....lybob Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 TRADE VALUE #9- 1350 #26- 700 (1st round) #35- 550 (2nd round) #83- 175 (3rd round) Total - 1425 Diff - +75 (4th round) I guess I would wait til we are on the clock...... that 2nd & 3rd could be used to get another 1st..... I pushed deal slightly in the Bills favor but I really don't think the Trade value charts reflect the new rookie salary cap, in the past you really paid a premium for players in the top ten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Please don't trade down...take a top 10 talent. This team needs top talents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) If Mack and Watkins are off th board I would certainly be interested in a trade down. For those of you that love Evans (I'm not 1) there is a chance that he could be there in the late 20's when the Browns pick. If he does not run well he will begin to slide some (especially if they rewatch his game film from late in the season). He would not be my target in the late 20's however. I would be looking for something like this in a trade down: Kelvin Benjamin ASJ Gabe Jackson (assuming Cyril Richardson is gone) In the 3rd I would be looking at an RB and a LB. Edited January 16, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simpleman Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 TRADE VALUE #9- 1350 #26- 700 (1st round) #35- 550 (2nd round) #83- 175 (3rd round) Total - 1425 Diff - +75 (4th round) I guess I would wait til we are on the clock...... that 2nd & 3rd could be used to get another 1st..... I wrote it wrong, I meant to say that the compensation the Bills would get would be almost = to the compensation for a First round # 7 pick, not a #9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Please don't trade down...take a top 10 talent. This team needs top talents. and at the area youd fall into, you can get the top talents at our positions of need to (TE, less premium OL positions like G or RT, LB). potentially the best of all worlds - quantity, quality, and fit. Edited January 16, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I'd never make this trade. We need impact players, not roster depth built via trading down for more lower picks. We need both, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 We need both, actually. and i wouldnt count picks 26 and 35 as depth - youre hoping those are instant starters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simpleman Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 and i wouldnt count picks 26 and 35 as depth - youre hoping those are instant starters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 and at the area youd fall into, you can get the top talents at our positions of need to (TE, less premium OL positions like G or RT, LB). potentially the best of all worlds - quantity, quality, and fit. Perhaps you could get a TE, RT, or LB there; I can almost assure you that it wouldn't be the top TE, OT, or LB, as all 3 are very likely to go in the top 25 picks. What I'm saying is that I'd prefer the team to have their pick of the litter. I'd rather get the top TE or LB than the 3rd TE and 4th LB, which I think is what you're getting with the trade down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 There are some drafts where there seem to be sharp distinctions and fall offs in the quality of players but other than Clowney I do not think that's true of this draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Perhaps you could get a TE, RT, or LB there; I can almost assure you that it wouldn't be the top TE, OT, or LB, as all 3 are very likely to go in the top 25 picks. What I'm saying is that I'd prefer the team to have their pick of the litter. I'd rather get the top TE or LB than the 3rd TE and 4th LB, which I think is what you're getting with the trade down. I don't think that it is quite that simple. You really need to look at where teams are picking and their needs. You need to think of specific players and how they would fit. Some players that could be available off the top of my head (some of them will be): ASJ, Amaro, Kelvin Benjamin, Ryan Shazier, Tiny Richardson, Cyril Richardson, Gabe Jackson, possibly Mosely, Marquise Lee or Evans. You may now have a chance to get 2 of these guys instead of 1 (plus you still have your own 2nd). 3 of the top 42 is much more appealing to me than 2 of the top 42. The only way that I would stay at 9 is if Mack or Watkins was available. Those are the potential star impact players IMO. If you are seeking quality starters than I would follow last years strategy and try to get a few. Edited January 16, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I like Mike Evans but there might be 2-3 WRs who end up better than him, who we could take at 26. But the compensation does seem low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvanvol Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I said this exact same thing in the past. This is a trade we should make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I like Mike Evans but there might be 2-3 WRs who end up better than him, who we could take at 26. But the compensation does seem low. its probably pretty close to right. by the outdated chart its actually cleveland giving up too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvanvol Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 In this situation we can take TE or WR with that first rounder, grab a LB with Cleveland's 2nd then grab offensive line with our 2nd and their third. its probably pretty close to right. by the outdated chart its actually cleveland giving up too much. actually it would be more beneficial for cleveland now. Since back then you would end up paying pick 9 as much and probably more than the other three picks combined. With the cap it isnt that much of a distortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I don't think that it is quite that simple. You really need to look at where teams are picking and their needs. You need to think of specific players and how they would fit. Some players that could be available off the top of my head (some of them will be): ASJ, Amaro, Kelvin Benjamin, Ryan Shazier, Tiny Richardson, Cyril Richardson, Gabe Jackson, possibly Mosely, Marquise Lee. You may now have a chance to get 2 of these guys instead of 1 (plus you still have your own 2nd). 3 of the top 42 is much more appealing to me than 2 of the top 42. The only way that I would stay at 9 is if Mack or Watkins was available. Those are the potential star impact players IMO. If you are seeking quality starters than I would follow last years strategy and try to get a few. i agree - I dont think there are many players in this group that stand out as "if you dont get him now it might be years before a similar prospect is available" but from somewhere in the top 10 through 50 I think the talent level is pretty high without a lot of dropoff - especially at a few of our positions of need. I dont think wed end up not taking a ngata and scrambling for a guy like mccargo (though there could be a couple rare talents that slide to us, as you note, depending on how things shake out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I don't think that it is quite that simple. You really need to look at where teams are picking and their needs. You need to think of specific players and how they would fit. Some players that could be available off the top of my head (some of them will be): ASJ, Amaro, Kelvin Benjamin, Ryan Shazier, Tiny Richardson, Cyril Richardson, Gabe Jackson, possibly Mosely, Marquise Lee or Evans. You may now have a chance to get 2 of these guys instead of 1 (plus you still have your own 2nd). 3 of the top 42 is much more appealing to me than 2 of the top 42. The only way that I would stay at 9 is if Mack or Watkins was available. Those are the potential star impact players IMO. If you are seeking quality starters than I would follow last years strategy and try to get a few. I think that the worst thing you can do is look at teams and needs...you need to look at player value, as that's far more indicative of where a player will be drafted. For example, Gabe Jackson is probably the 4th best OG in the draft...if you think that the 4th-most-guard-needy team is going to take him just because they need a guard, well, I strongly disagree with you. And I understand the idea of wanting 3 of the top 42 guys more than 2 of them...what I'm saying is that I believe more strongly in getting 1 of the top 10 players in the draft as opposed to getting 0 of the top 10 players moreso than I believe in getting 3 of the top 42 vs. 2 of the top 42. Know what I mean? i agree - I dont think there are many players in this group that stand out as "if you dont get him now it might be years before a similar prospect is available" but from somewhere in the top 10 through 50 I think the talent level is pretty high without a lot of dropoff - especially at a few of our positions of need. I dont think wed end up not taking a ngata and scrambling for a guy like mccargo (though there could be a couple rare talents that slide to us, as you note, depending on how things shake out) I understand where you're coming from--to me, it's not only about getting a top 10 talent, but also about giving yourself the best chance to get that impact guy. Having your pick of the litter gives you the best chance IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) I understand where you're coming from--to me, it's not only about getting a top 10 talent, but also about giving yourself the best chance to get that impact guy. Having your pick of the litter gives you the best chance IMO. no shame in that, and i cant say its wrong. my guts simply saying taking 2 players that i think will be similar talent gives you a better chance, and we might end up with 2 of them at that. the real thing is, if it werent debatable, the trade probably wouldnt make sense for one side. both arguments have to make sense to get it done. Edited January 16, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I think that the worst thing you can do is look at teams and needs...you need to look at player value, as that's far more indicative of where a player will be drafted. For example, Gabe Jackson is probably the 4th best OG in the draft...if you think that the 4th-most-guard-needy team is going to take him just because they need a guard, well, I strongly disagree with you. And I understand the idea of wanting 3 of the top 42 guys more than 2 of them...what I'm saying is that I believe more strongly in getting 1 of the top 10 players in the draft as opposed to getting 0 of the top 10 players moreso than I believe in getting 3 of the top 42 vs. 2 of the top 42. Know what I mean? I understand where you're coming from--to me, it's not only about getting a top 10 talent, but also about giving yourself the best chance to get that impact guy. Having your pick of the litter gives you the best chance IMO. I don't think that we necessarily disagree bandit. I think that we are just disagreeing on who the impact guys are. I only see 2 that the Bills could realistically take -Watkins and Mack. Watkins is almost definitely gone and Mack probably gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I don't think that we necessarily disagree bandit. I think that we are just disagreeing on who the impact guys are. I only see 2 that the Bills could realistically take -Watkins and Mack. Watkins is almost definitely gone and Mack probably gone. Yeah I think that's the case. I'd call the following guys the impact guys (while reserving the right to add or delete from this list pending further evaluation LOL): **for the record, I realize you're only postulating regarding impact guys that could be available when Buffalo picks at 9--at this point I'm going to just list them all for simplicity** Bridgewater Manziel Clowney Barr Watkins Mack Ebron Mosley Benjamin Dennard I am also wavering on Marquise Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts