Trade back into the first

[Mat68]

On 2/29/2020 at 9:23 PM, Reed83HOF said:

 

This is important, but find the line were great stops.  Some drafts have 5, some 12 some 15.  After a certain point getting more day 2 picks vs 1 late first makes alot of sense. 

[Kirby Jackson]

10 hours ago, Mat68 said:

This is important, but find the line were great stops.  Some drafts have 5, some 12 some 15.  After a certain point getting more day 2 picks vs 1 late first makes alot of sense. 

I think that the same can be said about drop offs in position groups. As an example there is a chasm between Chase Young and the next best edge player. There’s a gap between Ruggs/Jeudy/Lamb and the next guy. There’s a big gap between Okudah and the guy that goes next.
 

The Bills always seem to chase the “last guy in a tier” like they did last year with Ford and Knox. That’s why they traded up in both cases. The identified players before the drop off and went to get them. Keep this in mind in round 2 IMO. Bradlee Anae is a guy I have my eye on.

[TheBeaneBandit]

If the 1st round pick is not WR, then I think a move into say, the top 40 becomes a strong option for the right reciever....use one or a couple of those extra mid round picks to get into the top 10 picks of the 2nd round.

Edited March 5, 2020 by TheBeaneBandit

[Shaw66]

On 2/29/2020 at 9:23 PM, Reed83HOF said:

 

This statement misses the point of what Beane has said.   

 

Beane has been very clear about how he handles the draft.   First, at the top of the draft, the first couple of rounds, he is strictly best player available.   Period.   Need doesn't enter into it, except with one exception:  when he has a position of great need AND the best player available meets the need, he might trade up for the guy.  

 

When he talks about the depth of a class, he's talking about the fact that after the first and second rounds, he may be inclined to consider need.   When he's considering players in that range, if the draft is deep at his position of need, he may wait a round to get someone.   His reasoning is that except in unusual circumstances, the guy he takes in round three should help over time but isn't going to be a star.   In the draft is deep in the position, the guy he takes in the fourth round, albeit not as good as the guy he could have gotten in the third, is still going to be good enough to help but also won't be a star.   Since neither guy is likely to be a star, he won't feel quite so much pressure to take the one who looks better.   

 

On the other hand, if the draft is shallow at a position of need, he's going to me more inclined in the mid to late rounds to take the guy who's available now at that position, because he is unlikely to last to the next round, and there's no one else comparable who's likely to be there.  

 

So, as for receivers, the only way Beane is trading up into round one to get one is if he sees a guy who is the best player left on the board and who will not last to the second round.   Then, maybe, Beane's going up.  But the guy's got to be special.   Beane's not trading up just because receiver is a position of need.  

[Reed83HOF]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

This statement misses the point of what Beane has said.   

 

Beane has been very clear about how he handles the draft.   First, at the top of the draft, the first couple of rounds, he is strictly best player available.   Period.   Need doesn't enter into it, except with one exception:  when he has a position of great need AND the best player available meets the need, he might trade up for the guy.  

 

When he talks about the depth of a class, he's talking about the fact that after the first and second rounds, he may be inclined to consider need.   When he's considering players in that range, if the draft is deep at his position of need, he may wait a round to get someone.   His reasoning is that except in unusual circumstances, the guy he takes in round three should help over time but isn't going to be a star.   In the draft is deep in the position, the guy he takes in the fourth round, albeit not as good as the guy he could have gotten in the third, is still going to be good enough to help but also won't be a star.   Since neither guy is likely to be a star, he won't feel quite so much pressure to take the one who looks better.   

 

On the other hand, if the draft is shallow at a position of need, he's going to me more inclined in the mid to late rounds to take the guy who's available now at that position, because he is unlikely to last to the next round, and there's no one else comparable who's likely to be there.  

 

So, as for receivers, the only way Beane is trading up into round one to get one is if he sees a guy who is the best player left on the board and who will not last to the second round.   Then, maybe, Beane's going up.  But the guy's got to be special.   Beane's not trading up just because receiver is a position of need.  

 

You may be reading too much into, this wasn't a response based on Beane or a question like that. 

 

I simply posted it because at the time (and even now) there is a feeling on the board that because the class is deep and because of the Watkins trade we in no ways should trade up for one of the top 3, even if they fall and we should prioritize other positions due to the depth of the WR class. People on the board here miss the point that, yes the top 3 are top tier players and fit exactly what Beane has talked about with top tier guys falling in a position of need, but that you will get the same caliber of player in RDs 2-3-4, which is blantanly not true. There is also the revisionst history of the Watkins class and what the BIlls mindset was and the roster at that time. 

 

What Albright said is based off of tweets he was getting that mirror the same thoughts on TBD, don't take the top tier WRs becuase of the high bust rate and look for the better value in RDs 2-3-4. If the talent is great, you should move for the great talent instead of settling for good. This was an overall statement, but it was defintely aimed at Denver fans, who are looking for the Broncos to pass on the RD1 WRs who may fall to 15 or close to and that they should push the need down the board based on the depth. 

 

Just to recap for others:

 

Beane is on record for many things actually, and you can tell he is both genuine when he say's it and for the most part his track record when adhereing to it is spot on. I am going off of memeory here, simply becuase I have looked at all of this stuff very recently and had posts on the board about it (I am also lazy/efficient and don't want to do all the work again)

 

1.) In RD1 (he has only spoked about this in RD1, no mention was made if it remains true in later rounds or not) Beane ranks the board based on talent (top-tier, mid-teir and bottom-tier)

2.) Beane has indeed made mention that the players they look at in RD1 (and I think he mentioned RD2) are the high AAV positions. I am certain, that our scheme has to play a role in this as well - he won't draft a player who doesn't fit our scheme. He won't waste value or talent that way.

3.) When he talks about depth of the class (this was from last year). In a deep class you can push the need down your draft board, and basically draft the less deep position(s) ahead of it. Caveat is that you are talking about equal talent and having good talent throughout the rounds. If you take that in context of this draft, the second and thrid group of WRs are not that much different in terms of draft grades. You can push the WR need down in RD2 and get the same type of player in RD3. In this draft, there is enough differentiation between the top 3 and the next set, where those grades (now we are guessing but probably close to actuality) push them into the top tier guys in RD1. Whereas Higgins, Mims, Reagor Jefferson et al. are all tier 2 guys within the WR position grouping and from an RD1 ranking they are bottom-tier prospects. 

4.) Beane says if you trade back let's say 5 spots and you have 6-7 guys that are similar in a grade, you will have a shot at one of them, but if you are willing to trade back 10 spots, you might as well get out of that round completely since you are willing to miss out on those 6-7 players. 

5.) As we all know, he has said if you have top tier talent falling (Edmunds in RD1 so this invokes point #1 here), he will go up and get it, especially if it is in a position of need, if the need is not there, he may not - it depends and he left himself some wiggle room either way (which makes sense). 

6.) He has talked about the high bust rates on the RD2 WRs and basically pushes it back to not having enough, the right kind of or bad information on those prospects. When asked if he would trade up for a WR, he did say if he is the best player on the board and there is a need, he would go up and get them.

 

As he said, the most important thing this offseason is making sure the Board is right....

 

[auburnbillsbacker]

All of these hypothetical questions are difficult to answer without knowing who is available.  I would be willing to trade up from 22 for the right guy.  I would be willing to trade down to 35 if I thought the player I got there was as good as the guy I would have taken at 22.  I would use 22 then trade back into the first round for talented player who fits a need.  It all depends right.  You can set these trades up in advance.  They just have to be conditional.  If (certain player is there or my guy is not there) we have a deal.