To: "But, why didn't we trade down?" people

[OCinBuffalo]

I firmly believe this is total BS.

And here is my lone fact to back that up, and mind you, it cannot be disputed. The product on the field is proof itself.

 

FACT: The Buffalo Bills have so many roster as well as depth needs that trading down, even to the middle of the 1st round would greatly benefit this teams roster as well as depth problems.

FACT: You live in fantasyland, where teams are willing to give up all of this year's draft, and all but #1 of next year's, to trade up from 15-17 to #3.

 

FACT: You are the very type of poster this thread was designed to expose. Since you live in fantasyland, you believe that trading down to 15-17 is not only possible, but likely! And you will start moronic threads claiming that you "know" it could have been done.

 

The chart is a guide, if a tema is desperate to move up, they will over pay as if a team is desperate to move down, they wil ltake les than the cart says they should get. If some team is totally in love wit hsome player at #3, they'd likely pay extra, but does that player exist this year?

This is the false premise the "trade down" tweet/story is based on: the assertion that another team would have overpaid for us to trade down, and that we didn't take the deal. How can you say that? What proof do you have?

 

The problem is: we never hear what the deal actually was. Or, we never hear both sides confirm what the deal actually was.

 

Instead we are left with moronic: "The Skins were willing to trade up to Buffalo's #3, and give away their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, next year's 3rd, and Albert Haynesworth...really!" stories that have no possible way of being accurate, never mind no way to confirm.

 

Then, some dolt links the story and much time is wasting debating a useless assertion based on a false premise.

[Cson76]

One thing that hurts our chances of trading this year is the CBA. If no new deal is in place, players can not be traded. You can trade picks, just not players.

[muggins]

History is on my side.

No it isn't.

 

Thanks OP, this should be stickied. The one thread where people were claiming the Cowboys would basically trade their entire draft to us was hilarious.

 

2004 was a big year for "trading down" (a great draft class, Eli wouldn't play in SD). After that, there wasn't any trading down done in the top 10 until 2009 when Dirty Sanchez was taken. Cleveland traded down, then traded down again. TB got Josh Freeman out of the deal. Cleveland got... Mohammad Massequoi, David Veikune (not on the team) and a CB (in the UFL).

Edited January 14, 2011 by mugginns12

[Homey D. Clown]

I know this sounds a little cynical, but until there is a new CBA in place, nothing really matters. As of right now, there will be no games played in 2011, and God forbid Ralph is no longer with us before an agreement is reached, it is quite possible that we have all seen the last football played in western NY. There's no denying that, and especially since the stadium lease is up in 2012 with no signs of a new one on the horizon.

 

Sorry to be a downer, but this has been in the back of my mind all season, and this upcoming draft just doesn't excite me. Until the league figures things out, and some glimmer of hope shows it's face regarding the team's future in Buffalo, I just find it hard to be able to enjoy "future" prospects.

 

Slam me if you like, but ignoring that it's there doesn't make it go away, just like a cavity, or rust on a car.

[Thoner7]

Im calling shenanigans. You think its impossible to trade down like it never happens. Well, the patriots have only used – ONE – of their naturally aspired draft picks in the last 2 drafts. That means they have traded their picks a whopping 13 times!!!! This doesn’t even count all the other teams picks they have acquired and then traded again. Do you really think people love to trade with the Pats but wont even consider doing it with us?

 

How can it be so impossible to trade when one team does it over and over and over?

 

If you saw that Tebow documentary, you would have seen Tebow’s agent talking about all the trades being discussed and predicting the exact trades that were going to happen before the draft, only to have that exact scenario pan out. He said the Broncos had talked about trading back from their first pick (which they did) and that they contacted every single team between 22 and 28 and talked trades, which they ended up doing TWICE. If its so impossible to trade, then how did Denver pull off 3 in the 1st round which they planned on doing over a week in advanced?

 

You are naïve if you think its impossible to trade a pick. In fact, I better every single pick in the first round is offered a trade, its just a matter of accepting the offer or not. That value chart you posted over values high picks IMO. If I am GM, Id take a 3rd rounder to drop back to 10-12 and be very happy about it, yet that chart says I would have gotten screwed. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I would take the extra picks in that case. Maybe Buddy wont be happy with only a 3rd, or a late 2nd, and doesn’t want to trade, but don’t try to argue that no team even discussed a trade with us because that is pure shenanigans.

[Rock'em Sock'em]

2nd rounders seem to be the sweet spot of the draft.

There are easy to sign and show up to camp on time.

They have cap-friendly contracts.

You avoid handing $20 million to a 20 year-old kid who may lose or not have hunger to be great.

You have money leftover to sign your own FAs as well as other proven FAs.

 

The bottom line is the draft is a bit of a crapshoop, and the 1st round is not excluded.

 

I like the way NE manages their draft picks.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

First off, don't yell at me, I'm agreeing with you.

 

I was responding the the post where someone stated, "Look at prior trades, that proves teams don't go by the chart "

 

The chart is a guide, Ideally every trade would work out exactly even points. In reality, most trades will come up either a little bit under or over depending on how much a team wants to trade up or down. Would some team give us all seven picks to move up, I highly doubt it. But if the chart states some team should be giving up say a 1st thru 3rd and next years 4th to trade with Cinny for the #4 overall, not to say we couldn't agree faster to the same trade and they'd be getting the #3 overall. In theory that means we should be getting a better deal than they offered for the #4 overall, but maybe we want the extra picks more and we take the deal. The chart would show we came out behind, but not by a huge amount. Would it be terrible for us notgetting perfect "chart value" but getting the extra picks, no. But likely there'd be a bunch of posts refrerencing the chart and how we got screwed and our front office are jerks.

 

But totally agree with a spot in the top 5, hard to trade down more than a couple of spots, maybe 6 or 7 would be the lowest. Look at how much the Giants gave up to move from #4 to #1 overall for Eli Manning. Would have been very toughthough for a team picking much lowerthan the Giants to be able to offer enough to make the trade.

 

 

FACT: You live in fantasyland, where teams are willing to give up all of this year's draft, and all but #1 of next year's, to trade up from 15-17 to #3.

 

FACT: You are the very type of poster this thread was designed to expose. Since you live in fantasyland, you believe that trading down to 15-17 is not only possible, but likely! And you will start moronic threads claiming that you "know" it could have been done.

 

 

This is the false premise the "trade down" tweet/story is based on: the assertion that another team would have overpaid for us to trade down, and that we didn't take the deal. How can you say that? What proof do you have?

 

The problem is: we never hear what the deal actually was. Or, we never hear both sides confirm what the deal actually was.

 

Instead we are left with moronic: "The Skins were willing to trade up to Buffalo's #3, and give away their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, next year's 3rd, and Albert Haynesworth...really!" stories that have no possible way of being accurate, never mind no way to confirm.

 

Then, some dolt links the story and much time is wasting debating a useless assertion based on a false premise.

[muggins]

Im calling shenanigans. You think its impossible to trade down like it never happens. Well, the patriots have only used – ONE – of their naturally aspired draft picks in the last 2 drafts. That means they have traded their picks a whopping 13 times!!!! This doesn’t even count all the other teams picks they have acquired and then traded again. Do you really think people love to trade with the Pats but wont even consider doing it with us?

 

How can it be so impossible to trade when one team does it over and over and over?

 

If you saw that Tebow documentary, you would have seen Tebow’s agent talking about all the trades being discussed and predicting the exact trades that were going to happen before the draft, only to have that exact scenario pan out. He said the Broncos had talked about trading back from their first pick (which they did) and that they contacted every single team between 22 and 28 and talked trades, which they ended up doing TWICE. If its so impossible to trade, then how did Denver pull off 3 in the 1st round which they planned on doing over a week in advanced?

 

You are naïve if you think its impossible to trade a pick. In fact, I better every single pick in the first round is offered a trade, its just a matter of accepting the offer or not. That value chart you posted over values high picks IMO. If I am GM, Id take a 3rd rounder to drop back to 10-12 and be very happy about it, yet that chart says I would have gotten screwed. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I would take the extra picks in that case. Maybe Buddy wont be happy with only a 3rd, or a late 2nd, and doesn’t want to trade, but don’t try to argue that no team even discussed a trade with us because that is pure shenanigans.

Prove it.

[OCinBuffalo]

Im calling shenanigans. You think its impossible to trade down like it never happens. Well, the patriots have only used – ONE – of their naturally aspired draft picks in the last 2 drafts. That means they have traded their picks a whopping 13 times!!!! This doesn’t even count all the other teams picks they have acquired and then traded again. Do you really think people love to trade with the Pats but wont even consider doing it with us?

 

How can it be so impossible to trade when one team does it over and over and over?

 

If you saw that Tebow documentary, you would have seen Tebow’s agent talking about all the trades being discussed and predicting the exact trades that were going to happen before the draft, only to have that exact scenario pan out. He said the Broncos had talked about trading back from their first pick (which they did) and that they contacted every single team between 22 and 28 and talked trades, which they ended up doing TWICE. If its so impossible to trade, then how did Denver pull off 3 in the 1st round which they planned on doing over a week in advanced?

 

You are naïve if you think its impossible to trade a pick. In fact, I better every single pick in the first round is offered a trade, its just a matter of accepting the offer or not. That value chart you posted over values high picks IMO. If I am GM, Id take a 3rd rounder to drop back to 10-12 and be very happy about it, yet that chart says I would have gotten screwed. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I would take the extra picks in that case. Maybe Buddy wont be happy with only a 3rd, or a late 2nd, and doesn’t want to trade, but don’t try to argue that no team even discussed a trade with us because that is pure shenanigans.

Reading comprehension is important.

 

1. Trading from #24 overall to #34 overall is not even in the same universe as trading from #3 to #10. It's like the difference between a jellyfish and an elephant.

2. I distinctly said "since 2005". I said that because that's how long I have been here, and my annoyance with unsupported "trade down" bot threads has been omnipresent.

3. Where the hell did I say it's impossible for teams to trade down? Hint: I didn't. I SPECIFICALLY referred to the Bills, and OUR draft position only, in the years since 2005, and, ESPECIALLY THIS YEAR.

4. You are in the company of exactly 0 General Managers who would take only 1 3rd rounder for moving down 7-9 spots from #3. Just thought you should know.

5. Honestly, what happens if the scenario in 4 happens? Are you going to be defending Nix to everyone here, "because you'd do the same thing"? Of course not.

[OCinBuffalo]

First off, don't yell at me, I'm agreeing with you.

 

I was responding the the post where someone stated, "Look at prior trades, that proves teams don't go by the chart "

 

The chart is a guide, Ideally every trade would work out exactly even points. In reality, most trades will come up either a little bit under or over depending on how much a team wants to trade up or down. Would some team give us all seven picks to move up, I highly doubt it. But if the chart states some team should be giving up say a 1st thru 3rd and next years 4th to trade with Cinny for the #4 overall, not to say we couldn't agree faster to the same trade and they'd be getting the #3 overall. In theory that means we should be getting a better deal than they offered for the #4 overall, but maybe we want the extra picks more and we take the deal. The chart would show we came out behind, but not by a huge amount. Would it be terrible for us notgetting perfect "chart value" but getting the extra picks, no. But likely there'd be a bunch of posts refrerencing the chart and how we got screwed and our front office are jerks.

 

But totally agree with a spot in the top 5, hard to trade down more than a couple of spots, maybe 6 or 7 would be the lowest. Look at how much the Giants gave up to move from #4 to #1 overall for Eli Manning. Would have been very toughthough for a team picking much lowerthan the Giants to be able to offer enough to make the trade.

Not yelling at you: my response to you, and another, got combined = a new, annoying "feature" of this version of the message board software.

 

You seem to get the concept, but yeah, people would be yelling that we should have also got a 4th in the deal you describe...because that's the difference between our spot, and the Bengals. Although those people would be accurate, I can see why we would want to forgo the extra 4....all depends on whether the people we traded down to get are there, and that we take them. If you can pull 3 starters out of the first 2 rounds, that's a win, all day.

 

Right, as I said, 4-8 is reasonable, 9-10 are only their because the owners are egomaniacal meddlers. Therefore, we can agree that anybody suggesting a trade down, from 3 to 15-17 on draft picks alone is fooling themselves, right?

[SDS]

I think I would rather club baby seals for a living than have to read the non-stop chatter of the trade-down crowd.

 

Hey guess what - if it was such a great, universal idea - every team would do it.

[OCinBuffalo]

Thanks OP, this should be stickied. The one thread where people were claiming the Cowboys would basically trade their entire draft to us was hilarious.

If it's not, and if we keep hearing this crap, I will simply follow through and re-post/bump the thread every week until the all irrational trade-down scenarios are driven from this board.

 

I haven't found that Cowboys thing yet, and I ain't looking for it. But, I will not count out the Cowboys or Redskins pulling a Mike Ditka/Ricky Williams until 45:01 into draft day 1.

I think I would rather club baby seals for a living than have to read the non-stop chatter of the trade-down crowd.

 

Hey guess what - if it was such a great, universal idea - every team would do it.

See? Even the boss agrees with me.

[billsfan89]

Plus too in the last 8 years the salaries of top 5 picks have exploded to the point where very few teams want those top five picks at the expense of giving up additional picks.

 

This year we might have a better chance to do so because there is a perception of a rookie salary structure that is going to be in place that will limit the stigma of top 5 picks costing too much. But all in all its going to be tough to get another team to give up serious picks to trade up. Although if the right trade were there you would have to take it.

[spartacus]

Redskins are at 10. As I said above, they don't have the value even if they traded us their entire draft this year. The only way it works is something like their 1,2,3 and 3 next, or 1,2 and 2 next, etc. = insane.

 

Short of that, they have to start handing over players. What's Haynesworth's value at this point? a 3? maybe a low 2? I'm not saying that he won't be back to all-pro level wherever he ends up....I am talking about value on draft day.

 

Who else do they have? It's just not feasible short of a mega-trade that includes us getting Haynesworth and/or McNabb.

 

the flaw in your argument is that you consider the value chart as gospel.

 

 

the chart was developed by Jimmy Johnson as a way to standardize value in order to facilitate trades on draft day.

 

However, it was created before the top 5 picks became so expensive as to be an albatross to the team making the selection.

 

Any team with the guts to stick to its decision and take the heat from the media would be wise to trade down and take significantly less than the chart value if the players available are not true playmakers in their system. For example, the Bills should have taken basically anything of value to move down from the 4th slot the year they took Mike Williams because the cost of the busted pick hurt far greater than the media backlash from getting less than some perceived fantasy value.

 

Last year, the Bills should have taken what they could get and traded down to some other delusion team who thought Spiller was the next coming of Barry Sanders. The Bills would have improved themselves by getting a 2nd player, both of which would have produced more than Spiller did - for less money.

 

 

 

 

[cage]

So, in essence what your implying is that due to people such as myself who not only believe its possibe but actually believe if the Bills reach out to each of the teams on draft day 1, we are dead wrong and that you, and people such as yourself who believe no trade can happen no matter what, are correct?

 

This is the jist of what I'm getting here.

 

I believe a trade partner can be found.

You believe they cannot find one.

 

History is on my side.

 

I think that the issue for us in trading down is that we're drafting too high. There haven't been too many trade-downs in the top half of the first round, compared to the bottom half of the first round.

 

When we're drafting 8-11, nobody wants to give too much because those drafting 11-15 still see too many people they like on the board and one of them will fall to their slot. So we don't get enough value. I would expect the same thing with our #3 pick this year. The Bills would want a bunch of picks to move back and nobody will want to oblige.

 

By contrast the Patriots are consistently drafting somewhere in the "20s". By then there's typically some player that fell from a top 15 pick that some team wants to trade up to get. They either pick up additional 2nd round picks or next year's 1st for doing this and they're always stocked with picks to play with.

[dogbyte]

Here is the problem of finding trading partners. If you want to trade pick #3 to a team between #6 - 10, you have to convince them, that the player they want, is some one you might pick or some team before them might want. If the player, is not someone you are going to take and other teams are looking at other players, then why would they trade?

 

Another thing I see on this board, is people going crazy over what the Giants gave up to get Eli Manning. So if they can do it, with San Diego, why can't we? The problem is, there is no real impact players in this year's draft. If Luck had come out then there would be some action.

 

The Bills end up picking 3 in a very weak draft. In my opinion, after pick #8 or 9, every other player picked from 10 to 32, can be lumped together. They are all really second round talent, that will be picked in the first round.

Edited January 15, 2011 by dogbyte

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Any team with the guts to stick to its decision and take the heat from the media would be wise to trade down and take significantly less than the chart value if the players available are not true playmakers in their system. For example, the Bills should have taken basically anything of value to move down from the 4th slot the year they took Mike Williams because the cost of the busted pick hurt far greater than the media backlash from getting less than some perceived fantasy value.

 

I go with Scott: obviously we should rework this flawed draft system which has bad teams picking first, in favor of giving the bad teams the valuable late-round picks.

 

Last year, the Bills should have taken what they could get and traded down to some other delusion team who thought Spiller was the next coming of Barry Sanders. The Bills would have improved themselves by getting a 2nd player, both of which would have produced more than Spiller did - for less money.

 

The bills were some other team who thought Spiller was the next coming of Barry Saunders.

Whether that's delusion or not remains to be seen

 

The Bills would have improved themselves by drafting a RT or Alualu.

[Fan in Chicago]

I go with Scott: obviously we should rework this flawed draft system which has bad teams picking first, in favor of giving the bad teams the valuable late-round picks.

 

 

 

The bills were some other team who thought Spiller was the next coming of Barry Saunders.

Whether that's delusion or not remains to be seen

 

The Bills would have improved themselves by drafting a RT or Alualu.

Whether #9 was too high for a RT is debatable. Depends on what you think would have contributed best to the Bills long term success. Considering how little talent we have on the lines, I would have erred on the side of a tackle instead of a RB but we will see.

As for trade down, there is no way for us to know - one way or another if there was a willing dance partner. So while it is fun to speculate, it is wrong to bash the FO with such little solid information.

[Thoner7]

Prove it.

 

Im not sure what you want me to prove exactly. Here are the wiki pages to the 2010 and 2009 draft. in 2010 the Patsies only used one of their naturally aspire picks, the 2nd rounder for Jermaine Cuningham, and I mis counted, they also used 1 of their own picks in 2009 on Volmer in the 2nd. Meaning in the past 2 years they have traded 12 picks while using 2 (you cant trade compenstory picks its againts the rules)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NFL_Draft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_NFL_Draft

 

If you have a PC, hit "Control F" and type in New england for a search. in 2009 it comes up 66 times and in 2010 in comes up over a hundred times - because their name is listed in each trade they were apart of. the Bills only come up 23 and 19 times to put that in perspective.

 

As for the documentary, his agent says the Broncos either want to trade back with their first pick (which they did) or up with their 2nd 1st rounder (which they also did). He said they had talked to every team between 22 and 28 the week before teh draft to discuss trade options (they executed 2 trades, 1 for D Thomas and 1 for Tebow) Thats a total of 3 seperate trades (because 1 trade up was also one trade into 22-28) they made in the exact fashion they had PLANNED to do before the draft. If you didnt see the show then thats not my fault and I cant prove anything to you but thats what happened and anyone who watched it can vouch for me.

 

My point is if you are willing to accept less in a trade down (see Broncos 1st trade down in 2010) you can do it and if you are willing to overpay (see Broncos trade up for Tebow) you can do it. Everything in life has a price and football is no different.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Thoner7

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Agree! Unless we're dealing with Mike Ditka or the 1990 Minn Vikings!

 

Therefore, we can agree that anybody suggesting a trade down, from 3 to 15-17 on draft picks alone is fooling themselves, right?