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

[Hebert19]

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.  :)

[Halloween Land]

Very possible!

[TheBeaneBandit]

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.

[buffalobillswin]

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

[BuffaloHokie13]

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

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

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.

[formerlyofCtown]

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 February 8, 2019 by formerlyofCtown

[aristocrat]

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. 

[Kirby Jackson]

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. 

[aristocrat]

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. 

[Kirby Jackson]

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. 

[billsbackto81]

 

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.

[HappyDays]

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.

[Chuck Wagon]

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.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

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.

[Chuck Wagon]

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.

[IgotBILLStopay]

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.

[Chuck Wagon]

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.....

[Thurman#1]

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.

[Spielman]

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. 

[IgotBILLStopay]

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.

 

[FearLess Price]

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.

[Thurman#1]

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.

[BillsFan1988]

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

[T master]

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 .

[PromoTheRobot]

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.

[416BillsFan]

Per Mike Rodak's calculations:

 

 

[TheFunPolice]

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!)

[ndirish1978]

Take the trade straight up and draft Risner and Fant or Cajuste

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

10 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

My nipples could cut glass if that happened.

So you’d exchange your gold studs for diamond studs if it happens?

 

[row_33]

I thought nobody watched or cared about ESPN for 20 years every time something true but harsh was said about the Bills....

[NewEraBills]

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.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

10 minutes ago, row_33 said:

I thought nobody watched or cared about ESPN for 20 years every time something true but harsh was said about the Bills....

I generally don’t but it’s fun to read their takes 

[row_33]

14 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I generally don’t but it’s fun to read their takes 

 

Oh yeah

 

and now Rodak is like Einstein on here....

 

this just gets better and better....

[BillsFan1988]

54 minutes ago, BillsFan1988 said:

Bills #9,40 

For 

Raiders 24,27,35,66

#24 - TE  TJ Hockenson 

#27 - Wr  DK Metcalf 

#35- OT Dalton Risner

#66 - OG Michael Deiter

#75 -  WR Andy Isabella  

 

[NewEra]

Considering where the talent lies in this draft, I’d make that trade 100%.  2 players for the price of one. 

[Shaw66]

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.  

[White Linen]

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.  

[BillsFan1988]

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 February 8, 2019 by BillsFan1988

[Spielman]

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