Bills apparently cockblocked the Pats*** at the end of the 1st round…

[Dibs]

31 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

What I want to know is how the ***** is cockblocked allowed but the b-word isn’t? 

Which b-word?

Bastard

Bum

Boob

Ballbag

Belichick

 

[SoonerBillsFan]

Good **** them

[eball]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea I said all along they knew who Dan Morgan wanted. He and Beane are tight. Its a rare case where a GM would say "come on who is your guy, as long as its not our guy I'll do it" and because if their relationship Morgan is gonna tell him. 

 

Correct.  Beane knew Carolina was taking Legette, and I think he knew who KC was after as well.  We don't know what he did or didn't know about picks 29-31, but I assume he knew one of the WRs he would be happy with would be available.

 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 hours ago, H2o said:

Beane said he could care less who the Chiefs were picking. When the Chiefs took Worthy, Beane knew what the Pats were trying to do. They were moving for Legette or Coleman, one of the remaining 2nd Tier WR's, to pair with their newly drafted QB. Beane knew their cupboard was pretty bare and said, "Nope. Sorry, not Sorry." 

He probably thought that he knew who the Pats wanted. What if the Pats wanted Worthy? Would he have been okay with them getting him? They’re talking out of both sides of their mouth. You THINK that you know who someone wants but you aren’t sure. How do we know that the Bills target wasn’t Pearsall at 32? We don’t. 

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea I said all along they knew who Dan Morgan wanted. He and Beane are tight. Its a rare case where a GM would say "come on who is your guy, as long as its not our guy I'll do it" and because if their relationship Morgan is gonna tell him. 

 

 

The question I have is why were the Bills good with "either" of Legette or Coleman(as has often been said)?

 

I understand the tiers concept but you'd figure they'd have more of a conviction on one than the other.

[TheyCallMeAndy]

1 minute ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

The question I have is why were the Bills good with "either" of Legette or Coleman(as has often been said)?

 

I understand the tiers concept but you'd figure they'd have more of a conviction on one than the other.

I’d be good with either a Lamborghini or Ferrari 

[Low Positive]

2 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Correct.  Beane knew Carolina was taking Legette, and I think he knew who KC was after as well.  We don't know what he did or didn't know about picks 29-31, but I assume he knew one of the WRs he would be happy with would be available.

 

It was an easy call. They needed weapons for Young, they wanted to make a first-round pick to save face after that awful trade the year before, and they could take the local kid. I don't think that Beane even had to ask.

[BADOLBILZ]

Just now, TheyCallMeAndy said:

I’d be good with either a Lamborghini or Ferrari 

 

Yeah a lot of people wanted to trade into the top 10 for one of those.

 

The choice the Bills had was neither of those.

 

In that range you are talking about probably a 30% hit rate(becoming a good starting WR) so you'd hope they'd have some conviction on one or the other.

[HappyDays]

I was told the Bills had Coleman and Legette with exactly equal grades on their board. They traded back with Carolina knowing they would still get one of those guys no matter what.

 

What wasn't told to me but seems obvious is that the Bills had a cluster of WRs after Brian Thomas graded as high 2nd rounders, so they strategically moved down just enough to recoup their 3rd without sacrificing their ability to draft somebody from that cluster.

[MiracleAtRich1393]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I understand that. They were okay going from 28 to 32 not knowing if Coleman would be there. What is the Pats went to 31? What is SF took him instead of Pearsall? There’s layers to this…

I understand that. See above  ^. When they went from 28 to 32 there was no guarantee that Coleman OR Legette would be there. 

Maybe Pearsall was one of the guys they had penciled in along with Legette & Coleman, and they figured going to 32 from 28 had a high probability of one of the three being there. When two were still available, they decided a one slot move down would ensure at least one was still there, plus an extra top 150 pick using NE as leverage (which turned into Sedrick Van Pran-Granger, quality IOL depth at worst, long term starting center at best). Pretty nice move if so

[GunnerBill]

17 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

The question I have is why were the Bills good with "either" of Legette or Coleman(as has often been said)?

 

I understand the tiers concept but you'd figure they'd have more of a conviction on one than the other.

 

I'm not sure that I believe they were. I obviously really liked Legette but I am not sure the Bills were as high on him. 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 hours ago, Calidiehard said:

That's a risk you take moving too the back of the 1st to get the 3rd he wanted back knowing the Chiefs were targeting speed. Beane stated they didn't have any more 1st round grades at that point and was willing to take chances. I'm guessing if Coleman was gone we would have taken either Ladd, AD, Pearsall, or Polk. 

For sure. There was risk in both scenarios but the 3rd round pick was worth the risk for them.

[eball]

Here is, I believe, a very plausible scenario from draft night:

 

Pick 28 is approaching...Beane would be ok with any of several WRs still on the board, but is not interested in Worthy.  Beane also desperately wants to get a 3rd round pick in this draft.  Teams start calling, including KC, who makes the best offer.  Beane asks who they are targeting...they tell him.  Knowing he doesn't want Worthy (and can't keep KC from trading into #29, 30, or 31), Beane makes the trade.  He then still "knows" that one of his guys will most likely be there three picks later because Dallas isn't taking a WR and Baltimore has more pressing needs.  The Pats*** start calling Beane because they want Legette or Coleman.  When SF takes Pearsall Beane is now guaranteed to get one of those two.  He calls his buddy Morgan and determines they want Legette, which is fine with Beane.  It's a no-brainer to make the trade with Carolina for more draft capital, and in the process you keep your division rival from getting their target.

 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

17 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Yeah a lot of people wanted to trade into the top 10 for one of those.

 

The choice the Bills had was neither of those.

 

In that range you are talking about probably a 30% hit rate(becoming a good starting WR) so you'd hope they'd have some conviction on one or the other.

It’s going to be a few years before we know what was a Lamborghini, what was a Subaru WRX , and what was a VW Beetle with a Lamborghini body kit. 

[Alphadawg7]

4 hours ago, eball said:

…if this was already mentioned I apologize.  Rumor is that the Pats*** were targeting either Coleman or Legette and had a deal “construct” in place with Buffalo before Beane dealt with Carolina instead, therefore taking away both of the Pats*** targets.  They then moved back further from #34.

 

I love it.

 

It was definitely Coleman.  They were in love with Coleman and it’s why they took Polk next on the small trade back as a similar style of player.  

[BigDingus]

Wait, the Pats also wanted Coleman, AND the Bills had a deal in place with them before Carolina gave them a better deal? 

 

That makes it sound like the Bills weren't all in on Coleman & were fine taking someone else had the Panthers not given them a better offer. 

[Ya Digg?]

3 hours ago, Low Positive said:

I don’t know why the Pats are complaining. Isn’t it standard operating procedure for GMs to call around to see if anyone is willing to beat a deal? And the Bills only had to make one call. The fact that they worked the Pats over is just gravy. 

Are they complaining?  Or is it all just conjecture?

[benderbender]

2 hours ago, WotAGuy said:

What I want to know is how the ***** is cockblocked allowed but the b-word isn’t? 

I know, right? Two of my warning points were for indirectly referencing that thing that happened 4 years ago. Just to show you what a world it was at the time. No foul language. Not even fowl language like "what the 🦆?"

Edited May 6 by benderbender

[BADOLBILZ]

59 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

It’s going to be a few years before we know what was a Lamborghini, what was a Subaru WRX , and what was a VW Beetle with a Lamborghini body kit. 

 

 

Yeah, which is part of the reason your analogy doesn't work.    Less than half of 1st rounders even get their option picked up and the amount that become good starters for any significant amount of time is in the 30 percents.    The further you get into the draft WHO you pick is even more important because the success rate drops steadily.   

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

4 hours ago, mrags said:

I wish they would have c***blocked the Chiefs instead 

 

4 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

I am not one to care about this but I will ask the question.   Why didn’t they cockblock the chiefs?    Bottom line the bills did what they felt was right for them in the trades they made and did I not make.  

 

Because they couldn't.  Other than the Bills taking Worthy themselves, how could they have prevented KC from trading with someone else at 29 or 30.  The Bills could have taken Coleman at 28, KC could have still got Worthy at 32 or maybe they'd have to have traded up.  Either way the Bills got picks out of the deal and the player they wanted.

 

As someone else also pointed out, if they traded back more than one slot, they may have come away with no one they wanted.  For all we know the deal with NE may have only happened if Coleman had been selected prior and Bills weren't able to get who they wanted, otherwise can't see why they'd have gone back to 34.