2020 Our Year For Sure Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 Mike and Mike had John Clayton and Todd McShay on the show today (seperately), and both indicated that Mark Sanchez' stock is rising, and they don't expect him to get out of the top 10. They both said teams like the Skins, Jets, Vikings, etc. who are looking for a quarterback will look to get up to #8 to snag him, and McShay added that the Jags do seem hell-bent on moving back, from what he's heard. Unless somebody really gets the hots for Josh Freeman, which could happen considering the dropoff at the position after him, these teams probably won't be trade partners for us. Number 11 seems high for Freeman, but if 2 or 3 teams are interested, somebody might be willing to go as high as #11 to be sure they get their guy. I hope so...we obviously could use first-day picks at more than 2 different positions this year!
Coach Tuesday Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 It's good though b/c Sanchez going in the top ten will push another quality non-QB down to the Bills. Who will promptly pick Vontae Davis. (J/k)
Justice Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 Mike and Mike had John Clayton and Todd McShay on the show today (seperately), and both indicated that Mark Sanchez' stock is rising, and they don't expect him to get out of the top 10. They both said teams like the Skins, Jets, Vikings, etc. who are looking for a quarterback will look to get up to #8 to snag him, and McShay added that the Jags do seem hell-bent on moving back, from what he's heard. Unless somebody really gets the hots for Josh Freeman, which could happen considering the dropoff at the position after him, these teams probably won't be trade partners for us. Number 11 seems high for Freeman, but if 2 or 3 teams are interested, somebody might be willing to go that high to make sure they get their guy. I hope so...we obviously could use first-day picks at more than 2 different positions this year! Funny, I was actually thinking the Packers would steal our trade.
billybob Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 Makes perfect sense to me- Green bay needs DL to fit a 3-4 so they can't really drop down too much as the number of personnel that fit there is small, San Fran could use a QB so you can't trade to 11 unless you really want Josh Freeman which is a possibility as he has been moving up as of late. It would be great for the Bills if 3QBs, 2WRs, 1CB and a RB went in the top ten
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted April 15, 2009 Author Posted April 15, 2009 I forgot to add this, but billybob reminded me of another interesting angle McShay brought up. In his mock, he currently has the Raiders at #7 passing on Crabtree to take Maclin, because Maclin better fits the speed reciever mold that Al Davis favors. So that would mean Crabtree would still be on the board at #8, with Maclin gone (and therefore having no chance of dropping to the Jags if they trade down). McShay seemed to think that if this scenario indeed plays out, there's a chance Jacksonville would forego the trade-down and just take Crabtree at #8, who he thought would be tremendous value at that spot. No way to know this, but if SF and GB (numbers 9 and 10) are locked into somebody up in that range and don't want to trade out, we'd have a hot ticket at 11 again.
Nanker Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 Nobody's trading down - because nobody's trading up. That's a bit of an oversimplification but a bunch of teams are talking about trading down but they can't without somebody who's willing to trade up, lose picks and/or players in the process and get saddled with a top 10 rookie salary.
Captain Hindsight Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 Nobody's trading down - because nobody's trading up. That's a bit of an oversimplification but a bunch of teams are talking about trading down but they can't without somebody who's willing to trade up, lose picks and/or players in the process and get saddled with a top 10 rookie salary. but i read on TBD the bills should always trade down because there is always a willing partner
Nanker Posted April 15, 2009 Posted April 15, 2009 but i read on TBD the bills should always trade down because there is always a willing partner How stupid of me. I forgot! Monsignor Mortensen says I must say 10 Hail Donahoes and light a Pittsburgh Steelers candle at his altar.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted April 15, 2009 Author Posted April 15, 2009 Well you're right Nanker, to an extent. Nobody is gonna trade up...to the top 5-6 spots. But after that the game is on. The contract we gave to McKelvin at #8 last year was very reasonable. Sanchez would get a bit more in that spot being a quarterback, but it would still be far from a deal-breaker. The enormous rookie salaries are a well-documented problem, but thinking it extends past the first handful of picks is a misconception. Something that could put a hitch in things is, as you mention, the package teams have to put together to move up. McShay said that according to the value chart, the Jets would have to give up their 2nd and 4th round picks to go from #17 to #8. Not sure what it would take for them to swap with us, maybe just the 2nd? Either way, that seems like quite a bit for a defensive-minded coach to give up for a quarterback in his first draft. Teams like the Vikings in the low 20s and on down the list would obviously have to pay even more. Thing is, immediately after us, you have the Broncos and Redskins at 12 and 13 who could both be looking for a quarterback. Might be an easy way to pick up an extra pick.
spartacus Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Well you're right Nanker, to an extent. Nobody is gonna trade up...to the top 5-6 spots. But after that the game is on. The contract we gave to McKelvin at #8 last year was very reasonable. Sanchez would get a bit more in that spot being a quarterback, but it would still be far from a deal-breaker. The enormous rookie salaries are a well-documented problem, but thinking it extends past the first handful of picks is a misconception. Something that could put a hitch in things is, as you mention, the package teams have to put together to move up. McShay said that according to the value chart, the Jets would have to give up their 2nd and 4th round picks to go from #17 to #8. Not sure what it would take for them to swap with us, maybe just the 2nd? Either way, that seems like quite a bit for a defensive-minded coach to give up for a quarterback in his first draft. Teams like the Vikings in the low 20s and on down the list would obviously have to pay even more. Thing is, immediately after us, you have the Broncos and Redskins at 12 and 13 who could both be looking for a quarterback. Might be an easy way to pick up an extra pick. neither the Broncos or Redskins will be drafting a QB in the first round. Buffalo is more likely to take one than those 2 teams. McDaniels fancies himself the genius who created both Brady and Cassell. Orton will fit his system just fine.
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Ross Tucker was saying there were about 8 teams in the top 12 that wouldn't mind trading down... "It ain't happening! Simple supply and demand. It ain't happening!" Ross for boss.
BillsWatch Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 but i read on TBD the bills should always trade down because there is always a willing partner Which article on TBD states that? Was it an article or some sort of amateurish blog? None of the writers of articles on TBD state this. Professional writers will avoid the term "always" but there are plenty of douches from New York City on TSW who will exaggerate to try to prove their point incidentally proving they do not have facts to back up repeated argument. TBD = Two Bills Drive TSW = Two Bills Drive's Stadium Wall Bulletin Board which every Bill, troll and Jerry Sullivan can post on if they register.
Tipster19 Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 The contract we gave to McKelvin at #8 last year was very reasonable. Didn't the Bills take McKelvin at #11? I think that you might be thinking about us taking Donte Whitner at #8. I could be wrong though.
thebug Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Which article on TBD states that? Was it an article or some sort of amateurish blog? None of the writers of articles on TBD state this. Professional writers will avoid the term "always" but there are plenty of douches from New York City on TSW who will exaggerate to try to prove their point incidentally proving they do not have facts to back up repeated argument. TBD = Two Bills Drive TSW = Two Bills Drive's Stadium Wall Bulletin Board which every Bill, troll and Jerry Sullivan can post on if they register. So you are from New York City?
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted April 16, 2009 Author Posted April 16, 2009 Didn't the Bills take McKelvin at #11? I think that you might be thinking about us taking Donte Whitner at #8. I could be wrong though. Good catch! Derrick Harvey was the 8th pick, and he got $23M over 5 years, 17 guaranteed. And Jacksonville traded up into that spot last year, so clearly teams are willing to do it. Ross Tucker was saying there were about 8 teams in the top 12 that wouldn't mind trading down... "It ain't happening! Simple supply and demand. It ain't happening!" Ross for boss. Which is exactly why I think that if the Jags trade out, we probably won't have a deal available. There's never a whole long line of teams just aching to give you picks to move up. But it sounds like someone in the area of our pick is gonna have a chance to get a deal done, because teams want Sanchez. neither the Broncos or Redskins will be drafting a QB in the first round. Buffalo is more likely to take one than those 2 teams. McDaniels fancies himself the genius who created both Brady and Cassell. Orton will fit his system just fine. Really? 'Cause McShay explicitly said the Redskins are looking for a quarterback. Do you know something he doesn't?
KOKBILLS Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Mike and Mike had John Clayton and Todd McShay on the show today (seperately), and both indicated that Mark Sanchez' stock is rising, and they don't expect him to get out of the top 10. They both said teams like the Skins, Jets, Vikings, etc. who are looking for a quarterback will look to get up to #8 to snag him, and McShay added that the Jags do seem hell-bent on moving back, from what he's heard. Unless somebody really gets the hots for Josh Freeman, which could happen considering the dropoff at the position after him, these teams probably won't be trade partners for us. Number 11 seems high for Freeman, but if 2 or 3 teams are interested, somebody might be willing to go as high as #11 to be sure they get their guy. I hope so...we obviously could use first-day picks at more than 2 different positions this year! Thing is...This version of The Bills FO shows almost no desire to Trade down...They talk about it...But I think it's just smoke blowing to be honest...I think Marv came in and instilled the old "stay where you're at at make your Pick" philosophy...And that is now the Organizational policy if you will...Target a Prospect you're pretty sure will be there at your Pick...Then when it's time to Draft in the 1st Round, take the guy you have targeted...It's that simple I guess...That's how you end up with a player like S Donte Whitner at #8 overall...They seem to fall in love with one guy... I'm a Trade Down kinda guy...I've always believed that if an Organization has full confidence in their Scouting Department they will be FAR more willing to Trade down...More Picks for a solid Scouting Department should be a GM's dream scenerio if you ask me (and no one did )...I think the Bills needs, and this Drafts' talent pool, are just about picture perfect made for a Trade down...But I also doubt the Bills FO has the stones to pull one off...My guess is internally the Bills have already fell in love with one Player they pretty much know will be available at #11...And come hell or high water they will Draft that Player at #11...Period...End of story...
scribo Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 The difference between trading up to the #8 spots versus the #11 spot is a mid- to late-third-round pick, which I hope could be enough to keep teams settled until after the top-10 have been picked.
lacoy38 Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 It's good though b/c Sanchez going in the top ten will push another quality non-QB down to the Bills. Who will promptly pick Vontae Davis. (J/k) no malcom jenkins, remember where he went to school; we can always get a 'high motor' DE in rd 2, like in '01, '02, '03, with Schobel, Denney, and Kelsay!
Thurman#1 Posted April 16, 2009 Posted April 16, 2009 Thing is...This version of The Bills FO shows almost no desire to Trade down...They talk about it...But I think it's just smoke blowing to be honest...I think Marv came in and instilled the old "stay where you're at at make your Pick" philosophy...And that is now the Organizational policy if you will...Target a Prospect you're pretty sure will be there at your Pick...Then when it's time to Draft in the 1st Round, take the guy you have targeted...It's that simple I guess...That's how you end up with a player like S Donte Whitner at #8 overall...They seem to fall in love with one guy... I'm a Trade Down kinda guy...I've always believed that if an Organization has full confidence in their Scouting Department they will be FAR more willing to Trade down...More Picks for a solid Scouting Department should be a GM's dream scenerio if you ask me (and no one did )...I think the Bills needs, and this Drafts' talent pool, are just about picture perfect made for a Trade down...But I also doubt the Bills FO has the stones to pull one off...My guess is internally the Bills have already fell in love with one Player they pretty much know will be available at #11...And come hell or high water they will Draft that Player at #11...Period...End of story... You're right, there's always a trade-down available. But reasonable ones are not always there. Lots of teams will throw something out at you, like "your #11 for our #18 plus a fifth-rounder." You get lots of guys trying to low-ball you, but serious offers to trade up are, historically, not all that common. When they happen, it's usually because there's a player at a high-value position (QB, RDE, and ahem LT) or somehow a very high-level guy has somehow fallen much further than he should have. Neither of those situations are all that common, as both the crucial positions and the blue-chip guys tend to go early, for obvious reasons, so teams trading up have to give up more than fair value to trade up, usually. It's just not all that common.
Recommended Posts