Trade-Down: How Far Would Be TOO Far?

[Big Turk]

Unless they have their heart's set on a tackle (Matthews or Robinson)? I suspect that Watkins is their pick at 2. If they can get Watkins and Matthews I would imagine that they would be thrilled.

 

They are gonna go WR again in the top 10, a year after taking Austin in the top 10 and trading up to do so? Is Matt Millen running their draft?

[simpleman]

As deep as the draft is at positions of need for the Bills this year, I would trade down anywhere in the first as long as I picked up extra 2nd round and 3rd round picks according to trade value. We could easily get a great TE, ILB, RT and OG and fill our other needs with later picks. It is not about should we do it, it is can we find a trade partner to do it. I would be ecstatic with a draft like Pete mentioned. Most of the others mentioned would make me very happy as well.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

They are gonna go WR again in the top 10, a year after taking Austin in the top 10 and trading up to do so? Is Matt Millen running their draft?

There is a lot of talk about it. Watkins is projected as a #1. Austin was always projected as more of an "offensive weapon" to steal a term from the Jags. The dropoff from Watkins to the next skill player in the draft is pretty large by most accounts. So yeah, if they have a chance to grab the draft's top skill player at a position of need why wouldn't they? Edited February 19, 2014 by Kirby Jackson

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

I think you'd need to get alot more that that. From what I've read anytime you trade a pick from the following year, take one round value off of it is what the "experts" say. So if you wre to pick up a teams 2015 1st round, lets assume it ends up being pick #12, the 12th pick in the first round is wort h1200 points, but if it's the 2015 12th pick assign it the value of the 12th pick in the 2nd round which is only worth 460 points. Even three second rounders doesn't seem to quite balance out, but trades always favor in point value the team who is NOT asking for the trade. The old supply and demand rule prevails

 

I would be comfortable going out of the 1st all together and acquiring a 2015 1st and another 2nd. This draft is deep and deep at the positions that the Bills need. I really like your SF trade above even though I am not a Sankey fan. I would want 4 picks in the 1st 100.

 

 

This is the deepest draft in 10+ years. I would stockpile second round picks. So if a team offered 3 second round picks(high middle low), and a high 3rd I would strongly consider. Think about it - the bills are picking 9, 41, 73 now. So if we swapped out 9 for 33,45, 55, and 71- that would add 6 quality players selected in the first 73

[BackInDaDay]

unlike many, i like the idea of drafting an athletic kid who's played the majority of his collegiate snaps at the guard position, on an offense that doesn't resemble a 7 on 7 drill, for a big-time program. tackles who aren't good in space, don't suddenly become versatile guards - maulers, maybe - but we need guys who can pull, combo and float the pocket.

 

get me him, a big TE with good hands, a big WR with good hands, and a beefy LB with some agility.

our assistant OC will help Hackett improve the passing game by helping our QBs find passing lanes against various coverages. we already have good speed to stretch things vertically, and quick guys to break into the vacuum. all we're missing are those big targets that can save a drive on 3rd down.

 

not being much of a college fan, my question is - are these types of players available, and where do you see them going?

if we gotta move up, down, or sideways - can we make it happen?

[Section242]

They are gonna go WR again in the top 10, a year after taking Austin in the top 10 and trading up to do so? Is Matt Millen running their draft?

 

Their leading WR had 40 catches. No one on the Rams had over 700 yds receiving. Cook was 59th in receiving yards and was tops on the Rams. I'd guess the only team who had a guy lead the team in receiving yards with less than Cook would be the Bills.

[TPS]

 

 

Not sure the Rams have any reason to move up. They have the #2 pick, and even if they move back from there, I doubt they'd drop out of the top 10, so it's likely that they have their pick of who they want in the top 10.

 

Picking at 13, it's not as though there will be too many players gone by the time they pick again.

i think we all agree, a trade only happens because another team wants a specific player at your pick. The trade is based on someone being there, like Austin last year. If Houston takes a QB, the rams will take clowney. If there's a OT or WR the rams want at 9, and the bills don't, could happen. This gives the bills 4 in the top 75.

[Pete]

Their leading WR had 40 catches. No one on the Rams had over 700 yds receiving. Cook was 59th in receiving yards and was tops on the Rams. I'd guess the only team who had a guy lead the team in receiving yards with less than Cook would be the Bills.

sounds like a deal again if Watkins is availble at 9.

[Section242]

sounds like a deal again if Watkins is availble at 9.

 

If Watkins falls to 9 I think the Bills do the smart thing and take him.

[NoSaint]

There is a lot of talk about it. Watkins is projected as a #1. Austin was always projected as more of an "offensive weapon" to steal a term from the Jags. The dropoff from Watkins to the next skill player in the draft is pretty large by most accounts. So yeah, if they have a chance to grab the draft's top skill player at a position of need why wouldn't they?

Matt Mullen flubbed some WRs high but they did get Calvin out of it. Their issue wasn't picking WRs high it was picking busts.

[Kirby Jackson]

I don't see St. Louis taking Clowney at 2 with Quinn and Long already rushing the passer. I think that it is Watkins at 2 if they don't trade back (most likely Cleveland IMO). I can't see them taking tackle at 2 either. They have 13 as well (I think) and that would be a spot for them to target Lewan (they need a LT).

 

I think that Clowney is an unbelievable talent and I am curious to see where he goes. My guess would be 5 to Oakland as of today. That would be fantastic value IMO. Somehow the Raiders would undoubtedly screw it up.

 

 

Matt Mullen flubbed some WRs high but they did get Calvin out of it. Their issue wasn't picking WRs high it was picking busts.

Watkins is pretty safe IMO. He is a high floor, high ceiling guy I think.

[NoSaint]

As to how far is go.... As far as people would fairly compensate for, honestly. We need several starting caliber players and there are potentially a lot to be had. If we can add talent like kiko, woods, (and instead of qb) eifert -- which wouldn't be unreasonable.... Or even take two small steps and add two picks... As long as that are paying with second rounders I'm fine stepping back. We still have a lot of places that could use upgrades that will be available in the 25-65 range - TE, OL, LB, WR, or even a DL/RB prospect since we have questions looming soon with Freddy, spiller, Hughes, dareus, Kyle Williams isn't getting younger etc....

[Astrobot]

I'm with you Rubes but I'd like to stick closer to 20.

I'm not seeing anyone in low 20's with extra picks in RD2, but Cleveland has the 4th pick but wants our 9th (1350) as well. They give 26 (700), 35 (550), and 83 (175), total 1425.

 

Bills take:

26 Buffalo Jace Amaro TE Texas Tech

35 Buffalo Kelvin Benjamin WRF Florida State

41 Buffalo Shayne Skov ILB Stanford

73 Buffalo Jimmy Garoppolo QB Eastern Illinois

83 Buffalo Josh Mauro DE43 Stanford

105 Buffalo Morgan Moses RT Virginia

137 Buffalo Brandon Linder LG Miami (FL)

169 Buffalo James Wilder Jr. RBF Florida State

201 Buffalo Caraun Reid DT43 Princeton

[KOKBILLS]

Could be...I had assumed one of two scenarios:

 

1. Clowney goes #1 overall, and the Rams trade back with whoever wants the top QB (i.e. Cleveland for Manziel or Oakland/Minnesota for whoever)

 

2. A QB goes #1 overall, and St. Louis takes Clowney at #2

 

I think #2 would be FAR more likely than #1...

Edited February 20, 2014 by KOKBILLS

[Armchair GM]

Please stay in the top 10...we need top 10 talent.

 

Normally I'd agree, but there is so much talent in this draft. Most, if not all, of the guys that'll end up being ranked in the top 20-25 have the same level of top 10 talent as previous years.

 

Trading back this year, IMHO, is a no brainer. I'd like to stay in the top 20, but if the price is right, dropping down to 24 wouldn't be too painful.

 

Throw out those value charts!! When a team wants to jump up into the top 10, they tend to overspend...you could see up to a "200 point" swing.

[GunnerBill]

For me if Mack is on the board at 9 I'm picking him. If he isn't I'd happily trade back. I think after Clowney that Mack is the closest thing to a sure thing in this draft.

 

On Watkins I know he is a play maker and he does look electric... but I just can't reconcile myself with spending a top 10 pick on a guy who catches a bunch of screen passes and takes them to the house. In the NFL I don't see that part of his game being anywhere near as productive and that was at least half of his game in college. I doubt he actually gets to 9 and I suspect he will probably make me look a mug by lighting it up in the NFL. I'm not saying that he won't I just can't be sure enough that he will to spend a top 10 on him. I know I'm in the minority on that.

Edited February 20, 2014 by GunnerBill

[Beerball]

I'm not seeing anyone in low 20's with extra picks in RD2, but Cleveland has the 4th pick but wants our 9th (1350) as well. They give 26 (700), 35 (550), and 83 (175), total 1425.

 

Bills take:

26 Buffalo Jace Amaro TE Texas Tech

35 Buffalo Kelvin Benjamin WRF Florida State

41 Buffalo Shayne Skov ILB Stanford

73 Buffalo Jimmy Garoppolo QB Eastern Illinois

83 Buffalo Josh Mauro DE43 Stanford

105 Buffalo Morgan Moses RT Virginia

137 Buffalo Brandon Linder LG Miami (FL)

169 Buffalo James Wilder Jr. RBF Florida State

201 Buffalo Caraun Reid DT43 Princeton

Thanks for running that one 'Stro. I really like the top 5 guys. General question for everyone (knowing that needs may be filled in FA)...is 105 too late to begin trying to address the O-line?

[Kirby Jackson]

Thanks for running that one 'Stro. I really like the top 5 guys. General question for everyone (knowing that needs may be filled in FA)...is 105 too late to begin trying to address the O-line?

I would probably go earlier than 105 but not at 9. IMO there is no reason to spend a top 10 pick on a RT ever but especially with the depth of this OL class. I am hoping for 2 starting OL (RT & LG) between rounds 2-4. I am looking for something like Tiny Richardson and Gabe Jackson. If they trade back and add picks obviously that can be done pretty easily.

[thebandit27]

unlike many, i like the idea of drafting an athletic kid who's played the majority of his collegiate snaps at the guard position, on an offense that doesn't resemble a 7 on 7 drill, for a big-time program. tackles who aren't good in space, don't suddenly become versatile guards - maulers, maybe - but we need guys who can pull, combo and float the pocket.

 

get me him, a big TE with good hands, a big WR with good hands, and a beefy LB with some agility.

our assistant OC will help Hackett improve the passing game by helping our QBs find passing lanes against various coverages. we already have good speed to stretch things vertically, and quick guys to break into the vacuum. all we're missing are those big targets that can save a drive on 3rd down.

 

not being much of a college fan, my question is - are these types of players available, and where do you see them going?

if we gotta move up, down, or sideways - can we make it happen?

 

The best bet for a natural guard is probably Chris Watt from Notre Dame IMO. He's probably a 3rd round pick, but he's the athletic, pulling-style guard you want.

 

Me, I prefer the mauler types that have good footwork, as I believe they can be taught to bucket-step and pull more easily than an athletic-type guy can be taught to maul--if that makes any sense.

 

I think #2 would be FAR more likely than #1...

 

Maybe...remember though, the last time Houston had the #1 pick they took Mario because they felt he was a rare defensive talent.

 

Normally I'd agree, but there is so much talent in this draft. Most, if not all, of the guys that'll end up being ranked in the top 20-25 have the same level of top 10 talent as previous years.

 

Trading back this year, IMHO, is a no brainer. I'd like to stay in the top 20, but if the price is right, dropping down to 24 wouldn't be too painful.

 

Throw out those value charts!! When a team wants to jump up into the top 10, they tend to overspend...you could see up to a "200 point" swing.

 

I typically don't pay too much attention to the value chart, and I understand what you're saying. My POV is simply that you have a better chance at picking the best player for your team if only 8 players are removed from the talent pool as opposed to 18.

[BackInDaDay]

The best bet for a natural guard is probably Chris Watt from Notre Dame IMO. He's probably a 3rd round pick, but he's the athletic, pulling-style guard you want.

 

Me, I prefer the mauler types that have good footwork, as I believe they can be taught to bucket-step and pull more easily than an athletic-type guy can be taught to maul--if that makes any sense.

 

Makes perfect sense, but if you draft an OT with the skills you describe - chances are you're keeping him at tackle because of where you took him. It's the Nix opinion on guards that I'm not a fan of. I think you understand that there's more to the interior line than a place to hide poor tackles. If there are true guards in the draft that lack the finesse of the ND player, but are maulers with the potential you describe.. I'm very cool with that. Just please, no more guys who lack the techniques and ability to play the position. Imagine how effective our center could be with some talent next to him..