section122

It seems to me that Gillmore was Astro's pick for the Bills in the 2nd round many many times. Now all of a sudden he is geting top 10 consideration! I'm more than a little bit surprised/nervous about a jump that big this late.

yeah I would agree and also add in Mercilus as a pick I would love. Also Poz signed a monster contract and played pretty well on a highly ranked d last year, along with the fact most posters wanted him back. Seems like being poz 2.0 wwouldn't be the worst thing in the world (for the record I think Kuechly will be better). FWIW to all gms Pats* (run by me) are looking to trade in the 20 range so if you pick anywhere around there pm me please if interested.

I'm sorry but I feel like your answering your own question. Under the old system it was very crippling which drove up the risk for teams that may have wanted to trade up. Being less of a risk (under the new system) makes it much more valuable because if it works you get a contributor cheaply, conversely if it doesn't work it doesn't cost you as much. Supply and Demand would dictate that at a lower risk and lower price you would have more people willing to trade and therefore you could get more for your picks.

Got it. All black qbs = Jamracus Russell All White lbs = Poz

I actually feel the opposite. I think draft picks have become much MORE valuable. I feel that way because the risk monetarily isn't the same, so the contract you are paying out won't cripple your team in the future. That's why we have seen two trades in the top 10 the last 2 years and very few previously. The ability to get a good/great player on a reasonable contract (with little liability if they bust) is the perspective I'm looking at it from.

Coples at 7! that would be s surprise but one I could see happening (and it would be great news for the Bills!)

can we trade players for picks? Also interesting draft so far and I think one that is worst case scenario for the Rams. Blackmon being gone as well as Kalil hurts them as I dont see Richardson being a good pick for them. Given Jackson's injury history and workload it wouldn't be absolutely terrible but I can imagine it's not what they would want.

hmmm that is a good one I wonder how that would play out. However the whole point of me posting this up there was the statement that the old trade chart is obsolete. I think we saw it last year with the Falcons/Browns trade and this year with the Redskins/Rams trade. I'm interested to see how long it takes for a new one to come out.

I know there has been some talk about this already but Peter King mentioned in his mmqb article how the old trade chart is useless. Florio reported this first over the weekend, and let me expand on it. In the new collective bargaining agreement, there's a provision that could affect trading of draft choices in the first round. Each first-round pick can be signed to a four-year contract with a club option for a fifth year that has to be exercised in May following the third season of the contract. So rookies this year will sign for four years, through the end of the 2015 season; but in May 2015, teams have to tell the players if they intend to exercise the fifth years of the contract and lock up players through 2016. For picks 1 through 10 of the first round, that fifth-year salary will be the transition number, the average of the top 10 salaries at the position that season. For picks 11 through 32, the fifth-year salary will be the average of the third through 25th salaries at the position that year. I'll give you an example. Let's use Tannehill. The transition number for quarterbacks this year is $14.3 million. The average of the third through 25th quarterback salary this year is $8.1 million. Who knows what the numbers will look like in May 2015, but they probably won't be smaller, or the gulf narrower. In other words, if you pick Tannehill at eight, you'll be paying $6.2 million more in a five-year deal for him than if you picked Tannehill at 12. Crazy. But true. Now, some teams I spoke with over the weekend say the fifth year in the deal will simply be used as leverage in negotiations for a long-term deal. But I can see sticklers like Scott Pioli in Kansas City, Howie Roseman in Philadelphia and Mike Brown in Cincinnati holding players to fifth years at a lower price. There's a reason Pioli went on last week in his press conference with local writers about why he loved picking at 11. That's where the more team-friendly numbers begin. In case you're interested, the difference in fifth-year numbers for defensive ends picked in the top 10 versus in the final 22 picks of round one ($4.3 million), and defensive tackles ($2.6 million), could come into play because of the big numbers of each position in the first round. "In any case,'' one club official told me over the weekend, "the old draft trade chart is obsolete.'' Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/04/22/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1ss9FA1wq some food for thought. Now trading out of the top 10 looks to be a touch more difficult and Pioli is in good shape with his spot.

That's awesome! He is the kind of thing you don't get when you stay at home and watch the games. Then again there's always chembob too (not sure if he still has ticks as he got kicked out a few times). Good to know though when I head up to a game this year i'll touch base. Plan on doing the hammered lot experience as I have yet to do that as well.

Ok thanks. Since I am running the Pats* I would like to let all other gms know that I will entertain trade offers both moving up and moving down. Currently holding picks 27, 30, 48, 62, and 93. Also love that section. Had to give up my tickets though because it got to expensive and life got in the way but I'm trying to talk my friends back into it. Love being on the tunnel and having the jumbotron across the way. I gotta ask though do you know about first down man? seems people never do but to me he's our section's elvis!

do we work out trades in the trade forum or through pm?

I'll take the Saints to finish it out... I believe they only have the one pick in round 3 so it shouldn't be to hard.

Think it was the cheat riots that have the easiest schedule this year. I believe the bills have the 4th easiest. So this is GOOD news!

If there are extra teams at the end I can take on another one as well. We can cross that bridge if we come to it though.

I'll take the cheatriots

Not just 2 teams but 2 sad sack teams. The Rams and Cards are not and were not even close to elite franchises except for the time he was there. I would vote him in for that reason alone. As for McNabb he was solid and sometimes spectacular but not a hof player imo.

I hate to say this as I really don't want it to happen but tannehill fits the description pretty well. Could be considered an impact position for sure and one that doesn't need to start right away. I hope that's not it but I'm more nervous about the possibility than I was yesterday.

yeah but then all my "hard work" would have been reduced to 6 words

Alright just for fun I went through and looked at the Bye weeks and who plays teams coming off of them. I came up with some interesting numbers (not that I'm sure they mean much) (all of the numbers will be games against teams coming off of byes) 4 Eagles (now they have a beef!) 3 Falcons 2 Packers, Ravens, Raiders, Lions, Cowboys, Browns, Bills (1 of the teams is also off of our bye) 1 Chiefs, Bucs, Saints, Jets, Broncos, 49ers, Rams (49ers and rams face each other coming off of bye and only one each team plays) ,Seahawks, Jags, Bears, Dolphins, Texans and check out the list of teams with 0 Steelers (jewel franchise) Giants (jewel franchise) Pats (jewel franchise) Redskins, Bengals, Colts, Titans, Vikings, Chargers, Cards, Panthers not sure what it means but I did find it interesting that 3 of the top franchises from the leagues perspective don't face any teams coming off of a bye. The Eagles and Falcons got the short end of the stick for sure. Would be interesting at the end of the year to compare this list to the end of year records and see if it meant anything. By the end of the year though we will forget all about this debate as we celebrate our playoff return!

Yeah I don't think I'm buying it either but I can understand how some see this as an issue. Just for fun I looked at the schedule to see how many teams got the Bills off of a bye and interestingly only the Texans come off of a bye before playing us (Bills also have a bye before playing the Texans as they are on bye the same week). I wonder if there are any teams that don't play anyone coming off of a bye and conversely who plays the most teams coming off of bye. I would imagine it will add a little more perspective to this discussion. I would have to say though only playing 2 teams coming off of a bye (and 1 that we are coming off the same bye) doesn't seem to be a bad rap or big deal.

It was of course one of the yahoo article where comments couldn't be left. I saw it this morning and immediately scrolled down to post a comment and couldn't. Usually its political columns that get the no comment treatment but sometimes its sports ones and I never understand why. Anyway it's incredible to me the spelling and factual errors from yahoo. For being such a large news site they are pretty piss poor when it comes to these things.

No problem and essentially that is where it ended up for me and why this was my last sentence That's the part that stands out to me - no matter who the opponent is it seems to benefit the Pats* in some way. There are many ways to look at it and in each scenario it seems that the Pats* benefit if that is the stance you want to take. As for the team that would be bad for them off of a bye yes there is an answer. A non-conference foe that is a stronger team where a win doesn't mean much but a loss certainly hurts. I think the core fault of the conspiracy argument is this: The pats* are a good team so when you see who they play off of a bye it looks like a win. The Bills haven't been a good team so who they play off of the bye looks like a tough game. If the Pats* were worse no one would be concerned that they played the Bills off of a bye. If the Bills were better no one would care who they played that was coming off of a bye. Does that make sense? Most of my post pertained to the idea of if this is happening why it is not that I definitively believe it is. I really don't think there is a grand league conspiracy to screw the Buffalo Bills, I do however think that there is interest in protecting their golden franchise and helping them out whenever possible. (much like the lakers in the nba and the yankees in mlb). This bye situation is a major statistical anomaly and one that I can understand creating concern especially when it pertains to known cheaters.

The fade that he couldn't throw against no coverage you mean? Wow that was bad at one point the receiver even raised the ball to pretend he was highpointing. Reminded me of a catcher framing the pitch.

Just Jack if you would like to pm me I am interested in buying a game or 2. I'm getting married this year and taking the new wife to her first Bills game. Let me know exact location, price, how many tickets you have and we can go from there. and to answer your questions: 1) Craigslist - no fees as someone else mentioned and it is a cash in hand transaction most times (which I prefer to paypal) 2) vary - If I think a matchup will generate a ton of interest as it nears I will wait for the game to get closer. If its an also ran game I sell when I know the schedule. In my experience there are a couple of "bumps" in what people will pay. For football its when the schedule comes out, when preseason starts, and when the regular season starts. For NCAA basketball (majority of ticks I sell are for SU games) I go with right before season, christmas, and week of game for big games. 3) Most def adjust price. Again marquee games might as well get marquee prices... if someone is willing to pay for it. Teams that don't come to Buffalo often can sometimes get a good price from other teams fans (if you don't mind doing that)