The Real Reason We Don't Trade Down

[Mike]

Every draft year, there are a few who suggest trading down, then the majority talk about how hard it is and that you need a partner, etc... Every year, there are multiple trades, the Pats manage to trade in and out of round with ease year after year, and this year was no different. So what gives?

It his latest interview Nix explains that "there were many calls 10+ for trying to trade up to their spot, bot for the first and second rounder"... letter he affirms that he "wants teams to get the point that he is not trading down"

From this its obvious that they lock in on players. I am not arguing that that is a bad thing per se, it can be a good thing, like drafting DM @3 (oppose to trading down), however in the long run a position like that limits your options and locking in one one player tends to work against you.

I hope this ends the debate once and for all. The Bills don't trade down because there are no deals or willing partners but because they don't want to. The opportunity is there, heavily there, even in the top 5 picks, but the Bills have their player in mind, and trading out was not an option. Lastly, the Bills are sending out a "leave us alone" type message which can lead to less calls and less opportunity in the future.

Next Draft remember that Deals are always out there, Trading in and out of spots is not as difficult or impossible and there are multiple trading partners. And certain teams take advantage of this year after year!!!

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1...aced-the-draft

[psubills62]

Gee, we must be the only team that locks in on players.

[Coach Sal]

Pat Kirwan always talks about the philosophy of trading down, and what the general rule usually is for a team. Not that his rules are recipes for SB champs, but he gives good insight into how teams/GMs think:

If you are going to trade down, say 5-6 spots, you better have a list of 5-6 players you will still take when it comes to your spot. Because if you trade down, then all the guys you thought were worth still taking at the new spot are gone, it wasn't worth it. You just gave up a lot of value to your board. If you don't have that many guys you think are worth that new spot, don't even make the deal. Stay where you are and take the value.

Trading down 10+ spots means you really don't believe the value of the player you re taking at 3 is as good as the value of the player you'll get at 10+ (and the other pick(s)).

I'd be hard-pressed to make an argument that there was more value in the 12, or 15, or 20 spot (plus another pick) than there was in getting Dareus. He was widely regarded as the best player in the draft.

[ddaryl]

The Bills were not locking in on one player though

They had at least 3 players they were going to take at #3 that they were unwilling to pass up on...

last year Spiller just represented way to much value at #9, according to the Bills board...

If the team gets built up and has no glaring holes I could see Nix starting to play the trade back game more so, but we do not have that luxury.. we have lots and lots of holes and depth issues to fill.

[OpIv37]

I'm fine with not trading down if we get a good player.

I'm not fine with not trading down if we end up with Aaron Maybin, Marshawn Lynch, Donte Whitner, etc.

[dannyek71]

It beguiles me why we do not trade down with all the holes this team has.

[ddaryl]

I'm fine with not trading down if we get a good player.

I'm not fine with not trading down if we end up with Aaron Maybin, Marshawn Lynch, Donte Whitner, etc.

I was happy with Lynch and his 1st season showed some real promise... he was a fun guy to watch until his offseason BS started up.

but Maybin was just a colossal mistake, as was Donte... which were a big part of our 10 years of piss poor football management problems and why we are where we are today

[justasportsfan]

It beguiles me why we do not trade down with all the holes this team has.


because the players down there may not be better than what you already have.

[wmoz11]

It beguiles me why we do not trade down with all the holes this team has.

You don't fill holes by drafting guys in those positions. You fill holes by drafting great players. If it's a sure thing to get Dareus (or anyone) to fill a hole - you take it. Because you know you've got one hole filled for sure.

If you trade down and get extra picks, the quality of player is less and there's no guarantee that any of them will fill a hole.

[sdbillsfan2]

I actually like the fact that this year we had a game plan going into the draft and stuck to it .

[Dozerdog]

It beguiles me why we do not trade down with all the holes this team has.


Nice in theory- but if you keep plugging holes with plugs smaller than the hole- you end up with no playoff appearances in a dozen years

[Night Train]

With this draft looking solid in the quality we got, I'm fine with sitting pat and grabbing guys they believe can play a lot immediately over getting more in quantity but less of an impact.

[baalworship]

There are two different philosophies on movement in the draft.

1. One school believes in movement. Cowboys, Patriots try to maneuver around to get value and take advantage of other team's need for a certain player. This philosophy often generates more picks which can create more of a chance to land a good player.

2. Some teams don't want to get fancy and have invested so much time in the positions they already are at that they fear they will outsmart themselves. Packers, Chargers, and Steelers are here and just make a pick when it's their turn and things work out fine for them.

Most fans prefer moving around but I don't think it's the only way to go.

[Mike]

You don't fill holes by drafting guys in those positions. You fill holes by drafting great players. If it's a sure thing to get Dareus (or anyone) to fill a hole - you take it. Because you know you've got one hole filled for sure.

If you trade down and get extra picks, the quality of player is less and there's no guarantee that any of them will fill a hole.

There are great players in all rounds of the draft. Just look at the past 10 years or so. Great players were chosen in the top 10, fist round, 2nd round, 3rd round, even 4th round. Its a matter of finding those players.

In any draft year, there is a clear idea of who is great or what player should be taken where but at the end of the day, it really does not matter that much. The draft really is a crapshoot. Its almost like playing roulette. The great GM know how to pick players, how to let players fall to them, and how to trade in and out of picks.

When Wilfork fell to the Pats at 21 (I believe) they stood Pat and drafted him instead of trading down. In the mean time we drafted Evans & later Lossman. In 2008, Pats they coveted Mayo and took him in top 10 while we took McKelvin. A pick later Ryan Clady, OT was taken. If we traded down that year, in the bottom of the 1st, we could have had any number of good to great players: Chris Johnson, Mendenhall, Felix Jones, Mike Jenkins (pro bowl cb), Dustin Keller. In the second round, we could have traded down and taken Deshuan jackson, Ray Rice, Matt Forte, Edie Royal, Jamal Charles, instead of Bust James Hardy.

I know its easy to mock a draft after the fact, but the point I am making is that you never know how a player will turn out and if you are split on a player for good reason, its best the trade down and get the extra pick. What is even better is not being locking in a player. McKelvin is yet to justify his selection like most other Bills draft picks and in 2008 there was better value in the 20's than in the teens. This is also not uncommon!

[alohabillsfan]

OK not trading down at #3 is a no brainer, take Dareus.
Not trading down at #34, to much risk to trade down since NE took CB Dowling only leaving Williams at CB with a high grade.

For all of those BPA draft experts please revisit team needs and their drafts and in the first 2-3 rounds teams fill needs with the BPA at that position.

[Ickybaluky]

There are two different philosophies on movement in the draft.

1. One school believes in movement. Cowboys, Patriots try to maneuver around to get value and take advantage of other team's need for a certain player. This philosophy often generates more picks which can create more of a chance to land a good player.

2. Some teams don't want to get fancy and have invested so much time in the positions they already are at that they fear they will outsmart themselves. Packers, Chargers, and Steelers are here and just make a pick when it's their turn and things work out fine for them.

Most fans prefer moving around but I don't think it's the only way to go.

This is exactly my opinion, the only caveat is the Packers are moderately aggressive when moving around. I would substitute Indianapolis, as Bill Polian tends to stay at home, and when he does trade picks he usually trades up.

At the end of the day, there are different approaches. The only thing that matters in the end is picking the right players.

[Buckets]

With a team like the Pats their "needs" are few and they can afford to take the best available player at the lower pick.

[Extremebillsfan247]

It beguiles me why we do not trade down with all the holes this team has.
Because sometimes it's better to land a Dareus at 3 than it is to trade down and be left with a Whitner or McCargo type prospect to choose from just so you can have extra picks. JMO

[BillsFever21]

This is one of the many reasons why this team has stunk the field and the draft the past decade. They are either too scared or to incompetent to think outside the box on draft day.

I'm fine with the Darius pick if that's the guy they wanted. He has the potential to be a game changer. I'm talking about later picks or in past drafts in general.

How many times have the Bills drafted busts and probably could have had them later on. If you can pick up some extra draft picks and still get your guy(s) then it makes no sense to be opposed to it unless you have no idea how to look ahead in the draft strategy. Instead how mahy times have they traded up and gave away draft picks and ones in the following year to get a player that didn't end up being worth it.

Look at teams like the Patriots. Every year they have about 6 draft picks in the first couple rounds. They will trade down and get and extra pick and then later trade that pick for a next lower rounder and another one for the next higher round the following year. They have owned that draft strategy for years now.

This ends up giving them many options in the first couple of rounds and they always have tons of draft picks. Eventually I feel they need to cash in on some of them guys to move up and get a major impact player(s). With a team like them you only have so many draft spots for all them guys. They are never short on options on draft day though and that is why they continue to stay a top team in the league over the past decade even without many major FA signings or keeping their own.

[Extremebillsfan247]

With this draft looking solid in the quality we got, I'm fine with sitting pat and grabbing guys they believe can play a lot immediately over getting more in quantity but less of an impact.
Some old hats are just like that. They believe in quality over quantity. That is one part in many to Nix's philosophy or so it seems. At least for the outset, I'm ok with it too. But, who knows how that will change in a year or 2 when hindsight at that time will be 20/20? Then, we will either be raving about this draft, or will be talking about what we should have done to make it a better draft. That is the quintessential never ending story here. lol