Trade Down

[AF88Bills]

Key word being "sometimes." More often than not, the higher draft picks have a higher success rate. If the lower picks had more success than the higher picks, then people would be fighting left and right to get those later picks.

 

well, take the premise that a higher pick increases your CHANCES of getting a successful player..shouldn't more pics do the same thing (increase your CHANCES for success)...especially considering how so many high draft picks flame out.

[Alphadawg7]

Positions of need: Ryan Mallet, Kyle Rudolph, Daquan Bowers (DE), Stephen Paea(DT), Marcus Golbert (OT),Benjamin Ijalana (OT)

 

They could have had Mallet in round 3, so him being there in the middle of round 2 clearly was not a guy they would have taken. So scratch him from the list.

 

They could have had Bowers but said the knee and the fact he wasnt a good fit for their D is why they were not going to take him...scratch him from your list.

 

They drafted Dareus in round 1 and also have KW and Troup...so scratch Paea from your list

 

They did not draft a OL until late in the draft yet had several chances at some in rounds 2 and 3...so you can probably scratch the two OL guys off your list.

 

Who knows where they had Rudolph on thier list.

 

They wanted a CB and Williams was a first rounder who slipped...the next best corner on the board was a big drop off...there was no way they were going to get a corner they liked by trading down, so they took the one they coveted.

[AF88Bills]

They could have had Mallet in round 3, so him being there in the middle of round 2 clearly was not a guy they would have taken. So scratch him from the list.

 

They could have had Bowers but said the knee and the fact he wasnt a good fit for their D is why they were not going to take him...scratch him from your list.

 

They drafted Dareus in round 1 and also have KW and Troup...so scratch Paea from your list

 

They did not draft a OL until late in the draft yet had several chances at some in rounds 2 and 3...so you can probably scratch the two OL guys off your list.

 

Who knows where they had Rudolph on thier list.

 

They wanted a CB and Williams was a first rounder who slipped...the next best corner on the board was a big drop off...there was no way they were going to get a corner they liked by trading down, so they took the one they coveted.

 

 

OK, two solid prospect OTs and a QB, just scratched like that...hmmm. Even with Fitz, aren't these considered issues for the Bills? Funny thing is winning organizations took these guys. (Colts, Steelers, and Pats)

[NoSaint]

I enjoy when people without access to "the plan" can so quickly bash it.

 

Let's for a second assume that Chans offense is going to be centered on a semi-mobile, smart qb with a minimal role for the tightend..... Rudolph and mallet wouldn't make much sense, eh? Now let's couple that with a defense moving from cover 2, to a 34.... If Marcell completed their line, they planned on sheppard a little early in the 3rd knowing they'd get him, and that perhaps mckelvin is not a guy they trust.... Suddenly your suggestion sounds pretty silly.

 

Value met need, and matched their evaluation and scheme- just before a big drop in talent. pull the trigger.

 

When value meets need for someone else, and you can find a better fit later, trade.

 

I venture the first scenario to be true.

Edited May 6, 2011 by NoSaint

[AF88Bills]

I enjoy when people without access to "the plan" can so quickly bash it.

 

Let's for a second assume that Chans offense is going to be centered on a semi-mobile, smart qb with a minimal role for the tightend..... Rudolph and mallet wouldn't make much sense, eh? Now let's couple that with a defense moving from cover 2, to a 34.... If Marcell completed their line, they planned on sheppard a little early in the 3rd knowing they'd get him, and that perhaps mckelvin is not a guy they trust.... Suddenly your suggestion sounds pretty silly.

 

Value met need, and matched their evaluation and scheme- just before a big drop in talent. pull the trigger.

 

When value meets need for someone else, and you can find a better fit later, trade.

 

I venture the first scenario to be true.

 

I agree, it's all conjecture now with who they could've picked ...

 

The point is, I don't understand their self identified inflexibility when clearly are opportunities to be had...others teams do it and are often successful.

Edited May 6, 2011 by AF88Bills

[NoSaint]

I agree, it's all conjecture now with who they could've picked ...

 

The point is, I don't understand their self identified inflexibility when clearly are opportunities to be had...others teams do it and are often successful.

It's about finding sweet spots. The positions of value at 48 might not match their goals as well as 34. I think this discontent is more about a cb, than an extra pick. If they traded down for a cb, I bet the post would be "stay put and take...." but that's just a guess. It's also a lot easier to pit out ideas after the fact when you know who fell where.

Edited May 6, 2011 by NoSaint

[NewEra]

To many posts to quote, so won't quote any.

 

They wanted the guys they drafted. They drafted them instead of having another team draft the guys they wanted.

 

CB Is a BIG need. Believe that it wasn't. You're most definitely wrong.

 

The OT we landed in the 4th, has about the "grade" as the OT the steelers drafted in the 2nd. The top OTs were off the board when we selected In the 2nd, so we chose one with our 2nd 4th round pick, that has about the same upside as those taken in Rd 2 and 3.

 

They obviously think we have some players that can play OLB. Many of us disagree, but that irrelevant. The bills FO does, so they didn't grab one. They drafted 2 ilbs and some DBS....that were needed.

 

Trading for more picks = sometimes missing the players that you really want. We obviously really wanted the guys we got. Quality > quantity....even when you're rebuilding.

[DanInUticaTampa]

well, take the premise that a higher pick increases your CHANCES of getting a successful player..shouldn't more pics do the same thing (increase your CHANCES for success)...especially considering how so many high draft picks flame out.

 

If it does the "same thing" like you say, then why do you think it is such a big deal? I would think that Dareus has a way higher chance of success than anyone you can find in the 2nd round, and probably in the bottom of the 1st.

 

The steelers have had far more success than the Pats* in the draft. The pats* trade down and the steelers stay put. Unless you think the pats* draft better than the steelers, in which case, no.

 

OK, two solid prospect OTs and a QB, just scratched like that...hmmm. Even with Fitz, aren't these considered issues for the Bills? Funny thing is winning organizations took these guys. (Colts, Steelers, and Pats)

 

Too bad they didn't take them last year instead.

 

And funny thing, Pats* took a CB with their first 2nd rounder.... just like us. We are doing the same thing that a winning organization does. Does that make us winners?

Edited May 6, 2011 by DanInUticaTampa

[Buffalo Barbarian]

It baffles me why the Bills wouldn't trade down and get more value out of their pics. For a team that has so many holes, it would seem to be wise to get more pics and try to plug our more of our holes (QB, OL, LB, DT, etc...). I understand being confident in the guys you want, but winning teams are able to remain flexible enough to make the draft work to their advantage.

 

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/5/5/2152950/buddy-nix-buffalo-bills-nfl-draft-2011

Because Nix has said he has lost too many guys that he wanted by trading back and he will just about never trade back so stop thinking about it.

[Dragonborn10]

Who is the best coach in the NFL? What does his team do every year? How many high round picks did they have last year, this year, and next?

 

Case closed.

 

Trading down is almost always the best option. The exception this year was Dareus at 3. Too much talent at too much of a need position to trade down even if they got more than what Cleveland got from Atlanta.

[thebandit27]

Who is the best coach in the NFL? What does his team do every year? How many high round picks did they have last year, this year, and next?

 

Case closed.

 

Trading down is almost always the best option. The exception this year was Dareus at 3. Too much talent at too much of a need position to trade down even if they got more than what Cleveland got from Atlanta.

 

Notice that the team to which you refer won 3 superbowls staying where they were in the draft and picking the best players, since they started their trade-down every year nonsense, they haven't won a playoff game.

 

This TSW misconception that trading down is the end-all, be-all of draft strategies is ludicrous. Teams get better by picking the best players, not by screwing around. You never, ever see Pittsburgh or Green Bay trade down, and those two teams played in the Superbowl last year. What are we really talking about here? Why doesn't Buffalo screw around like New England? I don't know...for that matter, why doesn't every team screw around like New England does with the draft? My guess is because it doesn't really work all that well.

 

The Pats traded down over and over during the past few years, and the fact remains that their best picks during that time frame came when they simply stayed where they were and made their pick (Devin McCourty, Sebastian Vollmer). The ones that they got from moving all over the place (Darius Butler, Ron Brace, Patrick Chung) have been largely disappointing.

 

Cleveland traded down repeatedly two years ago, and how did that work out for them? They ended up passing on two potential franchise QBs (Sanchez and Freeman) to get a center, and they've remained a lousy team ever since.

 

Trading down is not a proven strategy, it's actually closer to a recipe for missing out on a top talent.

[RealityCheck]

I agree, it's all conjecture now with who they could've picked ...

 

The point is, I don't understand their self identified inflexibility when clearly are opportunities to be had...others teams do it and are often successful.

[gumby]

 

And funny thing, Pats* took a CB with their first 2nd rounder.... just like us. We are doing the same thing that a winning organization does. Does that make us winners?

 

Not only that but for the 5th straight year the Pats spent either a 1st or 2nd round pick on a DB.

[FightinIrishBills]

This fetishizing of the Patriots is getting ludicrous.

 

As a bunch of posters prior have said, you draft the best player who fits your system. If you believe that you can get a player that you value highly at 48, then it makes sense to trade out of the 34th pick. However, if you grade the quality of talent available to you at 48 to be significantly less valuable as both a player and to your team's needs then the talent available at 34, then you can't pass that up.

 

Everything the Bills do isn't always wrong. Everything the Patriots do isn't always right. More picks means better odds of finding solid players, but the more marginal quality of the talent as you move down reduces your odds of finding a good or elite player when you trade away from the higher picks. The Bills don't need contributors, they need big-time playmakers. By having whiffed on so many first round picks over the years, the Bills have a bunch of role-players but no elite grade talent. Bill Simmons would say that 1 dollar is better than 4 quarters (though he's talking about the NBA, I still think it's valid here).

 

Contrary to the belief of a good deal of Bills' fans, the team isn't that far away from being good again. But in order to get back into the fold of good (let alone playoff) teams, the team need to grab high-end talent when it can and plug in solid role players around them. Those role players start looking really good when big-time playmakers open up the game.