In Albert Breers SI article this nugget was kinda buried
"Late first-round picks lack value. The other day I was spitballing on a potential Bills-Giants swap with a team exec, who said to me, “The problem is that the 22nd pick might as well be in the third round.” He was exaggerating, but only a little bit. The consensus I’ve heard is the difference between 22 and 52 is minimal this year, which is part of why the Colts did well to land a couple high second-rounders in their trade with the Jets."
This is essentially saying that the Bills 22nd pick is at point where there is a drop off in talent and then a plateau making those picks about equal. This would make the Bills second 1st rd pick more like a second rounder.
I havent read this line of thinking discussed on here in regards to a Bills trade down.
This really kind of devalues what the Bills have to offer in a trade down.
List the clear cut 21 first picks?
My main issue is if we're not taking a QB is that the positional value isn't there for a RB or G, you'd be relying on Barkley and Chubb being absolutely transformational players at their positions. And while I like Chubb, I can't help but think if Mack, Garrett and Bosa were in this draft he'd comfortably be the 4th best of them.
- You are getting the 22nd best player in the draft at worst. (depending on people's value board).
- We will be getting Bills 1st round pick next year or no deal. Say Darnold goes first and The Bills give up 2 1's, a 2 and a 3 this year to get a guy who needs a lot of development (Allen). It is very possible that we will have a top ten pick next year.
The draft is a crapshoot. Getting more (quality) shots on goal increases the odds.
If you want to move that far up for the QB of your future you should expect to have to pay a massive amount.
Filling bunch of holes would be nice, but its unrealistic to think that it will happen with more picks. Star players win games in this league - solid drafting and great coaching fill holes.
2. Fans love stockpiling picks.
Both are asinine. Get a blue chip player when you have the opportunity.
Fans think more picks will fill more holes. Unfortunately the further down the draft you go the smaller the chance of success. 10 picks won't fill 10 holes. In the long run you still fill 3 if you're lucky.
Take the blue chip.
I wouldn't be inclined to trade down, but any trade down from #2 would have to garner a first from next year as a starting point before I would even consider it, and I wouldn't go any lower than Denver.
Where do you get that from?
Teams that pick at the top of the draft almost always have an anticipation from their fans that they could take a QB, and often the reasoning is that in the few times you draft high, you better take advantage of the situation.
I guess that settles the talent vs. coaching argument once and for all.
Three first round picks and a second for a drop from 2 to 12. If the Bills want to keep their #22 pick then fine. Let them give up 12, 2019 1st and 2020 1st. If they really believe that the QB at 2 is Aaron Rodgers part 2 then it's a steal for them.
It's certainly not showing up on the rosters he's putting out on the field.
But I also think a trade with the Bills is intriguing because I don't believe there is a precipitous drop in the first round as the OP is suggesting. If the Giants trade from two to #12 for #22, #53, #65 and a first pick next year, they could likely select either Vita Vea or Darius Guice at #12 and McGlinchy, Wynn or Hernandez at #22. Any of these guys could be considered pro bowl type blue chip players. And then you have two additional top one hundred picks this year AND a likely top ten pick next year since Buffalo will not be a good team in 2018.
I believe though that the moment of maximum value for Gettleman is when the Giants are on the clock so this needs to go to the wire... should be fascinating drama!
"Some talent at the top" -- such as it is.
I guess that settles the talent vs. coaching argument once and for all.
BB is not considered the GOAT because of his drafting record. Far from it.
Cannot but agree. It's what makes Nelson, Chubb, and Barkley so attractive: they are certain to be starters day one and play virtually every down on offense or defense next year (absent physical catastrophe).
My main issue is if we're not taking a QB is that the positional value isn't there for a RB or G, you'd be relying on Barkley and Chubb being absolutely transformational players at their positions. And while I like Chubb, I can't help but think if Mack, Garrett and Bosa were in this draft he'd comfortably be the 4th best of them.
Agree. I see the meat of this draft as middle round 1 to early round 3. That’s the range where the Giants could get value at deficient areas of the roster. As such, it makes sense to acquire a bunch of picks in that range vs standing pat in the draft order.