Why it may make sense for the Bills to trade up . . .

[The Cincinnati Kid]

Oh, MoValleyRandy, its a shame you didn't like somebody's post...let's stick to the conversation. If people disagree with another poster's post, thats fine, but don't show the other poster up and undermine their opinions. Keep it clean, Randy.

[BobChalmers]

['Edwards' Arm' timestamp=1332857268' post='2423153]

[*]OL. Other than LT, the OL is in pretty good shape.

 

This made me LOL. Other than the most important position on the line, we are all set.

 

 

It is easier to find things amusing if you are drunk or stoned - I assume that's your issue here?

 

If you're sober, there's nothing wrong with the notion that 4 of 5 positions are in good shape. The difference between needing to add 1 player vs. more than one player is not trivial.

[CSBill]

If we could trade up and get an all-pro LT ... trade 2 & 3 if he's that good!

[Orton's Arm]

I'd say the price would be the kicker here on whether or not the move up would be worth it. If you're talking Redskins type forfeiture of picks (something like 3 first rounders?), then NO WAY!

 

Truth is, the Bills need a good LT to solidify that line; and a young one would be great, because then the line could stay and grow together for a number of years. I'd say in that scenario we are looking at ALL THE PIECES in place, let's make a run type ready. However, a good LT can be found in other areas than just the obvious. This is where you must weigh the pros and cons. If trading up to get a pro-bowl caliber LT means giving up on the picks necessary to go get a franchise QB next year, then NO WAY! Because, if we're assembling the team so that we can make a 3 or 4 year run, then I'd say this is Fitz's year to prove he is the QB to make that run with. If he fails or falters, we're going to go all in on a QB next year. So, having picks next year is necessary. In fact, if the Bills are eyeing next year for drafting a QB, then I'd say trading this pick for some picks next year is more likely than settling at 10 for a player they're not entirely sold on.

 

But, to be that good, to where we're ready to insert a QB and go, we do need to figure out the LT position, and we need probably another CB, LB, and WR. So, I'd rather get a good, dependable LT and the other positions, too, and insert a very good QB next year, than get a great LT this year, pass on the chance at getting the WR, LB, or CB this year, and miss out on the picks needed next year for a move to get a franchise QB.

 

In sum, trading up for a LT this year is kind of like going all in with Fitz. I'd rather the alternative, if I had to choose.

I like your way of thinking. I completely agree that, if it's a choice between acquiring picks in next year's draft and trading up in this year's draft, you do the former every time. As you pointed out, picks in next year's draft would better position the Bills to potentially trade up for a QB. By the same token, I really don't like the idea of trading away picks in next year's draft.

 

In order, my preferred options would be as follows:

 

1) Trade out of the #10 slot for a first rounder next year and a late first round pick this year.

2) Trade up for Kalil--but only with picks from this year's draft.

3) Stay put at #10 and take a WR or CB

4) Trade down for more picks this year

 

If there's an opportunity in next year's draft to take a franchise QB, I'd be more than happy to pay a king's ransom to obtain that QB.

 

To illustrate why, consider the Colts. In 1998 they drafted Peyton Manning. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that it had been necessary to trade away the next three drafts for that one player. Would that price have been worth it?

 

Those three years worth of drafts got them Edgerin James, Reggie Wayne, and Rob Morris. If I needed a quarterback, would I trade away those three players to get a Peyton Manning in exchange? Absolutely, and without hesitation! You do a trade like that ten times out of ten! Similarly, the Packers' drafts in the three years after they acquired Aaron Rodgers were worth a lot less than Rodgers himself.

 

If the Bills obtain Kalil and a LB this year, and a franchise QB next year, they will become a threat to win the Super Bowl! The final two pieces would be a shutdown CB and a Pro Bowl WR. But even absent those two pieces, the Bills would still have a real shot--as long as they obtained that franchise QB and Kalil.

[Captain Hindsight]

Neither witty nor funny .... as usual.

Different strokes for different folks i guess. I see your 65, maybe you just can't understand the younger generations lingo

 

My point was every year its if we don't trade up for x player we will suck for the next 14 years. Its ridiculous to think we can't find a player at spot ten that is worth something. And there are only so many good players why would the other teams want to trade back? So they can get a few good players? Well why can't we use our ten picks to get a few good players? JMO

[Hapless Bills Fan]

[*]OL. Other than LT, the OL is in pretty good shape.

 

This made me LOL. Other than the most important position on the line, we are all set.

 

I chuckled too. "Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Edited March 28, 2012 by Hopeful

[Orton's Arm]

Different strokes for different folks i guess. I see your 65, maybe you just can't understand the younger generations lingo

 

My point was every year its if we don't trade up for x player we will suck for the next 14 years. Its ridiculous to think we can't find a player at spot ten that is worth something. And there are only so many good players why would the other teams want to trade back? So they can get a few good players? Well why can't we use our ten picks to get a few good players? JMO

I'd argue there are two scenarios in which it makes sense to seek a trade:

 

1) A scenario in which the best player available is significantly better than the best player available at a position of need.

2) A scenario in which you've targeted a special player, such as a franchise QB, and are willing to pay a steep price to get him.

 

The reason it makes sense to trade in scenario 1) is because you cannot get full value out of your own pick by staying put. You need to move up or down, to a draft position where the best player available corresponds with one of your team's needs. (Assuming, of course, that another team is willing to make a reasonably fair trade with you.)

[Captain Hindsight]

I'd argue there are two scenarios in which it makes sense to seek a trade:

 

1) A scenario in which the best player available is significantly better than the best player available at a position of need.

2) A scenario in which you've targeted a special player, such as a franchise QB, and are willing to pay a steep price to get him.

 

The reason it makes sense to trade in scenario 1) is because you cannot get full value out of your own pick by staying put. You need to move up or down, to a draft position where the best player available corresponds with one of your team's needs. (Assuming, of course, that another team is willing to make a reasonably fair trade with you.)

I think this is probley where I disagree with the premise. I don't like drafting for need, thats how you reach for guys like Maybin or Whitner because you need a pass rusher or a safety. I prefer taking the best player available, thats how you build a deep talented team JMO.

[Orton's Arm]

I think this is probley where I disagree with the premise. I don't like drafting for need, thats how you reach for guys like Maybin or Whitner because you need a pass rusher or a safety. I prefer taking the best player available, thats how you build a deep talented team JMO.

If you go back and reread my post, you'll see that I didn't advocate reaching for a player, ever. Obviously, players like Whitner and McCargo were not even remotely close to being the best player available when they were picked!

 

In my view, both of the following should be true of your first round pick:

1) It should be used on someone who's the best player available, or at least very close

2) It should be used on a player at a position of need. No drafting a RB when you're already set at the position!

 

In order to arrange for both of those things to be true, it may sometimes be necessary to trade up or down. If the Bills were to trade up for Kalil, as an example, then when they chose him, the best player available (him) would correspond with a position of need (LT).

[Biscuit97]

If you go back and reread my post, you'll see that I didn't advocate reaching for a player, ever. Obviously, players like Whitner and McCargo were not even remotely close to being the best player available when they were picked!

 

In my view, both of the following should be true of your first round pick:

1) It should be used on someone who's the best player available, or at least very close

2) It should be used on a player at a position of need. No drafting a RB when you're already set at the position!

 

In order to arrange for both of those things to be true, it may sometimes be necessary to trade up or down. If the Bills were to trade up for Kalil, as an example, then when they chose him, the best player available (him) would correspond with a position of need (LT).

IMO I say stay at 10 and take Kirkpatrick ALA CB and trade up the 2nd round pick and take Hill GaTech WR. Stud and Stud. I guarantee playoffs

[Captain Hindsight]

If you go back and reread my post, you'll see that I didn't advocate reaching for a player, ever. Obviously, players like Whitner and McCargo were not even remotely close to being the best player available when they were picked!

 

In my view, both of the following should be true of your first round pick:

1) It should be used on someone who's the best player available, or at least very close

2) It should be used on a player at a position of need. No drafting a RB when you're already set at the position!

 

In order to arrange for both of those things to be true, it may sometimes be necessary to trade up or down. If the Bills were to trade up for Kalil, as an example, then when they chose him, the best player available (him) would correspond with a position of need (LT).

I knew what you meant, I just don't like moving around in the draft. If you move down you could miss the player you want, if you move up you give away valuable picks. Id rather stay put and stick to my board. I worry about when teams fall in love with a Player. Maybe this griffin trade will work out for the skins, he fits your criteria for trading up, but to give away the 1st round pick the next two years and a second? He better be the best ever, and he's not even the best in this draft class. Tradng up is a big gamble IMO

[Bud Adams]

Out of curiosity, how do you like Nick Perry?

 

Not necessarily for the Bills but just as a player.

Thanks for phrasing it this way -- ie. as a player and as a Bill.

 

I really don't see any way of him becoming a Bill, as he's almost assured to be drafted by a team that utilizes a 3-4.

 

As a Trojan -- My nickname for Perry was "If Only." As in, "If only he would have gotten there a split-second sooner..." Some of the talking heads say he's got a great first step, which makes me wonder if they watched all the games. Some plays, yes -- many plays, no. He had a very good year in 2011, but it could have been a MONSTER year -- If only.

 

Positives (IMHO)

1). COULD play 3-4 or 4-3 at the NFL level, but he won't be "the guy" at DE if in a 4-3 system.

2). Durable. I don't recall him having missed a game despite a high ankle sprain.

3). Very strong once he gets past the initial blocker.

 

Negatives (IMHO)

1). Can be handled quite easily by bigger linemen. No double team necessary. When he's taken out of a play, he's really taken out of a play.

2). Tends to get "lost" in a play and could have better instincts as to where the football is.

3). While I wrote (above) that he could play in either scheme, I really think the only way he excels is in a 3-4. 4-3 for Perry is square peg/round hole in the NFL.

4). Smallish -- but this really is covered in Point 3.

 

I don't think any team will "reach" for him unless that team believes he's a "perfect fit" or "missing link." I can see him slipping into Round 2.

 

Personally -- Helluva guy. I'll root for him regardless.

 

BA

[RocBillsfan]

or for the second pick buffalo selects Donte Hightower.

 

 

 

 

IMO I say stay at 10 and take Kirkpatrick ALA CB and trade up the 2nd round pick and take Hill GaTech WR. Stud and Stud. I guarantee playoffs

[ndirish1978]

Go back and pray to your Michael Floyd posters

 

So, let me get this straight, since you didn't actually articulate a position. Did you want me to apologize for where I went to school, the fact that I like Floyd, or the fact that I believe the OP is dredging up the topic for the 100th time on this board despite the fact that nix has repeatedly stated we're not in the business of trading up? Please, you must clear this up for me. I am devastated to not have earned the admiration of a troll such as yourself.

[habes1280]

I know many posters flounce at this, but I don't think Kalil is worth mortgaging this year's, or next year's, top-echelon picks. I'm certainly an advocate of drafting offensive lineman (I think one could argue question marks at both tackle positions, as well as depth in the interior), but I think beyond a few positions (OT, WR, LB, etc) the Bills' greatest "need" is depth. We've seen our team-- in each of the last several years-- undone by injuries and a shallow depth chart. Drafting players to fill holes in the starting roster is always ideal, but not at the expense of the remaining players who will work in rotational roles or round out the depth chart.

 

The OT class this year is fairly deep-- four potential first rounders, and several interesting candidates at the 2-4th round level (at the latter edge of that range, a guy like Brandon Mosely looks interesting)-- so there's little need to bundle picks to move to the head of the class. The well-developed teams can afford to draft players one at a time, packaging entire day's of picks for single prospects, but despite a promising offseason, we're still a developing team. Beyond strong draft picks, we need strong draft CLASSES to really turn the corner.

 

Just my two cents.

[bowery4]

I can see a lot of scenarios are going to go through peoples minds before draft day lol. I highly doubt Hightower lasts until our spot in rd 2 (which is why I favor moving into the late first to get him, from number 2, up not down, I wrote about it earlier in the thread, I would love to see him blitz behind our front 4.

 

I am not in panic mode about LT here is why. Personally I like Colin Brown a lot. He is a great guy to develop, drafted in 2009 as RT (where he was a walk on in college but also played back up LT) picked up in UFL Hartford team as RT.

He filled in very well in the middle of the line last year and I could see him with his size and mauling downfield blocking ability becoming a great back up at swing tackle. Let Hairston start, draft one high (Martin would be my choice), draft one low (what Chris Brown says Nix said the other day) and develop the back ups more. There is also practice squads to raids and waiver wire pick ups we can go to. I also am not panicked about losing Bell if we do. I almost welcome it and we should definitely plan on it. I kind of think having a healthy player not competing for reps with the rest of the guys would be better in the long run (from his statements so far this off season I think this is what Buddy thinks too). In a way I think we have decent depth if this is the plan, it is kind of a gamble but at least the health issue is taken out of it to a certain extent. After last offseason and the progress they made, I trust them to do this well.

 

We did have a giant problem with injuries and lack of depth last year because most positions are not plug and play (another reason I like us using players who were here last year. Remember a couple of years ago and all the talk about our line never having the opportunity to "gel"?

 

I think moving on from the “injury prone” guys was a subtext of Nix’s end of year presser. The only reason we are keeping Wood and Merriman is that they have in the past been excellent players (and both are fairly cheap, considering this). Bell and Roscoe haven’t showed that, although both had periods of “flashes”.

[Pilsner]

Do NOT Trade Up and lose valuable picks. Just draft more wisely with the picks provided. Or trade down a few slots if the option is available and if it's feasible. Trading up is imo only a good idea if u are practically guaranteed to get a Peyton Manning. Many valuable starters have been drafted after round 1. As long as Buddy and Co. are wise in their drafting (if wiser than the average team) then it will be fine. Do not mortgage the farm. We've done it before and been screwed. Even if half the picks had worked out, there would be a debate as to the traded picks (lost potential) traded away.

[mabden]

(They're normally college safeties who get turned into fast NFL LBs.)

 

 

The Bills tried this when Jauron was HC and unless I am mistaken our undersized LBs got beat up, pushed around, and could not last the season. No thanks.

 

I know many posters flounce at this, but I don't think Kalil is worth mortgaging this year's, or next year's, top-echelon picks. I'm certainly an advocate of drafting offensive lineman (I think one could argue question marks at both tackle positions, as well as depth in the interior), but I think beyond a few positions (OT, WR, LB, etc) the Bills' greatest "need" is depth. We've seen our team-- in each of the last several years-- undone by injuries and a shallow depth chart. Drafting players to fill holes in the starting roster is always ideal, but not at the expense of the remaining players who will work in rotational roles or round out the depth chart.

 

 

I agree, either stay put and draft the best available player at LT or LB or CB or WR, or if nothing is worthy at the 10 spot, trade down for more draft picks. We have 3 picks of the first 100, so we should get some very good players who should be able to contribute come opening day. I trust Nix and Gailey to make the right decision(s) and feel they've been really good so far.

[tennesseeboy]

The question is whether Rief is going to actually be there at 10, not whether he is worth a 10. If he's there he is worth a 10 in a spot we need. If he isn't Martin will be and some here argue that because his arm is one inch longer he is better than Reif. I don't see Martin getting past about 16 so I don't see him as a reach. If we could get Kalil? I would probably move up, but I don't see that happening for a reasonable price.

[BobChalmers]

The question is whether Rief is going to actually be there at 10, not whether he is worth a 10. If he's there he is worth a 10 in a spot we need. If he isn't Martin will be and some here argue that because his arm is one inch longer he is better than Reif. I don't see Martin getting past about 16 so I don't see him as a reach. If we could get Kalil? I would probably move up, but I don't see that happening for a reasonable price.

 

I agree with this - IF Kalil slips a little, I would love the idea of the Bills giving up a little to move up and get him.

 

The latest from the (generally brainless) NFLN crew is that they think the Vikings will take Blackmon which could well cause Kalil to slip as the next few teams are set at OLT. If I remember correctly, Mayock was part of this "Kalil may slip" discussion, therefore I don't dimiss it entirely.

 

What would it take to move up from 10 to say 6?

Edited March 28, 2012 by BobChalmers