MattPie Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 For the first time in 19 years I'm going to change up my prediction to 7-9 (upgraded from 6-10). Turns out, 7-9 +-1 covers 10 of the last 14 seasons and I haven't seen anything that makes me think this year is going to change. 6-10 +-1 only covers 9 of the last 14 seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 last year they were a couple of rookie mistakes away. They should've had that opener, and they should've beat Atlanta, so there's 8-8 if one or even two plays goes the other way, and I won't linger too long on how we had KC on the ropes until the dumbest pass I have seen in years... so yes, with the way we played a year ago, and better players being brought in, I think we will be much closer to 9-7 rather than 6-10 or even 4-12 as some are predicting. But hey, it's Buffalo and the Bills, so I could be leagues away... ;) Not to mention the Cleveland game on Thursday night. If EJ doesn't get hurt we had a great shot at that one. But it seems like the same can be said about every Bills season I can remember. Losing Pettite will hurt the D big IMO For the first time in 19 years I'm going to change up my prediction to 7-9 (upgraded from 6-10). Turns out, 7-9 +-1 covers 10 of the last 14 seasons and I haven't seen anything that makes me think this year is going to change. 6-10 +-1 only covers 9 of the last 14 seasons. Improvement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Every single year at least one team seemingly comes out of nowhere to be good. One of these years, it's going to be the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Every single year at least one team seemingly comes out of nowhere to be good. One of these years, it's going to be the Bills. Yeah, but by then we will all be dead and the Bills will be playing on the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Yeah, but by then we will all be dead and the Bills will be playing on the moon. :cry: :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Yeah, but by then we will all be dead and the Bills will be playing on the moon. Really? There's piss in my cheerios again? This keeps happening... :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Yeah, but by then we will all be dead and the Bills will be playing on the moon. You. You are not my favorite :angry: Edited April 29, 2014 by TrueBluePhD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) joe b. at WGR infers from a variety of info and intell that the team is poised to move up, not to the 1-3 slots, but to the 4-6 slots, if the price is right. and he thinks that their guy is watkins. how great would that be - to get the guy who's said to be every bit the equal of aj green and julio. Losing Pettite will hurt the D big IMO not having the big cajun lefty in the starting rotation will put a damper on their ability to blitz. wait, what? Edited April 29, 2014 by That Aud Smell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 joe b. at WGR infers from a variety of info and intell that the team is poised to move up, not to the 1-3 slots, but to the 4-6 slots, if the price is right. and he thinks that their guy is watkins. how great would that be - to get the guy who's said to be every bit the equal of aj green and julio. not having the big cajun lefty in the starting rotation will put a damper on their ability to blitz. wait, what? Im having a hard time deciding who I would be happy with in this draft, since i'm not really in love with any of the players in the 8-12 mock range. Watkins would be the guy I would want so this would be awesome news if true. Watkins/Woods would be a great combo moving forward and could let a QB develop knowing there were elite options at WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Im having a hard time deciding who I would be happy with in this draft, since i'm not really in love with any of the players in the 8-12 mock range. Watkins would be the guy I would want so this would be awesome news if true. Watkins/Woods would be a great combo moving forward and could let a QB develop knowing there were elite options at WR. it sounds like watkins would have to slip to 4 in order for this to happen. and what must the bills give up for moving up to 4? this year's first, this year's second, and - what - next year's second? i know there's a chart with values and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 it sounds like watkins would have to slip to 4 in order for this to happen. and what must the bills give up for moving up to 4? this year's first, this year's second, and - what - next year's second? i know there's a chart with values and such. here's the chart http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php #4 is worth 1800, so the Bills would need to include the #9 2014 (1350) plus 450 more points. That equals the 2014 2nd rounder #41 (490) or 2015 1st rounder (generally worth the 2014 2nd) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 The value chart, while useful, is only a guideline at this point. I would say it applies to scenarios where teams are trading up for Clowney or other world-class talents, but once you get to 4-7 it starts to cost less. Last year a team went from 12 to 3 for just a second round pick. I think it would cost 9 and 73 (third) to get to 4-6 this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 The value chart, while useful, is only a guideline at this point. I would say it applies to scenarios where teams are trading up for Clowney or other world-class talents, but once you get to 4-7 it starts to cost less. Last year a team went from 12 to 3 for just a second round pick. I think it would cost 9 and 73 (third) to get to 4-6 this year. Only giving the 2014 #9 (1350) and the 2014 3rd rounder #73 (225) leaves 225 points on the table if we are moving up to #4. That's probably too big of a gap. Now if Watkins falls to #5/#6, then the point values fall to 1700/1600 which is a much more reasonable gap of 125/25pts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Only giving the 2014 #9 (1350) and the 2014 3rd rounder #73 (225) leaves 225 points on the table if we are moving up to #4. That's probably too big of a gap. Now if Watkins falls to #5/#6, then the point values fall to 1700/1600 which is a much more reasonable gap of 125/25pts. This happened last year: Oakland trades 3 (2200) to Miami for 12 and 42 (1680) -- A difference of 520 points. It's rare that trades go so far off the chart like that, but I think we could get away without giving up both the first and second-round pick. If we're moving up to 1-2 then chances are it's going to cost this year's first AND next year's first and then some. But 4-6 wouldn't be as much. Edited April 29, 2014 by Tankalicious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 This happened last year: Oakland trades 3 (2200) to Miami for 12 and 42 (1680) -- A difference of 520 points. It's rare that trades go so far off the chart like that, but I think we could get away without giving up both the first and second-round pick. If we're moving up to 1-2 then chances are it's going to cost this year's first AND next year's first and then some. But 4-6 wouldn't be as much. I'm aware it happened last year, but I wouldn't count on one exception providing your basis for another. Plus it's Oakland. That's like beating the kid picked last for dodgeball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 In my opinion, as long as Clowney goes in the top 3, I would be fine at #4 with Robinson, Mack or Watkins. After that there are questions. I like Lewan at #9, but you need Manziel and Bortles to go for a shot at him there. I am scared by Clowney and Matthews, and want no part of Evans. I would much rather trade down to 12-16 and then package the premium with another pick to move back into the mid-late 1st. Maybe St. Louis would give you their 3rd and #13 for #9. Then KC doesn't have a 2nd...but are sitting at #23. Could you give them #41 and a 3rd to get to #23? I think there are too many good players stacked similar in the 10-20 range. Guys I would not draft in the mid 1st getting a lot of mention are Evans, Barr, Mosely, Dennard, Robey. You could set up this team with a top 5 defense for the next few years if you take Shazier and Verrett. I wouldn't hate trading up for Watkins, but he is not as strong as a Julio Jones to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) I'm aware it happened last year, but I wouldn't count on one exception providing your basis for another. Plus it's Oakland. That's like beating the kid picked last for dodgeball. But there have been other first-round exceptions that have been 100-250 points behind. We'll see (or maybe not). I think a lot of people have been underestimating the cost of moving up, but I don't think it'll cost us a first and second for sure. I think the Bills should be targeting Mack in a trade up. If they want Robinson or Clowney it will likely have to come in the top three which I don't think will be worth the price of admission. Clowney will end up going first, in my opinion. I would move up and get Mack if he fell beyond three to Jacksonville where most everybody has him penciled in. If a team demands 9 and 41 to get to 4-6, then I say no unless it's something like 9 and 41 for 5 and another pick. There's also the possibility that Buffalo includes a player. If they move up for Watkins then Stevie Johnson could be involved in the trade (doesn't hold much more than a third/fourth round pick in value) or one of Jerry Hughes/Manny Lawson who may struggle to find a role in the 4-3. Edited April 29, 2014 by Tankalicious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) If we trade up to 4 I'll take Mack in a heart beat. Defense wins championships, and hard-hitting athletic line-backers like Ray Lewis, Novarro Bowman, Patrick Willis, Luke Kuechly, etc. go a long way to having a stout defensive team. Can you imagine Mack and Kiko shoring up the middle of the Bills defense for years to come? I grew to 207 bones just thinking about it Edited April 29, 2014 by WildCard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 If we trade up to 4 I'll take Mack in a heart beat. Defense wins championships, and hard-hitting athletic line-backers like Ray Lewis, Novarro Bowman, Patrick Willis, Luke Kuechly, etc. go a long way to having a stout defensive team. Can you imagine Mack and Kiko shoring up the middle of the Bills defense for years to come? I grew to 207 bones just thinking about it I agree, but I'll point out that they wouldn't be in the middle. They run a 4-3 now, so they'd both play outside linebacker (Mack might also run some snaps at DE despite being too small). If it were the 3-4, Kiko would go inside but Mack would still be on the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I agree, but I'll point out that they wouldn't be in the middle. They run a 4-3 now, so they'd both play outside linebacker (Mack might also run some snaps at DE despite being too small). If it were the 3-4, Kiko would go inside but Mack would still be on the outside. True, didn't think of that. They're much more the faster, athletic edge types than the mammoths run-stoppers that are Willis and Lewis. That's really what ATL wants Mack for anyways. I think they're all but guaranteed to take him if he's left by their pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Can you imagine Mack and Kiko shoring up the middle of the Bills defense for years to come? I grew to 207 bones just thinking about it Oh my. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Given my affiliation with UB, I'd be giddy at getting to watch Mack in a Bills uniform. That said, I still think the smart move is to go offense and help EJ (or at least give him enough tools so that if he flops, we know it's him). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 last year they were a couple of rookie mistakes away. They should've had that opener, and they should've beat Atlanta, so there's 8-8 if one or even two plays goes the other way, and I won't linger too long on how we had KC on the ropes until the dumbest pass I have seen in years... so yes, with the way we played a year ago, and better players being brought in, I think we will be much closer to 9-7 rather than 6-10 or even 4-12 as some are predicting. But hey, it's Buffalo and the Bills, so I could be leagues away... ;) I just don't see it. EJ did not get enough seasoning last year. I view this as a continuation of his rookie season. Assuming he can play four games in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 I just don't see it. EJ did not get enough seasoning last year. I view this as a continuation of his rookie season. Assuming he can play four games in a row. Don't get your hopes up for any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 If we trade up to 4 I'll take Mack in a heart beat. Defense wins championships... So do Hall of Fame QB's. Since they don't have one of those and can't get one this year either, I'll settle for the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts