Thurman#1 Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 8 hours ago, KingRex said: Trading up makes sense mostly to try to satisfy whining fans, but makes little football sense. This TEAM desperately needs to reload in order to: A. Make one of the oldest rosters in the league (this is true even with the Bills scoring heavily in the last draft) younger( This is a huge need not only simply due to age, but older players cause larger cap hits B. Fill a # of holes left by injuries such as LCenter and older players like4 Shady being unlikely to last forever. If the Bills lose their 2 first rounders and one or both of their second rounders to trade up, they not only risk that their pick will be more Ryan Leaf than Peyton Manning, but even if he is as good as Peyton, the simple fact was that this talented rookie elevated his Colts from 3-13 w/o him to 3-13 w/ him his rookie year. Drafting a talented rookie while not reloading this team would be like putting a Formula 1 engine into a VW bug. And that's if we're lucky and he turns out not to be Andrew Luck equivalent. If anything the Bills should trade down. Yup. That's the traditional wisdom, and for very good reason. Never ever trade up, always trade down, unless you're going after a franchise quarterback. Oh, wait.
BuffaloBillyG Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Bangarang said: Lets never draft a QB high until we have the perfect coaching staff, great WRs and an elite o-line. Some of you are waiting for the perfect situation to draft one high and it will never happen. Yes, let's just speak in absolutes. There was absolutely no place I said anything about 1. Not drafting a QB, 2. Drafting other positions or 3. Even drafting a QB high. I'm sorry, if having an inexperienced QB coach and a terrible OL coach isn't a concern for you...awesome. you get a gold star. ? If you're not nervous about sinking...I don't know 3 first round picks into a guy that will be directly coached up by a WR coach... phenomenal. You guessed it ? I don't care how highly though of a young QB is...he still needs proper coaching and to be set up for success.
sleeby Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 8 hours ago, GunnerBill said: Forget about the holes. This was a playoff team, sure it has holes but you would not be bringing a rookie QB into a dumpster fire. And forget about Manning's 3-13 rookie year.... the NFL is far gentler to rookie QBs now than it was in 1998. It was not really a playoff team. They ticked a box with a little help from Cincinnati and, expectedly, got dominated in the WC game. Just keeping it real.
Bangarang Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 15 minutes ago, KelsaysLunchbox said: Yes, let's just speak in absolutes. There was absolutely no place I said anything about 1. Not drafting a QB, 2. Drafting other positions or 3. Even drafting a QB high. I'm sorry, if having an inexperienced QB coach and a terrible OL coach isn't a concern for you...awesome. you get a gold star. ? If you're not nervous about sinking...I don't know 3 first round picks into a guy that will be directly coached up by a WR coach... phenomenal. You guessed it ? I don't care how highly though of a young QB is...he still needs proper coaching and to be set up for success. Wow 2 Internet gold stars! Today was a big big day for me.
BuffaloBillyG Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 Just now, sleeby said: It was not really a playoff team. They ticked a box with a little help from Cincinnati and, expectedly, got dominated in the WC game. Just keeping it real. But it really was a Playoff team. Like, literally they were in the playoffs. Doesn't matter that Cincy "helped" them. If that game is played at 1pm...same results happen and there isn't talk of "help". And since when is losing a road playoff game by 7 being dominated? Had the opportunity to tie it on last possession...that's not being "dominated". Just keeping it realer
sleeby Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 9 hours ago, KingRex said: Trading up makes sense mostly to try to satisfy whining fans, but makes little football sense. . . . . . If anything the Bills should trade down. I agree. Buffalo has a fascination for a magical bullet - a one shot that hits perfectly. See the sabers. Remember the odd bass pro in the old aud will somehow resurrect the city? Thr city is now on the right path by doing multiple, obvious things to improve and not fantasizing about nonsense. I hope the process is not playing roulette and putting all in on one guy. If that guy fails it will set us back at least two more years due to all the picks we gave away. Luck has not been strong here and yet so many fancy that route. I also think that getting that WC appearance was for the whiny fans (ticket sales). We could be looking at picks 5 and 22 now. Or 10 and 22. I do seem to be alone in that logic here though; here meaning all of buffalo, heh. 6 minutes ago, KelsaysLunchbox said: But it really was a Playoff team. Like, literally they were in the playoffs. Doesn't matter that Cincy "helped" them. If that game is played at 1pm...same results happen and there isn't talk of "help". And since when is losing a road playoff game by 7 being dominated? Had the opportunity to tie it on last possession...that's not being "dominated". Just keeping it realer By definition you are correct - they were in the playoffs. They stood as close to zero a chance of a Superbowl appearance as about any WC ever has though. They were the red meat for the WC weekend to feast on was all.
buffalobloodfloridahome Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 2 hours ago, PolishDave said: So you are saying Darnold is a more talented, more athletic Nate Peterman? Get him and kick Nate to the curb. I will say I think the ceiling is higher on Darnold than Peterman. The jury is still out on both. Darnold has a stronger arm. I'm not sure what Peterman had anything to do with this.
ghostwriter Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 Trading up to 10, I could see but to #3? I'd pass on that.
ColoradoBills Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 15 minutes ago, NewDayBills said: Trading up to 10, I could see but to #3? I'd pass on that. Yes, more than us agreeing I believe Beane and McDermott are not gambling anything more than our 2-1st's on a QB. Our 2 #1's get us to about 10. Tampa had Winston #1 overall. His 3 year combined record is 20-28. Titans with Mariota is 21-27. I would also argue that the Titans 9-7 record would be less if the Colts and Texans had a QB for the year. Colts with Luck at QB probably would not of loss 2 games to the Titans. I say this only to point out that the best 2 QBs in the 2015 draft has not helped their teams turn around into some perennial winner. The draft is a gamble and I don't think OBD is going to go "all in".
BuffaloHokie13 Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: Our 2 #1's get us to about 10. They actually put us around pick #5. And that's with a 10% tax.
BuffaloBillyG Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 56 minutes ago, sleeby said: I agree. Buffalo has a fascination for a magical bullet - a one shot that hits perfectly. See the sabers. Remember the odd bass pro in the old aud will somehow resurrect the city? Thr city is now on the right path by doing multiple, obvious things to improve and not fantasizing about nonsense. I hope the process is not playing roulette and putting all in on one guy. If that guy fails it will set us back at least two more years due to all the picks we gave away. Luck has not been strong here and yet so many fancy that route. I also think that getting that WC appearance was for the whiny fans (ticket sales). We could be looking at picks 5 and 22 now. Or 10 and 22. I do seem to be alone in that logic here though; here meaning all of buffalo, heh. By definition you are correct - they were in the playoffs. They stood as close to zero a chance of a Superbowl appearance as about any WC ever has though. They were the red meat for the WC weekend to feast on was all. For a franchise that had missed 17 post seasons they did exactly what they should have. They made the playoffs. They didn't get embarrassed. Well, the offense did...but the franchise didn't get blown out. They had a shot to win in round 1. Everyone knew going into the game that Buffalo was not really a Super Bowl team. Not a news flash. Now it's their job to build on that success. From the time Beane and McDermott took over the mantra has been win today and win tomorrow. They accomplished the first part. Was it a Championship season? No, but only 1 in 32 teams can say that it was a year. But it was a winning season.
BillsFan130 Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 7 hours ago, papazoid said: buy your way out of this QB problem pay Cousons $30 mil/yr and keep all your draft picks Nooooo lol. No way I would go after cousins especially at 27 to 30 mil per year
ColoradoBills Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: They actually put us around pick #5. And that's with a 10% tax. Depends which chart you use and how much "tax" you give, but I get your point. My point is get whatever QB you can get with the 2 firsts if we don't get a guy in FA. I will state again, I, personally, don't think Beane and McDermott are giving up these 3-1sts, 1-2nd and player type trades. They want to build their type of players thru the draft like Carolina and Pittsburg have.
SoCal Deek Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 6 minutes ago, billsfan11 said: Nooooo lol. No way I would go after cousins especially at 27 to 30 mil per year I'm not sure that there isn't some logic to it, if properly structured. The Bills will be loading the roster with seven or eight 'cheap' draft picks this year. I'd imagine that will clear space for Cousin's hefty contract for the next few years....no? 1
BuffaloHokie13 Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 1 minute ago, ColoradoBills said: Depends which chart you use and how much "tax" you give, but I get your point. My point is get whatever QB you can get with the 2 firsts if we don't get a guy in FA. I will state again, I, personally, don't think Beane and McDermott are giving up these 3-1sts, 1-2nd and player type trades. They want to build their type of players thru the draft like Carolina and Pittsburg have. Agree to disagree. I don't think they mind being like the Eagles or the Rams as long as they achieve sustainable success.
BillsFan130 Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: I'm not sure that there isn't some logic to it, if properly structured. The Bills will be loading the roster with seven or eight 'cheap' draft picks this year. I'd imagine that will clear space for Cousin's hefty contract for the next few years....no? I see your points. Im just personally not sold on Cousins as a franchise guy. If he was even like a Matt Ryan type then I would have no problem with the Bills spending a ton of money at the QB position
SoCal Deek Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, billsfan11 said: I see your points. Im just personally not sold on Cousins as a franchise guy. If he was even like a Matt Ryan type then I would have no problem with the Bills spending a ton of money at the QB position I'm not a huge Cousins fan either, but it sort of doesn't matter what they pay him as long as the Rookie is ready to compete on his Rookie Contract and everyone else fits inside the Cap. Put it this way........are you losing sleep over Dareus? They're paying him and he's not even on the roster anymore!
ColoradoBills Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Agree to disagree. I don't think they mind being like the Eagles or the Rams as long as they achieve sustainable success. Fair enough. The Eagles have a great team and where a good QB away from success. Whether the Rams can achieve sustainable success is yet to be seen. If Beane pulls the trigger all the way up to #2 overall it will be very exciting and I hope it will work out great. I just don't think they will do it.
BillsFan130 Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: I'm not a huge Cousins fan either, but it sort of doesn't matter what they pay him as long as the Rookie is ready to compete on his Rookie Contract and everyone else fits inside the Cap. Put it this way........are you losing sleep over Dareus? They're paying him and he's not even on the roster anymore! Oh ok so you’re suggesting draft a rookie and sign cousins? I would personally do one or the other. Ideally I would love for the Bills to go all in and try to get Rosen or Allen Edited February 15, 2018 by billsfan11
BuffaloHokie13 Posted February 15, 2018 Posted February 15, 2018 1 minute ago, billsfan11 said: I see your points. Im just personally not sold on Cousins as a franchise guy. If he was even like a Matt Ryan type then I would have no problem with the Bills spending a ton of money at the QB position I don't understand. Since becoming a starter in 2015, Cousins' and Ryan's production numbers are incredibly similar (and Cousins doesn't have Julio Jones or a run game). 0.1% difference in Completion %, 10 YPG difference, and Kirk has accounted for 15 more TDs and 2 more Turnovers than Matt Ryan in those 3 years. I think Cousins has more game winning drives in that span too.
Recommended Posts