Bills Need to Start Trading Down When Possible

[apuszczalowski]

It's much easier for the top teams to just trade down because they don't need the talent most of the time, or they CO replace some top players in FA easier cause players flock to winners. Those top teams usually just need filler or 1-2 players to replace what was lost and continue on. Bad times, like the bills don't need more filler pieces, they have enough. They need top end talent to get to the next level. Moving down just makes it harder to obtain the top end guys without having really good scouts who can find the hidden gems.

 

Basically, mediocre teAms like the bills need quality over quantity

[fridge]

It's much easier for the top teams to just trade down because they don't need the talent most of the time, or they CO replace some top players in FA easier cause players flock to winners. Those top teams usually just need filler or 1-2 players to replace what was lost and continue on. Bad times, like the bills don't need more filler pieces, they have enough. They need top end talent to get to the next level. Moving down just makes it harder to obtain the top end guys without having really good scouts who can find the hidden gems.

 

Basically, mediocre teAms like the bills need quality over quantity

 

Have you looked at our roster? We need both. What do we have, two WRs on the roster? Maybe three?

[Augie]

Bills 10th overall pick is worth 1,300

 

Oaklands R1:24, R2:24, R3:24, and R4:23 are worth a combined 1,272 (740+340+150+42).

 

I say we eat the 28 points and take their first 4 picks

I believe we need their permission, but OK.

[fridge]

I believe we need their permission, but OK.

 

Also, is that even a good trade? You usually get a next year's first when you move up, don't you?

[Cripple Creek]

Casserly's latest mock has the Bills trading up to gain a second first round pick used on Kizer.

[Augie]

Also, is that even a good trade? You usually get a next year's first when you move up, don't you?

I'll go back to adding ammo for next year's supposed QB draft, be that a 2, 3 and a 4 or a #1. I prefer 1's, but maybe we need a bunch of cheap new guys in a draft deep at DB and some other positions? I won't pretend to be a real, or even fake, draft guru.

[BuffaloHokie13]

 

Also, is that even a good trade? You usually get a next year's first when you move up, don't you?

Could do next year's first, but then we don't get the extra 2nd or 3rd this year in a draft that is deep at multiple positions of need.

[BADOLBILZ]

The reason that NE trades down is not necessarily to acquire new picks--they trade down because they stick to their board.

 

They always pick late in round 1, and like most teams, they typically don't have 32 guys with 1st round grades on their board. Unlike most teams, they aren't going to draft a guy with a 1st round pick if they don't have him graded as a 1st round pick.

 

They're just as apt to trade up when they have a high grade on a player, as they did with Jerod Mayo in 2008 and Chandler Jones in 2012.

 

What Buffalo needs to do is pick good players at key positions; if value dictates that they trade down, go for it.

 

 

I would love to see the Bills trade back and get value at volume but if you are another team it would be hard to justify trading away 2nd/3rd/4th picks in possibly one of the deeper defensive drafts ever.

[Dragonborn10]

The main point is there is no such things as a sure thing or even any organization that drafts better than any other. It is a numbers and luck game. Organizations can develop talent better than others, manage their cap and free agency better than others, but the draft is entirely speculation. You can not explain away Jamarcus Russel and Tom Brady with any rational argument other than pure luck. Yes in general the bust rate is less the higher you pick but there is no pattern. No team is better. No position is more likely to succeed. OTs picked in the top of the draft were felt to be 10 year plug and play guys. For every Joe Thomas there are five other busts. For every Matt Ryan and Alex Smith there is a Wilson, Prescott, or Romo.

Thus the only answer is to have more lottery tickets. Trade down or just don't waste picks trading up is enough to improve your odds. There was no reason to trade up for Ragland. He likely won't be any better than 10 other guys they could have drafted later.

[BADOLBILZ]

I believe we need their permission, but OK.

[BuffaloHokie13]

I believe we need their permission, but OK.

I want to make a joke about our almost owner/President and consent, but I won't

[apuszczalowski]

I want to make a joke about our almost owner/President and consent, but I won't

grab the other teams by their draft picks?

[BuffaloHokie13]

grab the other teams by their draft picks?

I suppose that'll do

[FireChan]

The main point is there is no such things as a sure thing or even any organization that drafts better than any other. It is a numbers and luck game. Organizations can develop talent better than others, manage their cap and free agency better than others, but the draft is entirely speculation. You can not explain away Jamarcus Russel and Tom Brady with any rational argument other than pure luck. Yes in general the bust rate is less the higher you pick but there is no pattern. No team is better. No position is more likely to succeed. OTs picked in the top of the draft were felt to be 10 year plug and play guys. For every Joe Thomas there are five other busts. For every Matt Ryan and Alex Smith there is a Wilson, Prescott, or Romo.

Thus the only answer is to have more lottery tickets. Trade down or just don't waste picks trading up is enough to improve your odds. There was no reason to trade up for Ragland. He likely won't be any better than 10 other guys they could have drafted later.

When will this meme die?

 

20/32 starting QB's in the NFL were drafted in the first 32 picks.

[4BillsintheBurgh]

the issue isn't so much changing coaches, it's not making the right choices to get coaches worth keeping here. Keeping Rex around wasn't going to do anything but push off the inevitable firing after more failure.

My point being you cannot establish a complete roster via the draft if you are changing coaches frequently. Looking at our current roster we have a lot of the high value positions filled, assuming tt is kept - LT, QB, pass rushers. But we let current and past players like NRC, Duke Cockrell, etc go because they aren't scheme fits. And any coach wants scheme fits whether they admit it or not; they all come in and say they can win with the players we have but subsequent OBD actions do not reflect that philosophy because good to decent players get cut every time. How do you build depth through the draft that way? You get what we've had here for the last 17 years, churning mediocrity.

 

So now you draft guys for need instead of having drafts where you can take chances on players like development qb's. You need that run stopping lb in the second enough to give up a couple draft picks to get him. You can't let the board come to you because you have a hole in a starting position.

 

Keeping Rex around may have led to spectacular failure in 2017, maybe not. Seems like we could have gotten a couple DB's this year that would have made the loss of AW/SG less of an issue, if Rex would have even let SG walk. Rex got very little support from the 2016 draft class due to injury which is unfortunate. But keeping Rex would have changed who we kept and didn't keep on the roster and that in turn would have changed our needs for this draft. I think there would have been fewer vital needs and therefore less of a reason to go up and get a player versus dropping back and picking up more picks. I think this year we would have needed less FA's and that effects the compensatory picks the following year. So as I see it the coaching changes directly effect the number of picks you have and how you use them.

 

I hope McDermott is afforded the time to build a roster of his players before getting dumped, if for no other reason that we will have an entire roster that is picked for the same scheme. We need to get out of this drafting for need loop. Is McDermott the right guy? I don't know, but if we want to make good use of draft resources we need to give him more than two or even three years.

[apuszczalowski]

 

Have you looked at our roster? We need both. What do we have, two WRs on the roster? Maybe three?

true, but all teams have holes when FA starts, my point is that , looking at the roster last year, did we really need a couple more 3td, 4th, or 5th round WRs or did they need a good #1 or #2 guy to go with a healthy Watkins?

[apuszczalowski]

My point being you cannot establish a complete roster via the draft if you are changing coaches frequently. Looking at our current roster we have a lot of the high value positions filled, assuming tt is kept - LT, QB, pass rushers. But we let current and past players like NRC, Duke Cockrell, etc go because they aren't scheme fits. And any coach wants scheme fits whether they admit it or not; they all come in and say they can win with the players we have but subsequent OBD actions do not reflect that philosophy because good to decent players get cut every time. How do you build depth through the draft that way? You get what we've had here for the last 17 years, churning mediocrity.

 

So now you draft guys for need instead of having drafts where you can take chances on players like development qb's. You need that run stopping lb in the second enough to give up a couple draft picks to get him. You can't let the board come to you because you have a hole in a starting position.

 

Keeping Rex around may have led to spectacular failure in 2017, maybe not. Seems like we could have gotten a couple DB's this year that would have made the loss of AW/SG less of an issue, if Rex would have even let SG walk. Rex got very little support from the 2016 draft class due to injury which is unfortunate. But keeping Rex would have changed who we kept and didn't keep on the roster and that in turn would have changed our needs for this draft. I think there would have been fewer vital needs and therefore less of a reason to go up and get a player versus dropping back and picking up more picks. I think this year we would have needed less FA's and that effects the compensatory picks the following year. So as I see it the coaching changes directly effect the number of picks you have and how you use them.

 

I hope McDermott is afforded the time to build a roster of his players before getting dumped, if for no other reason that we will have an entire roster that is picked for the same scheme. We need to get out of this drafting for need loop. Is McDermott the right guy? I don't know, but if we want to make good use of draft resources we need to give him more than two or even three years.

again, if they find a quality coach then you can have continuity which I agree will help the roster, but outside of Marrone who left on his own, who have the bills had the last 15 years that was worth holding onto longer and we're let go of earlier then they should have? Sure, holding onto Rex longer could have led to great things, and I could also win the lotto jackpot this week. But you could also say the sMe thing for QBs, maybe they let go of Losman or EJ, or Holbert to soon also? Or maybe they just need to get the pick right ND find one worth keeping. It's not easy, but knowing when to cut bait and move on is a good thing, rather then continuing to hold on longer hoping for things to get better.

 

It's not like any of the Bills cast off HC or Qbs have gone off and proved the bills wrong for letting them go.

[Hurricane]

Bills 10th overall pick is worth 1,300

 

Oaklands R1:24, R2:24, R3:24, and R4:23 are worth a combined 1,272 (740+340+150+42).

 

I say we eat the 28 points and take their first 4 picks

Hell yeah...

[KOKBILLS]

we need to trade down multiple times IMO. This draft is very deep, and we have many holes. Not to mention cap issues as well

 

^^^ This exactly!

[The Jokeman]

Yep that's it. Saying trading a 4th for Bryce Brown and trading two 4ths to move up 8 spots in the 2nd to get Ragland equates to the Bills not being able to draft star players and only getting table scraps. You are clouding the conversation with your idiotic hyperbole.

The question is would have Roman/Lynn adjust the playbook to play to Prescott's strengths? Heck would Dak seen the field with a healthy Tyrod in front of him? So many variables when evaluate a woulda/coulda/shoulda scenario.