BeastMode54 Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 If, and this is a big if, Claussen is there at 9 or Bradford, and we decide we want to go OT (most likely either one of Davis, Bulaga, or Campbell will be there too), a team hungry for a QB with a more NFL ready line might be willing to swap picks with us. This way we add a high pick, AND get the OT that we so desperately need. Thoughts?
CarolinaBill Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 its possible, i guess it all depends on where clause and the other qb's grade out
DrDawkinstein Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 this trade down idea is REVOLUTIONARY! (i keed) if youre serious, then the answer is either "who are we going to trade with?" or "stay at your spot and get your guy" this is a better tackle class than it is a QB class, so if we can still grab a top OT at 9, stay there and grab him.
John from Riverside Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 This idea has merit.....especially if you can trade down slightly and still get Beluga or Campbell Nix can turn that extra pick into a solid player for us......
BeastMode54 Posted January 26, 2010 Author Posted January 26, 2010 This idea has merit.....especially if you can trade down slightly and still get Beluga or Campbell Nix can turn that extra pick into a solid player for us...... that's what I was getting at
Cash Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 We're a team hungry for a QB. If you don't have a QB, you never pass up a chance to get a franchise QB. We can spend the remaining 8 picks on O-line if you want, just don't pass up a potential franchise QB.
BeastMode54 Posted January 26, 2010 Author Posted January 26, 2010 We're a team hungry for a QB. If you don't have a QB, you never pass up a chance to get a franchise QB. We can spend the remaining 8 picks on O-line if you want, just don't pass up a potential franchise QB. But then what's the point of a QB if he has no time to throw the ball and no ability to run?
Bill from NYC Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 But then what's the point of a QB if he has no time to throw the ball and no ability to run? There is none, but you will be reading this, and a ton of other justifications for not drafting a blue chip LT.
bananathumb Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 In the past, the Bills have simply been too lazt to work out the complications of a trade-down. This year, I agree that it makes a lot of sense to trade down. I mean, there are about five first round OTs available and the best guard in the draft, Iupati, looks like he can also play tackle. But this is the Bills we are talking about. If there is a trade-down, it would give me a lot of confidence in Nix and Co. On other hand, no-one is going to want one of this year's QB as high as 9. However, if McClain was still there when we pick, Denver or Miami might want him.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 In the past, the Bills have simply been too lazt to work out the complications of a trade-down. This year, I agree that it makes a lot of sense to trade down. I mean, there are about five first round OTs available and the best guard in the draft, Iupati, looks like he can also play tackle. But this is the Bills we are talking about. If there is a trade-down, it would give me a lot of confidence in Nix and Co. On other hand, no-one is going to want one of this year's QB as high as 9. However, if McClain was still there when we pick, Denver or Miami might want him. this statement is completely made up in your own head.
Brandon Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 But then what's the point of a QB if he has no time to throw the ball and no ability to run? Its not an all or nothing proposition. They would still have eight more picks to work with. That's true of the QB position as well, but I think this is a much, much better draft for OTs than QBs and that they stand a much better chance of getting a quality LT prospect in R2 than they do a QB.
bananathumb Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 this statement is completely made up in your own head. Well, where else would I get it? It's obviously just my impression after watching the draft for years when plenty of opportunites were there for them to trade down.
PromoTheRobot Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 Considering how many needs we have to fill, I am not averse to trading down. I have nightmares of drafting a stud like McLain who decides to hold out because he doesn't want to play in Buffalo. (The media has done such a great job of poisoning our reputation I think it's a real possibility.) If we can get a low #1 and a couple of #2's I think we can really improve our lines. PTR
Chef Jim Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 This idea has merit.....especially if you can trade down slightly and still get Beluga or Campbell Nix can turn that extra pick into a solid player for us...... Mmmmmm, caviar.
DarthICE Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 If, and this is a big if, Claussen is there at 9 or Bradford, and we decide we want to go OT (most likely either one of Davis, Bulaga, or Campbell will be there too), a team hungry for a QB with a more NFL ready line might be willing to swap picks with us. This way we add a high pick, AND get the OT that we so desperately need. Thoughts? If either QB is there you take them
Ever Since '86 Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 You never know there might be a guy a team wants bad enough to trade up for. I feel like this draft is going to be more exciting then the Mckelvin class, well atleast imo it was.
billsfaningeneseo Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 Why don't we just acknowledge the fact that some of us are going to be pissed no matter what happens and instead of guessing ahead of time, just wait and see? Or does that take all the fun out of it?
Cash Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 But then what's the point of a QB if he has no time to throw the ball and no ability to run? I must have missed the part where once you draft a potential franchise QB, you're then required to ignore the O-line forever. Good LTs are hard to find, but much easier to find than good QBs. Never pass on a potential franchise QB unless you already have an actual franchise QB on your roster.
Kingfish Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 Remember when the Bills traded down and Chuck Dickerson went ballistic because they passed on Kenyatta Walker?
tennesseeboy Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 If, and this is a big if, Claussen is there at 9 or Bradford, and we decide we want to go OT (most likely either one of Davis, Bulaga, or Campbell will be there too), a team hungry for a QB with a more NFL ready line might be willing to swap picks with us. This way we add a high pick, AND get the OT that we so desperately need. Thoughts? Interesting possibility and I see your reasoning. Me, I'd take the best OT available at 9 (Probably Anthony Davis). If Davis is gone and Clausen or Bradford are there I'd be VERY tempted to trade down and take Beluga or Campbell.
Recommended Posts