gobills1212 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: I 100% disagree about the Broncos. They dont have cap space to just give away. They already had TWO QB's on their roster fully capable of being a bridge QB to anyone they drafted at #5. They instead elected to use more cap space to get Keenum...why sign Keenum if their guy was going to be the guy they take at #5? It makes more sense that they are planning to retool now and make another push. They recently won the SB where Manning and Brock combined to be one of the worst rated passers in the league that year, and Manning had statistically the worst performance ever by a SB winning QB. Just because you dont think much of Keenum does not mean the Broncos see it the same way. And the fact they gave up cap space they needed to sign him instead of just sticking with one of the two guys on the roster to be the bridge, suggests to me that Keenum is not the bridge and they are going to commit to him now and look for a QB later if Keenum disappoints. So I totally disagree with your "MINIMUM" and while I agree the Giants could take a QB, my personal opinion is that they are not going to. If they were, I think they would have more likely had tried to trade Eli to one of the many QB needy teams this offseason rather than keep him. I believe they will look to add talent around him, and I think Barkely is 100% their pick if he is on the board still at #2 personally or they will trade down and get more picks. Ironically, people here BOTH keep saying the Giants will take a QB and also that they will trade down...and most often by the same people. If they are locked in on a QB, they are not trading down with us or anyone, especially with the Jets at #3. So these two things dont even make sense, but the same people say both statements all over this board. How? I pointed out that people are still saying the same things they were saying BEFORE FA as they are NOW. Some have not even remotely taken into the context of how the landscape has shifted. I mean people are still claiming 4 QB's are going to go into the top 5...I mean it doesn't even make sense anymore unless more trade ups happen. If thats too complicated for you to grasp, sorry...but I thought it was pretty simple. It was terribly simple, but dually terribly nonsensical. First and foremost there can totally be movement. Browns take a qb Giants COULD take a qb as most pundits point out or this is a prime trade spot. Qb #2 gone. Jets- qb #3 gone Browns stay, or someone like az, mia, or NO wants to jump the Broncos for a qb. Prime spot to trade as CLE has their #1 qb. 5- very possibly a qb. Is this written in stone? No. Could it go another way? Sure. You just don't know... But to call people out in a manner that infers they are uninformed and then have the next words you type make fun of 4 going in 5 picks is just silly. You know no better than I and vice versa - but to act like you do and the way you worded it, once again, is like declaring an important proclamation and just farting. It's silly! To top it off by acting like you are writing in some advanced linguistics rather than scribbling in crayon and you have yourself a doozie of a post my friend! Edited March 20, 2018 by gobills1212
Alphadawg7 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 1 minute ago, gobills1212 said: It was terribly simple, but dually terribly nonsensical. First and foremost there can totally be movement. Browns take a qb Giants COULD take a qb as most pundits point out or this is a prime trade spot. Qb #2 gone. Jets- qb #3 gone Browns stay, or someone like az, mia, or NO wants to jump the Broncos for a qb. Prime spot to trade as CLE has their #1 qb. 5- very possibly a qb. Is this written in stone? No. But to call people out in a manner that infers they are uninformed and then have the next words you type make fun of 4 going in 5 picks is just silly. You know no better than I and vice versa - but to act like you do and the way you worded it once again is like declaring an important proclamation followed by a fart. To top it off by acting like you are writing in some advanced linguistics rather than scribbling in crayon and you have yourself a doozie of a post my friend! Call people out? lol...its all opinions and we are all sharing them. But, at the same time there are a lot of freak outs and rants about how the ONLY thing to do is to trade our whole draft to get to #2 because thats the ONLY way we can get a QB. So if people are going to keep over reacting like that as if there are not other options, then I will call that out. And there are about 100 freakout threads a day posted around here. So again, sorry if it offended you, but the reality is that there is a TON of nonsense on this board that completely repeats itself over and over that ignores the current landscape as if there are no options but one. And clearly thats nonsense, there are a ton of options in what is the most interesting and exciting offseason in a while around the NFL as it can go so many ways still for so many teams.
gobills1212 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: Call people out? lol...its all opinions and we are all sharing them. But, at the same time there are a lot of freak outs and rants about how the ONLY thing to do is to trade our whole draft to get to #2 because thats the ONLY way we can get a QB. So if people are going to keep over reacting like that as if there are not other options, then I will call that out. And there are about 100 freakout threads a day posted around here. So again, sorry if it offended you, but the reality is that there is a TON of nonsense on this board that completely repeats itself over and over that ignores the current landscape as if there are no options but one. And clearly thats nonsense, there are a ton of options in what is the most interesting and exciting offseason in a while around the NFL as it can go so many ways still for so many teams. S'all good bud. I just didn't get your frustration over something that can legit be debated. Now if it was in response to something like the Bills taking Rudolph as 12 bc he', an amazing talent and someone has a Foles esq crush on him.. well then that can be argued as uninformed and rightfully so bc it is a very uncommon opinion. I happen to think although unrepresented, there are enough teams high w o long term commitments on the roster combined w enough hype - something like a crazy run could happen. Not that I'm right, but I wouldn't call people uninformed and make fun of the notion. Everyone has an opinion as well as a different level of knowledge. I struggle w that in some people don't pay a ton of attn but still wanna talk football. I guess it' frustrating but I'd encourage it bc that'I how we learn along w reading. Then you have trolls who play coy and seem to like getting a rise out of people. Often sadly i find it difficult to differentiate. I didn't know it was misplaced frustration - and I feel ya there. Edited March 20, 2018 by gobills1212 1
Alphadawg7 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 1 hour ago, gobills1212 said: S'all good bud. I just didn't get your frustration over something that can legit be debated. Now if it was in response to something like the Bills taking Rudolph as 12 bc he', an amazing talent and someone has a Foles esq crush on him.. well then that can be argued as uninformed and rightfully so bc it is a very uncommon opinion. I happen to think although unrepresented, there are enough teams high w o long term commitments on the roster combined w enough hype - something like a crazy run could happen. Not that I'm right, but I wouldn't call people uninformed and make fun of the notion. Everyone has an opinion as well as a different level of knowledge. I struggle w that in some people don't pay a ton of attn but still wanna talk football. I guess it' frustrating but I'd encourage it bc that'I how we learn along w reading. Then you have trolls who play coy and seem to like getting a rise out of people. Often sadly i find it difficult to differentiate. I didn't know it was misplaced frustration - and I feel ya there. All good man, and I mostly agree with everything you said along the way
hmsmystic Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 I don't think it's an accident that there are conflicting reports on the Bills contacting the Browns. There is so much mis-information and non-substantiated opions out there right now at this time of year. At least I hope that Beane is playing his cards close to the vest. I guess we will see on draft night! It's gonna be fun
BillsFan4 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 To everyone saying "if the Bills don't trade up for a QB.... (fill in the blank)" Hey guess what, I have a nice surprise for you! They ALREADY traded up to #12, so if they take a QB there it's technically a trade up for a QB, so you can be happy!
Thurman#1 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Boatdrinks said: Donahoe made the deal with the Texans work. They took it, so it worked. They cancelled it when DeAngelo Hall went off the board at #8 and they feared a run on CBs. Beane couldn't possibly outbid the Jets for the third pick if the Jets were desperate and paid what the Colts wanted. They mostly wanted the #6 pick. They weren't moving down to #12 unless the Jets refused. You say they mostly wanted the #6 pick, but that doesn't appear to have been true. Peter King says the Colts are now actively looking to trade down from #6. They didn't especially want that pick. "Before we analyze the winner and loser in the big weekend Jets-Colts deal (there is neither, by the way), I’ll make one prediction: There’s a good chance the Colts aren’t done trading yet. After dealing from three to six, I could see them moving down one more time before the April 26 first round. GM Chris Ballard said as much to his team’s website Saturday, and I can add a confirmation to that. Ballard’s going to try." https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/03/19/kirk-cousins-minnesota-vikings-free-agency-guaranteed-contract-mmqb-peter-king No particular reason to think the Bills couldn't have made an offer the Colts would have accepted. Worth noting that King continued, speculating that the Colts might yet trade back to #10 or #12 and specifically talked about Buffalo. "The Colts very much need to maximize this draft. It’s likely their roster is the weakest in the rising AFC South. Ballard knows he needs quantity in this draft. That’s why if he could turn the sixth pick into something in the 10 to 12 range and add another second-rounder, I believe he’d do it. At six, he’d likely have a chance at pass-rusher Bradley Chubb or guard Quenton Nelson. At 11, let’s say, he’d have a chance at a desperately needed rangy linebacker like Roquan Smith or Tremaine Edmunds. A second trade would mean Ballard would have turned the third overall pick into five players who would have a chance to start from this one trade alone. "Colts’ picks in the top four rounds now: 6, 36, 37, 49, 67, 104. If I were Ballard, I might trade down from 6 to Buffalo at 12 if the Bills would deal the 53rd overall pick and maybe the 96th pick as well—seeing that the price for a quarterback is more of a premium. But of course, this is probably a night-of-the-draft deal, because the Bills would have to see a quarterback they’d want here." Edited March 20, 2018 by Thurman#1
Thurman#1 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 2 hours ago, hmsmystic said: I don't think it's an accident that there are conflicting reports on the Bills contacting the Browns. There is so much mis-information and non-substantiated opions out there right now at this time of year. At least I hope that Beane is playing his cards close to the vest. I guess we will see on draft night! It's gonna be fun Again, those reports might not be conflicting. The first report said the Bills had contacted them. "Contacted." The second report said there had been no discussions. "Discussions." There's room in there for both to be true if they contacted them but only spoke for a sentence or two. I'm not saying I know what happened, just that these reports could possibly both be true. 1
Recommended Posts