Jump to content


Photo

Trading back into Round 1 for a QB


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#41 Captain Murica

Captain Murica

    How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:36 PM

Thank god, you're not the GM. I don't mind taking one after the 1st round but to waste our top 10 pick on a qb is a really bad idea. Seeing as we restructured Tyrod and have more holes to fill other than QB. Still need a safety, corner back, will lb, and #2 WR.

#42 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,163 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:38 PM

If you can get another pick with a smart move down and still get your guy, then do it. Thing is there is no real consensus and we don't know if the Bills really like any of these QBs. Drafting a guy at 10 doesn't make him any better of a QB.


Suppose the team's favorite QB is Mahomes, and they have him ranked as the 20th player on their board.

They figure it's smart business to acquire more picks, so they drop back to, say, 18th, figuring that he'll still be available.

Now suppose that they aren't alone in having Mahomes as their QB1, and a team like Arizona takes him at 13 to groom behind Palmer.

That's a bad day at the office--losing out on your preferred option in the name of garnering more picks.

Thank god, you're not the GM. I don't mind taking one after the 1st round but to waste our top 10 pick on a qb is a really bad idea. Seeing as we restructured Tyrod and have more holes to fill other than QB. Still need a safety, corner back, will lb, and #2 WR.


A waste?

:lol:

Get the right QB and the remainder of the "holes" on this team will matter a whole lot less.

Drafting to fill holes is how teams end up reaching.

#43 3rdand12

3rdand12

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,714 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:43 PM

Horrible idea, we only have 6 picks as it is. If they really want one of the 4 qbs either take one right at 10 or trade down and take one.

You avatar is never tiring. Seriously nailed it on so many levels.

 

I would be vehemently against losing any picks for any player this year. As a matter of fact, i strongly subscribe to adding picks if not actually trading up for next seasons Draft.

Of course i want a QB drafted too till we find the Ring. Bills are in perfect position to develop one for 1-2 years right now.

But losing any draft positions or picks before the 5th round is a absolute No No at this point in the Team development

 

IMO



#44 Adam727

Adam727

    Probation

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:43 PM

This is a tough call.  Assuming Buffalo doesn't think a QB is worth taking at 10 then the bottom of round 1 becomes a good spot to try to get somebody.  (None of the top 4 will last past all the QB needy teams at the top of round 2, if they even make it that far, which I think is a big if)  But if they draft a top QB I'd like to see them draft in the 1st round to get that 5th year option so OBD has plenty of time to evaluate before they need to hand out their next 100+mil QB contract, since OBD has almost screwed those up twice now.. Normally I'd say use a 2 & 3 to move up into the bottom of round 1.  But our secondary is a mess and this is supposed to be a draft where you can find starters in the 2/3/4th rounds at DB.  Our 4th pick is already gone, I'd hate to give up 2/3 and have no middle round picks to address the secondary.  I'd be equally as upset if the Bills gave up next year's first to get any of this year's QBs.  So I don't hate the idea but don't know what I'd be willing to give up to get back into the 1st round.  

 

If the Bills are looking at a QB but don't want one at 10, I think I'd rather see them move down and try to get a 2018 1st.  Or maybe an extra 2nd this year.  



#45 3rdand12

3rdand12

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,714 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:44 PM

Suppose the team's favorite QB is Mahomes, and they have him ranked as the 20th player on their board.

They figure it's smart business to acquire more picks, so they drop back to, say, 18th, figuring that he'll still be available.

Now suppose that they aren't alone in having Mahomes as their QB1, and a team like Arizona takes him at 13 to groom behind Palmer.

That's a bad day at the office--losing out on your preferred option in the name of garnering more picks.

A waste?

:lol:

Get the right QB and the remainder of the "holes" on this team will matter a whole lot less.

Drafting to fill holes is how teams end up reaching.

If they see a guy they feel strongly about? take him asap. like at 12  :beer:



#46 Captain Murica

Captain Murica

    How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:49 PM

Suppose the team's favorite QB is Mahomes, and they have him ranked as the 20th player on their board.
They figure it's smart business to acquire more picks, so they drop back to, say, 18th, figuring that he'll still be available.
Now suppose that they aren't alone in having Mahomes as their QB1, and a team like Arizona takes him at 13 to groom behind Palmer.
That's a bad day at the office--losing out on your preferred option in the name of garnering more picks.

A waste?
:lol:
Get the right QB and the remainder of the "holes" on this team will matter a whole lot less.
Drafting to fill holes is how teams end up reaching.


You mean like reaching for quarterback? Yeah, tell that to the chargers and saints.They both have future HOF QBs, yet, they are still on the outside looking in. Hmmmmm I wonder why?

#47 hemma

hemma

    UDFA

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 53 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:50 PM

I'd take Nathan Peterman in the 3rd.

 

I'd say take him in the 4th, but somebody used this year's 4th last year by trading up.



#48 FireChan

FireChan

    All Pro

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,964 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:50 PM

You mean like reaching for quarterback? Yeah, tell that to the chargers and saints.They both have future HOF QBs, yet, they are still on the outside looking in. Hmmmmm I wonder why?

You think the Chargers and Saints would be better without their QB's?  Or that drafting QB's has harmed them?



#49 Dragonborn10

Dragonborn10

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,387 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:56 PM

The only way I would support a QB in the first round is if the trade way way back into the 20's. That would mean they would get an extra second and a first in 2018. Then they can take a QB in the late first round. That would leave two seconds and a third for two DB's and a LB.

Full disclosure, I would not draft any of these QB's in the first round. My strategy would be to move back only a few spots, take Howard or BPA, then hope Mahomes falls to the Bills in the second round.

Any trade up this year for a QB is career suicide for Whaley.

#50 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,163 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:56 PM

You mean like reaching for quarterback? Yeah, tell that to the chargers and saints.They both have future HOF QBs, yet, they are still on the outside looking in. Hmmmmm I wonder why?


Silly me; I could've sworn that NO won a Super Bowl with that QB.

I could also swear that SD has been to the playoffs with Rivers more times in the last decade than the number of times this team has had a winning season in 15 years

#51 Captain Murica

Captain Murica

    How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:57 PM

You think the Chargers and Saints would be better without their QB's?  Or that drafting QB's has harmed them?


Are you just trolling? If you didn't read my post before then I can see why you're confused. I'm implying it's a team game, stating we just need to get a franchise qb will solve all our problems is just foolish. Yeah would it help, damn straight it would, but you cannot neglect all the other positions because you have a franchise qb.

Even Brady needed his number 1 scoring defense to win the Super Bowl this past season.

#52 Boatdrinks

Boatdrinks

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,431 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:00 PM

Suppose the team's favorite QB is Mahomes, and they have him ranked as the 20th player on their board.
They figure it's smart business to acquire more picks, so they drop back to, say, 18th, figuring that he'll still be available.
Now suppose that they aren't alone in having Mahomes as their QB1, and a team like Arizona takes him at 13 to groom behind Palmer.
That's a bad day at the office--losing out on your preferred option in the name of garnering more picks.

A waste?
:lol:
Get the right QB and the remainder of the "holes" on this team will matter a whole lot less.
Drafting to fill holes is how teams end up reaching.

If they feel that strongly about Mahomes they likely wouldn't move down that many picks. Moving 8 spots is a big move and if they did that they obviously are ok with the possibility of a specific guy not being there.

Edited by Boatdrinks, 19 March 2017 - 03:00 PM.


#53 xRUSHx

xRUSHx

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 258 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:03 PM

Just take him at 10

#54 FireChan

FireChan

    All Pro

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,964 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:05 PM

Are you just trolling? If you didn't read my post before then I can see why you're confused. I'm implying it's a team game, stating we just need to get a franchise qb will solve all our problems is just foolish. Yeah would it help, damn straight it would, but you cannot neglect all the other positions because you have a franchise qb.

Even Brady needed his number 1 scoring defense to win the Super Bowl this past season.

Who is doing that?

 

If you take a QB with 1 pick, you know how many other positions you could've filled with that pick?  1.   So what are you really saying here?



#55 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,163 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:08 PM

If they feel that strongly about Mahomes they likely wouldn't move down that many picks. Moving 8 spots is a big move and if they did that they obviously are ok with the possibility of a specific guy not being there.


That's the whole point: if you have "a guy", then you don't risk missing out on him by trading down.

Are you just trolling? If you didn't read my post before then I can see why you're confused. I'm implying it's a team game, stating we just need to get a franchise qb will solve all our problems is just foolish. Yeah would it help, damn straight it would, but you cannot neglect all the other positions because you have a franchise qb.

Even Brady needed his number 1 scoring defense to win the Super Bowl this past season.


Nobody said that.

We are saying that if you feel that a guy is franchise QB material, and you don't have one (or even sometimes if you do), then that guy should be your pick; no exceptions.

#56 John from Hemet

John from Hemet

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,767 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:09 PM

I'd take Nathan Peterman in the 3rd.

 

I'd say take him in the 4th, but somebody used this year's 4th last year by trading up.

To take what might have been the best MLB in last years draft



#57 3rdand12

3rdand12

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,714 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:13 PM

To take what might have been the best MLB in last years draft

Conjecture !!

 I move for dismissal  from the records Judge



#58 Commonsense

Commonsense

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,886 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:16 PM

That's the whole point: if you have "a guy", then you don't risk missing out on him by trading down.

Nobody said that.

We are saying that if you feel that a guy is franchise QB material, and you don't have one (or even sometimes if you do), then that guy should be your pick; no exceptions.


I'm on this boat. Find the guy, pick the guy. If he wasn't worth taking at 10 and you felt the need to trade down to 16-20 to take him, then you shouldn't be drafting him at all. You're guy should leave you sweating bullets in the war room while you see pick after pick go by....now he is still on the board at 10....smiles, high fives, make the selection.

#59 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,071 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:22 PM

No idea, but Mahomes had been my QB1 since June.

The mistake some organizations often make is that sometimes they identify a player at a position and then the player is selected ahead of them by someone else. That doesn't necessarily mean that the second or third best option on your board can't turn out to be a better player. Last year, the Cowboys coveted Lynch as a qb but he was picked ahead of them by the Broncos who moved back into the first round. They then set their eyes on Connor Cook who was surprisingly taken by the Raiders. So as a consolation they selected Prescott. The rest is history. 

 

Especially for a team such as the Bills that doesn't have a franchise qb on the roster you have to not only be aggressive in your pursuit of a qb but you have to keep at it until you find our qb. As far as I am concerned being lackadaisical and passive in the pursuit of a qb when you haven't had one on your roster for twenty years is tantamount to being derelict in one's duty as a GM and front office. When you don't do what is required to do to be a success in this profession (securing a franchise qb) then you are a failure. 



#60 Saint Doug

Saint Doug

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:26 PM

We are only "mortgaging the future" if we trade back into Round 1 or trade picks to move up. That said, if there is a guy at 10 they must have, take him. If not, trade down to 20 or so and pick him then. It worked last time ;)