Thread: Would You Trade #5 Overall Pick To Bills For #21 and #22?

Originally Posted by slim

Negative. Kyle Orton sucks!

Orton is what we have now. Taylor would be a massive upgrade over all that shit.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

Orton is what we have now. Taylor would be a massive upgrade over all that shit.

Tyrod has played in 58 career games and has thrown 18 interceptions.

Siemian has played in 26 career games and thrown 24 interceptions.

Not only no, but wtf is wrong with King?! Unless the GM blows it, a top five pick is a franchise player; the kind you build a roster around for the next decade. To cite a convenient example: (By far) the best player the Broncos have is a #2 overall pick drafted 7 years ago. Is that worth a couple starting-to-mediocre players from the bottom of the 1st round? HELL, no! Lack of players like that isn't what took us from 12-4 SB Champs to 9-7 non-qualifiers to a 5-11 bottom five team just that fast.

Top five picks are precious as much for rarity as potency. That's why the closer a team gets to the #1 overall pick, the better off they are going BPA instead of trying to call their shot in hopes the "best" at a given position that year at least makes the roster. We're 5-11: Name three positions where The X of the Decade wouldn't instantly dramatically improve the team. This isn't a Shane Ray scenario, where even a pretty good player at a particular spot's likely to wait MULTIPLE years behind MULTIPLE probable HoFers before becoming a regular contributor. A bona fide top five talent virtually ANYWHERE would start games NOW, likely winning 2-3 more than last year.

No one drools over the prospect of an extra #20-32 pick, certainly not at the cost of a #5. Every single playoff team gets a pick like that, but how much did they help us all those seasons we reached the playoffs only to come up short because we had too few players capable of taking over games and dominating opponents? Did we win SB 50 because former #137 overall pick Malik Jackson fell on a fumble in the end zone, or because former #11 overall pick DeMarcus Ware was just a beat behind him after former #2 overall pick Von Miller forced the fumble in the first place? How many #20-32 picks would the Colts have taken for the #1 overall picks they spent on Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck—and how much good would that have done?

Unless you're the Browns, use your top five overall picks to get the top five overall PLAYERS a team that picks in the top five desperately needs.

Originally Posted by slim

Tyrod has played in 58 career games and has thrown 18 interceptions.

Siemian has played in 26 career games and thrown 24 interceptions.

and how many of those starts has taylor thrown for over 300 yards? like 3 of them? sure, he's good at not throwing picks when you're willing to get by with 185 passing yards and 1 TD per game. . . we wouldn't have had all those 20+ point blowouts with him last year, but what's he ultimately good for? 2-3 more wins? do you think he's a guy we'd have much chance of winning playoff games with? if not, what's the point? why settle for a one-read, low production game manager when we don't have the '15 defense anymore? i don't care if it's kirk for the big dollars, a top rookie, or even trying to make something out of an AJ mccarron or teddy bridgewater, but i personally have zero interest in crankshaft taylor. . . JMO, obviously. . . if we're not going to compete for a title this year, then i want to at least be building towards a team that can. . . getting stuck in neutral with a low ceiling guy like taylor doesn't move that plan forward in any way i can see. . . he's fine if the objective is just plain and simple "be better than last year," but i don't see where he fits in any bigger plan than that. . .

I get not wanting Kirk. That's a lot of cash. But if you are going Taylor, you might as well keep your top 5 pick and draft a QB, you've got better odds of hitting at 5 than you do with Tyrod and some late round rookie.

If we trade for Tyrod, we still have to draft a QB. If we draft a QB, that QB sure as hell better be starting in game one.

Just say no to project QBs.

The trade scenario that is offered up in the OP is only possible if we sign Cousins, IMHO.
Taylor is oknky in play as a mentor/stopgap option.

Originally Posted by dogfish

and how many of those starts has taylor thrown for over 300 yards? like 3 of them? sure, he's good at not throwing picks when you're willing to get by with 185 passing yards and 1 TD per game. . . we wouldn't have had all those 20+ point blowouts with him last year, but what's he ultimately good for? 2-3 more wins? do you think he's a guy we'd have much chance of winning playoff games with? if not, what's the point? why settle for a one-read, low production game manager when we don't have the '15 defense anymore? i don't care if it's kirk for the big dollars, a top rookie, or even trying to make something out of an AJ mccarron or teddy bridgewater, but i personally have zero interest in crankshaft taylor. . . JMO, obviously. . . if we're not going to compete for a title this year, then i want to at least be building towards a team that can. . . getting stuck in neutral with a low ceiling guy like taylor doesn't move that plan forward in any way i can see. . . he's fine if the objective is just plain and simple "be better than last year," but i don't see where he fits in any bigger plan than that. . .

I agree with you. I'm only arguing that he is better than Siemian. Nothing more.

I don't know why I'm in this argument, TBQH.

Originally Posted by slim

I agree with you. I'm only arguing that he is better than Siemian. Nothing more.

I don't know why I'm in this argument, TBQH.

Ok, so lets say we conceed and agree he's better than TS. What does that accomplish? He's marginally better at best in that he doesn't throw interceptions, but that still doesn't make him a QB you want to build a franchise around so where does that leave us?

Originally Posted by Freyaka

Ok, so lets say we conceed and agree he's better than TS. What does that accomplish? He's marginally better at best in that he doesn't throw interceptions, but that still doesn't make him a QB you want to build a franchise around so where does that leave us?

It leaves us with a good option for backup QB and a potential short-term starter while Baker gets ready.

Originally Posted by slim

I agree with you. I'm only arguing that he is better than Siemian. Nothing more.

I don't know why I'm in this argument, TBQH.

oh. . . well shit, neither do i. . .

Originally Posted by slim

It leaves us with a good option for backup QB and a potential short-term starter while Baker gets ready.

Ok, if we're getting Baker (which I'm fine with by the way) we aren't trading back to Buffalo, so then we're giving up picks for Tyrod. I don't think he's worth whatever pick he'd likely command when there are other FA options not currently under a contract that would make more viable sense.

I dont know. I think Rudolph could be there at 21. Taylor for now with Rudolph later and I might be inclined. But only if I knew I could use #22 on Will Hernandez

Originally Posted by Freyaka

Ok, if we're getting Baker (which I'm fine with by the way) we aren't trading back to Buffalo, so then we're giving up picks for Tyrod. I don't think he's worth whatever pick he'd likely command when there are other FA options not currently under a contract that would make more viable sense.

i'll take it a step further. . . if we're drafting mayfield, start that little runt. . . even if the bills released taylor, i wouldn't want to pay him 18 million or whatever / year to keep our first round pick on the bench, OR to back him up. . . if you have super bowl aspirations, you need a high-priced backup. . . if you have vance joseph, you let lynch or chad kelly get a look if your preferred starter gets dinged up. . . JMO. . . but i'd 100% rather use that large chunk of cap space to keep aqib talib-- or sign a younger corner, or get one of the best vet tackles on the market, or sign a capable inside linebacker or TE. . .

Originally Posted by dogfish

i'll take it a step further. . . if we're drafting mayfield, start that little runt. . . even if the bills released taylor, i wouldn't want to pay him 18 million or whatever / year to keep our first round pick on the bench, OR to back him up. . . if you have super bowl aspirations, you need a high-priced backup. . . if you have vance joseph, you let lynch or chad kelly get a look if your preferred starter gets dinged up. . . JMO. . . but i'd 100% rather use that large chunk of cap space to keep aqib talib-- or sign a younger corner, or get one of the best vet tackles on the market, or sign a capable inside linebacker or TE. . .

Honestly, that would be my ideal situation (outside of Kirk, because obviously...I prefer Kirk) Baker and Kelly. If Baker struggles or gets injured, we aren't going all the way anyway so then Kelly can grow either as the backup or the starter due to injury. (Baker would be the unquestioned starter at that point obviously. Even if he does struggle.)

The FA QB's are all going to command around $20 mil. At that point, why not shell out the extra $10 mil for a QB that can be your franchise QB for 5 to 10 years?

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I dont know. I think Rudolph could be there at 21. Taylor for now with Rudolph later and I might be inclined. But only if I knew I could use #22 on Will Hernandez

And then in two years when "oops...Rudolph wasn't the guy we though he was" we're back to drafting QB's again because Taylor didn't pan out?

If we're going to draft a QB, we're only going to be HOPEFULLY in a top 5 position once for about another 5-10 years, might as well grab a guy that is towards the top of his class rather than a midpack project that may or may not pan out.

That's my opinion anyway.