CJPearl2 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I hate when most people do this, but I will go against everything I believe in and put this out there. Not because I think the Bills will do it, but because it could make sense. So, here goes...With the Lions discussing trading the first pick........ Would you make this trade.....based on the assumption that Peters holds out again and we don't substantially fill the OLB opening (and yes, I call it an opening because Ellison is terrible).... Peters and 11th pick overall for Lions #1. And with the #1 pick, Buffalo takes Aaron Curry, OLB, Wake Forest. Thoughts? Comments? Heckling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 No one wants the #1 overall pick. Especially this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Reports are that the Lions may take an OT with the 1st overall. If that's true, then trading them Peters straight-up for the 1st overall makes sense for them, since he's proven and would cost the same as the 1st overall. Except the Bills don't want the 1st overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlbillsfan1975 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Nah you dont want it. Remember back in the day when it was the one reward you got for haveing a horrible year? Atleast you were getting 'the best' player comming out of college next year. Now even then you are screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJPearl2 Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Well, I figured that we couldn't trade Peters for the #1 straight up (based on the compensation charts, etc). But what if our pro-bowl left tackle starts to pull a Cutler and won't report and wants to be traded? Then where are we? I have a feeling the Peters situation is going to get ugly. Remember: Money is undefeated in the NFL. And we don't have a lot of it. And a LB with the first pick? Why not? Our defense is slow, can't cover, and Curry would be - by far - the best LB on our team and an instant starter. Look at Mayo for the Pats last year. Are you happy with Ellison? Because he's going to be our starter, and he's going to be whiffing at RBs and TEs all year while we get smoked on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Nobody wants the number one overall pick. It is so expensive to sign your guy and if you don't get the pick right, it will set your franchise back years. The cost of moving up would be too great as well. And in your scenario, trading Peters means we have to take a LT. All we did was create another need and now we have to hand out a contract bigger than the one Long got. It will be a $12M per deal, which is somewhere around what Peters wants anyway. We'd be better off just giving Peters the money and keeping our 11th to address other needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Nah you dont want it. Remember back in the day when it was the one reward you got for haveing a horrible year? Atleast you were getting 'the best' player comming out of college next year. Now even then you are screwed. The only thing it is now is a $55M albatross. Even if the dude you get doesn't bust / is a gamer, you f--- your cap for the next 7 years. And for a cash-to-cap team like the Bills, it's untenable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Nobody wants the number one overall pick. It is so expensive to sign your guy and if you don't get the pick right, it will set your franchise back years. The cost of moving up would be too great as well. And in your scenario, trading Peters means we have to take a LT. All we did was create another need and now we have to hand out a contract bigger than the one Long got. It will be a $12M per deal, which is somewhere around what Peters wants anyway. We'd be better off just giving Peters the money and keeping our 11th to address other needs. That's why, in the final analysis, I think Peters WILL get what he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJPearl2 Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Good points. I totally overlooked the price of the first pick - which is way too high for any player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 For a team with no QB into the future, I think a team would be willing to acquire the #1 pick to take Stafford. The most logical team to take Stafford at #1: DETROIT I think Detroit is crazy to not take a QB inthe 1st round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUFootball29 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 the overpayment of draftee's is why the NFL needs to adopt a rookie salary structure similar to that of the NHL. While it would be for bigger money, it still would keep unproven players from making more than future HoFers to start. Let them prove they are worth the money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Not saying we should even consider this, but remember that the Rams traded up to #1 and drafted Pace. That worked out pretty well for them. Pace of course was a better player than Peters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJPearl2 Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 dave mcbride - that is an awesome avatar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 For a team with no QB into the future, I think a team would be willing to acquire the #1 pick to take Stafford. The most logical team to take Stafford at #1: DETROIT I think Detroit is crazy to not take a QB inthe 1st round. This is a rare occasion on which I disagree with you. The Coltts drafted Glenn and Meadows before they took Manning. They put them right in and let them get experienced. Why put a #1 qb in a situation to get killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlbillsfan1975 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The only thing it is now is a $55M albatross. Even if the dude you get doesn't bust / is a gamer, you f--- your cap for the next 7 years. And for a cash-to-cap team like the Bills, it's untenable. Yeah exactly. You are FUBARD. Until the NFL adopts a system like the NBA for rookies. Less and less teams will want to stay at the number one pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 No one wants the #1 overall pick. Especially this year. If Detroit finds a suitor to trade with I'll drop dead of a heart attack. The Poorpisses tried trading the #1 pick last year in a much deeper draft and nobody wanted it. For a team with no QB into the future, I think a team would be willing to acquire the #1 pick to take Stafford. The most logical team to take Stafford at #1: DETROIT I think Detroit is crazy to not take a QB inthe 1st round. I have no faith that Stafford or Sanchez will ever be more than journeymen QB's. This year is a veeeerrry weak QB class. They'd be better off waiting next year for a QB because I'm pretty sure they'll still be in the top ten for a draft pick. Any other position they take a guy at would be a much better bet IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 That Freeman kid looks promising. But #1 overall is way too high, and the Lions would have to trade-up from #20 to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Peters is asking for First Draft Pick money. You are better off paying Peters who is proven and keeping the 11th pick. You would lose two players one proven for a good college prospect who could be the next Vernon Golsten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 For a team with no QB into the future, I think a team would be willing to acquire the #1 pick to take Stafford. The most logical team to take Stafford at #1: DETROIT I think Detroit is crazy to not take a QB inthe 1st round. How did that work out for Cleveland with Tim Couch, Houston with David Carr or (so far) Oakland with JaMarcus Russell? That doesn't even count tons of guys like Leaf, Akili Smith, and Joey Harrington that were top 5 picks. It is all a crap shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Get their first & 33 for Peters and our first 2, that's like 2 first rounders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts