The Bills rebuild with a trade-down after an early run on QB

[TigerJ]

We could trade with ourselves from 12 down to 22 and pick up an extra second round pick?  Cool!

[Mr. WEO]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 8:38 AM, NewEraBills said:

LOL Baker Mayfield at #32.  Mmmm kay Walter.

 

 

Yeah, that's where this scheme immediately became laughable.

[Thurman#1]

34 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Well I never said we were trading up in order to trade down.  I did say that was one of the options with a higher pick.  (By the way, you might have to admit that teams with higher picks DO sometimes trade down).   And it is also true that you might be able to get someone to overpay for that higher pick.

 

Now, could you please identify that NFL GM that your have in red above?  What is his name? How does he know what Beane  is going to do?  Is he looking into his ear or wiretapping his office?   I guess it is just what we used to call a Shxxhouse rumor and they are all over the place as clickbait.

 

By the way, do you want to change the following statement?    "Doesn't fly, man. Beane has made it extremely clear that he's a conservative guy, financially and in terms of trades. He's a guy who understands how important extra picks are. "     It is nice to see you agree that Beane is a conservative guy.  Would a conservative guy bet the farm on an unproven rookie in a position where there is a 50% fail rate?  Hmmmm.   Also, I'm glad to see you agree he understands how "important extra picks are."    He might even think that you should spread your risks, rather then risk everything on one roll of the dice.  Glad to see we agree on all this.

 

 

You pointed out that one of the options was to trade up in order to trade down. That idea is indeed bizarre. And the idea that because teams sometimes trade down that the idea of trading up and then trading down ... sorry, again, doesn't follow.

 

Oh, please. The old nonsense that because the source is anonymous it doesn't matter. Please. It's an NFL GM. Clearly the reason he thinks this is because of the contact he and other GMs have had with Beane and what he's talking about. He says it's 

 

You know, you keep asking questions where the answer is an obvious "YES" and posing them as if the reasonable answer is "NO." It's like you're saying, "Would a reasonable person buy a Haagen-Dasz ice cream at more than twice the price of bargain-basement ice cream even though the taste improvement is probably no more than 20 or 30%? Hmmmmm." You've done this in the last three or so posts. And you do it again here.

 

"Would a conservative guy bet the farm on an unproven rookie in a position where there is a 50% fail rate?  Hmmmm." Clearly you think the answer is no, but it's in fact very much a YES. The conservative rule, again, is that you don't trade up and give up major early value ... EXCEPT when you are going after a franchise QB." The answer is YES. As shown in the Goff and Wentz trades and a ton more.  YES, you take that risk if you like the guy.

 

Earlier you asked, ""Say then it takes 2 more years to catch up.  It is now 2021 and the team is "rebuilt" and competitive.  (well, with the QB bust rate it is a 50% chance at best).      Sorry, but is that a smart place to be?"

 

Again, I can see you don't get this, but that isn't even a good question. The answer is YES. If you believe the QB will be a franchise guy, yes, it's not just a good place to be, it's the best place to be. Without question.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Thurman#1

[maryland-bills-fan]

"....You pointed out that one of the options was to trade up in order to trade down. ............."   You seem to have difficulty with logic and English.  I said that after trading up, (so the starting point that the options flow from is from the #12 pick), we had several options, one of which was to trade back down again.       NOT that the option was to trade up in order to trade down.    Please! stop.

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

On 4/4/2018 at 5:03 AM, maryland-bills-fan said:

I am amused by all the experts who know about the "can't miss" rookie QB, who can perform miracles without an offensive line, wide receivers or linebackers on defense.  ..... Please remember that or offensive line was bailed out by Taylor's feet and that we have aging ,declining guards, that we lost our starting center and traded away a rotational starting tackle.  Three new faces are needed there................  We have one starting linebacker and need two more.  Somebody from the first two rounds would do.....................  Our wide receivers scare nobody, but Mr. Miracle Quarterback is going to have those guys free down the sidelines for a 50yard gain and shaking loose from coverage over the middle and getting an average 15 yard YAC on every play.  Don't think so.  At least one pick in the first 3 rounds is needed............Oh, did you forget that we lost some people as FA who had "DB" as their position?   Maybe one more pick in the 1st three rounds is needed here...........................................BUT lets ignore all that and trade the first two rounds from this year and next year's first for a 50:50 shot.  Yea, right.

 

With all these needs (six plus a QB = 7) I can not see going in the direction of trading away the draft picks necessary to field a competitive team in order to get a possible star to have wet dreams about.  The games are won in the "trenches".  A cute rookie QB with a broken leg is not good for anything.  I say we should do the following.  Stay at #12 in case the QB that the Bills could live with is available.  If not, they trade down and get your Bart Starr, Jim Kelly or Dan Marion with a later pick.    (with arm twisting, moving up 3-4 spots and losing next year's 2nd rounder would be okay)

 

Here is what we could get with a trade-down from the #12 pick.

 

down to     gets us this overall pick

==============================

#14............100th player  (4th round)

#16.............78th player  (3rd round)

#18............60th player    (2nd round)

#20............55th player

#22.............48th player

#24.............44th player

#26.............40th player

#28.............36th player

#30.............32nd player

#32...............30.5th player (1st round)

.

.

From Walter Football, here is a list of the players in that 30-55 range that we get for "free" by trading down. (I don't agree that all these guys will be available this low, but it gives you the idea).

30.

Equanimeous St. Brown, WR, Notre Dame. Previously: 30 Avg. 23.8 per 30

31.

Marcus Davenport, DE, Texas-San Antonio. Previously: 31 Avg. 31.8 per 10

32.

Baker Mayfield, QB, Oklahoma. Previously: 32 Avg. 42.1 per 17

33.

Christian Kirk, WR, Texas A&M. Previously: 33 Avg. 25.2 per 30

34.

Nick Chubb, RB, Georgia. Previously: 34 Avg. 32.4 per 30

35.

Tim Settle, DT, Virginia Tech. Previously: 35 Avg. 34.6 per 10

36.

James Daniels, C, Iowa. Previously: 36 Avg. 36 per 9

37.

Terrell Edmunds, S, Virginia Tech. Previously: 37 Avg. 37 per 24

38.

Justin Reid, S, Stanford. Previously: 38 Avg. 32.8 per 19

39.

Will Hernandez, G, UTEP. Previously: 39 Avg. 38.9 per 20

40.

Kolton Miller, OT, UCLA. Previously: 40 Avg. 37.4 per 10

41.

Leighton Vander Esch, LB, Boise State. Previously: 41 Avg. 48.8 per 9

42.

D.J. Moore, WR, Maryland. Previously: NR Avg. 0 per 0

43.

Harold Landry, DE, Boston College. Previously: 43 Avg. 32.2 per 30

44.

JC Jackson, CB, Maryland. Previously: 44 Avg. 32.4 per 11

45.

Dorance Armstrong Jr., DE, Kansas. Previously: 45 Avg. 28.1 per 30

46.

Isaiah Wynn, OT, Georgia. Previously: 46 Avg. 46 per 14

47.

Kerryon Johnson, RB, Auburn. Previously: 47 Avg. 46.9 per 17

48.

Sam Hubbard, DE, Ohio State. Previously: 48 Avg. 45.6 per 30

49.

Ronnie Harrison, S, Alabama. Previously: 49 Avg. 29.6 per 30

50.

Jordan Whitehead, S, Pittsburgh. Previously: 50 Avg. 46.1 per 30

51.

R.J. McIntosh, DT, Miami. Previously: 51 Avg. 54.9 per 9

52.

Mark Andrews, TE, Oklahoma. Previously: 52 Avg. 52 per 9

53.

Isaiah Oliver, CB, Colorado. Previously: 53 Avg. 53 per 9

54.

Ronald Jones II, RB, USC. Previously: 54 Avg. 54 per 9

55.

Duke Ejiofor, DE, Wake Forest.

 http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftbigboard#ixzz5BhirZysC

 

A good center,  a good linebacker, a good WR or a  good RB.  You get an extra solid player, probably a starter, for  your effort.     If the best QB shots are gone at #12, build a strong team with those 7 picks and take a QB out of the top 15.

 

 

 

 

I say we trade with ourselves at 22 and get the 48th pick

[maryland-bills-fan]

1 minute ago, MOVALLEYRANDY said:

I say we trade with ourselves at 22 and get the 48th pick

Sorry, I just went down the list and did every other draft slot to keep the amount of work down and give an idea of what sort of return there would be.  Now to forestall your next post,  we could also have traded down to the ODD number picks as well.

[Thurman#1]

 

 

23 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

"....You pointed out that one of the options was to trade up in order to trade down. ............."   You seem to have difficulty with logic and English.  I said that after trading up, (so the starting point that the options flow from is from the #12 pick), we had several options, one of which was to trade back down again.       NOT that the option was to trade up in order to trade down.    Please! stop.

 

Now you're even misquoting yourself. Here's what you actually said.

 

4 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

"If they weren't trading up, they'd have traded Glenn not for a move up but for another draft pick. "

 

I think that is not the only explanation for trading away Glenn.  Yes, they could have traded him for just a lower round draft pick.   But trading up for upgrading that 1st round pick was a better option for a variety of reasons, and not just solely the one you gave.  It does not LOCK the Bills only into trading further up for a QB.  Other very good reasons: 

 

...

 

(3) holding the #12 pick means that an elite, special player is available. There is a good chance that another team really has the hots for that guy and will want to trade up to your #12 to get him.   Let's say that guy or someone else at #12 is not real important to the Bills- they can get the same type of player later.  Okay, what you do is make that another team, pay through the nose for the pick and you get more for their trade up than the market value.  You don't have the chance to take advantage of this situation if you just took the lower round pick for Glenn.

 

 

You said this was "not the only explanation for trading away Glenn." So no, it's you who's having the problem with English here. You weren't talking about "after trading up" at all. You were trying to use this as an explanation for using Glenn to trade UP rather than to acquire another pick.  Are you one of those people who simply change arguments constantly? Or was this an honest case of losing track (which certainly happens)?

 

You simply don't trade up  because maybe somebody might - maybe - be desperate enough to pay a premium.  You claim that this is a good explanation for why they used Glenn to trade up rather than acquire a separate pick. It ain't.

 

People don't only trade up at a premium for picks at #12 and higher. They trade up everywhere and they give a premium if they want the guy badly enough. One difference being that if you get a new pick for Glenn you now have two picks, each or both of which you might trade back if that was what you thought was the best use of the pick.

 

This simply doesn't in any way address why they traded up rather than acquire a new pick.

 

I respect the tone you've generally been using in this thread. But honestly, this is a dead issue. They want to trade up. Desperately. Their entire history here in Buffalo shows this. Particularly using Glenn to trade up, because people very high up in the draft don't want to trade too far down even if they get a good premium. That's why they traded up instead of acquiring a new pick. Because teams at #2 or #4 or #5 didn't want to trade back to #21 even if they got a premium to do so.

 

They might not be able to trade up. But it's what they want. And pretty much everyone knows it. Look at what people around the league are saying. Some may say the Bills shouldn't trade up but they know what their behavior means is their next step. And an NFL GM who knows a great deal more about what they're doing than we do says it reminds him of the Eagles. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Thurman#1

[formerlyofCtown]

4 hours ago, kdiggz said:

Haha ok so they are trading down to 15 and taking who? 15 by the way is the Arizona Cardinals who also need a QB and may even be looking to trade up for one.

What ever QB we want, that is why it is called a dream synerio because it is very unlikely.  I am aware of who picks at 15.

2 hours ago, dlonce said:

 

Sure, one can make an argument stating there could be other reasons we traded Glenn to move up 9 spots, but you have to see the reality of that trade. You normally do not see swaps with a player to move up weeks before the draft.

Its obvious to everyone why Beane opted to move up instead of taking a second rounder for Glenn,because that’s the value.

 

I am in agreement with you on building our lines, just not how we build it.The argument our line was bad doesn’t hold water.

I believe it was Pro Football Focus that claimed we had the second best line in the league last year. The stats they used we’re indicative of how a line should be ranked.Tyrod Taylor was a detriment to the line with his one read and take off mentality.

 

This is the year to get a QB. Beanies moves starting with the KC trade last year point towards our attempt. Trading Tyrod is another indicator,add in the Glenn trade as well.

 

We have been through this build the team before the QB comes routine before, it hasn’t worked. We could fill holes with busts in any position,there are no givens when drafting. I’d prefer a 50/50 chance at the most important position on the team,instead of drafting a LB that also has a bust rate. It’s a vicious cycle,build your team first, but by the time you get a QB those picks are ready for raises or they leave for free agency,then back to square one.

 

Our cap for next year is closer to 100 million,this was designed by management for the whole purpose of building that team with your supposed franchise guy in place. Doing it the other way around is difficult because it forces you to find a QB,even if there are none available. This is the year where really good QBs are available,not next year. 

Is it an absolute guarantee? Hell no, nothing is, but people with knowledge about football say this is a great class,so I defer to them.

 

The time is now. I hope Beanie can get it done,I know he’s trying like hell.

Beane wasn't our GM when we traded down.

[maryland-bills-fan]

27 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Now you're even misquoting yourself. Here's what you actually said.

 

 

 

You said this was "not the only explanation for trading away Glenn." So no, it's you who's having the problem with English here. You weren't talking about "after trading up" at all. You were trying to use this as an explanation for using Glenn to trade UP rather than to acquire another pick.  Are you one of those people who simply change arguments constantly? Or was this an honest case of losing track (which certainly happens)?

 

You simply don't trade up  because maybe somebody might - maybe - be desperate enough to pay a premium.  You claim that this is a good explanation for why they used Glenn to trade up rather than acquire a separate pick. It ain't.

 

People don't only trade up at a premium for picks at #12 and higher. They trade up everywhere and they give a premium if they want the guy badly enough. One difference being that if you get a new pick for Glenn you now have two picks, each or both of which you might trade back if that was what you thought was the best use of the pick.

 

This simply doesn't in any way address why they traded up rather than acquire a new pick.

 

I respect the tone you've generally been using in this thread. But honestly, this is a dead issue. They want to trade up. Desperately. Their entire history here in Buffalo shows this. Particularly using Glenn to trade up, because people very high up in the draft don't want to trade too far down even if they get a good premium. That's why they traded up instead of acquiring a new pick. Because teams at #2 or #4 or #5 didn't want to trade back to #21 even if they got a premium to do so.

 

They might not be able to trade up. But it's what they want. And pretty much everyone knows it. Look at what people around the league are saying. Some may say the Bills shouldn't trade up but they know what their behavior means is their next step. And an NFL GM who knows a great deal more about what they're doing than we do says it reminds him of the Eagles. 

They traded up because it put getting a top QB in play.  That is a given. It doesn't mean that was the only plan or thing to do with the pick

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

They traded up because it put getting a top QB in play.  That is a given. It doesn't mean that was the only plan or thing to do with the pick

 

 

Well, of course they have a plan B in case it turns out to be impossible to trade up. Beside the point, though. At #12 the top four guys are extremely unlikely to get even close much less reach there. Their plan is to trade up. But yeah, it might turn out not to be do-able.

 

Trading up to #12 does indeed put them in play ... with another trade up. Without that, they're not realistically in play. 
 

 

 

So they traded up to get in position to trade up. Exactly. So why all the arguing then? Jeez.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Thurman#1

[maryland-bills-fan]

Well the difference is this.  Trading up to #12 puts the top 4 QB's in play with another trade up.  That is different than saying that it is proof that we are totally committed and ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO trade up to the top 2 or 3 spots.  Some posters are slamming and yelling at anybody who does not totally accept that we HAVE to trade our entire draft and next year's draft as well to do this.    A lot of noise over this. 

[Jasovon]

11 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

"If they weren't trading up, they'd have traded Glenn not for a move up but for another draft pick. "

 

I think that is not the only explanation for trading away Glenn.  Yes, they could have traded him for just a lower round draft pick.   But trading up for upgrading that 1st round pick was a better option for a variety of reasons, and not just solely the one you gave.  It does not LOCK the Bills only into trading further up for a QB.  Other very good reasons: 

 

(1)  they might get the QB they want or a very good QB with the #12 pick.  Every year the "experts" are saying that so-and-so is a lock for a top 5 pick, and then the guy falls out of the top half of the 1st round.  Maybe the guy they want is not one of the sainted top 4 that everyone is wetting their pants about.

 

(2) there might be a non-QB that they have their eye on at #12 and want to get him, if they can't trade up for the top QB(s) in the top 5(?).

 

(3) holding the #12 pick means that an elite, special player is available. There is a good chance that another team really has the hots for that guy and will want to trade up to your #12 to get him.   Let's say that guy or someone else at #12 is not real important to the Bills- they can get the same type of player later.  Okay, what you do is make that another team, pay through the nose for the pick and you get more for their trade up than the market value.  You don't have the chance to take advantage of this situation if you just took the lower round pick for Glenn.

 

Example:    we got a bump up of 420 draft points for trading Glenn (equivalent to the 16th pick in the 2nd round)

 Maybe we trade down again from #12  and get the first and second round picks from the team in the 17th spot.  We pick up 1350 points for a spot that was worth 1200 points. It is like gaining another 3rd round pick.    That is a good thing.

 

 

 

  Most people think that McCarron is a better option than Peterman.  If we don't go QB in the first round, then I expect they will go QB in the 2nd or 3rd round which would be an upgrade from Peterman.

Oh Peterman sucks, hence starting him all year guarantees us a top pick next year.

[maryland-bills-fan]

1 hour ago, Jasovon said:

Oh Peterman sucks, hence starting him all year guarantees us a top pick next year.

No.  I won't stand for tanking. I have had enough years of being a joke in the NFL.  Marlin Briscoe is hanging his head in shame.  God asks me for advice.  I tell the stock market what their closing number will be.   I say whether it will rain or snow or be clear.  The oceans ask me if they should rise or fall.  I can make the sun move backwards.  No more losing seasons.  Final.

[3rdand12]

On 4/4/2018 at 8:34 AM, vorpma said:

I somewhat agree with the point you are making, yes we need a franchise QB but the offensive line is not dominating; if you daft a franchise QB and he gets the hell beat out of him it can he is not going to do you much good!

This is not a bad post, there is a very legitimate point there!

Much of the reason Fitz has some success to the point of hope was that O line functioned very well under that Coaching. It's valid. But because Bills O line has generally sucked last 13 out of 17 years? and might not be all we wished it would be is no longer a reason. and they have NO WRS either ! None really.

get the qb and figure out the rest.

 Hell, just send AJ out there for the year to get traumatized. Bills know how to do that don't they  ?

 

:  )

[3rdand12]

As the Draft unfolds, i would expect Bills to know who and when and how the first five picks are going down. Even if Giants are trading out. even if Colts and Broncos are  moving up with Giants.
It is about the highest bidder. not the quickest draw.

 

i rest my case.

 

Now whom is Beanes #1 and #2 QB ?
and is #3 worth trading up for? is the next dropping QB one you feel real good about anyways ?

You go to two to pick  if you must, of course you do. I think its between 3 QBs

 

let us pray

 

trade downs and ups ?
leaving that to the experts on the Bills staff

 

respect the process

 

[maryland-bills-fan]

I still think that if the top 4-5 QB's , that we might like, are gone before we even get a chance to trade up, the we should consider trading down to get another pick in the first two rounds.  That would give us a shot (30%? ) at a good QB, and 6 picks to use for o-line / o-line / linebacker / DB / BPA / and (if we can swing it) trading a 2nd rounder for a 1st next year so we would have the ammo to use two first round picks to trade up for a franchise guy next year.  (only God knows if there might be 2-3 guys with that profile next year.  NEWS FLASH:  They haven't played the 2018 college season yet).    That would give us a couple of routes to a superior QB and start surrounding him with pieces to make him successful.

 

"Daddy, Daddy..... I want a pony for my birthday that I can  keep at home!"   Uh,  I got trouble playing the bills and we live in an apartment.  "Daddy, Daddy..... I want a pony for my birthday that I can  keep at home!  We can sell the car, move to the country, you and mom could both work 3 jobs each and it would work out well.  I could keep my same bedroom and all my friends" 

Edited April 24, 2018 by maryland-bills-fan

[BADOLBILZ]

On 4/4/2018 at 8:40 AM, StevieJohnsonGOAT said:

It's 2018 and there are still people that haven't realized QB is the only position that matters in football.  Fascinating 

 

 

Pretty much.    

 

And this is a team that needs a great QB in so many ways.

 

Not just to be in constant contention............but to build a young fanbase and to help support the construction of a new stadium in the next 10 years.

 

We seem immune to issues now but when Pegs becomes the 30th wealthiest owner in the cheapest ticket market with the oldest stadium we will be wishing we played to win and not to lose.    It can happen.    Ralph was paying everyone's bills in the AFL at one time and he went out clutching his change purse.

[Ol Dirty B]

On 4/4/2018 at 8:32 AM, hemma said:

I want that #12.

Odell Beckham, Fletcher Cox, Warren Sapp, Clay Matthews

 

You can get a stud at that spot and we need a few.

 

 

 

You can also get a Moreno, McCown, Ponder there. 

[Zerovoltz]

...(I didn't read this whole thread so probably repeating something here)  .....to the original poster.  Yes, the team has all of those needs.  And every single one of those except QB can be readily found in later draft rounds, camp cuts from other teams, free agency...etc etc...the whole reason you expend more money, more time, more draft capital on QB is because planet earth contains about 15 guys who can actually competently man the QB position in the NFL.  There are not many who can be NFL LB...but that number on planet earth is probably somewhere around 100 or 200.  Same with Most of the other positions.  The QB costs more because he is A) Not many people can do it and there is much more demand than supply and B) Asside from being a rare human...the position is HEAVILY weighted so that the impact of having someone who can perform makes much more difference than someone who can or can not perform at Inside LB for example.  The same is true the other direction.....you can have the best ILB, OLB....K, P....G, C....bla bla bla...but the nature of QB is if he sucks..the others impact is severaly limited no matter how good they are.

[oldmanfan]

I cannot imagine them not getting a QB in this draft.