PAuline: agreement in principle with giants

[thunderingsquid]

[jdonley1180]

If the Browns take Barkley 1st the Giants will trade. If they take a QB Giants pick Barkley

[timekills17]

11 minutes ago, BuffaloBaumer said:

Donte Whitner's son at pick #12

 

 

Return of the Backler.

 

Pancake

[Reed83HOF]

2 hours ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

But in your analogy, it's not just hitting it with the girl in the bar where the investment is basically a few hours and just a little bit of money. But, instead, you have marry her, forfeit your house, agree to the number of kids to have in 4 years, pay for her vehicle, be willing to relocate at any time necessary, be willing to get rid of two of your best and closest friends because she doesn't like them, and ready to forego wild vacations for the next 12 years for someone you've met, and chatted with in an intoxicated condition (QB drunk) over the period of about 3 hours. That's the analogy....

 

So, you can take the hottest girl with all of this tied to the cost, which also comes with a complete unknown as to how she'll age, what friends she'll bring into her life, what her parents or family is like, if she's way over her head in debt, and whether she's carrying any diseases...

 

Or, you can take the girl who's cute, not as drunk, fun and smart and says, just take me as I am, no strings, no requirements and I'll give up for you everything I've got to make this work. 

 

That's full string in your analogy....

Sign me up - she can have it all...

 

[Andrew Son]

5 minutes ago, jdonley1180 said:

If the Browns take Barkley 1st the Giants will trade. If they take a QB Giants pick Barkley

Dude, you have to change out that avatar.

[Clyde Smith]

2 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Instead of getting the hottest girl at the bar, I’m going to wait until bar closing and hopefully a non-beast will be left.  It’s a great strategy.

Excellent strategy! Hell if your game on point, you can bag her and her friend if the timing is right lol.

[thebandit27]

13 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

That they didn't trade up says, again, that the fault was in not picking the right QB; they failed to recognize the qualities that would make him a significantly better pick than Losman.  Furthermore, If they had stayed put in 2004, they would have been in a position to take Rodgers the next year (Bledsoe was still their starter so they could have waited).  They could have also taken Cutler in 2006 who while not all that great a QB was certainly better than Losman, Edwards, Fitzpatrick, Manuel, and Orton.

 

You ignored my statements that they chose to pass on both Flacco and Wilson when they drafted in those rounds with both QBs still on the board.

 

Trading back for Manuel only mitigates the stupidity of picking a QB in the first round just to placate fans and put butts in the seats, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bills should have passed on a QB in the first round completely in 2013.  They could have taken Bridgewater or Carr in 2014 and been much better off.   Once again, the Bills picked the wrong guy, and whether they stayed where they were or traded back, it would have made no difference.  They lost out on useful QBs in order to grab a bust.  That's the real story of the Bills' QB woes.

 

No offense here: it's not me that's ignoring the point.

 

The point here is that it's not prudent to wait and rely on being smarter than everyone else at the QB position.  It's much, much smarter to get yourself into prime position to have your pick of the best prospects.  As I've said many times, we can quibble over who should be considered a "franchise" QB versus who shouldn't, but however you parse it, over 50% of them come from top 5 picks.  Can you get them later in the draft?  Yes.  Is it likely?  No.  Not at all.

 

Consider this: since 2011 (so selected because it was the 1st year of the rookie wage scale), 70 QBs have been drafted.  13 of those QBs can arguably be called franchise guys (ones that you can win a Super Bowl with as your starter)--note that I am excluding 2017.  I consider those guys to be: Newton, Luck, Wilson, Cousins, Bortles, Carr, Garoppolo, Winston, Mariota, Goff, Wentz, Prescott.  Of the 8 QBs drafted in the top 5, 7 of them can arguably be called franchise guys.  Of the 62 that were selected outside of the top 5, 6 can be arguably considered franchise guys--7 if you want to throw Foles in there.

 

This isn't about whether or not you can outsmart everyone else 10% of the time; it's about what puts the odds in your favor.

[ddaryl]

4 minutes ago, SWATeam said:

Dude, you have to change out that avatar.

 

or do something about that awful tan line

[John from Riverside]

Just now, thebandit27 said:

 

No offense here: it's not me that's ignoring the point.

 

The point here is that it's not prudent to wait and rely on being smarter than everyone else at the QB position.  It's much, much smarter to get yourself into prime position to have your pick of the best prospects.  As I've said many times, we can quibble over who should be considered a "franchise" QB versus who shouldn't, but however you parse it, over 50% of them come from top 5 picks.  Can you get them later in the draft?  Yes.  Is it likely?  No.  Not at all.

 

Consider this: since 2011 (so selected because it was the 1st year of the rookie wage scale), 70 QBs have been drafted.  13 of those QBs can arguably be called franchise guys (ones that you can win a Super Bowl with as your starter)--note that I am excluding 2017.  I consider those guys to be: Newton, Luck, Wilson, Cousins, Bortles, Carr, Garoppolo, Winston, Mariota, Goff, Wentz, Prescott.  Of the 8 QBs drafted in the top 5, 7 of them can arguably be called franchise guys.  Of the 62 that were selected outside of the top 5, 6 can be arguably considered franchise guys--7 if you want to throw Foles in there.

 

This isn't about whether or not you can outsmart everyone else 10% of the time; it's about what puts the odds in your favor.

I would rather that everyone one else felt that they were smarter and we simply got what we needed.

[prissythecat]

2 hours ago, ******* said:

Just now on wgr. Giants are still deciding if they want to stay at 2 or if any other teams come in with offers . But there is an agreement with them if they decide to trade with bills 

 

 

Am still trying to gauge how useful this update is 

[GG]

51 minutes ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

Nice try....but no, not really. Also, please read more carefully....in my analogy I simply said the difference as not taking the hot girl home for a good night, it was taking her home via marriage, not a one night stand. In other words, the marriage analogy is much closer to the football equivalent of trading up and giving up said assets than just taking a chance on the hot girl at the bar for an evening. 

 

 

I don't think it's me who needs a reading comprehension refresh. 

 

My analogy is also what could happen when you marry the hottest girl at the bar.  The Bills are looking for a long term relationship that will pay multiple dividends.

 

Your analogy is the marriage the current regime is trying to run from

[Maybe Someday]

2 hours ago, ******* said:

Just now on wgr. Giants are still deciding if they want to stay at 2 or if any other teams come in with offers . But there is an agreement with them if they decide to trade with bills 

 

I'd be really surprised if the Giants traded all the way back to #12 without a ridiculous offer.  They risk not getting one of the blue chip prospects of this draft. 

 

Unless 1 of the 4 QBs really stand out to McBeane, necessitating moving all the way to #2, I'd rather try to work something out with the Broncos or Colts.  Much cheaper price and that should get us one of the 4.  But if 1 of those guys does stand out, I'm fine with doing what we need to go get him. 

 

56 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Well, if your aim is to take a first round qb to placate fans and sell tix, then there's nothing wrong with it.  You can't miss.  If your aim is to build a winning team, however, it could be a costly mistake.   What if neither Cleveland nor the Giants take QBs?   Wow, great the Jests get first crack at the QBs, but since they had the sixth pick anyways, how are they all that much better off picking at 3 rather than 6.  Indy wasn't taking a QB.  The Browns aren't taking two.  So, that leaves Denver, which doesn't seem likely to draft a QB with both Keenum and Lynch on the roster.  So, the Jest gave up a lot to get the same or slightly better choice than they would have had if they stayed put ... and they don't control their destiny any more at #3 than they would have at #4.  They bought into the "4 QBs are going to go in the top 5" hype being spewed by the media mavens and got played by the Colts.

 

That's not even dealing with the bigger issue of picking the right QB in a draft class that simply has a lot of flawed prospects rather than only 1 or 2 outstanding ones. 

 

By trading up they guaranty that they will get one of the top 3 QBs in this draft, sitting at #6 didn't even guaranty they'd get any of the 4, media hype or not.  It's more likely that both of the 1st 2 picks are QBs than neither of them being QBs.  It's almost certain that had the Jets not traded up to #3, someone else (like the Bills) would have and taken another QB off the board.  In that scenario, the Jets would then have to hope that neither the Browns nor the Broncos draft a QB or trade with someone that does.  If the Jets hit on their pick, no one will remember the picks they had to give up. 

[BigBuff423]

11 minutes ago, GG said:

 

I don't think it's me who needs a reading comprehension refresh. 

 

My analogy is also what could happen when you marry the hottest girl at the bar.  The Bills are looking for a long term relationship that will pay multiple dividends.

 

Your analogy is the marriage the current regime is trying to run from

 

No...the purpose of the statement was to highlight the difference between what the poster indicated as a sex romp with a hottie at a bar vs. what this truly is in terms of relations; a marriage, not a one night stand and that the forfeiture of assets is much, much more significant. More to the point, that's fine (not for me, but I get it) but make sure you know the terms of what you're agreeing to....I was clarifying that it is not waiting for the "beast" just because you waited. It's a careful evaluation of what you're sacrificing in order to take the hot girl home. 

 

As to your final sentence, if you think signing a 6th round, under sized QB with issues in being an actual NFL Quarterback is the same as selecting a QB in the 1st round of a Draft that is deep with QB talent, then you sir have reached an entirely new level of density. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by BigBuff423

[Tyrod's friend]

1 hour ago, thebandit27 said:

 

Consider this: since 2011 (so selected because it was the 1st year of the rookie wage scale), 70 QBs have been drafted.  13 of those QBs can arguably be called franchise guys (ones that you can win a Super Bowl with as your starter)--note that I am excluding 2017.  I consider those guys to be: Newton, Luck, Wilson, Cousins, Bortles, Carr, Garoppolo, Winston, Mariota, Goff, Wentz, Prescott.  Of the 8 QBs drafted in the top 5, 7 of them can arguably be called franchise guys.  Of the 62 that were selected outside of the top 5, 6 can be arguably considered franchise guys--7 if you want to throw Foles in there.

Hey bud. Hope you are enjoying the day.

There's a couple of problems I have here: first of all, when you are taking a "top five" selection and using it on a QB, you are leveraging true opportunity costs - and they have to be adjusted for the risk involved. To use the vernacular of the Giants GM, those are Gold Jacket picks. Comparing the possible results of a lottery ticket used on a 4th round pick to a top five choice ... you can see where I am going here, right? There's been ONE All Pro season delivered by a QB drafted between 2011 and 2016. Again, you can argue about relative value but you have to get back to the cost of the pick.

Second, from 2011 to 2016 in rounds 2 and 3 I've got five guys I'd call a Franchise QB out of 15 choices (Carr, Garrapolo, Foles, Wilson and Dalton) - 33% hit rate. These are players a team is going to give a reasonable shot at winning the job.

Of the 38 picked in the 4th or later, not a single one of those guys had a snow ball's chance in hell (and yet a couple still made it). A 4th round pick, playing a normal position, has an uphill battle to win a starting position. To be drafted in the 4th round, a QB is automatically ticketed to AT BEST hold the clipboard and hope for disaster in the injury department.

Statistically speaking, I think your analysis has got one helluva a long tail going on here. I mean we can quibble about Foles or Dalton, but there's a clear delineation that using the same analysis of guys after 3 can't be used to paint R1 to R3. And beyond that we can go back to the value the likelihood of ANY 4th round pick turning up a franchise player at any position.

Finally this: in the last two years, your case has water but let's be careful to not fall prey to recency bias. Sure, Winston, Goff, Wentz, Marriota were hits. Look at strictly the top three rounds between 2011 and 2014 - the rounds where teams are truly trying to at least find a starter at QB - and more Franchise Guys were found after the top 5 than in the top 5.

Don't get me wrong; I pretty much agree with your conclusions but likewise, you are playing pretty free and easy with this whole thing. 

 

F'ahk. How many days left? Can't we just pull a Namath? Hide Baker in a hotel room and sign him before he gets an offer from someone else?

Edited April 18, 2018 by Tyrod's friend

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

That they didn't trade up says, again, that the fault was in not picking the right QB; they failed to recognize the qualities that would make him a significantly better pick than Losman. 

 

Or, maybe they did recognize the qualities that would make Roeth a significantly better pick than Losman, but Jax simply wouldn't trade.

We'll never know for sure, especially around the draft where, after the draft, GMs are always bound to express themselves as pleased and happy with all the great talent they just acquired and how wise they to acquire it - even if they just got outmaneuvered or blanked.

[GG]

1 hour ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

No...the purpose of the statement was to highlight the difference between what the poster indicated as a sex romp with a hottie at a bar vs. what this truly is in terms of relations; a marriage, not a one night stand and that the forfeiture of assets is much, much more significant. More to the point, that's fine (not for me, but I get it) but make sure you know the terms of what you're agreeing to....I was clarifying that it is not waiting for the "beast" just because you waited. It's a careful evaluation of what you're sacrificing in order to take the hot girl home. 

 

As to your final sentence, if you think signing a 6th round, under sized QB with issues in being an actual NFL Quarterback is the same as selecting a QB in the 1st round of a Draft that is deep with QB talent, then you sir have reached an entirely new level of density. 

You're not very good at this, considering that signing McCarron is a lot closer to your analogy and not mine.  

[Cripple Creek]

1 hour ago, prissythecat said:

 

 

Am still trying to gauge how useful this update is 

Well, as nonbinding agreements go this one is top notch.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 minutes ago, Tyrod's friend said:

There's a couple of problems I have here: first of all, when you are taking a "top five" selection and using it on a QB, you are leveraging true opportunity costs - and they have to be adjusted for the risk involved. To use the vernacular of the Giants GM, those are Gold Jacket picks. Comparing the possible results of a lottery ticket used on a 4th round pick to a top five choice ... you can see where I am going here, right? There's been ONE All Pro season delivered by a QB drafted between 2011 and 2016. Again, you can argue about relative value but you have to get back to the cost of the pick.

 

I think I understand your viewpoint, but (as I've stated elsewhere, and been disagreed with) I don't agree with Gettleman's logic, or at least,  I think it's "we have a QB who can play in the NFL" logic. 

 

Another way of looking at it, is that everyone needs an NFL-quality QB, by which I mean a QB who can win games on occasion and help you compete for championships. 

 

If you pick in the top-2 picks, where the odds of failure are say, 1 out of 4, you should only need 1 or 2 picks to have about 95% odds of successfully finding an NFL-quality QB.

If you pick in the top-5 picks, where the odds of failure are 1 out of 2, you may need up to 4 picks to have the same odds.

If you pick from 5-32 or in the 2nd round, where the odds of failure are historically more like 2 out of 3, you need up to 7 picks to have about 95% odds of successfully finding an NFL-quality QB.

 

So there's a substantial risk involved in NOT going for a top pick at QB.   You may need 2x or even almost 4x the picks to get what you need.   I don't think that point should get lost in opining about "top five" picks needing to be "Gold Jacket" players - because actually, at any position, the odds of success are really about the same, and that's just to get a good player, a playmaker, not a HOF guy.

 

Now obviously every team thinks their superior player evaluation chops will tilt the odds in their favor, and maybe they will - teams that succeed in finding a great QB get to rest on their QB laurels for quite a while.  Or maybe they won't.

[Epstein's Mother]

3 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

Well, as nonbinding agreements go this one is top notch.

 

Or it could end up being A-1 depending on the Giants of course.

[The Wiz]

Didn't we have a trade in principle with the Colts for #3?

 

Yes, I am fun at parties.

Edited April 18, 2018 by The Wiz