Draft trade thought -- complete & total "what if"

[glazeduck]

Hear me out... I promise I am not high (on anything but a lot of coffee), drunk or huffing any fumes (stronger than the occasional sharpie). This is not even something I'm necessarily advocating for and a complete and totally speculative "what if" based on various draft rumors, an insatiable (probably unhealthy) obsession with getting Kyle Pitts on this roster and the general desire among many around here to move on from Tremaine Edmonds. This is out of leftfield, but here goes...

 

• Despite having a Pro Bowl MLB and resigning Milano, Buffalo's been tied to several LB prospects in the draft. It's no secret, however, that said Pro Bowl MLB did not have his best season this past year and he's also approaching a big pay day.
• The Cowboys at 10 have been tied to Zaven Collins in recent rumors, despite their lofty draft slot, suggesting they're in the market for a big/athletic LB.
• Dallas is also rumored to be eyeing a number of trade down scenarios.
• Beane has made no secret that he's open to moving up in the draft to secure the guy he likes. 
• This draft seems fairly deep at LB, so ostensibly a team could potentially find a replacement level starter in the mid rounds (plus a couple interesting names in FA).
• While certainly no lock, the draft board is setup in such a way that it's possible that Kyle Pitts could fall to the teens.

 

What if, we were exploring the idea of including Edmunds in a package to move up for Pitts, in the event that he did make it to the Cowboys at 10? When KC traded with us for Mahomes, they gave us their current 1, 3 and the following year's 1 to move from 27 to 10. But was also for a QB, so you could arguably expect a bit of a premium there, negligibly offsetting a lot more "make good" in this what-if situation. An offer of 30 + Edmunds -- an established MLB (as opposed to an unknown draft pick) might hold a significant deal of interest, while allowing us to keep more premium picks AND get value from Edmunds without incurring the major financial burden that he will soon be (potential plot flaw: no idea what Cowboys' future cap issues look like).

 

Edmunds + 30 feels pretty even, if not better than a 1, 3 and future 1, but maybe we throw in next year's 3 to grease the wheels. There's likely to be a couple interesting pieces (dream scenario: Jamin Davis, would gladly take it: Jamil Cox, Surratt), and guys like Pete Werner, Tony Fields and Earnest Jones could all probably be had later. Worst case, Avery Williamson or (dare I say it?) Ruben Foster could fill that hole in free agency.

 

I'm not one of the many who's actively wanting to get rid of Tremaine Edmunds, but I believe GMs should always be willing to deal any player when there's significant value to be had, and this deal feels like win/win to me.

 

Am I crazy? Most certainly yes. Is there any chance this could happen? Most likely not. Does it make sense if the draft shakes out the right way? I think so...

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Did we really need another Edmunds draft day trade post?

[wppete]

What with all this trade Tremaine Edmunds craziness? Kids 23 years old and a beast, the best is ahead of him. Absolutely no way we trade him. 

[WotAGuy]

Apparently the OP hasn’t tried my recipe for glazed duck. Yum. 

[glazeduck]

9 minutes ago, wppete said:

What with all this trade Tremaine Edmunds craziness? Kids 23 years old and a beast, the best is ahead of him. Absolutely no way we trade him. 

I'm very much not that guy. I think Tre can still be special and have said as much on this board numerous times. BUT, he's going to start getting expensive, and Kyle Pitts is equally, if not even more special. 

If we can get Pitts and replace Edmunds with a serviceable replacement at a lower cost, that's a win to me.

9 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Apparently the OP hasn’t tried my recipe for glazed duck. Yum. 

I'm fairly certain this isn't even the first time you've made that joke lol

[Ya Digg?]

Dallas would be foolish to make that deal-they get no future picks to trade back 20 spots and, as you said, are getting a linebacker that they are going to have to pay a lot of money to soon

[Alphadawg7]

27 minutes ago, glazeduck said:

Hear me out... I promise I am not high (on anything but a lot of coffee), drunk or huffing any fumes (stronger than the occasional sharpie). This is not even something I'm necessarily advocating for and a complete and totally speculative "what if" based on various draft rumors, an insatiable (probably unhealthy) obsession with getting Kyle Pitts on this roster and the general desire among many around here to move on from Tremaine Edmonds. This is out of leftfield, but here goes...

 

• Despite having a Pro Bowl MLB and resigning Milano, Buffalo's been tied to several LB prospects in the draft. It's no secret, however, that said Pro Bowl MLB did not have his best season this past year and he's also approaching a big pay day.
• The Cowboys at 10 have been tied to Zaven Collins in recent rumors, despite their lofty draft slot, suggesting they're in the market for a big/athletic LB.
• Dallas is also rumored to be eyeing a number of trade down scenarios.
• Beane has made no secret that he's open to moving up in the draft to secure the guy he likes. 
• This draft seems fairly deep at LB, so ostensibly a team could potentially find a replacement level starter in the mid rounds (plus a couple interesting names in FA).
• While certainly no lock, the draft board is setup in such a way that it's possible that Kyle Pitts could fall to the teens.

 

What if, we were exploring the idea of including Edmunds in a package to move up for Pitts, in the event that he did make it to the Cowboys at 10? When KC traded with us for Mahomes, they gave us their current 1, 3 and the following year's 1 to move from 27 to 10. But was also for a QB, so you could arguably expect a bit of a premium there, negligibly offsetting a lot more "make good" in this what-if situation. An offer of 30 + Edmunds -- an established MLB (as opposed to an unknown draft pick) might hold a significant deal of interest, while allowing us to keep more premium picks AND get value from Edmunds without incurring the major financial burden that he will soon be (potential plot flaw: no idea what Cowboys' future cap issues look like).

 

Edmunds + 30 feels pretty even, if not better than a 1, 3 and future 1, but maybe we throw in next year's 3 to grease the wheels. There's likely to be a couple interesting pieces (dream scenario: Jamin Davis, would gladly take it: Jamil Cox, Surratt), and guys like Pete Werner, Tony Fields and Earnest Jones could all probably be had later. Worst case, Avery Williamson or (dare I say it?) Ruben Foster could fill that hole in free agency.

 

I'm not one of the many who's actively wanting to get rid of Tremaine Edmunds, but I believe GMs should always be willing to deal any player when there's significant value to be had, and this deal feels like win/win to me.

 

Am I crazy? Most certainly yes. Is there any chance this could happen? Most likely not. Does it make sense if the draft shakes out the right way? I think so...

Edmunds - 2 Time Pro Bowler in 3 years.    Trade him and a first for a TE prospect?
 

How many next generational talent TEs have gone on to live up to the hype?  Just to name a few:  Ebron, OJ Howard, Hockenson all were considered to be in some can’t miss, super elite TE prospect categories.  
 

Meanwhile, OJ is third on the depth chart on his own team, Ebron has bounced around teams and had only one good year, and Hockenson is super inconsistent.  
 

And I can name a bunch more...just naming a few recent ones I remember Bills fans badly wanting to go trade up for or draft.  
 

Meanwhile the TE position has been utterly dominated by guys like Kelce, Graham, Gronk, Kittle, Ertz...all guys taken between rounds 2 and 5.

 

Sorry, the idea of giving up a first and Edmunds for a TE is not appealing to me.  Especially since we can just get Ertz for a 3rd if they really wanted and I can’t remember the last time a first round top TE prospect actually lived up to the hype.  

Edited April 5, 2021 by Alphadawg7

[HOUSE]

The dreaded hear me out

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rc2catch]

Don’t stop there. It’s fantasy land. Trade Edmunds and our first the next 3 years to Atlanta and move to 4. Then trade 4 to Denver for their 1,2 and next 2 1st rounders and Von Miller. 
Is this how you makeup unrealistic scenarios??? 

[Estro]

I like you're idea.

 

I'm not a huge Edmunds fan & with the Mariano resigning I'd be fine if Edmunds is eventually replaced on this roster.  That said I think the guy the Bills might covet in a trade up would be.......

 

Jaylen Waddle.  They've seen firsthand what a speed merchant, who can score anytime he touches the ball is like to defend in Tyreek Hill and I think they'd like to have their own version of that in Buffalo.  

 

I'm never an advocate of teasing up, in fact I usually favor the opposite, but your sentiment about this regime is right.......I don't think the idea can be ruled out with this regime.  If Waddle did slip into the mid teens, which I highly doubt, the Bills would have a chance with #30 & #62.  

[NewEra]

31 minutes ago, glazeduck said:

Hear me out... I promise I am not high (on anything but a lot of coffee), drunk or huffing any fumes (stronger than the occasional sharpie). This is not even something I'm necessarily advocating for and a complete and totally speculative "what if" based on various draft rumors, an insatiable (probably unhealthy) obsession with getting Kyle Pitts on this roster and the general desire among many around here to move on from Tremaine Edmonds. This is out of leftfield, but here goes...

 

• Despite having a Pro Bowl MLB and resigning Milano, Buffalo's been tied to several LB prospects in the draft. It's no secret, however, that said Pro Bowl MLB did not have his best season this past year and he's also approaching a big pay day.
• The Cowboys at 10 have been tied to Zaven Collins in recent rumors, despite their lofty draft slot, suggesting they're in the market for a big/athletic LB.
• Dallas is also rumored to be eyeing a number of trade down scenarios.
• Beane has made no secret that he's open to moving up in the draft to secure the guy he likes. 
• This draft seems fairly deep at LB, so ostensibly a team could potentially find a replacement level starter in the mid rounds (plus a couple interesting names in FA).
• While certainly no lock, the draft board is setup in such a way that it's possible that Kyle Pitts could fall to the teens.

 

What if, we were exploring the idea of including Edmunds in a package to move up for Pitts, in the event that he did make it to the Cowboys at 10? When KC traded with us for Mahomes, they gave us their current 1, 3 and the following year's 1 to move from 27 to 10. But was also for a QB, so you could arguably expect a bit of a premium there, negligibly offsetting a lot more "make good" in this what-if situation. An offer of 30 + Edmunds -- an established MLB (as opposed to an unknown draft pick) might hold a significant deal of interest, while allowing us to keep more premium picks AND get value from Edmunds without incurring the major financial burden that he will soon be (potential plot flaw: no idea what Cowboys' future cap issues look like).

 

Edmunds + 30 feels pretty even, if not better than a 1, 3 and future 1, but maybe we throw in next year's 3 to grease the wheels. There's likely to be a couple interesting pieces (dream scenario: Jamin Davis, would gladly take it: Jamil Cox, Surratt), and guys like Pete Werner, Tony Fields and Earnest Jones could all probably be had later. Worst case, Avery Williamson or (dare I say it?) Ruben Foster could fill that hole in free agency.

 

I'm not one of the many who's actively wanting to get rid of Tremaine Edmunds, but I believe GMs should always be willing to deal any player when there's significant value to be had, and this deal feels like win/win to me.

 

Am I crazy? Most certainly yes. Is there any chance this could happen? Most likely not. Does it make sense if the draft shakes out the right way? I think so...

i don’t think there’s a chance in **** that we will trade enough capital to get up to draft Pitts.  He’s a top 6 pick imo, top 4 if Atlanta keeps their picks.  To get from 30 to 6 is a doozy and I don’t think that we would be willing to trade our MLB and multiple first and 2nd rd picks to make it happen.  
 

if we ARE thinking about doing something like this, I’d commend Beane.  I just don’t see it happening with with Josh’s cap hits looming.  Those draft picks will be the basis of our super bowl teams 

[KGun12TD]

23 minutes ago, wppete said:

What with all this trade Tremaine Edmunds craziness? Kids 23 years old and a beast, the best is ahead of him. Absolutely no way we trade him. 

I'm with you here...I just don't get it.

[glazeduck]

Just now, NewEra said:

i don’t think there’s a chance in **** that we will trade enough capital to get up to draft Pitts.  He’s a top 6 pick imo, top 4 if Atlanta keeps their picks.  To get from 30 to 6 is a doozy and I don’t think that we would be willing to trade our MLB and multiple first and 2nd rd picks to make it happen.  
 

if we ARE thinking about doing something like this, I’d commend Beane.  I just don’t see it happening with with Josh’s cap hits looming.  Those draft picks will be the basis of our super bowl teams 

Yeah, hence Dallas at 10. We can't pay the freight to get up to 6, BUT I can easily see ATL trading their pick to a team who wants to draft a QB, Sewell going at 5 and Miami being in play to trade down again with at least 1 qb still on the board. I VERY much doubt he slides out of the top 10, but I can at least see a somewhat plausible "what if" scenario where it could...

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

38 minutes ago, glazeduck said:

Hear me out... I promise I am not high (on anything but a lot of coffee), drunk or huffing any fumes (stronger than the occasional sharpie). This is not even something I'm necessarily advocating for and a complete and totally speculative "what if" based on various draft rumors, an insatiable (probably unhealthy) obsession with getting Kyle Pitts on this roster and the general desire among many around here to move on from Tremaine Edmonds. This is out of leftfield, but here goes...

 

• Despite having a Pro Bowl MLB and resigning Milano, Buffalo's been tied to several LB prospects in the draft. It's no secret, however, that said Pro Bowl MLB did not have his best season this past year and he's also approaching a big pay day.
• The Cowboys at 10 have been tied to Zaven Collins in recent rumors, despite their lofty draft slot, suggesting they're in the market for a big/athletic LB.
• Dallas is also rumored to be eyeing a number of trade down scenarios.
• Beane has made no secret that he's open to moving up in the draft to secure the guy he likes. 
• This draft seems fairly deep at LB, so ostensibly a team could potentially find a replacement level starter in the mid rounds (plus a couple interesting names in FA).
• While certainly no lock, the draft board is setup in such a way that it's possible that Kyle Pitts could fall to the teens.

 

What if, we were exploring the idea of including Edmunds in a package to move up for Pitts, in the event that he did make it to the Cowboys at 10? When KC traded with us for Mahomes, they gave us their current 1, 3 and the following year's 1 to move from 27 to 10. But was also for a QB, so you could arguably expect a bit of a premium there, negligibly offsetting a lot more "make good" in this what-if situation. An offer of 30 + Edmunds -- an established MLB (as opposed to an unknown draft pick) might hold a significant deal of interest, while allowing us to keep more premium picks AND get value from Edmunds without incurring the major financial burden that he will soon be (potential plot flaw: no idea what Cowboys' future cap issues look like).

 

Edmunds + 30 feels pretty even, if not better than a 1, 3 and future 1, but maybe we throw in next year's 3 to grease the wheels. There's likely to be a couple interesting pieces (dream scenario: Jamin Davis, would gladly take it: Jamil Cox, Surratt), and guys like Pete Werner, Tony Fields and Earnest Jones could all probably be had later. Worst case, Avery Williamson or (dare I say it?) Ruben Foster could fill that hole in free agency.

 

I'm not one of the many who's actively wanting to get rid of Tremaine Edmunds, but I believe GMs should always be willing to deal any player when there's significant value to be had, and this deal feels like win/win to me.

 

Am I crazy? Most certainly yes. Is there any chance this could happen? Most likely not. Does it make sense if the draft shakes out the right way? I think so...

 

Where's the win/win part when you just gave up your middle LB and a 3rd round pick so tying to find that replacement will be harder.  Likely need to get higher than #10 to get him which would require even more draft capitol too.

 

In addition you're giving up all this draft capital in an offense that likes to run 4 WR quite a bit, 2nd most in the league.  TE also is a position that takes one of the longest amounts of time to get up to speed in the NFL.  Regardless of how good Pitts is, to expect him to be this one year wonder, particularly in an offense with the WR they already have, he's not likely to get 50+ catches as a rookie as while he's busy figuring things out Allen will be throwing to the open WR's

Edited April 5, 2021 by Ed_Formerly_of_Roch

[jletha]

I would LOVE to trade Edmunds and 30 (and something else potentially) for Pitts. I think Edmunds is full of potential but so far hasnt quite lived up to it. The 5th year option is going to be a tough decision on him...so let it be someone elses decision. We just paid Milano, I think its unlikely we pay Edmunds similarly. Trade him now and get a gamechanger for us. 

[NewEra]

1 minute ago, glazeduck said:

Yeah, hence Dallas at 10. We can't pay the freight to get up to 6, BUT I can easily see ATL trading their pick to a team who wants to draft a QB, Sewell going at 5 and Miami being in play to trade down again with at least 1 qb still on the board. I VERY much doubt he slides out of the top 10, but I can at least see a somewhat plausible "what if" scenario where it could...

It would be amazing if Pitts fell to dallas @ 10 and we traded up for him.  I don’t think there’s any chance he falls out of the top 10z. Like less than zero %

[Big Turk]

42 minutes ago, glazeduck said:

Hear me out... I promise I am not high (on anything but a lot of coffee), drunk or huffing any fumes (stronger than the occasional sharpie). This is not even something I'm necessarily advocating for and a complete and totally speculative "what if" based on various draft rumors, an insatiable (probably unhealthy) obsession with getting Kyle Pitts on this roster and the general desire among many around here to move on from Tremaine Edmonds. This is out of leftfield, but here goes...

 

• Despite having a Pro Bowl MLB and resigning Milano, Buffalo's been tied to several LB prospects in the draft. It's no secret, however, that said Pro Bowl MLB did not have his best season this past year and he's also approaching a big pay day.
• The Cowboys at 10 have been tied to Zaven Collins in recent rumors, despite their lofty draft slot, suggesting they're in the market for a big/athletic LB.
• Dallas is also rumored to be eyeing a number of trade down scenarios.
• Beane has made no secret that he's open to moving up in the draft to secure the guy he likes. 
• This draft seems fairly deep at LB, so ostensibly a team could potentially find a replacement level starter in the mid rounds (plus a couple interesting names in FA).
• While certainly no lock, the draft board is setup in such a way that it's possible that Kyle Pitts could fall to the teens.

 

What if, we were exploring the idea of including Edmunds in a package to move up for Pitts, in the event that he did make it to the Cowboys at 10? When KC traded with us for Mahomes, they gave us their current 1, 3 and the following year's 1 to move from 27 to 10. But was also for a QB, so you could arguably expect a bit of a premium there, negligibly offsetting a lot more "make good" in this what-if situation. An offer of 30 + Edmunds -- an established MLB (as opposed to an unknown draft pick) might hold a significant deal of interest, while allowing us to keep more premium picks AND get value from Edmunds without incurring the major financial burden that he will soon be (potential plot flaw: no idea what Cowboys' future cap issues look like).

 

Edmunds + 30 feels pretty even, if not better than a 1, 3 and future 1, but maybe we throw in next year's 3 to grease the wheels. There's likely to be a couple interesting pieces (dream scenario: Jamin Davis, would gladly take it: Jamil Cox, Surratt), and guys like Pete Werner, Tony Fields and Earnest Jones could all probably be had later. Worst case, Avery Williamson or (dare I say it?) Ruben Foster could fill that hole in free agency.

 

I'm not one of the many who's actively wanting to get rid of Tremaine Edmunds, but I believe GMs should always be willing to deal any player when there's significant value to be had, and this deal feels like win/win to me.

 

Am I crazy? Most certainly yes. Is there any chance this could happen? Most likely not. Does it make sense if the draft shakes out the right way? I think so...

 

This is never happening. Pitts might be the best player in the entire draft, QBs included and has been said to be the highest graded TE Prospect ever. He isn't making it out of the top 5 and a team might trade up for him.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Big Turk

[Coach Tuesday]

If Pitts makes it to Dallas they're sprinting to the podium.  They aren't interested in an off-ball linebacker.

[Logic]

[Victory Formation]

It’s not as dumb as some make it out to be.. But my friend, my friend, would you not rather have Edmunds + a trade down and simply take Pat Freiermuth? Would the gap in production be so profound that it would be worth giving so much up for Pitts? Think Freiermuth + extra picks + Edmunds > Pitts.

[glazeduck]

1 minute ago, Victory Formation said:

It’s not as dumb as some make it out to be.. But my friend, my friend, would you not rather have Edmunds + a trade down and simply take Pat Freiermuth? Would the gap in production be so profound that it would be worth giving so much up for Pitts? Think Freiermuth + extra picks + Edmunds > Pitts.

I'd rather have Pitts and a 2nd round LB both on rookie deals than Freiermuth and Edmunds on a big deal. No question about it.

11 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

This is never happening. Pitts might be the best player in the entire draft, QBs included and has been said to be the highest graded TE Prospect ever. He isn't making it out of the top 5 and a team might trade up for him.

 

4 minutes ago, Logic said:

I feel like I addressed the unlikeliness of this happening in about 5 different ways, but... thanks?

[Victory Formation]

1 minute ago, glazeduck said:

I'd rather have Pitts and a 2nd round LB both on rookie deals than Freiermuth and Edmunds on a big deal. No question about it.

Just seems like we would have a better team all around if we just kept Edmunds, traded down and took Freiermuth. Think Freiermuth will be a solid starter as I also think Hunter Long may be a decent target at 61. Once again, are you willing to give up so much for maybe a modest difference in production? Makes no sense to me.

[G2C55]

Or we could move Edmunds to TE... I mean his Dad played it professionally right? 🤪

[BillsDude]

Here me out..... Nope

[ExWNYer]

 

[Governor]

You think that the 30 pick plus Edmunds is getting us up to 10???? Lol.

 

That wouldn’t even get us up to 26.

Edited April 5, 2021 by The Governor

[glazeduck]

3 minutes ago, Victory Formation said:

Just seems like we would have a better team all around if we just kept Edmunds, traded down and took Freiermuth. Think Freiermuth will be a solid starter as I also think Hunter Long may be a decent target at 61. Once again, are you willing to give up so much for maybe a modest difference in production? Makes no sense to me.

I'll try to lay it out for you...

I think TE is becoming one of -- if not THE -- biggest position of mismatch opportunities. I think Pitts is a physical freak who, sure, might not be Tony Gonzalez in year 1, but based on talent and physical components alone, would add a different component to the offense. I think our offense could use another big WR AND a better TE -- Pitts is 2 for 1 in that regard. I also think there's an amazing amount of position scarcity at TE, and roster building becomes a LOT easier in the future when you have a franchise QB and a stud TE in the mix.

Conversely, I think this is a very good MLB class. I also think MLB is becoming less of a premier position than it was in the ground and pound days of the league. I think Edmunds, while young, and talented, did show some holes in his game. I also think he's going to be VERY expensive soon and cap numbers are going to be tight for a long time. We've seen other franchises struggle to remain competitive once they have to pay their franchise QB non-rookie salaries, so even a reasonable replacement on a rookie deal will help.

[GunnerBill]

34 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Edmunds - 2 Time Pro Bowler in 3 years.    Trade him and a first for a TE prospect?
 

How many next generational talent TEs have gone on to live up to the hype?  Just to name a few:  Ebron, OJ Howard, Hockenson all were considered to be in some can’t miss, super elite TE prospect categories.  
 

 

Well take it from someone who didn't have any of those as true first round grades (I had Hock as a borderline) Kyle Pitts is in a different stratosphere to those guys. He is the best tight end I have ever watched college film on. I have only ever given one tight end a first round grade before (David Njoku who has also been inconsistent and hurt a lot) but Pitts grades way higher even than Njoku. Does that mean there is no chance he is a bust? Nope. But unlike Howard and Hockenson and Ebron the hype for Pitts is fully justified. 

 

Not that I am advocating trading into the top 10 for a tight end. Not at all. I wouldn't do that. But if the Bills were in the top 6 this year and in a position to pick Pitts I would be in favour of it despite being generally against tight ends in the first. Every now and again a player comes along who is special enough to bend the rules. 

[glazeduck]

2 minutes ago, The Governor said:

You think that the 30 pick plus Edmunds is getting us up to 10???? Lol.

Ummm... Well no, maybe reread it? Also, there are others in this same thread who are loling the other way, sooo... maybe that suggests that the middle ground isn't too far off?

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, glazeduck said:

I'll try to lay it out for you...

I think TE is becoming one of -- if not THE -- biggest position of mismatch opportunities. I think Pitts is a physical freak who, sure, might not be Tony Gonzalez in year 1, but based on talent and physical components alone, would add a different component to the offense. I think our offense could use another big WR AND a better TE -- Pitts is 2 for 1 in that regard. I also think there's an amazing amount of position scarcity at TE, and roster building becomes a LOT easier in the future when you have a franchise QB and a stud TE in the mix.

Conversely, I think this is a very good MLB class. I also think MLB is becoming less of a premier position than it was in the ground and pound days of the league. I think Edmunds, while young, and talented, did show some holes in his game. I also think he's going to be VERY expensive soon and cap numbers are going to be tight for a long time. We've seen other franchises struggle to remain competitive once they have to pay their franchise QB non-rookie salaries, so even a reasonable replacement on a rookie deal will help.

 

Tight Ends are definitely scarce in this class. It is Pitts, then Freiermuth who will get overdrafted but I would consider if there at #61 (he won't be) and then there is nobody else I'd take before round 4 earliest. There are only 5 tight ends in this class I'd take before the last two rounds. 

[wppete]

4 minutes ago, glazeduck said:

I'll try to lay it out for you...

I think TE is becoming one of -- if not THE -- biggest position of mismatch opportunities. I think Pitts is a physical freak who, sure, might not be Tony Gonzalez in year 1, but based on talent and physical components alone, would add a different component to the offense. I think our offense could use another big WR AND a better TE -- Pitts is 2 for 1 in that regard. I also think there's an amazing amount of position scarcity at TE, and roster building becomes a LOT easier in the future when you have a franchise QB and a stud TE in the mix.

Conversely, I think this is a very good MLB class. I also think MLB is becoming less of a premier position than it was in the ground and pound days of the league. I think Edmunds, while young, and talented, did show some holes in his game. I also think he's going to be VERY expensive soon and cap numbers are going to be tight for a long time. We've seen other franchises struggle to remain competitive once they have to pay their franchise QB non-rookie salaries, so even a reasonable replacement on a rookie deal will help.

Give it up 😂 

[Governor]

1 minute ago, glazeduck said:

Ummm... Well no, maybe reread it? Also, there are others in this same thread who are loling the other way, sooo... maybe that suggests that the middle ground isn't too far off?

If Collins or the Miami DE or Harris, etc. makes it to 26, Edmunds could *possibly* get us there. We aren’t getting anywhere near Pitts.

[glazeduck]

Just now, wppete said:

Give it up 😂 

I tried to answer the guy's question. Is this not a place to have conversations? Or did I get here by mistake?

3 minutes ago, wppete said:

Give it up 😂 

You're more than welcome to stop reading this thread.

[JaCrispy]

58 minutes ago, wppete said:

What with all this trade Tremaine Edmunds craziness? Kids 23 years old and a beast, the best is ahead of him. Absolutely no way we trade him. 

I think it’s because it seems like the writing is on the wall, since we paid Milano, and knowing it would be unwise economics to pay two LBs at top value...

 

Because of this, I think fans are playing the “Let’s see what we can get for him” game before we lose him for nothing...

[Nextmanup]

"Hear me out..."

 

[Governor]

I would try to deal Edmunds for a 2nd. We’d probably get laughed at and have to settle for a 3rd. Take that 3rd, our 30, next year’s 1st, and maybe that could get you within striking range of a great player.

 

I’m all about the idea of trading him and drafting his replacement but we aren’t getting better value than where we drafted him at. Pitts won’t make it past 5.

Edited April 5, 2021 by The Governor

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I think it’s because it seems like the writing is on the wall, since we paid Milano, and knowing it would be unwise economics to pay two LBs at top value...

 

Because of this, I think fans are playing the “Let’s see what we can get for him” game before we lose him for nothing...

 

Milano's deal is structured so that they can out in two years.... which is exactly the point where Edmunds's rookie deal ends. I know the 5th year (ie. the option year) isn't cheap as such but the likelihood of the Bills ever having Milano and Edmunds earning top dollar at the same time is slim in my view. If they commit to Edmunds then Milano will be a cap casualty after the 2022 season. 

[berg1029]

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like moving up for anything BUT a QB in the first or second is just flat out not worth it.  Since we have our QB, i'm quite content to stay where we are or trade down. 

 

Never mind moving all the way up from 30

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

55 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

The dreaded hear me out

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saw the hear me out and I immediately knew whatever followed was *****

[Victory Formation]

3 minutes ago, glazeduck said:

I'll try to lay it out for you...

I think TE is becoming one of -- if not THE -- biggest position of mismatch opportunities. I think Pitts is a physical freak who, sure, might not be Tony Gonzalez in year 1, but based on talent and physical components alone, would add a different component to the offense. I think our offense could use another big WR AND a better TE -- Pitts is 2 for 1 in that regard. I also think there's an amazing amount of position scarcity at TE, and roster building becomes a LOT easier in the future when you have a franchise QB and a stud TE in the mix.

Conversely, I think this is a very good MLB class. I also think MLB is becoming less of a premier position than it was in the ground and pound days of the league. I think Edmunds, while young, and talented, did show some holes in his game. I also think he's going to be VERY expensive soon and cap numbers are going to be tight for a long time. We've seen other franchises struggle to remain competitive once they have to pay their franchise QB non-rookie salaries, so even a reasonable replacement on a rookie deal will help.

I understand you, many don’t realize how good Pitts is, but even with that in perspective, how good is he? 70 catches? 80? Or more? Freiermuth can probably get you 50 perhaps.. So 50 catches + a very decent MLB and extra draft picks or Kyle Pitts? In order for your trade to be worth it Pitts would have to be the best TE in the league. 80, 90, 100 catches year in, year out minimum.