Spot on, moving back a number of spots to grab another 2nd should be the go to strategy given the number of holes they have to fill along with where quality players will be available to fill a couple of their pressing needs.
For that to happen, IMO they will need either:
a) an attractive prospect to fall down to 9, or
b) a team desperate for a QB who wants to get in front of Denver.

Now if McBean trades back, the question of why they didn't stay put to draft BPA should be asked...seems to me trading back conflicts with the BPA strategy.
- IonSabres

I totally disagree. They're two separate ideas entirely. BPA is simply that. It's where need and BPA meet. If you have a safety (for example) that's marginally better than an OL, and we clearly need OL over a safety, we're grabbing the OL. I don't think everyone (in general) truly understands the BPA scenario Beane constantly refers to.

If they trade back, that is a sure sign they see whatever pick(s) come back to them will combine to outweigh the talent at their current position. So when they do finally pick, they'll still ultimately pick up a guy on their BPA board.

A full example of this shows a 2 year strategy the Bills (mcDermott sans Beane) to essentially trade Mahomes for White, Dawkins (partially) and Allen. Mahomes, at the time, was absolutely worth that trade.

Now would be a good time to announce the Skinner extension
- Stripes77

word on the street today is term, not money, is the hang up.

r00m0rz

Mood?

Mood?
- Gramps28

Hookers and blow

Mood?
- Gramps28

better by the glass, thanks

Hookers and blow
- jochfr

that's a lifestyle, joch.

euphoric would be the mood.

Hookers and blow
- jochfr

You rang?

Mood?
- Gramps28

spell it backwards

that is the life for us...

Mood?
- Gramps28

I'm happy - for the good fans of Chicago. They bought tickets and saw a great, high-scoring, back and forth game. That's what being a Buffalo sports fan had reduced me to : Being happy for the opposing teams fans. Except I can't get behind that when it comes to Leaf fans. Eff them.

I totally disagree. They're two separate ideas entirely. BPA is simply that. It's where need and BPA meet. If you have a safety (for example) that's marginally better than an OL, and we clearly need OL over a safety, we're grabbing the OL. I don't think everyone (in general) truly understands the BPA scenario Beane constantly refers to.

If they trade back, that is a sure sign they see whatever pick(s) come back to them will combine to outweigh the talent at their current position. So when they do finally pick, they'll still ultimately pick up a guy on their BPA board.

A full example of this shows a 2 year strategy the Bills (mcDermott sans Beane) to essentially trade Mahomes for White, Dawkins (partially) and Allen. Mahomes, at the time, was absolutely worth that trade.
- TheSabresTaco

What about the scenario where a QB is the BPA...let's say they assign a point value of 85 to that specific QB ... but the OL prospect in next on their board with a value of 58. BTW, assume that Allen had a rating of 79 assigned to him last year.
If they move back say 5 spots, received a late 2nd for it, and then select that OL and a WR with a value of say 26...that is a SMART decision we would all agree...but they simply did not draft BPA at that spot.
They will have done something else entirely, created additional value to them by acquiring an additional asset and then drafting for need...and I would applaud them for it robustly. It was the right move most would agree.
The question should be asked to gain clarity on his rationalization is all.

What about the scenario where a QB is the BPA...let's say they assign a point value of 85 to that specific QB ... but the OL prospect in next on their board with a value of 58. BTW, assume that Allen had a rating of 79 assigned to him last year.
If they move back say 5 spots, received a late 2nd for it, and then select that OL and a WR with a value of say 26...that is a SMART decision we would all agree...but they simply did not draft BPA at that spot.
They will have done something else entirely, created additional value to them by acquiring an additional asset and then drafting for need...and I would applaud them for it robustly. It was the right move most would agree.
The question should be asked to gain clarity on his rationalization is all.
- IonSabres

In your specific scenario, sure. But you're betting on variables being identical to a professional organizations own knowledge. Plus, here, you're assuming there's a massive talent drop. If an org moves back, they see the contrary. They see that you can get an almost identically talented player, plus another one x amounts of tiers down. So I don't think it's apples to apples. It's more like.. apples to yellow snow.

I'm happy - for the good fans of Chicago. They bought tickets and saw a great, high-scoring, back and forth game. That's what being a Buffalo sports fan had reduced me to : Being happy for the opposing teams fans. Except I can't get behind that when it comes to Leaf fans. Eff them.
- kritter65

Not all fans in Chicago are good. What if the leafs had more good fans...would you be conflicted?

Not all fans in Chicago are good. What if the leafs had more good fans...would you be conflicted?
- IonSabres

fake news. they're all antonio brown big chests.

Antonio Brown!!!

In your specific scenario, sure. But you're betting on variables being identical to a professional organizations own knowledge. Plus, here, you're assuming there's a massive talent drop. If an org moves back, they see the contrary. They see that you can get an almost identically talented player, plus another one x amounts of tiers down. So I don't think it's apples to apples. It's more like.. apples to yellow snow.
- TheSabresTaco

In my example I assumed their rating on the prospects...but agree they would never disclose so fans would never know...therefore it could never be argued.
I understand completely what they are doing and why, and agree it is right and smart...in fact not doing so is amateur level.
My thought is that Beane made a very specific statement and was adamant that he would never draft for need. I happen to disagree with that strong statement as doing BPA in its' purist form never happens...they are Maximizing Value by combining BPA and Need...which is different.
In my scenario above, the True Value to them of that QB is 6 (85-79) ... however the OL is 58 less whatever stuff they have on the roster at that spot ( in their case it maybe a negative number, lol)

This probably doesn't deserve more back and forth...I think we both understand each other...but if you have more to add, feel free

Antonio Brown!!!



- Khmylev

I heard McBeane is now in talks with the agents for
Ray Rice
Ray Lewis
Ray Carrueth
Pacman Jones
Terrell Owen's

They declined to say if they had contacted OJ, but did say since Richie Incognito retired, they felt they needed more sandpaper, more truculence

Now would be a good time to announce the Skinner extension
- Stripes77

As long as he signs for less than 8 mil.... personally 7 mil would be my max...if he wants more, adios...Carolina is doing fine without him so can the Sabres

Antonio Brown!!!



- Khmylev

well played, sir

Not all fans in Chicago are good. What if the leafs had more good fans...would you be conflicted?
- IonSabres

Why must you argue with extreme hypotheticals?

According to SI, the deal with the steelers was close, the only problem was AB wanted to be the highest paid WR in the NFL.... Good luck AB! hope you enjoy retirement.

https://www.si.com/nfl/20...ills-failed-trade-fallout


Glad the bills were not willing to pay that

According to SI, the deal with the steelers was close, the only problem was AB wanted to be the highest paid WR in the NFL.... Good luck AB! hope you enjoy retirement.

https://www.si.com/nfl/20...ills-failed-trade-fallout


Glad the bills were not willing to pay that
- gordong

Ya. No denying his talent and it would have been fun to watch Allen air it out to him.
I am surprised that they went after him...didn't think he would be their cultured kind of guy.

Skinner has 10 goals in his last 30 games.

"But he's a 50 goal scorer with Eichel!" or whatever.

Skinner has 10 goals in his last 30 games.

"But he's a 50 goal scorer with Eichel!" or whatever.
- BINGO!

I think most people said he's a 30-40 goal scorer with Eichel, but whatever.

Skinner has 10 goals in his last 30 games.

"But he's a 50 goal scorer with Eichel!" or whatever.
- BINGO!

Skinner has 36 goals in his last 67 games.

Skinner has 36 goals in his last 67 games.
- JetpackJesus

Don't change the narrative, it doesn't fit well when the larger sample size is used.