Jump to content

Bills trade for Diggs - jw no discussions on a restructure


Recommended Posts

Frankly, I think this notion that the Bills don't need those later round picks is wrong-headed.   Those picks are valuable, and to say that guys drafted in the later rounds wouldn't make this roster misperceives what happens on a typical NFL roster. 

 

With the roster plus practice squad plus a few free agents you pick up over the course of the season, you need about 70 players a year.   Even if players had an average career of 7 years (they don't), you need 10 new players a year.   And, no, it isn't relevant that some of the new players you pick up from other teams.   Every team needs 10 new players, because 10 of your players are retiring every year.   We don't notice many of them, because they are guys who were on the practice squad, or special teams for a year or two, but one way or another, 10 or more players are leaving the league each year.   

 

So you need 10 new players every year.    If you're perfect in the draft, you get seven, and you still need three rookie free agents.   If you have fewer than seven picks, you need more rookie free agents.   If you're less than perfect, you need more rookie free agents.   

 

There's a rookie pool coming into the league every year.   If you have fewer draft picks, you have to take more rookie free agents, which means that other teams are getting to pick players who, although they may end up having short careers, still are better than the ones who will be left when you go after the rookie free agents.   

 

So those picks the Bills just traded DO have value.   Maybe not much trade value, but they are help your team maintain a certain level of talent.   They don't all make, but some do.   

 

I'm not saying the Bills made a bad deal; in fact, I like it for the reason I gave in a posts somewhere: the Bills improved three positions by getting one guy.    But don't think that Beane thinks those picks he traded were worthless.   He'd love to have those picks, because he finds players in those rounds.   It's just that he'd love to have Diggs more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Frankly, I think this notion that the Bills don't need those later round picks is wrong-headed.   Those picks are valuable, and to say that guys drafted in the later rounds wouldn't make this roster misperceives what happens on a typical NFL roster. 

 

With the roster plus practice squad plus a few free agents you pick up over the course of the season, you need about 70 players a year.   Even if players had an average career of 7 years (they don't), you need 10 new players a year.   And, no, it isn't relevant that some of the new players you pick up from other teams.   Every team needs 10 new players, because 10 of your players are retiring every year.   We don't notice many of them, because they are guys who were on the practice squad, or special teams for a year or two, but one way or another, 10 or more players are leaving the league each year.   

 

So you need 10 new players every year.    If you're perfect in the draft, you get seven, and you still need three rookie free agents.   If you have fewer than seven picks, you need more rookie free agents.   If you're less than perfect, you need more rookie free agents.   

 

There's a rookie pool coming into the league every year.   If you have fewer draft picks, you have to take more rookie free agents, which means that other teams are getting to pick players who, although they may end up having short careers, still are better than the ones who will be left when you go after the rookie free agents.   

 

So those picks the Bills just traded DO have value.   Maybe not much trade value, but they are help your team maintain a certain level of talent.   They don't all make, but some do.   

 

I'm not saying the Bills made a bad deal; in fact, I like it for the reason I gave in a posts somewhere: the Bills improved three positions by getting one guy.    But don't think that Beane thinks those picks he traded were worthless.   He'd love to have those picks, because he finds players in those rounds.   It's just that he'd love to have Diggs more. 

 

They're not worthless: just not worth wringing your hands over losing them.  If they're that important, trade down in the 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Frankly, I think this notion that the Bills don't need those later round picks is wrong-headed.   Those picks are valuable, and to say that guys drafted in the later rounds wouldn't make this roster misperceives what happens on a typical NFL roster. 

 

With the roster plus practice squad plus a few free agents you pick up over the course of the season, you need about 70 players a year.   Even if players had an average career of 7 years (they don't), you need 10 new players a year.   And, no, it isn't relevant that some of the new players you pick up from other teams.   Every team needs 10 new players, because 10 of your players are retiring every year.   We don't notice many of them, because they are guys who were on the practice squad, or special teams for a year or two, but one way or another, 10 or more players are leaving the league each year.   

 

So you need 10 new players every year.    If you're perfect in the draft, you get seven, and you still need three rookie free agents.   If you have fewer than seven picks, you need more rookie free agents.   If you're less than perfect, you need more rookie free agents.   

 

There's a rookie pool coming into the league every year.   If you have fewer draft picks, you have to take more rookie free agents, which means that other teams are getting to pick players who, although they may end up having short careers, still are better than the ones who will be left when you go after the rookie free agents.   

 

So those picks the Bills just traded DO have value.   Maybe not much trade value, but they are help your team maintain a certain level of talent.   They don't all make, but some do.   

 

I'm not saying the Bills made a bad deal; in fact, I like it for the reason I gave in a posts somewhere: the Bills improved three positions by getting one guy.    But don't think that Beane thinks those picks he traded were worthless.   He'd love to have those picks, because he finds players in those rounds.   It's just that he'd love to have Diggs more. 

Not disagreeing (because you do need that depth), but Beane did even say at the end of the season presser, that he didn't see all of our original picks prior to this trade making the team and would use them to move up down or acquire players

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Frankly, I think this notion that the Bills don't need those later round picks is wrong-headed.   Those picks are valuable, and to say that guys drafted in the later rounds wouldn't make this roster misperceives what happens on a typical NFL roster. 

 

With the roster plus practice squad plus a few free agents you pick up over the course of the season, you need about 70 players a year.   Even if players had an average career of 7 years (they don't), you need 10 new players a year.   And, no, it isn't relevant that some of the new players you pick up from other teams.   Every team needs 10 new players, because 10 of your players are retiring every year.   We don't notice many of them, because they are guys who were on the practice squad, or special teams for a year or two, but one way or another, 10 or more players are leaving the league each year.   

 

So you need 10 new players every year.    If you're perfect in the draft, you get seven, and you still need three rookie free agents.   If you have fewer than seven picks, you need more rookie free agents.   If you're less than perfect, you need more rookie free agents.   

 

There's a rookie pool coming into the league every year.   If you have fewer draft picks, you have to take more rookie free agents, which means that other teams are getting to pick players who, although they may end up having short careers, still are better than the ones who will be left when you go after the rookie free agents.   

 

So those picks the Bills just traded DO have value.   Maybe not much trade value, but they are help your team maintain a certain level of talent.   They don't all make, but some do.   

 

I'm not saying the Bills made a bad deal; in fact, I like it for the reason I gave in a posts somewhere: the Bills improved three positions by getting one guy.    But don't think that Beane thinks those picks he traded were worthless.   He'd love to have those picks, because he finds players in those rounds.   It's just that he'd love to have Diggs more. 

 

Your math is wrong.  53 players, 46 active is the number.  Not the total Camp Bodies numbers.  You can fill camp bodies with UDFA too.

 

Beane even said we dont have enough roster spots for all the draft picks.  Beane was not going to draft 10 players in this years draft and was always going to use them as capital to move around.

 

No one said those late picks dont have value, clearly they do or teams wouldn't trade for them.  But people freaking out are severely over valuing them.  Some one will name one Pro Bowler taken in those glossing over the thousands who didn't make it in the NFL.  I mean Brady was a 6th round pick...does anyone really believe trying to find your QB of the future in the later rounds is a sound strategy to find a franchise QB?  No, but yes it can happen.  

 

Those rounds usually help identify depth and ST players, all things we got plenty of at most positions right now.  Sure there are places to upgrade, but honestly, what we need more than anything is top end talent, not mid tier or role players who we got tons of.  So using some of the EXTRA capital we had to find ST and depth guys, we were able to land a top 10 player at a major area of need.  Everyone should love this move.  

 

And most importantly, we had extra picks in those rounds and still have all of our own picks in this draft except our first (which was essentially Diggs).  People are so hung up on the number of picks that its making them think it was expensive.  Yet most of those same people wanted us to trade up and get Juedy or Lamb, which would have actually been MORE expensive than getting Diggs as we likely had to trade up to 13 or 14 to insure we got one, and the very least to 16.  Our compensation we paid on Diggs was equivalent of only moving up to 18.  But guess what else, no one would have taken back a 5th, 6th, and next years 4th to trade back in the first round.  We would have actually had to use LESS picks, but MORE valuable picks to make any move inside the first round.

 

This is why everyone is baffled by those who are really upset over compensation.  Most wanted something that would have cost us MORE for an UNPROVEN rookie who likely odds are would not end up as good as Diggs anyway based on hit rates in the first round.  

 

 

Edited by Alphadawg7
  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Frankly, I think this notion that the Bills don't need those later round picks is wrong-headed.   Those picks are valuable, and to say that guys drafted in the later rounds wouldn't make this roster misperceives what happens on a typical NFL roster. 

 

With the roster plus practice squad plus a few free agents you pick up over the course of the season, you need about 70 players a year.   Even if players had an average career of 7 years (they don't), you need 10 new players a year.   And, no, it isn't relevant that some of the new players you pick up from other teams.   Every team needs 10 new players, because 10 of your players are retiring every year.   We don't notice many of them, because they are guys who were on the practice squad, or special teams for a year or two, but one way or another, 10 or more players are leaving the league each year.   

 

So you need 10 new players every year.    If you're perfect in the draft, you get seven, and you still need three rookie free agents.   If you have fewer than seven picks, you need more rookie free agents.   If you're less than perfect, you need more rookie free agents.   

 

There's a rookie pool coming into the league every year.   If you have fewer draft picks, you have to take more rookie free agents, which means that other teams are getting to pick players who, although they may end up having short careers, still are better than the ones who will be left when you go after the rookie free agents.   

 

So those picks the Bills just traded DO have value.   Maybe not much trade value, but they are help your team maintain a certain level of talent.   They don't all make, but some do.   

 

I'm not saying the Bills made a bad deal; in fact, I like it for the reason I gave in a posts somewhere: the Bills improved three positions by getting one guy.    But don't think that Beane thinks those picks he traded were worthless.   He'd love to have those picks, because he finds players in those rounds.   It's just that he'd love to have Diggs more. 

I wasn’t arguing that those picks don’t have any value, but rather that the trade value of them all amounts to what it would take to move up 2-4 spots in round 1.  Of course, you at least think you are getting a better prospect when you draft someone in round 5-7 than you think you’ll get in undrafted free agents.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mattynh said:

 

I really dont understand this mentality.  Wyatt Teller is 100% irrelevant.   How you acquired the capital does not matter, this is like people who get a tax return spending like drunkin sailers because it was unexpected money or something.

 

How often does a 5th rounder get cut?    Not likely to get cut.  Likely to not be an impact player, sure.   My issue is more with the #22 pick, that is a top talent at a bargain price with a 5th year option.   That is near where Tre White was picked for instance, but I understand it could also be a bust.

You're talking potential. You hope #22 is a player as good as Diggs WHEN they hit their ceiling. It was moved for a known commodity to hit the window before Allen monopolizes the cap

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

I think the Bills are about done with big signings after Poyers extension.

 

With Dawkins, White and Milano coming up next year they are going to need about 40-45 mil between those three.

 

 

I'm gonna pull the cap info now, it made sense in here for a little bit, but doesn't fit any longer with the other signings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to all who replied.     

 

And I know that Beane said they don't have enough room on the roster for seven draft picks to make it, but he was talking about the roster.   

 

And I'm not arguing that they paid too much for Diggs.   I agree that a guy like Diggs is potentially valuable enough that the stuff you throw in on the back end of the trade isn't too important.   If Diggs works out, the positives on the team will way outweigh whatever a couple of sixth round picks will do for you.  

 

But those picks DO matter.   You need new players every year, and the best of the crop go in the draft.   That was point.  

 

And Alpha, the math isn't wrong.   Overall, on average, each team needs 10 or 15 new guys each season for the season, not camp.  That's 10 or 15 guys coming out of college.   More some years, fewer others, but on average you need a bunch.   Most of them may never get beyond the practice squad, but you need them.   And if year after year your opponents are drafting more and you're signing more undrafted free agents, over time, they're going to have better talent than you.  It's simple logic.

 

But as I said, I don't think there's much point in arguing about whether throwing in one or two of those picks worth it.   To suggest the Bills overpaid because they added those picks doesn't make a ton of sense.   The deal is pretty much Diggs for a first and change.   

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bills have  136mil for 2021 in contracts leaving them lots of room. 2021 cap should be 207-210 million looking at the jump from last few years.  Bills still have the 4th most space in the league currently even with the signings and adding diggs

Edited by Vicarious_Fan16
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Allen can't perform with the tools he has now, this trade might really haunt us.

We thought it was bad trading a #1 to move up for Watkins, but this draft is loaded with WR's, and we just gave away a ton of pics for one (albeit a very good one).

I'm cautiously optimistic, just hoping our easy schedule last year is understood in proper context by the coaching staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BigDingus said:

If Allen can't perform with the tools he has now, this trade might really haunt us.

We thought it was bad trading a #1 to move up for Watkins, but this draft is loaded with WR's, and we just gave away a ton of pics for one (albeit a very good one).

I'm cautiously optimistic, just hoping our easy schedule last year is understood in proper context by the coaching staff.

I feel like this is different from watkins

qe know what we are getting

it didn’t cost as much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

I think the Bills are about done with big signings after Poyers extension.

 

With Dawkins, White and Milano coming up next year they are going to need about 40-45 mil between those three.

 

 

Well, I'm no capologist at all, but in terms of talent on the roster the Bills are getting to the point where next season we're going to start seeing guys cut as cap casualties, or free agents allowed to sign elsewhere.   We already saw Philips and Shaq go, and that's going to become the norm.   That's what happened in New England for years.   

 

Having said that, I have no idea if the Bills are done yet.   Maybe with big signings as you say, and all that will be left will be the $2-3 million one-year deals that dribble in over the next few months.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This trade is expensive because the only sport i currently have.... is dreaming about what we would have spent the first pick on.

 

Last mock i saw (moving the chains) had us picking up Lamb at #22

 

 

more i think about it the more i like it.

 

Lamb would need time to get to NFL speed, Diggs wont and he has 4 years of control with a good price.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Im good with that...Youre giving away possible "fringe" starter type picks  and a first..and YOU ARE NOT getting a WR of Diggs caliber at #22...and if you traded up to get one what would that have cost you?? probably about what you gave up in that trade OR MORE id we meant WAY up to get a guy possible of Diggs caliber because for that you have to get into the top 10.

5 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

If Allen can't perform with the tools he has now, this trade might really haunt us.

We thought it was bad trading a #1 to move up for Watkins, but this draft is loaded with WR's, and we just gave away a ton of pics for one (albeit a very good one).

I'm cautiously optimistic, just hoping our easy schedule last year is understood in proper context by the coaching staff.

IMO there isnt a guy after the first few(3) off the board thats gonna be Diggs caliber. for me if you were thinking WR in the first your not getting Diggs at #22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JM57 said:

You're talking potential. You hope #22 is a player as good as Diggs WHEN they hit their ceiling. It was moved for a known commodity to hit the window before Allen monopolizes the cap

 

Diggs is good.  A #22 could be better or worse than Diggs.  Tre White at #27 was there out of the gate.   Not to mention a 4-5-6 picks where you find guys like Diggs (he was a 5th round pick) on occasion.  At the end of the day, I like Diggs, I dont like the compensation it took.  There are a lot who seem to not care about the compensation a long as they have their shiny fantasy WR.  But I am just a guy on the internet....the price was steep though, its being talked about all over the media that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, qwksilver said:

And that's why we'll probably have to re-up the contract....

 

Interesting question - Diggs does have FOUR YEARS left right?, which would make it pretty crazy precedent to renegotiate so soon.

11 minutes ago, Nester said:

This trade is expensive because the only sport i currently have.... is dreaming about what we would have spent the first pick on.

 

Last mock i saw (moving the chains) had us picking up Lamb at #22

 

 

more i think about it the more i like it.

 

Lamb would need time to get to NFL speed, Diggs wont and he has 4 years of control with a good price.

 

Lamb at #22 is NOT HAPPENING.  Long gone by then.  

 

We were looking at Shenault or Higgins.

Edited by BobChalmers
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BobChalmers said:

 

Interesting question - Diggs does have FOUR YEARS left right?, which would make it pretty crazy precedent to renegotiate so soon.

Hopkins has 3 years left, and rumor has it he wanted a new deal, and that was part of the reason BOB traded him? We'll see what happens with him and the Cardinals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mattynh said:

 

Diggs is good.  A #22 could be better or worse than Diggs.  Tre White at #27 was there out of the gate.   Not to mention a 4-5-6 picks where you find guys like Diggs (he was a 5th round pick) on occasion.  At the end of the day, I like Diggs, I dont like the compensation it took.  There are a lot who seem to not care about the compensation a long as they have their shiny fantasy WR.  But I am just a guy on the internet....the price was steep though, its being talked about all over the media that way.

Especially because McBeane claim to be build-through-the-draft guys, I hear you.   

 

But one of the things about Beane is he's fearless about Monday morning quarterbacking.   When he sees something that he thinks works, especially something where's there agreement in the room from the coaches and the scouts, he goes and gets it.   He made this deal quickly, in part because, I'm sure Minnie was telling him he was on the clock.   

 

I think it's fair to assume the Bills had done their homework on Diggs.   They certainly scouted him for the game last season, and they also knew he was likely to be on the block or released this season, given his troubles with the Vikings.   For Beane, if it's a guy he wants, he clearly would prefer to overpay than to miss the opportunity.   

 

Maybe lightning is going to strike and the Vikings will find a star late in the draft with one of the Bills' picks.   If that happens, it's nice for the Vikings, but the question always is "are you happy with what you got?"   If you're happy, the price is less important.   

 

McDermott is fretting that he gave up the pick that landed Mahomes in the KC.   He got White and he got the ammunition that got him Allen.   If you get a guy you like, you don't look back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BobChalmers said:

 

Interesting question - Diggs does have FOUR YEARS left right?, which would make it pretty crazy precedent to renegotiate so soon.

 

Lamb at #22 is NOT HAPPENING.  Long gone by then.  

 

We were looking at Shenault or Higgins.

Smart move, #22 for the Tier 2 guys was a big overdraft. To go up and secure one of the top 3 would require a lot of picks - this hits it out of the park

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mattynh said:

 

Diggs is good.  A #22 could be better or worse than Diggs.  Tre White at #27 was there out of the gate.   Not to mention a 4-5-6 picks where you find guys like Diggs (he was a 5th round pick) on occasion.  At the end of the day, I like Diggs, I dont like the compensation it took.  There are a lot who seem to not care about the compensation a long as they have their shiny fantasy WR.  But I am just a guy on the internet....the price was steep though, its being talked about all over the media that way.

This year Buffalo had 2 5th rounders, and 3 6th rounders.  After the trade Buffalo still has 7 picks.  The 4th round pick is for 2021.  The draft is important.  Beane out bid 2 other teams for a #1 wr and didnt mortgage the draft to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BobChalmers said:

 

Interesting question - Diggs does have FOUR YEARS left right?, which would make it pretty crazy precedent to renegotiate so soon.

 

Lamb at #22 is NOT HAPPENING.  Long gone by then.  

 

We were looking at Shenault or Higgins.

Vikings radio color analyst doesn't think he will immediately get a new contract.

 

 

Edited by Warcodered
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. 50 pages in and I never thought so many people would be so enamored in and attached to the speculative value of draft picks, especially lower round draft picks. Mystery-box syndrome seems to be endemic around here. 

Edited by JoPoy88
  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I feel like this is different from watkins

qe know what we are getting

it didn’t cost as much

Correct.  The team is also in a position where Diggs is expected to be one of the last pieces of the puzzle, and we're not in the market for a QB.  It's unlikely that a guy taken at 22 is going to match Diggs's production over the next two years, which are the last two years of cheap Josh Allen quarterbacking.  It looks like a good trade for both teams. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mannc said:

Correct.  The team is also in a position where Diggs is expected to be one of the last pieces of the puzzle, and we're not in the market for a QB.  It's unlikely that a guy taken at 22 is going to match Diggs's production over the next two years, which are the last two years of cheap Josh Allen quarterbacking.  It looks like a good trade for both teams. 

 

 

...I'd say a very fair and accurate assessment......now versus (potentially) later....:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...