This is the year to trade down and pick up multiple Day 2 picks

[Mango]

Let’s start with the most obvious question in your scenario. What QB is falling to 22 that Indy isn’t taking at 13? 
 

The entire thing is vague and unlikely. A QB needy team to get in front of the Pats of all teams. Who MIGHT be drafting one this year in the first. Or signing a FA...or some weird rumor about trading for JG. 

[cage]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

 

My only argument against the trade down is this:   the Bills will lose two or three important starters (Alexander, Shaq and Philips) and also really could use a starting receiver.  The first round pick, even though it's relatively late in the round, offers at least a decent shot and getting a quality guy to fill one of those slots.   It's tough to give that up.  

 

Maybe the better point is that this is at least the year that a trade down makes more sense than a trade up.  

 

I'm still not exactly sure whether McBeane has caught some lightning in a bottle or if they're sustainably better at scouting/drafting than others, but its really amazing how many of his picks outside the first round have become starters in their rookie years.... Dawkins, Ford, Singletary, Knox, Milano, Taron Johnson.  Thats 6 guys in rounds 2-5 out of 12 picks.  Add in Levi Wallace and that's an astounding batting average.  Can that really keep going??

Edited March 6, 2020 by cage

[yungmack]

10 hours ago, Estro said:

If there's one minor complaint I have with the Bills under the Beane/McDermott era its their propensity to always want to trade up in Rounds 2 & 3. Now they have hit on their fair share of players, but trading up in the draft, as a whole, has proven to be a losing strategy longterm.

 

This year I'm getting the sense the Bills are going to make the smart move and look to sell the #22 pick. Beane, in an interview, gave a hypothetical, but he kind of tipped his hand and admitted the strength of this draft is in rounds 2 and 3......and I think the Bills would love to be in a position position to pick 4 maybe even 5 players in Rounds 2 & 3 of the NFL draft.  How?

 

Glad you asked......

 

Trade pick #22 to a QB needy team looking to leapfrog the Patriots at pick #23.  There are quite a few teams this could apply to, but for the sake of this scenario let's use the Colts who have picks #34 & #75 (which happens to be an almost exact match on the trade value chart)

 

Now the Bills are sitting with picks #34, #54, #75 & #86 and #100 (via a trade up with our 4th and both 5ths, because you know they can't go a whole draft without getting an itch for a trade up)

 

Under this scenario you could have a 2nd day as follows:

#34 - Yetur Gross Matos (DE)

#54 - Clyde Edwards-Helaire (RB)

#75 - Damon Arnette (CB)

#86 - Bryan Edwards (WR)

#100 - KJ Hill (slot WR)

Not likely they will trade down because the most pressing need for the Bills will be replacing Zo, Phillips and Shaq and, unlike WR, where there will be a ton available in later rounds, there are far fewer top defenders this year so they should go fast.

[Shaw66]

16 minutes ago, cage said:

 

I'm still not exactly sure whether McBeane has caught some lightning in a bottle or if they're sustainably better at scouting/drafting than others, but its really amazing how many of his picks outside the first round have become starters in their rookie years.... Dawkins, Ford, Singletary, Knox, Milano, Taron Johnson.  Thats 6 guys in rounds 2-5 out of 12 picks.  Add in Levi Wallace and that's an astounding batting average.  Can that really keep going??

They have done it by drafting "character."   They take good athletes, good football players, who want to work really hard every day and who believe in team.   When your team is lousy, that works.   But as you fill up your roster with those guys, at some point you need something more, you need special players.   Beane's good at finding good players in the mid-rounds, but now he has to start finding better players somewhere.

[Albany,n.y.]

I totally disagree with the premise trading down is better than trading up.  It's true if your organization is run by a bunch of incompetent boobs (insert Nix & Whaley here), because an incompetent boob is like a blind squirrel in a field full of nuts, more nuts, better chance of finding one.  If you have a well run organization with scouts you trust, trading up makes a lot of sense.  When you trade up, you know exactly who you are getting (like when KC targeted Mahomes & we targeted Josh)  SF got Jerry Rice the WR GOAT on a trade up too.  When you trade down you are truly the blind squirrel-you have no clue who will be available when you pick.  Trade up-sure thing on the player you want, trade down- you just bought a pig in a poke.  

To the OP:  Show us the data proving a competent organization that trades down benefits more than a competent organization that trades up  I don't buy your theory & I doubt you have the data to back it up.  I'll go with logic-knowing who you are getting in the draft is better than blindly acquiring extra picks.  

Edited March 6, 2020 by Albany,n.y.

[ngbills]

5 hours ago, BillsFanSD said:

We have more draft picks than spots available on the roster.  This is the perfect year to trade up, not down.

This. We do not need more depth. We need elite players that can contribute right away. We are young and not looking for guys to replace starters in a few years at most positions. Not saying you have to trade up but trading down for more picks in the later rounds makes no sense. 

[cage]

2 minutes ago, ngbills said:

This. We do not need more depth. We need elite players that can contribute right away. We are young and not looking for guys to replace starters in a few years at most positions. Not saying you have to trade up but trading down for more picks in the later rounds makes no sense. 

 

Doesn't trading up mean that we're close to 1 player away?  To move up from 22 to lets say 15, it would certainly cost our #2.  So then our next pick isn't until end of 3rd round.  I'm not convinced we should move up for WR.  Perhaps for OT.  I can see for DE as really my top wish would be Chaisson.  It seems like there's a drop-off at the position if we can't get him??  

[billsfan89]

Here's the thing, if you know about all this great talent and the benefit of trading down then odds are the other teams do too. Trading down in the end mostly comes down to luck. Is there a team behind you that wants a player that falls to your position badly enough? Given how good McBeane is at drafting I would love a trade down BUT I also know that McBeane isn't afraid to trade up for a player they like. So as much as I could see a trade down to help them acquire more picks I could also see a trade up to the 16 range if a dynamic player they loves falls a bit. 

[Putin]

11 hours ago, MJS said:

I'd tend to agree, but what our team lacks is elite talent. We have decent depths and decent starters all around. We need those impact players. And those types are more commonly found higher in the draft. So I think we should stay put or even trade up a few spots if a play maker falls.

I agree 100% !!

I think will need to move ahead of Philly if a WR is what will be looking for in the 1st round and I HOPE that it is !!!

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

4 hours ago, MarkyMannn said:

i like the 2018 draft.  Pick a guy at the top and get back in and get another mid-round first.  How'd that work out?  Pretty good.  

 

Besides we got few holes, we need quality picks, not quantity

Exactly. We have nine picks now. After free  agency, we may have fewer holes to fill. If we didn't trade UP we may not have had the quartback of our defense and a potential all-star @ MLB. Trading up or standing pat is the answer. QUALITY>QUANTITY

[Teddy KGB]

No     
 

 

no.  
 

 

 

no 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

3 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

The trick in that case is finding value for your trade down.  There has to be a team - or better yet teams - that do see a difference in 22 vs mid 30s and are willing to pay for it.  Usually that points to positional importance or scheme specific players.  22 isn’t a terrible spot for that.  Elite and blue chip prospects will be gone.  Purple chip prospects will probably be running out around that pick.  Maybe we can’t trade up for one we want and there’s only one or two left that don’t fit here.  Some team will come get them.  Or maybe they run out totally and someone wants to snag a red chip QB or DE (since it’s such a poor class overall).  I’d rather get a better player, but this is a good way to go if we can’t. 

Ha!  Jinx!

I agree. To make this work there needs to be a prospect or two that falls at a position the Bill's Bill's don't need. The obvious would be QB but maybe TE, MLB or DB.  Bills are unlikely to invest first round resources in those positions.  The teams below us know that too. So they another team to cover someone at 22 and feel the need to leap past the Patriots 

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, ngbills said:

This. We do not need more depth. We need elite players that can contribute right away. We are young and not looking for guys to replace starters in a few years at most positions. Not saying you have to trade up but trading down for more picks in the later rounds makes no sense. 

The only place you find with any certainty elite players who can contribute right away is at the top of the first round.   By the bottom of the first round you're getting guys who should be starter sooner rather later but whose value is going to be realized in their second and third years.    Look at Ed Oliver.    Top 10 pick and he didn't contribute right away - he played, but not in any way that made a great difference.  

 

Although the Bills actually do need more depth, what they really need is better starters at multiple positions.   And they need several, not just one or two.   Trading down creates an opportunity to get one more guy who has a good shot being a serious contributor over the next several seasons.  

[Formerly Allan in MD]

This is not necessarily the year for anything until free agency plays out.

[ngbills]

Players selected in the first 100 picks of last years drafted = 50% were considered primary starters.

Players selected after 100 of last years draft = less than 10% were considered primary starters.

 

Before you say its skewed by the very late round picks. Picks 101-150 = less than 15% were primary starters. 

 

You hear about the success stories. But no one talks about the other 90%.

 

 

[Putin]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

The only place you find with any certainty elite players who can contribute right away is at the top of the first round.   By the bottom of the first round you're getting guys who should be starter sooner rather later but whose value is going to be realized in their second and third years.    Look at Ed Oliver.    Top 10 pick and he didn't contribute right away - he played, but not in any way that made a great difference.  

 

Although the Bills actually do need more depth, what they really need is better starters at multiple positions.   And they need several, not just one or two.   Trading down creates an opportunity to get one more guy who has a good shot being a serious contributor over the next several seasons.  

Not just starters  we need a difference maker especially on offense , There’s nothing in the free agency , I’m not a big fan of trading up but I think this is the year to do it and grab a top WR , 

[Clemfield2622]

I want them to trade down every year because I am a giant nerd. 

 

The idea that elite talents are only found in the top 15 or so picks has been disproven so much, people need to get that crap out of their heads.

 

All Pro's come from every round.

 

Picks are lottery tickets, and the more you have, the better your odds.

 

I like McBeane a lot. And while I like Dawkins, Allen, Edmunds, Ford, Knox, they cost about 5 starters worth of picks to trade up for...

[Scott7975]

They are more likely to try and trade later picks to move up then they are to trade higher picks to move down.

[whorlnut]

You “trade down” guys are setting yourself up for a major disappointment. A poster on the first page of this thread nailed it when he said this is the year to trade up. We already have 9 picks and our roster doesn’t have a lot of holes. We aren’t keeping all nine players so I expect a few trade ups to get as many top 75 picks as we can.

 

I just don’t think Beane is the type to sit and allow other teams to take his guy. By trading down we will be out of the running for one of the top DEs, OTs, and someone like Mims or Jefferson. That’s too risky and Beane has made a trend to go get his guys. 
 

I think the multiple late round picks will be trade bait. 

[BeastMaster]

I believe in never committing to a specific strategy until after free agency and until the board plays itself out.

 

Until then it's foolish to be locked in to anything 

[Augie]

All of this talk about trading up and trading back is futile since we don’t know who’s available and how their board lines up. This will come down to decisions based upon reality rather than preferred strategy. That’s why it’s hard, but so far I like how they have handled our drafts. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 hours ago, Clemfield2622 said:

I like McBeane a lot. And while I like Dawkins, Allen, Edmunds, Ford, Knox, they cost about 5 starters worth of picks to trade up for...

There's absolutely no way you can say that with any certainty.

 

[Hardhatharry]

18 hours ago, Estro said:

If there's one minor complaint I have with the Bills under the Beane/McDermott era its their propensity to always want to trade up in Rounds 2 & 3. Now they have hit on their fair share of players, but trading up in the draft, as a whole, has proven to be a losing strategy longterm.

 

This year I'm getting the sense the Bills are going to make the smart move and look to sell the #22 pick. Beane, in an interview, gave a hypothetical, but he kind of tipped his hand and admitted the strength of this draft is in rounds 2 and 3......and I think the Bills would love to be in a position position to pick 4 maybe even 5 players in Rounds 2 & 3 of the NFL draft.  How?

 

Glad you asked......

 

Trade pick #22 to a QB needy team looking to leapfrog the Patriots at pick #23.  There are quite a few teams this could apply to, but for the sake of this scenario let's use the Colts who have picks #34 & #75 (which happens to be an almost exact match on the trade value chart)

 

Now the Bills are sitting with picks #34, #54, #75 & #86 and #100 (via a trade up with our 4th and both 5ths, because you know they can't go a whole draft without getting an itch for a trade up)

 

Under this scenario you could have a 2nd day as follows:

#34 - Yetur Gross Matos (DE)

#54 - Clyde Edwards-Helaire (RB)

#75 - Damon Arnette (CB)

#86 - Bryan Edwards (WR)

#100 - KJ Hill (slot WR)

This is absolutely horrible....

[Clemfield2622]

44 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

There's absolutely no way you can say that with any certainty.

 

Josh Allen trade cost them a starting LT and 2 2nd round picks.

 

Edmunds trade cost them the 1st pick of the 3rd round

 

Zay Jones trade cost them a 3rd

 

5

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Clemfield2622 said:

Josh Allen trade cost them a starting LT and 2 2nd round picks.

 

Edmunds trade cost them the 1st pick of the 3rd round

 

Zay Jones trade cost them a 3rd

 

5

 

 

 

Again, how can you POSSIBLY say those two 2nd round picks would be starters or even that they'd get a starting LT instead of JA?

 

Not taking JA changes the whole draft board for every team.

 

You can NOT make that claim, it's completely impossible to say.

 

[Clemfield2622]

10 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

 

Again, how can you POSSIBLY say those two 2nd round picks would be starters or even that they'd get a starting LT instead of JA?

 

Not taking JA changes the whole draft board for every team.

 

You can NOT make that claim, it's completely impossible to say.

 

Where did I say they would be starting instead of Josh Allen?

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 minutes ago, Clemfield2622 said:

Where did I say they would be starting instead of Josh Allen?

 

 

"Josh Allen trade cost them a starting LT and 2 2nd round picks. "

 

 

[Augie]

10 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

"Josh Allen trade cost them a starting LT and 2 2nd round picks. "

 

 

 

That Cordy Glenn trade isn’t looking too bad now, is it? 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

That Cordy Glenn trade isn’t looking too bad now, is it? 

 

Gotcha.

 

[Albany,n.y.]

44 minutes ago, Clemfield2622 said:

Josh Allen trade cost them a starting LT and 2 2nd round picks.

 

Edmunds trade cost them the 1st pick of the 3rd round

 

Zay Jones trade cost them a 3rd

 

5

 

So, what would you have done instead of trading up for Allen, who was the top QB on their board?  Keep the picks and end up with Mason Rudolph and be in the QB market this offseason?  Don't say  draft Jackson, because he wasn't on their board.  From 2016 to 2018 all but 1 1st round QB was traded up for, with many satisfied customers.  Maybe it's time to admit the GMs around the league know more than you do.  I figured that out years ago, but some of you still think you know more than the best GMs in the league.

 

[Augie]

1 hour ago, Albany,n.y. said:

So, what would you have done instead of trading up for Allen, who was the top QB on their board?  Keep the picks and end up with Mason Rudolph and be in the QB market this offseason?  Don't say  draft Jackson, because he wasn't on their board.  From 2016 to 2018 all but 1 1st round QB was traded up for, with many satisfied customers.  Maybe it's time to admit the GMs around the league know more than you do.  I figured that out years ago, but some of you still think you know more than the best GMs in the league.

 

 

No, no, no. The average poster here is much smarter than our FO staff........IF you give them the advantage of hindsight. That’s an important requirement.   

 

I could win the Powerball next week, if only I could have the right numbers today. 

 

 

.

Edited March 7, 2020 by Augie

[BillsFan17]

If I am moving down, I'm looking to add to  next years capital. With having nine picks already in this class, I'd like to continue to have a volume of picks year after year.

 

[BillsMafi$]

This is the year you trade up for a game breaker 

[njbuff]

On the reverse side........................

 

Are you folks willing to trade up to 9 and give Jacksonville a 2021 1st round pick for CeeDee Lamb?

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, njbuff said:

On the reverse side........................

 

Are you folks willing to trade up to 9 and give Jacksonville a 2021 1st round pick for CeeDee Lamb?

A lot depends on if you think the top three are elite and truly distance themselves from the next rung of receivers in a deep draft. If not, wait for Jefferson, Higgins, etc. Imo, WR1 is a key to Josh Allen's continued development and significant improvement on offense. You're not getting one in FA and then it's a question of whether any of the rookies are likely to break out quickly. If Beane determines Lamb is the next Julio Jones, for example, I expect him to be aggressive to move up. I personally like the fella and am inclined to take a shot, but I'm no expert.

[HappyDays]

15 hours ago, Pete said:

I would always trade down for extra picks- it increases odds of hitting on an elite talent,

 

Not really. Trading down increases your chance of getting a starting level talent. If you want elite talent you're far more likely to hit that in the 1st round.

 

https://www.betlabssports.com/blog/picks-perform-best-nfl-draft/

 

 

So from 1st to 2nd round, Pro Bowlers drop from a 39.3% chance to a 16.7% chance. For all pros it's 16.1% to 4.8%. And it only gets worse from there.

 

And obviously the higher the pick, the likelier your odds of getting an elite player. In a draft like this one with three tier 1A prospects at WR it makes a lot of sense to trade up to maximize our chance of getting an elite player at a position of need.

 

We don't need more depth. We need game changers.

Edited March 7, 2020 by HappyDays

[HappyDays]

14 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

The difference in the talent is what matters.   The special talent is generally in the top four or five, maybe up to the top 10, but after that, you aren't talking about guys who are likely All-Pro and HOF talents.   You're just talking about guys who project to be very good NFL players.

 

Most years I would agree this is the case. I'm generally against trading up. The difference this year is that there are three agreed upon elite WR prospects, and a ton of 2nd/3rd tier WR depth. Any one of Jeudy, Lamb, or Ruggs would be a top 10 pick any other draft year. But there aren't that many WR needy teams in the top 10, and a couple teams will convince themselves they can wait for later WR talent based on the depth of the class. So it is likely that 1 or 2 of those WRs will fall out of the top 10. Which means we could trade up for an elite WR prospect without selling the farm. That is a very unique position to be in and I hope we don't squander it.

Edited March 7, 2020 by HappyDays

[Ethan in Cleveland]

3 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Not really. Trading down increases your chance of getting a starting level talent. If you want elite talent you're far more likely to hit that in the 1st round.

 

https://www.betlabssports.com/blog/picks-perform-best-nfl-draft/

 

 

So from 1st to 2nd round, Pro Bowlers drop from a 39.3% chance to a 16.7% chance. For all pros it's 16.1% to 4.8%. And it only gets worse from there.

 

And obviously the higher the pick, the likelier your odds of getting an elite player. In a draft like this one with three tier 1A prospects at WR it makes a lot of sense to trade up to maximize our chance of getting an elite player at a position of need.

 

We don't need more depth. We need game changers.

You forgot to add the odds for the extras picks acquired. That’s the whole point of trading down.  Instead of pinning hopes on three guys in rounds 1-3, you ma be able to draft 5 in rounds 1-3.

There are tons of great WR’s in NFL that were not taken in the first round.

[Clemfield2622]

8 hours ago, Albany,n.y. said:

So, what would you have done instead of trading up for Allen, who was the top QB on their board?  Keep the picks and end up with Mason Rudolph and be in the QB market this offseason?  Don't say  draft Jackson, because he wasn't on their board.  From 2016 to 2018 all but 1 1st round QB was traded up for, with many satisfied customers.  Maybe it's time to admit the GMs around the league know more than you do.  I figured that out years ago, but some of you still think you know more than the best GMs in the league.

 

I don't think I know more than anybody. I just watch 32 teams try and field competitive teams, and a lot of them suck at it. Why do some suck? Because they think they know what makes a player great , when in reality it's a crap shoot.

 

I'm just not a fan of trade ups. You're giving up lottery tickets for a shot at a guy YOU think is great. But GM's and scouts are wrong every single day.

 

How many of those QB's traded up for worked out, and how many busted?  I understand QB is the most important position in sports, but while GM's have an incredible amount of knowledge and do incredible work to get it right, get it wrong all the time.

 

That's all I'm trying to say. 

[Albany,n.y.]

2 hours ago, Clemfield2622 said:

I don't think I know more than anybody. I just watch 32 teams try and field competitive teams, and a lot of them suck at it. Why do some suck? Because they think they know what makes a player great , when in reality it's a crap shoot.

 

I'm just not a fan of trade ups. You're giving up lottery tickets for a shot at a guy YOU think is great. But GM's and scouts are wrong every single day.

 

How many of those QB's traded up for worked out, and how many busted?  I understand QB is the most important position in sports, but while GM's have an incredible amount of knowledge and do incredible work to get it right, get it wrong all the time.

 

That's all I'm trying to say. 

Here's why we disagree:  You think it's just a crapshoot.  I think a competent organization with good scouting can judge players well enough that it's not a crapshoot.  The draft becomes a crapshoot the further down you go.  

 

Ok, let's look at the QBs traded up for.  The jury is still out on most of the 2018 QBs, but of the 2 prior drafts the majority of teams are totally satisfied.  The exceptions clearly are Arizona with Rosen & Denver with  Lynch.  The jury is still out on the Bears choice of Trubisky, but the other 2 QB picks traded up for are their team's franchise QBs.

 

2016: Goff, Wentz, Lynch.  2017: Trubisky, Mahomes, Watson. 2018: Darnold, Allen, Rosen, Jackson.  Of the 10, 7 have led their team to the playoffs, 3 of the teams have already been in the Super Bowl with 1 winning it & another winning it after the QB got hurt and his backup won the game.  Note the best organizations traded up for the QBs who have had the best results, while the 2 biggest busts were from questionable organizations (I include Denver since they have failed a few times finding the right QB).