Jump to content

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


Hebert19

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

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. 

How about trading 9 for Washington's 15, getting a 2nd and next year's 1st. Then trading 15 for Oakland's two 1's? My nipples could cut glass if that happened.

  • Haha (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We got Tre White, who has been amazing for us, way down in the late 20's of the 1st round.

 

I would make this deal in a heartbeat. IF you hit on both and get 2 Tre White type players then look out! It's about to be rainbow and gumdrop season around here (a term I am taking from a Patriots troll who mocked my positive Bills thread!)

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buffalobillswin said:

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

 

If there is a 5 star blue chip player that we covet and he's there at 9 I completely agree.  You just don't pass up on those guys.  But all of those type guys are gone and the difference between who we might covet after those guys is minimal, I think you make the trade.  To me it just really depends on the combine and how the board starts to work itself out on draft night.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beane's certainly shown a willingness to deal.  And McDermott, too, when he and his inherited GM traded back from 10.  

 

I think it depends on how excited they are about the guy who falls to them at 9.   If the guy they really want is there, they'll stay.   If they guys they really wanted are gone, they might very well be willing to move out of 9 to get TWO quality young guys rather than one.   McBeane aren't, in my opinion, interested in getting stars.   They have the two guys they're betting will be stars - Allen and Edmunds.   Now they're trying to stockpile good football players, and getting two good players instead of one potential star would be attractive to them.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough one for me.  

 

We are a team almost completely void of star players.  Guys that are among the best at their position.  Athletic freaks that change games.  

 

You need 'em and we don't have 'em.  

 

Is it possible to get them later in the first - yes, should it be easier/more likely to get one at 9 - yes

 

Free agency will be the answer to this trade, which has me leaning towards keeping the 9th.  Based on Beane's free agency judicious approach, we need a star to come out of the draft.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, White Linen said:

Tough one for me.  

 

We are a team almost completely void of star players.  Guys that are among the best at their position.  Athletic freaks that change games.  

 

You need 'em and we don't have 'em.  

 

Is it possible to get them later in the first - yes, should it be easier/more likely to get one at 9 - yes

 

Free agency will be the answer to this trade, which has me leaning towards keeping the 9th.  Based on Beane's free agency judicious approach, we need a star to come out of the draft.  

Who's to say the players we get at 24 & 27 won't be better then the player at 9 . There is no exact science to the draft some many factors involved.  With that being said I think this yr is a great yr to move back in don't see the top 10 as top heavy as recent yrs . I think McBeane would love to make a deal likeep this. 

Edited by BillsFan1988
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BillsFan1988 said:

#24 - TE  TJ Hockenson 

#27 - Wr  DK Metcalf 

#35- OT Dalton Risner

#66 - OG Michael Deiter

#75 -  WR Andy Isabella  

 

I like this- my picks would be:

 

#24 - Cody Ford/Dalton Risner - G

#27 - Hakeem Butler, WR

#35 - Josh Jacobs, RB

#66 - Andy Isabella, WR

#75 - Kaden Smith, TE

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...