Give up draft picks and trade up in the 1st to get "your guy"... this is the year to do it

[transplantbillsfan]

So I hadn't even realized this, but evidently there are only 657 eligible draft picks this year vs 1,932 last year because the NCAA allowed an extra year of eligibility for college players.  That combined with limited game tape on many of them combined with a lack of Combine and face-to-face might make for a true wheelin and dealin Brandon Beane.

 

Basically... this also likely means that there's going to be LOTS of depth in next year's draft and 7th round picks next year willl likely be better than 7th round picks in other years.

 

I attached a video below making the argument for essentially trading ALL of this year's draft picks (or our 1st this year and next year along with a couple 2nds, 3rds, or 4ths) in order to trade ALL THE WAY UP to #4 for Kyle Pitts.

 

Would that be wise or is it even close to what Beane is thinking?  Probably not.  But with the recent report about us wanting to leapfrog the Jags and Jets for Etienne, maybe Beane is legitimately eyeballing Micah Parsons or Jaycee Horn in the teens. 

 

Or who knows.... why not swing for the fences to get Pitts?

 

 

[DJB]

I appreciate the video and info but....

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by DJB

[glazeduck]

I've suggested something somewhat similar, but going up to 4 is too much. We have too many reasonable-sized needs and simply can't afford to ignore them completely like this. 

At one point it was at least debatable that he could slide near or into the teens -- at which point I agree, if you can get a couple late picks back, putting 1, 2 and 3 together would've been worth it because there's a halfway decent chance that those late picks would have similar outcomes as the 2 and 3, but it's just not feasible to get all the way up to 4 and fill the holes we have at edge, CB, OL, etc.

[transplantbillsfan]

9 minutes ago, DJB said:

I appreciate the video and info but....

 

 

Because?

 

How many impact players do you think we need this year in order to be Super Bowl conten...

 

oh wait... we're already Super Bowl contenders...

 

so what positions were really holding us back last year in the AFC Championship game?  We didn't lose anyone in the offseason (even swap at worst in terms of Brown for Sanders).

 

What's the fear?  If you KNOW a player is going to be an impact player for you, this would be the year to go up and get him.

1 minute ago, glazeduck said:

I've suggested something somewhat similar, but going up to 4 is too much. We have too many reasonable-sized needs and simply can't afford to ignore them completely like this. 

At one point it was at least debatable that he could slide near or into the teens -- at which point I agree, if you can get a couple late picks back, putting 1, 2 and 3 together would've been worth it because there's a halfway decent chance that those late picks would have similar outcomes as the 2 and 3, but it's just not feasible to get all the way up to 4 and fill the holes we have at edge, CB, OL, etc.

 

Yes I think 4 would generally be too much, too... but honestly I'd be damn excited if we do it.

 

Realistically I think Beane should go into the low 20s or teens if he's eyeing a specific player like Etienne, Parsons, Horn, Samuel Jr., etc.

 

One player I'm kinda wondering about in terms of Beane targeting potentially is Davonta Smith if he starts to fall.  Seems like he'd be the Isaiah McKenzie cog of the offense moving forward... and Daboll seemed to love using McKenzie.

[NewEra]

8 minutes ago, glazeduck said:

I've suggested something somewhat similar, but going up to 4 is too much. We have too many reasonable-sized needs and simply can't afford to ignore them completely like this. 

At one point it was at least debatable that he could slide near or into the teens -- at which point I agree, if you can get a couple late picks back, putting 1, 2 and 3 together would've been worth it because there's a halfway decent chance that those late picks would have similar outcomes as the 2 and 3, but it's just not feasible to get all the way up to 4 and fill the holes we have at edge, CB, OL, etc.

No my friend.....you only thought that it was debatable.  There was never a chance.

[DJB]

15 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Because?

 

How many impact players do you think we need this year in order to be Super Bowl conten...

 

oh wait... we're already Super Bowl contenders...

 

so what positions were really holding us back last year in the AFC Championship game?  We didn't lose anyone in the offseason (even swap at worst in terms of Brown for Sanders).

 

What's the fear?  If you KNOW a player is going to be an impact player for you, this would be the year to go up and get him.

 

Yes I think 4 would generally be too much, too... but honestly I'd be damn excited if we do it.

 

Realistically I think Beane should go into the low 20s or teens if he's eyeing a specific player like Etienne, Parsons, Horn, Samuel Jr., etc.

 

One player I'm kinda wondering about in terms of Beane targeting potentially is Davonta Smith if he starts to fall.  Seems like he'd be the Isaiah McKenzie cog of the offense moving forward... and Daboll seemed to love using McKenzie.

 

Listen I love Kyle Pitts. In fact I wrote about him almost a year ago over on Drafttek. 

 

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Draft-Scouting-Reports/Scouting-Report-Kyle-Pitts.asp

 

But the cost to go up from 30 all the way to 4 to get him is going to be astronomical including multiple years of 1st rounds picks. It took the Niners 3 firsts to go from 12 to 3 I can't imagine the cost to go from 30 to 4. 

[Warcodered]

This would make more sense with the whole trading up for Etienne thing, Pitts is just going too damn high.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Warcodered

[BillsPride12]

25 minutes ago, glazeduck said:

I've suggested something somewhat similar, but going up to 4 is too much. We have too many reasonable-sized needs and simply can't afford to ignore them completely like this. 

At one point it was at least debatable that he could slide near or into the teens -- at which point I agree, if you can get a couple late picks back, putting 1, 2 and 3 together would've been worth it because there's a halfway decent chance that those late picks would have similar outcomes as the 2 and 3, but it's just not feasible to get all the way up to 4 and fill the holes we have at edge, CB, OL, etc.

Agreed.  It just doesn't make sense to make the blockbuster trade up for Pitts when our offense is already pretty explosive.  If they want to swing for the fences and trade up for somebody it should be Paye.

[NewEra]

22 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Because?

 

How many impact players do you think we need this year in order to be Super Bowl conten...

 

oh wait... we're already Super Bowl contenders...

 

so what positions were really holding us back last year in the AFC Championship game?  We didn't lose anyone in the offseason (even swap at worst in terms of Brown for Sanders).

 

What's the fear?  If you KNOW a player is going to be an impact player for you, this would be the year to go up and get him.

 

Yes I think 4 would generally be too much, too... but honestly I'd be damn excited if we do it.

 

Realistically I think Beane should go into the low 20s or teens if he's eyeing a specific player like Etienne, Parsons, Horn, Samuel Jr., etc.

 

One player I'm kinda wondering about in terms of Beane targeting potentially is Davonta Smith if he starts to fall.  Seems like he'd be the Isaiah McKenzie cog of the offense moving forward... and Daboll seemed to love using McKenzie.

It just seems like you’re forgetting that these players contracts will run out and we have to pay them more.....plus Josh Allen over 40M a year.  Plus Diggs is going to be going from 11M to 20M very soon.  We need the picks (and to hit on the picks) to sustain the success.  
 

I love pitts and would definitely trade our entire draft for him. It’s the additional picks next year that are going to hurt in the future.  
 

i get your point, if we get Pitts, our offense will be unstoppable and there’s no need to worry about the other picks. We’d figure out a way to fill the roster with minimum salary depth everywhere and some starters.  I just don’t think Beane would ever do such a thing

[Brennan Huff]

I would do unspeakable things behind the field house to get Kyle Pitts

[transplantbillsfan]

12 minutes ago, DJB said:

 

Listen I love Kyle Pitts. In fact I wrote about him almost a year ago over on Drafttek. 

 

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Draft-Scouting-Reports/Scouting-Report-Kyle-Pitts.asp

 

But the cost to go up from 30 all the way to 4 to get him is going to be astronomical including multiple years of 1st rounds picks. It took the Niners 3 firsts to go from 12 to 3 I can't imagine the cost to go from 30 to 4. 

 

When Atlanta traded up to get Julio Jones they jumped 21 slots and gave up their 1st, 2nd and 4th round picks that year along with their 1st and 4th round picks for the following year.

 

Buffalo would need to go up an additional 5 slots so I'd guess it'd be something more like a 1st, 3rd and 4th next year along with a 1st, 2nd and 4th this year.

 

It's a lot... but Atlanta won in that trade because they got a Superstar Stud HOF worthy WR.

 

If that's what Kyle Pitts truly is.... he might be worth it... especially for a team like Buffalo without any actual gaping holes at the moment.

 

 

That said... Kyle Pitts is more of a longshot.  I do, however, think trading up for someone else Beane covets (Parsons? Horn? Samuel Jr.? Smith?  Etienne?) might become more and more realistic as we get into the mid teens.

[WhoTom]

The thing is, you need a partner to trade with, and every GM in the league knows the same fact about this year's draft vs next year's draft, so the standard trade formulas might not apply. It could cost significantly more to get into the teens this year than it would in other years.

[transplantbillsfan]

9 minutes ago, NewEra said:

It just seems like you’re forgetting that these players contracts will run out and we have to pay them more.....plus Josh Allen over 40M a year.  Plus Diggs is going to be going from 11M to 20M very soon.  We need the picks (and to hit on the picks) to sustain the success.  
 

I love pitts and would definitely trade our entire draft for him. It’s the additional picks next year that are going to hurt in the future.  
 

i get your point, if we get Pitts, our offense will be unstoppable and there’s no need to worry about the other picks. We’d figure out a way to fill the roster with minimum salary depth everywhere and some starters.  I just don’t think Beane would ever do such a thing

 

 

I understand we have players with contracts running out.  But we don't lose much even after this season.  Hughes is the biggest UFA we'll have next offseason... and that is why I would include whoever Beane's #1 EDGE rusher is on this list for trading up.

 

Yes Allen's and Edmunds's contracts will be up, but my guess is Beane extends Allen soon and exercises Edmunds 5th year option.  We have other players we'll lose here and there, but our OL will pretty much be in tact along with our WR corps in general.  We need CBs, which is very true.

 

Other than Allen, I just don't see us having to break the bank for anyone immediately.  Even with Diggs (and Allen) Beane can work his masterful hand with the CAP to pay both guys big bucks and move the money around.

 

We also still have some draftees who might come into their own as starters over the next year or 2 (Daryl Johnson, Vosean Joseph, Epenesa, Hodgins, Jackson) so I wouldn't rule them out as depth at least.

 

We're in "win now!!!" stage, aren't we?

[Green Lightning]

I just got the Sammy Watkins shakes. And that was peanuts compared to this haul of picks to give up.

[transplantbillsfan]

27 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

This would make more sense with the whole trading up for Etienne thing, Pitts is just going too damn high.

 

I agree... but that doesn't mean I won't be super excited if we actually do it.

[whatdrought]

As with all things, there is a balance to this. They are in good shape to take a shot if they love someone, but they also have tangible needs for this year, and serious needs for the next 3 years. They need young talent in the pipeline. 

[mushypeaches]

I'm in the boat of letting the draft come to us this year.  We have a lot of young cheap depth that's going to age out in the next 1-2 years that's going to need to be replaced.  It takes cheap draft picks to do that.  

 

Yes, I'd like to win, but I don't want to become this top-heavy have/have-not club either.  That's the quickest path back to 6 win purgatory

 

[NewEra]

3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

I understand we have players with contracts running out.  But we don't lose much even after this season.  Hughes is the biggest UFA we'll have next offseason... and that is why I would include whoever Beane's #1 EDGE rusher is on this list for trading up.

 

Yes Allen's and Edmunds's contracts will be up, but my guess is Beane extends Allen soon and exercises Edmunds 5th year option.  We have other players we'll lose here and there, but our OL will pretty much be in tact along with our WR corps in general.  We need CBs, which is very true.

 

Other than Allen, I just don't see us having to break the bank for anyone immediately.  Even with Diggs (and Allen) Beane can work his masterful hand with the CAP to pay both guys big bucks and move the money around.

 

We also still have some draftees who might come into their own as starters over the next year or 2 (Daryl Johnson, Vosean Joseph, Epenesa, Hodgins, Jackson) so I wouldn't rule them out as depth at least.

 

We're in "win now!!!" stage, aren't we?

Big difference between being in the “win now” stage and “going all in”.  Trading all of our draft picks this year and all of our good draft picks next year for a TE is going all in.
 

The only DEs under contract will be Epenesa and Bam. Tredavious and Dane are the only corners. Sanders and mckenzie are gone and Beasley, who has 2 years left is 32 today. At DT, we have Ed and no one of worth going forward.  We don’t currently have any good guards.  We don’t have any good RBs.  We don’t have any good TEs (Pitts would change that).  
 

I think trading every pick and picks next year would put too much on Allens shoulders.  He might be good enough to carry us, as long as he stays healthy....but it’s just it’s too many picks.  Beane won’t be able to pull the trigger and is unlikely to even consider it. 

[transplantbillsfan]

16 minutes ago, Green Lightning said:

I just got the Sammy Watkins shakes. And that was peanuts compared to this haul of picks to give up.

 

Well... I don't think trading up in that draft was a mistake.

 

In fact the moment we did it I was SUPER STOKED!!!

 

We just traded up and drafted the wrong player... we should have drafted Khalil Mack.

[starrymessenger]

46 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

I understand we have players with contracts running out.  But we don't lose much even after this season.  Hughes is the biggest UFA we'll have next offseason... and that is why I would include whoever Beane's #1 EDGE rusher is on this list for trading up.

 

Yes Allen's and Edmunds's contracts will be up, but my guess is Beane extends Allen soon and exercises Edmunds 5th year option.  We have other players we'll lose here and there, but our OL will pretty much be in tact along with our WR corps in general.  We need CBs, which is very true.

 

Other than Allen, I just don't see us having to break the bank for anyone immediately.  Even with Diggs (and Allen) Beane can work his masterful hand with the CAP to pay both guys big bucks and move the money around.

 

We also still have some draftees who might come into their own as starters over the next year or 2 (Daryl Johnson, Vosean Joseph, Epenesa, Hodgins, Jackson) so I wouldn't rule them out as depth at least.

 

We're in "win now!!!" stage, aren't we?

Vosean is a free agent.