TrentEdwardsCheckDownOn4th Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) The bills only traded back because they thought their guy would be available at 2.01. That tells me they want to take a guy that most people didn't mock in the first round. So who could that be ? Is it possible the bills loved a guy like Ricky Pearsall, and thought no way someone would take him in the first? What if the bills shot themselves in the foot? Unless the bills trade down again, why risk losing out on your guy just to gain a better draft position in round 3? Edited April 26 by TrentEdwardsCheckDownOn4th 2 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 They traded down for two reasons, I think. 1) Beane wanted to get a 3rd round pick, and 2) Beane had no more 1st round grades on players, which means he didn't care if Worthy, Legette, or Pearsall were on the board. He didn't see the value. And it sounds like he didn't want to spend the assets to trade up. He said that he had no intention of trading up, and he usually shoots pretty straight. There's no reason to believe he lied about that. 6 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 If the Bills loved Ricky Pearsell they would've taken Ricky Pearsell at #28. If you love a guy you don't trade back four spots and hold your breath hoping he falls to you. 7 12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentEdwardsCheckDownOn4th Posted April 26 Author Share Posted April 26 4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: If the Bills loved Ricky Pearsell they would've taken Ricky Pearsell at #28. If you love a guy you don't trade back four spots and hold your breath hoping he falls to you. But that's exactly what they did? Are you saying the bills don't love anyone at pick 2.01? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jletha Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 minute ago, TrentEdwardsCheckDownOn4th said: But that's exactly what they did? Are you saying the bills don't love anyone at pick 2.01? Yes its likely they dont *love* anyone at 2.01 and that there was a group of 4-5 players they would be ok taking at 1.32 or 2.01. 4 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 10 minutes ago, TrentEdwardsCheckDownOn4th said: But that's exactly what they did? Are you saying the bills don't love anyone at pick 2.01? That isn't what they did. They obviously DIDN'T love anyone at 28 or 32. That's why they traded back. 5 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, TrentEdwardsCheckDownOn4th said: But that's exactly what they did? Are you saying the bills don't love anyone at pick 2.01? Probably. They did the same thing with James Cook a couple years back. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Matter_What Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, MJS said: They traded down for two reasons, I think. 1) Beane wanted to get a 3rd round pick, and 2) Beane had no more 1st round grades on players, which means he didn't care if Worthy, Legette, or Pearsall were on the board. He didn't see the value. And it sounds like he didn't want to spend the assets to trade up. He said that he had no intention of trading up, and he usually shoots pretty straight. There's no reason to believe he lied about that. This. I think it is fair to criticize Beane if you wanted us to draft Worthy, Legette or Pearsall. If not, there is nothing to be mad about. He will get his guy and got additional draft capital in the process. I wanted Legette but they clearly didn't. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 I suspect they had about a half dozen WRs with similar grades so they knew they could move back, stockpile some more picks, and get one. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 5 hours ago, TrentEdwardsCheckDownOn4th said: The bills only traded back because they thought their guy would be available at 2.01. That tells me they want to take a guy that most people didn't mock in the first round. So who could that be ? Is it possible the bills loved a guy like Ricky Pearsall, and thought no way someone would take him in the first? What if the bills shot themselves in the foot? Unless the bills trade down again, why risk losing out on your guy just to gain a better draft position in round 3? You don't trade back when you have one guy. You trade back when you have several guys and can be pretty sure at least one will be left. 3 hours ago, No_Matter_What said: This. I think it is fair to criticize Beane if you wanted us to draft Worthy, Legette or Pearsall. If not, there is nothing to be mad about. He will get his guy and got additional draft capital in the process. I wanted Legette but they clearly didn't. Yup. I liked Legette too. But - at least at #32 - Beane didn't. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 When you trade back twice at the end of a round it is because your board is cleared out of grades for that round. It was the same when we traded back twice at the end of the 2nd in 2022 before taking Cook and the same when we traded back twice on day 3 last year. Let's say he had a high 2nd on Pearsall and might have taken him at #32 it certainly would not have been the case that he was clear of the other options. They will have a ton of round 2 grades to choose from. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorquemada Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 They'll keep trading down until they have 32 picks in round 6 ironclad lock 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: You don't trade back when you have one guy. You trade back when you have several guys and can be pretty sure at least one will be left. Exactly -- and given the number of calls they are reportedly getting about 2.01, I suspect that there is a high probability that they move down yet again. I have no idea how they have the players graded, but right now there is a pretty good collection of guys on the board that would fill a need who would not be unreasonable to select at 33: DeJean (S) McKinstry (CB) Powers-Johnson (OC) McConkey (WR) Franklin (WR) Coleman (WR) Mitchell (WR) Nubin (S) Lassiter (CB) Rakestraw (CB) They could move down as far as 40, still land their BAP (at a position of need) -- and pick up another (hopefully top 100) pick for their efforts. The plethora of 5th rounders also gives them some ammunition to move up a few picks here or there if they want to make a move later in the 2nd or 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCBills Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Bills clearly wanted Brian Thomas based on the vibes of Beane's Press Conference late last night. Not sure who else went before us that we would have wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweats Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 minute ago, SCBills said: Bills clearly wanted Brian Thomas based on the vibes of Beane's Press Conference late last night. Not sure who else went before us that we would have wanted. Well, i don't know about that, man. If they wanted him, they could have made a play for him or did they really expect he would drop to 28? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 5 hours ago, TrentEdwardsCheckDownOn4th said: The bills only traded back because they thought their guy would be available at 2.01. That tells me they want to take a guy that most people didn't mock in the first round. So who could that be ? Is it possible the bills loved a guy like Ricky Pearsall, and thought no way someone would take him in the first? What if the bills shot themselves in the foot? Unless the bills trade down again, why risk losing out on your guy just to gain a better draft position in round 3? You don't trade back if you're only targeting one guy. If they go WR with the first pick, it's a safe assumption that they have a handful of them with roughly equal grades that they would be satisfied with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCBills Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Just now, Sweats said: Well, i don't know about that, man. If they wanted him, they could have made a play for him or did they really expect he would drop to 28? He just had a visible reaction when asked about BTJ.. maybe I'm off, but that was the read people seemed to have. After the Big 3 and BTJ, they clearly had all the other WR's as RD2 grades or lower. The thought is that maybe we were in talks with Philly to get ahead of Jax but Philly wouldn't budge off demanding Pick 60. That's just people piecing things together who have heard things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 5 hours ago, TrentEdwardsCheckDownOn4th said: But that's exactly what they did? Are you saying the bills don't love anyone at pick 2.01? he’s saying they likely have 2-3 similar ranked guys and not someone head and shoulders above that they wouldn’t want to risk losing 6 minutes ago, Sweats said: Well, i don't know about that, man. If they wanted him, they could have made a play for him or did they really expect he would drop to 28? some of you act like a trade up is just a button you push and not a human negotiation though 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweats Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 2 minutes ago, NoSaint said: he’s saying they likely have 2-3 similar ranked guys and not someone head and shoulders above that they wouldn’t want to risk losing some of you act like a trade up is just a button you push and not a human negotiation though I'm saying nothing of the sort. I was answering another question a poster had of why we didn't take Worthy......if our FO wanted him so badly, they would have traded up for him or did they really expect that he would fall to 28 and take him then. I don't even know what the **** you're talking about?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 WGR was reporting immediately after 28 that they were trying to trade back again. So, unless the player they wanted was Worthy, the picks from 28-31 didn't affect them. Now, did someone get taken before 28 that made them trade back, possibly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.