Kirby Jackson Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 If this is true, then it suggests that the Bills don't have a QB that they have high confidence in and want badly. Correct? Because if they did, they wouldn't trade out of that spot and gamble on missing him. They are going to try to trade down and get the best package that they can. They are going to draft the guys that Leroi indicated in that order (depending how far down they go). The best case scenario for the Bills would be to go back a few spots (pick up a 2nd) and still get Davis. Something like 10 & a 5th and next year's 6th to get 17 and 49. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishDave Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 They are going to try to trade down and get the best package that they can. They are going to draft the guys that Leroi indicated in that order (depending how far down they go). The best case scenario for the Bills would be to go back a few spots (pick up a 2nd) and still get Davis. Something like 10 & a 5th and next year's 6th to get 17 and 49. I'm really hoping for a first next year from somebody. Really looking forward to the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 I'm really hoping for a first next year from somebody. Really looking forward to the draft. Me too but I think Houston is the only possibility for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExWNYer Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 This is a very flat and deep draft so I don't mind moving back pretty far as long as compensation is good. And therein lies the conundrum. Moving back in a deep draft and getting worthwhile value will be difficult to achieve, IMO. Not impossible but still difficult. If this is true, then it suggests that the Bills don't have a QB that they have high confidence in and want badly. Correct? Because if they did, they wouldn't trade out of that spot and gamble on missing him. I would agree with you. They are going to try to trade down and get the best package that they can. They are going to draft the guys that Leroi indicated in that order (depending how far down they go). The best case scenario for the Bills would be to go back a few spots (pick up a 2nd) and still get Davis. Something like 10 & a 5th and next year's 6th to get 17 and 49. I'm not against this deal. In fact, I would welcome a trade down...but one downside is that this deal doesn't net them any additional picks. I would prefer that they find a way to finagle an additional lower round pick rather than surrendering one in this scenario. Trading next year's 6th would leave them with six picks again...or is it 5? Are they still on the hook for the conditional 7th that they sent to Green Bay for Lerentee McCray in August of 2016? If so, that would put them at 5 overall picks heading into 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 I'm not against this deal. In fact, I would welcome a trade down...but one downside is that this deal doesn't net them any additional picks. I would prefer that they find a way to finagle an additional lower round pick rather than surrendering one in this scenario. Trading next year's 6th would leave them with six picks again...or is it 5? Are they still on the hook for the conditional 7th that they sent to Green Bay for Lerentee McCray in August of 2016? If so, that would put them at 5 overall picks heading into 2018. Agreed. I like the idea of trading back, but would like to see them come away with at least seven picks, without giving away next year's picks. I still think the most likely trade back scenario is with CLE or AZ in exchange for a third round pick. Alternatively, i'd like to see us drop back in round 2 and recoup that 4th that Whaley squandered last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 I'm not against this deal. In fact, I would welcome a trade down...but one downside is that this deal doesn't net them any additional picks. I would prefer that they find a way to finagle an additional lower round pick rather than surrendering one in this scenario. Trading next year's 6th would leave them with six picks again...or is it 5? Are they still on the hook for the conditional 7th that they sent to Green Bay for Lerentee McCray in August of 2016? If so, that would put them at 5 overall picks heading into 2018. I'm not sure on McCray. I guess for me I am less concerned about the depth than I am the 4 starting spots that I see WR, S, CB, WLB. If they plug those 4 holes in the draft I will like the depth at WR and safety. They will be okay at CB (think that they need 2) and Lorax/Humber is decent depth at WLB. I think that you can plan on day 1 starters in the 1st 3 rounds this year. I'd like 4 picks then. They can take the 4 day 3 picks and get a RB, QB, CB and DL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddo Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 (edited) One thing I'd say, is that it doesn't look too promising for any QBs coming off the board early, as in the report about the Bills wanting to trade down, the Jest also get mentioned as working the 'phones to drop back also. I think it's a tricky one, tbh, as it appears that the 'talent evaluators' generally, reckon there are around 9 'elite' prospects, and then there's a lot of good, talented guys, who it's really difficult to distinguish between, in the next 40 or so. If one of the 'elite' guys is there, and it's a position of need, you surely forget about trading down, and sprint to the podium. Due to there being so many guys who are hard to differentiate between, you might be able to snag another pick from the second round by trading down there. Obviously if it's a guy who you don't need who drops, then you still have a chance, but I think nobody really knows who is going to do what, at the top yet - especially as the Browns aren't going to say who they are taking, until their pick is on the clock. I wonder what people think about trading down, but getting a bit less than 'accepted' value,as it might come to that, if we really want to drop back for an extra pick or two. Edited April 23, 2017 by Buddo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExWNYer Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 I'm not sure on McCray. I guess for me I am less concerned about the depth than I am the 4 starting spots that I see WR, S, CB, WLB. If they plug those 4 holes in the draft I will like the depth at WR and safety. They will be okay at CB (think that they need 2) and Lorax/Humber is decent depth at WLB. I think that you can plan on day 1 starters in the 1st 3 rounds this year. I'd like 4 picks then. They can take the 4 day 3 picks and get a RB, QB, CB and DL. Sure, I see where you're coming from. Personally, I would prefer more chances to fill those spots to give the team some leeway on any misses. There is a smaller margin for error this year and next if you strikeout on any of those picks in the original trade scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Sure, I see where you're coming from. Personally, I would prefer more chances to fill those spots to give the team some leeway on any misses. There is a smaller margin for error this year and next if you strikeout on any of those picks in the original trade scenario. I agree with that. FWIW, I wouldn't do that every year. I just happen to believe that the strength of this draft is on day 2. I think the value there is better than most years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 And therein lies the conundrum. Moving back in a deep draft and getting worthwhile value will be difficult to achieve, IMO. Not impossible but still difficult. Totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Why the love for a 1st NEXT year.....when this draft is rich in players that are talented in THIS draft we need corners, te, wr's trade down for multiple picks in THIS draft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Why the love for a 1st NEXT year.....when this draft is rich in players that are talented in THIS draft we need corners, te, wr's trade down for multiple picks in THIS draft Don't worry. Whaley is on a very short leash and will not be looking ahead to next year. If anything, he will trade away next year's picks to move up and/or add more picks this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Why the love for a 1st NEXT year.....when this draft is rich in players that are talented in THIS draft we need corners, te, wr's trade down for multiple picks in THIS draft I can only speak for myself but it's because of the QBs. It appears to have some high end prospects and 2 1sts would give you the ammo to trade up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayray808 Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 hearing that the ideal scenario is this: at 10 no QB is taken off the board... Texans give us the 25th pick and a first next year, we give them the 10. it would be awesome if they take Tribusky, and at 25 we take Mahommes even though we would have taken him at 10 anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 I can only speak for myself but it's because of the QBs. It appears to have some high end prospects and 2 1sts would give you the ammo to trade up. So we are going to pass up improving this year for this darden dream when he could just go back to school for his senior year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 So we are going to pass up improving this year for this darden dream when he could just go back to school for his senior year.Not passing up this year at all. You need the assets to make big moves. If dropping 15 spots gives you a 1st in 2018 it is a home run imo. You aren't losing a pick, you are just dropping down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Not passing up this year at all. You need the assets to make big moves. If dropping 15 spots gives you a 1st in 2018 it is a home run imo. You aren't losing a pick, you are just dropping down. It just sounds like a trade off to me but I would support either way we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Why the love for a 1st NEXT year.....when this draft is rich in players that are talented in THIS draft we need corners, te, wr's trade down for multiple picks in THIS draft ....think the premise is that the 2018 QB class is allegedly better...........2017 QB class is all over the place as far as pundits....Bflo having two 1sts in 2018 would be a luxury (except for the Whaley detractors)....stay tuned.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 It just sounds like a trade off to me but I would support either way we go. It's certainly a trade off. Obviously picking 10 is better than picking 25 but picking 25 with an additional 2018 1st is way better than picking 10 imo. That's my dream scenario in this draft. It's possible that one of the receivers will still be there or a LB and there will certainly be a DB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuvian Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 I would interpret this as that we are not in love with any QB prospects and that McCoach is not done adjusting the roster for his and Dennison's schemes. At the very least we have to replace Gilmore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts