My issue with trading up

[thewildrabbit]

They won't trade up to the top pick. If they trade up at all, they won't give up next year's first pick. It would be stupid, and I don't think the current leadership is stupid.

This is where we disagree. Although the moves for the defensive side have been almost near brilliant by the GM. By the same token some of the moves for the offensive side by the GM have been downright moronic.

 

Starting the season with three rookie QB's cost them games. Not replacing Levitre properly cost them games, and they still haven't made the proper move at LG. keeping waiver wire rejects from other teams on that line cost them games. Coaching stupidity in letting someone as inexperienced as Jeff Tuel throw it up 39 times cost them a big game. Hiring the wrong coach at WR cost them quality play, and perhaps some games.

 

While all the rest of the teams are looking to trade back and pick up extra picks in this talent loaded draft. Leave it to this regime to waste those picks on one player. This team is far from one player away from the playoffs IMO

[Best Player Available]

The Bills do not have any true "studs" on their offense. Obtaining a player such as Watkins would change that. I feel Ebron would to, but that's a different conversation.

 

If the Bills pull the trigger on a move up it's not going to solely include draft picks. There will be a player involved, and Stevie Johnson makes the most sense. His cap number is too high and he won't be the true number one the Bills need.

 

He CAN however help another team that already has a number one. Buffalo giving up a 1st, 2nd, and Johnson to Cleveland for a player like Watkins makes sense. Like another poster said you have to trust your scouts. If you think Watkins is THAT good, and can make that much of a difference, then trading a capped out number 2 receiver and a 2nd round pick is not much to give up.

Good post, but I don't believe for a second a team wants to pick up SJ13's contract. Way too high for his recent production. With the new CBA rookies as talented come nice and cheap. For their rookie contract anyways.

[Tintonfallsbillsfan]

Genreally I always like trading down and making the entire roster stronger. I could ge talked into moving up for a player who is way about the norm at a key position, pass rush, wide out, qb. The problem with this draft is Clowny is talented enough to be considered but just he just hasn't proved that he will put in the work and effort to reach those levels. As for watkins, agian as good as he is I just think giving up additional assets for him is not the smart play. In the End we they come out of the this draft with a Starting rigth tackle, a solid d end and a wide out or tight end that plays big it is a successful draft.

[voodoo poonani]

Trade down, accumulate more picks, thus increasing the likelihood of a "hit".

 

Hmm, we just did that recently... traded down, got the player we wanted, and oh yeah picked up the (should have been) DROY Kiko Alonso with the extra pick.

[PastaJoe]

The uncertainty over EJ makes it imperative that they keep next year's picks, unless they pick a QB this year in the middle rounds who has the potential to step in next year.

[Sisyphean Bills]

You have to look at the delta in the draft class and the opportunity to draft a player with similar potential later in the draft.

 

Foolish people get caught up with the number of the draft pick. There is no guarantee that #3 draft pick is better than #4 or the #104 draft pick. The Bills only statement that matters is wins. Moving up is a meaningless statement if they do it for a player you can easily find later in the draft.

 

Generally if you spend two 1sts on one player it better be a franchise QB or a once in a generation player.

 

Clowney has been hyped since he was 16 years old as that type of player. I can't tell you if he is or not but a player with that type of potential would be an exception to the 2 1sts for a QB rule.

 

Trading up two 1sts for a RT, TE or LB would be beyond stupid. As much as Robinson, Ebron, and Mack are hyped. There are players that will be pro-bowl players at Rt, TE, and LB that are drafted in the 3rd round of the 2014 draft. You'd basically be spending extra picks on ESPN hype.

 

Right. Or in other words, trading up in a deep draft or back in a shallow draft are moves that give your competition the advantage.

[KOKBILLS]

I'm in a bit of a twitter debate with Sal of WGR about the risks of trading up, especially to the #1 pick. Sal is not only in favor of such a move, he insists that it's something the Bills must do to make a statement. Yes it's risky, but drafting any player is risky. No risk, no reward, right?

 

But my argument is that you raise the stakes higher when you trade up because you are using not one but two or three or more picks on a single player. If you want to get to the #1 pick from #9 you are invariably giving up two #1's and one or more lower picks.

 

If you draft a player and he busts that's a shame but you are out just one pick. Whiff on a trade up and you burn two, three or more picks on that player.

 

What's more, when you use three or more picks on a player, they can no longer afford to be just pretty good. A player that you spend 2 #1's, a 2 and a 3 on better be an All-Pro. Anything less would be a waste of picks because you can get a pretty good player with just one pick.

 

What are the odds any player will be that good?

 

PTR

 

I like Sal...I really do...

 

But to say a 6-10 team needs to move up and likely give up a pick (#41) in a Draft that is the deepest one we've seen in recent memory?...That #41 is in an area of the Draft that has netted them Cordy Glenn, Aaron Williams, Kiko Alonso, and Robert Woods over the past three years...You're going to give that up just to make a statement?...Well...That's ridiculous...IMHO it's not good team building...The Bills should trust their scouting department...Get more picks, not less...

 

Sal should be smarter than that...The Bills don't need to make any statement other than to win more games...You do that by getting better all over the roster...Look at Seattle and San Fran...They stockpile talent everywhere...The Niners have had 36 picks in the past 4 Drafts...The Seahawks in the same span 39!!! They usually have more picks not less...Then Seattle gave up picks for one player when they truly felt (and showed on the field) they were only one player away...It turns out they were so loaded they really did not even need that player to win a Championship... Because they had already stockpiled...Please don't trade #41 Doug...It's a bad move for a 6-10 team...

[Webster Guy]

This is where we disagree. Although the moves for the defensive side have been almost near brilliant by the GM. By the same token some of the moves for the offensive side by the GM have been downright moronic.

 

Starting the season with three rookie QB's cost them games. Not replacing Levitre properly cost them games, and they still haven't made the proper move at LG. keeping waiver wire rejects from other teams on that line cost them games. Coaching stupidity in letting someone as inexperienced as Jeff Tuel throw it up 39 times cost them a big game. Hiring the wrong coach at WR cost them quality play, and perhaps some games.

 

While all the rest of the teams are looking to trade back and pick up extra picks in this talent loaded draft. Leave it to this regime to waste those picks on one player. This team is far from one player away from the playoffs IMO

 

I agree with you on the LG position costing us games and the WR coach mistake But Kolb getting hurt was bad luck, and Thad wasn't a rookie as you implied.

 

Also you have to remember that our scouts and GM felt EJ was the best QB in the nation (jury is still out obviously), they traded back, still got their QB, picked up an incredible LB with the free pick, and then grabbed two promising and highly regarded WR's in Woods and Goodwin with the next two picks.

 

Throw in Hughes, Lawson and Roby FA additions that were all productive NFL guys.

 

I think that's very solid, savvy front office moves not just on defense (as you agreed) but also offensively. The best college QB in the nation and two NFL starter-quality wide receivers in one draft.

 

I think Goodwin and Woods will have solid years, and if EJ does too, last year will be the best offensive draft we've had.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Webster Guy

[WotAGuy]

If I worked for WGR, I would want the Bills to trade up as well - not because it makes sense, but because it makes better fodder for talking heads and inane "long-time listener, first-time callers"

 

What are the odds any player will be that good?

 

PTR

 

This article does a good job breaking it down by position. If you want true "odds" you'll have to do some math, but it seems like the "odds" are better to use more picks to try and find those diamonds, rather than going all in with several picks on one guy.

http://nfl.si.com/2012/03/30/what-do-all-pro-teams-tell-us-about-nfl-draft/

[NoSaint]

I'm in a bit of a twitter debate with Sal of WGR about the risks of trading up, especially to the #1 pick. Sal is not only in favor of such a move, he insists that it's something the Bills must do to make a statement. Yes it's risky, but drafting any player is risky. No risk, no reward, right?

 

But my argument is that you raise the stakes higher when you trade up because you are using not one but two or three or more picks on a single player. If you want to get to the #1 pick from #9 you are invariably giving up two #1's and one or more lower picks.

 

If you draft a player and he busts that's a shame but you are out just one pick. Whiff on a trade up and you burn two, three or more picks on that player.

 

What's more, when you use three or more picks on a player, they can no longer afford to be just pretty good. A player that you spend 2 #1's, a 2 and a 3 on better be an All-Pro. Anything less would be a waste of picks because you can get a pretty good player with just one pick.

 

What are the odds any player will be that good?

 

PTR

 

thats obviously the two sides of any trade. you get the shot at a better player but it increases your risk. if there was no flip side to the coin you would never have a partner for any move.

[NoSaint]

Not a big fan of trading up here myself, trading down on the other hand, more tickets to the lottery is a higher success ratio imho. That said boy would I love to have Mack. Also good point with EJ, if he has another injury riddled year we'll be in desperate need of drafting another QB next year and then it better be a hit.

 

 

what if we let you pick more numbers on the first card, and the payout was higher too?

 

thats where you get into balancing the risk and reward.

[BillsVet]

I like Sal...I really do...

 

But to say a 6-10 team needs to move up and likely give up a pick (#41) in a Draft that is the deepest one we've seen in recent memory?...That #41 is in an area of the Draft that has netted them Cordy Glenn, Aaron Williams, Kiko Alonso, and Robert Woods over the past three years...You're going to give that up just to make a statement?...Well...That's ridiculous...IMHO it's not good team building...The Bills should trust their scouting department...Get more picks, not less...

 

Sal should be smarter than that...The Bills don't need to make any statement other than to win more games...You do that by getting better all over the roster...Look at Seattle and San Fran...They stockpile talent everywhere...The Niners have had 36 picks in the past 4 Drafts...The Seahawks in the same span 39!!! They usually have more picks not less...Then Seattle gave up picks for one player when they truly felt (and showed on the field) they were only one player away...It turns out they were so loaded they really did not even need that player to win a Championship... Because they had already stockpiled...Please don't trade #41 Doug...It's a bad move for a 6-10 team...

 

You have to wonder what OBD is collectively thinking right now. With the owner passing last month all of them must be concerned about their future and the likelihood is they aren't going deep in the playoffs this coming season. They want to make both an impact and have a splash to impress future ownership they can get it done. And trading away a first next season with another pick this year is the price they might be willing to pay to do it.

 

This is the strangest off-season in the history of the team for the obvious reason. And that's going to affect their decision making process.

[HeHateMe]

I'd rather trade back and get more picks in a deep draft.

 

This team isn't a rookie WR away from anything... I like Watkins but is he the same as a Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones, AJ Green? They are all much bigger than him. If I'm giving up picks it is for a freak at that position... or a stud QB.

 

If they do trade up for Watkins they can't give away next year's first rd pick.

[PromoTheRobot]

If I worked for WGR, I would want the Bills to trade up as well - not because it makes sense, but because it makes better fodder for talking heads and inane "long-time listener, first-time callers"

 

 

 

This article does a good job breaking it down by position. If you want true "odds" you'll have to do some math, but it seems like the "odds" are better to use more picks to try and find those diamonds, rather than going all in with several picks on one guy.

http://nfl.si.com/20...bout-nfl-draft/

 

But you do get my point that when you spend 3+ picks on a player (the package needed to trade up) that player has to be a future hall of famer to justify the investment? Being good or even very good will not meet the value of that package you gave up.

 

Is there any way to look up past move-up picks and compare the result? The only one I can think of recently is Mark Sanchez and the Jets. That I think everyone can agree was a dud.

Edited May 1, 2014 by PromoTheRobot

[KollegeStudnet]

Everyone in the top 5 wants to move down, which only goes to show how deep this draft is.

 

I expect we stay at 9 and/or move down if it benefits.

 

Note: Solidifying the TE spot is something the Bills have not addressed since the early 2000's. Ebron would be a key fixture for this team and gives E.J. a weapon to open up the field more.

Edited May 1, 2014 by KollegeStudnet

[maryland-bills-fan]

Here's what we have left if we trade up

 

1........... #1 and nothing and nothing next year and no first in 2016

2........... #2, #73, 5th 7th, LOSE next year’s 1st round pick

3.............#3, 5th, 7th

4.............#4, #73 4th, 7th

5.............#5, #41, 5th 7th

6.............#6, #41, 4th, 5th

7.............#7, #41, #73

8.............#8, #41, #73, 4th

9.............#9, #41, #73, 4th, 5th, 7th

[1billsfan]

Everyone in the top 5 wants to move down, which only goes to show how deep this draft is.

 

I expect we stay at 9 and/or move down if it benefits.

 

Note: Solidifying the TE spot is something the Bills have not addressed since the early 2000's. Ebron would be a key fixture for this team and gives E.J. a weapon to open up the field more.

 

I agree with this. I like Watkins as much as anybody and he was my first choice starting the "draft season". But there is no way I'd give away either this year's 2nd pick or next year's 1st round pick to get him.

 

The simple reason is that IMO Eric Ebron's "floor" is he's going to be very near as effective as Watkins will be and Ebron should be there at #9. There should also be a very good OL prospect at the #44 pick that I'm counting on the Bills drafting.

 

Would I trade this year's 3rd rounder, next year's 2nd rounder and Stevie for trading up to pick Watkins? That would be a possibility.

Edited May 1, 2014 by 1billsfan

[CardinalScotts]

the roster is set up to win NOW - with the nugget of consistent quarterback play - If it were me and I had a chance to add what I think will be a great player I would pull the trigger. The draft is only fun if you suck on the field. Right now I love the draft

[Max997]

Tom Donahoe was all about making statements...how did that work out

 

unless the price is cheaper then we all expect i am against trading up

[WotAGuy]

But you do get my point that when you spend 3+ picks on a player (the package needed to trade up) that player has to be a future hall of famer to justify the investment? Being good or even very good will not meet the value of that package you gave up.

 

Is there any way to look up past move-up picks and compare the result? The only one I can think of recently is Mark Sanchez and the Jets. That I think everyone can agree was a dud.

 

Yes, I agree with your point that by trading up, you need to get a higher rate of return. By doing some math (which I abhor), these results suggest you generally DO NOT get good value on your return by trading up:

http://harvardsports...-the-nfl-draft/

 

Further, a second paper cited within the above link found that "We find that top draft picks are overvalued in a manner that is inconsistent with rational expectations and efficient markets and consistent with psychological research."

Edited May 1, 2014 by WotAGuy