Brandon

Its both. Everyone wants to trade down in the top 10, but they also want a fortune for doing so. How many pick-for-pick trades have occurred in the top 10 in recent years. Very few.

All I'm saying is that the cost of trading up, particularly into the top 10, is almost always higher than expected. The Broncos gave up a 3rd and a 5th last year to move up from 21 to 17, for example, and it'll be more with the higher picks. It also gets worse if there's a 'great' prospect on the board. The Cleveland trade up from 7 to 6 for Kellen Winslow in 2004 being an example (they gave up pick 37 for that one spot; of course, they were also raked over the coals for it).

Unfortunately, the Ravens aren't Bills fans.

The chart says that, but that's not gospel. Most teams usually want extra incentive to trade out of a high pick. And if you were the Ravens, would YOU trade Sedrick Ellis for a 3rd round pick? That's basically what they'd be doing.

I think you get a better combination going WR in 1 and CB in 2 than the other way around, but that's basically how I see it. WR and CB in some order in the first two rounds, followed by TE/DE in the next two.

You also have to consider the cost of trading up, which will likely be a 2nd round pick. Trading up to draft Ellis could very well mean not filling any need position with a quality prospect this year. Unless you're OK with 3rd-7th round projects at CB, WR, TE and DE, it seems like a luxury they can't afford.

I'm not sure that it'll realistically be possible to do that. You can likely get Rodgers-Cromartie at 11, but Harvey will probably go in the teens. Moving up that far from 41 will probably cost the Bills their 2009 1st round pick, plus some change. Not worth it. While I wouldn't mind drafting Malcolm Kelly in R3-4, I would prefer to do so if he were their 2nd pick at WR. The big WRs with speed issues have a very poor track record and I'd be very concerned if they were to rely on him as their upgrade. John Carlson? I like it and I think there's a decent chance he'll be available in R4.

If he's there at 11, maybe, but they've already made a fairly heavy investment at the position this offseason. I would be opposed to trading up for him.

I agree completely. If its not a WR, I think it'll be one of the CBs.

They may, but my own feeling is that both Sweed and Thomas will be gone by pick 22. There's no incentive to trade up for the other WRs (and I would not pay the price to move from 41 to the top 20) as there's a significant dropoff to the next group, particularly if you aren't looking for a smurf. TE? Perhaps. I'm not sure how badly you really need to trade up, though.

There are several teams in the latter half of R1 this year that are a threat to select a WR. If the Bills trade down and intend to pick Sweed or Thomas, it makes it a lot easier for those teams to move up ahead of us to get one of them if they want them. They're not trying to 'mess up' anyone's draft. It just puts them in a better situation to get a player they want (who could be the player WE want). Teams trade up every year for that reason.

Or the next Mike Williams. There have been more than enough fairly high profile flops of big, yet slow WRs in recent years that I'd be pretty concerned if they choose to rely on someone who hasn't proven he can run better than a 4.7. Its one thing to lack blazing deep speed, but there does come a point where a bad 40 can easily be indicative of a guy who is slow across the board. As I've said before, if he really IS a 4.7-type guy, maybe Malcolm Kelly will overcome the odds, but based on the recent history of similar players, the odds seem strongly stacked against him. Until he proves he's faster than that, I would not regard him as a potential starter, but as a situational player.

If the Bills trade down, everyone is going to know what they're up to. They may still get Devin Thomas at 16-17, but they'd be inviting someone to trade up and pick him before they can. Is it worth the risk if you're dead set on taking him? Not in my opinion.

A few days ago, I looked through the 1st round DEs drafted since 2000 and came up with a fairly similar bust rate. Would it scare me away from drafting one? No. Every individual player must be evaluated on their own merits. The word 'bust' is subjective, anyway. How can you call Ike Hilliard a bust? He's not a superstar by any stretch, but with 499 career receptions for almost 6,000 yards, he's far from a flop. Reggie Williams? A disappointment, sure, but the guy had 10 TD catches this season. There are a few others on that list I'm not so sure I agree with, either.

Honestly, its probably on the level, but to me, it just looks bad given everything that happened. That said, maybe the scouts actually aren't allowed to attend for some reason, though I couldn't imagine that being the case.

Absolutely. His agent doesn't seem to be doing him any favors. They should have realized that OU's Pro Day in March was run on Field Turf, as was the combine, as were the Pro Day's of Limas Sweed and Devin Thomas. The workout this weekend that is rumored to be off-limits to scouts would be just the latest disaster. It may very well be completely on the level and probably is, but it looks bad when you do stuff like that, especially coming off a debacle like yesterday.

I was thinking a 38 yard track, but that's just me.

http://www.ktbb.com/nfldraft/ If its true that they aren't allowing scouts in, I'd be done with him completely.

That could prove interesting. Lynch was one of the last guys they brought in a year ago (though I think it may have been his 2nd visit).

The point is to show that there is always a significant risk involved. Ultimately, I think that it comes down to choosing the guy who, if he hits anything close to his potential, will make the biggest positive impact on your team. The draft should be approached just like a game. You play to win. That doesn't mean that you get stupid, but sometimes you have to take risks to get ahead.

On the other hand, its going to be 50-50 regardless of who you choose, so taking the guy with huge potential does have its merits.

Top 5? Why aim for simple mediocrity? Its the #1 pick or nothing, I say.

If they ever do hire me, you can bet that would be a trainwreck. 0-16!

I think that I'd rather go with a guy like Keller in R2 at TE if Harvey or another defender is taken in R1. I'm not really sold on the 2nd group of WRs in this draft and would rather just pick one of the projects in the 3rd or 4th. Meanwhile, Keller fills the immediate need of a possession receiver and a deep threat down the middle of the field.

The argument about whether or not he's worth the 11th pick is one that will just go endlessly in circles at this point, I think. In the end, I think its about the type of football player I expect Limas Sweed to become in the NFL. Do I believe he has a realistic chance of becoming an 80 catch 1200 yard 10 TD per season guy? I think he does. For me, that's enough. Let the draftniks argue over whether or not he's a 'reach'. Some of the so-called 'experts' thought that Evans and Lynch went a dozen spots too high as well. I only care about what he'll do on the field and he looks like an excellent fit from where I'm sitting.