DrDawkinstein Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 17 minutes ago, JohnBonhamRocks said: Would you trade #13 for #21 and #53? Maybe. Bills traded #8 for #16 and #46 in 2013. Plenty of other teams have. It happens. Depends on what you want and need versus how the draft is shaking out.
mjt328 Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 We should have a MUCH better idea of trade targets after free agency. Where Kirk Cousins lands is going to shake up everything. If he lands with someone in the Top 6 like Cleveland, New York Giants/Jets or Denver, that will start pushing the better prospects farther down the board. We may be able to get by with just getting ahead of Arizona (sitting at #15) to get our guy. This would probably be the ideal scenario for us. But if Cousins lands with Arizona or someone totally unexpected, we probably need to squeeze into the Top 5. That means targeting Indianapolis or Cleveland's #4 selection, which is going to get really pricey. Probably both #1s this year, and some more.
MrEpsYtown Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 I think trading up to 13 gets you closer to trading into the top 3, but anything short of a trade up for Allen-Darnold-Rosen, I probably would not bother.
Koufax Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 35 minutes ago, kdiggz said: I wouldn't give both 1sts. I would give a 1st and a 2nd since we have an extra one of those as well. But 13th might only get us the 5th best QB and if they trade up and don't take a QB I might throw my tv out the window We do not trade up to get the 5th best QB. We trade up when we think one of the five QBs who has fallen to a spot is better than fifth best. A minor but important distinction. I can't remember any draft where the fifth best QB was any good, but I can remember some where the fifth QB chosen was really good. Obvious example is 1983 where Elway went #1, but then Blackledge was picked at #7 before Kelly went #14, then Eason and O'Brien before Marino went #27. So that is a draft where there were hall of famers available in the teens and the twenties, but getting the 5th best QB wasn't a good idea, but being better in your ranking and projections of the top three QBs you like than other teams were was the secret. I don't even remotely consider trading up if we aren't getting someone we think is one of the top three QBs in this draft, but we also hope other teams make mistakes and our #4 and #5 rated QBs get picked earlier than someone in our top 3. But there is just about never a case where there end up being more than three good QBs in a draft, so unless you think you are getting one of YOUR top three, I don't see any reason to draft a QB in the first. In 2004 we picked the 4th best QB in a three QB draft. We can read the tea leaves better and smarter than other teams and laugh when they pick Blackledge and we get Kelly, but while the 5th best WR or LB or RB can often be a very useful player, I'm not aware of any time where the 5th best QB was a useful player. 1
CritMark Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 1 minute ago, mjt328 said: We should have a MUCH better idea of trade targets after free agency. Where Kirk Cousins lands is going to shake up everything. If he lands with someone in the Top 6 like Cleveland, New York Giants/Jets or Denver, that will start pushing the better prospects farther down the board. We may be able to get by with just getting ahead of Arizona (sitting at #15) to get our guy. This would probably be the ideal scenario for us. But if Cousins lands with Arizona or someone totally unexpected, we probably need to squeeze into the Top 5. That means targeting Indianapolis or Cleveland's #4 selection, which is going to get really pricey. Probably both #1s this year, and some more. You are correct. However, looking at landing spots for Cousins, I think AZ is the least likely. Given the competition in that division, I think that he would look elsewhere unless the economics were so compelling. The Rams look to be a good team on the rise and the Seahawks are still a formidable team to face twice a year. That is going to be a very difficult division to reach the playoffs in if he goes there.
Roundybout Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 43 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: BE, once the details of the contract came out (4 years, high guaranteed money) that can't be the case. It would put them in Garoppolo land, having their young groomed pick ready to start with only 1 year left on his contract + an option, while they're still paying Smith starter $$ This makes sense, thanks. I do wonder if there is an out clause, though, just in case.
thenorthremembers Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 You would have to see how free agency and the top portion of the draft plays out. But if a scenario plays out like this Jets- Sign Cousins Browns- Take Rosen #1 Giants- Pass on a QB and take Barkley #2 Broncos- Take Darnold and Mayfield starts to slide, I serious hope the Bills start working on getting ahead of Arizona. No reason they can't get up to #13 or #14 by trading the 21st and 53rd pick. The chart may be dependent on the situation, but it seems like a great deal of the trades that happen follow the formula closely.
CritMark Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said: I think trading up to 13 gets you closer to trading into the top 3, but anything short of a trade up for Allen-Darnold-Rosen, I probably would not bother. Your assumption is the three top QBs are the three you named. Not all evaluators agree and many that have those three at the top are including Mayfield in that same group with the drop off after the top four. It's going to come down to who is available at a spot the Bills are willing to trade up to. Nobody is going to tip their hand in advance. Once all the UFAs have signed, we will have a clearer picture on who is likely to draft a QB. 1
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 Unless you're trading into the top 3, you get no guarantee that one of your guys is there... You have to have packages ready in case a player you want falls though. There's always shocks in the top 10, and there will be trades. 45 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said: You would have to see how free agency and the top portion of the draft plays out. But if a scenario plays out like this Jets- Sign Cousins Browns- Take Rosen #1 Giants- Pass on a QB and take Barkley #2 Broncos- Take Darnold and Mayfield starts to slide, I serious hope the Bills start working on getting ahead of Arizona. No reason they can't get up to #13 or #14 by trading the 21st and 53rd pick. The chart may be dependent on the situation, but it seems like a great deal of the trades that happen follow the formula closely. Where do keenum, bridgewater, bradford fall? What if the Giants really are planning on playing for 3-5 years with Eli? Ton of variables beyond cousins.
CritMark Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, dneveu said: Unless you're trading into the top 3, you get no guarantee that one of your guys is there... You have to have packages ready in case a player you want falls though. There's always shocks in the top 10, and there will be trades. Where do keenum, bridgewater, bradford fall? What if the Giants really are planning on playing for 3-5 years with Eli? Ton of variables beyond cousins. The Vikings will not keep both Keenum and Bridgewater. Keenum wants to start and not have to compete with another starting quality QB for a job. If the Vikes want to sign Bridgewater I think the likelihood of Keenum signing as well is maybe 5% and I think that may be high. I'm thinking AZ is a likely landing spot for him but just a guess. Bradford is another story. He has shown when he is on a decent team he can play pretty well. His obvious knock is his ability to stay on the field. He would be a very good option for a short term contract to mentor a rookie with every intention of the rookie being the long term option. The contract would likely have incentives for being available to play as opposed to a big guarantee. That seems like a reasonable option for both the player and the team.
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, CritMark said: The Vikings will not keep both Keenum and Bridgewater. Keenum wants to start and not have to compete with another starting quality QB for a job. If the Vikes want to sign Bridgewater I think the likelihood of Keenum signing as well is maybe 5% and I think that may be high. I'm thinking AZ is a likely landing spot for him but just a guess. Bradford is another story. He has shown when he is on a decent team he can play pretty well. His obvious knock is his ability to stay on the field. He would be a very good option for a short term contract to mentor a rookie with every intention of the rookie being the long term option. The contract would likely have incentives for being available to play as opposed to a big guarantee. That seems like a reasonable option for both the player and the team. I'd have my trainers take a long look at bradfords knee's before I'd even consider him. I don't even know what happened and he ended up on IR. He did shred the saints on MNF to open the season though Edited January 31, 2018 by dneveu
LABILLBACKER Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I don't think moving up 9 spots is good value for 2 1sts this year. But I could be off. Also don't think moving up 9 spots will get us our preferred QB. You're right. Both moves would be bad. Darnold is the only qb worth moving up that high and either the Browns or Giants will take him. We needed to land Smith and Cousins isn't worth that ridiculous guaranteed money. I don't know what plan B is? Most LA sports announcers are saying it's very unusual this Smith deal was done before the combine?
CritMark Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, dneveu said: I'd have my trainers take a long look at bradfords knee's before I'd even consider him. I don't even know what happened and he ended up on IR. He did shred the saints on MNF to open the season though He also had pretty good stats in 2016 where he played all but the opening game. Completed 71.6% of his passes, 20 TDs/5 INTs. A lot of his passes were short because the O-Line for them last year was exceptionally bad. He got hammered. So much so that one of his O-Lineman asked him after a particularity big hit if he was dead. If he checks out physically, he will serve some team as a very good rental.
thenorthremembers Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 21 minutes ago, dneveu said: Unless you're trading into the top 3, you get no guarantee that one of your guys is there... You have to have packages ready in case a player you want falls though. There's always shocks in the top 10, and there will be trades. Where do keenum, bridgewater, bradford fall? What if the Giants really are planning on playing for 3-5 years with Eli? Ton of variables beyond cousins. Completely expect either Keenum or Bradford to end up here. Still feel like the Bills draft a long term answer in the first round, but I don't see them starting a rookie. Expect them to sign one of the two, most likely Bradford.
LABILLBACKER Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 10 minutes ago, dneveu said: I'd have my trainers take a long look at bradfords knee's before I'd even consider him. I don't even know what happened and he ended up on IR. He did shred the saints on MNF to open the season though Inject some of that magical TB12 Kale right into Sam's knees. 1
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 Just now, LABILLBACKER said: Inject some of that magical TB12 Kale right into Sam's knees. With some Pink Himalayan salt. Or maybe some of whatever they put into bartolo colons shoulder. 2 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said: Completely expect either Keenum or Bradford to end up here. Still feel like the Bills draft a long term answer in the first round, but I don't see them starting a rookie. Expect them to sign one of the two, most likely Bradford. I tend to agree - I don't see Beane and McDermott trying to make a huge move up to the top 3 though. 3 minutes ago, CritMark said: He also had pretty good stats in 2016 where he played all but the opening game. Completed 71.6% of his passes, 20 TDs/5 INTs. A lot of his passes were short because the O-Line for them last year was exceptionally bad. He got hammered. So much so that one of his O-Lineman asked him after a particularity big hit if he was dead. If he checks out physically, he will serve some team as a very good rental. Yeah - they had like 0 run game in 2016 too. This year they upgraded that with Cook, and even though he went out for the year, they also added Murray in FA to add some meat to their run game. Their o-line improved a ton from 2016 - 2 new tackles and drafted a center. Interested to see where Minnesota goes with their QB situation.
CritMark Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, dneveu said: With some Pink Himalayan salt. Or maybe some of whatever they put into bartolo colons shoulder. I tend to agree - I don't see Beane and McDermott trying to make a huge move up to the top 3 though. Would they have to move up to #3 though? Moving to #5 for 21, 22 & 53 is a good deal for the Broncos if they sign Cousins. If Barkley is there at #4 Cleveland will not trade out of that spot. Indy is not drafting a QB. Baring an Indy trade, a top QB is available at #5. Likewise, if Indy takes Barkley, trading those same three picks for #4 based on the value chart is a good deal for Cleveland. I think that is where you are likely going to need to get to #4 or #5 unless something odd happens at 1 through 3. The nightmare scenario for a QB needy team is if Cleveland takes Barkley at #1 assuming they determine they will be happy with any one of three QBs, no matter how they rank them. If they do that I would expect the Giants to take Rosen and someone move up to #3 to take a QB. That means 2-3-4 are all QBs. That is the scenario where you would have to trade up to #3 as your only option.
RochesterRob Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 17 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said: Completely expect either Keenum or Bradford to end up here. Still feel like the Bills draft a long term answer in the first round, but I don't see them starting a rookie. Expect them to sign one of the two, most likely Bradford. I could see Bradford come here if his physical checks out. This would mean keeping Glenn, draft an interior OL, and draft at least one offensive skill player. This would make many here unhappy but as has been said here in the last day perhaps the expectations this fall should not be ultra high.
H2o Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 If we are trading up to 13 for a QB then the only one likely to be left is Marshall. God knows I hope that doesn't happen.
Prickly Pete Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 The Bills are !@#$ed. They aren't going to get a very good QB this year.
Recommended Posts