Thurman#1 Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) On 3/24/2019 at 7:24 AM, SoTier said: How rational is it to attempt to field an offense without a single WR without enough speed to stretch the field, which was the Bills WR corps in both 2017 and most of 2018 until Robert Foster got a chance to play? How rational is it to replace a better than average center, a Pro Bowl left guard, and a better than average left tackle with bottom feeder centers and guards and an inexperienced left tackle and expect to get decent offensive performance from them? How rational is it to draft a blue chip QB prospect and expect him to perform without decent protection and decent WRs? How rational is it to keep Nathan Peterman on the roster as even a backup QB when it had to be clear that he simply couldn't do the job? How rational is it to have waited around for a month waiting for Derek Anderson to finish his golf tourney while keeping Peterman as Allen's backup? At best McDermott and Beane spent two seasons doing OTJ training. Maybe they've learned enough to have success but I'll believe that when they actually have success. Very very logical, if you're rebuilding and your owner is on board, and your first priorities are amssing draft capital to bring in a franchise QB and cutting cap to get your awful cap situation in excellent shape going into the next year. Very illogical if you are feeling the heat and must win games that year. Beane and McDermott, though, have the owners understanding of their rebuild. So it was very logical indeed. To do nearly all the things you're saying up here. They've already admitted they made a mistake in not bringing in Anderson the minute they got rid of McCarron, so you're right there. They likely would have loved to keep Allen on the bench most of the year and that mistake prevented that. But the rest was very rational indeed. Edited March 25, 2019 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo1105 Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 21 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: He hasn't had to say he has looked at those studies. He's operated by the rules the studies suggest, both here and in his previous job in Carolina. I think it's fair to say that every single personnel guy in the league reads those ... maybe not every word, but they know all about this Doesn't mean everyone goes by them of course. In fact, pllenty of folks ignore them, especially if they're on the hot seat or if they let their emotions run their picks and fall in love with somebody. It happens an awful lot. Beans didn't have to acquire a ton of draft capital to trade up for QB. Could've traded away 2019's first and second or something like it. Instead he suffered the immediate pain of trading away a lot of guys for picks so he wouldn't have to do what the studies say you shouldn't. As for your question, are you asking if they would trade the higher 4th and the 5th to move up from #40 to the first? Is that right? If that is what you're asking, they would be unlikely to be able to make that trade. Assuming they were trading up from #40 to #30, that deal would give the Bills a 20% advantage on the trade, roughly, 120 points versus 100. If it's the Bills calling, to move up, they're more likely to have to give up extra than to get a bargain. More, if they get that deal, I personally wouldn't do it anyway. What the studies say is that GMs think they're smarter than they are. Meaning the best way to maximize your draft capital, especially over the long run is to maximize draft picks any way you can and take more shots rather than trust your judgment and give away picks to try to move up. And that doing so doesn't produce a small advantage, it makes you much more likely to be a successful drafter. I said it somewhere just above, but think about Taron Johnson, Wyatt Teller and Matt Milano. Those are three of our fourth and fifth rounders the last couple of years. My question was more hypothetical since you talked about giving up extra draft capital which the 4th and 5th rounders. I understand it’s not going to get the deal done. It was a counter to your original point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 On 3/22/2019 at 5:52 PM, buffaloboyinATL said: You need to clarify what you mean in the title. It sounds like you are saying trade back with pick number 9, but you really mean trade up with second rounder plus to get back into 1st for a second first rounder. use of "into" precludes needing to make that long winded explanation for clarification. #1 If you are just trading back from say 9 to 18. That would be stated as: The Bills are trading back, in the first round to pick #18. #2 If you trade assets to get a 1st rounder like pick #26, as you want a good player falling, that would be stated as: the Ravens are trading back INTO, the first round for pick#32 to draft Lamar Jackson." #3 (you would say "back INTO" if you already used a 1st round pick that year like Ravens did.) You would drop the word "back" if you had no 1st round pick that year. Who would be the target trading back, in the bottom of the first round?:::::::::::::: That means #1 Who would be the target trading back into, the bottom of the first round?::::::::::: That means #2 Who would be the target trading, into the first round?:::::::::::::: That means #3 proper comma placement helps also. That's my long winded explanation. Thanks for reading. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollars 2 donuts Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 On 3/22/2019 at 5:47 PM, starrymessenger said: I can see them trading up from 9, or back into the Ist, but they won't be trading down from the top of the draft IMO. They will always be open to it, but yeah Starry, I am really starting to agree with this point. I think there are at least a couple of choice opportunities at 10 that they just don't want to miss out on by the DL, OL, or TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 10 minutes ago, dollars 2 donuts said: They will always be open to it, but yeah Starry, I am really starting to agree with this point. I think there are at least a couple of choice opportunities at 10 that they just don't want to miss out on by the DL, OL, or TE. Just a hunch but I've got a feeling if the top of the draft goes QB crazy and Bosa, Allen or Williams are within striking distance ...maybe not likely but who knows (Beane I guess). Or back into the 1st for Hock. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Nothing is off the table. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfanAZ Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 We will have to see how the draft unfolds but I am not sure I see the Bills trading to get back into the first round. I can see them making moves to get an extra 2nd or 3rd round pick. I think they use one of their 5th round picks on a punter. The top 3 punters in the draft average around 45 yards. The rest of the picks can be used as collateral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LABILLBACKER Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Considering the sheer volume of FA's we've picked up, I don't see a critical need for any 5th, 6th or 7th round picks. I say trade them all to move up in the 3rd-4th round. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelingOnYouboty Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 minute ago, LABILLBACKER said: Considering the sheer volume of FA's we've picked up, I don't see a critical need for any 5th, 6th or 7th round picks. I say trade them all to move up in the 3rd-4th round. We really are running out of roster spots lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 2 hours ago, FeelingOnYouboty said: We really are running out of roster spots lol fun isn't it : ) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts