How about this approach?

[sllib olaffub]

I had this thought the other day and it still seems like a good one: if you were all of a sudden the Bills GM and you had a new coach - you usually get a two to four year plan for a new coaching staff; well, if that is the case and if this year is deep in talent and positions of need, why not try to trade up as much as possible to secure like four or five high picks at positions of need, trading away similar picks a year or two down the road. My reasoning is that if you can stock up on talent now, then you'll have more of those two to four years as a coach to coach that talent, as opposed to dribbling it in over three or four years. Load up quick if the talent is worth trading for and let it mature together as a team. How about it?

[Pete]

ridiculous. I am going to go easy on you

[CarolinaBill]

I had this thought the other day and it still seems like a good one: if you were all of a sudden the Bills GM and you had a new coach - you usually get a two to four year plan for a new coaching staff; well, if that is the case and if this year is deep in talent and positions of need, why not try to trade up as much as possible to secure like four or five high picks at positions of need, trading away similar picks a year or two down the road. My reasoning is that if you can stock up on talent now, then you'll have more of those two to four years as a coach to coach that talent, as opposed to dribbling it in over three or four years. Load up quick if the talent is worth trading for and let it mature together as a team. How about it?

this is a case where we want to try and trade down in key spots to acquire more picks, and extra 2nd or 3rd, or trading back in the 1st, but not too much, never want to mortgage too far into the future

[Thurman#1]

1) Rookie contracts all tend to be the same length. Which means that probably five years down the road, you'd get those same four or five excellent players (let's say you hit on all of them) all due to get new contracts in the same year. Even if you renegotiated early with one guy, you're looking at a financial bloodbath down the road where you lose several guys for financial reasons.

 

2) Needs change. What if one guy turns out to be really good in a system with lots of blitzing, while another guy would be best in a system where we mostly only rushed four? What happens in the second year when a guy at a crucial position retires like Butler or gets permanently injured or thrown out of the league? When you get rid of your future picks you forfeit all your flexibility. What if you drafted a superb possession reciever and your superb QB turns out to be much better at throwing long?

 

3) Even high-round picks often need a few years to get going and get used to the system. People don't want to hear this, but it's true.

 

4) What if you draft Dez Bryant, but it turns out that James Hardy and Stevie Johnson finally get it and become stars? Someone won't get playing time, and that's the guy we would want to trade, and wouldn't get as much value for. Or the opposite; we have some young guys who look like they might become good ones, like Wood, Levitre, Nelson, Poz, Corner and McKelvin. What if they don't work out? You blew the picks on what you thought you would need, but you now turn out to need 2 OLs, a TE, an ILB and 2CBs in the worst way and don't have the picks to do anything about it.

 

The bottom line is that you never know in the present what you will need in the future.

 

Also, do you think nobody has ever figured that method out before? And yet no good team has ever used it. That should show you there's a hole there.

 

Oh, one other problem is that next year's first pick doesn't bring a first pick this year, it brings a second this year. Next year's second-rounder doesn't bring a second-rounder this year, it brings a third-rounder. That's because with most coaches wanting to succeed now, not later, possible future picks that they might not even be around to see are worth less than what they have today. So making those trades you would get lower-round guys, you would get lower-round picks for each guy, you lower the calibre of your ammunition. The teams that make out in terms of ammunition are those who have the confidence to do the opposite, to trade this year's second-rounder for next year's first-rounder.

[Thoner7]

Not a bad thought for a coach on a short leash. Why would he care about the teams future when he wouldnt be coaching it?

[BillsVet]

Rebuilding teams add draft picks, at least those that rebuild successfully. Buffalo's been rebuilding since 2006, and not surprisingly, they surrendered picks for that year and the following one to move up. They also did that last year, and IIRC, haven't traded down since 2001 when Clements was their first selection.

 

Draft picks are an increasingly valuable commodity in today's NFL with veteran pay being what it is. They have too many needs to be going after one guy.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

The other problem is future picks are worth less than current years. So to trade for another teams say second round pick, you'd likely need to give up maybe your first from the following year, plus maybe a 4th and 5th from this year. You'd quickly run out of picks. If you look at the draft pick value charts, they say deduct one pounds worth of points for a future year. So next years 1st rounder is worth what this years 2nd rounder is worth.

[nichebiche]

Not to mention that there will likely be some form of a rookie salary cap or restrictions in the next Cba, making pcks in future years all the more valuable to teams like the Bills