Why the Bills Won't Trade Up to #2 (or 3 or 4)

[BuffaloRush]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  This has been my take for a long time now and Joe Webb plus Eli's remaining two years be damned.  As far as trying to trade Eli most likely feelers were put out and the offers were not even chicken feed.

 

Care to bet a $40 Tim Horton’s gift card on it, @RochesterRob?

[RochesterRob]

Just now, Foxx said:

John Elway , Kurt Warner,  Rich Gannon, Drew Brees and Y.A. Tittle all say hello.

  A tiny fraction of the number of QB's who have played going back to the days of Y.A. Tittle (over 50 years ago).

[Foxx]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  A tiny fraction of the number of QB's who have played going back to the days of Y.A. Tittle (over 50 years ago).

i don't disagree. my point is that that is significantly more than the OP's statement. thereby invalidating his argument.

[BadLandsMeanie]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

1.  Eli hasn't done much of anything for two years and clearly seems to be declining.  

 

2.  Eli is 37 and his brother and Brady are the only QBs in the history of the game to have had any real success in the league after 37.  

 

3.  Eli has only two years left on his contract. 

 

4.  No way to know when they will have another opportunity this good to get a top QB.   

 

Sure seems like the Giants are set up perfectly to draft the next QB now, have him sit for a year and start in 2019.   

 

 

1) Eli is 37 and they had him behind a lousy line. He had no viable running game.

2) 2 quarterbacks have won superbowls at his age

3) Soon they will lose Eli to age or contract issues or both.

4) No way to know when you will have an opportunity to get another Superbowl caliber QB.

 

The Giants were expected to be  playoff team last year. This years draft is set up perfectly for them to repair the major problems and make a run for it.

[Dadonkadonk]

The OP is right and wrong about the Giants. Yes if they want a QB there is little chance they will trade out.  However if they want to add pieces around Eli, multiple picks is the way to go.  Barkely is a RB and though probably the most talented player in the draft he is still a RB. That is a position that can be filled easily later in the draft or on the cheap in FA.  I would be shocked if they stay at #2 and take Barkely.  Nelson and Chubb are much better choices for the Giants or even a top OLB like  Smith or Edmunds one of which is sure to be available at #12.  

So if the Bills want to get to # 2, they either give up 12,22, and next years #1 or they find a way to get to 6 or 7 and then make another jump to 2.

The reality is the Giants control the Bills future.  Best case scenarios are the Giants take a non-QB which I don't think they will if Darnold is on the board.  Or the Jets take Mayfield and Rosen is still available at #4.  Last best case scenario, Allen falls out of the top 4.

 

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said:

 

You will be wrong @Shaw66.  I’ll make a bet with you that NYG wont draft a QB at #2.  I suggest a $40 gift card to Tim

Horton’s or $50 to Chic-Fil-A

That's fine.   I'm not trying to predict what the Giants are going to do.    If the Giants aren't taking a QB at 2, then they are NOT trading out of 2, because there will a great player waiting for the Giants at #2.   I think the only way the Giants trade out, at least to a place beyond 4, is if they don't want a QB AND at #1 the Browns take whomever the Giants DO want.   That's the only scenario where the Giants won't want to stay at #2.  

 

I DO think the Giants are taking a QB at 2, because I think it's the right way to handle their QB situation.   But that's just my take on it, and I'm completely comfortable with the fact that the Giants may be taking a different view of it.   

 

My whole point in posting was not to predict what the Giants want.  My point was that I don't think the Bills can get to 2 because it's quite unlikely that the Giants are willing to leave 2, except maybe to swap with the Jets.  

[RochesterRob]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

That's a good point.  

I agree.   I think the Bills have to worry that the Dolphins want a QB or someone else will trade up.   Of course, there has to be a QB the Bills want.  

  6-9 is far more within reach for teams such as Arizona, New England, and even Pittsburgh.  Belichick seems to do wonders with middling FA' so he is not sweating the cost like other teams would.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

19 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

The Bills do NOT deserve our respect or patience. I don’t care where they get him, but they need to get Rosen, Darnold, or Mayfield. Or...or they can go to hell. 

 

...yet another highly insightful, contributory post which is your signature no matter which site you permeate.......rarified air on that high horse is a two fold danger being (1) a long way down if you fall and (2) brain cell damage due to oxygen deprivation...good Lord I think I've seen it all....SMH.............

Edited April 22, 2018 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[OldTimer1960]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Like lots of people here, I've been thinking about what might happen between now and Thursday night.  

 

We've seen some rumors about the Bills talking to the Giants and some rumors about there being no deal with the Giants.  

 

Well, as I think about, it seems clear that there'll be no deal with Giants because the Bills can't offer the Giants anything that works for the Giants.  

 

Either the Giants want one of the good QBs or they don't.   If they want one of the good QBs, then the only trade they'll do is to move to 1, 3 or possibly 4.   If they trade down below 4, the QB they want could be gone.   If they want one of the stud non-QBs, they can't move to 5 because the Browns may take the best stud non-QB at 4.   

 

So it seems likely the only way the Bills could get to #2 would be if the Bills first traded to 4 and then traded up again.   But getting to 4 will be expensive - probably at least the 12 and 22, and that would be only if the Browns didn't like any of the studs at the top of the draft.   Then from 4 to 2 probably would cost next year's first.   

 

There's a rumor that the Bills actually offered those three firsts to the Giants and the Giants said no.   The Giants said no, probably, because they know they don't want to pick below 3 or 4 at the worst, and getting those three firsts doesn't help them UNLESS THEY have a deal with the Browns for 4.   

 

So that means to me the only route there is for the Bills to get to #2 is essentially a three-team trade, where the Bills go to #2, the Giants go to #4 and get the Bills' first round pick next year, and the Browns get the Bills' #12 and #22.   (Maybe a few late-round picks thrown in here and there to grease the skids.)   That seems to me to be a very, very hard deal to make.   Giants more or less won't do it if they want a QB, because it lets Buffalo and the Jets get in the QB line ahead of the Giants.   Only can work if the Giants want one of the top-of-the-draft non-QB studs AND the Browns don't want any of them.   

 

And it's much easier for the Giants to tell the Jets they're looking to trade out of #2, and to protect themselves the Jets would need to trade up.   So the Giants can easily pick up another nice pick by moving back to #3, at no cost to them so long as they don't want a QB.   

 

So the Bills are picking, at the very best, 4th.   Even that seems like a stretch.   The QB they want would have to be there (after the Browns, Giants and Jets have taken two or three of the QBs), and the Bills would have to be willing to give 12 and 22 to get there.   Possible, not likely.  

 

Can the Bills get to 5?   Only if the Broncos don't want the QB the Bills want. 

 

So it looks to me like Bills will be picking after at least 3 QBs have come off the board.  

 

If the Bills actually did offer the Giants three first round picks (12, 22 and 2019) for #2, I wonder this:   Two months ago, that was  21, 22 and Cordy Glenn.   Did the Bills offer THAT to the Colts for #3?   THAT's the deal the Bills should have made, if it was possible.   The problem always was that the Jets had a much more attractive first-round pick to offer.  

Well thought out, sir.  

 

As to the Broncos possibly trading out of pick 5 - the Broncos surely need a QB to be the long-term answer as I can’t imagine that they think that Case Keenum is that answer.  So, if the Broncos are willing to trade from 5 to 12, it very likely means that they don’t think that whomever is left at QB is a long-term answer that is better than Keenum.  While it is true that the Broncos may not be the be-all-end-all at evaluating QBs, it would leave me with great concern that a team that really needs a “franchise” QB would be willing to trade out of a spot that we want in to so that we can get a QB.

[oldmanfan]

22 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

The Bills do NOT deserve our respect or patience. I don’t care where they get him, but they need to get Rosen, Darnold, or Mayfield. Or...or they can go to hell. 

Or you can.

 

Let Beane do his job.

[OldTimer1960]

1 hour ago, KRT88 said:

This just isn't going to happen.  Buffalo seems far more likely to move up to 6 thu 9! They are not staying at 12.

What does it feel like with your head in the sand?  Not being able to or not wanting to trade up (due to picks before the pick we could reasonably get is a very real possibility.

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Well thought out, sir.  

 

As to the Broncos possibly trading out of pick 5 - the Broncos surely need a QB to be the long-term answer as I can’t imagine that they think that Case Keenum is that answer.  So, if the Broncos are willing to trade from 5 to 12, it very likely means that they don’t think that whomever is left at QB is a long-term answer that is better than Keenum.  While it is true that the Broncos may not be the be-all-end-all at evaluating QBs, it would leave me with great concern that a team that really needs a “franchise” QB would be willing to trade out of a spot that we want in to so that we can get a QB.

It would be ironic indeed for the Bills to have traded out of 10 in 2017 so that Andy Reid could take Mahomes and then trade UP to 5 in 2018 to take a QB John Elway didn't want.  

[Fadingpain]

I don't really see anything new here to discuss.

 

What the Bills do will ultimately involve a series of complex choices/events made by multiple organizations and we do not have nearly enough knowledge to make any kind of accurate prediction now.

Save your energy for 5 minutes after we make our pick Thursday night.

There will be a lot of educated discussion to be had then.

 

[Radar]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Shaw, I think you're just looking at "3 1st round picks!!!" too superficially. Where those picks are and what their valued at is what matters.

 

Shaw, I think you're looking at "3 1st round picks!!!" too superficially. Where those picks are, what they're valued at, and most importantly, Beane's intentions and goals are what matters.

 

I've been assuming from the moment we acquired an extra 1st round pick last year in the draft that McDermott wanted to wait 1 year to pursue getting a Franchise QB since Whaley, not Beane was still our GM and, therefore, in charge of college scouting for the 2017 QBs.

 

And then when Beane got here, he kept compiling picks... shrewdly getting them for players McDermott and Beane inherited and didn't really want.

 

Our #12 pick was the result of swapping 1sts and trading away a player who may have played well for this team in years past but almost never saw the field (did he ever?) in 2017, our first playoff year in 17 years as a rookie filled in capably for the year and will only get better.

 

One of our 2nd rounders was acquired trading away a talented but oft-injured WR who then wasn't even resigned by the same team who traded for him. And based on Sammy's new salary with KC, he wouldn't be with the Bills even if McDermott exercised his 5th year rookie option.

 

One of our 3rd rounders... the 1st one in the 3rd round, was acquired by trading away a QB that there was absolutely no long term plan on and filled in his slot with a QB who is at least capable of competing for the starting QB job at less than 1/3rd the cost of the guy we just traded away.

 

 

I say we take those 4 picks and trade them all to the Giants for the #2 pick to grab Rosen/Darnold/Mayfield (please GOD not Allen!!!) and Beane still has all of Buffalo's original picks with a pick in all the remaining rounds other than the 7th.

 

We can and should still get a couple other good players in the 2nd and 3rd round even in doing that.

 

According to the draft chart:

#12 = 1200 points 

#22 = 780 points 

#53 = 370 points 

#65 = 265 points 

 

Grand total = 2615 points 

 

#2 pick = 2600 points

 

So we're giving away picks Beane has been shrewdly acquiring, not picks we were already going to naturally possess.

 

So the Bills maybe already offered next year's 1st and both our 1sts this year? A pick in the ensuing year is supposedly valued 1 round lower than the same pick this year. So, our 1st next year is actually valued as a 2nd rounder, not a 1st.

 

Let's say our 2nd next year will be roughly the same as our 2nd this year... maybe make it a little more valuable at 400 points.

 

Suddenly those "3 1st round picks!!!" are 2380 points to the Giants 2600 points and we need to throw in at least a 3rd rounder this year if not a 2nd.

 

 

Who knows what really happens, but it's weird the way a lot of Bills fans are saying "the price is too steep to trade up!!!" Seems a bit disingenuous. When was the last time we had a Franchise QB? When we're we last a viable contender?

I'm so sick of that draft chart.

[Shaw66]

19 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

1) Eli is 37 and they had him behind a lousy line. He had no viable running game.

2) 2 quarterbacks have won superbowls at his age

3) Soon they will lose Eli to age or contract issues or both.

4) No way to know when you will have an opportunity to get another Superbowl caliber QB.

 

The Giants were expected to be  playoff team last year. This years draft is set up perfectly for them to repair the major problems and make a run for it.

I understand that approach, but personally I think it would be foolish.   The Giants were not a team that was one player away from the Lombardi in 2017.   They were a mess.    They 21st in yardage offense, 31st in points offense, 31st in yardage defense and 27th in points defense.   They have a temperamental and unpredictable wideout, no running back and an old QB whose play has declined seriously for two years.  

 

If trading back for more picks and making a run at the Super Bowl in 2018 is the right strategy for the Giants, then McBeane should be fired right now.   If that's the right strategy for the Giants, then why isn't it the right strategy.   Tyrod Taylor was a much better QB than Manning over the past two years, the Bills defense was way better than the Giants, and the Bills have a much better running back.   

 

It makes no sense for a team that was totally ineffective on both sides of the ball in 2017 to believe they should ignore the future of the most important position on the team because they think a bunch of rookies are going to win the Super Bowl for them.  

[3rdand12]

1 hour ago, McBean said:

Stay at 12 and draft Edmunds then Rudolph at 22.

 

OR

 

Jackson at 12 and Vander Esch at 22.

 

We aren’t moving to 2 because the Giants are taking a QB. The media is fake news. They know about as much as Dunkirk Dufus and just throw crap at the wall hoping some of it sticks.

 

Let me ask you this, how many media members mocked Trubisky to Chicago last year? ZERO!

 

I’ll tell you another thing as well. Not only are the Giants taking a QB, but the Broncos will as well. That’s my bold prediction. 4 QB’s go inside the top 5.

 

 

I would not be shocked honestly. Giants are playing this rather well btw.

They get to sit their future Qb for a year or so.. Then what are they doing with Ereck Flowers then? Letting him go? not building the O line finally ?

 

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

I understand that approach, but personally I think it would be foolish.   The Giants were not a team that was one player away from the Lombardi in 2017.   They were a mess.    They 21st in yardage offense, 31st in points offense, 31st in yardage defense and 27th in points defense.   They have a temperamental and unpredictable wideout, no running back and an old QB whose play has declined seriously for two years.  

 

If trading back for more picks and making a run at the Super Bowl in 2018 is the right strategy for the Giants, then McBeane should be fired right now.   If that's the right strategy for the Giants, then why isn't it the right strategy.   Tyrod Taylor was a much better QB than Manning over the past two years, the Bills defense was way better than the Giants, and the Bills have a much better running back.   

 

It makes no sense for a team that was totally ineffective on both sides of the ball in 2017 to believe they should ignore the future of the most important position on the team because they think a bunch of rookies are going to win the Super Bowl for them.  

  Your last sentence makes certain posters here sleep better at night if they want to believe that Eli has some good years left and a handful of rookies are going to overcome the many deficiencies the Giants have.

[3rdand12]

41 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

1.  Eli hasn't done much of anything for two years and clearly seems to be declining.  

 

2.  Eli is 37 and his brother and Brady are the only QBs in the history of the game to have had any real success in the league after 37.  

 

3.  Eli has only two years left on his contract. 

 

4.  No way to know when they will have another opportunity this good to get a top QB.   

 

Sure seems like the Giants are set up perfectly to draft the next QB now, have him sit for a year and start in 2019.   

 

 

this has been my thinking. I have no Idea what Gettleman thinks though.

 Logic say Giants get the QB of the future Thursday. (oops not that Logic )

 this logic

[BuffaloRush]

30 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

That's fine.   I'm not trying to predict what the Giants are going to do.    If the Giants aren't taking a QB at 2, then they are NOT trading out of 2, because there will a great player waiting for the Giants at #2.   I think the only way the Giants trade out, at least to a place beyond 4, is if they don't want a QB AND at #1 the Browns take whomever the Giants DO want.   That's the only scenario where the Giants won't want to stay at #2.  

 

I DO think the Giants are taking a QB at 2, because I think it's the right way to handle their QB situation.   But that's just my take on it, and I'm completely comfortable with the fact that the Giants may be taking a different view of it.   

 

My whole point in posting was not to predict what the Giants want.  My point was that I don't think the Bills can get to 2 because it's quite unlikely that the Giants are willing to leave 2, except maybe to swap with the Jets.  

 

Well that makes sense.  I can totally see Gettleman staying at 2.  I’m just curious as to why you think the Giants will take a QB, when every reporter in the know says they are not interested.  

 

The only scenario that I can see happening is if that 3 way trade comes to fruition where the Giants drop to #4, pick up an extra pick and still get Barkley.  

[KD in CA]

Well they sure as hell better trade up to at least #5.   Other teams can move up in the draft too.