dave mcbride Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 I realized they didn't trade the Eagles' fourth rounder, but I doubt they make the trade if they don't have another 4th rounder in their back pocket. That's how I'm going to measure the trade going forward.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 I realized they didn't trade the Eagles' fourth rounder, but I doubt they make the trade if they don't have another 4th rounder in their back pocket. That's how I'm going to measure the trade going forward. Where did our 11th pick in the third round go in this equation? Huge difference between #11 in round 3 and #28 in round four. To me, the trade may better be looked at as Wood, whom I love as a player and pick, and whomever they spend the extra 7-8 million dollars on they saved by not having to pay Peters. That will be difficult to determine, even through next year's free agency or whomever they extend. But the money they saved by not resigning Peters is what is going to determine whether the trade was a good one or not. Wood is an excellent start on paper, but we need to spend the money wisely.
dave mcbride Posted April 26, 2009 Author Posted April 26, 2009 Where did our 11th pick in the third round go in this equation? Huge difference between #11 in round 3 and #28 in round four. To me, the trade may better be looked at as Wood, whom I love as a player and pick, and whomever they spend the extra 7-8 million dollars on they saved by not having to pay Peters. That will be difficult to determine, even through next year's free agency or whomever they extend. But the money they saved by not resigning Peters is what is going to determine whether the trade was a good one or not. Wood is an excellent start on paper, but we need to spend the money wisely. ?? - We used our 11th pick in the third on Levitre. We just added in the 110th pick to make sure no one picked him before that point. That's how you look at it.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 ?? - We used our 11th pick in the third on Levitre. We just added in the 110th pick to make sure no one picked him before that point. That's how you look at it. I know. But you're saying we should look at this trade as being Peters for Wood and Levitre. But now we have no Peters and no #3, but we do have Wood and Levitre (you were the one that added him to the trade).
dave mcbride Posted April 26, 2009 Author Posted April 26, 2009 I know. But you're saying we should look at this trade as being Peters for Wood and Levitre. But now we have no Peters and no #3, but we do have Wood and Levitre (you were the one that added him to the trade). Yes, you're right. My bad. I guess I'm seeing it as a case in which the only way we get him is with that 4th rounder. Otherwise, they get someone else at 75 who is presumably not as good a player.
colin Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 we traded peters and a 3rd for wood levitre and a conditional (6th or something?) next year.
dave mcbride Posted April 26, 2009 Author Posted April 26, 2009 we traded peters and a 3rd for wood levitre and a conditional (6th or something?) next year. A sixth next year. I don't expect anything will come of that pick based on past history.
Poeticlaw Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 I know. But you're saying we should look at this trade as being Peters for Wood and Levitre. But now we have no Peters and no #3, but we do have Wood and Levitre (you were the one that added him to the trade). Levitre was our third used in the second. we dont have our 4th round pick but have the 4th we got from the eagles so essentially the poster is right we havent lost any picks per say becuase we had the extra 4th as ammo. Without the extrAa 4th we would have been down a pick.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 Levitre was our third used in the second. we dont have our 4th round pick but have the 4th we got from the eagles so essentially the poster is right we havent lost any picks per say becuase we had the extra 4th as ammo. Without the extrAa 4th we would have been down a pick. Only if you equate the 11th pick in the 3rd round with the 28th pick in the 4th round. I don't.
B Rob Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 A sixth next year. I don't expect anything will come of that pick based on past history. I love this attitude.jason Peters was un drafted.They got Bell and Steve Johnson in the 7th last year.Pat Williams one of the best DTs in the game was picked by us as an un drafted player.I guess my point is that our talent guys are not asleep at the wheel.They have hit on some very good talent late in the draft. If you look at the at other teams picks in the 6th round on I would say we do well getting players.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 I love this attitude.jason Peters was un drafted.They got Bell and Steve Johnson in the 7th last year.Pat Williams one of the best DTs in the game was picked by us as an un drafted player.I guess my point is that our talent guys are not asleep at the wheel.They have hit on some very good talent late in the draft. If you look at the at other teams picks in the 6th round on I would say we do well getting players. Huh? You just listed a few players we got either in the 7th round or UDFA. None of whom were 6th round picks. You also ignored the fact that we have made about 50 6th round picks in the history of the franchise and there are not more than a handful that have been any good. You're also ignoring that each year we sign 10-20 UDFA and if you're unbelievably lucky, one of them makes your team and becomes good. Once or twice every decade you strike gold, like Peters, or Pat Wiliams or Greer, which like 2-4% chance on each guy. Any random 6th round pick is practically worthless. There is a 1-20 chance he will be pretty good. Do you like those odds?
dave mcbride Posted April 26, 2009 Author Posted April 26, 2009 Huh? You just listed a few players we got either in the 7th round or UDFA. None of whom were 6th round picks. You also ignored the fact that we have made about 50 6th round picks in the history of the franchise and there are not more than a handful that have been any good. You're also ignoring that each year we sign 10-20 UDFA and if you're unbelievably lucky, one of them makes your team and becomes good. Once or twice every decade you strike gold, like Peters, or Pat Wiliams or Greer, which like 2-4% chance on each guy. Any random 6th round pick is practically worthless. There is a 1-20 chance he will be pretty good. Do you like those odds? You said it better than I ever could, Dog!
I Forgot My Last Username Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 Usually when you take Levitre, Wood is the result. In this case though, somehow we got Wood first.
Lori Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 So ... how's Peters for Wood and Shawn Nelson sound?
lets_go_bills Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 So ... how's Peters for Wood and Shawn Nelson sound? Time will tell. But Wood will start right away and Nelson will see the field too, especially in the red zone.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 So ... how's Peters for Wood and Shawn Nelson sound? Right now, 31 out of 32 GMs in the league would take Peters. Down the line, if Wood and Nelson play well, it will be a good trade.
Lurker Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 I realized they didn't trade the Eagles' fourth rounder, but I doubt they make the trade if they don't have another 4th rounder in their back pocket. That's how I'm going to measure the trade going forward. Don't forget to add the fact they don't have to shell out $60 million to one player over the next few years. More budget flexibility is a good thing to have if they, for example, want to sign a quality UFA next year or somehow trade for Henderson this season...
Lori Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 Right now, 31 out of 32 GMs in the league would take Peters. Down the line, if Wood and Nelson play well, it will be a good trade. If Peters is happy and motivated, sure, but I don't think the Bills believed they were ever going to see that player again. I won't get into assigning blame; Lord knows we've already beaten that topic so far into the ground that we're halfway to China. But for me, the trade is easier to accept knowing that they seem to have done all right with the picks they received.
DazedandConfused Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 So ... how's Peters for Wood and Shawn Nelson sound? The big problem with this is that even if it works out (I suspect Wood will and quickly and I have grave doubts about Nelson as we do not have a scheme which uses the TE well) it is gonna take some time most likely. I am quite pumped that we finally seemed to have been motivated by the huge gap left by us letting go our starting LT that this team has loaded up and then some on durable flexible talents who seem quite likely to one day develop the chemistry with some of these players working out and some not to give us a very good OL. The problem is this will take time and as pumped as I am I still am left with the cold feeling that 09 is essentially a write off year for development. This happens so we have no choice but to deal with it. However its a bitter pill to take after being 0 for the millenneum so far for the playoffs, there is a special need for immediate production as this is the only guaranteed year with TO, having folks learn to become vets and relying on journeymen to protect Edwards is dodgy and in the big picture I am surprised because there is no guarantee of Ralph anytime and especially one year after another. It does not appear that the Bills FO could manage things with Peters to a reasonable outcome (something I actually blame the FO big time for along with the childlike Peters as paying bigger bucks to Dockery/Walker than Peters was simply a miscalculation- it does not forgive Peters but does not make the FO look very good). I hope we will be better in the long run but that being said even with a malcontent Peters we are not putting the best team possible on the field this year.
Recommended Posts