Nix Doesnt believe it trading down

[San Jose Bills Fan]

In reality, more teams are trying to trade down than trade up. The rookie salary structure is so out of line that there is better value with a lower pick than there is with a very cap expensive early pick.

 

There are many contentious issues in the CBA negotiations. The rookie salary structure is one area where both sides' interest coincide.

The bolded is true.

 

But as happens in collective bargaining, few things are ever publicly agreed upon.

 

For the record, the NFLPA is stating that they are against a revised rookie salary structure which would lower the cost of signing high number one picks.

 

Even if they are secretly in favor of such a revised rookie cap, saying that they are against it gives them the opportunity to "give in" on the issue in exchange for something else.

 

Ahhh, the silly ritual dance of collective bargaining.

Edited March 1, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Billy in 4C]

the Bills wouldn't be interested in trading the third pick unless the player they covet is gone once the Bills are on the clock. Nix noted he doesn't believe in moving down. That indicates the Bills will not shop the pick.

 

I noticed this in another article about Newton and the Bills interest in him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/26454/is-buffalo-blowing-smoke-on-cam-newton

 

I cant believe a guy who wants to build through the draft and is a confident drafter wouldnt want to add more picks by trading down.

 

You guys aren't paying attention. Last year Nix said that he does not know how to trade down, so he does not do it. It's not his unwillingness to move, it is his lack of understanding of the process that deters him from making a decision outside of his expertise.

 

I'm not sure what is worse - I would suggest that it is the latter and not the former.

[djrocks]

So far, Nix has turned a 7-9 team into a 4 -12 team, with holes all over the place.

 

Nix is on the clock, as this is his 2nd draft.

yea your right he is responsible for the failed picks of dick juron and Marv,give me a break, just unreal!

[Bob in STL]

the Bills wouldn't be interested in trading the third pick unless the player they covet is gone once the Bills are on the clock. Nix noted he doesn't believe in moving down. That indicates the Bills will not shop the pick.

 

I noticed this in another article about Newton and the Bills interest in him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/26454/is-buffalo-blowing-smoke-on-cam-newton

 

I cant believe a guy who wants to build through the draft and is a confident drafter wouldnt want to add more picks by trading down.

 

Some of that talk is Buddy being Buddy.

 

The part of Nix's statement that is most puzzling is why would a guy that is at least 8 starters away from a contender in the AFCE (upgrades are needed to RT, TE, QB, C, DE, DT, OLB, ILB and now S) not want more picks? The player they covet at #3 is going to fill exactly 1 hole. In the case of Spiller last year they did not even accomplish that.

 

Jimmy johnson built the Cowboys by trading for more picks. The pats* are always acquiring extra picks. Not saying Buddy should trade the #3 pick, just saying his tendancy to make blanket statements makes him sound a bit silly. Then again, he told us from the very beginning that he has never been the smartest guy in the room.

[Alphadawg7]

the Bills wouldn't be interested in trading the third pick unless the player they covet is gone once the Bills are on the clock. Nix noted he doesn't believe in moving down. That indicates the Bills will not shop the pick.

 

I noticed this in another article about Newton and the Bills interest in him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/26454/is-buffalo-blowing-smoke-on-cam-newton

 

I cant believe a guy who wants to build through the draft and is a confident drafter wouldnt want to add more picks by trading down.

 

Here is he reality of the situation...

 

1. You rarely see trade downs from this high of a spot because of the ridiculous cost for a team to trade up to #3.

 

2. If there is guy worth trading so much to get, then the team that EARNED the #3 spot almost certainly needs a player of that caliber, so why would you pass on such an Elite player on a team void of Elite talent?

 

3. No GM ever believs they will be picking this high again for a long time. Picking in the top 10, especially the top 5 is what they view as a rare chance to get an exceptional prospect.

 

So, trading down from #3 makes little sense from a logical stand point. Unless someone just blows us away with trade value and we can trade back to a spot (like within a few picks of where we are at) where a player we covet can most likely still be had, then it makes sense. Outside of that, trading down from #3 or the top 5 in general doesn't make a whole lot of sense the majority of the time, so his philosphy doesnt surprise me at all and is probably the same one shared by the majority of the FO's in the NFL.

 

Some of that talk is Buddy being Buddy.

 

The part of Nix's statement that is most puzzling is why would a guy that is at least 8 starters away from a contender in the AFCE (upgrades are needed to RT, TE, QB, C, DE, DT, OLB, ILB and now S) not want more picks? The player they covet at #3 is going to fill exactly 1 hole. In the case of Spiller last year they did not even accomplish that.

 

Jimmy johnson built the Cowboys by trading for more picks. The pats* are always acquiring extra picks. Not saying Buddy should trade the #3 pick, just saying his tendancy to make blanket statements makes him sound a bit silly. Then again, he told us from the very beginning that he has never been the smartest guy in the room.

 

Jimmy Johnson built the Cowboys by trading Herschel Walker for a bounty of picks...not by trading down and picking up an extra mid round pick and a lower first round pick.

 

NE builds their team trading away LATE first round picks and their late 2nd round picks, not trading away top 10 picks.

 

Picking at #3 represents a chance to draft an ELITE prospect...trading down from the 23rd pick in the draft to get extra seconds is not even close to trading away from an Elite prospect in the top 5 to take a chance on some 2nd round prospects...

Edited March 1, 2011 by Alphadawg7

[KOKBILLS]

Thank you. I don't get the crippling fear of losing out on the guy you've targeted. You can't tell me Spiller was the only player in last year's draft worthy of a first-round selection. Marv said similar things after drafting Whitner (he admitted they had an offer on the table, but they thought the team was trading up to get Whitner, so they said no). Now, I get it if it's one just spectacular talent that you can't believe is there. In that case, go ahead and sprint up to the podium, like Washington did when they drafted Orakpo. But if you're going to do that, you'd better be right. Washington looks smart for sprinting to draft Orakpo. Buffalo looks dumb for sprinting to draft Spiller (not to mention Troup and Carrington).

 

And if it's just the top guy on your board, it doesn't hurt to take 5 minutes and see if the phone rings, or even make a couple of calls yourself.

 

Well in the case of Whitner had they held tight to Draft Ngata THEN I'd say Marv would have had a point...

[Kurt Warner]

I think many of you are missing the point of this thread...It's not about whether or not The Bills will have a viable trade down option...It's about the fact that, apparently, our GM has gone on record saying he does not believe in trading down...I think that's pretty significant because if that is in fact his philosophy, I for one STRONGLY disagree with it...If he's just throwing out smoke screens it's still a strange thing to say...Not believing in trading down tells me the guy does not trust his Scouting Staff much...It's a dumb statement if you ask me...And no one did btw...

 

I agree 100% and hope he's just smoke screening. When you see how successful the Pats have been at trading down and obtaining additional picks how can you say you won't consider it? Especially this year when there are no consensus early picks. If someone wants Newton bad and you don't, TRADE DOWN. Don't rush and take someone who will be there at 10 anyway. This draft is so important to Nix because he did miss on the first one. I know people will say give Spiller a chance and we will, however, there were many better options and I am pretty convinced he won't be a rb worthy of #9 overall.

[CosmicBills]

I agree 100% and hope he's just smoke screening. When you see how successful the Pats have been at trading down and obtaining additional picks how can you say you won't consider it? Especially this year when there are no consensus early picks. If someone wants Newton bad and you don't, TRADE DOWN. Don't rush and take someone who will be there at 10 anyway. This draft is so important to Nix because he did miss on the first one. I know people will say give Spiller a chance and we will, however, there were many better options and I am pretty convinced he won't be a rb worthy of #9 overall.

Because Nix is a relic. A dinosaur. The game has changed. The way teams are built has changed. The Pats get it. The Bills don't.

[Kelly the Dog]

Because Nix is a relic. A dinosaur. The game has changed. The way teams are built has changed. The Pats get it. The Bills don't.

I'm so sick of hearing how the Pats get it. They trade down and trade down and trade away, and then they never really cash in. Last year was the first year they have had a decent draft in 5 years. The pats are good because of Brady, their ridiculous coaching, and signing FAs. Their drafts are pretty average at best, especially considering what they go into the draft with.

 

http://www.fftoday.com/nfl/drafttracker.php?o=by_team&TeamID=9003

[Thoner7]

There's not a "fair to good" chance Spiller would have been on the board later on. He was a consensus top 10 pick, and SD took Matthews at #12.

 

Exactly, we could have taken Spiller after the Chargers took Mathews. Do you really think the Chargers were going to take Spiller to replace LT? Especially when they have Sproles already? Face it, a lot of teams shy away from players who cant play every down, and Spiller is one of those players. Do you really think a team that drafts like the Chargers do was going to take a gummick "water bug" RB?

 

 

I respect your opinion and feel it's a decent argument to make, especially with the recent success of late round or undrafted RBs such as Arian Foster or Ryan Grant. However, I feel your argument that the devaluation of the RB position by "elite" teams is greatly exaggerated as recent Super Bowl teams such as New Orleans (Bush), Indianapolis (D Brown & J Addai) and most recently Pittsburgh (Mendenhall) have all taken RBs with their top picks.

 

Also, as seen earlier in the thread, it was less of a proclamation and more of a sentence taken out of context.

 

So you have 1 half-bust who is a back up (bush) 2 former 1st round picks who have never been that great (D Brown and Addai) and did almost nothing to help them win the SB, and one guy (mendenhall) who plays for the Steelers who routinely use 3 RBs and have for years.

 

So yea, RBs are not that important. The last team a real run-heavy 1 RB team won the SB was what, the Broncos in '98? They had a HOF QB too.

[CodeMonkey]

There's not a "fair to good" chance Spiller would have been on the board later on. He was a consensus top 10 pick, and SD took Matthews at #12.

 

 

Exactly, we could have taken Spiller after the Chargers took Mathews. Do you really think the Chargers were going to take Spiller to replace LT? Especially when they have Sproles already? Face it, a lot of teams shy away from players who cant play every down, and Spiller is one of those players. Do you really think a team that drafts like the Chargers do was going to take a gummick "water bug" RB?

I agree with Thoner here. There was a decent chance Spiller would have still been on the board and they could have gotten more much needed help. And as far as I am concerned, having Spiller off the board at that point would have been a plus for the Bills but that's another discussion . All this assumes of course that someone would have made Nix a good offer for the #9 pick. But my gripe is Nix was so closed minded he didn't even give it a chance.

[Scraps]

With all due respect, Some returning defensive players from '09 had a significant fall-off in performance in 2010.

 

Yeah and the switch from a 4-3 to something none of these players were suited for had nothing to do with that fall-off.

[JohnC]

The bolded is true.

 

But as happens in collective bargaining, few things are ever publicly agreed upon.

 

For the record, the NFLPA is stating that they are against a revised rookie salary structure which would lower the cost of signing high number one picks.

 

Even if they are secretly in favor of such a revised rookie cap, saying that they are against it gives them the opportunity to "give in" on the issue in exchange for something else.

 

Ahhh, the silly ritual dance of collective bargaining.

 

It could be worse. If negotiations were held in Wisconsin the governor would enter the room with a steamroller and try to crush the party sitting on the other side of the table.

 

The below link indicates that the owners lost one of their bargaining chips of money in reserve with their unfair practice of using TV revenue during a lockout. Ultimately, dueling attorneys will only get you a stalemate. The parties need to get out of the courtroom and back at the negotiating tabel.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81e8ec2b/article/judge-rules-nfl-violated-agreement-with-union-in-tv-deals?module=HP_headlines

[Scraps]

Why is switching to a 3-4 arrogant? We got a new staff, and they decided they didn't like the old system and wanted to run a new system. It takes a bit to get all the pieces in place. It's not as if we had a good defense before and Nix/Gailey tore that all apart.

GB switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and was horrific on defense in 2009. Their only saving grace was a top notch offense.

 

Why switch at all? Lack of ability on the part of the coaching staff? Why not fit the scheme to the talent you have on hand?

[Kurt Warner]

I'm so sick of hearing how the Pats get it. They trade down and trade down and trade away, and then they never really cash in. Last year was the first year they have had a decent draft in 5 years. The pats are good because of Brady, their ridiculous coaching, and signing FAs. Their drafts are pretty average at best, especially considering what they go into the draft with.

 

http://www.fftoday.com/nfl/drafttracker.php?o=by_team&TeamID=9003

 

That's a great link. By the way - I don't mean the Pats are perfect and hit on everything but they do pretty well considering where they have been drafting the past ten years. They are good at stockpiling picks so they have more chances to hit, especially the past two years. I just use them for an example. Plus, how often in our own history have we traded up to draft a controversial pick and someone else gets the advantage? JP Losman, for example, who was never accurate enough in college and was his problem in the nfl. Whay don't we do it to someone else for a change? I think the Cowboys made out pretty well on the Losman deal.

[Scraps]

There's not a "fair to good" chance Spiller would have been on the board later on. He was a consensus top 10 pick, and SD took Matthews at #12.

 

And Spiller was sooooo helpful in 2010. Well err no, he didn't show much of anything. But we didn't need help anywhere else on this team. Surrrrre. Riiiiiiight.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Scraps

[billsfan89]

Don't believe anything you hear about a GM in accordance to the draft. Its all a smokescreen don't believe anything you hear.

[BillsVet]

tg, my man! I've got to give you credit for sticking to your philosophical guns but RBs have not been devalued. Here is the order of importance (value) of position in the NFL and it has been for a long time.

 

1.) QB

2.) DE that can bring pressure by himself

3.) LT

4.) RB

5.) WR

 

7 years ago Washington traded Champ Bailey for Clinton Portis. Who's gotten the better of that deal? Portis has been ineffective and was cut this week; Bailey was re-signed because he's still a very good CB. RB remains the easiest position to acclimate to in the NFL (unless you're the 9th overall pick) and found in abundance. Only the Bills spend multiple first round picks on them.

 

Because #1 I want to, #2 they wasted resources, #3 they wasted time in the middle of the season to morph again.

 

I haven't mentioned the fact that they ignored areas of need in the 2010 draft because of the switch either. O-line anybody? Spiller? yeah, they're doing fine.

 

If the plan is hybrid shouldn't that have been the plan from day 1? Why switch? Because they figured out that they had screwed up. (a wasted season)

 

Talk all you want about playoffs and how 'ass' the team is/was. They weren't put into the best position to win games. End of story.

 

I realize that you'll never see things the same way as I so I'll now step aside and hope that they don't screw up this offseason.

 

A freaking men.

 

This franchise has no vision, on or off the field, for where it wants to be in 3-5 years. Seems every year is the next one year plan.

[K-9]

7 years ago Washington traded Champ Bailey for Clinton Portis. Who's gotten the better of that deal? Portis has been ineffective and was cut this week; Bailey was re-signed because he's still a very good CB. RB remains the easiest position to acclimate to in the NFL (unless you're the 9th overall pick) and found in abundance. Only the Bills spend multiple first round picks on them. ...

 

RB has ALWAYS been the easiest position to acclimate to in the NFL. So what. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with my post. And your Bailey/Portis reference has even less to do with it than that. But thanks anyway.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Bob in STL]

Here is he reality of the situation...

 

1. You rarely see trade downs from this high of a spot because of the ridiculous cost for a team to trade up to #3.

 

2. If there is guy worth trading so much to get, then the team that EARNED the #3 spot almost certainly needs a player of that caliber, so why would you pass on such an Elite player on a team void of Elite talent?

 

3. No GM ever believs they will be picking this high again for a long time. Picking in the top 10, especially the top 5 is what they view as a rare chance to get an exceptional prospect.

 

So, trading down from #3 makes little sense from a logical stand point. Unless someone just blows us away with trade value and we can trade back to a spot (like within a few picks of where we are at) where a player we covet can most likely still be had, then it makes sense. Outside of that, trading down from #3 or the top 5 in general doesn't make a whole lot of sense the majority of the time, so his philosphy doesnt surprise me at all and is probably the same one shared by the majority of the FO's in the NFL.

 

 

 

Jimmy Johnson built the Cowboys by trading Herschel Walker for a bounty of picks...not by trading down and picking up an extra mid round pick and a lower first round pick.

 

NE builds their team trading away LATE first round picks and their late 2nd round picks, not trading away top 10 picks.

 

Picking at #3 represents a chance to draft an ELITE prospect...trading down from the 23rd pick in the draft to get extra seconds is not even close to trading away from an Elite prospect in the top 5 to take a chance on some 2nd round prospects...

 

 

The Walker deal is not what I was talking aboiut. Johnson traded down often.

 

The Pats* acquire picks from any position and in way possible. They understand the odds and their draft board evaluation has put Buffalo's to shame for over ten years and counting.

 

For Nix to say he "does not believe in trading down" is just a little bit strange but typical of Buddy.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Bob in STL