X-Era
07-24-2011, 09:09 AM
A vote (http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=5301) held here last year indicated the majority of voters would prefer to do whatever it takes to move up for Luck or the #2 QB in this years draft assuming Fitz isn't our answer.
But what would it cost to do that? Well, the number of picks necessary could be going up because the financial cost of signing him will go way down. NFLDraftInsider (http://twitter.com/#%21/NFLDraftInsider/status/95126797632540672) postulates that teams won't be as scared to do it anymore. It's not unreasonable to assume teams will be willing to part with even more picks than before because the financial cost is now less. A team that needs the best propsect that they can get at a position like QB and doesn't have a whole host of other needs may be willing to part with picks to move up. If Luck continues his stellar college career, he will be a sure lock to go #1 next year. Many think he's the best QB prospect since Manning. Since it will be cheaper to sign him, would a team like the Bills be more willing to trade up for him if they need to?
Sure, financially it will be cheaper, but for a team that wants to build through the draft like the Bills, The cost would seem very high. Picks are picks and when you trade them, you trade the rights to other players. Players who also will be cheaper than before. The draft allows you to get highly touted prospects without having to compete. You simply can draft players where you are slotted to draft them based on your record. And you are drafting the n-best player theoretically because you are picking at position n. To the Bills, the move would be more about trading away picks than money. Will they be willing to do that? Other teams might.
If the notion that teams will be more willing to move picks because the money to sign players will be less, the battle to trade up for Luck may be something we have never seen before.
But what would it cost to do that? Well, the number of picks necessary could be going up because the financial cost of signing him will go way down. NFLDraftInsider (http://twitter.com/#%21/NFLDraftInsider/status/95126797632540672) postulates that teams won't be as scared to do it anymore. It's not unreasonable to assume teams will be willing to part with even more picks than before because the financial cost is now less. A team that needs the best propsect that they can get at a position like QB and doesn't have a whole host of other needs may be willing to part with picks to move up. If Luck continues his stellar college career, he will be a sure lock to go #1 next year. Many think he's the best QB prospect since Manning. Since it will be cheaper to sign him, would a team like the Bills be more willing to trade up for him if they need to?
Sure, financially it will be cheaper, but for a team that wants to build through the draft like the Bills, The cost would seem very high. Picks are picks and when you trade them, you trade the rights to other players. Players who also will be cheaper than before. The draft allows you to get highly touted prospects without having to compete. You simply can draft players where you are slotted to draft them based on your record. And you are drafting the n-best player theoretically because you are picking at position n. To the Bills, the move would be more about trading away picks than money. Will they be willing to do that? Other teams might.
If the notion that teams will be more willing to move picks because the money to sign players will be less, the battle to trade up for Luck may be something we have never seen before.