Jump to content


Trade-Down: How Far Would Be TOO Far?


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 Astrobot

Astrobot

    TSW's Draft Droid

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,203 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:31 PM

I have been looking at trade-downs, talking to analysts for teams who haven't been getting whom they want, and did some simulations where I trade down different distances, focusing on teams with more than one RD2 pick for now.

Here's a trade with SF for their 30, 56, and 77. SF wants Jordan Matthews.
9 San Francisco Jordan Matthews WRF Vanderbilt
61 San Francisco Dion Bailey SS USC

30   Buffalo Jace Amaro TE Texas Tech
41   Buffalo Antonio Richardson OT Tennessee
56   Buffalo Bishop Sankey RBF Washington
73   Buffalo Anthony Steen OG Alabama
77   Buffalo Chris Borland ILB Wisconsin
105 Buffalo Mike Davis WRF Texas
137 Buffalo Jonathan Brown OLB43 Illinois
169 Buffalo Ben Gardner DE43 Stanford
201 Buffalo Calvin Barnett DT43 Oklahoma State

How far would you trade down if a team really wanted someone at 9??
If this helps, use this trade chart; it's easier.

#2 Rubes

Rubes

    The Doctor of Football...is IN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,055 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:38 PM

This is not scientific by any means, but I'm not comfortable dropping that far. I think the farthest I'd go is early twenties, 24 at the most.

#3 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,844 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:40 PM

View PostAstrobot, on 19 February 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

I have been looking at trade-downs, talking to analysts for teams who haven't been getting whom they want, and did some simulations where I trade down different distances, focusing on teams with more than one RD2 pick for now.

Here's a trade with SF for their 30, 56, and 77. SF wants Jordan Matthews.
9 San Francisco Jordan Matthews WRF Vanderbilt
61 San Francisco Dion Bailey SS USC

30   Buffalo Jace Amaro TE Texas Tech
41   Buffalo Antonio Richardson OT Tennessee
56   Buffalo Bishop Sankey RBF Washington
73   Buffalo Anthony Steen OG Alabama
77   Buffalo Chris Borland ILB Wisconsin
105 Buffalo Mike Davis WRF Texas
137 Buffalo Jonathan Brown OLB43 Illinois
169 Buffalo Ben Gardner DE43 Stanford
201 Buffalo Calvin Barnett DT43 Oklahoma State

How far would you trade down if a team really wanted someone at 9??
If this helps, use this trade chart; it's easier.
I would be comfortable going out of the 1st all together and acquiring a 2015 1st and another 2nd. This draft is deep and deep at the positions that the Bills need. I really like your SF trade above even though I am not a Sankey fan. I would want 4 picks in the 1st 100.

To clarify: Part of my reasoning for the 1st in 2015 is in case EJ doesn't work out. I think that the Bills will win at least 7 games next year regardless so they would not have a shot at the top QBs IMO. It would be nice to have that extra 1st to move up if necessary. If he develops then you have a young and talented roster & 2 1sts. Maybe you move up for someone else (Green-Beckham, Gurley)?

Edited by Kirby Jackson, 19 February 2014 - 03:21 PM.


#4 Beerball

Beerball

    Things happen...

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,674 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:46 PM

View PostRubes, on 19 February 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

This is not scientific by any means, but I'm not comfortable dropping that far. I think the farthest I'd go is early twenties, 24 at the most.
I'm with you Rubes but I'd like to stick closer to 20.

#5 Pete

Pete

    Go Bills!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,977 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:48 PM

This is the deepest draft in 10+ years.  I would stockpile second round picks.  So if a team offered 3 second round picks(high middle low), and a high 3rd I would strongly consider.  Think about it - the bills are picking 9, 41, 73 now. So if we swapped out 9 for 33,45, 55, and 71- that would add 6 quality players selected in the first 73

#6 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,270 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:51 PM

Please stay in the top 10...we need top 10 talent.

#7 Pete

Pete

    Go Bills!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,977 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:06 PM

View Postthebandit27, on 19 February 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

Please stay in the top 10...we need top 10 talent.

Quote

Think about it - the bills are picking 9, 41, 73 now. So if we swapped out 9 for 33,45, 55, and 71- that would add 6 quality players selected in the first 73
so say 33 - Seferi-Jenkins our new starting TE
41 Shayne Shov- our new starting MLB
45 Cyris Richardson- our new starting G
55-Dee Ford- possible new starting OLB that can get to he passer
71-Carlos Hyde RB
73-Brandon Coleman WR

We would take down theAFC east with that draft

#8 SactoBillFan

SactoBillFan

    Thread Killer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:09 PM

I'd rather stay at 9 hopefully Mack is there if not there will be more potential "difference makers" so to speak.

#9 NewEra

NewEra

    I don't "know", I "think"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,678 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:10 PM

SF is going to trade 3 picks to take Jordan Matthews 10-30 spots to soon?  He might be on the board when they pick at 30.  If they did make the offer, I think we can get more.

#10 section122

section122

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:11 PM

Since it is such a deep draft I would prefer a scenario where the Bills traded down multiple times.  Something like trading down to 17 which would net the Bills 17 and 48.  Then trading down from 17 to 22 which would net us 22 and 86.  From that position the Bills would have 22, 41, 48, 73, and 86.  Using Drafttek rankings my draft would look something like this:

22: Taylor Lewan OT
41: Kelvin Benjamin WR
48: Troy Niklas TE
73: Gabe Jackson OG
86: Chris Borland LB

Going strictly off of the rankings and picking players that were ranked at or lower than our selections (according to drafttek) I think that would be a heck of a  draft.  RT, G, Tall WR, TE, and LB all are upgraded and that is pretty much all of our current needs.  The second round is a money round this year and I would like to have at least one extra crack at it.

Edited by section122, 19 February 2014 - 03:12 PM.


#11 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,270 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:16 PM

View Postsection122, on 19 February 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

Since it is such a deep draft I would prefer a scenario where the Bills traded down multiple times.  Something like trading down to 17 which would net the Bills 17 and 48.  Then trading down from 17 to 22 which would net us 22 and 86.  From that position the Bills would have 22, 41, 48, 73, and 86.  Using Drafttek rankings my draft would look something like this:

22: Taylor Lewan OT
41: Kelvin Benjamin WR
48: Troy Niklas TE
73: Gabe Jackson OG
86: Chris Borland LB

Going strictly off of the rankings and picking players that were ranked at or lower than our selections (according to drafttek) I think that would be a heck of a  draft.  RT, G, Tall WR, TE, and LB all are upgraded and that is pretty much all of our current needs.  The second round is a money round this year and I would like to have at least one extra crack at it.

I know those are Draftek's rankings...I believe that all of those 5 will be gone by the picks you have them being selected at here.

Lewan is probably top 15
Benjamin top 25
Niklas top 45
Jackson by the end of the 2nd
Borland top 50

#12 section122

section122

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:20 PM

View Postthebandit27, on 19 February 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

I know those are Draftek's rankings...I believe that all of those 5 will be gone by the picks you have them being selected at here.

Lewan is probably top 15
Benjamin top 25
Niklas top 45
Jackson by the end of the 2nd
Borland top 50
It is so hard to make any projections before pro day and combine performances.  I was pleasantly surprised to see some of the names there.  That said I've seen Jackson in the 3rd multiple times throughout projections, Lewan would surprise me as a top 15 pick, Borland's size/abilities may hamper him a bit, etc...  Still very early in the process and I had the ability to scroll down before making picks.  Kind of why I went Benjamin over ASJ as I knew Niklas was there.  Call me a cheater :pirate: :P

#13 TPS

TPS

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,175 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:35 PM

I think a very doable trade is with the Rams at 13 (will they partner again this year?).  We'd get their 3rd (75th) according to the draft value chart, which would give the Bills 4 picks in the top 75.  I don't think I'd go further back.  I want to be picking ahead of the other AFCE teams.

#14 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,270 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:38 PM

View PostTPS, on 19 February 2014 - 03:35 PM, said:

I think a very doable trade is with the Rams at 13 (will they partner again this year?).  We'd get their 3rd (75th) according to the draft value chart, which would give the Bills 4 picks in the top 75.  I don't think I'd go further back.  I want to be picking ahead of the other AFCE teams.

Not sure the Rams have any reason to move up.  They have the #2 pick, and even if they move back from there, I doubt they'd drop out of the top 10, so it's likely that they have their pick of who they want in the top 10.

Picking at 13, it's not as though there will be too many players gone by the time they pick again.

#15 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,844 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:49 PM

View Postthebandit27, on 19 February 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:



Not sure the Rams have any reason to move up.  They have the #2 pick, and even if they move back from there, I doubt they'd drop out of the top 10, so it's likely that they have their pick of who they want in the top 10.

Picking at 13, it's not as though there will be too many players gone by the time they pick again.
Unless they have their heart's set on a tackle (Matthews or Robinson)? I suspect that Watkins is their pick at 2. If they can get Watkins and Matthews I would imagine that they would be thrilled.

Edited by Kirby Jackson, 19 February 2014 - 03:49 PM.


#16 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,270 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 03:59 PM

View PostKirby Jackson, on 19 February 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

Unless they have their heart's set on a tackle (Matthews or Robinson)? I suspect that Watkins is their pick at 2. If they can get Watkins and Matthews I would imagine that they would be thrilled.

Could be...I had assumed one of two scenarios:

1. Clowney goes #1 overall, and the Rams trade back with whoever wants the top QB (i.e. Cleveland for Manziel or Oakland/Minnesota for whoever)

2. A QB goes #1 overall, and St. Louis takes Clowney at #2

#17 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,844 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 04:18 PM

View Postthebandit27, on 19 February 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:



Could be...I had assumed one of two scenarios:

1. Clowney goes #1 overall, and the Rams trade back with whoever wants the top QB (i.e. Cleveland for Manziel or Oakland/Minnesota for whoever)

2. A QB goes #1 overall, and St. Louis takes Clowney at #2
I am with you. Unless they plan on Watkins or Clowney at 2 they would be really stupid to remain in that spot. Cleveland (but also Oakland or even Minnesota) would love to get their pick of the QBs at 2.

#18 Section242

Section242

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 390 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 04:56 PM

For what it's worth Joe Buscaglia said he wouldn't trade down at all this year. Saying like previously posted this is the deepest draft at the top in awhile.

Edited by Section242, 19 February 2014 - 04:58 PM.


#19 BringBackFergy

BringBackFergy

    Eternally Optimistic Some of the Time

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,771 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 05:16 PM

View PostKirby Jackson, on 19 February 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

I would be comfortable going out of the 1st all together and acquiring a 2015 1st and another 2nd. This draft is deep and deep at the positions that the Bills need. I really like your SF trade above even though I am not a Sankey fan. I would want 4 picks in the 1st 100.

To clarify: Part of my reasoning for the 1st in 2015 is in case EJ doesn't work out. I think that the Bills will win at least 7 games next year regardless so they would not have a shot at the top QBs IMO. It would be nice to have that extra 1st to move up if necessary. If he develops then you have a young and talented roster & 2 1sts. Maybe you move up for someone else (Green-Beckham, Gurley)?
This is a good idea. Count me in.

#20 kdiggz

kdiggz

    Mayor of Pegulaville

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,289 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 06:09 PM

I think it will depend on how things go at the top of the draft. If teams start reaching for qb's and people we had at the top of the board fall to us then definitely go get them if we feel they are day 1 impact players. If other teams grab our top guys and there isn't much of a drop off between who is available and the next few guys at that position then I'm all about trading. It obviously worked out really well for us last year. For the first time in a long time I actually trust our organization after the great draft they put together last year so whatever they do I have faith that it's been well thought out