"Several people I've spoken with speculated the #Giants & #Bills likely have a blueprint in place for a trade." -- NFL draft insider Tony Pauline (@DraftAnalyst1) http://draftanalyst.com/nfl-draft-news-notes-april-11 …
but he posted it would get done sometime last month. He got ripped for it when it didnt happen but some pointed out that while a trade didn't happen, its not wild to think the two teams have outline a POSSIBLE trade. Atleast a foundation of what it would take.
Several people I’ve spoken with speculated that the New York Giants and Buffalo Bills likely have a blueprint in place for a trade that would allow the Bills to move up to the second spot in the draft. They also believe that the trade won’t happen until very late in the process, if it happens at all, as the Giants want to field further offers.
RE: If such a trade was going to happen, it probably wouldn't happen until Â
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
are true that the Giants want Darnold then it is possible that if he goes at #1 then the Giants take a deal. I think that framework probably has been put in place.
If we're going to move that far back, throw the value chart out the window (since they are probably targeting a "their guy" at QB). According to the trade chart we should be able to get their #22 pick this year, and both their 2nd rounders this year. BUT - I want their 2019 1st rounder, too. That's the premium you have to pay to get they guy you think will be the face of your franchise for 10-15 years, period.
broncos or colts are involved first as a stepping stone won't they take away valuable picks from us? Would we simply take next year's 1st to swamp from 2 to 5 or 6? Why wouldn't Denver or the Colts demand next year's 1st to trade down from 5 or 6 to 12?
If we're going to move that far back, throw the value chart out the window (since they are probably targeting a "their guy" at QB). According to the trade chart we should be able to get their #22 pick this year, and both their 2nd rounders this year. BUT - I want their 2019 1st rounder, too. That's the premium you have to pay to get they guy you think will be the face of your franchise for 10-15 years, period.
Chart means something if you are trying to move, it means nothing if someone is trying to get you to move. We would get 2 1's this year, a 2 and a 3 and a pick next year to move from 2-12.
but if they are not, the right move is to get a haul of picks in return. I like Chubb and Nelson, but they are not worth staying if you can get multiple first rounders in my opinion
Look at all the dissenting opinions on the quarterbacks...would that be the case if one of the quarterbacks was John Elway? Maybe none of the QBs are blue chips?
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
broncos or colts are involved first as a stepping stone won't they take away valuable picks from us? Would we simply take next year's 1st to swamp from 2 to 5 or 6? Why wouldn't Denver or the Colts demand next year's 1st to trade down from 5 or 6 to 12?
If Buffalo gives both 12 and 22 to get to 5 then they could trade the 5 plus a 2nd and 3rd to us to drop from 2 to 5.
If we picked at 5, two 2nd's and three 3rd's and we have something cooking.
If we're going to move that far back, throw the value chart out the window (since they are probably targeting a "their guy" at QB). According to the trade chart we should be able to get their #22 pick this year, and both their 2nd rounders this year. BUT - I want their 2019 1st rounder, too. That's the premium you have to pay to get they guy you think will be the face of your franchise for 10-15 years, period.
Chart means something if you are trying to move, it means nothing if someone is trying to get you to move. We would get 2 1's this year, a 2 and a 3 and a pick next year to move from 2-12.
Who is to say we're "trying to move"?
Also, Buffalo knows we'll have other offers (possibly from Denver). If we don't like the QBs, we could just as well trade the pick to Denver and still get a perennial all-pro in Barkley or Chubb.
I would take the trade you mention above if that "pick next year" is their first rounder. Otherwise, not interested.
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
Totally agree. It is my opinion that the Giants have targeted Darnold. If he is NOT there (taken number one), the Giants will trade down. Parameters of any trade would have to be worked out beforehand- only ten minutes in between picks is certainly not enough time to put together a trade.
If this were to happen, I would expect the Giants to receive the Bills' two first round picks this year and a first in 2019, along with other picks this year.
If the haul is worth it, #12 is not a terrible spot to be. Assuming 4 QBs taken in the top 11 and Barkley, Chubb, Nelson all off the board, AT LEAST one of the following WILL still be available at our pick:
Minkah Fitzpatrick
Tremaine Edmunds
Vita Vea
Derwin James
Roquan Smith
Denzel Ward
I think all six of those guys have potential to be future all-pro players and make our Defense better from day 1.
1) We have committed to ELi, traded for a LB, signed a VET LT, signed a VET RB and seem to be trying to make one more run.
2) Our depth in many areas is weak and our starters in a couple of areas need help
3) Drafting a QB just because makes no sense. If the Giants don't think that guy is head above all others then we need players who can contribute now.
Loading up to win now is not a bad idea while also rebuilding depth that has been depleted due to shitty drafts in the recent past.
Gettleman's initial comments on the draft (at his introductory presser or ensuing media tour) are the most accurate - you don't want to get too cute when trading down, and you don't want to find yourself in "quarterback hell." To me, all signs still point to QB.
broncos or colts are involved first as a stepping stone won't they take away valuable picks from us? Would we simply take next year's 1st to swamp from 2 to 5 or 6? Why wouldn't Denver or the Colts demand next year's 1st to trade down from 5 or 6 to 12?
If Buffalo gives both 12 and 22 to get to 5 then they could trade the 5 plus a 2nd and 3rd to us to drop from 2 to 5.
If we picked at 5, two 2nd's and three 3rd's and we have something cooking.
They'd have to throw in their #1 next year too for me to like that deal. I don't want DG dropping three premier spots just for a 2 and 3.
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
People get too caught up in the top picks of the draft. Look back at the last five years. The hype and buzz words make it seem like some of these guys are superman.
Example, Barkley being a "generational back." How much better do they expect him to be than the top backs in the NFL currently? It's hyperbole.
If the giants can get two first rd picks, a second a future first from the bills they'd be fools to not take it UNLESS they're taking a QB.
RE: Is the difference between #2 and #12 that big? Â
Look at all the dissenting opinions on the quarterbacks...would that be the case if one of the quarterbacks was John Elway? Maybe none of the QBs are blue chips?
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
Agree. Plus if you don’t love a QB you’re getting a top 8 player at 12.
The decision should be QB or trade down. No non-qb player in this draft is worth the draft capital a BUF trade would net.
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
I agree with you. I think they will wait until the are on the clock because they want to see if the Browns take Allen. If they do then the Giants will likely keep the pick and take Darnold. If the Browns take Darnold I could see them moving down. The Giants have all the leverage here. The longer they wait the higher the offers will be on draft day as we know the Jets aren't going to trade down from 3.
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
where are you getting this information from?
Have you seen the browns and eagles trade that got them wentz?
moving away from blue chippers IMO isnt smart.
If i am the giants i am asking for
2 2018 1sts
2 2018 2nds
1 2019 1st
thats where i would start. its ten spots...for a franchise QB
Look at all the dissenting opinions on the quarterbacks...would that be the case if one of the quarterbacks was John Elway? Maybe none of the QBs are blue chips?
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
It is in terms of the Non-QBs. Chubb is THE difference maker defensively and you have no shot at 12. You could get Vita Via or Da'Ron Payne there, even Tremaine Edmunds so the extra picks should enable us to cluster draft if we have to.
And still trade back up to 5-7 and grab a guy you want. Again...the haul has to be there in the first place from the Bills. You also probably decided Barkley is not in play for you.
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
where are you getting this information from?
Have you seen the browns and eagles trade that got them wentz?
moving away from blue chippers IMO isnt smart.
If i am the giants i am asking for
2 2018 1sts
2 2018 2nds
1 2019 1st
thats where i would start. its ten spots...for a franchise QB
"Given that teams, on the whole, are irrationally willing to pay a lot to trade up, smart teams can reap huge benefits by trading down. Even staying put and drafting from your original spot, the researchers' analysis shows, is not a good strategy."
"Again, the data was unequivocal. On average, trading down and getting two players gave a team five more starts per season and slightly more total Pro Bowls.
You could chalk this up to the simple fact that more players start more games, but it's more than that. Even if you imagined that the team trading down could only keep the better one of the two players it drafted, it'd still get slightly more total starts and the same number of Pro Bowls. The truth is that teams are imperfect talent evaluators, so having two later picks is better than a single early one. Risk diversification at work."
"The most straightforward piece of proof for all this analysis is the fact that trading down and amassing more pick value — in terms of the blue line in the graph above — correlates with more wins on the field.
Massey and Thaler came to this conclusion by looking at the number of wins a team had in any given season between 1997 and 2008, and the total value of all picks they'd made in the previous four years (the amount of time, on average, a rookie is under contract for).
They found that one standard deviation in pick value translated to 1.5 more wins per season on the field. Sure, it's a small sample size, and there's a lot of chance and other factors built into the system — a coach's strategy, for instance — but trading down correlates with a significant amount of victories, given that there are only 16 games in a season."
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/5683448/how-nfl-teams-ignore-basic-economics-and-draft-players-irrationally Link - ( New Window )
Just a thought, but Flowers appearing to make it clear that he has learned nothing from his BFF Hart being cut effects the equation here. I fully expect that we will be jettisoning a recent number 1 pick. IF we jettison Flowers, there is one more hole on the paper-thin oline. I think that getting 2 #1s, 2 #2s, a #1 next year, and one or two #3s becomes more of an attractive option than second prize in the draft.
If the offer as rumored two 1's, two 2's, two 3's Â
Use a 2 to move from 12 to 6(Colts have said they want to move down). And keep the other picks. Then we have #6, #22 along with an extra 2 and 2 3's. Pretty simple, huh?
I'm sick of hearing about moving to 12. it just increases the risk of bust trading down that far. Quality over quantity is preferred. Can't guarantee Buffalo's 2019 1st pick will be a high 1st rounder. Trading down to #6 is more palatable.
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
Exactly, like when the Giants passed on a QB From Louisiana via Ole Miss. Or the Packers passed on a QB from Cal or when the Bears didnt trade up for a QB from Carolina.
The Bills are not going to pass on a blue chip qb bc he is from a warm weather climate
If Barkley Is Taken By The Browns At 1st Overall Â
then I start listening to the Bills. The Bills need to somehow bring either the Broncos 5th overall (1700) or the Colts 6th (1600) overall in to the trade. The Bills will have to give up the 12th overall (1200), one of their 2nd rounders (370) and their early 3rd rounder (265) for 1835 total.
The 6th overall is worth 1600. The 2nd overall is 2600. The Bill would have to give the Giants the 6th overall (1600), their 22nd overall (780), their 56th overall (340) and probably their remaining 3rd rounder 96th overall (116)
The Giants would have the two firsts, two seconds and three thirds (6th, 22nd, 34th, 56th, 66th, 69th, 96th)
I might still ask for a 2019 pick from the Bills too.
He also said he could see it still happening but was willing to take his asshat lumps since it didn't happen in the time frame he laid out.
correct, no real advantage to do a deal now. #2 really only got more valuable after a QB needy team slid up to #3.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
That’s where we took Beckham..:)
Agreed though.. No lower than 5 or 6 imo
Chart means something if you are trying to move, it means nothing if someone is trying to get you to move. We would get 2 1's this year, a 2 and a 3 and a pick next year to move from 2-12.
for starters:
2018 two first
2018 two seconds
2018 3rd
2019 first
2019 third
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
If Buffalo gives both 12 and 22 to get to 5 then they could trade the 5 plus a 2nd and 3rd to us to drop from 2 to 5.
If we picked at 5, two 2nd's and three 3rd's and we have something cooking.
Quote:
If we're going to move that far back, throw the value chart out the window (since they are probably targeting a "their guy" at QB). According to the trade chart we should be able to get their #22 pick this year, and both their 2nd rounders this year. BUT - I want their 2019 1st rounder, too. That's the premium you have to pay to get they guy you think will be the face of your franchise for 10-15 years, period.
Chart means something if you are trying to move, it means nothing if someone is trying to get you to move. We would get 2 1's this year, a 2 and a 3 and a pick next year to move from 2-12.
Who is to say we're "trying to move"?
Also, Buffalo knows we'll have other offers (possibly from Denver). If we don't like the QBs, we could just as well trade the pick to Denver and still get a perennial all-pro in Barkley or Chubb.
I would take the trade you mention above if that "pick next year" is their first rounder. Otherwise, not interested.
Quote:
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
Totally agree. It is my opinion that the Giants have targeted Darnold. If he is NOT there (taken number one), the Giants will trade down. Parameters of any trade would have to be worked out beforehand- only ten minutes in between picks is certainly not enough time to put together a trade.
If this were to happen, I would expect the Giants to receive the Bills' two first round picks this year and a first in 2019, along with other picks this year.
Pretty much everything is speculation regarding DG’s plans with the 2nd overall pick, as it should be. Keep all the other teams guessing.
Minkah Fitzpatrick
Tremaine Edmunds
Vita Vea
Derwin James
Roquan Smith
Denzel Ward
I think all six of those guys have potential to be future all-pro players and make our Defense better from day 1.
1) We have committed to ELi, traded for a LB, signed a VET LT, signed a VET RB and seem to be trying to make one more run.
2) Our depth in many areas is weak and our starters in a couple of areas need help
3) Drafting a QB just because makes no sense. If the Giants don't think that guy is head above all others then we need players who can contribute now.
Loading up to win now is not a bad idea while also rebuilding depth that has been depleted due to shitty drafts in the recent past.
Quote:
broncos or colts are involved first as a stepping stone won't they take away valuable picks from us? Would we simply take next year's 1st to swamp from 2 to 5 or 6? Why wouldn't Denver or the Colts demand next year's 1st to trade down from 5 or 6 to 12?
If Buffalo gives both 12 and 22 to get to 5 then they could trade the 5 plus a 2nd and 3rd to us to drop from 2 to 5.
If we picked at 5, two 2nd's and three 3rd's and we have something cooking.
They'd have to throw in their #1 next year too for me to like that deal. I don't want DG dropping three premier spots just for a 2 and 3.
People get too caught up in the top picks of the draft. Look back at the last five years. The hype and buzz words make it seem like some of these guys are superman.
Example, Barkley being a "generational back." How much better do they expect him to be than the top backs in the NFL currently? It's hyperbole.
If the giants can get two first rd picks, a second a future first from the bills they'd be fools to not take it UNLESS they're taking a QB.
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
Agree. Plus if you don’t love a QB you’re getting a top 8 player at 12.
The decision should be QB or trade down. No non-qb player in this draft is worth the draft capital a BUF trade would net.
for starters:
2018 two first
2018 two seconds
2018 3rd
2019 first
2019 third
lol so if they say you cant have our third in 18 and 19 you dont take 3 first rd picks and two 2s. Nonsense.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
I agree with you. I think they will wait until the are on the clock because they want to see if the Browns take Allen. If they do then the Giants will likely keep the pick and take Darnold. If the Browns take Darnold I could see them moving down. The Giants have all the leverage here. The longer they wait the higher the offers will be on draft day as we know the Jets aren't going to trade down from 3.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
Quote:
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
where are you getting this information from?
Have you seen the browns and eagles trade that got them wentz?
moving away from blue chippers IMO isnt smart.
If i am the giants i am asking for
2 2018 1sts
2 2018 2nds
1 2019 1st
thats where i would start. its ten spots...for a franchise QB
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
This is what I am hearing
I don't know...if we believe in Gettleman's ability to identify talent, I want to get him as many picks as possible. Good players on rookie contracts are worth their weight in gold, and to add six shots for a talented evaluator like Gettleman...to me that's tough to pass up unless one of these quarterbacks is can't miss.
Are any of them can't miss?
Quote:
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
This is what I am hearing
Finally putting on your asshat again.
Quote:
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
This is what I am hearing
Hearing they'll move it to the Bills or move it in general?
Quote:
In comment 13909646 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
The Bills would make an awful trading partner. Moving down from 2 to 12 sucks.
If you prefer to be 8-8 rather than 10-6 year after year, then you are correct.
All the data and analytical work shows that consistently trading down is by far the dominant strategy. Worth about 1.5-2.0 extra wins per season if you consistently trade down.
where are you getting this information from?
Have you seen the browns and eagles trade that got them wentz?
moving away from blue chippers IMO isnt smart.
If i am the giants i am asking for
2 2018 1sts
2 2018 2nds
1 2019 1st
thats where i would start. its ten spots...for a franchise QB
"Given that teams, on the whole, are irrationally willing to pay a lot to trade up, smart teams can reap huge benefits by trading down. Even staying put and drafting from your original spot, the researchers' analysis shows, is not a good strategy."
"Again, the data was unequivocal. On average, trading down and getting two players gave a team five more starts per season and slightly more total Pro Bowls.
You could chalk this up to the simple fact that more players start more games, but it's more than that. Even if you imagined that the team trading down could only keep the better one of the two players it drafted, it'd still get slightly more total starts and the same number of Pro Bowls. The truth is that teams are imperfect talent evaluators, so having two later picks is better than a single early one. Risk diversification at work."
"The most straightforward piece of proof for all this analysis is the fact that trading down and amassing more pick value — in terms of the blue line in the graph above — correlates with more wins on the field.
Massey and Thaler came to this conclusion by looking at the number of wins a team had in any given season between 1997 and 2008, and the total value of all picks they'd made in the previous four years (the amount of time, on average, a rookie is under contract for).
They found that one standard deviation in pick value translated to 1.5 more wins per season on the field. Sure, it's a small sample size, and there's a lot of chance and other factors built into the system — a coach's strategy, for instance — but trading down correlates with a significant amount of victories, given that there are only 16 games in a season."
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/5683448/how-nfl-teams-ignore-basic-economics-and-draft-players-irrationally
Link - ( New Window )
Trading down is the winning move.
Quote:
if Browns pick Darnold they execute the trade. If Darnold is available the Giants stay and pick him.
If the trade includes the Broncos or Colts we could still end up with Barkley Chubb or Nelson
Agreed. Any trade is probably continent on Allen being available at #2. The Bills probably won't trade those picks for Darnold. They want a QB who has played in cold weather, not one from USC. And the Giants would probably decline any trade to take Darnold.
Exactly, like when the Giants passed on a QB From Louisiana via Ole Miss. Or the Packers passed on a QB from Cal or when the Bears didnt trade up for a QB from Carolina.
The Bills are not going to pass on a blue chip qb bc he is from a warm weather climate
The 6th overall is worth 1600. The 2nd overall is 2600. The Bill would have to give the Giants the 6th overall (1600), their 22nd overall (780), their 56th overall (340) and probably their remaining 3rd rounder 96th overall (116)
The Giants would have the two firsts, two seconds and three thirds (6th, 22nd, 34th, 56th, 66th, 69th, 96th)
I might still ask for a 2019 pick from the Bills too.