Why I think the Bills Will Take Rosen at #2 Overall April 26

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, CuddyDark said:

I doubt they start a rookie week one. Unless it's Mayfield.

Oh crap....you mean these ONE MILLION threads are about a player who won’t even see the field?? Ugh!  Let’s go get a free agent then who at least can play a little. The prospect of screaming at the TV for Tyrod to throw the $&&@ ball for another four months is already giving me a sore throat.

[CuddyDark]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Oh crap....you mean these ONE MILLION threads are about a player who won’t even see the field?? Ugh!  Let’s go get a free agent then who at least can play a little. The prospect of screaming at the TV for Tyrod to throw the $&&@ ball for another four months is already giving me a sore throat.

Unless they get a vet, it's bound to happen. TT or Peterman.

[SoCal Deek]

12 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:

Unless they get a vet, it's bound to happen. TT or Peterman.

Wake me when it’s over!

[BadLandsMeanie]

8 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

So interesting... in a way, I completely understand what you're saying here. We haven't had a franchise quarterback and an obvious one since what 1996 with Jim Kelly? We're desperate for one; we're starved for one; we obviously need one. No one would deny that.

 

And yet, we just made the playoffs for the first time in 17 freaking years! And yes, Taylor was a big contributor to making the playoffs. Deny that as one may, he was. Maybe he wasn't as big a contributor as other team's quarterbacks who made the playoffs, but a team's quarterback will almost naturally be the biggest contributor individually on that team and so it's illogical and unreasonable to do what Bills fans have been doing this offseason in this endless condemnation of Taylor.

 

 

But it's a visceral thing and I get it considering the 2+ decades without a Franchise QB.

 

But do you think the Eagles fans are celebrating less because it wasn't a Franchise QB who won them a Super Bowl?

 

Do you think Jags or Vikings fans are despondent because it wasn't a Franchise QB who got them to a conference championship game?

 

Look but don't settle and don't pay a King's ransom for a guy you don't love.

 

If the Bills trade up, I expect it's because McBeane loves the guy.

 

Otherwise I think they stay put and probably see if they can suck the marrow of success out of Tyrod.

I let ya have the last word on this because I want to avoid the thread here becoming another Tyrod one

 

I disagree a bit though.  But mostly what i am saying is I think they trade up to #2!

[RochesterRob]

11 hours ago, Logic said:

The only concerning thing with Barkley is that Gettleman literally said "if you take a player there, you have to believe he's a Hall of Famer". Well...none of us know how Barkley will turn out, but he has the college production, blue chip pedigree, and special traits to be in the discussion. That's the only real obstacle. Gettleman deciding he can't pass on Saquon Barkley.

  In the scenario that some have proposed with Cleveland taking a QB with pick number 1 there is nothing stopping them from trading from 4 up to 2 if they covet Barkley.  Unless the Giants feel the Colts will scoop their guy there is tremendous appeal in picking up an additional pick and/or player and only dropping two spots.  That might also have more appeal for the Giants versus dropping to 7 or 8 which some here proposed as a swing spot for the Bills.  There is obviously many reasons why the draft does not unfold to many observers expectations but looking at it through rose colored Bills glasses does not help.  Personally, I think the Browns take Barkley at 1 but then again it does not matter what I think as I don't control any NFL FO.

[JohnBonhamRocks]

56 minutes ago, Wsam4031 said:

Also I think if the giants want a LT in a trade for that pick theyd want Dawkins not Glenn. Hes cost controlled for a few years. They don't have much cap room. I still say keep them both.

 

I mean, they can want whoever they want. I think we'd make it clear that our young LT is not part of the conversation. 

[Chuck Wagon]

1 hour ago, CuddyDark said:

Some teams have the OG from ND as the number 1 player in the draft. Giants will probably take him @2.    

 

After all the hype for the QBs, watch the top of the draft go:

 

Barkley

Nelson

Chubb

Fitzpatrick

 

 

[RochesterRob]

48 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

 

After all the hype for the QBs, watch the top of the draft go:

 

Barkley

Nelson

Chubb

Fitzpatrick

 

 

  The trouble is all positions are not valued the same and QB no doubt carries a premium.  Setting that aside your order makes a lot of sense with maybe the first QB coming off the board at maybe pick number 7.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Wsam4031 said:

Also I think if the giants want a LT in a trade for that pick theyd want Dawkins not Glenn. Hes cost controlled for a few years. They don't have much cap room. I still say keep them both.

 

Here, seriously, I think we have to look back when the Chargers drafted Manning and the Giants drafted Rivers.  The Chargers initially wanted Osi Umenyiora as part of the trade.

The Giants answer: "We Don't Trade Young Pass Rushers"

And they were right, because however great the need for QB, you can't throw away your chance to take advantage of a proven young passrusher whose cost-controlled services you can command for several years.  And eventually the Chargers backed down.

 

WTF, man - I know we need a QB, but the number of OTs that bust is far larger than the number that look good or are promising.  If Dawkins is requested in a trade, the answer should be:  "We Don't Trade Young OTs" for similar reasons - in building a team, you can't throw away your chance to take advantage of a promising young OT whose cost controlled services you can command for several years.  That should just be a straight "No".

Edited March 8, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I let ya have the last word on this because I want to avoid the thread here becoming another Tyrod one

 

I disagree a bit though.  But mostly what i am saying is I think they trade up to #2!

 

Fair enough, but if we do trade up I really hope it's not for Rosen. Go get Mayfield or Darnold. I'm just not the biggest fan of Rosen.

[Wsam4031]

2 hours ago, JohnBonhamRocks said:

 

I mean, they can want whoever they want. I think we'd make it clear that our young LT is not part of the conversation. 

Agreed! if that's the request for the 2nd overall pick do you do it? they were talking about that this am on wgr

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Here, seriously, I think we have to look back when the Chargers drafted Manning and the Giants drafted Rivers.  The Chargers initially wanted Osi Umenyiora as part of the trade.

The Giants answer: "We Don't Trade Young Pass Rushers"

And they were right, because however great the need for QB, you can't throw away your chance to take advantage of a proven young passrusher whose cost-controlled services you can command for several years.  And eventually the Chargers backed down.

 

WTF, man - I know we need a QB, but the number of OTs that bust is far larger than the number that look good or are promising.  If Dawkins is requested in a trade, the answer should be:  "We Don't Trade Young OTs" for similar reasons - in building a team, you can't throw away your chance to take advantage of a promising young OT whose cost controlled services you can command for several years.  That should just be a straight "No".

I completely agree with you. Im just saying that I don't think theyd go for glenn

[JohnBonhamRocks]

39 minutes ago, Wsam4031 said:

Agreed! if that's the request for the 2nd overall pick do you do it? they were talking about that this am on wgr

 

Here's what I'd trade if it were Dawkins:

 

#21, #22, and Dawkins for #2. 

 

No more than that. With Glenn I think I would have to add another pick, probably a 3rd in 2019.