Pete Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 I am certain of this. I hope there are players on the board that teams drafting below us covet. There are lots of #2 WRs in this draft and the best move IMO is to trade down and get more picks. I think we can trade to the bottom of the first round and still get our WR. I would not mind adding draft picks to next years draft too. I am looking forward to draft day!
Chandler#81 Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 I'm on board with this thinking too, Pete. We still have holes to fll but IMO no Lynch-type players are likely to still be available at #11. Adding more picks by trading out -perhaps to offer in a player trade- makes more sense than 'settling' for a WR who still may be there when we pick again.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 I agree. Even though I want to take Kelly at #11, I have this funny feeling he's going to slip into the 20s. If that's the case I say we rob Dallas of both their 1st round picks.
apuszczalowski Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 Do the Bills really need more draft picks? don't they have 7-8 picks already? Unless they plan on packaging and using some in some deals to acquire other players, I don't see why they need more, they can only hold so many players on the roster.
Pete Posted March 14, 2008 Author Posted March 14, 2008 San Fran signing Bryant Johnson will help us out too. San Fran was one of the team's most likely to draft a WR in the first. Now they can look at other positions. I think there is gonna be a run on WR's late first round/early second
Ozymandius Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 How can you be so "certain" that this is the Bills plan? How many times have the Bills traded down over the past decade? Wasn't it just once (the Nate Clements draft)? The Bills MIGHT be trying to trade down. The Bills also might NOT be. If recent history is any indicator, then I would lean to NOT. Also, the Bills probably had an opportunity to trade down two drafts ago, with Leinart and Cutler still on the board, and they chose to stay put.
Pete Posted March 14, 2008 Author Posted March 14, 2008 Do the Bills really need more draft picks? don't they have 7-8 picks already? Unless they plan on packaging and using some in some deals to acquire other players, I don't see why they need more, they can only hold so many players on the roster. why draft Kelly at 11 if you can draft him at 22? Get the extra picks. Stockpile for next year if you want. I think every team in the league could use an extra second round pick this year- so if we can get it, why not?
Art in PNS Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 Trading down I can see if they can find the right partner. I just don't like your trade values here.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 Do the Bills really need more draft picks? don't they have 7-8 picks already? Unless they plan on packaging and using some in some deals to acquire other players, I don't see why they need more, they can only hold so many players on the roster. Adding more depth wouldn't kill us.
Ozymandius Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 why draft Kelly at 11 if you can draft him at 22? Get the extra picks. Stockpile for next year if you want. I think every team in the league could use an extra second round pick this year- so if we can get it, why not? How do you know Kelly will last past pick 12, much less to pick 22? Two years ago, the Bills just went ahead and selected Whitner at #8 instead of trading down and "taking a chance that he'll still be there later." A lot of people supported that decision (were you one of them?) because it wasn't worth "taking a chance." So if the Bills are in the same position this year whereby they've set their sights on a player (Whitner in '06, Kelly in '08), why would they trade down now? Why are you so confident the Bills want to trade down?
FistingBot Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 I agree with you guys. There just doesn't seem to be that much of a talent difference between the guys who will be there at #11 and those who will be there at 18-20 or so. Plus, the rookie salaries drop quite a bit by sliding down even a few slots.
Fewell733 Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 I'm all for trading down. It's just hard to find somebody willing to trade with. Look for teams desperate for a RB or a QB to be the likely trading partner - somebody that has targeted Mendenhall or Stewart or one of the top QBs and doesn't think they'll last till the late teens. Detroit might now be in the market for a starting running back at least.
apuszczalowski Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 Adding more depth wouldn't kill us. But they can only carry so many players on the roster, would it be better to have rookies backing up all the positions or maybe a couple veterans? We have depth, or atleast had depth last year, thats why after losing over 15 guys to the IR last season they still were in the playoff hunt til the final couple games of the year. Theres a couple spots where they could use some depth (like the o-line), but most of the starters in the spot are young enough that it might be better to get a couple veterans to be backups. And as for trading down to grab a player later, thats not as easy as people make it out to be, you never know if that player will still be around after you pick, so just because you think someone like Kelly will still be there by #22, there is absolutly no guarantee, so if you want him, you can't take the chance and trade down like that, unless the only reason you do it is because you aren't impressed with what is available and that you feel that a couple of players will be available around that point (like if at #11, they don't like the value of WR's and feel that there isn't much of a difference in say the top 5 WR's, so they trade down 11 spots and plan on just taken whichever one is available at that time)
Rubes Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 So why wouldn't all of the other teams you propose to swap places with just think the same thing and stay where they are?
ax4782 Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 I've been in agreement with this position for some time now. I think the Bills can trade down in the first round and acquire an additional late first or early second round pick for their trouble. Then, they can still likely draft a top CB, WR and TE with their first three picks. The way I see it, they should be able to get James Hardy WR in the late first or early second, and also draft TE Fred Davis in the second. That would allow the Bills to also draft a tall fast CB in this draft, which they desperately need for depth and talent.
BillsVet Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 Do the Bills really need more draft picks? don't they have 7-8 picks already? Unless they plan on packaging and using some in some deals to acquire other players, I don't see why they need more, they can only hold so many players on the roster. You're serious about the idea of having enough picks? I'd rather have more options than less and it's better to have a couple second round picks than one first rounder. The cost of a first round pick, along with the bust rate make it a big gamble. IMO, the draft practically begins in the second round. The Giants have made a living out of getting guys in lower rounds to contribute. Someone once said that free agency is the penalty you pay for drafting poorly. And I agree with it. To get around the cap, teams are forced to find young and cheap talent (No Spitzer reference there, trust me) to stay within the framework of the cap, yet competitive.
ndirish1978 Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 How do you know Kelly will last past pick 12, much less to pick 22? Two years ago, the Bills just went ahead and selected Whitner at #8 instead of trading down and "taking a chance that he'll still be there later." A lot of people supported that decision (were you one of them?) because it wasn't worth "taking a chance." So if the Bills are in the same position this year whereby they've set their sights on a player (Whitner in '06, Kelly in '08), why would they trade down now? Why are you so confident the Bills want to trade down? I see your point. One caveat about your theory, it assumes there is really only 1 player the team is targetting. If we have several WRs with similar grades then it makes a lot of sense to trade down because you can just look at a team's roster and see if they need WRs. Let's say we have 3 Wrs with similar grades and only 2 teams in the next 10 picks look like they might take a receiver: trade down 8-10 picks, pick up another pick and get one of your 3 guys. If however they are really only interested in 1 WR then I have no problem with them staying put, even if he is considered a "reach."
Ozymandius Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 I see your point. One caveat about your theory, it assumes there is really only 1 player the team is targetting. If we have several WRs with similar grades then it makes a lot of sense to trade down because you can just look at a team's roster and see if they need WRs. Let's say we have 3 Wrs with similar grades and only 2 teams in the next 10 picks look like they might take a receiver: trade down 8-10 picks, pick up another pick and get one of your 3 guys. If however they are really only interested in 1 WR then I have no problem with them staying put, even if he is considered a "reach." Very good point, and I agree. Basically, you have to have knowledge of the Bills draft board in order to predict whether the Bills are trying to trade down or not. Only Chris Brown or someone like him who has sources can really make that prediction. I'm not trying to give Pete a hard time or anything. I just don't want people to assume that the Bills are doing one thing and then be disappointed when they do something else.
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 I'm all for trading down. It's just hard to find somebody willing to trade with. Look for teams desperate for a RB or a QB to be the likely trading partner - somebody that has targeted Mendenhall or Stewart or one of the top QBs and doesn't think they'll last till the late teens. Detroit might now be in the market for a starting running back at least. Detroit will want a reciever
ndirish1978 Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 I agree completely. It is a little sad to see people get so worked up about a player we don't even have and then be devastated when we don't take him (See: Broderick Bunkley, Winston Justice).
Recommended Posts