Players for Picks strategy?

[trapezeus]

Do you like this? I'm undecided...but there is something about trading people of value for picks and trying over again.

We kinda saw all the heart that the team had last year (not enough) and all the talent (also not enough). It wasn't going to get it done. The offense couldn't move the ball on the ground consistently.

The fo has been terrible at picks, so it is good that they are stockpiling on picks. more chance to get lucky and get it right.

ii don't know.....i'm pretty down on the 2009 season, but getting rid of dead weight like parrish and kelsay for picks could be a good thing. it at the very least makes it interesting.

[HHURRICANE]

Re: Players for Picks strategy?

I'm not as down on Jauron as alot of people around here are.

But if you believe we have an inferior coach than the last thing you do is give him a bunch of projects and expect wins. And believe me when I say that Jauron is not happy that Peters is not on his roster. Trust me on that one. Your front office decides to give their best player the offer he wanted last season when the market goes up. Talk about never intending to sign the guy.

[Nighthawk]

Re: Players for Picks strategy?

Do you like this? I'm undecided...but there is something about trading people of value for picks and trying over again.

We kinda saw all the heart that the team had last year (not enough) and all the talent (also not enough). It wasn't going to get it done. The offense couldn't move the ball on the ground consistently.

The fo has been terrible at picks, so it is good that they are stockpiling on picks. more chance to get lucky and get it right.

ii don't know.....i'm pretty down on the 2009 season, but getting rid of dead weight like parrish and kelsay for picks could be a good thing. it at the very least makes it interesting.

Besided Peters, the trading of mediocre players for picks is perfectly fine IMO. Yes, we definitely have to wait to see how this organization does with those picks, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[kernowboy]

Re: Players for Picks strategy?

Its whether we can find trading partners.

Overall we tend to be great on Day1 of the draft but poorer on Day2 though we do find some nice players.

In 2006, we hit on Whitner, Simpson, K Williams, Butler and finally Youboty but have missed on McCargo, Merz and Pennington.

In 2007, we had a brilliant Day1 with Lynch, Pozluzny and Edwards, but fell off the map with Wright, Schouman and Ah You. Wendling has become a decent special teamer.

2008 is too early to call yet. For me McKelvin, Corner, Johnson and Bell were good picks but the jury is still out on Hardy, Ellis, Fine, Bowen and Omon.

What I mean by a hit is a player who has made a decent contribution considering where they were drafted.

In 2009, what we must get away from is drafting players on Day2 for the special teams ability and draft some genuine depth. Take the Saints last year who drafted second round quality in the 6th with Carl Nicks and have got themselves a quality starting LG.

This is what we need to do, if we are to stockpile picks.

[Nighthawk]

Re: Players for Picks strategy?

Another thing people have to remember is that the Bills brought back Buddy Nix and I'm hopeful he will help find some diamonds in the rough for this team. If there is one thing this guy knows...it's the draft and talent. He proved it here and he proved it in San Diego.

[OpIv37]

Re: Players for Picks strategy?

Players for picks is a rebuilding strategy.

Picks for players is a "win now" strategy.

This FO hasn't been particularly good at implementing either of those two strategies.

[realdealryan]

Re: Players for Picks strategy?

Players for picks is a rebuilding strategy.

Picks for players is a "win now" strategy.

This FO hasn't been particularly good at implementing either of those two strategies.

Instead we've combined the two for a hybrid "rebuilding now" strategy.

[Nighthawk]

Re: Players for Picks strategy?

I'm not making a judgement until after the draft...I don't have all the information to make a intelligent arguement about where this team is heading.

[OpIv37]

Re: Players for Picks strategy?

I'm not making a judgement until after the draft...I don't have all the information to make a intelligent arguement about where this team is heading.

this year, we're headed nowhere. Even if this FO somehow learns how to draft before Saturday, it'll be a couple of years before whoever they pick evolves into NFL impact players

[HHURRICANE]

Re: Players for Picks strategy?

Instead we've combined the two for a hybrid "rebuilding now" strategy.

Dude, that's awesome!!

[HHURRICANE]

Re: Players for Picks strategy?

this year, we're headed nowhere. Even if this FO somehow learns how to draft before Saturday, it'll be a couple of years before whoever they pick evolves into NFL impact players

Totally agree here and that's why I'm *****ing. 3 years ago they said they were rebuilding and we were going to get back to the playoffs.

It's year 4 and we are back to drafting for the future. They have a week to pull out a miraacle and bring in Sheffler and some veteran tackle to make me believe that we aren't just spinning our wheels here.

[Buddo]

Re: Players for Picks strategy?

I think much depends on the players you trade, and what picks you get for them.
The Peters 'situation' I don't think really applies here.
A trade of Parrish or Kelsay, could make a lot of sense. Somewhere along the lines, we are going to need to cut a receiver. Favourite atm would be Jenkins. The alternative, is to trade Parrish, for probably another 4th round pick. That 4th round pick, could easily be used on an interior lineman, either to develop, or for depth. It could also be used with another of our 4th rounders, to move up into the 3rd round again, to grab a target, say TE for example.
If we are definitely going to take a DE in the 1st round, someone like Kelsay, could well become largely redundant and any pick we could get for him, we could again use to move up to take another target.
Trading players while they still have some value, isn't a bad thing necessarily, especially if you are pretty well stocked at the position (or will be) in the first place.