1st Round Pick comes down to BPA

[San Jose Bills Fan]

So, why would anyone want to trade up to 10? If all the players are basically in the same boat, might as well stay where you are and keep your picks.

Because… there's a minute possibility that a team is targeting a specific player.

 

Just exactly what are you speculating about? That Barron is a good player. That's not speculation. That Buffalo will select BPA? When did Casserly say that? If he said that, why are they paying him to say anything? Where is the insight in that statement? I've also heard Casserly say that Barron is not in Eric Berry's class. So, what makes him the BPA at #10?

 

If Buffalo selects BPA, I sure hope its a player at a position where we need some help.

Agreed. If someone asks us to "check out Casserly on NFL.com," that person ought to provide a link, or else their post/point is pretty meaningless.

[OCinBuffalo]

Because… there's a minute possibility that a team is targeting a specific player.

So much so that he's worth losing this year's 2nd or 3rd? When there will other guys available at their spot who are nearly as good if not = value/risk in the first round?

 

Come on, man.

 

I think it's time that the "trade down"/"trade up" people start facing the facts:

 

1. No team wants to trade out of getting a blue chip round 1 player. Should we have traded down and not gotten Dareus last year? Would that have been a smart move? Of course not.

2. No team wants to give up the chance to draft a potential this year starter(round 2 and 3) so they can move up and get the same guy they will get if they stay where they are.

 

I think it's also time that the "Buddy is asleep/Ralph is Cheap/McShay says its a reach" people to face the fact that:

 

1. No matter who we draft at 10, unless one of the top 6 falls to us.....we will be "reaching" in terms of draft value.

 

I don't even need to bother with the post-draft analysis. I can write it right now:

 

10. Buffalo Bills The Bills did Ok in FA in addressing the biggest need they have had since Aaron Scholbel retired, but they didn't get Peyton Manning. Anyway, they drafted this guy, and while this guy will help them, the value they got at 10 isn't good enough to put them over the top. In fact, according to my draft value, they reached for this player. Meanwhile, they still have holes at (insert the OT, WR, CB or LB positions we didn't draft here). Not good enough for a team that has missed the playoffs for the last 12 years and is desperately trying to get back before the old man dies. Have to wonder how long Buddy Nix and Chuck Gaily will last, especially with drafting Spiller, and still not having a good TE on this team. Grade C+

 

And yeah, the Chuck this is there intentionally, as getting our people's names wrong is pretty much par for the course....

 

Tell me this isn't exactly what we will get from yahoo sports, etc.

Edited April 19, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Actually there really is a clear distinction between the top 6-8 players....and #9-22, for most of the value/mock draft guys.

 

So, why would anyone want to trade up to 10? If all the players are basically in the same boat, might as well stay where you are and keep your picks.

 

Because… there's a minute possibility that a team is targeting a specific player.

 

So much so that he's worth losing this year's 2nd or 3rd? When there will other guys available at their spot who are nearly as good if not = value/risk in the first round?

 

Come on, man.

 

I think it's time that the "trade down"/"trade up" people start facing the facts:

 

1. No team wants to trade out of getting a blue chip round 1 player. Should we have traded down and not gotten Dareus last year? Would that have been a smart move? Of course not.

2. No team wants to give up the chance to draft a potential this year starter(round 2 and 3) so they can move up and get the same guy they will get if they stay where they are.

 

I think it's also time that the "Buddy is asleep/Ralph is Cheap/McShay says its a reach" people to face the fact that:

 

1. No matter who we draft at 10, unless one of the top 6 falls to us.....we will be "reaching" in terms of draft value.

 

I don't even need to bother with the post-draft analysis. I can write it right now:

 

10. Buffalo Bills The Bills did Ok in FA in addressing the biggest need they have had since Aaron Scholbel retired, but they didn't get Peyton Manning. Anyway, they drafted this guy, and while this guy will help them, the value they got at 10 isn't good enough to put them over the top. In fact, according to my draft value, they reached for this player. Meanwhile, they still have holes at (insert the OT, WR, CB or LB positions we didn't draft here). Not good enough for a team that has missed the playoffs for the last 12 years and is desperately trying to get back before the old man dies. Have to wonder how long Buddy Nix and Chuck Gaily will last, especially with drafting Spiller, and still not having a good TE on this team. Grade C+

 

And yeah, the Chuck this is there intentionally, as getting our people's names wrong is pretty much par for the course....

 

Tell me this isn't exactly what we will get from yahoo sports, etc.

Not sure what your point is, OC.

 

You asked, I answered. Trades in the first round happen virtually every year.

 

By the clock, the draft is now less than one week away…

 

 

[BuffaloRebound]

Nix was basically spelling it out to everyone today without actually saying it that we aren't taking who the mock drafts have us taking. If you go by who visited us that would mean Cox, Ingram, Barron, or one the 2 CB's.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Nix was basically spelling it out to everyone today without actually saying it that we aren't taking who the mock drafts have us taking. If you go by who visited us that would mean Cox, Ingram, Barron, or one the 2 CB's.

If you're saying that that's who we're gonna draft, I think you're onto something.

[OCinBuffalo]

Not sure what your point is, OC.

 

You asked, I answered. Trades in the first round happen virtually every year.

 

By the clock, the draft is now less than one week away…

 

 

Sure...but the propensity for them to happen this year is significantly less given how things grade out.

 

The point is simple, and ongoing: I don't want to see 1000 threads started about "we could have traded up/down because somebody said so on the Internet" next weekend.

 

Given how things are shaping up, I also don't want to see 1000 "Some draft guy gave us a crappy draft grade because we reached"....when these same guys are grading players 8-20 as equal value. This means that no matter what we do, short of a miracle, we will be reaching. How are we supposed to get value at 10....if no value pick is available?

 

So, we can look forward to these clowns saying, "see, I was right", by "analyzing" their way into making it impossible for anybody to get value from pick 8-9 to pick 20.

 

My point is merely....vaccination....against the assclownery to come.

[BuffaloRebound]

If you're saying that that's who we're gonna draft, I think you're onto something.

 

Kuechly also belongs in the names of guys no one has us taking who's visited us. Think Cox will be gone, Ingram doesn't have the prototype size Nix likes, so that leaves Barron, the 2 CB's, and Kuechly.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Kuechly also belongs in the names of guys no one has us taking who's visited us. Think Cox will be gone, Ingram doesn't have the prototype size Nix likes, so that leaves Barron, the 2 CB's, and Kuechly.

I've seen Keuchly to the Bills in a few mocks.

 

But mostly Floyd and Reiff.

 

 

[bowery4]

I kind of like to think we will take Coby Fleener, not sure it could would or will happen but I like it anyway. I do think he is an impact guy who fits in well (if Chan changes his offense just a bit, hell we could run a Kgun!) then taking a #2 WR whatever that is, becomes a more of a moot point.

[BuffaloRebound]

I've seen Keuchly to the Bills in a few mocks.

 

But mostly Floyd and Reiff.

 

One last thought is that if we do end up staying at #10 and taking one of the defensive playmakers, I don't think we can sit and wait for a tackle at pick #41. I think we'd have to go up and get whomever is left of Martin, Glenn, or Adams at the end of the 1st. Looking like we're not gonna be able to find a WR and Tackle with our first 2 picks.

[BuffFromBuffalo]

One last thought is that if we do end up staying at #10 and taking one of the defensive playmakers, I don't think we can sit and wait for a tackle at pick #41. I think we'd have to go up and get whomever is left of Martin, Glenn, or Adams at the end of the 1st. Looking like we're not gonna be able to find a WR and Tackle with our first 2 picks.

Sorry for not giving the Casserly link. He is just wondering if Barron hits the top ten. I do have one more thought, based on Buddy's comments yeterday. Is Barron an impact player? I think so. Is he an immediate starter? Sure. Then again, Kuechly would be as well. My speculation all along has been Barron is rated pretty high on the board and will be there.

[apuszczalowski]

So much so that he's worth losing this year's 2nd or 3rd? When there will other guys available at their spot who are nearly as good if not = value/risk in the first round?

 

Come on, man.

 

I think it's time that the "trade down"/"trade up" people start facing the facts:

 

1. No team wants to trade out of getting a blue chip round 1 player. Should we have traded down and not gotten Dareus last year? Would that have been a smart move? Of course not.

2. No team wants to give up the chance to draft a potential this year starter(round 2 and 3) so they can move up and get the same guy they will get if they stay where they are.

 

I think it's also time that the "Buddy is asleep/Ralph is Cheap/McShay says its a reach" people to face the fact that:

 

1. No matter who we draft at 10, unless one of the top 6 falls to us.....we will be "reaching" in terms of draft value.

 

I don't even need to bother with the post-draft analysis. I can write it right now:

 

10. Buffalo Bills The Bills did Ok in FA in addressing the biggest need they have had since Aaron Scholbel retired, but they didn't get Peyton Manning. Anyway, they drafted this guy, and while this guy will help them, the value they got at 10 isn't good enough to put them over the top. In fact, according to my draft value, they reached for this player. Meanwhile, they still have holes at (insert the OT, WR, CB or LB positions we didn't draft here). Not good enough for a team that has missed the playoffs for the last 12 years and is desperately trying to get back before the old man dies. Have to wonder how long Buddy Nix and Chuck Gaily will last, especially with drafting Spiller, and still not having a good TE on this team. Grade C+

 

And yeah, the Chuck this is there intentionally, as getting our people's names wrong is pretty much par for the course....

 

Tell me this isn't exactly what we will get from yahoo sports, etc.

While I do agree with your poin that no matter what happens, whiners will be on here crashing the boards saying how they could have and should have traded down to collect a boatload of picks and the guy THEY wanted would have still been there instead of the obvious reach they took. The point some of the people are trying to argue and make is that just because players 6-whatever may be graded the same, it still doesn't mean no one wants to move around and trade. If your in one of those spots, you might want to trade because you really want the WR that you feel the next team on the board is going to take, and no other WR is graded similar, or you feel that that one fits your team the best. Teams have wants and needs too, and some may want or need a certain player or position that they can't just sit back and wait for.

 

Personally I feel that BPA is the only way to go when drafting. Teams should always be looking to improve anywhere on the team, especially teams that are picking early in the draft. You never want to be in a position where your picks have to be based on needs, like saying that the Bills have to use their #1 pick on a LT because they have no one that can fill the spot. All teams have atleast a couple of needs and positions that can use upgrading. And unless your in the top couple of picks in the draft, BPA doesn't necessarily mean that its only 1 player, there could be a couple of players that are the BPA at your pick, and you need to take which ever fits your teams needs the best. You get in trouble when you draft solely for needs because you end up giving up the chance to get a better player for your team, to get the best available guy at his position passing up better players

[Brainiac72]

While I do agree with your poin that no matter what happens, whiners will be on here crashing the boards saying how they could have and should have traded down to collect a boatload of picks and the guy THEY wanted would have still been there instead of the obvious reach they took. The point some of the people are trying to argue and make is that just because players 6-whatever may be graded the same, it still doesn't mean no one wants to move around and trade. If your in one of those spots, you might want to trade because you really want the WR that you feel the next team on the board is going to take, and no other WR is graded similar, or you feel that that one fits your team the best. Teams have wants and needs too, and some may want or need a certain player or position that they can't just sit back and wait for.

 

Personally I feel that BPA is the only way to go when drafting. Teams should always be looking to improve anywhere on the team, especially teams that are picking early in the draft. You never want to be in a position where your picks have to be based on needs, like saying that the Bills have to use their #1 pick on a LT because they have no one that can fill the spot. All teams have atleast a couple of needs and positions that can use upgrading. And unless your in the top couple of picks in the draft, BPA doesn't necessarily mean that its only 1 player, there could be a couple of players that are the BPA at your pick, and you need to take which ever fits your teams needs the best. You get in trouble when you draft solely for needs because you end up giving up the chance to get a better player for your team, to get the best available guy at his position passing up better players

 

interesting that on NFLN yesterday, Lomabardi was asked about Belichik and Pats drafting (since we worked with BB in cleveland draft rooms) and, this may be obvious, but that BB builds a team... and not a collection of talent. this to me, is the opposite of BPA, or rather making it BPA by manipulation. the caveat is the BB never reaches either, so he will just move around to get a guy at the position he wants w/o reaching, thereby kind of making it the BPA when he finally does drafts... but not simply taking BPA when his supposed turn comes up. basically he drafts by need and fit, without reaching. best of both worlds, at least in his mind.

 

basically, i stick my my claim that even the best teams don't really go BPA in the first... it's a myth. they target "needs" the majority of the time (though they may see their needs differently than outsiders).

[apuszczalowski]

interesting that on NFLN yesterday, Lomabardi was asked about Belichik and Pats drafting (since we worked with BB in cleveland draft rooms) and, this may be obvious, but that BB builds a team... and not a collection of talent. this to me, is the opposite of BPA, or rather making it BPA by manipulation. the caveat is the BB never reaches either, so he will just move around to get a guy at the position he wants w/o reaching, thereby kind of making it the BPA when he finally does drafts... but not simply taking BPA when his supposed turn comes up. basically he drafts by need and fit, without reaching. best of both worlds, at least in his mind.

 

basically, i stick my my claim that even the best teams don't really go BPA in the first... it's a myth. they target "needs" the majority of the time (though they may see their needs differently than outsiders).

Not everyone builds the same, but besides a few recent picks, the pats drafting wasn't really viewed as being all the great over the last 3-5 years. Also too, when you already have a well built team, its easier to be flexible and give up a better pick to move back.

 

As I said, BPA doesn't necessarily mean its one player, there could be 5 guys that could be seen as the BPA. The Pats are still taking the BPA even though they move around.

[BuffaloRebound]

Seems like New England has had multiple 1st and 2nd round picks for 10 years. Not sure any team has done less with that many prime picks at its disposal. They've drafted numerous DB's in the top 2 rounds who've been busts. Brady and Belichik have masked their mediocre/sub-par drafting.

[apuszczalowski]

Seems like New England has had multiple 1st and 2nd round picks for 10 years. Not sure any team has done less with that many prime picks at its disposal. They've drafted numerous DB's in the top 2 rounds who've been busts. Brady and Belichik have masked their mediocre/sub-par drafting.

They don't always use those picks to take players, they seem to acquire them and use them as chips to move around. But aside from the 2 TE's they drafted recently, and amybe a couple of other pciks over the last few years, there drafting hasn't been viewed as being very good

[BrooklynBills]

Just exactly what are you speculating about? That Barron is a good player. That's not speculation. That Buffalo will select BPA? When did Casserly say that? If he said that, why are they paying him to say anything? Where is the insight in that statement? I've also heard Casserly say that Barron is not in Eric Berry's class. So, what makes him the BPA at #10?

 

If Buffalo selects BPA, I sure hope its a player at a position where we need some help.

 

We need help at safety. George Wilson is not the answer there.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

We need help at safety. George Wilson is not the answer there.

That's good to know.