A trade down is now off the table.

[ColoradoBills]

I would rather have only 5 quality rookies come to camp vs. 10 or 11 lesser quality players.

I'm for staying at #9 and even moving up in the 3rd or 4th rounds if need be to get quality guys.

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, Cripple Creek said:

Nope, but why take 2nd or 3rd best on your board at a position of you can potentially go get #1? LOL

 

Who says they are #1?  Who says the gap from 1 or 2 is big or small?  

 

My point is, when you put it like "2nd or 3rd best" at the position, you phrase it to read like there is a big drop off.  Just because one guy goes ahead of the other doesn't mean he is a better prospect either.  its how the team sees each guy as a fit for their team, systems, coaches, etc.  There are going to be blue chip stud prospects on the board at multiple positions when we are on the clock at 9.

 

Its all subjective, so this arbitrary ranking is a reason to give up big assets to go get a guy.  

 

One thing I have found very ironic lately is some people seem fine trading up from 9 (which is crazy thought to me personally given the talent that will be there at 9) and yet so many still complain we traded up for Edmunds last year just because LVE had a good year for Dallas.  

 

So what happens if we trade up from 9, get a guy thats good for us, but then see similar prospects have big years that were taken at 9 or later?  Everyone is going to call Beane an idiot for giving up assets when we could have not and still got a pro bowl type player at 9.

 

Beane will go get a guy if he wants him, not doubt about it.  But I just don't see it being above 9 because the top 10 is very rich in talent.  We are going to get a guy at 9 that would go top 3 in most draft years.  Top 10 is very talent heavy this year.  

 

Personally I think Beane will try and trade back, if he cant find the right deal, he will stay at 9 and take a stud.  

[Pete]

One scenario I like is to trade down to 20 , get compensated for such a large drop.  At 20, some possibilities are Jeffery Simmons, TJ, Cordy Ford, DK, Paris, Clevin Ferrell, Andre Dillard, Christian Wilkins, Fant, Tillery, Gary, Greedy-surely one of them will still be available-and every one would start most likely.  So lets say we pick up a 2nd and 3rd- that is 2 2nds, 2 3rds, 2 4ths, 2 5ths, 1 6th, and 2 7ths.  That gives Beane much ammo to load up on top 100 picks.  IMO we need OT, DE, DT, TE, G, RB, LB.  We could end up with 4-5 new starters if we play it right.  That would be a stacked roster 1 to 53.  A good draft could send us on a Superbowl run the next several seasons!

Edited March 15, 2019 by Pete

[Cripple Creek]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Who says they are #1?  Who says the gap from 1 or 2 is big or small?  

 

My point is, when you put it like "2nd or 3rd best" at the position, you phrase it to read like there is a big drop off.  Just because one guy goes ahead of the other doesn't mean he is a better prospect either.  its how the team sees each guy as a fit for their team, systems, coaches, etc.  There are going to be blue chip stud prospects on the board at multiple positions when we are on the clock at 9.

 

Its all subjective, so this arbitrary ranking is a reason to give up big assets to go get a guy.  

 

One thing I have found very ironic lately is some people seem fine trading up from 9 (which is crazy thought to me personally given the talent that will be there at 9) and yet so many still complain we traded up for Edmunds last year just because LVE had a good year for Dallas.  

 

So what happens if we trade up from 9, get a guy thats good for us, but then see similar prospects have big years that were taken at 9 or later?  Everyone is going to call Beane an idiot for giving up assets when we could have not and still got a pro bowl type player at 9.

 

Beane will go get a guy if he wants him, not doubt about it.  But I just don't see it being above 9 because the top 10 is very rich in talent.  We are going to get a guy at 9 that would go top 3 in most draft years.  Top 10 is very talent heavy this year.  

 

Personally I think Beane will try and trade back, if he cant find the right deal, he will stay at 9 and take a stud.  

What I am saying is: you can wait and pick at your turn. That leaves you open to the top players at positions of need being selected.  You can trade back if you have a partner. Trading back will net you more players but not a top 10 player. When you already have 10 FAs signed and 10 draft picks you do not want to add additional picks.  So, you act proactively and seek a trade up to get someone you covet.

 

As far as who says they’re number 1, 2,  3 etc I thought I was clear...the Bills draft board. I don’t care who I like and I care even less who you like. Who McBeane like is all that matters.

 

No executive wants to go into a year with 50% of his team being brand new.  

[John from Riverside]

1 minute ago, Cripple Creek said:

What I am saying is: you can wait and pick at your turn. That leaves you open to the top players at positions of need being selected.  You can trade back if you have a partner. Trading back will net you more players but not a top 10 player. When you already have 10 FAs signed and 10 draft picks you do not want to add additional picks.  So, you act proactively and seek a trade up to get someone you covet.

 

As far as who says they’re number 1, 2,  3 etc I thought I was clear...the Bills draft board. I don’t care who I like and I care even less who you like. Who McBeane like is all that matters.

 

No executive wants to go into a year with 50% of his team being brand new.  

Half of the team will not be new.....what was nice about having all that cap space and 10 picks is we ALREADY had several players under contract.

 

Lets not forget that the bills have been pretty decent in plucking out of UDFA's as well....Foster and Wallace came from that group.

 

It honestly would not shock me to see the bills trade down for a 1st rounder in the following draft........

[Alphadawg7]

1 minute ago, Cripple Creek said:

What I am saying is: you can wait and pick at your turn. That leaves you open to the top players at positions of need being selected.  You can trade back if you have a partner. Trading back will net you more players but not a top 10 player. When you already have 10 FAs signed and 10 draft picks you do not want to add additional picks.  So, you act proactively and seek a trade up to get someone you covet.

 

As far as who says they’re number 1, 2,  3 etc I thought I was clear...the Bills draft board. I don’t care who I like and I care even less who you like. Who McBeane like is all that matters.

 

No executive wants to go into a year with 50% of his team being brand new.  

 

First off, there will be top 10 talent that gets drafted outside the top 10.  Why?  Because QB needy teams for instance will over draft to get a QB even though they are not top 10 prospects overall, but the best prospects at a position of desperate need.  

 

So again, at 9, we are going to get not only a top 10 talent, but also a prospect that in most years would be a top 3 guy.  Its a top heavy draft.  

 

That being said, I do not disagree that Beane will do whatever he wants to get a guy he covets.  So its not out of the question, but I think its very unlikely.  He covets draft picks A LOT.  Its one thing to trade up somewhere else in the draft where it costs you less to do so, its a whole other animal to trade up in the top 10 where you are giving up premium draft picks.  And unless there is a huge drop off or you need a QB, that just doesn't happen much at all.  

 

And this year, we do not need a QB and there is not a big drop in talent level at the 9th pick.  So I get what you are saying, it just lacks the context of this exact draft, this exact team, and this exact GM to have much likely hood of happening.

 

One thing I definitely agree with though and have said many times all offseason, is that I do NOT believe Beane intends to walk out of the draft with 10 or more picks (more would be if we traded down and got more).  I fully believe there will be at least one, if not more than one trade up along the way, I just do not believe that will include a trade up from the 9th pick though.  I think trading up from our 2nd to get another first rounder or earlier 2nd rounder is very plausible though or trading our 3rd to get back into the 2nd for an additional pick too.

[Pete]

I really like the idea of trading down for a 1st round pick next year.  Beanes MO is accumulating, and parlaying draft picks

[Freddie's Dead]

Trade down is "definitely" in play.  Picking up extra draft picks is always a good idea.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

21 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Who says they are #1?  Who says the gap from 1 or 2 is big or small?  

 

My point is, when you put it like "2nd or 3rd best" at the position, you phrase it to read like there is a big drop off.  Just because one guy goes ahead of the other doesn't mean he is a better prospect either.  its how the team sees each guy as a fit for their team, systems, coaches, etc.  There are going to be blue chip stud prospects on the board at multiple positions when we are on the clock at 9.

 

Its all subjective, so this arbitrary ranking is a reason to give up big assets to go get a guy.  

 

One thing I have found very ironic lately is some people seem fine trading up from 9 (which is crazy thought to me personally given the talent that will be there at 9) and yet so many still complain we traded up for Edmunds last year just because LVE had a good year for Dallas.  

 

So what happens if we trade up from 9, get a guy thats good for us, but then see similar prospects have big years that were taken at 9 or later?  Everyone is going to call Beane an idiot for giving up assets when we could have not and still got a pro bowl type player at 9.

 

Beane will go get a guy if he wants him, not doubt about it.  But I just don't see it being above 9 because the top 10 is very rich in talent.  We are going to get a guy at 9 that would go top 3 in most draft years.  Top 10 is very talent heavy this year.  

 

Personally I think Beane will try and trade back, if he cant find the right deal, he will stay at 9 and take a stud.  

 

...nice assessment 'Dawg.............and agree on the trade back.............

[Cripple Creek]

8 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Half of the team will not be new.....what was nice about having all that cap space and 10 picks is we ALREADY had several players under contract.

 

Lets not forget that the bills have been pretty decent in plucking out of UDFA's as well....Foster and Wallace came from that group.

 

It honestly would not shock me to see the bills trade down for a 1st rounder in the following draft........

John,

They have signed 10 free agents.

They have 10 draft picks.

 

 

That is 20 players. If the Bills add picks through trading down that number increases above 20. 

 

You will I’ll agree that they would then be approaching 50% turnover based on roster size?

[John from Riverside]

We wont finish with 10 draft picks EVEN IF we trade down and accum picks....

 

More then likely

 

a.  They will be used in trade up scenario's targeting specific players

b.  Some of them could be traded into the following year for BETTER draft picks

 

We will be nowhere close to 50 percent turnover

[BillsFanForever19]

2 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

How often does NE has a top 10 pick

 

I don't see how that matters to the point the OP is making (that with the amount of guys we have, we won't be picking up more picks for more bodies). 

[Dr.Mantis_Toboggan]

Still have needs on the Edge, DT, OL (both G and T), OLB (that can cover and spell, potentially replace Lorax), TE, WR (Zay is garbage), HB (upgrade over Ivory, Gore and possibly Shady after last year), CB (K Johnson is injury prone, one concussion from it being a career for him, T Johnson coming off injury), and I would like a QB to replace Anderson after the debacle last season. Find a prospect who is a poor man’s JA, not sold on Barkley either after just one good game.

Point is this team still has plenty of areas to upgrade, no need to squander draft picks.  We will undoubtedly see some maneuvering. Could he trade up? Sure... Will he? It’s just as likely that he trades down.  Btw, that’s 10 positions, if you count both G and T.  Hopefully there is a couple more signings before draft day to give them even more flexibility, but those 10 spots should be addressed one way or another still.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Dr.Mantis_Toboggan

[Billzfan23]

4 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

 

Really? Josh endures a sophomore slump and we kick him to the curb? What exactly have you seen from him to even suggest he wouldn’t be worth a 3rd year??

I'm not saying you cut him after a sophomore slump, I'm just saying you can still go QB and draft another one.  It's been 20 years since we've had a QB even in the top half of the league.  We've never had anyone that could win a game on their own, that's for sure.  They should have been drafting another 1 EVERY year of this drought just to find one that can play.  That position is everything.  I never understood these guys that want glorified game managers with a strong defense and run game.  First, that's boring - second...it's not a sustainable way to win long term.  That's why Brady, Manning, Rothleisberger, Brees, Wison, Warner, and Rodgers had the most success - the last 2 decades.  They are THE ONLY hands down, no doubt about it - "franchise" guys.  In a tier all their own.  Matt Ryan and Eli in the second tier of that list.

[mjd1001]

I'd still like to see a trade down.  Draft picks are lottery tickets.  I'd rather have a low(teens or early 20's) first and an extra second than a higher first (8th).

 

 

[formerlyofCtown]

1 hour ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

I don't see how that matters to the point the OP is making (that with the amount of guys we have, we won't be picking up more picks for more bodies). 

I wasnt responding to that.  I was responding to a comment on NE always trading down.  The quality of player youre getting in the top 10 is likely much better.

 

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

I just don't see anything worth trading up for, if we need pass rush help there will be plenty of options, same with TE, OT, DT, WR, I think were set up real nice that even a trade down is a very real possibility. I like what we've done so far but we can still be upgraded all over the OL, DL, TE and WR imo. I don't see the value in trading up since we have our QB now.

[Magnum Force]

1 minute ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:

I just don't see anything worth trading up for, if we need pass rush help there will be plenty of options, same with TE, OT, DT, WR, I think were set up real nice that even a trade down is a very real possibility. I like what we've done so far but we can still be upgraded all over the OL, DL, TE and WR imo. I don't see the value in trading up since we have our QB now.

The only players I can see trading up for are Josh Allen 2 and Bosa if for some strange reason they fall within range to where a trade up is feasible.  Or if Beane really likes one of the DTs , Hockenson or even possibly Metcalf that much and he wants to ensure that he gets that player.  But right now we seem to be sittting really good

[BullBuchanan]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Please.

 

May be off the table for you, but for nobody else is trading back gone. Might not happen, but you can bet they still think it's an option.

 

Trading up? Yeah, not in the first round. Last year they had two massive holes they needed to fill, particularly at QB but also at the Kuechle spot in McD's defence. This year no massive holes. Not unless someone like Bosa falls to sixth or seventh or something wild like that.

No massive holes? We have ZERO skill position players of any significance. I dont think 3rd tier players like Brown, Beasley and Gore are going to do a thing to address the offensive incompetence that's been on display for this team. The AFC continues to get stronger and stronger, and the Bills just stand pat. As of now, we're the 3rd most talented team in our own division, and unless they make significant improvements between now and August, I think we're on pace to be in a similar or worse draft position next April.

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

1 hour ago, Magnum Force said:

The only players I can see trading up for are Josh Allen 2 and Bosa if for some strange reason they fall within range to where a trade up is feasible.  Or if Beane really likes one of the DTs , Hockenson or even possibly Metcalf that much and he wants to ensure that he gets that player.  But right now we seem to be sittting really good

It would take quite a bit to move up much like we did when we traded up for Sammy Watkins, most definitely a 1st next year if we're moving up into the top 5, you don't give up a 1st next year for a LB or a DE who is coming off a season ending injury it just doesn't make sense imo.