P51
-
Posts
552 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by P51
-
-
13 hours ago, Albany,n.y. said:
There's no way a team trades mid 2nds and 3rds to move from 15 to 9. While I'm not a firm believer in the value chart, 15 to 9 should only get a low 2nd rounder. Giving every benefit of the doubt, they could get a mid 2nd to go up those 6 spots, but adding the 3rd is just way over the top.
Actually for a QB the Redskins trade from 15 to 9 is almost the exact same value as the Bills trading up from 12 to 7 last year. The premium value is virtually identical using the Johnson and Hill trade charts. I did the break down yesterday in 2 separate threads. You might not be a believer in the trade charts but they are used by NFL teams.
The Skins likely have to jump Denver, Miami and possibly Cincy (if Zach Taylor wants his own QB) if they want IMO Murray or Haskins if they are available at 9, possibly... Lock. They are will have to pay a premium, the market is set and Buffalo helped set the market for this type of trade up last year. It wouldnt shock me if some team in the 10-15 range jumped higher than Buffalo to get ahead of the Giants to take their guy, there are a lot of factors in play, especially when it comes to moving up for a QB, but the constant is a premium will be paid.
-
31 minutes ago, mannc said:
Another reason why they won’t be trading their first three picks for the 9th overall.
Does trading 2020 picks seem like a viable option to you given their current situation?
-
14 minutes ago, RPbillsfan said:
Very well researched. Based on skins cap situation this would help them.
Bills then draft
15, 40, 46, 74, 76 the first two days
Wow
Then we have 2 picks in round 4 & 5 and 2 in the 7th
Total roster rebuild with FA acquisitions
The Skins are going to be in a interesting situation, they have the roster to compete now, with a competent QB... I dont think from the numbers I have seen that they can bring in a FA QB, cutting Smith pre 6/1 seems like too much dead money and would put them in a full rebuild, which would be the end of Gruden in all likely hood, which again puts them in a rebuild... There is talk down here of them cutting all sorts of players from T. Williams to R. Kerrigan even... Haskins and Murray might be the only 2 starting potential answers for them in this draft to compete next year, that I see right now.
For Buffalo they would end up with a ton of picks in this situation and with FA, it would seem like they would have too many, camp would be ultra competitive, but IMO they would be likely packaging a couple picks to move back into the first, but more importantly they would have a ton of flexibility to move around in the draft or even add a player like G. McCoy via. trade and still have extra picks, it would be an ideal situation and the roster would be pretty well stacked one way or another!
-
1
-
-
I posted these numbers in the Crabbs mock thread, and figured they applied here as well, do as you please
"...Last years move up by Buffalo is a very similar situation and they paid a 27% and 29% premium to move up into the top ten according to the JJ and RH trade charts respectively. Thats the market value I think they would be looking for in return in a possible trade down with Washington.
Buffalo trading picks 9 and 167 (pick 8 round 6, pre-comp pick), for Washington's first 3 picks, 15, 46, and 76 would be a premium increase of 24% and 28% according to the JJ and RH trade charts. Sounds like a win win, the Skins jump Denver for their QB of the future, Buffalo moves back and gets a top end prospect and 2 day 2 picks..."
Seems pretty comparable value wise considering both moves are/were for a QB.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, cage said:
Nothing wrong w/ Ferrell, but this mock they has QBs picked at #10 and #13. I have little doubt the Redskins want to move to #9 in this scenario pretty badly. If we got an extra 2nd or high 3rd I would have to believe we would do that.
Im not high on Ferrell as a top 10 guy yet, IMO trading down with Washington would be ideal for both teams. Last years move up by Buffalo is a very similar situation and they paid a 27% and 29% premium to move up into the top ten according to the JJ and RH trade charts respectively. Thats the market value I think they would be looking for in return in a possible trade down with Washington.
Buffalo trading picks 9 and 167 (pick 8 round 6, pre-comp pick), for Washington's first 3 picks, 15, 46, and 76 would be a premium increase of 24% and 28% according to the JJ and RH trade charts. Sounds like a win win, the Skins jump Denver for their QB of the future, Buffalo moves back and gets a top end prospect and 2 day 2 picks. IMO that would be a great deal both teams.
1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:It depends on if they are thinking short term or long term. This staff seems to think more long term. I don’t think with Hughes in his 30s that would preclude them from drafting a DE if he’s the best player available on their board. even if they keep both him and Shaq.
I cant see how Shaq and Hughes situations, throw in Murphy as well would stop them from taking Ferrell if they see him as a top 10 value and/or BPA at 9.
Shaq isnt a legit pass rush threat and is the 43 run stuffing base end he has always been, Hughes is a pass rush threat and great all around DE IMO, but will be 31 when the season starts and the decline will come sooner rather than later, and Murphy is an injury concern who can be cut with minimal cap implications. Taking a pass rushing DE at 9 is in play IMO, if they believe Ferrell fits the mold and is worth the pick, I dont think they'd hesitate to pull the trigger on him a 9, maybe at the cost of not trading down with say Washington, similar to what Denver did in the last draft, not moving down to take the pass rusher.
-
1
-
-
For a bag of donuts, a hot dog and a hot pretzel, I'd make the deal...
-
1 hour ago, Commonsense said:
Ouch Hayden Hurst in the 80’s? A friend of the family works for SC and knows him personally. I was glad to see him get picked.
If they stay put tonight maybe we get another Hokie in Settle. Personally hoping for a Chubb drop but 3 backs already went so that’s slim to none.
My character grade on him was an A+, thats not an issue, I dont see him being into drugs or DV ever being an issue at all, a great person and hard worker by all accounts I have read and heard.
The issue's for me stem from him being maxed out physically and athletically, so I think he's already at his ceiling in that department and athletically I dont think he's special, he is what he is and aside from developing mentally and his understanding of the nuances of the game, I dont see much room for growth, his play speed and timed speed are the same. I also think he's already a limited athlete who was a grown man playing in a boys league and a 24 year old is going to dominate most 20 year old's for the most part, and thats what I saw watching him play. I also saw him not dominate at times, nor do I see him drawing any special attention, double teams, bracket coverage, but rather give max effort and show outstanding desire, making the best of what the coverage gives, which he does, making plays vs. zone, I dont see him separate vs. man and IMO his lack of CoD skills really shows vs. Man coverage, especially on what should be sharp breaking routes. He needs to work on stemming his routes and forcing defenders to give him separation he'll need at the ne3xt level. He's really good on vertical/seam routes vs. C2Z, but he's not going to see much of that at the next level and when he does the Mike's are bigger , stronger and faster and the hole he loves, is going to get smaller and the safeties close and hit faster and harder. His best ability IMO is to run his route correctly and efficiently vs. zone and he is quick to get his head around understanding when the ball should be coming to him, when it should vs. zone, in addition to his hands which I think are strong and highly coordinated. I keep hearing he's a great run blocker, but I think he's just average and watching him vs. Michigan, getting stood up, pushed back and even blown up, in addition to dropping his head on blocks in all the games I watched stuck with me and is another thing to work on and one of only areas of improvement I see he can make moving forward.
IMO he's a developmental TE, who projects for me as more of #2 TE, his self motivation and high level effort could give him a chance at being a #1 TE in time, but I thought he was way over drafted by Baltimore and I thought with Hurst along Terrell Edmunds (even bigger surprise) were the 2 biggest reaches in the first round.
-
Chark is only available in a trade up. I’d be shocked if he was there at 96.
-
9 minutes ago, Commonsense said:
Guice really pissed off some NFL guys with his combine interviews. He was “immature” and a guy who would always be a concern, he also lied about being asked those no no questions.
Fair enough, I think it’s out of character for him, but it was a bad look for sure. Talent wise he’s still better though Lol
-
4 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:
They will continue to ignore their trash OL until the end of time.
Legit. Hernandez?
Just now, YoloinOhio said:Wow - Shazier making progress!!
Great to see!
-
1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:
If Edmunds pans out who cares they gave up pick 65 (And got back a mid 5th) but just in philosophy I hate a trade up for a non-QB.
True regarding the trade for a non QB, I think of it like trading up for a special player and that’s worth it, he’s worth it.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:
He was projected to go in the 3rd!
Not by me, Lol!
-
Over Guice and Michel?? Value is there, but not the best value at RB.
If Michels knee is an issue, Guice should have been the pick.
-
1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:
It's not dark at all, but I think that the players available at pick 22 would have been really good and they still would have had pick 65 to find another player at a position of need. I think they got the best player available but I think it was smarter to just stay where you were and keep pick 65.
I hear you, I just think Edmunds is the best LB in the draft, his current ability is amazing and his ceiling is even higher, they’ll be competitive this year but the future is what this draft is about and Edmunds is going to be a long term stud at a key position in the Bills D, IMO. I believe it ouweighs the 65th and whomever they’d get at 22.
-
8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:
I am not a fan of the trade up considering they now don't have a pick until 96. I like the position as this team had no LB's but dam this team is going to be seriously flawed.
JMO, they are looking towards 2020 and beyond, they kept they pucks next year and have a ton of cap space heading into the future, Edmunds was worth that trade and the future is very bright, it’s the darkest before dawn?
-
4 minutes ago, SDS said:
Who should he have replaced?
IMO he’s a better player than McGlinchy and Oakland would be better served taking him at 10 than trading back, and I think he’s a bigger and more athletic for his size prospect than R. Smith so I would take him over Smith at 8.
Hes atop ten value IMO regardless of where he actually goes in the draft, even if I were to rate R. Smith ahead of him, they are both that good value wise.
-
Pats C Williams?
-
They got a blue chip LB at 16, rejoice Bills fans, he should have gone top 10.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, formerlyofCtown said:
I believe we got 2 blue Chip players.
Edmunds is one for sure...
-
1 minute ago, Happy Gilmore said:
That's what I would think, though the NFLN guys said they would put him on the edge. But a 20 year old MLB is kind of young.
He’s a top ten value. He can rush when needed to, but he’ll play MLB in sub D, maybe Sam in base.
-
1
-
-
Instinctually close to Roquan Smith
-
Great trade value, Edmonds was arguably the best LB in the draft, most athletic.
-
1
-
-
GREAT PICK
-
2 minutes ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:
Leighton Vander Eshe or tremaine Edmunds?
One of them right now!!!
edmunds
AlphaMock V1 - 4 round mock (pre combine)
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
The Cardinals last year played musical chairs and were the last man out. They wanted Allen, but settled for Rosen, Gruden wanted more picks and was asking to move down, got his picks but took less value to do so. Arizona got the last pick of the litter and paid less to do so, knowing Gruden was looking to stack his roster and they took advantage.