Draft - Detroit, Sitting At #5 Called Bills Asking Them If They'd Trade Up From #8

[Night Train]

That sounds pathetic, begging for more picks. Then they roll the dice on Ziggy Ansah. :shutup:

Then the Bills trade down and get 2 more picks.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000167652/article/buddy-nix-lions-sought-bills-interest-in-no-5-pick

[Mouldsie]

How so?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

That sounds pathetic, begging for more picks. Then they roll the dice on Ziggy Ansah. :shutup:

Then the Bills trade down and get 2 more picks.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000167652/article/buddy-nix-lions-sought-bills-interest-in-no-5-pick

Why is that pathetic? That's exactly what we were hoping Nix was doing, working the phones for a trade down. In fact, I've specifically criticized Nix for not using his time to solicit trades.

[better days]

Why is that pathetic? That's exactly what we were hoping Nix was doing, working the phones for a trade down. In fact, I've specifically criticized Nix for not using his time to solicit trades.

Yeah, well the team that does the soliciting, loses the leverage in the trade. Nix is SMART. And, Nix said the Rams & Bills were talking about that trade since the TUESDAY before the draft.

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.

[Skooby]

So you wanted to take EJ at #5?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Yeah, well the team that does the soliciting, loses the leverage in the trade. Nix is SMART. And, Nix said the Rams & Bills were talking about that trade since the TUESDAY before the draft.

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.

You only "lose leverage" if you're desperate and Detroit wasn't. They could have stood fast and taken they player they wanted, and they did. Detroit was seeing if we wanted to jump Cleveland and Arizona to take our quarterback, which we didn't because we weren't targeting the same player. So there wasn't a deal to be made.

We certainly wouldn't have lost leverage had we called St. Louis and said "We know you want Austin. He's not getting by New York twice. Let's deal."

[sudzy]

Who would the Bills have even wanted to trade up for? Doesn't make sense to me. And how is this even a news story? It only happens a hundred times a draft, that teams try to make a trade on draft day and get shot down.

[better days]

You only "lose leverage" if you're desperate and Detroit wasn't. They could have stood fast and taken they player they wanted, and they did. Detroit was seeing if we wanted to jump Cleveland and Arizona to take our quarterback, which we didn't because we weren't targeting the same player. So there wasn't a deal to be made.

We certainly wouldn't have lost leverage had we called St. Louis and said "We know you want Austin. He's not getting by New York twice. Let's deal."

COULD have????????????????? They had NO CHOICE but to stay put & draft SOMEBODY. NOBODY wanted to trade up with them, & I HIGHLY doubt the Bills were the only team Detroit called.

The team / company / person that calls, LOSES LEVERAGE in ALL dealings, FACT!

[IlluminatusUIUC]

COULD have????????????????? They had NO CHOICE but to stay put & draft SOMEBODY. NOBODY wanted to trade up with them, & I HIGHLY doubt the Bills were the only team Detroit called.

Yes, but "staying put and drafting somebody" was not a bad option because they guy they wanted was still on the board. Leverage is dictated by the relative positions of the negotiating parties, not by who picks up the phone first.

Do you think St. Louis would have "lost leverage" if they called every team last year and said "RG3 is on the trade block"? Of course not, because RG3 is a prized asset and multiple teams wanted him. St. Louis had the leverage and maintained the leverage regardless of who initiated the phone call.


The team / company / person that calls, LOSES LEVERAGE in ALL dealings, FACT

If you bring in more bidders, that increases the seller's leverage. People have to know you're willing to deal the pick, after all.

[better days]

Yes, but "staying put and drafting somebody" was not a bad option because they guy they wanted was still on the board. Leverage is dictated by the relative positions of the negotiating parties, not by who picks up the phone first.

Do you think St. Louis would have "lost leverage" if they called every team last year and said "RG3 is on the trade block"? Of course not, because RG3 is a prized asset and multiple teams wanted him. St. Louis had the leverage and maintained the leverage regardless of who initiated the phone call.



If you bring in more bidders, that increases the seller's leverage. People have to know you're willing to deal the pick, after all.

Teams talk as the Bills talked to the Rams BEFORE the draft. Nix said the trade was agreed to the Tuesday before the draft as long as certain parameters were in place. There was not a player there at #8 that the Bills WANTED & that Austin was there for the Rams.

Teams talk, BUT the team that CALLS, LOSE leverage.

ABSOLUTELY, the Rams would have lost leverage IF they had called the Redskins. The Skins would have had to give up MUCH less if the RAMS made it known they WANTED to trade down. NOBODY wanted RGIII as bad as the Skins did.

And you have no way of knowing if the guy the Lions WANTED was still on the board. In fact, it looks like the Lions SETTLED on Ansah, he is a HUGE risk at #5. If the Lions could have talked the Bills into a trade down, then they could have again traded down again with the Rams gotten picks from the Bills & Rams & picked Ansah at #16, closer to where he SHOULD have been picked.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Teams talk as the Bills talked to the Rams BEFORE the draft. Nix said the trade was agreed to the Tuesday before the draft as long as certain parameters were in place. There was not a player there at #8 that the Bills WANTED & that Austin was there for the Rams.

And? Miami shook things up when they jumped up to take Dion Jordan. Now the subsequent teams are dealing with a new situation, so they call around to see if that changes anything.


Teams talk, BUT the team that CALLS, LOSE leverage.

ABSOLUTELY, the Rams would have lost leverage IF they had called the Redskins. The Skins would have had to give up MUCH less if the RAMS made it known they WANTED to trade down. NOBODY wanted RGIII as bad as the Skins did.

Guy, the whole world knew the Rams wanted to trade down. It was an open secret for weeks, starting before Valentine's Day.
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFP-Sunday-Blitz-3206.html

*The Rams want very much to trade the second pick of the draft, and are hoping a market develops for Robert Griffin. If they can’t deal, the Rams could stay put and take Justin Blackmon or Matt Kalil, but they would be better served with a trade down.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/59740/video-rams-want-to-trade-second-pick

ESPN's Adam Schefter says the St. Louis Rams (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/stl/st-louis-rams) will trade the second overall choice in the 2012 NFL draft.

The big question, he says, is which team will acquire the pick with an eye toward drafting Baylor quarterback Robert Griffin (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft/player/_/id/28590/robert-griffin) III.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/27/rams-see-three-windows-to-trade-no-2-pick/


NFL teams usually pretend that they aren’t set on trading out of a certain draft position; just that they are “open” to making a move.

The Rams don’t seem interested in playing this game. They don’t need to play games; they know how much interest Robert Griffin III (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/7406/robert-griffin-iii) will attract.


SI.com’s Peter King talked to Rams COO Kevin Demoff; King left the conversation writing that the Rams will trade the pick (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/02/27/combine/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a2) “for sure” in King’s words. The question: When will the trade happen?


Demoff points to three windows: Before free agency, at the late March league meetings, and in the few days before the draft.


The third option is the most likely. Teams usually don’t put all their cards on the table until the last minute. Then again, Demoff’s words may be a strong signal from the Rams that they’d love seriously consider aggressive offers early in the bidding. (And why not? The price will only go up.)


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/05/rams-90-percent-certain-to-trade-no-2-pick/

Many think it’s a given that the Rams will trade the second overall pick in the 2012 draft. G.M. Les Snead says it’s not.
But it’s close.


Snead told PFT Live on Monday that the team is “90 percent” sure to trade out of the No. 2 spot.

Even the GM was admitting it.



And you have no way of knowing if the guy the Lions WANTED was still on the board. In fact, it looks like the Lions SETTLED on Ansah, he is a HUGE risk at #5. If the Lions could have talked the Bills into a trade down, then they could have again traded down again with the Rams gotten picks from the Bills & Rams & picked Ansah at #16, closer to where he SHOULD have been picked.

Their GM said exactly that. If you don't believe him, that's fine but exactly one post ago you were perfectly willing to speculate that the Lions were calling more teams that just the Bills.

What gives a seller leverage? Desperate or multiple buyers.
What gives a buyer leverage? Desperate or multiple sellers.

So if you are sitting on a valuable pick, bringing in more potential bidders is actually a good thing. The Rams did exactly that. They didn't get a haul from the Redskins because they played coy, it was the exact opposite. They practically screamed for bidders from the rooftop.

But let's go back to something you said:

If the Lions could have talked the Bills into a trade down,

How exactly were they supposed to do that without getting Buddy Nix on the phone? Remember, they had less than 10 minutes when they made this call. What "leverage" do you think they had on the Bills and how did they "lose" it by calling first?

[better days]

And? Miami shook things up when they jumped up to take Dion Jordan. Now the subsequent teams are dealing with a new situation, so they call around to see if that changes anything.



Guy, the whole world knew the Rams wanted to trade down. It was an open secret for weeks, starting before Valentine's Day.
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFP-Sunday-Blitz-3206.html


http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/59740/video-rams-want-to-trade-second-pick


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/27/rams-see-three-windows-to-trade-no-2-pick/




http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/05/rams-90-percent-certain-to-trade-no-2-pick/


Even the GM was admitting it.




Their GM said exactly that. If you don't believe him, that's fine but exactly one post ago you were perfectly willing to speculate that the Lions were calling more teams that just the Bills.

What gives a seller leverage? Desperate or multiple buyers.
What gives a buyer leverage? Desperate or multiple sellers.

So if you are sitting on a valuable pick, bringing in more potential bidders is actually a good thing. The Rams did exactly that. They didn't get a haul from the Redskins because they played coy, it was the exact opposite. They practically screamed for bidders from the rooftop.

But let's go back to something you said:


How exactly were they supposed to do that without getting Buddy Nix on the phone? Remember, they had less than 10 minutes when they made this call. What "leverage" do you think they had on the Bills and how did they "lose" it by calling first?

I already told you Nix said the trade with the RAMS was AGREED to the TUESDAY BEFORE the draft. If the Lions called the Bills with only 10 minutes on the clock & not DAYS beforehand, the Lions REALLY lost leverage. If a player was on the board the Bills had to have, they could have made that trade happen on the cheap.

Yes the Lions I believe were calling other teams, BUT the Lions in doing so did not have any leverage & were not able to make a trade.

There are ways to make in known you are WILLING to trade down without calling a team as the Rams did LAST year by LEAKING it to the press.

[better days]

And if you have ever dated, you should know that the person receiving the call is in the position of power.

If you meet a girl, get her number & call her, she can choose to give you the wrong number or not answer her phone when you call. If she does answer, she can decide if she likes the plan for the date & agree to go on it with you or say sorry, I have other plans.

On the other hand, if you give a girl your number & she calls, you KNOW she is interested & will settle for a cheap Italian dinner rather than having to buy her Surf & Turf.


Basically the same applies when one team calls another.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I already told you Nix said the trade with the RAMS was AGREED to the TUESDAY BEFORE the draft.

I'm talking about the Rams last year, the way they shopped RG3.


If the Lions called the Bills with only 10 minutes on the clock & not DAYS beforehand, the Lions REALLY lost leverage. If a player was on the board the Bills had to have, they could have made that trade happen on the cheap.

Yes the Lions I believe were calling other teams, BUT the Lions in doing so did not have any leverage & were not able to make a trade.

So your point was timing alone? Well, sure, having only 10 minutes remaining before you have to submit your pick makes things rushed, but your claim is that one team calling another "LOSES LEVERAGE in ALL dealings, FACT!"

What leverage did the Lions have over the Bills? And how did calling them lose it?


There are ways to make in known you are WILLING to trade down without calling a team as the Rams did LAST year by LEAKING it to the press.

That's not what you said. This is what you said:

ABSOLUTELY, the Rams would have lost leverage IF they had called the Redskins. The Skins would have had to give up MUCH less if the RAMS made it known they WANTED to trade down. NOBODY wanted RGIII as bad as the Skins did.

The Rams made it known they wanted to trade down. They practically took out a full page ad in the New York Times. Now, obviously nobody wanted RG3 as much as the Redskins, but they had to pay what they did because they were bidding against other franchises NOT because they called first.


And if you have ever dated, you should know that the person receiving the call is in the position of power.

If you meet a girl, get her number & call her, she can choose to give you the wrong number or not answer her phone when you call. If she does answer, she can decide if she likes the plan for the date & agree to go on it with you or say sorry, I have other plans.

On the other hand, if you give a girl your number & she calls, you KNOW she is interested & will settle for a cheap Italian dinner rather than having to buy her Surf & Turf.

Basically the same applies when one team calls another.

That's a strange analogy because you and your prospective date aren't in direct competition like NFL franchises. If you're playing power games over the first date, then wow.

[Mike]

That sounds pathetic, begging for more picks. Then they roll the dice on Ziggy Ansah. :shutup:

Then the Bills trade down and get 2 more picks.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000167652/article/buddy-nix-lions-sought-bills-interest-in-no-5-pick

You can not lose something you do not have. If they called 20 teams and 10 of them wanted to trade up, then they have leverage and if zero wanted to trade up they have none. The notion of leverage has little to do with the team and more to do with the players available and the market of teams who wish to trade up. For this reason, this year, teams were trading up with little cost compared to last year Washington moving up a few spots and giving away multiple high picks. It was not about the Rams being brilliant rather about RG3 being available with a slew of teams looking to trade to draft him.

[better days]

I'm talking about the Rams last year, the way they shopped RG3.



So your point was timing alone? Well, sure, having only 10 minutes remaining before you have to submit your pick makes things rushed, but your claim is that one team calling another "LOSES LEVERAGE in ALL dealings, FACT!"

What leverage did the Lions have over the Bills? And how did calling them lose it?



That's not what you said. This is what you said:


The Rams made it known they wanted to trade down. They practically took out a full page ad in the New York Times. Now, obviously nobody wanted RG3 as much as the Redskins, but they had to pay what they did because they were bidding against other franchises NOT because they called first.



That's a strange analogy because you and your prospective date aren't in direct competition like NFL franchises. If you're playing power games over the first date, then wow.

There is all the difference in the World between WANTING to trade down & WILLING to trade down. By calling a team, you are telling them you WANT to trade down.

I give up trying to explain this to you.

[Meathead]

Teams talk as the Bills talked to the Rams BEFORE the draft. Nix said the trade was agreed to the Tuesday before the draft as long as certain parameters were in place. There was not a player there at #8 that the Bills WANTED & that Austin was there for the Rams.


he also said they never talked about specific players (tho buddy surmised it was austin), that the pre-draft discussion was just 'if we are ready to trade down would you be interested' and the rams said 'if our guy is there'. i found that interesting bc it highlights what teams have to consider when in that situation

really the bills dont care who the target is for any team willing to trade up for the pick unless it was manual. each team has to guess what the other is going for, but in this case all the importance to being right is on the bills side. they could have traded down again but didnt want to risk somebody moving ahead of them. i really think it was the right call, too much of a gamble to try to wait more on him at that point. all in all they basically got goodwin for free

[IlluminatusUIUC]

There is all the difference in the World between WANTING to trade down & WILLING to trade down. By calling a team, you are telling them you WANT to trade down.

This is from the articles I posted:

The Rams want very much to trade the second pick of the draft,


I give up trying to explain this to you.

I feel like I'm the one explaining this to you, since you can't answer the question I've asked you twice. One last time: What leverage did the Lions have over the Bills? And how did calling them lose it?

[Pinkerton Security]

Pump the brakes fellas. And lets not use dating analogies when trying to explain how NFL GM tactics work, it makes me laugh too much at the workplace.

[OpIv37]

Yeah, well the team that does the soliciting, loses the leverage in the trade. Nix is SMART. And, Nix said the Rams & Bills were talking about that trade since the TUESDAY before the draft.

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.
Nix is smart? Based on what? Hiring Gailey? Giving Fitz that huge contract? His past drafts? Failing to lock up Byrd een after letting Levitre walk? Losing 2 guards and signing/drafting zero? Give me a ****ing break.

[Captain Obvious]

Losing 2 guards and signing/drafting zero?

You're very stressed out about Chad Rinehart leaving which is quite baffling considering you did not like him at all when he played for the Bills

[OpIv37]

You're very stressed out about Chad Rinehart leaving which is quite baffling considering you did not like him at all when he played for the Bills

We've been over this a thousand times. Cutting someone isn't enough. They have to be replaced with someone better or at least equal. As of this moment, Buddy has failed to sign anyone better or even equal to Rhinehardt. My personal opinion notwithstanding, we were a better team with him than we are without him until a replacement is signed. There is no logical way to argue otherwise.

[justasportsfan]

We've been over this a thousand times. Cutting someone isn't enough. They have to be replaced with someone better or at least equal. As of this moment, Buddy has failed to sign anyone better or even equal to Rhinehardt. My personal opinion notwithstanding, we were a better team with him than we are without him until a replacement is signed. There is no logical way to argue otherwise.


If you want to complain about Levitre, I'm with you. But Reinhart? It's not hard to replace a practice squad player or a bench warmer.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

If you want to complain about Levitre, I'm with you. But Reinhart? It's not hard to replace a practice squad player or a bench warmer.

I can agree with that, but the repeated story we kept hearing around here was that Levitre was expendable because Reinhart could take over. And then Rinehart left too. But's ok, because we picked up a UDFA guard from Syracuse. Clearly a day 1 starter.

[justasportsfan]

I can agree with that, but the repeated story we kept hearing around here was that Levitre was expendable because Reinhart could take over. And then Rinehart left too. But's ok, because we picked up a UDFA guard from Syracuse. Clearly a day 1 starter.

I wasn't one of them. I was all for paying Levitre . Reinhart? Meh. Even D Alesandris(?) though only so much of him that he was signed to a 1 yr. contract.

[better days]

I can agree with that, but the repeated story we kept hearing around here was that Levitre was expendable because Reinhart could take over. And then Rinehart left too. But's ok, because we picked up a UDFA guard from Syracuse. Clearly a day 1 starter.

You did not hear Reinhart could take over from the Bills, you heard that from POSTERS on the board.

Before the draft, & after Reinhart left, Nix did say the Bills do have players ready to take over that position.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

You did not hear Reinhart could take over from the Bills, you heard that from POSTERS on the board.

Before the draft, & after Reinhart left, Nix did say the Bills do have players ready to take over that position.

If Nix thinks the position is filled already, that concerns me even more.

[TigerJ]

I'm not surprised Detroit wanted to trade down. There were rumors of several teams wanting to do so. I think Buffalo was in the sweet spot for trading down because there were a couple players available that were particularly exciting and would help the team drafting them to sell tickets. Tavon Austin, obviously, was one of them. I would have been extremely surprised had B8uffalo traded up considering what Buddy Nix had said about wanting to pick up a draft pick to replace the one they lost in the Tarvaris Jackson trade.

[trapezeus]

separately, the bills choice was totally unknown. if detroit is claling about a potential qb run, the bills know their guy is going ot be there because no one is talking about manuel

[Extremebillsfan247]

Oh man, :curse:you mean we could have traded up and lost more draft picks for 1 prospect who could be just as much of a bust as any other in this draft? Bills front office should be fired. Let's get a billboard. :sarcasm2:is fun. lol

[Bert102176]

The only ones I would of traded up for would of been eric fisher or luke joakle but they were both gone before picks 5