Tipster19 Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 I'm wondering if we do go with a RBBC and possibly draft one with a mid rd pick. If so, Lynch should be available with the 12th pick. Green Bay (#16) has a great need for a RB and a trade down with them would be beneficial. Swapping our 1st rd picks and Green Bay adding their 2nd (#47) and one of their 7th (#209,#216) rd picks would be attractive. Sliding back to the 16th pick and addressing a big need at CB by selecting Pittsburgh's Darrelle Revis and adding another 1st day pick would supply enough incentive to make this trade. Having two 2nd rd and two 3rd rd picks would also afford us the option of moving back into the 1st rd if we care to do so. Would this trade be feasible?
2003Contenders Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 I'm wondering if we do go with a RBBC and possibly draft one with a mid rd pick. If so, Lynch should be available with the 12th pick. Green Bay (#16) has a great need for a RB and a trade down with them would be beneficial. Swapping our 1st rd picks and Green Bay adding their 2nd (#47) and one of their 7th (#209,#216) rd picks would be attractive. Sliding back to the 16th pick and addressing a big need at CB by selecting Pittsburgh's Darrelle Revis and adding another 1st day pick would supply enough incentive to make this trade. Having two 2nd rd and two 3rd rd picks would also afford us the option of moving back into the 1st rd if we care to do so. Would this trade be feasible? I think if the 2006 draft taught us anything about our front office, it is that if they see a guy they want, they won't risk trading down and hoping that he is still there. I don't know whether or not the Bills like Lynch, but if they determine that he is indeed their guy, I would imagine that they'd stay pat and take him at #12.
Brandon Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 If you believe this board, there is absolutely no reason for Green Bay to make any trade up for Lynch. If the Bills can so easily find a quality RB in R2 or 3, so can Green Bay.
junior Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 Why would we trade down with the Packers if no one between us and them will draft a RB? If Lynch has character concerns like I've heard, I don't think marv will draft him. Also, the teams between us and the Packers are St. Louis (Steven Jackson) Carolina (Foster/Williams) Pittsburgh (Parker) Green Bay
OnTheRocks Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 I'm wondering if we do go with a RBBC and possibly draft one with a mid rd pick. If so, Lynch should be available with the 12th pick. Green Bay (#16) has a great need for a RB and a trade down with them would be beneficial. Swapping our 1st rd picks and Green Bay adding their 2nd (#47) and one of their 7th (#209,#216) rd picks would be attractive. Sliding back to the 16th pick and addressing a big need at CB by selecting Pittsburgh's Darrelle Revis and adding another 1st day pick would supply enough incentive to make this trade. Having two 2nd rd and two 3rd rd picks would also afford us the option of moving back into the 1st rd if we care to do so. Would this trade be feasible? You might have something there...the year the Bills took Losman, there was talk that the Packers wanted him. If their memory serves them well, it might entice the Packers to make a move like that.
OnTheRocks Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 Why would we trade down with the Packers if no one between us and them will draft a RB? If Lynch has character concerns like I've heard, I don't think marv will draft him. Also, the teams between us and the Packers are St. Louis (Steven Jackson) Carolina (Foster/Williams) Pittsburgh (Parker) Green Bay Good idea to trade with the Packers before they choose to trade with someone in position 1-11.
Mickey Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 I'm wondering if we do go with a RBBC and possibly draft one with a mid rd pick. If so, Lynch should be available with the 12th pick. Green Bay (#16) has a great need for a RB and a trade down with them would be beneficial. Swapping our 1st rd picks and Green Bay adding their 2nd (#47) and one of their 7th (#209,#216) rd picks would be attractive. Sliding back to the 16th pick and addressing a big need at CB by selecting Pittsburgh's Darrelle Revis and adding another 1st day pick would supply enough incentive to make this trade. Having two 2nd rd and two 3rd rd picks would also afford us the option of moving back into the 1st rd if we care to do so. Would this trade be feasible? Considering what Jones and McGahee fetched on the open market, why in the world would Green Bay give up that much for Lynch when there are guys like Bush and Irons and others available later? I could see them giving up a 5th round pick to move up a few, maybe a 4th if they really love Lynch but a second round pick and a seventh???
Mickey Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 Uh-oh, I can see it coming. Everyone is convinced that if Marv just trades down with Green Bay we would get 4 first round picks and at least 6 second rounders. If he doesn't make this sure-fire move, he is an idiot and the draft a total disaster.
Mickey Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 Why would we trade down with the Packers if no one between us and them will draft a RB? If Lynch has character concerns like I've heard, I don't think marv will draft him. Also, the teams between us and the Packers are St. Louis (Steven Jackson) Carolina (Foster/Williams) Pittsburgh (Parker) Green Bay There are no character concerns with Lynch. None.
Mickey Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 If you believe this board, there is absolutely no reason for Green Bay to make any trade up for Lynch. If the Bills can so easily find a quality RB in R2 or 3, so can Green Bay. Exactly. It is a common draftime phenom. People fall in love with the idea of wheeling and dealing and convince themselves that a little cleverness will yield 5 first round picks. The days of the Herschel Walker/Ricky Williams kind of trades are over. Most of the more involved trade scenarios you read require just about every team in the league to be run by a pack of morons besides the Bills. Green Bay isn't stupid. Established quality backs on the free agent market aren't commanding first round picks, why would anyone give up a ton just to get Lynch instead of Bush?
2003Contenders Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 There are no character concerns with Lynch. None. I am only aware of a single incident -- and the authorities chose to drop the case against him. Rest assured that if the Bills have interest in him, which they reportedly do, they will check into the incident accordingly. What may be of more concern regarding Lynch is his ability to carry the full load. While that may NOT be a problem, since the Bills seem set to go with a RBBC, it does beg the question of whether a part time RB is worth a mid-to-high first round pick. Of course, Reggie Bush's part time role proved vital for the Saints last season.
Tipster19 Posted March 9, 2007 Author Posted March 9, 2007 The 7th rd pick I threw in there because I'm a greedy SOB. As far as St. Louis, Carolina, and Pittsburgh not needing a RB, that may be true, but can it stand to reason that these teams can trade back also? As it stands now, I don't think Green Bay has alot of options for RB. The RBs after Lynch start become more questionable. Bush, I think, is the next one to consider and I saw a mock draft that has the Colts taking him with their 1st rder (#32). He would be a good pick for them there but find it hard to believe that Green Bay would take him with their 1st rder (#16) if Lynch was gone. The compensation of a Buffalo/Green Bay trade may not be accurate but the validity of need for Green Bay is.
Brandon Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 I am only aware of a single incident -- and the authorities chose to drop the case against him. Rest assured that if the Bills have interest in him, which they reportedly do, they will check into the incident accordingly. What may be of more concern regarding Lynch is his ability to carry the full load. While that may NOT be a problem, since the Bills seem set to go with a RBBC, it does beg the question of whether a part time RB is worth a mid-to-high first round pick. Of course, Reggie Bush's part time role proved vital for the Saints last season. I don't know if its really fair to call Lynch a 'part time' player. I guess its technically true, but he did have over 250 combined carries and receptions. That's not significantly less than any of the other RBs expected to go high in the draft (I think Tony Hunt had the most at around 310). It could also be considered a positive. His college team didn't run him into the ground.
Recommended Posts