The_Dude Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 15 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...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............. It wasn’t intended to be insightful or informative you jackwagon. It was intended to be an opinionated comment. I’m not sure who put you in charge of what people can use the internet for but if you don’t like reading what I write, don’t read what I write. Also, I find comments like yours weird. I have no idea who you are or what your opinions are. I honestly don’t post that often on these things and will go weeks at a time without posting. Maybe the problem is you spend to much time on these boards? Take up hiking is my recommendation. 15 hours ago, oldmanfan said: Or you can. Let Beane do his job. Is my posting on the internet preventing Beane from ‘doing his job?’ Because if the answer to that is no, your comment was stupid. Do you understand that your comment was stupid and why it’s stupid? Don’t worry, brah — we’ll Socratic-method the f$&@ out of this!
Shaw66 Posted April 23, 2018 Author Posted April 23, 2018 14 minutes ago, The_Dude said: It wasn’t intended to be insightful or informative you jackwagon. It was intended to be an opinionated comment. I’m not sure who put you in charge of what people can use the internet for but if you don’t like reading what I write, don’t read what I write. Also, I find comments like yours weird. I have no idea who you are or what your opinions are. I honestly don’t post that often on these things and will go weeks at a time without posting. Maybe the problem is you spend to much time on these boards? Take up hiking is my recommendation. Is my posting on the internet preventing Beane from ‘doing his job?’ Because if the answer to that is no, your comment was stupid. Do you understand that your comment was stupid and why it’s stupid? Don’t worry, brah — we’ll Socratic-method the f$&@ out of this! That's okay, Dude. I still love you.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 I believe they will, assuming they have a willing partner. They love a QB, so the cost is basically irrelevant.
Shaw66 Posted April 23, 2018 Author Posted April 23, 2018 39 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: I believe they will, assuming they have a willing partner. They love a QB, so the cost is basically irrelevant. Umm, the point of the post was that there are no willing partners. So, yes, the cost is irrelevant, there isn't anything the Bills can give the owners of the top 4 picks that will make them trade out.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 Just now, Shaw66 said: Umm, the point of the post was that there are no willing partners. So, yes, the cost is irrelevant, there isn't anything the Bills can give the owners of the top 4 picks that will make them trade out. They are unwilling to trade now/were prior to finalizing their boards. Things may change as the draft unfolds.
blacklabel Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 15 hours ago, Dr. Who said: 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. For sure. I still maintain that the Giants are just waiting it out to see if they can squeeze another team for more than what the Bills are offering. If the Broncos are now saying they wanna trade down, are they for sure in the QB market? Who knows. Thursday just needs to hurry up and get here haha. 15 hours 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. I didn't say that there "must be" a good QB in this draft, my assumption was is that the Bills likely have a QB or two on their "must have" list or they've determined that this is the year to finally pull off a trade to get themselves what *they* think is their must-have guy. That, IMO, is why they've put together so much capital. It's the opinion of plenty of others as well. Not many people expect the Bills to sit where they're at and let the board fall to them. Most are convinced that they will do everything in their power to trade up. Their actions over the last 8-10 months kind of point in this direction. 1
Shaw66 Posted April 23, 2018 Author Posted April 23, 2018 27 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: They are unwilling to trade now/were prior to finalizing their boards. Things may change as the draft unfolds. This is a good point. We don't know what any team thinks about any player on the board. Probably the surest bets are that the Browns will make sure they get the QB they want and the Jets will take a QB. I suppose it's possible the Browns and Giants both take QBs and the Jets really don't want to burn #3 on anyone left, but I doubt it. I think they're taking the guy they think is the best QB left on the board, regardless of who's left. I think it's more or less impossible for the Bills to get the #1 pick from the Browns. If Giants want a QB, they're taking one at 2. If they want a non-QB, they're taking him at 2 UNLESS the Browns take him at 1. If the Browns take the guy the Giants want, the Giants MIGHT trade out of 2. I don't think that's very likely, but possible. Jets extremely unlikely to trade out of 3, unless they've done a deal with the Browns or Giants to move up, but that doesn't change what's available to the Bills. Jets are extremely unlikely to do a deal with the Bills to let the Bills get their QB. It just seems to me that the first pick that it makes any sense to talk about the Bills acquiring is #4. Unlikely, but possible. #5? Possible, but only if the Broncos don't want the QB who is left. #6 is probably the first realistic deal the Bills can do. I do think, however, that it's likely that the Bills will move up from 12. Too many teams will want the third or fourth QB to hope he'll fall to 12.
Thurman#1 Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Shaw66 said: As I've said, I certainly may be wrong. MY view is that if I were the Giants GM I'd get my QB now. Gettleman's view may be different. One thing you said and another poster said I think needs a little investigation. You said 5 6 or 7 may be enough to get one of Barkley Nelson, FItzpatrick etc. That's true, I'm sure, but I don't think GMs think about it that way. not in the first five picks. That's how you think in the second round, because the difference in the players gets pretty small there. When you're picking at 2, you aren't thinking "any one of these 5 guys will do." You're thinking about a guy you think will change your team for 10 years. You have a special opportunity. And although it may be true that there are 5 such players in the draft this year, they don't all look the same to you. You almost certainly have rated them 1 through 5, and you almost certainly prefer your #1 to everyone on the list except possibly #2. For example, I think it's highly unlikely that the Browns are sitting at 1 and thinking "any one of three QBs will do, so let's take Barkely at 1 and see which QB falls to us." I think it's very unlikely they'll settle for their third choice at QB when they could have had their first. Maybe their second, but not their third. For the Giants it's probably Barkely and Chubb. If they don't want a QB, their mindset is they gotta get one of those. If that's what they're thinking, then MAYBE they can trade back to 5, IF they assume the Broncos want a QB. However, they could trade back to 5 and be surprised to discover that the Broncos didn't want a QB, and have the Broncos and Browns take Barkely and Chubb. So even 5 is a risk for the Giants unless they KNOW that their trade partner is taking a QB. So maybe the Bills' strategy is trade up to 5, which probably costs them their two firsts, then trade the 5 and next year's first and something else to get to 2. Giants might do that because they know the Bills will take a QB. Still, that's going to get really pricey for the Bills. Again, however, I don't think the question is whether the Bills will pay the price. I think the problem is that it's very likely that the Giants don't want to lose the guy - QB or non-QB - whom they can get at 2. I disagree with you pretty strongly about the Giants not wanting just one of a group. Of course if you're at #2 you"re not thinking that you want one of a group of five or so guys. But particularly if the Giants are sticking with Eli for the next couple of years or so in hopes of winning a championship they are very likely to end up trading back and thinking exactly that way. Yeah, the Browns aren't likely to pick Barkley and hope one guy falls to them. That's not because the method is flawed. It's because they have one priority, quarterback, which far outweighs any other need. So yeah, for three reasons, they're not likely to go RB first, since QB is their need that far overshadows any other need, and also because they're pretty likely to get Barkley at #4 anyway, and because they already have a ton of extra picks. The Giants do NOT have a ton of extra picks, and if they want to win a title in the short run on a tight salary cap, they absolutely need to fill holes in the draft with guys likely to play soon and well. That means they need extra picks in the early rounds this year and next. As for who they would pick at #5 or #6 or #7 if they trade down, yeah, they likely have them ranked in order, but they also likely have a group of three guys that they would be happy to get. There are in fact three or four real difference makers who will likely go around there, Chubb, Quenton Nelson and Barkley. All three are at positions of need and all three are thought of as terrific prospects, guys who will be dominant, and all three at positions the Giants have built their teams around historically, front seven pass rushers, tough OLs (pundits are comparing Quenton Nelson to Hutchinson!!!) and runners to take the pressure off the QB. Any of these guys are likely to make whoever gets them very happy indeed, and the Giants would then also be able to get some excellent extra picks. When you want to win now, in a short window, and you're looking at how the Giants played last year, you're not looking for one guy to change your team from a 3-win team to a Super Bowl champion quickly. You need to fill holes. And with good players. I"m not 100% convinced they won't go QB at #2. My guess is that if Darnold (I assume that's who they want) is there, that's what they do unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer, but if their desired QB is not there, they might easily trade back depending on getting a good enough offer. There are three or four dominant non-QBs likely to go there and the Giants could easily have a group of guys they would be happy to get any of. I think the question is very likely to indeed be exactly that ... will the Bills pay the price the Giants want? Edited April 23, 2018 by Thurman#1
Shaw66 Posted April 23, 2018 Author Posted April 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: I disagree with you pretty strongly about the Giants not wanting just one of a group. Of course if you're at #2 you"re not thinking that you want one of a group of five or so guys. But particularly if the Giants are sticking with Eli for the next couple of years or so in hopes of winning a championship they are very likely to end up trading back and thinking exactly that way. Yeah, the Browns aren't likely to pick Barkley and hope one guy falls to them. That's not because the method is flawed. It's because they have one priority, quarterback, which far outweighs any other need. So yeah, for three reasons, they're not likely to go RB first, since QB is their need that far overshadows any other need, and also because they're pretty likely to get Barkley at #4 anyway, and because they already have a ton of extra picks. The Giants do NOT have a ton of extra picks, and if they want to win a title in the short run on a tight salary cap, they absolutely need to fill holes in the draft with guys likely to play soon and well. That means they need extra picks in the early rounds this year and next. As for who they would pick at #5 or #6 or #7 if they trade down, yeah, they likely have them ranked in order, but they also likely have a group of three guys that they would be happy to get. There are in fact three or four real difference makers who will likely go around there, Chubb, Quenton Nelson and Barkley. All three are at positions of need and all three are thought of as terrific prospects, guys who will be dominant, and all three at positions the Giants have built their teams around historically, front seven pass rushers, tough OLs and runners to take the pressure off the QB. Any of these guys are likely to make whoever gets them very happy indeed, and the Giants would then also be able to get some excellent extra picks. When you want to win now, in a short window, and you're looking at how the Giants played last year, you're not looking for one guy to change your team from a 3-win team to a Super Bowl champion quickly. You need to fill holes. And with good players. I"m not 100% convinced they won't go QB at #2. My guess is that if Darnold (I assume that's who they want) is there, that's what they do, but if he's not, they might easily trade back depending on getting a good enough offer. I think the question is very likely to indeed be exactly that ... will the Bills pay the price the Giants want? Thurm, those are all good points, and you may be right. I don't agree because it's all based on the premise that the Giants think they can win in the short term. They may very well be thinking that, but as I've said, I think that's the wrong choice. When you were pretty bad, actually very bad, on both sides of the ball AND your QB has given two years of clear signs that his best years are behind him AND you have a new coach, it seems to me to be a sucker bet to think you're going to win big in the next year or two by adding a bunch of rookies. The Bills fielded a better team last season with a better QB, and we've pretty much all been convinced that the Bills need a new QB before they can make a serious Super Bowl run. I just can't see how I would reach a different conclusion if I'm the Giants GM. By the time I get all my rookies in the lineup and playing well, it's likely to be 2020, and I just can't believe anyone thinks Eli will be a Giant in 2020. We'll see.
26TrapDraw Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 20 hours ago, John from Riverside said: People need to be prepared that staying at 12 and picking could actually happen...... Dont set yourselves up for heartbreak To be honest I hope they do stay put. The first 4 picks will dictate moving up but getting 5 picks ( potential plug and play starters) on a team that has more holes than Dennis Huff's chicken ranch can only be a good thing. If we listened to Beane's philosophy on building a team by having a bunch of players in their rookie deals holds true. There will be a bunch of pissed off Bills fans by the end of Thursday night. Unpopular decision as it may be. It will be the best one for this team.
RochesterRob Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 1 hour ago, BeefCurtns said: To be honest I hope they do stay put. The first 4 picks will dictate moving up but getting 5 picks ( potential plug and play starters) on a team that has more holes than Dennis Huff's chicken ranch can only be a good thing. If we listened to Beane's philosophy on building a team by having a bunch of players in their rookie deals holds true. There will be a bunch of pissed off Bills fans by the end of Thursday night. Unpopular decision as it may be. It will be the best one for this team. Often the best decisions are the ones that are very unpopular at the time they are made.
Boatdrinks Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 12 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: Often the best decisions are the ones that are very unpopular at the time they are made. Just as often ( especially in Bills history) decisions that were unpopular at the time remain that way . Mostly because they were bad decisions. Bad decisions stay bad , whether they were popular or not .
buffalobloodfloridahome Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 21 hours ago, TigerJ said: If I'm Beane, I'm talking to John Elway about #5 before I talk to anybody else. If Elway is adamant about not trading, that makes me suspicious that he's after a QB. If I coveted a QB that much, I might then talk with Cleveland about #4. If Elway is TOO eager to trade, I might suspect he's not interested in a QB. At that point I might start talking with Indy or even Tampa about the terms of a trade. The only sticking point about going too low is that in raises the odds of Miami or Arizona jumping ahead of the Bills to snatch the last of the big 4. If there are 2 QBs left that I like, after the Jets get theirs, I might be more inclined to take that chance. Elway has already hinted at trading down.
TheBeane Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 Everyone seems to be talking in absolutes based off a few maybe slightly informed opinions people in the media might have. Opinions based upon smoke and mirrors that all teams are putting up during the "silly season" in the NFL. So while some theories might have higher probability than others, the only thing we can say for sure is that the bills will draft someone Thursday night. Other than that, NO ONE on this board knows $#$#@!$#! 1
Ayjent Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 I think the Bills will move up on draft day if they get an opportunity, but I think they are wise to see how things play out and if they can get a guy they want at 6 through 11 which won't cost nearly as much - then they'll try to move on it. I think standing pat is the best option if the cost is too high and Mayfield may drop into the 6-11 range because of concerns about his height and talent ceiling. Realistically though, it does seem like it is going to be a mad scramble and big run to start the draft with several QBs picks. You could see 5 go in the top 10 picks or less (Allen - Browns, Darnold - Giants, Rosen - Jets, Mayfield - Broncos, Jackson - Cardinals/Bills/Dolphins via Trade). BTW if I were the Browns I'd draft two of the top QBs and hold them for ransom, while also giving yourself a chance to put off your QB of the future decision a little longer. They'd also up the ante for any QB left over. The Browns would be silly to draft Barkley - if the Browns were on the cusp of being a real threat to get a Super Bowl, fine get your RB that is the final piece, but drafting a RB (which is the least durable position long term) with their team's talent level makes no sense. I thought the NFL was getting wise to not drafting RBs so high.
BadLandsMeanie Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 5 hours ago, Shaw66 said: Thurm, those are all good points, and you may be right. I don't agree because it's all based on the premise that the Giants think they can win in the short term. They may very well be thinking that, but as I've said, I think that's the wrong choice. When you were pretty bad, actually very bad, on both sides of the ball AND your QB has given two years of clear signs that his best years are behind him AND you have a new coach, it seems to me to be a sucker bet to think you're going to win big in the next year or two by adding a bunch of rookies. The Bills fielded a better team last season with a better QB, and we've pretty much all been convinced that the Bills need a new QB before they can make a serious Super Bowl run. I just can't see how I would reach a different conclusion if I'm the Giants GM. By the time I get all my rookies in the lineup and playing well, it's likely to be 2020, and I just can't believe anyone thinks Eli will be a Giant in 2020. We'll see. Poppycock!!
SouthNYfan Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 3 hours ago, Ayjent said: I think the Bills will move up on draft day if they get an opportunity, but I think they are wise to see how things play out and if they can get a guy they want at 6 through 11 which won't cost nearly as much - then they'll try to move on it. I think standing pat is the best option if the cost is too high and Mayfield may drop into the 6-11 range because of concerns about his height and talent ceiling. Realistically though, it does seem like it is going to be a mad scramble and big run to start the draft with several QBs picks. You could see 5 go in the top 10 picks or less (Allen - Browns, Darnold - Giants, Rosen - Jets, Mayfield - Broncos, Jackson - Cardinals/Bills/Dolphins via Trade). BTW if I were the Browns I'd draft two of the top QBs and hold them for ransom, while also giving yourself a chance to put off your QB of the future decision a little longer. They'd also up the ante for any QB left over. The Browns would be silly to draft Barkley - if the Browns were on the cusp of being a real threat to get a Super Bowl, fine get your RB that is the final piece, but drafting a RB (which is the least durable position long term) with their team's talent level makes no sense. I thought the NFL was getting wise to not drafting RBs so high. David Khan tried this in the NBA. He drafted 3 point guards in the first round one year, 2009, seen as a draft with a handful of top pgs available. Ricky Rubio #5 (seen as a project) Johnny Flynn #6 (undersized but lots of heart and from a winning college team) Ty Lawson #18 He passed on pgs: Steph Curry (went #7. The warriors practically ran to the podium) Brandon Jennings #10(won rookie of the year) Jrue Holliday #17 (multiple time all star) Jeff teague #18 (all star) A couple of others too It went terrible for the wolves though. Khan thought he could trade the pgs, but everybody knew that you can't start 3pgs, so nobody wanted to pay for them, he wound up being stuck with them. If the browns draft two top QBs, with Tyrod already on the roster, they won't get the same haul they could for say, #4 pick.
transplantbillsfan Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 20 hours ago, greeneblitz said: funny, I'm of the mind that if there is any way human possible, they're gonna trade up as far as they can to get the exact QB they desire. This just feels obvious, to me. All of the things that have unfolded over the last year have been leading up to our 1st pick on Thursday. The plan just seems so overtly out there for all to see. Shaw's OP with doubts that we could get into the top 4 is something I'm really skeptical about, but it's possible we only trade up to 5 or 6... I still think we're trading up, almost inevitably. And yes, you need trade partners. But teams like the Colts and Giants, who might think they already have their QBs in place, are significantly more likely to be willing to deal picks, especially to a team like the Bills, who have 6 picks in the first 3 rounds. Peter Schrager on GMFB this morning proposed (seemingly based on what he's hearing) that the Bills would trade up to the #6 pick with the Colts by giving them 12, 22 and 56 and then get up to #2 by giving the Giants 2 and next year's 1st. I think we'll need to throw in another pick, at that point. But if we give the Giants the 6th, they'll still get Chubb, Nelson or Barkley... all considered arguably the best players in this draft and future Gold Jacket players, which the G-Men desperately want. Everything is in play...
BadLandsMeanie Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 On 4/22/2018 at 2:46 PM, 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. You seem firm in your beliefs. But you don't go further. What will they then do if the 3 prime Qbs are gone? How will they sell that to the fan base?
OldTimer1960 Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said: This just feels obvious, to me. All of the things that have unfolded over the last year have been leading up to our 1st pick on Thursday. The plan just seems so overtly out there for all to see. Shaw's OP with doubts that we could get into the top 4 is something I'm really skeptical about, but it's possible we only trade up to 5 or 6... I still think we're trading up, almost inevitably. And yes, you need trade partners. But teams like the Colts and Giants, who might think they already have their QBs in place, are significantly more likely to be willing to deal picks, especially to a team like the Bills, who have 6 picks in the first 3 rounds. Peter Schrager on GMFB this morning proposed (seemingly based on what he's hearing) that the Bills would trade up to the #6 pick with the Colts by giving them 12, 22 and 56 and then get up to #2 by giving the Giants 2 and next year's 1st. I think we'll need to throw in another pick, at that point. But if we give the Giants the 6th, they'll still get Chubb, Nelson or Barkley... all considered arguably the best players in this draft and future Gold Jacket players, which the G-Men desperately want. Everything is in play... But that would be a horrible deal. 12, 22, 56, a top 10 pick next year and more for - a QB who could not carry his college team to great success- yet many think that magically they will do just that with a Bills team under-talented and strangled by having traded away prime draft picks.
Recommended Posts