Bill from NYC Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 could easily result in the Bills having 5 first day picks in this draft and in 08. In 2001, we picked up an extra 2nd for moving down 7 spots from 14 to 21. I am thinking that if we move back into the 20s this season, the price will have to be higher. We could (imo) get that 2nd, plus an additional 08 1st day pick, in addition to the one we already have from the Willis deal. Although the Bills have many needs, they are pretty well stocked at the positions which historically go early, such as DE, LT and QB. At #12, we are too far back to grab a probable superstar such as C. Johnson. Unless Marv is looking at a particular player at #12, a trade down might be the way to go. It would offer us extra chances (for 2 years) to gather talent at positions such as LB, RB, and TE. I wouldn't mind seeing a young OC and OG either. Although we addressed the DT position last year, teams ran WAY too much against us, and another corner wouldn't hurt either. This post is more thinking out loud than making a statement, but I suspect that this draft is not quite strong as 06, and I hope that Marv gives strong consideration to this option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I think where your plan trips up is that there has to be a player left on the board that another team wants to trade up for, and if that is the case, then he is probably worth taking ourselves. For example, say Adrian Peterson slides by some chance. That will get the Giants to call us to move up, but I think we'd be better served taking him ourselves. That's more or less what happened in 2001 when Kenyatta Walker was still on the board, although I guess that worked out pretty well for us. But bottom line, I'd rather find the right player at 12 (my choice is Okoye, but I'm open to ideas) than the right player at 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 I think where your plan trips up is that there has to be a player left on the board that another team wants to trade up for, and if that is the case, then he is probably worth taking ourselves. For example, say Adrian Peterson slides by some chance. That will get the Giants to call us to move up, but I think we'd be better served taking him ourselves. That's more or less what happened in 2001 when Kenyatta Walker was still on the board, although I guess that worked out pretty well for us. But bottom line, I'd rather find the right player at 12 (my choice is Okoye, but I'm open to ideas) than the right player at 22. Good point. You never know what good player will be passed up when you trade down. In 01, the Bills missed out on Steve Hutchinson by going back 7 spots, but I must credit TD with a great draft that year. Nate, Schobel, Henry and Jennings are still in the league contributing. As an aside, I didn't realize that Jennings was the last pick in round 3. As I said, I was thinking aloud more than calling for any certain strategy. What I DO hope is that we don't trade up and lose picks. As a general rule, it costs too much imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Well, we didn't do that last year, but that doesn't mean that Marv didn't try. With our needs I wouldn't be surprised by a move down this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coltrane34 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Come on how about moving up by trading their first and possibly one of their thirds for an impact player. It could be okoye, peterson, johnson.... How about anyone who can step in and help this team win now. If the Bills are not going to make any great free agent moves then they have to do that in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 Come on how about moving up by trading their first and possibly one of their thirds for an impact player. It could be okoye, peterson, johnson.... Because it cannot be done. To move down low enough to select Johnson would probably cost us 1st and 2nd round picks in 07 and 08. Look at what the Giants gave to SD for Eli Manning. It would probably cost a 3rd to move down 2 spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 My two prefrences as of right now are trading our 1st and 2nd moving up to 5 or 6 and taking Adrian Peterson assuming the browns don't draft him, or moving back to the mid 20's and taking michael bush. He was a better college rb then Marshawn Lynch with real good speed for a guy his size. Just the kind of rb that will do great behind our big offensive line. Unless I'm mistaken and we're playing in the arena league. Being able to run and stop the run is how you win football games. For comparison sake Michael Bush- 3 yrs 6'2 245 418 2,386, 36 tds 5.7ypc long of 81 49 rec 650yards 13.2 avg, 2 tds long of 56 Marshawn Lynch- 3 yrs 5'11 210 490 3230, 6.6ypc 29tds, long of 71 68 rec, 600 8.8avg 6 tds 29 long I just don't think the difference is that pronounced that justifies lynch going at 12 while Bush is regarded by "experts" as 2nd rd pick. Having seen Bush quite often Trading down and reaching for him at 20-25 is much better then drafting Lynch at 12. I just don't see an impact level player coming to us at 12 with the possible exception of AP falling. Trading down may prove to be the wiser option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I have no problem moving down for extra picks, and I doubt Marv will either (given all the successful Bills drafted at the bottom of the round during the Glory Years). That said, I wouldn't mind packaging the extra thirds from the Ravens with our own #2 to get back into the lower part of Round 1 or top of Round 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junior Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I think where your plan trips up is that there has to be a player left on the board that another team wants to trade up for, and if that is the case, then he is probably worth taking ourselves. For example, say Adrian Peterson slides by some chance. That will get the Giants to call us to move up, but I think we'd be better served taking him ourselves. That's more or less what happened in 2001 when Kenyatta Walker was still on the board, although I guess that worked out pretty well for us. But bottom line, I'd rather find the right player at 12 (my choice is Okoye, but I'm open to ideas) than the right player at 22. Didn't they just trade for Droughns? Are they still looking for another RB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 could easily result in the Bills having 5 first day picks in this draft and in 08. In 2001, we picked up an extra 2nd for moving down 7 spots from 14 to 21. I am thinking that if we move back into the 20s this season, the price will have to be higher. We could (imo) get that 2nd, plus an additional 08 1st day pick, in addition to the one we already have from the Willis deal. Although the Bills have many needs, they are pretty well stocked at the positions which historically go early, such as DE, LT and QB. At #12, we are too far back to grab a probable superstar such as C. Johnson. Unless Marv is looking at a particular player at #12, a trade down might be the way to go. It would offer us extra chances (for 2 years) to gather talent at positions such as LB, RB, and TE. I wouldn't mind seeing a young OC and OG either. Although we addressed the DT position last year, teams ran WAY too much against us, and another corner wouldn't hurt either. This post is more thinking out loud than making a statement, but I suspect that this draft is not quite strong as 06, and I hope that Marv gives strong consideration to this option. It does seem to me that this draft year isn't as strong as last year, but that is just my gut feeling and obviously is worth jack schit. So, yes, in short, trading down sounds like a good idea to me, given this amorphous gut feeling that I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Because it cannot be done. To move down low enough to select Johnson would probably cost us 1st and 2nd round picks in 07 and 08. Look at what the Giants gave to SD for Eli Manning. It would probably cost a 3rd to move down 2 spots. FYI, according to the Almighty draft value chart, coupled with our first round pick: The Ravens' 3rd would get us between 9-10. Our 3rd would get us between 7-8. Our 2nd would get us between 5-6. Our 2nd and 3rd would get us between 3-4, but much closer to 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Didn't they just trade for Droughns? Are they still looking for another RB? Maybe. They were just an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 could easily result in the Bills having 5 first day picks in this draft and in 08. In 2001, we picked up an extra 2nd for moving down 7 spots from 14 to 21. I am thinking that if we move back into the 20s this season, the price will have to be higher. We could (imo) get that 2nd, plus an additional 08 1st day pick, in addition to the one we already have from the Willis deal. Although the Bills have many needs, they are pretty well stocked at the positions which historically go early, such as DE, LT and QB. At #12, we are too far back to grab a probable superstar such as C. Johnson. Unless Marv is looking at a particular player at #12, a trade down might be the way to go. It would offer us extra chances (for 2 years) to gather talent at positions such as LB, RB, and TE. I wouldn't mind seeing a young OC and OG either. Although we addressed the DT position last year, teams ran WAY too much against us, and another corner wouldn't hurt either. This post is more thinking out loud than making a statement, but I suspect that this draft is not quite strong as 06, and I hope that Marv gives strong consideration to this option. Is the rookie salary cap allocation increased for how many picks a team has? Even if they are acquired via draft day trades? I've no idea...but if not, you would be divvying up the pie to more folks, and the higher picks might be then thinking about playing contract hardball. BTW, Bill - you were right and I was wrong. FA guard salaries did increase, as you asserted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 FYI, according to the Almighty draft value chart, coupled with our first round pick:The Ravens' 3rd would get us between 9-10. Our 3rd would get us between 7-8. Our 2nd would get us between 5-6. Our 2nd and 3rd would get us between 3-4, but much closer to 4. I appreciate the info, but I don't take the draft chart as gospel for a variety of reasons, one being that it would depend on which players are there at #4. Johnson for instance is being hailed as a potential superstar by Kiper and now many others. I am as sure as I can be that it would take far more than a 2nd and a 3rd to get him, charts notwithstanding. Here are the draft day trades made in 06. It cost the Steelers a 3rd and a 4th to move 7 spots from 32 to 25 in round 1. This might work at the end of a round, but it will cost a lot more to get into the top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I think trading up is just as likely. Package our 1st and our 3rd (as opposed to the Ravens) and our 4th to move up 5 slots and get Alan Branch. Address RB in the second and get secondary depth in the 3rd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I appreciate the info, but I don't take the draft chart as gospel for a variety of reasons Enjoy hell, blasphemer. I just looked at the first four trades from last year. They seem to conform fairly well to the draft chart. For example, last year we had the 42 and 73 picks (hmm, seems familiar) totaling 705 points, and we traded for the 26 pick, which was 700. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 IMO the only reason that trading down should not be the priority is if they are set on taking DT and Okoye or Branch are there at the pick. DT takes a big plunge in talent after those two, so if they feel the must take a DT, that is the spot to take it. After that, I think there is better value (not better players, just much better value) at almost every other position of need by trading down. The way I see it, the Bills have 3 HUGE needs right now: CB, LB, and RB. The need for another LB, DT, and OG are there, just not huge holes like the other 3. If the Bills trade down, they could reasonably fill those 3 holes in the first 2 rounds with very solid players. Not to mention they could probably package their two 3rd rounders and get another 2nd if they wanted. If they can make it happen, I really hope they are able to go that route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I don't understand the love for Peterson, with his running style & injury history. If a defensive stud is there I would not mind if we stay put, or if Marv feels Willis is the way to go at 12 much like Whitner last year, I would be fine with that. Otherwise I would love to see them trade down - for good to great value. ( A very Pats like move) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts