Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

A high second round this year is worth at least a swap of 2nds, plus a first next year.

Posted

Oakland needs to sweeten that offer. But I am all ears and all for trading down. Potential suitors must recognize that it is practically a first round pick we are offering

Posted (edited)

34th pick for the 48th, 79th, and Oakland's third rounder next year?

they have pick #81, not 79, and yes I'd do it. Also, with the added 3rd next year it's way over the value on the value chart, that I realize is not always relevant.

Edited by Ghost of Rob Johnson
Posted

I like the idea of a trade down with Oakland so they can get Kaepernick, but in addition to their 2 and 3 this year, I would want their 2 next year instead of their 3

Posted

I was under the impression that you were supposed to devalue a pick from the next year by 1 round. So the value of next years third would be the same as a fourth this year. I'd just as soon have their 3rd and 4th this year.

 

That would give us a mid second, 2 thirds, and 3 fourths this year.

 

I like that much better. I think you can definitely pick up a solid OLB, ILB, ROT, and TE with that, and still have a couple picks to add depth with.

 

I'd rather have the pick this year. That way if we don't like our options come pick time we can re-trade it for something next year. Also gives us the option of getting really creative and packaging some/all of our fourth round picks to get back into the third round again this year.

Posted

I like the idea of a trade down with Oakland so they can get Kaepernick, but in addition to their 2 and 3 this year, I would want their 2 next year instead of their 3

sold

Posted

34th pick for the 48th, 79th, and Oakland's third rounder next year?

Not a chance in the world I would take that deal. I would take Kaepernick for the Bills first. #34 is too high of a pick to trade for low picks like that and give up the chance to get an elite, first round level talent on a team with so many holes and weaknesses.

Posted

I was under the impression that you were supposed to devalue a pick from the next year by 1 round. So the value of next years third would be the same as a fourth this year. I'd just as soon have their 3rd and 4th this year.

 

That would give us a mid second, 2 thirds, and 3 fourths this year.

 

I like that much better. I think you can definitely pick up a solid OLB, ILB, ROT, and TE with that, and still have a couple picks to add depth with.

 

I'd rather have the pick this year. That way if we don't like our options come pick time we can re-trade it for something next year. Also gives us the option of getting really creative and packaging some/all of our fourth round picks to get back into the third round again this year.

i always thought it was the opposite, next years pick would be valued higher this year because you don't know where that pick will be and because you are giving the one team a chance to get someone this year by delaying your pick til next year. This years 1st rounder isn't the same value as next years second

Posted (edited)

34th pick for the 48th, 79th, and Oakland's third rounder next year?

 

Yes I would do this trade if it was available but change next years 3rd rounder to a 2nd rounder. But obviously, if we have a player that we want at 34 then draft the guy we want.

Edited by BB2004
Posted

Its Crazy Davis and the Raiders. . .

 

which is why I wonder why they'd take Kaepernick ahead of Mallett. Mallett may be the second coming of Jeff George (Big Arm but not much else) and Crazy Al fell in love with George when nobody else would.

Posted

i always thought it was the opposite, next years pick would be valued higher this year because you don't know where that pick will be and because you are giving the one team a chance to get someone this year by delaying your pick til next year. This years 1st rounder isn't the same value as next years second

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I have no idea. Bottom line is I wouldn't be opposed to a trade if I felt they got a decent value for the pick.

 

I think there's quite a few good options at 34 and 1-2 would likely still be there by the Raiders 2nd round pick. And since I'm not sold on a QB in this draft, I don't mind the Bills moving down and getting more players to fill some holes.

Posted

And exactly why would we trade with the Raiders? Ralph has done that twice in his life and gotten fleeced both times (Daryle Lamonica for Tom Flores and an injured Art Powell; a third-round choice for Billy Joe Hobert).

Posted

And exactly why would we trade with the Raiders? Ralph has done that twice in his life and gotten fleeced both times (Daryle Lamonica for Tom Flores and an injured Art Powell; a third-round choice for Billy Joe Hobert).

That's like saying the Bills shouldn't have taken Bruce Smith first overall because the last time they took a defensive end first overall, Walt Patulski, it didn't work out.

 

A history of trading with a team twice in the previous 50 years is totally irrelevant.

 

 

×
×
  • Create New...