papazoid Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 According to NFL Network insider Jason LaCanfora: Sources tell me both the Buffalo Bills and Arizona Cardinals are interested in moving back, given the offensive line depth in this draft (a need for both clubs). http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d828701a4/article/nfl-draft-buzz-ryan-tannehill-still-the-key-fletcher-cox-at-6?module=HP11_hot_topics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Barron may be the trade up target. Hope so. Getting Reiff plus one of the top 5 DTs or CBs would be a plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Someone hot would have to fall to us for there to even be a chance of a trade down. It's more likely such a deal happens ahead of #10. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billnutinphoenix Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I'd be very happy....Everyone's favorite WR from Notre Dame will likely be available up until pick 20... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjmac Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 This could happen as we are all sitting in front of our TVs and/or computers...the commish walking to the podium before our pick and announcing, "We have a trade." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scurdog1 Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Every team outside the top 2 is looking to trade down....the question is are there REALLY any teams that are going to trade up...maybe 1, 2 at the most Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Lots of teams looking to trade up a few slots if a player they really like is on board and they someone else may pick. It is unlikely to happen before draft day. Question is will any team do a "Vikings" and miss putting in their pick prompting a team trying to pick fast and bypass them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Seems like a consensus is starting to form after the top 6 guys and Tannehill. Cox, Barron, Kuechly and Gilmore are the next 4 guys. Could see Dallas or Philly giving up a 3rd to move up to #10 and get one of those guys. Both teams are aggressive and have Manning, Vick, Romo, and now RG3 in the division. I guess the Browns could move up to #10 also if Tannehill doesn't go to Dolphins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis in NC Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Lots of teams looking to trade up a few slots if a player they really like is on board and they someone else may pick. It is unlikely to happen before draft day. Question is will any team do a "Vikings" and miss putting in their pick prompting a team trying to pick fast and bypass them. Have the Vikings done that (missed their selection) more than once? I remember the Vikes doing that a few years ago, but has it happened (to any team) any other time? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Have the Vikings done that (missed their selection) more than once? I remember the Vikes doing that a few years ago, but has it happened (to any team) any other time? I don't think so. actually it happened to the Vikings on back to back years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wagon Circler Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I want to end up with an off. tackle AND Michael Kendricks, the middle linebacker from cal. So a trade down would be an ideal scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Trading down is going to be very difficult in this draft. Not a lot separates the 10-20 talent, a team would really have to covet a player to trade up. The talent left at spot 10 for us to chose will either be a top 6 player that slides (Kalil, Blackmon, Claiborne or Richardson - none will happen) or that Floyd, Kuechly, Gilmore or Kirkpatrick will be there. I don't see us trading back with one of these remaining 8 guaranteed to be there. The picks given to us would have to be amazing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjmac Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Trading down is going to be very difficult in this draft. Not a lot separates the 10-20 talent, a team would really have to covet a player to trade up. The talent left at spot 10 for us to chose will either be a top 6 player that slides (Kalil, Blackmon, Claiborne or Richardson - none will happen) or that Floyd, Kuechly, Gilmore or Kirkpatrick will be there. I don't see us trading back with one of these remaining 8 guaranteed to be there. The picks given to us would have to be amazing... I read somewhere about the Patriots trading both of their 1st-rounders for our #10. Would you be interested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Trading down is going to be very difficult in this draft. Not a lot separates the 10-20 talent, a team would really have to covet a player to trade up. The talent left at spot 10 for us to chose will either be a top 6 player that slides (Kalil, Blackmon, Claiborne or Richardson - none will happen) or that Floyd, Kuechly, Gilmore or Kirkpatrick will be there. I don't see us trading back with one of these remaining 8 guaranteed to be there. The picks given to us would have to be amazing... Lots separates the 10-20 talent - teams' opinions about them. All teams do not evaluate players the same way. How many players who have been guaranteed to be in top 10 and sitting in studio have waited while they were passed repeatedly by teams. Guarantees are worth the electrons they are written on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Lots separates the 10-20 talent - teams' opinions about them. All teams do not evaluate players the same way. How many players who have been guaranteed to be in top 10 and sitting in studio have waited while they were passed repeatedly by teams. Guarantees are worth the electrons they are written on. I don't dispute anything you have said as you are correct. However in this draft, after the top 6 picks or so, each player has more question marks than in previous years. Even Charlie Casserly has said that there is not a lot that separates the talent from 10-20... "In the eyes of most those half dozen elite prospects are Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Matt Kalil, Trent Richardson, Morris Claiborne and Justin Blackmon. From pick seven to pick 20 there's a widely held view that the difference between the seventh best prospect and 20th best prospect is negligible. "I agree with the premise that there might not be a lot of difference," said Casserly. Buffalo at 10 is near the top of that range of second tier of prospects. Knowing the caliber of player the Bills can get at 10 is seen by many in the know as marginally better than what can be had at 20 leads some draft analysts to make the blanket conclusion that whomever GM Buddy Nix and his personnel staff target at 10 is seen as a reach. Casserly says that thinking is misguided, and that NFL clubs in a position like that of the Bills take a different approach to such scenarios. “I think what you have to do is get into a mindset of this, first of all you want to take the best player on the board, however it is set up," he said. "You can’t get into a mindset where if you’re picking at 10 that there are six elite players and you’ll be disappointed if you don’t get one of those six. If you’re picking 10 think about if you’re picking 20 or 25 and you’re going to get a good player there. The point is take a step back and don’t be too critical of the players that are sitting there and say they’re not worth the 10th pick." "Personnel executives just try to keep it all in perspective, line the board up with the best player on down the line," said Casserly. "When it comes to 10 you take him or you try to trade back and get into a group.” While trading back seems like a very sensible option, especially knowing the difference in player value is seen as marginal, that’s exactly why teams down at 18, 19 or 20 would be unwilling to move up. So finding a trade partner could prove difficult knowing teams at the bottom of the mid-first round range would not want to give up anything significant to get a player that isn’t seen as a whole lot better than what they can get where they currently sit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjmac Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Lots separates the 10-20 talent - teams' opinions about them. All teams do not evaluate players the same way. How many players who have been guaranteed to be in top 10 and sitting in studio have waited while they were passed repeatedly by teams. Guarantees are worth the electrons they are written on. The first thing that needs to happen is to determine who is in the 10-20 range. I can think of only 6 players this year who are guaranteed to be gone before our pick: Luck, RG3, Kalil, Richardson, Claiborne, and Blackmon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I don't dispute anything you have said as you are correct. However in this draft, after the top 6 picks or so, each player has more question marks than in previous years. Even Charlie Casserly has said that there is not a lot that separates the talent from 10-20... "In the eyes of most those half dozen elite prospects are Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Matt Kalil, Trent Richardson, Morris Claiborne and Justin Blackmon. From pick seven to pick 20 there's a widely held view that the difference between the seventh best prospect and 20th best prospect is negligible. "I agree with the premise that there might not be a lot of difference," said Casserly. Buffalo at 10 is near the top of that range of second tier of prospects. Knowing the caliber of player the Bills can get at 10 is seen by many in the know as marginally better than what can be had at 20 leads some draft analysts to make the blanket conclusion that whomever GM Buddy Nix and his personnel staff target at 10 is seen as a reach. Casserly says that thinking is misguided, and that NFL clubs in a position like that of the Bills take a different approach to such scenarios. “I think what you have to do is get into a mindset of this, first of all you want to take the best player on the board, however it is set up," he said. "You can’t get into a mindset where if you’re picking at 10 that there are six elite players and you’ll be disappointed if you don’t get one of those six. If you’re picking 10 think about if you’re picking 20 or 25 and you’re going to get a good player there. The point is take a step back and don’t be too critical of the players that are sitting there and say they’re not worth the 10th pick." "Personnel executives just try to keep it all in perspective, line the board up with the best player on down the line," said Casserly. "When it comes to 10 you take him or you try to trade back and get into a group.” While trading back seems like a very sensible option, especially knowing the difference in player value is seen as marginal, that’s exactly why teams down at 18, 19 or 20 would be unwilling to move up. So finding a trade partner could prove difficult knowing teams at the bottom of the mid-first round range would not want to give up anything significant to get a player that isn’t seen as a whole lot better than what they can get where they currently sit." It works both ways in that teams like the Bills will be more willing to trade down than they would have in the past. Just means that you're not gonna get as much trading down but you still have to field the best team possible. Barron is much more valuable to the Cowboys than the Bills because Barron is a huge upgrade over what the Cowboys have. Kuechly is more valuable to the Bills than the Cowboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) I forgot about this good reason to trade a few slots possibly, instead of reaching- even if we don't get a ransom -assuming there are a few players or decent range before our guys taken. (final year of rookie deal salary calculations) http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/20/fifth-year-contract-formula-could-push-tannehill-out-of-top-10/ And yet another way the 80s value chart is now off actual value (besides the advent of free agency and several cbas since the numbers were established) Edited April 21, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 It works both ways in that teams like the Bills will be more willing to trade down than they would have in the past. Just means that you're not gonna get as much trading down but you still have to field the best team possible. Barron is much more valuable to the Cowboys than the Bills because Barron is a huge upgrade over what the Cowboys have. Kuechly is more valuable to the Bills than the Cowboys. I entirely agree and the point you raise is exactly correct; we won't get as much as trading down, which is why I don't think we will. Just using the past as an example and yes I know that isn't a golden indicator - things are different this year. If we won't get as much this year, I don't know if Buddy would bother trading down or not. He is on record saying that he doesn't like to get fancy with value, meaning that if you like the guy what is the difference between 10 and 15? You take him and don't try to get too fancy because somebody else might swoop in and steal him from you... For us to trade, Buddy is going to want a good deal...I just don't see a team giving us enough to move down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 According to NFL Network insider Jason LaCanfora: Sources tell me both the Buffalo Bills and Arizona Cardinals are interested in moving back, given the offensive line depth in this draft (a need for both clubs). http://www.nfl.com/n...HP11_hot_topics Interesting also is the discussion of the dynamic that Tannehill holds over the dominos in the first round. Have the Vikings done that (missed their selection) more than once? I remember the Vikes doing that a few years ago, but has it happened (to any team) any other time? I don't think so. That player was Kevin Williams… a great player. And in fact, two teams, Jacksonville AND Carolina slipped in picks before the Vikings recovered. I forgot about this good reason to trade a few slots possibly, instead of reaching- even if we don't get a ransom -assuming there are a few players or decent range before our guys taken. (final year of rookie deal salary calculations) http://profootballta...-out-of-top-10/ And yet another way the 80s value chart is now off actual value (besides the advent of free agency and several cbas since the numbers were established) That's VERY interesting. So if you're taken in the Top Ten of the draft, your 5th year salary is based upon the Top Ten players at that position? I wonder how much weight teams give that, especially regarding Talley… er… Tannehill who might have to sit for a year or two. I entirely agree and the point you raise is exactly correct; we won't get as much as trading down, which is why I don't think we will. For us to trade, Buddy is going to want a good deal...I just don't see a team giving us enough to move down... Again though, even if the compensation for our first is not necessarily fully in line with previous values that have been established, you have to consider each proposal as a unique entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggerdaddynj Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I gave up on that pipe dream about a month ago when the "experts" issued their edict that the Dawg Pounders would be going with Richardson. Prior to that, I thought he was a legit potential trade up target. I just don't see who there is left that is a trade up target at 10. Seems like our only chance for a trade up would be if some GM smokes a fatty with Kirkpatrick and Adams the night of the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Strange things always happen in the draft. Floyd could easily go to St. Louis and Blackmon could fall. There could be a run on CB's early. Tannehill could fall to ten and we could auction him to the highest bidder. If they can get an extra third round pick by dropping back 10 spots and still get a LT they should do it. Then they can either use that extra third round pick along with their second to go back into the first round and get Coby Fleener, a CB, or a WR. And while mocing down and picking up an extra second next year would not be the worst outcome I think most of us would prefer a player now as opposed to an extra pick next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Trading down is going to be very difficult in this draft. Not a lot separates the 10-20 talent, a team would really have to covet a player to trade up. The picks given to us would have to be amazing... Let me flip that around. If there is little drop off in value between 10 and 20, why wouldnt we want to trade down and get an additional pick ? Even if it is not, say, a 2nd rounder ? Theoretically, anything we get will be gravy if we truly believe in value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) Let me flip that around. If there is little drop off in value between 10 and 20, why wouldnt we want to trade down and get an additional pick ? Even if it is not, say, a 2nd rounder ? Theoretically, anything we get will be gravy if we truly believe in value. It was flipped around to begin with... "While trading back seems like a very sensible option, especially knowing the difference in player value is seen as marginal, that’s exactly why teams down at 18, 19 or 20 would be unwilling to move up. So finding a trade partner could prove difficult knowing teams at the bottom of the mid-first round range would not want to give up anything significant to get a player that isn’t seen as a whole lot better than what they can get where they currently sit." You trade down and you can lose out on the player we want. That really isn't Buddy's MO...he would rather stand pat at 10 and take the player we want then trade down to lets say 15 and have a chance to miss out on the guy...he has said that repeatedly... In his pre-draft news conference he said that yeah you could move back, but at pick 10 the 9 best players you had on your board will be gone and at number 20 the first 19 on your board may be gone. Buddy has also gone on record that he says the reports that come out about the Bills are bogus... It is very well that we did put out that we are looking to trade back to prevent other teams possibly looking at WR (the Jets) from moving ahead of us to take Floyd or Blackmon... Just because NFL.com is reporting it doesn't mean it is true. If Buddy trades back, he is going to look for something meaningful in return. Most likely the team willing to trade up will give you a later pick in round 2, I don't see that alone being good enough value to jump down 5-10 spots to grab a second tier LT when they could grab one of the top CBs or WRs or LB... Teams won't break the bank to make a trade up when the player difference is marginal...a mid to low second rounder wont be good enough for Buddy especially if Floyd is there - there are no other first round WRs in this draft. Same goes for CB if Kirkpatrick or Gilmore is gone and one remains...the CB talent drops off... Everyone thinks it is so easy to trade back, but it isn't. This year will prove to be even more difficult unless you are in the top 7 or 8... Also this was from Chris brown today: "I asked Buddy whether they would pursue the option of trading down or let teams come to them. He told me there has been dialogue with other teams, but did not divulge whether the Bills were the ones doing the calling. If Miami passes on Ryan Tannehill at 8, then Buffalo’s pick becomes a lot more attractive to teams with a quarterback need that are further down in the round. At this point I’d be surprised if they didn’t take Tannehill, knowing his former head coach at A&M is the offensive coordinator for the Dolphins now (Mike Sherman) and will be running the same offense. But the way Buddy put it to me is they’ll consider it. Just keep in mind, Buddy by nature doesn’t like to move up and down the board. He likes to sit where he’s at and make his picks. Talking to him this week he feels pretty confident they’re going to get a very good player at 10." Edited April 21, 2012 by reed83 4th Rounder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rstencel Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I entirely agree and the point you raise is exactly correct; we won't get as much as trading down, which is why I don't think we will. Just using the past as an example and yes I know that isn't a golden indicator - things are different this year. If we won't get as much this year, I don't know if Buddy would bother trading down or not. He is on record saying that he doesn't like to get fancy with value, meaning that if you like the guy what is the difference between 10 and 15? You take him and don't try to get too fancy because somebody else might swoop in and steal him from you... For us to trade, Buddy is going to want a good deal...I just don't see a team giving us enough to move down... The one thing you do get any year trading down is a cheaper rookie contract If want a player that will still be there, can get same player and save several million in the process. It was flipped around to begin with... "While trading back seems like a very sensible option, especially knowing the difference in player value is seen as marginal, that’s exactly why teams down at 18, 19 or 20 would be unwilling to move up. So finding a trade partner could prove difficult knowing teams at the bottom of the mid-first round range would not want to give up anything significant to get a player that isn’t seen as a whole lot better than what they can get where they currently sit." You trade down and you can lose out on the player we want. That really isn't Buddy's MO...he would rather stand pat at 10 and take the player we want then trade down to lets say 15 and have a chance to miss out on the guy...he has said that repeatedly... In his pre-draft news conference he said that yeah you could move back, but at pick 10 the 9 best players you had on your board will be gone and at number 20 the first 19 on your board may be gone. Buddy has also gone on record that he says the reports that come out about the Bills are bogus... It is very well that we did put out that we are looking to trade back to prevent other teams possibly looking at WR (the Jets) from moving ahead of us to take Floyd or Blackmon... Just because NFL.com is reporting it doesn't mean it is true. If Buddy trades back, he is going to look for something meaningful in return. Most likely the team willing to trade up will give you a later pick in round 2, I don't see that alone being good enough value to jump down 5-10 spots to grab a second tier LT when they could grab one of the top CBs or WRs or LB... Teams won't break the bank to make a trade up when the player difference is marginal...a mid to low second rounder wont be good enough for Buddy especially if Floyd is there - there are no other first round WRs in this draft. Same goes for CB if Kirkpatrick or Gilmore is gone and one remains...the CB talent drops off... Everyone thinks it is so easy to trade back, but it isn't. This year will prove to be even more difficult unless you are in the top 7 or 8... Also this was from Chris brown today: "I asked Buddy whether they would pursue the option of trading down or let teams come to them. He told me there has been dialogue with other teams, but did not divulge whether the Bills were the ones doing the calling. If Miami passes on Ryan Tannehill at 8, then Buffalo’s pick becomes a lot more attractive to teams with a quarterback need that are further down in the round. At this point I’d be surprised if they didn’t take Tannehill, knowing his former head coach at A&M is the offensive coordinator for the Dolphins now (Mike Sherman) and will be running the same offense. But the way Buddy put it to me is they’ll consider it. Just keep in mind, Buddy by nature doesn’t like to move up and down the board. He likes to sit where he’s at and make his picks. Talking to him this week he feels pretty confident they’re going to get a very good player at 10." There may be very little difference in general terms between them, but that may not be true to a specific team. They may veiw a player that they want in a position of need, and see a team before them that may take that player. Just cause the generic draft guru's think they are all equal doesnt make seeing player in positions of need all gone by time your pick comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 The one thing you do get any year trading down is a cheaper rookie contract If want a player that will still be there, can get same player and save several million in the process. There may be very little difference in general terms between them, but that may not be true to a specific team. They may veiw a player that they want in a position of need, and see a team before them that may take that player. Just cause the generic draft guru's think they are all equal doesnt make seeing player in positions of need all gone by time your pick comes up. Cheaper rookie contracts aren't that big of a deal anymore with the new CBA... Casserly is a bit different than your average draft guru, seeing he has been a GM for 16 years and almost 25 years as an NFL executive. I would listen to what he has to say, he isn't a garbage GM and has a good feel for how the teams look at value Although I don't dispute what you are saying, the whole talk of us trading back again comes back to Buddy saying repeatedly he doesn't like to trade up or down. I understand why lots of us say lets trade back, but it takes 2 to tango and what we get in return has to be worth us on taking a chance on losing a player we want. A swap of first's and a second rounder may not be enough. I am not sure how Buddy feels about swapping firsts and taking a first next year, but I would venture a guess that he would rather have picks this year... At #10 I think we are looking at WR, CB and LB. One of those 2nd best CBs or WR or Kuechly will be there; if not, one of the top 6 players would have fallen to us. Trading back in the first round will get us a second tier LT who won't be able to beat out Hairston. The CBs, LB and WR will most likely be gone as KC, Ari, Seattle are looking to fill the same positions we are; so trading with Dallas for instance takes players in positions we need off the board...Cordy Glenn has been mentioned to the Cards (OL & WR), Kuechly has been mentioned to KC (who also needs a CB & OL), Seattle needs a CB,LB & WR... Buddy wants an impact guy/difference maker and a starter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) According to NFL Network insider Jason LaCanfora: Sources tell me both the Buffalo Bills and Arizona Cardinals are interested in moving back, given the offensive line depth in this draft (a need for both clubs). http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d828701a4/article/nfl-draft-buzz-ryan-tannehill-still-the-key-fletcher-cox-at-6?module=HP11_hot_topics Love how this draft is all about Tannehill . That said we trade back to 15 (Philly) and get there second our draft looks like this: 1. Dre Kirkpatrick Alabama 6'2" 186 CB 2. Stephen Hill Georgia Tech 6'5" 200 WR 2. Bobby Wagner Utah State 6'0" 235 OLB Edited April 21, 2012 by Buffalo Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 It was flipped around to begin with... "While trading back seems like a very sensible option, especially knowing the difference in player value is seen as marginal, that’s exactly why teams down at 18, 19 or 20 would be unwilling to move up. So finding a trade partner could prove difficult knowing teams at the bottom of the mid-first round range would not want to give up anything significant to get a player that isn’t seen as a whole lot better than what they can get where they currently sit." You trade down and you can lose out on the player we want. That really isn't Buddy's MO...he would rather stand pat at 10 and take the player we want then trade down to lets say 15 and have a chance to miss out on the guy...he has said that repeatedly... In his pre-draft news conference he said that yeah you could move back, but at pick 10 the 9 best players you had on your board will be gone and at number 20 the first 19 on your board may be gone. Buddy has also gone on record that he says the reports that come out about the Bills are bogus... It is very well that we did put out that we are looking to trade back to prevent other teams possibly looking at WR (the Jets) from moving ahead of us to take Floyd or Blackmon... Just because NFL.com is reporting it doesn't mean it is true. If Buddy trades back, he is going to look for something meaningful in return. Most likely the team willing to trade up will give you a later pick in round 2, I don't see that alone being good enough value to jump down 5-10 spots to grab a second tier LT when they could grab one of the top CBs or WRs or LB... Teams won't break the bank to make a trade up when the player difference is marginal...a mid to low second rounder wont be good enough for Buddy especially if Floyd is there - there are no other first round WRs in this draft. Same goes for CB if Kirkpatrick or Gilmore is gone and one remains...the CB talent drops off... Everyone thinks it is so easy to trade back, but it isn't. This year will prove to be even more difficult unless you are in the top 7 or 8... Also this was from Chris brown today: "I asked Buddy whether they would pursue the option of trading down or let teams come to them. He told me there has been dialogue with other teams, but did not divulge whether the Bills were the ones doing the calling. If Miami passes on Ryan Tannehill at 8, then Buffalo’s pick becomes a lot more attractive to teams with a quarterback need that are further down in the round. At this point I’d be surprised if they didn’t take Tannehill, knowing his former head coach at A&M is the offensive coordinator for the Dolphins now (Mike Sherman) and will be running the same offense. But the way Buddy put it to me is they’ll consider it. Just keep in mind, Buddy by nature doesn’t like to move up and down the board. He likes to sit where he’s at and make his picks. Talking to him this week he feels pretty confident they’re going to get a very good player at 10." This GM thinks of his draft picks like they are his children, he isn't going to trade away what he covets. Unless its a deal to good to turn down and the player or players he wants are gone. If any of those top 5 players fall to the 10 spot Buddy wants to be there to tab them. Matt kalil, Trent Richardson, Morris Claiborne, Justin Blackmon, Melvin Ingram. I can envision so many great trades should any of those 5 fall to the Buffalo Bills. Plus, I could see the Bills actually taking Blackmon, Kalil, Claiborne. What most of you guys fail to realize is that, although they aren't saying it, every team behind the Bills would love to have that 10th pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted April 21, 2012 Author Share Posted April 21, 2012 The Kansas City Chiefs have the 11th overall pick in the 2012 NFL Draft and general manager Scott Pioli couldn't be more optimistic about it. That's not necessarily because of who the team is going to select with that pick, but also the financial implications of it as well. Future financial obligations makes the draft slot unique in comparison to the 10 picks that precede it. "There are some other elements to this whole thing ... Picks 1 through 10 have the value in the fifth-year option being the transition number, which is the average of the top-10 contracts of that player's position in the league," Pioli explained. "Picks 11 through 32, the fifth-year option number is based on the salary average of the third through 25th (players at the position). "So the difference between pick No. 10 and pick No. 11, in terms of what that fifth year (salary) is, is a dramatic difference. There's going to be a different mindset and different thinking, I believe, with a lot of picks and people thinking about trades." http://kansascity.sbnation.com/kansas-city-chiefs/2012/4/17/2954526/nfl-draft-2012-scott-pioli-value-11th-pick Fifth-year contract formula could push Tannehill out of top 10: Under the new CBA, a team may sign its first-round pick to a four-year contract with an option for a fifth year. The salary for the fifth year is based on a formula that hinges on whether the player is picked in the top 10 or the next 22. For the top 10, the salary is determined by calculating the average of the 10 highest-paid players at the pick’s position in the prior season. For the next 22, the number is determined by calculating the average salary of the third-highest paid player at the position through the 25th highest paid player at the position in the prior season. It’s a potentially huge difference, especially at the quarterback position. And, by 2016, it could be a gigantic number for Tannehill, given that the 10 highest-paid quarterbacks make considerably more money than No. 3 through No. 25 on the cap-number list. And so, after Tannehill’s fourth season in the NFL, a team that takes him in the top 10 would have to be ready to give him elite quarterback money in year five, regardless of whether he’s playing at an elite level. Complicating matters is the possibility that Tannehill, a converted receiver, will need a year or two on the bench before being ready to play, giving a top-10 team even less time to assess whether Tannehill deserves top-10 quarterback money for 2016. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/20/fifth-year-contract-formula-could-push-tannehill-out-of-top-10/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 According to NFL Network insider Jason LaCanfora: Sources tell me both the Buffalo Bills and Arizona Cardinals are interested in moving back, given the offensive line depth in this draft (a need for both clubs). http://www.nfl.com/n...HP11_hot_topics The "sources" sound like baseless speculation. Nix from the press conference: I guess the question you're asking is, would we consider moving down? I always here sources quoted, sources say, I wish when they say we'd be better off moving down they'd tell me who we can trade with because it takes two and it's normally not a lot of action with us for people wanting to move to 10. We'd consider everything. You might get the same guy. A good chance you might get the same caliber guy. If that presents itself we'd consider it. The point being, Nix says they'd consider it, and he also points out there aren't a lot of people looking to move up to #10. The only way this happens is if a player someone is in love with (and we don't want) falls to #10 and teams at >15 think someone between us and them will draft him. That seems relatively unlikely to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 The Kansas City Chiefs have the 11th overall pick in the 2012 NFL Draft and general manager Scott Pioli couldn't be more optimistic about it. That's not necessarily because of who the team is going to select with that pick, but also the financial implications of it as well. Future financial obligations makes the draft slot unique in comparison to the 10 picks that precede it. "There are some other elements to this whole thing ... Picks 1 through 10 have the value in the fifth-year option being the transition number, which is the average of the top-10 contracts of that player's position in the league," Pioli explained. "Picks 11 through 32, the fifth-year option number is based on the salary average of the third through 25th (players at the position). "So the difference between pick No. 10 and pick No. 11, in terms of what that fifth year (salary) is, is a dramatic difference. There's going to be a different mindset and different thinking, I believe, with a lot of picks and people thinking about trades." http://kansascity.sbnation.com/kansas-city-chiefs/2012/4/17/2954526/nfl-draft-2012-scott-pioli-value-11th-pick Fifth-year contract formula could push Tannehill out of top 10: Under the new CBA, a team may sign its first-round pick to a four-year contract with an option for a fifth year. The salary for the fifth year is based on a formula that hinges on whether the player is picked in the top 10 or the next 22. For the top 10, the salary is determined by calculating the average of the 10 highest-paid players at the pick’s position in the prior season. For the next 22, the number is determined by calculating the average salary of the third-highest paid player at the position through the 25th highest paid player at the position in the prior season. It’s a potentially huge difference, especially at the quarterback position. And, by 2016, it could be a gigantic number for Tannehill, given that the 10 highest-paid quarterbacks make considerably more money than No. 3 through No. 25 on the cap-number list. And so, after Tannehill’s fourth season in the NFL, a team that takes him in the top 10 would have to be ready to give him elite quarterback money in year five, regardless of whether he’s playing at an elite level. Complicating matters is the possibility that Tannehill, a converted receiver, will need a year or two on the bench before being ready to play, giving a top-10 team even less time to assess whether Tannehill deserves top-10 quarterback money for 2016. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/20/fifth-year-contract-formula-could-push-tannehill-out-of-top-10/ This has to be the dumbest thing I've read yet in regards to to the draft. Leave it to a Belichik disciple to over-analyze. If Tannehill is a franchise QB, you extend him before the 5th year anyway. If he's not, you'll know long before the 5th year. If it's not a QB, you're not even talking about a $1m difference in year 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Strange things always happen in the draft. Floyd could easily go to St. Louis and Blackmon could fall. There could be a run on CB's early. Tannehill could fall to ten and we could auction him to the highest bidder. If they can get an extra third round pick by dropping back 10 spots and still get a LT they should do it. Then they can either use that extra third round pick along with their second to go back into the first round and get Coby Fleener, a CB, or a WR. And while mocing down and picking up an extra second next year would not be the worst outcome I think most of us would prefer a player now as opposed to an extra pick next year. If Blackmon falls they draft him. I don't think a late 3rd round pick is enough for falling back 10 spots in the first. I'd do it for a 2nd, depending on who's left on the board, but only this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 These aren't sources "deep inside" I hope... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gale Gilbert Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 If I were GM for the next 5 minutes.... I would call the Eagles and offer the 10th pick for the 15th pick, a 3rd rounder, and Asante Samuel. If they said no, then I would ask for a 4th round pick instead of a 3rd round pick. The Eagles want to get rid or Samuel, and while he is a weirdo, he would fill a need for the Bills. What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 1335011715[/url]' post='2442270']If I were GM for the next 5 minutes.... I would call the Eagles and offer the 10th pick for the 15th pick, a 3rd rounder, and Asante Samuel. If they said no, then I would ask for a 4th round pick instead of a 3rd round pick. The Eagles want to get rid or Samuel, and while he is a weirdo, he would fill a need for the Bills. What say you? Asante Samuel isn't a very good player. I'd do it for the 1st and 3rd if the guy chix is targeting is off the board at 10. Wouldn't want Samuels salary or terrible coverage. He gets some picks, but at the cost of getting beat. He's extremely overrated IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted April 21, 2012 Author Share Posted April 21, 2012 This has to be the dumbest thing I've read yet in regards to to the draft. Leave it to a Belichik disciple to over-analyze. If Tannehill is a franchise QB, you extend him before the 5th year anyway. If he's not, you'll know long before the 5th year. If it's not a QB, you're not even talking about a $1m difference in year 5. i agree with ya......sounds like he's trying to get those in front of him to think twice about drafting tannehill.....probably hoping he is there at #11......KC is not sold on Cassel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 How about our no. 1 for NE's 2 no. 1s (27 and 31)? I would do that, then package some of our later picks to get an additional second rounder--4 picks in the top 60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) If I were GM for the next 5 minutes.... I would call the Eagles and offer the 10th pick for the 15th pick, a 3rd rounder, and Asante Samuel. If they said no, then I would ask for a 4th round pick instead of a 3rd round pick. The Eagles want to get rid or Samuel, and while he is a weirdo, he would fill a need for the Bills. What say you? Samuel wants to keep bloated contract, which killed the deal to Denver. No way is anyone giving Philly anything decent for a guy with that kind of contract, especially someone who turned 31 in January and doesn't fit their trend of bigger CBs in the NFL. Samuel is 5'10 about 185. FYI...Buffalo hasn't traded down in the draft since TD moved to pick Nate Clements in Round 1/2001. IIRC, every other NFL team has traded down since that time. Edited April 21, 2012 by BillsVet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billykaykay Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 In all the trade down scenarios, no one has discussed the possibility of receiving a #1 next year. Having 2 #1's next year would go a long way for a trade up scenario for a QB IF Fitz flames out this year & is just not the answer that Chix thinks he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Seems like a consensus is starting to form after the top 6 guys and Tannehill. Cox, Barron, Kuechly and Gilmore are the next 4 guys. Could see Dallas or Philly giving up a 3rd to move up to #10 and get one of those guys. Both teams are aggressive and have Manning, Vick, Romo, and now RG3 in the division. I guess the Browns could move up to #10 also if Tannehill doesn't go to Dolphins. I know that Tannehill (If he makes it past Miami), Cox (past Carolina), Barron, Kuechly and Gilmore would be bait. In order to get a team to move up, teams would have to perceive another team taking them before their pick. Ariz (at #13 with no RD2 pick), Cincy (at #17 and #22), Hous (at #26), Balt (at #29), Oakland (no pick til #95), KC (at #11), Pgh (at #24), and Wash (at 2 with no RD2 pick) all have a strong need for ILB this year, so that's why the Bills are in an enviable position to have Kuechly on the board at #10, with Cincy the likeliest suitor. A move from #10 to #17 could get the Bills a 2nd rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts