freester Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 We have too many needs for this to be a good strategy. In fact if Willis or Peterson are not there at 12, we should try and trade down.
apuszczalowski Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 They are as likely to trade up as they are to trade down And I hope if peterson or Willis were there at 12 they would trade down too. Why take a great player in the draft to solidify a spot on the team when they could trade down and get multiple mediocre players so they can fill more holes! I can't wait for the draft to be over, and marv to surprise us all with a player no one thought they should take
Brandon Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 I think there's a very strong chance that they'll trade up, either from 12 to select Peterson, or from 43 to get one of the OLBs late in R1 after selecting Peterson, Lynch or Meachem at 12. I believe that this is a weak draft and would not trade down.
Bill from NYC Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 I think there's a very strong chance that they'll trade up, either from 12 to select Peterson, or from 43 to get one of the OLBs late in R1 after selecting Peterson, Lynch or Meachem at 12. I believe that this is a weak draft and would not trade down. I agree. Levy and Ralph are not young, and might feel a trade-up would produce quicker results. As far as not trading down, you are probably right for the same reason, but trade downs can also bring in good picks in future drafts.
freester Posted April 17, 2007 Author Posted April 17, 2007 I think there's a very strong chance that they'll trade up, either from 12 to select Peterson, or from 43 to get one of the OLBs late in R1 after selecting Peterson, Lynch or Meachem at 12. I believe that this is a weak draft and would not trade down. I think if peterson falls to minnesota, they would be interested in trading down. They could use Ted Ginn, but don't want to reach for him. It would cost us our 2nd to trade up and I don't want to give that up.
Brandon Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 I think if peterson falls to minnesota, they would be interested in trading down. They could use Ted Ginn, but don't want to reach for him. It would cost us our 2nd to trade up and I don't want to give that up. I don't want that to happen, either, but it might not cost a 2nd. A combination of picks this year and next could help spare the 43rd pick.
Pyrite Gal Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 I agree. Levy and Ralph are not young, and might feel a trade-up would produce quicker results. As far as not trading down, you are probably right for the same reason, but trade downs can also bring in good picks in future drafts. I certainly can see how trading down for more 1st day picks this year might actually be a strategy that makes this team better faster so this might be the way Levy and Ralph go IF we get the right offer. I do not think that either Peterson or Willis is so definitely great (but then few are in this crapshoot known as the draft for the most part) that if we get an offer consistent with the relative value draft pick charts we should reject it out of hand. For example, if the Bills are satisfied that one of the likely OLBs who should be available in the 1st round in the 20s (such as Poz or maybe Timmons) can be had, if the Bills trade down from #12 they get their LB (Crowell at MLB and the late 1st LB) and the extra first day pick(s) allows them to choose two RB candidates (Pittman, Booker, Bush, whomever) and even get a reserve MLB (Davis for example) whom they would use on ST and as a reserve MLB tp learn the position (which they would have to do anyway if they used Willis as the starting MLB unless the relatively small chance comes true that he is the reincarnation of Urlacher. If the Bills want to win now then trading down is probably the right thing to do.
silvermike Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 I think the ideal draft starts with Willis, trades up from 43 into the end of the first to grab Timmons, adds a CB with the remaining third, and is followed by Marv convincing Chris Brown or Corey Dillon to come join the A-Train for a season. Take a first-day RB in 2008 when we're ready to make our run.
Paup 1995MVP Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 We have too many needs for this to be a good strategy. In fact if Willis or Peterson are not there at 12, we should try and trade down. I believe it is safe to say that Peterson will not fall past Minnesota at 7. Whether we trade up with Washington to steal Peterson in my opinion comes down to how much better our team feels that A-Pete is over the other backs in the draft. I don't think we are going to get Turner, so if Peterson is that much better than Lynch, Pittmon or whomever, I think we need to think big and make the move to jump up and get him if it includes next years picks. We still will have seven picks this year to play with to acquire linebackers, D-line and corners to fortify the defense. Why can't we use our second and two thirds to come up with at least two if not three starters on defense? It is not impossible. Moving up to six by trading next year's first will bring huge dividends in A-Pete and we still can fill our other needs later on. Besides, if Peterson plays like he I think he can, that first round pick to Washington next year will be in the mid-20's.
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 I think we all are ignoring Marv's track record. We hardly ever moved around at all on draft day during his tenure. Sure he wasn't GM but he had a lot of input both with Polian and Butler. They were always committed to taking the best player available at your spot rather than targeting specific guys and moving aorund to get them. We never made big splashes but we were generally consistent and rarely had big misses in early rounds (JD Williams - ahem). For example in '96 Eric Moulds and Leeland McElroy were both on the board with our pick, we liked both of them and Berman who, at the time knew all our picks, didn't know what we were going to do. The current "gurus" would have been all over us to move down a little and take whichever one was still there and stockpile an extra pick. We stayed there and took Moulds then got ripped apart because he ordered a pizza to practice and some jackass GM (I forget who, Jerry Angelo maybe?) said he wouldn't have taken Moulds in any round. If we move out of that pick, get an extra 4 and get McElroy (who eventually went in round 2) do we do better or worse? There's no way to know at the time. Take the guy you want when it's your turn and be done with it unless Jesus and the Apostles are somehow falling into late round 1. The guys that jump all over the place seem to be more boom or bust (Donahoe?), Jimmy Johnson did that all the time, he'd "stockpile" picks and some years he'd do well but other years were a mess. It became popular because it worked out for him a couple times in a row in Dallas after they fleeced Minnesota and they got really really good because of it. After his initial drafting success he fell off considerably though, what happened in Miami? same strategy different results. Sure it makes for a more exciting day but I'm not sure it's a good long term strategy.
ganesh Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 We have too many needs for this to be a good strategy. In fact if Willis or Peterson are not there at 12, we should try and trade down. While I really would like us to stay put and pick players to fill holes (too many), Marv/Tom and Jauron showed us last year (when they had to fill equal # of holes at DT, CB, LB, S, OL) that they are willing to trade up or not-trade-down to get the player(s) they think will be part of their solution. So if Willis/Peterson and Hall are all gone in the top 12 (unlikely, but stranger things have happened), the Bills might be willing to trade down and get additional picks or they might chose to trade up and get a Peterson if he falls up to 10.
Recommended Posts