Originally Posted by ZiaColt (Post 61548)

if Buffalo's GM is desperate enough for #6 to give up #12 and #22 (which combined have about 130-150% of the draft value of #6, depending on which evaluator you use) by all means Ballard should do it.

more likely Buffalo would want Ballard to sweeten the package to make that deal, and it might end up looking like Buffalo sends Indy #12 and #22 in exchange for the Colts' #6 and #49. If I were Ballard, I don't think I'd be willing to give up #36, and I'd have to think long and hard before I'd part with #37 either, but I'd likely be happy to throw #49 into the deal. IIRC Buffalo already has two 2nd rounders, and both are after the 49th pick, so the Bills would still be moving up in Round 2.

IMO that would still be a worthwhile deal for the Colts: you drop from #6 to #12, where a day-one starter will still be available at several positions (even if he's BPA too) and you give up 1 of your 2nd rounders but gain another 1st rounder. Still have 4 picks in the top 37, 5 in the top 67--in a draft most NFL scouts feel has about 70 day-one, or future, starting players in it.

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 61577)

Absolutely not to giving additional value to Buffalo. You throw the value chart out the window when a team is moving up for a QB.

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish (Post 61579)

Totally agree. Also there is no way in a trade down scenario that I am willing to come out of the 1st rd. without 1 of the 2 top LB's, in Smith and Edmunds.

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 61581)

Aside from missing on Chubb, my biggest fear is staying at 6, taking Barkley, and missing on one of those LBs and the potential to add another quality pick.

Let's just say Barkley and Nelson are still there at 6 and the Bears will give you 8 and 40 to move up for Nelsen. You probably get Smith and Michel with those two picks and I think those two will provide more value than either Barkley or Nelson on their own.

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 61577)

Absolutely not to giving additional value to Buffalo. You throw the value chart out the window when a team is moving up for a QB.

Originally Posted by ZiaColt (Post 61608)

GM's never truly "throw the value chart out the window," and I think in this case it also depends on WHICH of the QB's might be available at #6. For Darnold or Rosen, maybe the Bills would be willing to give more than they would for bigger gambles like Allen or Mayfield.

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 61620)

I think you underestimate Buffalo’s desire to get one of the 4 QBs. The moves they’ve made this offseason tell me that they are desperate to get one of them. If three are already off the board, lack of supply drives up the price.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 61213)

Barkley will have an instant impact. I just don’t like drafting a RB this high, especially with a team not ready to contend. I like taking one as the last step to put your team over the jump. I do think Barkley will be good, epitome of the modern three down back. Great character, work ethic, he should have a LT type impact on a team. If you want one more shot at a title he might be the guy to get. Giants like their guys clean cut. But if the Giants take Barkley, I think the Browns take Chubb.

Originally Posted by ZiaColt (Post 61622)

I can sort of understand if a sloppy Darnold or a brittle Rosen somehow falls to #6, but if I'm Buffalo's GM I want more than just #6 for a project like Allen or a gamble like Mayfield.

I've even read anonymous quotes from some NFL scouts suggesting that they don't feel there's that much of a drop-off from Allen and Mayfield to guys like Jackson and maybe even Rudolph. (But I've also seen where some scouts said they wouldn't draft Rudolph until the 3rd round.)

If Ballard can persuade Buffalo to do a straight-up deal of #6 for #12 and #22, more power to him. But IMO Buffalo would be giving up too much for (at least) 2 of the 4 QB's being mentioned.

Then again, if Chubb or Nelson is still around at #6, all trade discussions may become moot.