Billl Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 1 hour ago, eball said: Here is, I believe, a very plausible scenario from draft night: Pick 28 is approaching...Beane would be ok with any of several WRs still on the board, but is not interested in Worthy. Beane also desperately wants to get a 3rd round pick in this draft. Teams start calling, including KC, who makes the best offer. Beane asks who they are targeting...they tell him. Knowing he doesn't want Worthy (and can't keep KC from trading into #29, 30, or 31), Beane makes the trade. He then still "knows" that one of his guys will most likely be there three picks later because Dallas isn't taking a WR and Baltimore has more pressing needs. The Pats*** start calling Beane because they want Legette or Coleman. When SF takes Pearsall Beane is now guaranteed to get one of those two. He calls his buddy Morgan and determines they want Legette, which is fine with Beane. It's a no-brainer to make the trade with Carolina for more draft capital, and in the process you keep your division rival from getting their target. It’s great fan fiction, but there’s not a chance in hell that Veach would tell Beane who they were targeting. Its a ridiculous suggestion. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90sBills Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 5 hours ago, eball said: …if this was already mentioned I apologize. Rumor is that the Pats*** were targeting either Coleman or Legette and had a deal “construct” in place with Buffalo before Beane dealt with Carolina instead, therefore taking away both of the Pats*** targets. They then moved back further from #34. I love it. Is this because the Pats are such a dangerous team so Beane didn’t want to give them more weapons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said: The question I have is why were the Bills good with "either" of Legette or Coleman(as has often been said)? I understand the tiers concept but you'd figure they'd have more of a conviction on one than the other. I wondered that, but it was pretty clear that the Panthers were going to take Legette (indeed, Legette said he met with them multiple times and that they told him they'd take him). Plus Morgan wasn't going to lie to Bean. That would serve no purpose and would create a rift in an otherwise very friendly relationship. Christ, Bean gave him his first management job! Point is, if they preferred Legette, the Bills would have taken him. Actions speak louder than words (to quote you!), and the actions say that they wanted Coleman all along. Edited May 6 by dave mcbride 1 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 26 minutes ago, Billl said: It’s great fan fiction, but there’s not a chance in hell that Veach would tell Beane who they were targeting. Its a ridiculous suggestion. Yeah, I keep hearing this lately and it's the thought process of fantasy football GMs. But thank God we blocked a 4-win team. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddie's Dead Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 How did ¢ockblo¢k get past the word filter? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 6 Author Share Posted May 6 43 minutes ago, Billl said: It’s great fan fiction, but there’s not a chance in hell that Veach would tell Beane who they were targeting. Its a ridiculous suggestion. I disagree. I think those conversations are part of draft trades all the time. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_In_NH Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 1 hour ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said: Because they couldn't. Other than the Bills taking Worthy themselves, how could they have prevented KC from trading with someone else at 29 or 30. The Bills could have taken Coleman at 28, KC could have still got Worthy at 32 or maybe they'd have to have traded up. Either way the Bills got picks out of the deal and the player they wanted. As someone else also pointed out, if they traded back more than one slot, they may have come away with no one they wanted. For all we know the deal with NE may have only happened if Coleman had been selected prior and Bills weren't able to get who they wanted, otherwise can't see why they'd have gone back to 34. Maybe I missed it....do we somehow know how the Bills had Worthy, Parsail, Legette and Coleman stacked on their board? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngbills Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 Huh. Would not call this blocking a deal. The Bills were the one making the deal and then traded with CAR instead. Hopefully because it was a better deal. If we preferred to block the Pats over KC that is concerning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 I’m not even sure why this is a story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 37 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said: Maybe I missed it....do we somehow know how the Bills had Worthy, Parsail, Legette and Coleman stacked on their board? No but the fact that they didn't take Worthy and let the Chiefs have him kind of tells me they didn't want him. and if they traded down to 32, kind of tells me they viewed the other 3 fairly close and even they didn't get their first choice of the 3, they were close enough in rankings that they'd take their 2nd or 3even 3rd choice in exchange for extra picks. But the question was how to stop the Chiefs from getting who they wanted which appears was Worthy, and maybe I missed that part how were the Bills supposed to prevent that other than drafting a guy they clearly didn't want? 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) I don't get the whining here. It seems as though the Pats, Panthers, and Bills were targeting Legette and/or Coleman. The Bills trading down with the Pats basically insured that the Bills got neither of them. The trade never made sense without a major compensation advantage. Edited May 6 by Mango 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWeatherMan Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 Pats suck at drafting WRs. I surely hope they were not targeting Coleman! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_In_NH Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 (edited) 5 hours ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said: No but the fact that they didn't take Worthy and let the Chiefs have him kind of tells me they didn't want him. and if they traded down to 32, kind of tells me they viewed the other 3 fairly close and even they didn't get their first choice of the 3, they were close enough in rankings that they'd take their 2nd or 3even 3rd choice in exchange for extra picks. But the question was how to stop the Chiefs from getting who they wanted which appears was Worthy, and maybe I missed that part how were the Bills supposed to prevent that other than drafting a guy they clearly didn't want? To the bolded, the reality is we don't know, the Chiefs could have taken Coleman, the Bills did not have knowledge of who the Chiefs were taking. I don't think the Bills wanted Worthy. But my point is we dont know how the Bills had guys but it is likely they had 2-3 that they liked "more or less the same" and so trading a couple spots was not a big risk they could not get one of the bunch. If they truly like Coleman above and beyond the others they would have stayed at 28 and selected him. It is very possible they liked Legette about the same and when the Panthers selected Legette it made additional trade downs more risky for them. To the second paragraph, the Bills had no idea the Chiefs wanted Worthy, any of the other WR's or a DT or anyone else. If the Bills did not select Worthy, the Chiefs could have traded with whoever had 29 and got Worthy. I have no issues with the trade, it sounds like you think I do. Edited May 6 by Matt_In_NH 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_In_NH Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 4 hours ago, eball said: Here is, I believe, a very plausible scenario from draft night: Pick 28 is approaching...Beane would be ok with any of several WRs still on the board, but is not interested in Worthy. Beane also desperately wants to get a 3rd round pick in this draft. Teams start calling, including KC, who makes the best offer. Beane asks who they are targeting...they tell him. Knowing he doesn't want Worthy (and can't keep KC from trading into #29, 30, or 31), Beane makes the trade. He then still "knows" that one of his guys will most likely be there three picks later because Dallas isn't taking a WR and Baltimore has more pressing needs. The Pats*** start calling Beane because they want Legette or Coleman. When SF takes Pearsall Beane is now guaranteed to get one of those two. He calls his buddy Morgan and determines they want Legette, which is fine with Beane. It's a no-brainer to make the trade with Carolina for more draft capital, and in the process you keep your division rival from getting their target. Beane specifically said the bolded did not happen. That is what I figured too but he did not ask and KC did not offer. But I think the rest of what you are saying is true, they likely had 2-4 guys bunched up and so trading down to get better picks later made sense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyBatty is alive Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 5 hours ago, eball said: Correct. Beane knew Carolina was taking Legette, and I think he knew who KC was after as well. We don't know what he did or didn't know about picks 29-31, but I assume he knew one of the WRs he would be happy with would be available. I can see the logic in all that but I still see no "evidence" that Pats wanted Coleman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 6 Author Share Posted May 6 18 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said: Beane specifically said the bolded did not happen. That is what I figured too but he did not ask and KC did not offer. But I think the rest of what you are saying is true, they likely had 2-4 guys bunched up and so trading down to get better picks later made sense. Ok, I didn't listen to all of the press conferences so I missed that, but it's not as if everyone didn't know KC was looking for a receiver also, and unless there is ONE guy you've "gotta have" then the trade back is an easy call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_In_NH Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 8 minutes ago, eball said: Ok, I didn't listen to all of the press conferences so I missed that, but it's not as if everyone didn't know KC was looking for a receiver also, and unless there is ONE guy you've "gotta have" then the trade back is an easy call. Yeah I have no issue with the trade back. Beane did say they figured it was a WR. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybrew1 Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 10 hours ago, eball said: …if this was already mentioned I apologize. Rumor is that the Pats*** were targeting either Coleman or Legette and had a deal “construct” in place with Buffalo before Beane dealt with Carolina instead, therefore taking away both of the Pats*** targets. They then moved back further from #34. I love it. The patsies would never publically admit this. It makes the guys they did take look really bad…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LABILLBACKER Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 10 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: It sounds like the Bills were down with either of them. It’s a little ironic though that they went down 4 spots giving KC their guy but were like, “oh no, not the Pats.” That feels backwards to me. 🤷🏻♂️ Either way, messing with the Pats is hilarious. They let them negotiate the deal and then took it to Carolina 😂😂. Let's see what we have in Coleman before we throw a party. And don't forget Maye is likely to be worlds better than Mac. 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.