How much it will actually cost to get to #2

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

It's not impossible for a team to offer more than the Bills. The Broncos can offer pick #5 and a bunch of other picks. That's what happened with the Jets. Don't count out other teams in the top 10. The Jets could even do it themselves to lock everyone else out. Anything can happen when you're talking about a QB class this well regarded.

Maybe but the Bills can offer 1 more first in any situation. It is basically impossible for any team to match the Bills. That’s the point. We have no idea where they draw the line though. If every team included all of their assets the Bills would get the pick.

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am going by value on whatever chart you prefer. Of course it is true that Denver (probably the only one in play) could get to #2 because the Giants value still being in Barkley and Nelson territory above having extra assets in the future. 

 

My point isn't that the Bills offer is bound to be their preferred one... just that value terms by any chart the Bills max possible offer beats any other max possible offer (except Cleveland). 

Said so much more clearly

 

GB, if the Bills offered 12, 22, 53, 65 and next year’s 2 what would be Denver’s most competitive offer? 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[Thurman#1]

3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Sure, the Eagles did for Wentz, the Skins for RG3, etc...

 

That’s why I asked what packages a team could put together to trump 12, 22, 53, 65 and next year’s 2nd? It’s 156% premium according to the chart. Who can do that (this question is for anybody)?

They certainly can (and may) keep 2. I think that it comes down to if they are going to go QB or not. If they want QB they stay. If they are thinking anything else I think that they have to take the picks.

 

 

Perhaps I phrased that badly. I'll try again. Did any team ever offer so much for such a small outcome as going up three places? RGIII was close, going from #6 to #2

 

Of course I know teams have traded larger totals. Look at the Ricky Williams trade. The Herschel Walker trade.

 

Point I was poorly trying to make is that you don't have to shy away from digging into the picks from future years. Not if there's a QB you really want.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Kirby Jackson said:

Maybe but the Bills can offer 1 more first in any situation. It is basically impossible for any team to match the Bills. That’s the point. We have no idea where they draw the line though. If every team included all of their assets the Bills would get the pick.

 

...if what the Giants value most is draft asset value rather than a specific player in this year's class. 

 

Personally I think if the Giants move from #2 it wouldn't matter whether they go to #5 or #12... Barkley would be gone. I do think they covet Nelson as well though. 

[Thurman#1]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There is no team who can beat the hand the Bills have to play is the point. If the Billls choose not to play all their cards and some other team pushes the chips into the middle of the table and goes all in then of course the Bills could lose out. 

 

 

Well, yeah, if the Bills throw in all their picks for the next three years, nobody can beat them. Agreed.

 

But the question was asked above, whether there was anyone else who could beat what the Bills have this year. And I answered that. Lots of teams can beat that. The Bills could easily have to throw in all of that and then have to start using more if teams are willing to make this competitive. 

 

Which could happen. I don't know if it will, but it could. An awful lot is up for grabs here.

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

6 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Perhaps I phrased that badly. I'll try again. Did any team ever offer so much for such a small outcome as going up three places? RGIII was close, going from #6 to #2

 

Of course I know teams have traded larger totals. Look at the Ricky Williams trade. The Herschel Walker trade.

 

Point I was poorly trying to make is that you don't have to shy away from digging into the picks from future years. Not if there's a QB you really want.

Teams do but the Bills have such a haul that they put everyone else in a bad place. They can give 2 firsts, 2 seconds and still pick 3 times in the top 96!!

 

Other teams would be gutting themselves. As an example, look what Arizona would have to give to match that: something like 15, 47, 79, and next year’s 1 and 2. No team is going to give up their top 3 picks one year and their top 2 the next. They would go consecutive drafts with adding a guy before the 3rd round of 2019. That would just get them in the conversation with that Bills offer. It’s still probably worse.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[Thurman#1]

10 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

It's not impossible for a team to offer more than the Bills. The Broncos can offer pick #5 and a bunch of other picks. That's what happened with the Jets. Don't count out other teams in the top 10. The Jets could even do it themselves to lock everyone else out. Anything can happen when you're talking about a QB class this well regarded.

 

 

Yeah, this. It's a very fluid situation. I doubt the Broncos do that, but you never really know.

 

Have to go change a diaper.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Thurman#1

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

GB, if the Bills offered 12, 22, 53, 65 and next year’s 2 what would be Denver’s most competitive offer? 

 

I don't think there would be a route for Denver to beat that without their 2019 1st. I'd think that plus their 2nd and 3rd this year gets them to similar values. 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think there would be a route for Denver to beat that without their 2019 1st. I'd think that plus their 2nd and 3rd this year gets them to similar values. 

I don’t think so either. They have a bunch of picks this year but I don’t see them beating that Bills offer. No one else is even close.

[Thurman#1]

3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Teams do but the Bills have such a haul that they put everyone else in a bad place. They can give 2 firsts, 2 seconds and still pick 3 times in the top 96!!

 

Other teams would be gutting themselves. As an example, look what Arizona would have to give to match that: something like 15, 47, 79, and next year’s 1 and 2. Not team is going to give up their top 3 picks one year and their top 2 the next. They would go consecutive drafts with adding a guy before the 3rd round of 2019. That would just get themin the conversation with that Bills offer. It’s still probably worse.

 

 

 

Ah, the diaper is calling, or rather the 2year old.

 

Yeah, other teams would put themselves in tough situations. Agreed. They might be willing to do that. Dunno.

 

If my team did that, I'd like to see them then try to trade down the next year, moving a 2nd and a 5th for a 1st and trying to get value back. Then maybe move the 1st down for another one. 

 

This is not likely to be easypeasy. Teams could fight it out.

[apuszczalowski]

6 minutes ago, gobills1212 said:

Ya, no I get it - and that's a very good summary. 

That 3rd group I mentioned seems generally the trade for Foles or all set w McCarron type.. a bit of catch all in that regard if you will..

I'm not sure if it was intentional as you just skimmed it - but the guaranteed FQB via the draft part IMO hits the nail on the head. For many, it's as simple as a safe high odds option as they dont feel comfortable with a bust or whammy somewhere in the bunch. If this were a normal year I'd like to think that I'd think 3x 1st rd picks was crazy. The fact it is, this ammo(2 picks in meaningful rds) offers a unique chance. One we havent seen the likes of in a long time. A chance at a top talent in a good draft. By nature that divides people. Some take the high probability route, some the boom or bust. The fact that so many years have seemed like the 'safe' route was taken and there is such an obvious fork in the road - the gotta be in it to win it mentality takes over and the prospect of something special. Very unique times around here for sure!

Even the group ok with trading for Foles could be right. He has shown signs of being able to play in big games and a few times has been looked at as a potential full time starter in this league. Would Foles and a bunch 1st-3rd round picks make the Bills a better team? McCaron also give the potential to become a starter in this league also.Its highly unlikely they become an elite QB like Brady or manning or Brees, but could they be good enough to be guys that could keep the franchise competitive?

 

Sure the odds are greater that the top QB taken in the draft will have success, but its not a guarantee because theres no guarantee that even the best guys in this draft are franchise guys and may just end up being good starters but not special. What most people that are against moving up have with the idea is that they don't feel these guys are worth what it will take this year to make the jump.

 

The other issue is that there are those who believe that all that matters is having an elite QB and everything else won't matter, where others know that its rare to actually obtain an elite franchise guy and that building a solid team with a good QB can be just as successful. Its highly doubtful the league sees another Brady/Patriots for a long time. What other team can compare to that? P. Manning, as great as he was in the league couldn't win without a good team around him, Brees could put up crazy offensive numbers and still not win because they didn't have a decent defence. Russell Wilson, Big Ben, Phillip Rivers? Great QBs who cant carry the franchise themselves on their own. As good as Wentz was, the Eagles were still able to put up good offensive numbers and beat the Vikings and Pats to win the SB with their backup and a great defence. Blakes Bortles was the starting QB on a team that came close to upsetting the Pats to get into the SB. The Vikings made a run to the NFC championships with a walking sheet of glass in Bradford, and a career backup in Keenum

[HappyDays]

10 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Maybe but the Bills can offer 1 more first in any situation. It is basically impossible for any team to match the Bills. That’s the point. We have no idea where they draw the line though. If every team included all of their assets the Bills would get the pick.

 

Yeah but this was true of the Colts pick and we didn't get it. We COULD have offered more than pick 6 and three 2nds. Would have been an awful lot, probably both 1sts this year and next year's 1st. Personally I think the Colts GM just decided he'd gladly take a top 3 non-QB and the three 2nd rounders. The Giants could do the same. We can't assume they actually use the draft value chart exactly as it's presented. If Gettleman really likes Chubb or Barkley he might value pick 5 and a bunch of 2nds more than he values our 1st rounders for the next 3 years.

 

I can already tell on draft day if we don't trade up everyone will assume Beane didn't do enough to secure the pick. The option might not be there. Pick 12 isn't very attractive to someone looking to add a blue chip player. This is why I'm thinking we need one more trade up to around #7 before we can seriously talk to the Giants about #2.

[Rob's House]

There's a hefty !@#$ing fee. I'd guess a bit more than a buck-o-five.

[apuszczalowski]

13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

...if what the Giants value most is draft asset value rather than a specific player in this year's class. 

 

Personally I think if the Giants move from #2 it wouldn't matter whether they go to #5 or #12... Barkley would be gone. I do think they covet Nelson as well though. 

He will be gone by 12 and there at 5 though. The wrench in this whole thing is if the Giants are willing to move that far down, even if it include obtaining another late 1st. Do they feel that they can still get a guy they really want at 5, or do the want players that would still be available at 12 and 22 more then one player in the top half of round 1? Do they want/value Quantity or Quality in this draft?

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Yeah but this was true of the Colts pick and we didn't get it. We COULD have offered more than pick 6 and three 2nds. Would have been an awful lot, probably both 1sts this year and next year's 1st. Personally I think the Colts GM just decided he'd gladly take a top 3 non-QB and the three 2nd rounders. The Giants could do the same. We can't assume they actually use the draft value chart exactly as it's presented. If Gettleman really likes Chubb or Barkley he might value pick 5 and a bunch of 2nds more than he values our 1st rounders for the next 3 years.

 

I can already tell on draft day if we don't trade up everyone will assume Beane didn't do enough to secure the pick. The option might not be there. Pick 12 isn't very attractive to someone looking to add a blue chip player. This is why I'm thinking we need one more trade up to around #7 before we can seriously talk to the Giants about #2.

It’s certainly possible that they don’t want to go down. The Jaguars once wouldn’t trade down with us because they were worried about losing Reggie Williams. We thought that the deal was done to get Roethelisberger. 

 

The Giants may want a QB and that pick probably won’t be available. The Browns at 4 are an interesting wild card. It depends on how the Bills have the QBs ranked.

[Big Blitz]

17 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

Anything can happen when you're talking about a QB class this well regarded.

 

 

I'm beginning to wonder if that's the case. 

 

What if it's just a bunch of Andy Dalton/Sam Bradford quality QBs?  Nothing "generational" about them at all.  

 

I know we want a "franchise" QB, but honestly...why am I supposed to be more excited about Josh Rosen but Deshaun Watson wasn't worth the hype--he was overrated...

 

 

I think it's because deep down I know it doesn't matter because if we don't have the right offensive coaches the kid is going to be screwed.  

 

#OCsMatter

[Kirby Jackson]

Good conversation and thanks for breaking out this topic @HappyDays!! 

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Yeah but this was true of the Colts pick and we didn't get it. We COULD have offered more than pick 6 and three 2nds. Would have been an awful lot, probably both 1sts this year and next year's 1st. Personally I think the Colts GM just decided he'd gladly take a top 3 non-QB and the three 2nd rounders. The Giants could do the same. We can't assume they actually use the draft value chart exactly as it's presented. If Gettleman really likes Chubb or Barkley he might value pick 5 and a bunch of 2nds more than he values our 1st rounders for the next 3 years.

 

I can already tell on draft day if we don't trade up everyone will assume Beane didn't do enough to secure the pick. The option might not be there. Pick 12 isn't very attractive to someone looking to add a blue chip player. This is why I'm thinking we need one more trade up to around #7 before we can seriously talk to the Giants about #2.

One of the more interesting teams to watch is the Colts. If there is an early run on qbs and the Bills moved up to their spot they could make a double move down and accumulate a number of picks to add to the boatload of picks they got from the Jets. 

 

I was previously adamant that the Bills had to do whatever it took to move up. However, I'm now more receptive to the idea of staying pat and drafting a qb such as Jackson or Rudolph and using the multiple picks to bulk up the roster. 

[apuszczalowski]

10 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

I'm beginning to wonder if that's the case. 

 

What if it's just a bunch of Andy Dalton/Sam Bradford quality QBs?  Nothing "generational" about them at all.  

 

I know we want a "franchise" QB, but honestly...why am I supposed to be more excited about Josh Rosen but Deshaun Watson wasn't worth the hype--he was overrated...

 

 

I think it's because deep down I know it doesn't matter because if we don't have the right offensive coaches the kid is going to be screwed.  

 

#OCsMatter

There are a few of us saying pretty much exactly that.

Are Rosen or Darnold (or Mayfield or Allen) going to be Dalton or Bradford types? 

Theres no real indication that any of those guys are going to be elite "generational" type guys

If the Bills had these same picks last year does everyone want them to mortgage the draft to move up for Watson or Trubisky? Or in previous years move up for Jameis Winston or Marriotta?

[Thurman#1]

Diaper emergency faced and handled.

 

About how far ahead draft picks can be traded, seems that before the draft you can only trade two years in advance but once the draft has started, you can go three years.

 

So once the draft has started, a team with only one first rounder per year could trade the 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 first rounders.

 

"According the the league office, trades conducted before the draft begins can include draft picks in 2015, 2016, and 2017. Once the draft starts (i.e., the moment the Commissioner declares the draft to be open and places the team with the first pick on the clock), trades can include picks from 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018." (NOTE: this article was written before the 2015 draft)

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/04/eagles-can-trade-picks-into-2018-draft-once-the-2015-draft-opens/

 

Couldn't find more. If anyone can show me more, I'd be very willing to learn.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Thurman#1

[TigerJ]

59 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

It's a bad assumption that the Giants will just take the Bills up on their best offer. Even if we offer something better than any other team realistically could they can ask for more. I'm sure they'd be content to keep #2 if it came down to it. I wish I knew their price, it's an interesting discussion.

As I stated in my post, there is reason to believe that the Giants really are not looking to trade, and are more inclined than not to stay at #2.  If true, their reluctance to trade would drive the price up even further than it would be if they were actually looking for a chance to trade.