Chad Forbes info on possible Bills trade up.

[DCOrange]

4 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Beane also specifically mentioned pick #7 last week. He said it may not do them any good to go to 7 because they could get “stuck there.” He may have just been negotiating in the media to posture for a better deal from Licht.

If I remember right, the question he was answering specifically asked about #7 rather than Beane bringing it up himself

2 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

What would it cost to get to 7? If 6 to 3 cost 3 2nd rounders, it can't be too bad...

 

I would imagine at least 12 and one of the 2nd founders. Probably only happens if Saquon/Nelson are off the board already too. 

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

What would it cost to get to 7? If 6 to 3 cost 3 2nd rounders, it can't be too bad...

3 2nds was the price paid by NYJ to move just 3 spots. 

[BillsFan4]

9 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Beane also specifically mentioned pick #7 last week. He said it may not do them any good to go to 7 because they could get “stuck there.” He may have just been negotiating in the media to posture for a better deal from Licht.

He was specifically asked about trading up to pick #7 by whatever reporter asked the question (can't remember who it was). 

[What a Tuel]

Just now, Boatdrinks said:

3 2nds was the price paid by NYJ to move just 3 spots. 

 

And we would be moving 5 spots. Also from 12 to 7. Not 6 to top 3. It shouldn't cost a ton.

[dezertbill]

5 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

What would it cost to get to 7? If 6 to 3 cost 3 2nd rounders, it can't be too bad...

Ideal would be to trade a Hughes or Shaq to move up to 7

[prissythecat]

40 minutes ago, Blokestradamus said:

Have you ever met a trustworthy Chad in your lifetime?

 

Well, Dunkirk Don said that  he correctly called a lot of big news items. 

[What a Tuel]

5 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

If I remember right, the question he was answering specifically asked about #7 rather than Beane bringing it up himself

 

I would imagine at least 12 and one of the 2nd founders. Probably only happens if Saquon/Nelson are off the board already too. 

 

I was thinking about the same. Maybe a later rounder as well.

[MAJBobby]

45 minutes ago, PIZ said:

Not sure if this guy is legit.

 

 

 

So everything that has been discussed for past two months in one tweet. Ground Breaking 

Edited April 3, 2018 by MAJBobby

[Chuck Wagon]

16 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

What would it cost to get to 7? If 6 to 3 cost 3 2nd rounders, it can't be too bad...

 

 

I would give them one of the picks in the 53 - 65 range and probably want pick 102 or 144 back.

 

The Bucs are willing to move from 7 to 12 because they know they are going to get the same caliber player at 12 as 7 and they are a team that strictly drafts BPA.  I wouldn't give any sort of premium for that pick.

 

#7 / #144 for #12 / #56 is about dead equal on the value chart.

[Blokestradamus]

4 minutes ago, prissythecat said:

Well, Dunkirk Don said that he correctly called a lot of big news items. 

 

 

I guess I can trust DD, what with all those #highlevelbusinessmeetings he's attending.

[What a Tuel]

3 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

 

 

I would give them one of the picks in the 53 - 65 range and probably want pick 102 or 144 back.

 

The Bucs are willing to move from 7 to 12 because they know they are going to get the same caliber player at 12 as 7 and they are a team that strictly drafts BPA.  I wouldn't give any sort of premium for that pick.

 

#7 / #144 for #12 / #56 is about dead equal on the value chart.

 

Get 'er done, Beane. It would be so much easier to deal with the Giants with 7. 

[prissythecat]

Just now, Blokestradamus said:

 

I guess I can trust DD, what with all those #highlevelbusinessmeetings he's attending.

 

Wasn't that SaviorPeterman  attending high level business meetings ? ;-)   Dunkirk Don was independently wealthy and had an investment group to buy up land near the next Bills stadium  in Letchworth

[Blokestradamus]

1 minute ago, prissythecat said:

Wasn't that SaviorPeterman  attending high level business meetings ? ;-)   Dunkirk Don was independently wealthy and had an investment group to buy up land near the next Bills stadium  in Letchworth

3

 

I haven't a clue. You lot confuse me. I just latch on to certain things and piece it all together randomly

[Big Blitz]

10 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

And we would be moving 5 spots. Also from 12 to 7. Not 6 to top 3. It shouldn't cost a ton.

 

But that was bc I'm sure Ballard was in a bidding war against us.  His exact words were "we talked to a handful of teams but didn't want to move out of the top 10."  

 

The bidders for 7 won't be as many as for 3 and the ones that do don't have the ammo we do.  

 

We might be looking at something simple like the top 6 goes like this:

 

1. Browns--Allen

2. Giants--Darnold

3. Jets--Rosen 

4. Browns--Saquan 

5. Broncos--Nelson

6. Colts--Chubb

7. Bills trade Bucs the 12, and a second.  Select Mayfield.

 

I'll take that all day.  That's why Beane has to be careful.  This of course is based on how I feel about the QBs. 

[PIZ]

58 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

Speculation based on what's already out there from various places.

 

True, but not many people talking about the move from 12 to 7.

[Chuck Wagon]

11 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

But that was bc I'm sure Ballard was in a bidding war against us.  His exact words were "we talked to a handful of teams but didn't want to move out of the top 10."  

 

The bidders for 7 won't be as many as for 3 and the ones that do don't have the ammo we do.  

 

We might be looking at something simple like the top 6 goes like this:

 

1. Browns--Allen

2. Giants--Darnold

3. Jets--Rosen 

4. Browns--Saquan 

5. Broncos--Nelson

6. Colts--Chubb

7. Bills trade Bucs the 12, and a second.  Select Mayfield.

 

I'll take that all day.  That's why Beane has to be careful.  This of course is based on how I feel about the QBs. 

 

 

I've always taken Ballard's comments to be much more "we weren't looking to trade out of the top 10 when a trade was there that would give us multiple day 2 picks while remaining in the top 6" and much less "we don't want to trade out of the top 10, period".

 

6 is a great spot, they can likely have one of Barkley or Chubb, or sell the last QB.  Assuming there's a QB still on the board at 6 it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the Colts trade again.  

 

Say you have a dollar.  Two different people are willing to give you $1.25 for that dollar.  But you know you can sell person A's $1.25 for an additional $1.25, leaving you $1.50.  That's what happened with the Colts - Jets deal imo.

[xRUSHx]

55 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Yep.

I said it on another thread.

I believe the only QB the Giants want is Darnold, but that they also could be in on Barkley.

If browns go Allen #1, Giants almost certainly will take Darnold #2.

If browns go Darnold, Giants want Barkley, but might move for a big haul.

Cleveland can't take both so IMO Giants will not be moving from 2 unless it's to Cleveland's 4 being worried that Denver could snag Barkley IMO. IMO Giants are staying put at 2. IMO they want Barkley more then Darnold.

Edited April 3, 2018 by xRUSHx

[SouthNYfan]

24 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

Why do I see a slow desperate climb up: 12 to 7, 7 to 5/4 and 5/4 to 2?

 

Yeah.

Then you have to add up everything you gave up to get each pick, for example.

 

-#21 + cordy +5th (#158) was that #12 cost (we also got a 6th #187. Should keep that number it's MURDER ?)

 

So if we trade to #7 by giving (just saying):

#12 and #22 , at minimum that means we actually gave up #21, #22, #158 and cordy Glenn for the #7 pick.

 

Again I'm not saying that is what it would cost to go to #7 I'm just saying that's how you have to look at it

 

21 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

3 2nds was the price paid by NYJ to move just 3 spots. 

 

Just because one team overpaid doesn't mean we have to

 

19 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

And we would be moving 5 spots. Also from 12 to 7. Not 6 to top 3. It shouldn't cost a ton.

 

Yeah I don't think it would cost a ton, but see my response above at the total cost.

Just now, xRUSHx said:

Cleveland can't take both so IMO Giants will not be moving from 2 unless it's to Cleveland's 4 being worried that Denver could snag Barkley IMO. IMO Giants are staying put at 2.

 

Right I agree.

But Cleveland could go Barkley #1 leaving Darnold #2 to NYG, then Jets have Mayfield/Allen/Rosen choice at #3, leaving browns with the remaining 2 to choose from

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, PIZ said:

 

True, but not many people talking about the move from 12 to 7.

 

@kdiggz posted a thread on that.

[Chuck Wagon]

38 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

Why do I see a slow desperate climb up: 12 to 7, 7 to 5/4 and 5/4 to 2?

 

 

I see both side of the coin.

 

The thing I worry about, and I think it's what Beane worries about, is with a gradual climb you chip away at the value bit by bit.  Say we can offer the Giants a 150% premium on the pick currently.  But with the small climb we chip off 10% here and there, suddenly we can only offer the Giants 120%.  Is it better to just offer the full 150% to get where you want to go, or risk chipping away bit by bit in hopes of a more attractive offer?

 

Ultimately I don't buy the Giants - Darnold story.  I think there's certainly a chance if Allen goes #1 then the ability to pick Darnold is worth more, but until they turn the card in with a player (and don't pull an Eli - Rivers) I'm convinced they are going to sit and wait to extract maximum value.