Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hebert19

Could the Bill's end up with 2 first rounders?

Recommended Posts

On ESPN bold predictions this morning it says a possible trade partner is Oakland if they want to move up with their stockpile...would you trade down all the way to 24 to get another first?  We would likely have to throw something else in...a nigu second is worth nearly the same and allows us to pick earlier.  

 

Things might get interesting this time around.  :)

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this happened I dont believe we would have to add anything. If fact Id want a 3rd or at least a 4th on top of those two 1sts to drop down that far.

  • Like (+1) 7
  • Awesome! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not terribly opposed depending on how FA and the first 8 picks play out.

  • Like (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hebert19 said:

On ESPN bold predictions this morning it says a possible trade partner is Oakland if they want to move up with their stockpile...would you trade down all the way to 24 to get another first?  We would likely have to throw something else in...a nigu second is worth nearly the same and allows us to pick earlier.  

 

Things might get interesting this time around.  :)

 

I think buffalo could get better at a lot of positions.  More bullets is probably good at this point - so I'd be OK with it if the value is right.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hebert19 said:

On ESPN bold predictions this morning it says a possible trade partner is Oakland if they want to move up with their stockpile...would you trade down all the way to 24 to get another first?  We would likely have to throw something else in...a nigu second is worth nearly the same and allows us to pick earlier.  

 

Things might get interesting this time around.  :)

I dont think we would,  we would be moving to the bottom third of the round from top 10. Probably 2 first straight up.  Remember we got 2 first and a 3rd to move from 10 to 27.

Edited by formerlyofCtown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we go back that far we could end up with a nice tackle like risner and the iowa tight end.  could be too very nice pieces for our offense. 

  • Like (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I'm not terribly opposed depending on how FA and the first 8 picks play out.

This is where I’m at. 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hebert19 said:

On ESPN bold predictions this morning it says a possible trade partner is Oakland if they want to move up with their stockpile...would you trade down all the way to 24 to get another first?  We would likely have to throw something else in...a nigu second is worth nearly the same and allows us to pick earlier.  

 

Things might get interesting this time around.  :)

 

we traded all the way back with the chiefs and got their first the following year. i dont think we have to give up a second i think they might be giving more to us in fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aristocrat said:

 

we traded all the way back with the chiefs and got their first the following year. i dont think we have to give up a second i think they might be giving more to us in fact. 

Yeah, the team coming up always pays a small premium. 24 & 27 for 9 is almost perfect. I suppose the Bills could throw in one of those extra late rounders that they have to make it happen but it’s probably not necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

This is where I’m at. 

Me as well. If they shore up the O line and add a quality Pass rusher in FA that would allow them to take advantage of a very deep WR and TE draft.

Any combo of Harry/Brown/Samuel/Butler and Hock/Fant/Smith would be amazing and quite doable.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love that trade. Take the BPA at WR and OL,  bottom of the 1st is perfect for values at those positions. But I don't know who Oakland would be willing to trade up for.

  • Like (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on who is on the board, I'm in the 9 > 24 & 27 camp.

 

 

But I think the argument with Oakland is deeply flawed.  It basically depends on them not liking a QB enough to take him at 4 but then liking one enough to give up multiple picks to get him at 9.  It's nonsensical IMO.  If Oakland likes a QB enough to move on from Carr, they likely get a pretty decent return on Carr then either trade to move from 4 to 1 or 2 or simply take their guy at 4.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better value is to trade back only a few spots and get a second round pick in 2019 or another first in 2020.

Correct me if Im wrong but I thoughtone advantage of the top 10 was the ability to add a 5th year option to the contract.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Better value is to trade back only a few spots and get a second round pick in 2019 or another first in 2020.

Correct me if Im wrong but I thoughtone advantage of the top 10 was the ability to add a 5th year option to the contract.

 

 

That's the 1st round vs the 2nd round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Better value is to trade back only a few spots and get a second round pick in 2019 or another first in 2020.

Correct me if Im wrong but I thoughtone advantage of the top 10 was the ability to add a 5th year option to the contract.

5th year option is for all first rounders. So, just from that point of view, getting two low first rounders is better than getting a higher first rounder and high second rounder.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IgotBILLStopay said:

5th year option is for all first rounders. So, just from that point of view, getting two low first rounders is better than getting a higher first rounder and high second rounder.

 

 

But from the view of common sense logic it's better to have a high 1st and a high 2nd.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In most drafts there are said to be around 6 - 10 genuine blue-chippers. Haven't seen what people are saying this year but I don't want to trade out of one of those blue-chippers, myself, even if I get two starters.


I wouldn't hate it, but I think getting one impact guy is more of what the Bills really need.

 

So far, I like what the new regime has done with the draft, so I would have some trust if they go this way.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, buffalobillswin said:

I'd much rather have the 9th pick than the 24th and 27th

In this draft, I'd much rather have the 24th and 27th. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chuck Wagon said:

 

 

But from the view of common sense logic it's better to have a high 1st and a high 2nd.....

 

Depends on how much higher no? Would you prefer 24th and 31st or 21st and 33rd? Likely the former. But the answer is also a function of which player you feel strongly about and if he is available at, say, 21.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a great move if you dont see the pass rusher or OL prospect you want valued at #9. Instead of reaching at 9 you can add some more ammo.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Depending on who is on the board, I'm in the 9 > 24 & 27 camp.

 

 

But I think the argument with Oakland is deeply flawed.  It basically depends on them not liking a QB enough to take him at 4 but then liking one enough to give up multiple picks to get him at 9.  It's nonsensical IMO.  If Oakland likes a QB enough to move on from Carr, they likely get a pretty decent return on Carr then either trade to move from 4 to 1 or 2 or simply take their guy at 4.

 

 

Yeah, I wouldn't do this if I was Oakland. Three firsts including one of the blue chippers, for a team in the first year of a rebuild ... that would be sweet. If I were them, I'd be more likely to trade down from 24 or 27 to get an extra first next year when they have a better idea of what they need. Next year's supposed to be a better QB draft as well, though it sometimes doesn't work out that way by the time the next year actually ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Hebert19 said:

On ESPN bold predictions this morning it says a possible trade partner is Oakland if they want to move up with their stockpile...would you trade down all the way to 24 to get another first?  We would likely have to throw something else in...a nigu second is worth nearly the same and allows us to pick earlier.  

 

Things might get interesting this time around.  :)

Bills #9,40 

For 

Raiders 24,27,35,66

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't put anything past Bean he seems to be a master (to this point) at negotiating when it comes to making a deal weather in the draft or other wise .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...