tonyjustbcuz Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 Sorry if this is posted elsewhere, but I couldn't find it in a search. Rumors are gaining steam that Washington is looking to move into the top couple of spots to grab a franchise QB. For the Bills, this presents an interesting trade scenario. (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/39321/could-elway-shanahan-be-trade-partners) On the positive side, a trade like this would likely land the Bills Washington's 1st and 2nd Round pick (#10 and #41), AND, because Washington doesn't have a 3rd or 4th rounder, NEXT YEAR'S 1st round pick. So the Bills could grab an additional pick in the top 41 this year WITHOUT moving out of the top-10, and gain an additional 1st Rounder next year (when, if the projections deliver on their promise, the QB class will be significantly better). On the negative end, if the draft goes as many are anticipating, the majority of blue-chip defensive prospects could be gone by the 10th pick. NFL Draft Countdown, a solid mock by any standard, has Dareus, Peterson, Miller, Bowers, Amukamara, Fairley, and Watt, all taken in the first nine selections. So what do y'all think? Would it be worth foregoing players like Newton and Gabbert, Miller and Peterson, Fairley and, possibly, Watt (and drafting in their place a player like Cam Jordan, Aldon Smith, Tyrone Smith, Robert Quinn, or even A.J. Green-- who could slide), for the additional second rounder this year, and a first round pick in 2012? I'm curious to hear your opinions. Interesting Post! I just wanted to add a couple things that are on my mind and related... 1. I quite possibly may be mistaken, but I thought I read somewhere that besides not having the ability to move players on your roster for draft trades that you also could not involve future year picks as part of a trade neither. So what I am thinking I read is that all trades have to involve solely picks in the current year unless the CBA is resolved prior to the draft. 2. Buddy Nix stated something to the effect that he does not use the draft trade chart that some of the posters are referring to (or at least use it exclusively)... I believe he said that if he likes the trade and both parties agree then he'll make it, if not he wont. I think he even gave an example of a first round trade down for a first rounder and the other teams 2nd rounder, but no other additional picks in that scenario. It seemed as though he may be content with a trade that netted less valute than the chart indicated.
Scrappy Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) If the draft is declared illegal, there is no next years picks to be had. So, this seems like a potential clip to me. Edited April 18, 2011 by Scrappy
Original Byrd Man Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 I'd make the trade in a heartbeat, but I think the bills will pass IF they REALLY like the QB on the board. If we got next years 1st along with the 1st and 2nd this year, I'd be thrilled, especially if the QB taken started every game for the skins this year. They'd probably be picking top 5, possibly 1st. Draft DL + LB at 10 and 34 then OT or TE with the skins 2nd. Then draft tsw savior Andrew Luck next year. I would love to see this happen for two reasons. First I dont feel there is a QB in this draft worth higher than a mid range ist round grade, and secondly I don't feel there is a huge difference talent wise between "all" the DL/OLB players many would like to see the Bills take. So by moving down you can still get great value at a lower price and get extra picks. If offered it's a no brainer.
Astrobot Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 Sorry if this is posted elsewhere, but I couldn't find it in a search. Rumors are gaining steam that Washington is looking to move into the top couple of spots to grab a franchise QB. For the Bills, this presents an interesting trade scenario. (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/39321/could-elway-shanahan-be-trade-partners) On the positive side, a trade like this would likely land the Bills Washington's 1st and 2nd Round pick (#10 and #41), AND, because Washington doesn't have a 3rd or 4th rounder, NEXT YEAR'S 1st round pick. So the Bills could grab an additional pick in the top 41 this year WITHOUT moving out of the top-10, and gain an additional 1st Rounder next year (when, if the projections deliver on their promise, the QB class will be significantly better). On the negative end, if the draft goes as many are anticipating, the majority of blue-chip defensive prospects could be gone by the 10th pick. NFL Draft Countdown, a solid mock by any standard, has Dareus, Peterson, Miller, Bowers, Amukamara, Fairley, and Watt, all taken in the first nine selections. So what do y'all think? Would it be worth foregoing players like Newton and Gabbert, Miller and Peterson, Fairley and, possibly, Watt (and drafting in their place a player like Cam Jordan, Aldon Smith, Tyrone Smith, Robert Quinn, or even A.J. Green-- who could slide), for the additional second rounder this year, and a first round pick in 2012? I'm curious to hear your opinions. DraftTek Simulation for your Washington Trade (with some Astro-Modification!) Washington gets #3, Buffalo gets #10 and #41 plus next year's #1. 1 10 Buffalo Cameron Jordan DE34 California (or JJ Watt DE34 or Nick Fairley DE/DT) 2 34 Buffalo Jake Locker QB Washington 2 41 Buffalo Brooks Reed OLB34 Arizona (or Martez Wilson ILB) 3 68 Buffalo K.J. Wright ILB Mississippi State (or John Moffitt OG Wisconsin) 4 100 Buffalo James Carpenter OT Alabama 4 122 Buffalo Virgil Green TE Nevada 5 133 Buffalo James Brewer OT Indiana 6 169 Buffalo Brandon Hogan CB West Virginia 7 206 Buffalo Terry Griffin DT34 Elizabeth City State 7 245 Buffalo Rob McGill OT Louisiana Tech I'd pull the trigger on that trade.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 Interesting, which reminds me of another interesting Draft Day Trade Scenario... When we do pick, if it ends up being a QB or a Skill player, dont get too attached too quickly. It could VERY WELL be part of a plan to trade down, but where we have to secure a player first as part of the trade, and then if OUR player is still available at #10 we will pull the trigger on the trade. Basically saying, just because we make a pick at #3, doesnt mean we wont trade out of it a little while later. For example, We pick Gabbert. 7 picks later, we trade Gabbert to Washington for the #10 and a bunch of others, and then pick Jordan. Just another twist to look out for on draft day. Which, btw, cant come soon enough...
McD Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 Guaranteed that when draft day has come and gone and the Bills haven't traded down, people will convert "rumors gaining steam" to rock solid proof positive that the Bills could have traded down but were simply too stupid to make the move. Oh joy. The sad part is... the front office has earned this kind of second guessing and pessimistic view. Until they show otherwise, this mindset will remain...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 Interesting, which reminds me of another interesting Draft Day Trade Scenario... When we do pick, if it ends up being a QB or a Skill player, dont get too attached too quickly. It could VERY WELL be part of a plan to trade down, but where we have to secure a player first as part of the trade, and then if OUR player is still available at #10 we will pull the trigger on the trade. Basically saying, just because we make a pick at #3, doesnt mean we wont trade out of it a little while later. For example, We pick Gabbert. 7 picks later, we trade Gabbert to Washington for the #10 and a bunch of others, and then pick Jordan. Just another twist to look out for on draft day. Which, btw, cant come soon enough... I think it was reported that, without a new CBA, after a player is picked he can not be traded as he is now a player who's rights belong to a team.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 I think it was reported that, without a new CBA, after a player is picked he can not be traded as he is now a player who's rights belong to a team. I havent seen that, only that current players could not be traded. Since the drafted players arent under any contract, I dont think they are under the NFLPA rules yet. That's usually how it works even in non-lockout years.
Max997 Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) I think Jordan and Watt would both be there and wouldnt be disappointed with either i dont think it would be bext years first as well but could be another second or a third, either way im all for it...having two picks at the top of the second round this year would be outstanding Edited April 18, 2011 by Max997
bisonbrigade Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 1st (10th overall) Cameron Jordan, California DE. 2nd (34th overall) Christian Ponder, Florida St QB. 2nd (41st overall) Marcus Gilbert, Florida OT. 3rd (68th overall) Kelvin Sheppard ILB, LSU. 4th (100th overall) Shareece Wright USC, CB. 4th (122nd overall) Rob Housler Florida Atlantic, TE. 5th (133rd overall) Dom DeCicco Pittsburgh, SS.
indiragandhi'sthong Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 Those who have implied there may be no draft, are smoking dope. It is the number one reason for fan interest after the super bowl and has helped turn football into a year round sport. There is no way the league allow that ... I will eat a poop sandwich if that happens.
Pete Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 Two first round picks next year would be very nice. I like
DrDawkinstein Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 Those who have implied there may be no draft, are smoking dope. It is the number one reason for fan interest after the super bowl and has helped turn football into a year round sport. There is no way the league allow that ... I will eat a poop sandwich if that happens. I have not seen anyone imply that anywhere on the board. What post are you reading? Maybe I missed it....
stony Posted April 18, 2011 Posted April 18, 2011 Interesting Post! I just wanted to add a couple things that are on my mind and related... 1. I quite possibly may be mistaken, but I thought I read somewhere that besides not having the ability to move players on your roster for draft trades that you also could not involve future year picks as part of a trade neither. So what I am thinking I read is that all trades have to involve solely picks in the current year unless the CBA is resolved prior to the draft. 2. Buddy Nix stated something to the effect that he does not use the draft trade chart that some of the posters are referring to (or at least use it exclusively)... I believe he said that if he likes the trade and both parties agree then he'll make it, if not he wont. I think he even gave an example of a first round trade down for a first rounder and the other teams 2nd rounder, but no other additional picks in that scenario. It seemed as though he may be content with a trade that netted less valute than the chart indicated. Good point, and the main reason why the trade would never happen under the circumstances many previous posts have laid out. There is no way the Redskins would give up next years #1. We'd be lucky to get their 2nd next year IMO.
Mark Long Beach Posted April 19, 2011 Posted April 19, 2011 The bad news is that the Redskins want to trade DOWN to pick up one of the second tier QB's at the bottom of round 1 or the top of round 2 NOT up. Alas.
LabattBlue Posted April 19, 2011 Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) I havent seen that, only that current players could not be traded. Since the drafted players arent under any contract, I dont think they are under the NFLPA rules yet. That's usually how it works even in non-lockout years. I thought it was reported that without a new CBA, no players can be traded nor can any draft picks outside of this years picks be traded. Edited April 19, 2011 by LabattBlue
tennesseeboy Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I picked the Redskins as the most likely move up candidate weeks ago and I'm not changing my mind now. They have a need at qb and receiver and it would be worth the move. They are also not averse to "paying top dollar" so that we should be able to make an interesting deal with them.
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) I havent seen that, only that current players could not be traded. Since the drafted players arent under any contract, I dont think they are under the NFLPA rules yet. That's usually how it works even in non-lockout years. However, teams will not be able to trade players for draft selections (trades involving only selections are permitted), and will not be able to sign or even contact drafted or undrafted players until the labor situation is resolved. The restriction on trading players extends to players selected in this draftteams will be unable to swap any player once selected, e.g. as happened in 2004 when the San Diego Chargers and New York Giants completed a draft day trade involving Eli Manning and Philip Rivers who had been selected first and fourth respectively.[2] In addition, with no agreement in place with the players mandating future drafts, teams have been advised by the league that any trades involving future draft picks would be made at the teams' "own risk". [3] The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) is reportedly trying to dissuade potential prospects from attending the draft, and perhaps plans to host a separate ceremony for those players drafted.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NFL_Draft I thought it was reported that without a new CBA, no players can be traded nor can any draft picks outside of this years picks be traded. The picks can be traded, but if there's no draft you lose them. Not worth the risk in my opinion. Edited April 20, 2011 by Ghost of Rob Johnson
BobChalmers Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I have not seen anyone imply that anywhere on the board. What post are you reading? Maybe I missed it.... There have been multiple comments about the risk of future draft picks and that the NFL is not gauranteeing anything about future years to the team on this thread - a casual look up the thread should find you several such posts easily. I agree that the idea of no draft would be seriously stupid for both sides of the negotiations though, and therefore extremely unlikely.
Recommended Posts