Beerball Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Put the Gilmore pick aside for a second if you can and think about what happened in yesterday's first round. Trades were fast and furious. Teams moving down allowing another team to target their guy then moving back up etc. It was a fun night from what I was able to see. There were some big winners (Minny, NE IMO) and some head scratchers (Cleveland is #1 in this category to me, Tampa #2). What last night showed us was this is the new NFL draft. The CBA makes it very attractive for teams to move around. The Bills stood pat. They listened to offers to trade up and they fielded calls to move down. The fact that they didn't may tell us that they got their guy, but it might also tell us that Buddy is Buddy. His philosophy is take the BPA. Did we miss the boat last night? We'll never know for sure because the misinformation will continue, but these comment do concern me: We had opportunities to move up more than move down, so we listened, but we just didnt want to give up draft picks. I never do like doing that, I think you swap two guys for one and if you miss on that one it costs you dearly so we did not entertain moving down and we had some calls to move up, but we didnt do it. We had calls to move up or down, but we didn't do it. Why? Because you run a risk. Moving up you 'swap two guys for one & if you miss on that one' huh? So you're defeated before you even start? You might miss? What faith do you have in this revamped scouting department headed by your heir apparent? 'We did not entertain moving down' Why not? We did not entertain tells me it was not an option. We didn't think about it. Why? If you are concerned about missing on your picks (if you miss on that one) why not get more picks? The NEW NFL has shown us that you go get your guy. CB was a need. Did they have Gilmore rated above Kuechly? They have (IMO) a bigger need at LB than CB. IF we stand pat in round 2 how many players of need will the Bills miss out on? Upshaw? Martin? Glenn? David? Jeffery? Sanu? Please take the blinders off and don't read this as a woe is us post. Does Buddy's draft philosophy need to change with the times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjmac Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) There a number of trades, yes, but we're fine. Any talent we draft will increase the talent level on the team. Edited April 27, 2012 by jjmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnbillsbacker Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Who's to say Gilmore wasn't their 2nd guy. It look like Kali was their #1, they tried to trade up but the Vikings wanted him so took him. Gilmore was highly regarded by many. Greg Cosell called him the best corner in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollars 2 donuts Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 There a number of trades, yes, but we're fine. Any talent we draft will increase the talent level on the team. Second time today I am hopping on and agreeing with jj; we need bodies on this team and if we can get 3 guys that can contribute in the first 3 rounds instead of two b/c we traded one away...I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 27, 2012 Author Share Posted April 27, 2012 There a number of trades, yes, but we're fine. Any talent we draft will increase the talent level on the team. Who's to say Gilmore wasn't their 2nd guy. It look like Kali was their #1, they tried to trade up but the Vikings wanted him so took him. Gilmore was highly regarded by many. Greg Cosell called him the best corner in the draft. That's fine (really it isn't, but it is difficult to argue with we are fine and who's to say), but will you feel the same in Rd 2 if the Bills stand pat and watch player after player at a need position get drafted? Second time today I am hopping on and agreeing with jj; we need bodies on this team and if we can get 3 guys that can contribute in the first 3 rounds instead of two b/c we traded one away...I can live with that. we did not entertain moving down So more would be less? You're only looking at one side of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 considering the high percentage of first round busts, giving away three picks to move 1 spot ala Cleveland is just stupid. If you have a great scouting department you can stack your team with depth. I think we're fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 As I said elsewhere, I couldn't agree more. This team needs playmakers, not more backups. Buddy's good at finding "safe" picks who don't flameout, but his drafts have yet to produce many starters. I know he is a good talent evaluator but as a dynamic team-builder, I'm still not sold. If you think there are 6 blue chip players in the draft, and getting one of them would only cost you a Danny Batten, for chrissake do it. You can find 4th and 5th round replacement-level players in the bargain bin in free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 27, 2012 Author Share Posted April 27, 2012 considering the high percentage of first round busts, giving away three picks to move 1 spot ala Cleveland is just stupid. If you have a great scouting department you can stack your team with depth. I think we're fine. You received cudos from the wife last night for a Willy Wonka reference in a thread about trading sideways. But, you too are ignoring moving down. That flies in the face of your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I think you saw as many trades as you did, because the talent pool was just not as high as last year. Look at the top 10, hell top 15 last year. Loads of talent. This year not so much. Teams had to be absolutely sure they were getting their guy this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I can see trading up to get a guy you want. But trading down could screw you if the guy you want is sitting there and someone else takes him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I can see trading up to get a guy you want. But trading down could screw you if the guy you want is sitting there and someone else takes him. Like TB, They lost out on Claiborne, not that they didn't get a great player in Barron, but I'm thinking they thought Claiborne would still be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Put the Gilmore pick aside for a second if you can and think about what happened in yesterday's first round. Trades were fast and furious. Teams moving down allowing another team to target their guy then moving back up etc. It was a fun night from what I was able to see. There were some big winners (Minny, NE IMO) and some head scratchers (Cleveland is #1 in this category to me, Tampa #2). What last night showed us was this is the new NFL draft. The CBA makes it very attractive for teams to move around. The Bills stood pat. They listened to offers to trade up and they fielded calls to move down. The fact that they didn't may tell us that they got their guy, but it might also tell us that Buddy is Buddy. His philosophy is take the BPA. Did we miss the boat last night? We'll never know for sure because the misinformation will continue, but these comment do concern me: We had calls to move up or down, but we didn't do it. Why? Because you run a risk. Moving up you 'swap two guys for one & if you miss on that one' huh? So you're defeated before you even start? You might miss? What faith do you have in this revamped scouting department headed by your heir apparent? 'We did not entertain moving down' Why not? We did not entertain tells me it was not an option. We didn't think about it. Why? If you are concerned about missing on your picks (if you miss on that one) why not get more picks? The NEW NFL has shown us that you go get your guy. CB was a need. Did they have Gilmore rated above Kuechly? They have (IMO) a bigger need at LB than CB. IF we stand pat in round 2 how many players of need will the Bills miss out on? Upshaw? Martin? Glenn? David? Jeffery? Sanu? Please take the blinders off and don't read this as a woe is us post. Does Buddy's draft philosophy need to change with the times? It depends on the ranking of the needs. Right now OT, WR & LB are the primary needs, and I wouldn't mind a pick in either of those positions. So the real questions are: Are you more worried about losing the extra 4th rounder to land the guy you really want? And is that guy that much better of a prospect than the guy at the other need position who you will draft if you stay pat at #41? Looking at the available guys, Bills will land a starter at No. 41. To me the deciding factor is ranking the needs vs available players at 41. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I have to go with Buddy's comment, if you trade up and the guy turns out to be a bust, you lost two picks and it really sets you back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollars 2 donuts Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) So more would be less? You're only looking at one side of the story. Beer, that is a very good point. My only real response to the contrary would be if they really do like the guy coming up in front of them. For example, if they really, really like Cody Glenn and maybe would have taken him in the first, but will lose him if they trade down then i am fine with staying pat. However, again your point is a solid one. Edited April 27, 2012 by dollars 2 donuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Every year there are draft day winners anointed. 3 years from now, when the real results of the draft are known, the actual winners will be quite different. Personally I think Cleveland was smart to give up virtually nothing to get the Richardson because he's got the highest likelihood of impact in the entire class. I also think they were incredibly stupid to spend a first rounder on a 28 year old QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) I personally don't have a problem with Buddy's philosophy and strategy, and I believe if there was a particular player he was really high on, he would take the very risk you speak of. That guy just hasn't been there. I'm very interested in tonight -- we shall see after the first few picks whether there is a run on some of the positions the Bills are targeting (WR/OT). Then we'll see if Buddy makes any moves. EDIT: by the way, I disagree that LB is/was a bigger need than CB. Edited April 27, 2012 by eball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) I think Beerball needs an "additude adjustment"...anyone with me? Edited April 27, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafter Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 The NEW NFL has shown us that you go get your guy. CB was a need. Did they have Gilmore rated above Kuechly? They have (IMO) a bigger need at LB than CB. This is the first draft that has had this much movement.. To what end? It's too early to pass judgement on either philosophy. Some teams stand their ground (Bills) and some throw picks to the wind (boys, skins etc). Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Every year there are draft day winners anointed. 3 years from now, when the real results of the draft are known, the actual winners will be quite different. Personally I think Cleveland was smart to give up virtually nothing to get the Richardson because he's got the highest likelihood of impact in the entire class. I also think they were incredibly stupid to spend a first rounder on a 28 year old QB. Thought that was odd too. Heard the Browns beat reporter from the Cleveland Plains Dealer on the radio this morning saying that they told Colt McCoy that they would not be drafting a QB during this draft, as early as yesterday morning. Then, they draft Weeden, and the GM announces to the local media, that Weeden will be the #1 guy,and McCoy could be traded...maybe the Browns know something we don't know (okay, I will admit, they more than likely do) but who were they trying to beat out to get Weeden? Anyone for Colt McCoy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 How many of our already 10 draft picks going to make the team? 7? 8? In the first round, if a guy is there you really want I feel like you gotta stay and make sure you get him. The rams last night got screwed twice because they kept trading back. I think their target all along was Blackmon. They moved to 6 a month ago and last night jacksonville jumped them to grab blackmon. So they traded with Dallas, Probley hoping to land floyd. Then the Cards took floyd. Now who is Sam Bradford going to throw too? I know this is a deep reciever class but that had a chance to land the top two talents but lost out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts