Jump to content

Draft Discussion 3.0


NudeTayne

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Iamcanadian said:

According to the trade chart, we will get the #12 pick plus their 2nd and 3rd rounder and nothing more,

I would not rule out 12 and their 2019 #1.

All depends on how strongly they feel about the QB who is available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

Face it guys, the Bills will likely have to give up 3 firsts plus a bit more, to move up to #2 in the draft trading with the Giants to get the #2 QB in the draft. They are not going to pay 3 firsts to get the #4 pick and likely the #4 QB in the draft. According to the trade chart, we will get the #12 pick plus their 2nd and 3rd rounder and nothing more, so quite dreaming about 3 first rounders, it just isn't happening! At best they might throw in a 2019 4th rounder!

So, if Dorsey does not like that trade back and I suspect he might not, then maybe a trade with Denver, holding Buffalo over their heads, gets us a 2nd rounder to move back one spot and still get the guy we want??? This is a far more likely scenario as it keeps us in the top 5 picks and adds a high 2nd rounder!!! That will be about as good as it gets, so let's stay out of the fantasy world!

Not saying you're wrong, but the trade chart is pretty much just a guideline. If the market dictates that Buffalo needs to give up more than what the trade chart says, then they'll need to give up more. Regardless, I think they're going to look to trade up with the Giants. Maybe they'll trade up with us for the fourth pick if the Giants either pass on a QB or Buffalo decides they still want to trade up for Allen/whoever the fourth QB is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

Face it guys, the Bills will likely have to give up 3 firsts plus a bit more, to move up to #2 in the draft trading with the Giants to get the #2 QB in the draft. They are not going to pay 3 firsts to get the #4 pick and likely the #4 QB in the draft. According to the trade chart, we will get the #12 pick plus their 2nd and 3rd rounder and nothing more, so quite dreaming about 3 first rounders, it just isn't happening! At best they might throw in a 2019 4th rounder!

So, if Dorsey does not like that trade back and I suspect he might not, then maybe a trade with Denver, holding Buffalo over their heads, gets us a 2nd rounder to move back one spot and still get the guy we want??? This is a far more likely scenario as it keeps us in the top 5 picks and adds a high 2nd rounder!!! That will be about as good as it gets, so let's stay out of the fantasy world!

Bad take IMO. If Buffalo trades to 4, they’re desperate for that QB. Making a trade there would be their last shot for a ‘top tier’ QB. Throw your value chart out the window. If a trade does happen, Cleveland has all the leverage, and the Bills will get taken for a ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NateDawg said:

Bad take IMO. If Buffalo trades to 4, they’re desperate for that QB. Making a trade there would be their last shot for a ‘top tier’ QB. Throw your value chart out the window. If a trade does happen, Cleveland has all the leverage, and the Bills will get taken for a ride.

It has to be a serious trade rape for me to be on board for trading down out of the top10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

According to the trade chart

Are you referring to the JJ chart?  Teams have moved away from that for a while now.

https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart

Also, the second bit in that article about the top picks being ad hoc.  That’s exactly what folks are talking about. The team who trades up to 4 isn’t going to be the one who puts together the first package of picks to equal pick 4, it’ll be the best total package, so someone is going to overpay if the idea that Allen/Mayfield is as desired as we’re to believe.

As it stands, we’ve heard rumblings about AZ, BUF and Denver. Now, if we REALLY want Barkley or Chubb or whoever, perhaps we take moderate compensation and move down 1 spot so Denver can get their guy.  But if we’re trading with either Buffalo or AZ the deal will likely far exceed the trade chart as we’re essentially trading away the last “top tier” QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching Good Morning Football.

Nate Burleson still thinks we should take Saquon #1 because he’s the best player and all the QBs have flaws. Positional value doesn’t matter apparently.

Mindbending stuff.

I like to know what his opinion would be if I told him we should take the true best player in the draft at 1. A Guard from Notre Dame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Aztec Hammer said:

Watching Good Morning Football.

Nate Burleson still thinks we should take Saquon #1 because he’s the best player and all the QBs have flaws. Positional value doesn’t matter apparently.

Mindbending stuff.

I like to know what his opinion would be if I told him we should take the true best player in the draft at 1. A Guard from Notre Dame.

I wonder if that’s his honest opinion, or if they have to have someone arguing that point?

Talking head 1: “The Browns should take a QB at one.”

Everyone else: “Yep.”

Host: “What’s the next topic?”

It just doesn’t work, which is why I don’t watch much of that stuff tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I wonder if that’s his honest opinion, or if they have to have someone arguing that point?

Talking head 1: “The Browns should take a QB at one.”

Everyone else: “Yep.”

Host: “What’s the next topic?”

It just doesn’t work, which is why I don’t watch much of that stuff tbh.

IMO it's just slow sports day.

Mike and Mike were talking about the best picture/movie of the year awards.

It's the doldrums of NFL Free Agency, the draft isn't here, and March Madness talk was yesterday.

Not much to talk about today unfortunately, so it's time to stir the pot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NateDawg said:

Bad take IMO. If Buffalo trades to 4, they’re desperate for that QB. Making a trade there would be their last shot for a ‘top tier’ QB. Throw your value chart out the window. If a trade does happen, Cleveland has all the leverage, and the Bills will get taken for a ride.

This better be the case, otherwise it's not worth us moving all the way back to 12 and risking missing out on the top tier premium players. Fleece them, or stay put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aztec Hammer said:

Watching Good Morning Football.

Nate Burleson still thinks we should take Saquon #1 because he’s the best player and all the QBs have flaws. Positional value doesn’t matter apparently.

Mindbending stuff.

I like to know what his opinion would be if I told him we should take the true best player in the draft at 1. A Guard from Notre Dame.

Watching that show gives me a headache...I usually turn to it when Golic & Wingo are talking about college hoops or baseball or something else I don't care about. They actually did a mock draft yesterday where the one idiot was being the Browns GM and took Darnold at 1 and Allen at 4. I think the producers encourage them to go out on a limb just to generate discussion, but between those absurd takes and the way they try to be a cheery, I want to throw my coffee mug through the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CBrownsman said:

This is why I like the trade with Buffalo so much.  If we could somehow pull it off and net 12, 22, and at least a 2019 1st, we could nab that high end CB at 12 or 22.  maybe even take another in the second.  Though we don't have to fix everything in one year, if they like Saquan or Chubb, we should take them and see what comes to us next year.

I think Ward will be gone by the time we pick at 12, so it would be a trade-off between what he is and the next best guy (Jackson I'm assuming).  Overdrafting Ward may be the only option if we want to get him, but I have no qualms with selecting somebody before they are projected especially when we are talking a different between 5 or so selections.  But then the trade-off is between Ward and a player that doesn't play CB like you mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...