gobills1212 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, Radar said: I'll rain on the parade. No way are we going to move up to #2. Giants will not trade that pick. I can't see a scenario where the Browns trade either #1 or #4 to us but still could see movement between the #1-4 teams. If we take a quarterback in first round unless one of the top four prospects drops unexpectedly below #6 say probably we're left with someone like Jackson and the way it's looking he could be gone by the time we pick and can't see moving up to get him. Hmmm.... then I'm curious, does Trump get a 2nd term? Oh, and when will the sabres get good again?
thebandit27 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, #34fan said: Yah... Sammy ended the drought. ROTFL! Pretty sure you just proved Wayne's point. The team gave up a relative bounty to move up and draft Watkins--a move that ended up not working out as they planned--and yet they ended the 17-year playoff drought a mere 3 seasons later. Giving up a bounty didn't set the team back a decade then; why would it now?
HappyDays Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 45 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Yes, waiting and taking whatever QB is left later in the draft has worked out extremely well for the team these last 30 drafts. If we had drafted Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Wilson, Cousins, Prescott, or Carr that strategy would have worked great. The problem hasn't been our unwillingness to trade up, it's been our inability to scout QBs and draft the right one at the right time. What if we had sold the farm for Winston or Mariota? That's the other side of this argument that these sorts of posts ignore. I would say this is actually the best draft in a long time to stay put and take what comes to you. 6 QBs will probably be drafted in the 1st round and there's no Andrew Luck among them. That means some QBs will get drafted lower than they would in other years. That's good value and IMO we'd be foolish to give up a crazy amount for any of them. 4
Tyrod's friend Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, gobills1212 said: So... max we are talking no 1st rd guy next year. We'd still have one this year... and then have one again in 2020. The skins gave away 2 yrs out. Totally different senerio. Apples to oranges ? The Redskins traded that year's 1st round that year's 2nd Round Plus #1 in the NEXT TWO YEARS They were barren. It's actually quite an Apple to Apple comparison. You are saying a team won't get hurt by trading up. The Skins were totally fckd ... And on top of that you made some kind of comment that you can't just wait for a QB to fall into your laps. LMAO. GTFO here.
Radar Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 1 minute ago, gobills1212 said: Hmmm.... then I'm curious, does Trump get a 2nd term? Oh, and when will the sabres get good again? Hopefully no on Trump and hopefully soon for the Sabres. Now was your response in anyway related to my post?
thebandit27 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 1 minute ago, HappyDays said: If we had drafted Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Wilson, Cousins, Prescott, or Carr that strategy would have worked great. The problem hasn't been our unwillingness to trade up, it's been our inability to scout QBs and draft the right one at the right time. What if we had sold the farm for Winston or Mariota? That's the other side of this argument that these sorts of posts ignore. I would say this is actually the best draft in a long time to stay put and take what comes to you. 6 QBs will probably be drafted in the 1st round and there's no Andrew Luck among them. That means some QBs will get drafted lower than they would in other years. That's good value and IMO we'd be foolish to give up a crazy amount for any of them. Which strategy gives you the best chance to get a long-term answer at QB: wait and hope you get it right later, or scout all of the top guys, decide which one(s) you like best, and being aggressive to go get him? 1
Wayne Cubed Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Pretty sure you just proved Wayne's point. The team gave up a relative bounty to move up and draft Watkins--a move that ended up not working out as they planned--and yet they ended the 17-year playoff drought a mere 3 seasons later. Giving up a bounty didn't set the team back a decade then; why would it now? Thank you, that was my point.
Wsam4031 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 I don tcare what they give up this year IF they love a guy and feel like hes a franchise changer. Id give up every pick in this draft to get that guy. If they feel they need to do this but don't love anyone stay where we are and draft bpa
Canadian Bills Fan Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 I think having an elite QB is so rare these days that when your in a position to draft one, you have to. I have always said, I would rather strike out swinging than waiting for the right pitch 5 1
dave mcbride Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, K-9 said: I am looking at ONLY through the prism of draft capital invested which, as I've pointed out, represent several of their top selections in various drafts. I understand the point about evaluation of college prospects at the position, but I would posit that it was that precise evaluation that led them to go the veteran route vs. the prospect route at the time, especially in '98 when they had no chance at the top of the draft. 2003 was extremely bare as well. That said, I think '04 is an example of what you allude to here; Donahoe wanted Roethlisberger badly and should have pulled the trigger on the trade with the Texans to get him. If McBean are that convinced of somebody in this draft, they need to pull the trigger. Anything less than that and they are being hypocritical about their process. Your last paragraph captures my view to a tee.
#34fan Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Buffalo Bills Detective said: So, rather than have a highly regarded QB prospect like Rosen or Darnold, you'd rather settle for Lamar "One Read and Run" Jackson, Mike White of Western Kentucky, Kyle Lauletta of Richmond, Luke "Another Mike Leach System QB" Falk or Mason "Another OK State System QB" Rudolph? No... I'd rather grab 2 stud 1st rounders on defense, (Payne and Evans) so that an experienced defensive staff can coach those picks up... I'd take my QB at 53, or 55, and still be able to score big at WR or TE at either pick... This is chance to load up... That's the opportunity I see here. Edited March 20, 2018 by #34fan 1
HappyDays Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Which strategy gives you the best chance to get a long-term answer at QB: wait and hope you get it right later, or scout all of the top guys, decide which one(s) you like best, and being aggressive to go get him? I don't know. Does anyone? What if instead of using a bunch of picks for one guy, we drafted 3 QBs with 3 of those picks? Would that have a higher success rate than going all in on one guy for even more picks? Again, I don't know. But the idea that there is exactly one sound strategy for getting your franchise QB is wrong. I won't hate it if we make a big trade up but I definitely won't cry that the Bills aren't trying if they sit and let the draft come to them. 2
Wsam4031 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 7 hours ago, Chuck Wagon said: Oh no, what are we going to do at SAM linebacker, 3rd WR, backup DT and 3rd CB! Way too many holes to get a franchise QB for the first time in 2 decades! Thank you. I really didn't want to type all that. You did it for me!
TigerJ Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 I don't know who it was, (I tuned in after the start of the interview) but a guest on the John Murphy Show representing the Giants point of view stated he thought the Giants were probably inclined to stay at #2 rather than trade. Their owner has publicly stated something about getting a high impact player in the draft. The question is whether that player is their QB of the future or a player who will contribute immediately. The obvious choice for immediate impact is Saquon Barkley, but perhaps you can't rule out Bradley Chub. The real point is that if the Giants are predisposed to staying put already, the price to get them to move may be extraordinarily difficult. Add to that the fact that the Jets' trade up to #3 already set the market at an uncomfortably high level.
Buffalo Bills Detective Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, #34fan said: No... I'd rather grab 2 stud 1st rounders on defense, (Payne and Evans) so that an experienced defensive staff can coach those picks up... I'd take my QB at 53, or 55, and still be able to score big at WR or TE at either pick... This is chance to load up... That's the opportunity I see here. At 53 or 55, you'd be left with Luke Falk, Mike White and Kyle Lauletta. Guess what? They are CRAP compared to what you could get by moving up for a top prospect.
thebandit27 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, HappyDays said: I don't know. Does anyone? What if instead of using a bunch of picks for one guy, we drafted 3 QBs with 3 of those picks? Would that have a higher success rate than going all in on one guy for even more picks? Again, I don't know. But the idea that there is exactly one sound strategy for getting your franchise QB is wrong. I won't hate it if we make a big trade up but I definitely won't cry that the Bills aren't trying if they sit and let the draft come to them. For me, I'm looking at the percentage of "franchise QBs" (so defined as guys that a team could win a Super Bowl with as their starter) across the league, and what percentage of those guys are premium picks in the draft. We could debate who counts and who doesn't, but I come up with around 20 guys that fit the description (I do not count anyone from the 2017 draft, nor am I including Mariota or Winston for reference). Of those 20, only 6 come from outside the 1st round, and another 4 come from outside the top 8...which means that 50% of the franchise QBs in the NFL come from the top 8 picks. If I'm playing the percentages, that's where I want to be picking. 3
JohnC Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 3 hours ago, billykay said: Lets say we move to #2. Does anyone think that it would be a good trade for us to move back to #3, especially if it seems that the Jets are panicking that they won't be getting their man? I think that we could wind up this way with our QB, perhaps Mayfield or Rosen, plus getting back some of the draft assets we lost in moving up to #2. I don't see the Jets giving up more assets to move up one spot. Odds are that if their option A isn't available they would be comfortable with their option B. If the Bills swing a deal to move up to #2 they will know who they want and will run up to the podium to make their announcement.
GG Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 14 minutes ago, Tyrod's friend said: ? The Redskins traded that year's 1st round that year's 2nd Round Plus #1 in the NEXT TWO YEARS They were barren. It's actually quite an Apple to Apple comparison. You are saying a team won't get hurt by trading up. The Skins were totally fckd ... And on top of that you made some kind of comment that you can't just wait for a QB to fall into your laps. LMAO. GTFO here. How did Rams & Eagles fare in their recent moves to secure QBs at the top of the draft?
BillsFan2313 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, #34fan said: No... I'd rather grab 2 stud 1st rounders on defense, (Payne and Evans) so that an experienced defensive staff can coach those picks up... I'd take my QB at 53, or 55, and still be able to score big at WR or TE at either pick... This is chance to load up... That's the opportunity I see here. So basically you want 2014 and 2015 all over again? Cool. Give me a QB, and then I will load up after.
Recommended Posts