Jump to content


Trade Downs : The 4 Most Likely


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 Astrobot

Astrobot

    TSW's Draft Droid

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,191 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:44 PM

The trade-downs that I've heard mentioned the most often, from most likely to least:

1. Minnesota. They have the #23 and #25 in RD1, and their top 2 priorities are CB and DT43. Our bait would be Xavier Rhodes, Star Lotulelei, and Sheldon Richardson at 8. Minnesota has also been rumored to want to leapfrog Chicago. The other trade involves the #23, #52, #83 and #102 for our #8 and #41 (less attractive IMHO).

2. Cowboys. They have #18 and #47, and their top 2 priorities are DT43 and DE43, Bjoern Werner, Ziggy Ansah, Star Lotulelei, and Sheldon Richardson are the bait to net those two picks.

3. San Francisco. They have #31, #34, #61, #74, #93 in the first 3 rounds, and their top  priorities are TE, FS, SS, DE34 and DT34. Eifert, Ertz, Vaccaro, Sly Williams, Datone Jones, and Jesse Williams would be gone where they pick.

4. Cincy. They have #21 and #37 and their top 2 priorities are SILB, SS, CB and RB. Kenny Vaccaro and Xavier Rhodes would be the bait for them.

Bills' Minnesota tradedown mock for the Minnesota #23 and #25 pick, using DraftTek's Simulator:
1 23 Arthur Brown ILB Kansas State ---Bills visit
1 25 Johnthan Banks CB Mississippi State  ---Bills visit
2 41 Tyler Wilson QB Arkansas  ---Bills visit
3 71 Terrance Williams WRF Baylor
4 105 William Campbell DE34 Michigan
5 143 Gavin Escobar TE San Diego State
6 177 Buffalo Ty Powell OLB34 Harding

The other MIN trade gives us:
1 23 Tavon Austin WR WVU
1 25 Kevin Minter ILB LSU
2 53  Robert Woods WRF USC
3 71 Tyler Wilson QB Arkansas
3 83  Terrance Williams WRF Baylor
4 102 Travis Kelce TE Cincinnati
4 105  Terron Armstead OT Arkansas - Pine Bluff
5 143  Malliciah Goodman DE34 Clemson
6 177 Cobi Hamilton WRF Arkansas

Edited by Astrobot, 07 April 2013 - 12:55 PM.


#2 Lurker

Lurker

    16 pages is NOT enough

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,048 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:51 PM

If ever there was a year for a trade down, this is it, IMO.  

I like the 'Boys scenario, but Buddy just seems too old school to pull it off, however...

#3 Kellyto83TD

Kellyto83TD

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:56 PM

View PostAstrobot, on 07 April 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

The trade-downs that I've heard mentioned the most often, from most likely to least:

1. Minnesota. They have the #23 and #25 in RD1, and their top 2 priorities are CB and DT43. Our bait would be Xavier Rhodes, Star Lotulelei, and Sheldon Richardson at 8. Minnesota has also been rumored to want to leapfrog Chicago. The other trade involves the #23, #52, #83 and #102 for our #8 and #41 (less attractive IMHO).

2. Cowboys. They have #18 and #47, and their top 2 priorities are DT43 and DE43, Bjoern Werner, Ziggy Ansah, Star Lotulelei, and Sheldon Richardson are the bait to net those two picks.

3. San Francisco. They have #31, #34, #61, #74, #93 in the first 3 rounds, and their top  priorities are TE, FS, SS, DE34 and DT34. Eifert, Ertz, Vaccaro, Sly Williams, Datone Jones, and Jesse Williams would be gone where they pick.

4. Cincy. They have #21 and #37 and their top 2 priorities are SILB, SS, CB and RB. Kenny Vaccaro and Xavier Rhodes would be the bait for them.

Bills' Minnesota tradedown mock for the Minnesota #23 and #25 pick, using DraftTek's Simulator:
1 23 Arthur Brown ILB Kansas State ---Bills visit
1 25 Johnthan Banks CB Mississippi State  ---Bills visit
2 41 Tyler Wilson QB Arkansas  ---Bills visit
3 71 Terrance Williams WRF Baylor
4 105 William Campbell DE34 Michigan
5 143 Gavin Escobar TE San Diego State
6 177 Buffalo Ty Powell OLB34 Harding

The other MIN trade gives us:
1 23 Tavon Austin WR WVU
1 25 Kevin Minter ILB LSU
2 53  Robert Woods WRF USC
3 71 Tyler Wilson QB Arkansas
3 83  Terrance Williams WRF Baylor
4 102 Travis Kelce TE Cincinnati
4 105  Terron Armstead OT Arkansas - Pine Bluff
5 143  Malliciah Goodman DE34 Clemson
6 177 Cobi Hamilton WRF Arkansas

Astro, I fully expect a Trade down, but we wont get both firsts from a team, just a first and 2nd I think

#4 frogger

frogger

    I love lamp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:00 PM

Austin, woods and Williams...maybe a linemen, like Jones or Pugh instead.

#5 Astrobot

Astrobot

    TSW's Draft Droid

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,191 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:07 PM

View PostKellyto83TD, on 07 April 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Astro, I fully expect a Trade down, but we wont get both firsts from a team, just a first and 2nd I think
Actually I'd rather have a 2014 pick from MIN and one of their RD1's.

#6 KOKBILLS

KOKBILLS

    Master of My Domain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,139 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:11 PM

View PostAstrobot, on 07 April 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

Actually I'd rather have a 2014 pick from MIN and one of their RD1's.

Grabbing a 2014 1st round pick would be very nice! As long as you can add something this year...Even if it's only a 3rd or 4th round pick... B-)

#7 ddaryl

ddaryl

    Dong Work for Yuda

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,864 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:13 PM

I don't see Dallas being a big trade partner because they only have 6 picks and a few needs. Giving up thier 2nd rd pick woudl only leave them 5 picks and 2 in the top 100.


Minnesota wil make a move IMO, they need to jump in front of St Louis for choice WR's and they have to sell picks they have 11 picks in this draft.

St Louis Might want tot trade up to ensure they get their choice of WR

Cincy has 2 2nd rd picks so I could see them possibly being interested in a move


San Fran is too far back IMO. We don't want to ove all the way back to #31

#8 Trader

Trader

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,707 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:16 PM

Thank you for your research.  I would take any of those options.

#9 Tsaikotic

Tsaikotic

    Second Gear

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 03:05 PM

whats with DraftTek's love for Tyler Wilson??...not saying he's going to be a bad pick, but on both simulations it picked Wilson for us..even in different rounds...plus it took our need for WR way to serious with 4 in the 2nd simulation...only 1 LB for each of the simulations and neither had a depth selection at S...not sure with 6 picks they go with S depth but if we got option #2 we would have enough to grab at least 1..

I really like trade option #2...not who was picked but the # of picks and where they are is what I like...even though the picks are in the 20's and not the teens, i feel Bills could still get the quality players we need...with no absolute top 10 players that most years have, I think where everyone goes is a real crap-shoot...definitely would do #2.. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

#10 ny33

ny33

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,438 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 04:13 PM

Minnesota isn't trading two firsts for a CB.

#11 BillsInMaine

BillsInMaine

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 04:37 PM

I love the first mock.

1 23 Arthur Brown ILB Kansas State ---Bills visit
1 25 Johnthan Banks CB Mississippi State  ---Bills visit
2 41 Tyler Wilson QB Arkansas  ---Bills visit
3 71 Terrance Williams WRF Baylor
4 105 William Campbell DE34 Michigan
5 143 Gavin Escobar TE San Diego State
6 177 Buffalo Ty Powell OLB34 Harding

#12 Tipster19

Tipster19

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,520 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:35 PM

I'm mildly surprised that nobody is mentioning Tampa. They have 2 big needs at the CB and DT positions and we should be in line to be able to choose from some good talent at those positions. Of course Dee Milliner would have to slide to us but I think that we have a good shot of that happening and especially if the trade for Revis doesn't come thru that would really make it tempting for them to trade up. Maybe that phantom phone call between our GMs actually pays off! Lol! Anyways I think that if we did trade with them that we would get their 1st rd (#13), 2nd rd (#43) picks and next year's 4th rder, or something of that nature, for a fair compensation, IMHO.

#13 jaybee

jaybee

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 826 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:01 PM

Eventually you're gonna be right.  What, like 300 different draft simulations now ?   You can come back afterwards and say...see I told ya so !!  And of course link the one that was right.

Hope your site is getting the hits you are working so hard for.

You are what you are.  A child in the basement making guesses I suspect.  

I'm patient.  I'll watch what the front office does and I'll support it.  

jb

#14 simpleman

simpleman

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:28 PM

Thanks Astro

View PostAstrobot, on 07 April 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

The trade-downs that I've heard mentioned the most often, from most likely to least:

1. Minnesota. They have the #23 and #25 in RD1, and their top 2 priorities are CB and DT43. Our bait would be Xavier Rhodes, Star Lotulelei, and Sheldon Richardson at 8. Minnesota has also been rumored to want to leapfrog Chicago. The other trade involves the #23, #52, #83 and #102 for our #8 and #41 (less attractive IMHO).

. The 2nd trade does not work out at all. All the trades from Minni you mention just add up to a trade value = to our #8, why would we give them our #41 and lose 500 points in trade value. That makes zero sense. It would make sense if it was just our #8 for their 23,52,.83 & 102. That would give us 23,41,52,71,83,102,105,143,177. How would that work plugged into the simulator?

Edited by simpleman, 07 April 2013 - 07:48 PM.


#15 ny33

ny33

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,438 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:19 PM

View Postjaybee, on 07 April 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Eventually you're gonna be right.  What, like 300 different draft simulations now ?   You can come back afterwards and say...see I told ya so !!  And of course link the one that was right.

Hope your site is getting the hits you are working so hard for.

You are what you are.  A child in the basement making guesses I suspect.  

I'm patient.  I'll watch what the front office does and I'll support it.  

jb

Why are you assuming that he- or any other mock drafter- is compiling these drafts for the sake of "being right"? If you don't want to read his reports, don't read them.

#16 San Jose Bills Fan

San Jose Bills Fan

    San Jose Bills Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 10:42 PM

Geez jb.

Why the hostility?

#17 EastRochBillsfan

EastRochBillsfan

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 08:46 AM

View Postjaybee, on 07 April 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Eventually you're gonna be right.  What, like 300 different draft simulations now ?   You can come back afterwards and say...see I told ya so !!  And of course link the one that was right.

Hope your site is getting the hits you are working so hard for.

You are what you are.  A child in the basement making guesses I suspect.  

I'm patient.  I'll watch what the front office does and I'll support it.  

jb

wow. He doesn't deserve that. He does a lot of great work here and not once have I ever gone to his sight because of his posts. I have never gotten the feeling he posts these things to drive up hits. Do you need a snickers??...you'll go far here with posts like that I'm sure.


I don't think that that trade with Minnesota is all that appealing. The points for #8 is 1400. #23 is 760 and #25 is 720 so we would be giving up a very good player for 2 pretty good players. they would have to sweeten the deal a little more for my liking.

http://www.sportznut...value_chart.htm

#18 ny33

ny33

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,438 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 01:59 PM

View PostEastRochBillsfan, on 08 April 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

wow. He doesn't deserve that. He does a lot of great work here and not once have I ever gone to his sight because of his posts. I have never gotten the feeling he posts these things to drive up hits. Do you need a snickers??...you'll go far here with posts like that I'm sure.


I don't think that that trade with Minnesota is all that appealing. The points for #8 is 1400. #23 is 760 and #25 is 720 so we would be giving up a very good player for 2 pretty good players. they would have to sweeten the deal a little more for my liking.

http://www.sportznut...value_chart.htm

I disagree. Though it's a stretch to accurately compare one draft to another except in hindsight, let's compare this year to 2007, when there were no quality QBs. There were only two drafted in the first that year: Jamarcus Russell and Brady Quinn (1st and 22nd overall).

Let's say we trade 8 for 23 and 25 in 2007. The eighth pick could mean Jamaal Anderson (drafted eighth) or Patrick Willis (drafted 11th). The twenty-third and twenty-fifth picks in 2007 yielded Dwayne Bowe and Jon Beason, two very good players. Brandon Meriweather and Anthony Spencer were drafted at twenty-four and twenty-sixth overall, and it's fair to say Willis would be a better pick than the combo of the two.

I think, either way, we are getting good value trading down with the Vikings. I don't, however, see a compelling reason that they would want to trade up to eight, unless they really love Patterson or a pass-rusher. No one is trading two firsts for a CB, be it Dee Milliner or Xavier Rhodes.

#19 simpleman

simpleman

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 02:00 PM

View PostEastRochBillsfan, on 08 April 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

I don't think that that trade with Minnesota is all that appealing. The points for #8 is 1400. #23 is 760 and #25 is 720 so we would be giving up a very good player for 2 pretty good players. they would have to sweeten the deal a little more for my liking.

http://www.sportznut...value_chart.htm

Assuming we went with Patterson for our WR needs at our #8. In his mock we got Austin, ranked #2, but even preferred by some over the #1 ranked WR, plus we got the #1 ranked ILB in the draft. I would say the chances of us getting two players ranked so high would give us 2 impact players and would be better than getting only 1 impact player. The two players are both what I would consider very good player potential. We have so many holes to fill to get better, and two holes filled with very good players is better than only one hole filled with a single very good player.

Edited by simpleman, 08 April 2013 - 02:02 PM.


#20 Astrobot

Astrobot

    TSW's Draft Droid

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,191 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 02:44 PM

View PostTsaikotic, on 07 April 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

whats with DraftTek's love for Tyler Wilson??...not saying he's going to be a bad pick, but on both simulations it picked Wilson for us..even in different rounds...plus it took our need for WR way to serious with 4 in the 2nd simulation...only 1 LB for each of the simulations and neither had a depth selection at S...not sure with 6 picks they go with S depth but if we got option #2 we would have enough to grab at least 1..
DraftTek is a computer program. It has no love for specific players. It won't reach. There's a Big Board, adjusted weekly, and Team Positional Needs, adjusted by me every other day or so. Right now, QB, WR, and ILB are all evenly-ranked as our highest need. Wilson's the highest-ranked player who is a QB, WR, or ILB in RD2. And, since the Big Board editors don't think as much of Nassib, etc. than the general public, Wilson fell to RD3 in the 2nd Minnesota sim.