#8 and Travis Henry

[Solar7]

I keep hearing people saying that we have Henry waiting for us at number 8 if the top three backs are gone, or even at the #44 if the guy we don't want is there. But I don't understand this line of thinking. If we weren't able to pick up one of the backs at #8, wouldn't that just lead Buffalo to raise the price for Henry? We would lose plenty of leverage at that point.

 

[EndZone]

I keep hearing people saying that we have Henry waiting for us at number 8 if the top three backs are gone, or even at the #44 if the guy we don't want is there. But I don't understand this line of thinking. If we weren't able to pick up one of the backs at #8, wouldn't that just lead Buffalo to raise the price for Henry? We would lose plenty of leverage at that point.

And then we take Arrington at 44

 

[slanidrac16]

I keep hearing people saying that we have Henry waiting for us at number 8 if the top three backs are gone, or even at the #44 if the guy we don't want is there. But I don't understand this line of thinking. If we weren't able to pick up one of the backs at #8, wouldn't that just lead Buffalo to raise the price for Henry? We would lose plenty of leverage at that point.

What leverage? Does the fact change that the Bills STILL wouldn't have a decent starting OT? Does it change the fact the Bills don't have a pick until the middle of the second round or that they are stuck with an unhappy Travis Henry who will walk away from their team by this time next year and they will get absolutely nothing in return?
I have no problems with the trade , but swapping 2nd round picks before we have to is just not smart. At least not until we know who we could get at that point.