NoSaint Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 To go from 19 to 2 will take more then the Rams gave up going 15 to 1. Browns playing moneyball will want to parlay that #2 big time, like the Titans. That's a price the Bill's can't afford rebuilding the D. Having Taylor makes a drastic move like that unnecessary the gap in value between 1 and 2 is much wider than 15 to 19. the price should be lower even from our spot.
KOKBILLS Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 the gap in value between 1 and 2 is much wider than 15 to 19. the price should be lower even from our spot. But I'm sure you know it will still be a lot...Especially for a team with depth issues in need of cheap labor...ie Draft picks...
BarleyNY Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 the gap in value between 1 and 2 is much wider than 15 to 19. the price should be lower even from our spot. http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=Phi If you're calculating it that way the difference would be one mid third round pick according to this chart. That doesn't even consider that the two second round picks the Rams gave up were both in this draft. Or that the Iggles or Bills picks are lower in the second and third rounds. You'd likely be looking at a first, second and third this draft plus a first and second next draft. Ouch. That'd probably be a prohibitively big move up.
NoSaint Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=Phi If you're calculating it that way the difference would be one mid third round pick according to this chart. That doesn't even consider that the two second round picks the Rams gave up were both in this draft. Or that the Iggles or Bills picks are lower in the second and third rounds. You'd likely be looking at a first, second and third this draft plus a first and second next draft. Ouch. That'd probably be a prohibitively big move up. as an aside, it confirms that the gap from 1-2 is 400, while 15-19 is only 275 that chart is ancient though, and a lot has changed in drafts.
thebandit27 Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 as an aside, it confirms that the gap from 1-2 is 400, while 15-19 is only 275 that chart is ancient though, and a lot has changed in drafts. It's interesting: the chart became antiquated when rookie salaries got ridiculous. Now that the rookie wage scale is in place, the chart has actually become relevant again.
YoloinOhio Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 Are they going to try for #3 now? SD dealing...
NoSaint Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 It's interesting: the chart became antiquated when rookie salaries got ridiculous. Now that the rookie wage scale is in place, the chart has actually become relevant again. possibly - though it still doesnt account for things like the breaks between where you have to fully guarantee, vs partial, 4 year deals vs 5, and truly I am not sure how the #1 pick as a percentage of cap relates to the #19 as a percentage of cap compared to payrolls when it started. also id imagine that skill and polish of players as you go through the picks varies differently than it did decades ago. And thats leaving out the year to year variances in talent pools that would effect it. it may be closer to reasonable for a fans bar napkin math than it was a few years ago, but its still very old, and things have evolved. id imagine cleveland will have their own value sheet and it may be drastically different.
thebandit27 Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 possibly - though it still doesnt account for things like the breaks between where you have to fully guarantee, vs partial, 4 year deals vs 5, and truly I am not sure how the #1 pick as a percentage of cap relates to the #19 as a percentage of cap compared to payrolls when it started. also id imagine that skill and polish of players as you go through the picks varies differently than it did decades ago. And thats leaving out the year to year variances in talent pools that would effect it. it may be closer to reasonable for a fans bar napkin math than it was a few years ago, but its still very old, and things have evolved. id imagine cleveland will have their own value sheet and it may be drastically different. Agreed--it's hardly cannon; just a barometer
Nanker Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 I see this as a possibility a whole lot more than the Bills. They have Bradford on a two year contract with almost no guaranteed money after this year, and I don't think much that would follow to another team if traded. If the Broncos are desperate, Bradford for the Broncos 1st is a bargain. 8 and 31 for 2 is not a bad haul. Yep. It's a done deal - Iggles now are at the #2 spot.
NoSaint Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 might as well lock this one. We still may be looking to trade up and asking across the top ten just to know cost
mead107 Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 This was all about going to number 2. I still think if we trade down it only a few spots. My money is on them staying put.
Kirby Jackson Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 This was all about going to number 2. I still think if we trade down it only a few spots. My money is on them staying put. That is what is confusing to me. In the original tweet I read it as "the Bills were a team exploring the cost to trade up." I did not read it as "the Bills are a team exploring the cost of moving up to # 2." I think that was lost in translation somewhere along the way. I think that the Bills may be interested in moving up 10 spots (or whatever) if the right prospect is on the board. I think that they could just as easily move down if they get the right offer. I guess that I never read that particular tweet as the Bills effort to get to the #2 pick.
Recommended Posts