Schefter on the Bills trading up for Kalil

[oldno711]

Vikes not sold on Kalil?
1:58PM ET
Minnesota Vikings

There has been a near consensus that the Minnesota Vikings (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/min/minnesota-vikings)' first-round pick will be used to take USC OT Matt Kalil, but nothing is a certainty until the pick is actually read by the commissioner on the night of Apr. 26. And our own NFL Insider Adam Schefter isn't so sure that the Vikes are entirely sold on Kalil.


There are some scenarios where Kalil is not taken third overall -- either the Vikings take someone else or trade with a team that is targeting Ryan Tannehill, for example -- and this could potentially open the door for the Buffalo Bills (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/buf/buffalo-bills), should they be interested in trading up a few spots from No. 10 overall to nab him:

- Tim Kavanagh


http://a.espncdn.com/i/columnists/schefter_adam_30.jpg Adam Schefter

Kalil could be a Bill (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/blog/_/name/schefter_adam/id/7805198/2012-nfl-draft-mailbag-houston-texans-buffalo-bills-more)


Q: Hey Adam! I've always been a huge fan of what you do, thanks for all the hard work! Can you see the Buffalo Bills (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/buf/buffalo-bills) trading up if Matt Kalil (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft/player/_/id/28826/matt-kalil) falls or possibly drafting Luke Kuechly (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft/player/_/id/28618/luke-kuechly) or David DeCastro (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft/player/_/id/28952/david-decastro)? The value for LT (clearly their most pressing need) just does not seem there at 10. Thanks!

-- Jake (New York)
<OFFER>A: Thank you for writing, Jake, I appreciate your kind words. It could be that Kalil falls and if Buffalo wants to go trade up to No. 5 (Tampa Bay) or No. 6 (St. Louis), those teams would be all ears in terms of listening to offers. If Buffalo stays where it is, the sense around the league is that the Bills will have their choice between Kuechly or DeCastro and other good players who will be available at that spot. But I like your Kalil idea, Jake. It makes sense to me. The key to that would be Minnesota passing on Kalil, which I happen to believe the Vikings will. I'm in the minority there, and the Vikings are still deciding what to do, but I don't think Kalil is the lock that others do -- even if Minnesota stays at No. 3.

[k-oneputt]

I would be all for trading up for Kalil.

[Ed]

I heard McShay saying something on Mike and Mike this morning about the Vikings wanting to trade out of the #3 spot and Kalil not being a lock there. Todd, Mike, and Mike all questioned why the Vikings wouldn't want Kalil at 3 because he seems like a perfect fit for them, but it's starting to sound like maybe the Vikings aren't as sold on Kalil as everyone else seems to think they are or should be.

[stuckincincy]

Sounds to me like one more of the countless talking heads trying to stir a pot to keep his hide in the mix.

[oldno711]

Sounds to me like one more of the countless talking heads trying to stir a pot to keep his hide in the mix.

i think something like this is definitely within the realm of possibility. if the vikings pass on kalil and/or trade the pick, i could see him drop ...not far, but far enough that trading up for him would certainly be an option...

[Pinkerton Security]

What would we have to give up? moving from #10 to #5 is quite a bit..

[oldno711]

I heard McShay saying something on Mike and Mike this morning about the Vikings wanting to trade out of the #3 spot and Kalil not being a lock there. Todd, Mike, and Mike all questioned why the Vikings wouldn't want Kalil at 3 because he seems like a perfect fit for them, but it's starting to sound like maybe the Vikings aren't as sold on Kalil as everyone else seems to think they are or should be.

it sounds to me like they just think there's better value to be had at #3...in the form of additional picks

[oldno711]

What would we have to give up? moving from #10 to #5 is quite a bit..

according to this chart (don't know anything about this site, but it appears this guy took a stab at reevaluating the draft picks based on the new rookie wage scale), it looks like a move from 10 to 6 would cost us our 3rd rounder

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftology321.php

[Jersey1031]

according to this chart (don't know anything about this site, but it appears this guy took a stab at reevaluating the draft picks based on the new rookie wage scale), it looks like a move from 10 to 6 would cost us our 3rd rounder

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftology321.php

There's no way it would just be a 3rd... or we'd already be at 6.

[JCBills]

So now they think someone would trade up to #3 for Tannehill?

Amazing how the media takes a mid 2nd rounder and pushes them to the top 3.

[k-oneputt]

It has nothing to do with the media, it's the position.

[JCBills]

It has nothing to do with the media, it's the position.

Right, which has everything to do with the media.

Because of the position, they will overhype it.

Then, only 3 things can really happen.

1. A team takes him earlier than expected.
2. A team takes him about where he was expected to go.
3. The player "slides" according to the media because team scouts know better than them.

There could be a draft class with no legit starter QB prospects in it and they would try to hype whoever the best of the heap was into a top 10 pick.

[BillsLunaticEZE]

I think them not wanting Khalil also has to do with the fact OT don't sell tickets. Khalil is the best OT to come out since Joe Thomas.

[PTI]

I think they take Blackmon, the WR, they need weapns for Ponder, and Harvin is small and has health issues.

[YardRat]

I don't know about six, but if Kalil gets to seven the phone will be burning up.

[CleveSteve]

I don't know about six, but if Kalil gets to seven the phone will be burning up.

Hmm... tough for me to envision a scenario where both MIN and STL both pass on Kalil.

[YardRat]

Hmm... tough for me to envision a scenario where both MIN and STL both pass on Kalil.

Then you're going to have to move up two more spots to five, and I don't see Nix paying the price or Tampa moving back that far without reaping a boatload of picks.

[HAMMER]

Hmm... tough for me to envision a scenario where both MIN and STL both pass on Kalil.

Agreed, Smith never panned out at LT.

[Philagape]

Id pay a premium to get Kalil. With a pass rush and franchise LT added this offseason, most other positions would be gravy. The cornerstones would be in place.

[Cali512]

If we can manage to keep our 2nd or 3rd or both, then yes. If we got an OT like Kalil, and got a decent round 2-3 WR. Wed be set!

[ServoBillieves]

These early round franchise LT's have been great these past few years. Let's trade ahead as a team that the GM has said he wanted to build through the draft. Give up a bunch of picks for a possibility than better prospects.

[Night Train]

Kate Upton calling me for a date is more likely.

[DraftBoy]

Didnt we go through this last year with Schefter?

[Don't Panic]

I'd easily give up a 3rd and the #10 to get up to #4. Throw in McKelvin while you're at it.

[YardRat]

I'd easily give up a 3rd and the #10 to get up to #4. Throw in McKelvin while you're at it.

You're not getting to #4 that cheaply.

[Bert102176]

to hell with Kalil I want Blackmon or Floyd

[jamze132]

I don't like the idea of trading picks to move up. Regardless of who we want to get, he is still just a prospect and could fold up just like Mike Williams did. Stay at 10 and draft Kuechly or Floyd or trade down to collect more picks.

[X-Era]

You're not getting to #4 that cheaply.How about our 10, a 3rd and 4th... Id pay that.
I'd like to solidify a position rather than just add another backup or two.

[DraftBoy]

How about our 10, a 3rd and 4th... Id pay that.
I'd like to solidify a position rather than just add another backup or two.

That's not even close. It cost three first rounds to move from 6 to 2. You're losing at least 2 1sts, and at least 1 2nd along with more picks to make this jump.

[Philagape]

If I were Cleveland I'd want at least a second-rounder this year, and probably a high pick next year too.
And I'd seriously consider that if I were Buffalo.

[mysticsoto]

How about our 10, a 3rd and 4th... Id pay that.
I'd like to solidify a position rather than just add another backup or two.

That wouldn't cut it either. To move to #6 we'd likely need to pay a 2nd and maybe get a 4th in return.

To me, that's not worth it. I'd rather attempt a trade down - but that may not be easily done either.

What I envision as the more likely scenario is for us to grab an impact player that is available at #10 (likely Floyd as the OTs aren't really impact players and worth the #10 slot) and then trading back up into the end of the 1st to grab a decent OL that might fall - as sometimes occurs.

That's my prediction.

[X-Era]

That's not even close. It cost three first rounds to move from 6 to 2. You're losing at least 2 1sts, and at least 1 2nd along with more picks to make this jump.DB... I really won't argue this point. It's an argument with no data. Your saying the TVC is out the window... I'm not sure I agree. But, I also can't dispute it without data. But, we have only the Skin's trade to use and I think it was a specific team than made a specific trade for a specific player. It cost the idiot Redskins that much for a guy they think is a sure fire franchise pro-bowl caliber QB. Would that same move cost the same regardless of the player or position? Like for a CB?

To me the trade is about who is there, what position that player plays, and also the worth of the pick. I really think it would cost much less. Could I see our 10, our 3rd and next years 2nd? Yes. But I would not be shocked if it was way less. No one would trade that much for a LT prospect IMO. Hell, if it ends up being the Fins trading for what they think is a franchise QB in Tannehill I still could see the cost being less than what you outlined.

[X-Era]

That wouldn't cut it either. To move to #6 we'd likely need to pay a 2nd and maybe get a 4th in return.

To me, that's not worth it. I'd rather attempt a trade down - but that may not be easily done either.

What I envision as the more likely scenario is for us to grab an impact player that is available at #10 (likely Floyd as the OTs aren't really impact players and worth the #10 slot) and then trading back up into the end of the 1st to grab a decent OL that might fall - as sometimes occurs.

That's my prediction.I'm fine with that too. I guess I'm questioning why we should take all those 10 players when we have less holes to fill than in prior years and need to add better quality at our backup positions... It's a bit counter-productive. Can these mid to late rounders come in and earn jobs? sure. But what if they also add vet backups and the draftees don't end up making the team... that's wasted picks when we could have gotten a better player for them.

But just so were clear. I'm fine with us staying where we are and taking players with all those picks... I'm just being critical for the purposes of discussing the trade up/trade back scenario.

[YardRat]

I'd be more inclined to trade players than picks, but that's a rarer scenario yet.

Package Batten, Moats and Edwards to somebody, but unfortunately it doesn't appear anybody above would be able to fit them in to their scheme either.

[k-oneputt]

I'd be more inclined to trade players than picks, but that's a rarer scenario yet.

Package Batten, Moats and Edwards to somebody, but unfortunately it doesn't appear anybody above would be able to fit them in to their scheme either.

LOL. Who the hell wants Batten, Moats, and Edwards ?

If they are wanting them that bad tell'em to check the waiver wire sometime in mid to late august.

If they go up for Kallil it's costing this year #10 and next years #1 pick for openers.

[YardRat]

LOL. Who the hell wants Batten, Moats, and Edwards ?

If they are wanting them that bad tell'em to check the waiver wire sometime in mid to late august.

If they go up for Kallil it's costing this year #10 and next years #1 pick for openers.

Yeah, I know :D

Gotta at least try to get something in return for the dead weight, though.

[mysticsoto]

I'm fine with that too. I guess I'm questioning why we should take all those 10 players when we have less holes to fill than in prior years and need to add better quality at our backup positions... It's a bit counter-productive. Can these mid to late rounders come in and earn jobs? sure. But what if they also add vet backups and the draftees don't end up making the team... that's wasted picks when we could have gotten a better player for them.

But just so were clear. I'm fine with us staying where we are and taking players with all those picks... I'm just being critical for the purposes of discussing the trade up/trade back scenario.

Unless somebody unexpectedly falls (and it does happen sometimes) I doubt we will be able to trade down. Hence my remark about grabbing a talent that has the most impact on our team. Floyd alongside Stevie would be a devastating combo that I think would be hard for teams to counter. Alot of pressure would be off Floyd b'cse he would be the #2 WR vs a #1. We get the prototypical tall WR that they like and Fitz gets a better target than Jones who underachieved last yr.

Trading up into the 1st rd for an OL that is wanted then allows us to close the risk we currently have at Tackle. Given that we have plenty of picks, it wouldn't be a bad idea if it gets us the talent that they seek. They seem to have a good eye for Olinemen talent. Hairston was a good pick and bringing in Pears and Urbik were great choices. I think they can get a decent OL in the late 1st or early 2nd.

[DraftBoy]

DB... I really won't argue this point. It's an argument with no data. Your saying the TVC is out the window... I'm not sure I agree. But, I also can't dispute it without data. But, we have only the Skin's trade to use and I think it was a specific team than made a specific trade for a specific player. It cost the idiot Redskins that much for a guy they think is a sure fire franchise pro-bowl caliber QB. Would that same move cost the same regardless of the player or position? Like for a CB?

To me the trade is about who is there, what position that player plays, and also the worth of the pick. I really think it would cost much less. Could I see our 10, our 3rd and next years 2nd? Yes. But I would not be shocked if it was way less. No one would trade that much for a LT prospect IMO. Hell, if it ends up being the Fins trading for what they think is a franchise QB in Tannehill I still could see the cost being less than what you outlined.

Again it was not just Washington offering multiple 1st Round picks to STL.

[X-Era]

Again it was not just Washington offering multiple 1st Round picks to STL.Well it was only the Redskins that actually paid it. And again it was for a guy they think is a franchise QB. Not a LT.

[DraftBoy]

Well it was only the Redskins that actually paid it. And again it was for a guy they think is a franchise QB. Not a LT.

Well of course only one team paid it, only one team can make a trade.

A LT is considered by some to be the 2nd most important position on a team and at worst the 3rd. The price isn't going to magically drop below multiple first round picks especially when there is a franchise LT available.

[X-Era]

Well of course only one team paid it, only one team can make a trade.

A LT is considered by some to be the 2nd most important position on a team and at worst the 3rd. The price isn't going to magically drop below multiple first round picks especially when there is a franchise LT available.I'd feel better about this argument if any team had traded 3 1st rounders for a LT. I digress, the truth is the necessary data just isn't there to determine the new TVC. I agree that the Skins trade flies in the face of the TVC but you should also concede that we have no other real data point to form a new TVC. Even the Julio Jones trade was pre-CBA. It also was moving from 27 to 6... not 10 to 4. And it was 2 1st's, a 2nd, and 2 4th's to go to 6 from 27.

By the current TVC the Falcons trade was:

27 = 680
59 = 310
124 = 48
And this years:
22 = 780
118 = 58

So a total of 1876...

And the current TVC values the 6 pick at:

6 = 1600

Basically they "overpaid" by a total of 276 points according to the current TVC which means basically the 63rd overall pick (a 2nd rounder) which is equal to 276 points by the current TVC.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/2011-01/2011-nfl-draft/story/falcons-trade-up-for-julio-jones-in-draft-shocker-with-browns

Point is that it's not as extreme as you're implying and it's more about who, what position, and the value of the player than it is strictly positional value.

[Don't Panic]

I'd go so far as our 1st and 2nd for the #4 if Kalil was there. The odds of our 1st and 2nd contributing to our team with as much of an impact as Kalil alone are under 50% IMO. If we get that stud LT, then this team is a competent WR and a SLB from being very close to complete. Those two and a CB could come in rounds 3 and 4. I probably wouldn't go higher than that, but if they were up for it, I'd do it.

[Don't Panic]

I'd feel better about this argument if any team had traded 3 1st rounders for a LT.

Amen.

[X-Era]

I'd go so far as our 1st and 2nd for the #4 if Kalil was there. The odds of our 1st and 2nd contributing to our team with as much of an impact as Kalil alone are under 50% IMO. If we get that stud LT, then this team is a competent WR and a SLB from being very close to complete. Those two and a CB could come in rounds 3 and 4. I probably wouldn't go higher than that, but if they were up for it, I'd do it.Don't know that I can agree with the 50% argument. But, I do feel there are two distinct ideologies when approaching the draft... Some want to get as many picks as possible and draft as many players as possible, and others want to get less players that are theoretically significantly better... Example: Id rather have 4 instant starters than 2 instant starters and 8 guys with a chance to be a starter.

I love the draft. But I don't value mid and late round picks as much as others do. Personally, I'd rather get a plug in stud and sacrifice a few questionable backups to do it.

[X-Era]

Look.

If the Bills wanted to sacrifice their 1st, 3rd, and 4th or even their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to get a plug-in from day one starter at LT who will become a pro-bowler in his first few years and be the answer at LT for the next decade, I'd be OK with that.

[Philagape]

The chart is irrelevant. A pick's worth has two factors only: whatever a team wants for it, and whatever a team is willing to pay. The chart is just more draft geek D&D.
Doesn't the chart go out the window anyway every time a future year's pick is traded?

[methos4ever]

I'd feel better about this argument if any team had traded 3 1st rounders for a LT. I digress, the truth is the necessary data just isn't there to determine the new TVC. I agree that the Skins trade flies in the face of the TVC but you should also concede that we have no other real data point to form a new TVC. Even the Julio Jones trade was pre-CBA. It also was moving from 27 to 6... not 10 to 4. And it was 2 1st's, a 2nd, and 2 4th's to go to 6 from 27.

By the current TVC the Falcons trade was:

27 = 680
59 = 310
124 = 48
And this years:
22 = 780
118 = 58

So a total of 1876...

And the current TVC values the 6 pick at:

6 = 1600

Basically they "overpaid" by a total of 276 points according to the current TVC which means basically the 63rd overall pick (a 2nd rounder) which is equal to 276 points by the current TVC.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/2011-01/2011-nfl-draft/story/falcons-trade-up-for-julio-jones-in-draft-shocker-with-browns

Point is that it's not as extreme as you're implying and it's more about who, what position, and the value of the player than it is strictly positional value.
Don't forget the 2 pick was for sale to highest bidder. In a year where there are two established Qbs, swapping firsts and two in the future are the equivalent to a 2nd and a 3rd this year in future years. No team is going to trade their pick without getting the other team's first rounder this year that high.

[YardRat]

The chart is irrelevant. A pick's worth has two factors only: whatever a team wants for it, and whatever a team is willing to pay. The chart is just more draft geek D&D.
Doesn't the chart go out the window anyway every time a future year's pick is traded?

As far as I know, conventional wisdom in the past always dictated that a future pick was worth one round less than the current value. Makes sense for the later rounds, but never really understood how they rationalized the steep drop-off for a first rounder.