San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 The Bills traded 8 (1400 points) and 71 (235 points) and received 16 (1000 points), 46 (440 points), 78 (200 points), and 222 (3 points). The math: The Bills traded away 1635 points and received 1643 points for a net +8 points. A pretty much "by the books" trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Nice. We won, we won, we win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Now that trade by the Patriots look like they Flinched the Vikings really badly for a "project" at WR!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 26, 2013 Author Share Posted April 26, 2013 Now that trade by the Patriots look like they Flinched the Vikings really badly for a "project" at WR!!!! Yeah that was the biggest bummer of the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Effing Minny but I do see why they did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estro Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Now that trade by the Patriots look like they Flinched the Vikings really badly for a "project" at WR!!!! I thought the Patriots fleeced them too, but upon further inspection it's right in line with the Bills Rams trade. The Pats gave away pick #29, worth 640. The Vikings gave up #52, #83, #102 & #229, worth a total of 648. The difference in math is +8 in the Patriots favor, nearly identical to the Bills +7.6 differential with the Rams. The team that got fleeced was the Raiders giving up 2,200 and getting back 1680 in return. I guess they liked Hayden enough to take him at #3, so they were pretty much willing to take anything to trade down knowing he'd be there a bit further down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 I thought the Patriots fleeced them too, but upon further inspection it's right in line with the Bills Rams trade. The Pats gave away pick #29, worth 640. The Vikings gave up #52, #83, #102 & #229, worth a total of 648. The difference in math is +8 in the Patriots favor, nearly identical to the Bills +7.6 differential with the Rams. The team that got fleeced was the Raiders giving up 2,200 and getting back 1680 in return. I guess they liked Hayden enough to take him at #3, so they were pretty much willing to take anything to trade down knowing he'd be there a bit further down. I understand with the #s...But in a very deep draft in talent, the Patriots were handed additional picks in every round to add more depth to their roster with some really good players. That is what hurts other teams. With that many picks the Patriots can pick the right players or wheel and deal them for picks next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 People who believe there is real math in draft picks are funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 (edited) People who believe there is real math in draft picks are funny. Sooooo....it's merely a coincidence that this: The Bills traded away 1635 points and received 1643 points for a net +8 points. happened? 8 points difference out of an average of 1639? Really? What are the chances of that of that being a coincidence? People who keep pretending that, on a trade with 0 duress for either side, the draft value chart isn't used? They are funny too. Notice I said "duress"? As in, if you are the Raiders: 1. you have $45 mil in dead cap space 2. your team sucks and you need drafted players badly...or it's get them from the street whilst expecting people to pay money to watch your games 3. everybody in the league, in the hall, and anyone who is watching on TV, knows 1 and 2 you can forget about getting fair value for your #3 pick. The wolves WILL be upon you. You take whatever you can get. That is the definition of "duress". So, before anyone starts, let's not try to use the Raiders as an example. We can ask "why didn't the Dolphins get the LT"?, all we want, but, we cannot say that they didn't steal the guy they got. No, the trade value chart is alive and well. It's demise, "because the league has changed "? That is the myth. Edited April 26, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterlaw Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Disappointed in having to switch picks in R3. Losing 71 and switching to 78. The Rams looked desperate to move up to get the player they wanted and who has the ability to sell tickets. Thought the Bills should have held their ground and got a better deal, especially with Austin and Milliner on deck. Still at least we gain a R2 pick. We are bound to get a quality starter in the early part of R2 aren't we? Not sure why I'm thinking of Aaron Williams, Torell Troup & James Hardy here! Did we ever try James Hardy at Safety before he was released? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterlaw Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Now that trade by the Patriots look like they Flinched the Vikings really badly for a "project" at WR!!!! Wonder how that trade went down at the Patriots Draft Day Party ? You hang around for 3 or 4 hours expecting to get a player and walk away with nothing but a bunch of vouchers to use in the next couple of days on inferior goods. So we get to pick 3 times before the Pats get the chance to choose. This should mean we get 3 better players than the Pats and our rosters get closer in terms of ability. But the problem then comes when they go out on the field and play football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 I'm sure if you were to go to the Rams message board you'll find posts that they gave up way to much. Hell it was a net minus 8 to them!! Disappointed in having to switch picks in R3. Losing 71 and switching to 78. The Rams looked desperate to move up to get the player they wanted and who has the ability to sell tickets. Thought the Bills should have held their ground and got a better deal, especially with Austin and Milliner on deck. Still at least we gain a R2 pick. We are bound to get a quality starter in the early part of R2 aren't we? Not sure why I'm thinking of Aaron Williams, Torell Troup & James Hardy here! Did we ever try James Hardy at Safety before he was released? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 I'm sure if you were to go to the Rams message board you'll find posts that they gave up way to much. Hell it was a net minus 8 to them!! Probably so. People get pretty worked up over the draft chart #s but odds are good it ends up being a lopsided trade. We'll just have to wait 3 years or so to find out in which direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 The Bills traded 8 (1400 points) and 71 (235 points) and received 16 (1000 points), 46 (440 points), 78 (200 points), and 222 (3 points). The math: The Bills traded away 1635 points and received 1643 points for a net +8 points. A pretty much "by the books" trade. The Bills traded 8 (1400 points) and 71 (235 points) and received 16 (1000 points), 46 (440 points), 78 (200 points), and 222 (3 points). The math: The Bills traded away 1635 points and received 1643 points for a net +8 points. A pretty much "by the books" trade. The real "win" will be if the Bills picked the right QB and get a solid player with the extra pick. Points on a chart are one thing but two very good players coming out of the swap is another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l< j Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Has this chart been updated since the rookie salary cap went into effect? Should it have? kj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Does anyone mind adding up the other trades in the first? Raiders Falcons Vikings Rams 49ers Anyone else I'm forgetting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simpleman Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 thanks for saving me from doing the math! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Has this chart been updated since the rookie salary cap went into effect? Should it have? kj its obviously changed, but its essentially the same chart dating back like 30 years now. its a reeeeallly loose estimate of value at this point, which is good enough for fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainiac21 Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 I understand with the #s...But in a very deep draft in talent, the Patriots were handed additional picks in every round to add more depth to their roster with some really good players. That is what hurts other teams. With that many picks the Patriots can pick the right players or wheel and deal them for picks next year. i disagree. one good explanation for Pats not getting over the hump in last 8 years or so, may be lack of top talent. this trading down gets them more picks, not better ones. i LOVE that they aren't picking until 51... the odds of that player being a difference maker drop, and the Pats have been no better at getting good players than anyone else. tons of busts or also-rans. they win cuz of Bel and Brady.. drafting has been thoroughly average, and think their strategy is unsound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 i disagree. one good explanation for Pats not getting over the hump in last 8 years or so, may be lack of top talent. this trading down gets them more picks, not better ones. i LOVE that they aren't picking until 51... the odds of that player being a difference maker drop, and the Pats have been no better at getting good players than anyone else. tons of busts or also-rans. they win cuz of Bel and Brady.. drafting has been thoroughly average, and think their strategy is unsound. its a big part of what has allowed them to keep the core guys together and still have a functional roster. even if they arent drafting game changers - they have them in wilfork and brady and gronk, they need quality filler on the cheap. second contracts are hard to fit on a team like theirs so a lot of good rookies with 3-4 stars is how you maximize talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts