blacklabel Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 6 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said: If that is a good strategy, then why shouldn’t the Bills just sit tight and load up the roster aside from QB then go “all in” next year for a QB? They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize.
Dr. Who Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, blacklabel said: They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize. You're right, but it's possible the Giants decide to take a qb at 2 and the Broncos take a qb at 5. I don't think it's likely, but it's also not implausible. Lots of draft capital, but maybe no trade partner. 1
Shaw66 Posted April 22, 2018 Author Posted April 22, 2018 Just now, blacklabel said: They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize. You have a fundamental flaw in your logic. Just because they acquired all this draft capital, it doesn't follow that there MUST be a good QB in the draft. For example, now matter how much draft capital the Bills might have acquired in the year he was drafted, EJ Manuel wouldn't have been a better quarterback. The Bills acquired the draft capital because it was the smart thing to do. It wouldn't be a smart thing to do to spend it on some player just because they have it. 3
OldTimer1960 Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, blacklabel said: They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize. Well sure, if they can get up for a QB that the like, that should be the plan. However, there is a real chance that they can’t get into position to beat a QB that they like. Let’s say that they like 3 QBs a lot - in that scenario, there is a good chance that they will get shut-out. If that happens, and I’d say it is a 50-50 chance, it would be worse to just tak a QB to get one than to trade out or to take a very good prospect at another position. 1
Foxx Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said: You have a fundamental flaw in your logic. Just because they acquired all this draft capital, it doesn't follow that there MUST be a good QB in the draft. For example, now matter how much draft capital the Bills might have acquired in the year he was drafted, EJ Manuel wouldn't have been a better quarterback. The Bills acquired the draft capital because it was the smart thing to do. It wouldn't be a smart thing to do to spend it on some player just because they have it. the fundamental flaw in this logic is the basic assumption that the draft capital wasn't acquired with a qb target in mind. Edited April 22, 2018 by Foxx 1
BuffaloBob Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, John from Riverside said: Something else to consider....we dont know how much influence our new OC is having with the HC and Beane.....the offense he brings from college is taylor made for Lamar Jackson. I also think Rosen can run it well and he is more scheme diverse......so there is that. Once again its all about what Bean is willing to give up. Or is the offense he brings from college Jackson made for Tyrod Taylor? Edited April 22, 2018 by BuffaloBob
BuffaloBob Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 29 minutes ago, blacklabel said: They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize. You mean it isn't an intelligent strategy to get rid of players you don't think fit, or to eliminate players with untenable cap hits, for assets such as draft picks unless you are going take a QB? That would seem an intelligent strategy EVERY year regardless of a team's need at the QB position. Moreover, few QB prospects are worth trading "whatever it takes" to get them, no matter the cost. What matters is their assessment as to the value of each QB prospect (taking into account the premium nature of the position), and if it's going to cost much more, you cannot chase. Are the guys in the top 3 worth that much more than a guy they can have at 12? If yes, then make the trade, and if not, don't. But I do not see this management team chasing a prospect way beyond the value they have assigned him simply to appease the fans and the media.
OldTimer1960 Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 1 hour ago, blacklabel said: They're probably in the most unique and favorable set of circumstances they've ever been in for a draft. Two picks in each of the top three rounds. They have the ammo like no other team does in this draft. They've relentlessly studied these QBs for this year and must have one or two on the "must have" list because otherwise, why make all those trades and gather up all this draft capital? Sure it'd be good to stock up but if they go through another draft neglecting the most important position in all of sports, this regime is going to get crucified endlessly. They have to take their shot at some point. Obviously the thinking that you can win consistently without a franchise QB but with a decent team around him just doesn't cut it. I think they wanna be able to obtain their QB while retaining enough picks to obtain starters in other positions they prioritize. But, the original post suggested that the Giants should not do the exact thing that we want the Bills to do. I honestly think it will be a long-term mistake if the Giants trade 2 instead of taking a QB. My reasoning is that Eli is close to done, if not done and they won’t likely be picking as high as 2nd again anytime soon. My view is that, while we’d like the Giants to pass on a QB and trade 2 for 12 & 22 & ?, we would all be furious if we were Giants fans and they did that.
purple haze Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 3 hours ago, RochesterRob said: I have been trying to get this point across for weeks now. The Giants may want to get their QB of the future now while the cost is cheap. Rosen, Darnold >>>>>>>>>>> Webb. They don't know what they have in Webb. Can't say and draftee is better than him at this point.
Mickey Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 4 hours ago, NickelCity said: Are you kidding me? I think it's pretty clear that a huge portion of us are fully committed to the trade up option. Make no mistake, staying at 12 and missing on the big 3 will break hearts left and right. I agree. I certainly see that moving up high enough might not be possible so I won't be shocked at all if we end up stuck at 12. I'll be absolutely sick about it but I won't be shocked. Ugh. 1
OldTimer1960 Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, purple haze said: They don't know what they have in Webb. Can't say and draftee is better than him at this point. If that is true, then Bills should not trade up for any of these guys if they aren’t better prospects than Davis Webb.
purple haze Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Foxx said: the fundamental flaw in this logic is the basic assumption that the draft capital wasn't acquired with a qb target in mind. Because that capital was acquired with a QB in mind does not mean they will use that capital on just any QB. Say Beane likes Darnold and Allen, but can't get the Giants to deal; and both of those QBs are taken; using that capital to acquire Rosen or Mayfield might be a non-starter for Beane, in spite of what some fans think of those two players, because he does not think they are worth it based on his study of their skills/personality etc. Edited April 22, 2018 by purple haze
oldmanfan Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 They probably accumulated picks to try and get a QB this draft. Might have even had a guy in mind last year. But things change. Darnold for example threw a lot of picks this past season. Ultimately having a lot of picks gives you flexibility as a GM. And that is a valuable commodity.
purple haze Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said: If that is true, then Bills should not trade up for any of these guys if they aren’t better prospects than Davis Webb. Eli's presence along with the unknown in Webb could be why Giants aren't going QB. The top QBs are better prospects than Webb was, but Webb is no longer a prospect; he's a guy who will be a young vet in the league, who has experience and knowledge of the game that this year's prospects dont have.
Foxx Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, purple haze said: Because that capital was acquired with a QB in mind does not mean they will use that capital on just any QB. Say Beane likes Darnold and Allen, but can't get the Giants to deal; and both of those QBs are taken; using that capital to acquire Rosen or Mayfield might be a non-starter for Beane, in spite of what some fans think of those two players, because he does not think they are worth it based on his study of their skills/personality etc. I agree. my response was in regard to the quoted material omitting the thought that there was a plan in mind when said draft capital was obtained.
OldTimer1960 Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Foxx said: the fundamental flaw in this logic is the basic assumption that the draft capital wasn't acquired with a qb target in mind. I’ve saved a lot of my income with a plan to retire at 55, but I am now closing in on 58 and circumstances have prevented me from retiring and likely won’t for at least 5 more years. Point is plans are plans, don’t confuse them with reality.
Foxx Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 1 minute ago, OldTimer1960 said: I’ve saved a lot of my income with a plan to retire at 55, but I am now closing in on 58 and circumstances have prevented me from retiring and likely won’t for at least 5 more years. Point is plans are plans, don’t confuse them with reality. :sigh: what does that even remotely have to do with my statement? where in there did i say that the plan will go off as designed?
transplantbillsfan Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 3 hours ago, Radar said: I'm so sick of that draft chart. Why? Because 3 1sts just sounds sooOOooo unreasonable to let go of?
DefenseWins Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 2 hours ago, Shaw66 said: As the board stands right now, it could go QB Browns, QB Giants, QB Jets, RB Browns, QB Broncos and the Bills are left out. That's quite possible, if the four teams with the top five picks have differing views about who's the best QB. If Denver's #! choice of QB falls to 5, their pick will not be available in a trade. Four QBs could go in the first five picks. Two QBs could go in the first five. Denver has already publicly stated their willingness to trade out of the 5 pick. And no one knows the Giants intentions for #2 yet as far as we know. Beane might have some clue or he might not. A smart GM which I believe Beane to be based on his moves made so far will be in contact with all the teams with the top 7 picks to have contingency plans ready to go. We are not waiting till next year or any year after that. You'll see by Thursday night is my prediction.
transplantbillsfan Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 5 hours ago, NickelCity said: I'll put it this way: if we draft Darnold or Rosen, I'm thrilled. If we draft Mayfield, I'm excited (close to thrilled tbh). If we draft Allen or Jackson, I will be disappointed but as a coping mechanism will talk myself into liking it. If draft anyone else, I think that disappointment will be enduring. Whoever we draft, I will root for of course. Exactly how I feel, but swap Rosen and Mayfield and put Jackson up there with Rosen, assuming we draft him at 12
Recommended Posts