rivers trade, but with more additional picks.

 

But my real point is that he will be chosen first whether the team needs him or not, and I don't see how it would be more likely that the Bills could trade for the pick, if a team other than the Colts have the first pick.

 

He isn't coming to the Bills.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Matthews' Bag

[Best Player Available]

Are you attacking the Patriots' record of success?

 

I guess you'd prefer the Bills trade up into the first again for JP Losman redux.

 

Thanks for making my point so perfectly about the luck of the draft and needing more picks by citing Brady. He was of course a 7th rounder. Rodgers was a low first. Brees a high second. Romo was undrafted. Schaub a 3rd rounder. Those are the top 5 NFL passers this year. The NFL draft is an informed crapshoot. The better teams don't make less picks if they have the choice.

 

To move up to #1 from 8-12 will cost the Bills more than a 2nd rounder. It would probably take multiple seconds and at least next year's first. On a team riddled with holes, that would be stupid beyond belief. Just use the picks and keep building.

Take this with a huge grain of salt. But on the cost too move up this year according to one of the ESPN "experts" and i forget who it was. But he said moving from 9 or 10 to number one, would cost 3 number ones, and 2 number two picks. I actually find that reasonable if a guy like Luck pans out and has 10+ years as a "elite" Quarterback. It would be silly for the Bills to do that, and they never would. First they couldn't coach the kid up. Second as you state we have too many holes.

 

But for the right team with a NFL level coaching staff, and front office it's doable.