biggerdaddynj Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I've been looking high and low but I can't find any interviews or quotes from Buddy about the possibility of trading down this year. Anyone else? If not, wtf are the guys who cover the Bills doing? Buddy's assessment of the talent in this draft begs the question.
ny33 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I know, I know... we never deal picks. But hear me out... Our 10 for Bengals 17 and 21. What is in it for them? Trent Richardson at RB. Probably their biggest need, and would give them a young QB/RB/WR/TE nucleus for years to come. What is in it for us? We don't have to reach for a player at 10, like Upshaw. Instead we can probably land him at 17 and then go Floyd or Kirkpatrick at 21. Either way, we can address two major needs instead of rolling the dice on one. Chances it happens? Very good if Richardson is around at 10 Thoughts? This idea is complete hubris from Bills fans. Would I be happy to see us trade down for two first round picks? Of course. You're crazy, though, if you assume, just because the numbers work, that Cincinnati would make this trade. Most significantly, I doubt they'd trade two first round picks for a running back, even one as potentially good as Trent Richardson. Secondly, they have no reason to trade up with us; given that they have the most ammunition of teams looking to move up to the 10th-15th spot, it's unlikely that anyone else is competing with them. They could trade up to, say, the Cowboys' spot and give up their second rounder to pick one spot ahead of the Jets, and I doubt any team would be willing to trade the 10th-15th pick to the Jets for the Jets 16th and 48th overall picks. This is almost as ridiculous as the idea that we have a shot at Mario Williams (who will either re-sign with Houston or go to a winning team with cap room like Cincy or Atlanta).
NewEra Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 It's a no brainer. The question is, would the bengals give up a 1st round pick to move up. I'd even do it for their 17th and a second round and maybe a later pick. Just becuse the value is equal according to a chart, I'm not sure the bengals view 2 1st round picks to move up 7 spots as worth it. I certainly wouldn't, unless I was getting a QB
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I know, I know... we never deal picks. But hear me out... Our 10 for Bengals 17 and 21. What is in it for them? Trent Richardson at RB. Probably their biggest need, and would give them a young QB/RB/WR/TE nucleus for years to come. What is in it for us? We don't have to reach for a player at 10, like Upshaw. Instead we can probably land him at 17 and then go Floyd or Kirkpatrick at 21. Either way, we can address two major needs instead of rolling the dice on one. Chances it happens? Very good if Richardson is around at 10 Thoughts? Yes to Kirkpatrick no to Upshaw. Wish they wanted a big SSLB as I would all over Hightower but I think I will go with Ingram. There's 2 things on draft day that will make me happy. Either the bills make a move to get to the #2 pick or what you just mentioned. The months before draft day is just torture thinking of the possibilities. Right, why can't the draft be mid March.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I'm not an exercise physiologist, personal trainer, or healthcare professional but I don't believe bench press is reflective of core strength. Regardless I believe it's possible for Adams to have good functional strength without being able to bench press well. No one was calling the guy a weakling before he underperformed in the bench press… the picture being painted was of a big strong guy. Besides being less important than one would believe for a football player, the bench press is an exercise where a person can improve fairly rapidly especially compared to some muscle groups. However I have heard criticisms regarding Adam's ability as a football player and that does concern me. True but 19 is friggin disgraceful! It also shows he did not put any effort into getting stronger and is indicative of he didn't work on other areas of strength showing his lack of work ethic. Bench isn't the end all but Lineman do a lot of pushing with their arms so for them it is important.
missthe kgun Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I know, I know... we never deal picks. But hear me out... Our 10 for Bengals 17 and 21. What is in it for them? Trent Richardson at RB. Probably their biggest need, and would give them a young QB/RB/WR/TE nucleus for years to come. What is in it for us? We don't have to reach for a player at 10, like Upshaw. Instead we can probably land him at 17 and then go Floyd or Kirkpatrick at 21. Either way, we can address two major needs instead of rolling the dice on one. Chances it happens? Very good if Richardson is around at 10 Thoughts? I like/love the way you think, and would be all for it!!! Go Bills!!!
JimBob2232 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 This would be so awesome...buffalo would find a way to squander their first round pick no matter where it is, but they couldn't miss on two could they!?...great hypothetical...I hope both sides read it and keep it in their back pockets So I'm sure this is in jest...but in case it's not....I submit Whitner and McCargo as evidence.
dollars 2 donuts Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 There's 2 things on draft day that will make me happy. Either the bills make a move to get to the #2 pick or what you just mentioned. The months before draft day is just torture thinking of the possibilities. I'm with ya on that 'chize; get RGIII at two or trade down.
Armchair GM Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I know, I know... we never deal picks. But hear me out... Our 10 for Bengals 17 and 21. What is in it for them? Trent Richardson at RB. Probably their biggest need, and would give them a young QB/RB/WR/TE nucleus for years to come. What is in it for us? We don't have to reach for a player at 10, like Upshaw. Instead we can probably land him at 17 and then go Floyd or Kirkpatrick at 21. Either way, we can address two major needs instead of rolling the dice on one. Chances it happens? Very good if Richardson is around at 10 Thoughts? Normally I wouldn't think about trading a top 10 selection; however, this years draft is shaking out to be pretty deep at positions of need for the Bills. I wouldn't have a problem with this at all...actually, I think it would be a great move... Pick 17 - Nick Perry (wishful thinking...I don't think he makes it out of the top 10) Pick 21 - Mohammed Sanu (my favorite receiver in this draft...just wait, you'll see)
section122 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 This idea is complete hubris from Bills fans. Would I be happy to see us trade down for two first round picks? Of course. You're crazy, though, if you assume, just because the numbers work, that Cincinnati would make this trade. Most significantly, I doubt they'd trade two first round picks for a running back, even one as potentially good as Trent Richardson. Secondly, they have no reason to trade up with us; given that they have the most ammunition of teams looking to move up to the 10th-15th spot, it's unlikely that anyone else is competing with them. They could trade up to, say, the Cowboys' spot and give up their second rounder to pick one spot ahead of the Jets, and I doubt any team would be willing to trade the 10th-15th pick to the Jets for the Jets 16th and 48th overall picks. This is almost as ridiculous as the idea that we have a shot at Mario Williams (who will either re-sign with Houston or go to a winning team with cap room like Cincy or Atlanta). Well there is documented interest by the Bengals in Richardson. Also KC (who picks directly behind us) has had Richardson mocked to them whenever he free falls. I would also add the Jets as a potential landing spot if he makes it all the way there. So if the BBengals do in fact want him and want him badly enough they may explore a trade. If they do that the logical partner would be the Bills. I'll spin it like this, they would essentially be trading Carson Palmer for Trent Richardson and the #42 pick. It would give them a scary triplet as well as not short out their draft. They would still have 2 second rounders as well. The more I look into it I don't see it happening but I would love if it did. They are the perfect partner for the Bills in terms of where they could really help themselves. Which is again why I don't see it happening... it's to good to be true for the Bills. Btw if it did go down I would draft Floyd/Kirkpatrick/Mercilus at 17 and 21. I think its reasonable that if all three are there at 17 1 of the 2 we dont pick would still be at 21.
aristocrat Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 This is an idea that should def be looked into in the war room. If we could get 3 starters with our top 3 picks this team could make big leaps next year. Lb, wr, ol and this team looks much better on paper.
dollars 2 donuts Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 This is an idea that should def be looked into in the war room. If we could get 3 starters with our top 3 picks this team could make big leaps next year. Lb, wr, ol and this team looks much better on paper. Throw in 2-3 shrewd moves in FA and I really like this team getting to at least 8-8 next year.
simpleman Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 As I have been saying for months, trade down. I think their 1st and their 2nd would be more realistic, but I'd sure be fine with that. We really would loose nothing considering the talent available and our needs at # 10.
thebandit27 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 With apologies to the OP, I continue to be confused as to why many folks on this board are so enamored with trading down. Buffalo has a top 10 pick...what, precisely, is wrong with using it on the best football player we can get? When you move from 10 to 17, you are allowing 7 (theoretically) more talented players to be plucked from the talent pool. That's an additional 77% of the talent gone before you get to pick (16 players off the board, as opposed to 9). That's a huge difference for any team, let alone a team that hasn't made the playoffs in over a decade. This team needs the best player it can get; trading down very likely dimishes that opportunity. Stay at 10 and draft the best football player. If I had my choice, it'd be either a LT, DE, or OLB.
aristocrat Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 As I have been saying for months, trade down. I think their 1st and their 2nd would be more realistic, but I'd sure be fine with that. We really would loose nothing considering the talent available and our needs at # 10. If its there 1st and 2nd i'd then explore trading that 2nd rounder to someone for a 1st next year. then we have the 17 pick, our #42 pick and two firsts next season. Does this help the team the most next season...not really but it could set the team up for some longer term success imo.
BobChalmers Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Think they want a rb first round? Yes - Benson is old and unexplosive. Will Richardson still be there at 10 though? With apologies to the OP, I continue to be confused as to why many folks on this board are so enamored with trading down. Buffalo has a top 10 pick...what, precisely, is wrong with using it on the best football player we can get? When you move from 10 to 17, you are allowing 7 (theoretically) more talented players to be plucked from the talent pool. That's an additional 77% of the talent gone before you get to pick (16 players off the board, as opposed to 9). That's a huge difference for any team, let alone a team that hasn't made the playoffs in over a decade. This team needs the best player it can get; trading down very likely dimishes that opportunity. Stay at 10 and draft the best football player. If I had my choice, it'd be either a LT, DE, or OLB. Adding a 2nd high pick makes up for the drop from 10 to 17, of course. We're not talking about trading down with the Bengals for free, obviously. You should avoid any job involving statistics, btw. 9 being 77% of 16 is not at all the same thing as 9 being "77% of the talent". The talent in the draft is all 200+ picks. The point value chart referenced above does a good job of assessing where the "talent" is. It is not arbitrarily only in the first 17 picks as you are mangling the math to assert. When none of your needs line up with the talent level of the guys coming out, moving down (or up) is the ONLY intelligent thing to do.
stinky finger Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Word is they will sign Michael Bush. I love Bush......who doesn't?
Bronc24 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I love Bush......who doesn't? I'm more of a clean cut kinda guy. Wait...what are we talking about?
Pete Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 No brainer if the Bengals bite. Especially since we have multiple immediate needs(lt, wr, de, lb, cb) and there is not a clear cut player of value projected to Buffalo at 10. The Bills should trade down with anyone this draft
thebandit27 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Adding a 2nd high pick makes up for the drop from 10 to 17, of course. We're not talking about trading down with the Bengals for free, obviously. I'm not sure why you think that's a given; it's not. I'd rather have a top 10 talent than 2 top 25 talents. You should avoid any job involving statistics, btw. 9 being 77% of 16 is not at all the same thing as 9 being "77% of the talent". The talent in the draft is all 200+ picks. The point value chart referenced above does a good job of assessing where the "talent" is. It is not arbitrarily only in the first 17 picks as you are mangling the math to assert. When none of your needs line up with the talent level of the guys coming out, moving down (or up) is the ONLY intelligent thing to do. And you should avoid any discussion involving semantics, since that's what you're arguing, not the statistics. What I said is that an additional 77% of the talent will be gone. That's not an error, that's a fact. If pick at No. 10, 9 talented players will be gone. If you pick at 17, 16 will be gone. The percent difference is 77, so an additional 77% of the top 17 players (i.e. the pool of players that you can choose from with your first pick), will be gone. If you want to argue the semantics, then fine, I accept that you have a different take on it, but please refrain from snarkishly telling me to "avoid any job involving statistics" when you're arguing semantics (and--ironically--stating your argument poorly at that). When none of your needs line up with the talent level of the guys coming out, moving down (or up) is the ONLY intelligent thing to do. I have to vehemently disagree. For starters, the Bills don't have that problem, as they have plenty of needs all over the place (OT, WR, DE, LB, CB, and you can even argue QB and TE), so finding the most talented player, at a position of need, who fits the value at the time they pick should be a piece of cake. Really, only a RB or DT would be a luxury pick. Secondly, if none of your needs line up with the talent on the board, you pick the best player available. That's what the good teams do. That's how teams like the Giants end up with 5-7 quality pass rushers. It's also yhy Green Bay has do-it-all WRs coming out of their collective "wazoo". But again, that's not a problem for Buffalo, as they've got needs everywhere.
Recommended Posts