GunnerBill

Penix is possible.... but if you just want the 5th year option on a QB why the Bills at #28? Why not the Lions at #29, the Ravens at #30, the 49ers at #31 or the Chiefs at #32? Probably the Chief would want to stay (and I think in all likelihood move UP) but I think moving back makes sense for the others too. I just don't think it is a given that there are teams battling to have #28.

My wouldn't involve one at #28 comment was in reference to your Packers analogy. They don't pick offensive players in round 1 unless they are Quarterbacks.

He doesn't play the way he tests. There is just no denying it. If you are a team drafting him you better be sure you fully understand the reasons why.

Fair. I just am not as optimistic as some that there will be a cluster of teams desperate to come up to #28. But maybe there will....

Yea it just wouldn't involve one at #28.

Picking a WR round 1 would not be a Packers move. 1st round picks are for QBs and defenders in Cheese Land.

Also the problem with Sammy wasn't the trade. It was the player. If they had 10 years of 1,000 yard seasons from Mike Evans from that trade up I think people would look on it very differently. And this is not wise after the event. 2014 was my first year trying to grade prospects... I graded 56 players. I had Mike Evans as the 2nd best player in the draft. Clowney, Evans, Matthews was my top 3. The problem wasn't the trade. It was Sammy Watkins.

Very small chance. But I thought that anyway. 2024 is a mini-reset, still be competitive still make the playoffs but little chance of a deep run year to me. It was with Diggs. I think that even more now, but it isn't a big dial mover.

I could absolutely get on board with this approach. Thomas a low price deal that kicks half the number to next year and is incentive laden makes sense to me and Harrisonnis such a high floor he will be good right away. Not totally sure if your offer does it (given you likely have Minnesota offering two 2024 firsts to get there for a QB).... but if it did I'd do it. Question is if #4/#5 are not in play what would you give to get to #6 if it means Nabers / Odunze? What about to #8/#9 if one of the three is still there? Or for you @Kirby Jackson is it Harrison or take your chances at #28 / smaller non future 1st trade up into early 20s?

I think that is a legit thought. But the Pack will go defense. 12 times in the last 13 years.

Give me Legette. The 4th best receiver in this class on tape.

Depends on a LT being there though.

But why does Washington want to come up? That is what I struggle with.

I am not quite as low on the Vikings if they get even serviceable QB play but I agree with the point. It is a top half of round 2 pick.

I think Morgan is a legit NFL left tackle. I love his feet. So nimble and quick. He is a plug and play 10 year starter IMO. However, you took Mims.... who is definitely more boom or bust but his ceiling is as high as any tackle in this class. If he hits he is a perennial all pro type. So I can't hate on that pick. EDIT: but we know the Packers are picking a defensive player 😂. It's just what they do. First round picks are for QBs and defenders.

As a temp solution, sure. But where is the cap money coming from without pushing more down the line? We were allegedly at $8.5m space before the Diggs move which accelerates $3m of additonal onto this year's cap. So down to $5.5m. I know we have the Tre money to come but that only serves to cover our draft picks (need about $10m). If one of them wants to come play for $2m on a one year deal or something then fine.

Yea lot of RTs. I prefer Mims and Guyton to Latham as guys with longer term LT potential but likely you want both to start both on the right side. Dallas need two tackles and a right guard so I see the sense in the pick. I think Tyler Smith from LG to LT is the move there. Let Latham play right or start at guard. Latham was always earmarked for LT at Bama and it never happened. Which suggests to me Saban didn't think it was the best place for him. I tend to agree.

I see him as strictly RT (or guard) only.

Why do we? The Bills haven't picked yet, not have the Texans and it is a no trade mock.

Yep. Option 1: Trade up big, giving up next year's #1, one of next year's #2s and some mid round picks and get into the top 10 for one of the consensus top 3; Option 2: Trade up smaller giving up one of next year's #2s and a mid round pick for (most likely) Thomas; Option 3: Take an X receiver at #28 (likely Mitchell or Legette) and a Z type / move receiver at #60; Option 4: Take a Z type / move receiver at #28 (likely Ladd or Worthy) and trade up in round 2 giving up one of next year's #2s for an X receiver (likely Legette or Coleman) in the 40s. I think we are going to see one of those 4 options.

Same. Now Diggs has gone they need a Ladd type as well as a vertical guy. My only concern with that is I don't know what you are getting in the vertical category later.... I think you have to take that guy first in all likelihood.

Agree they have to believe that. And yep, Harrison is not a total consensus as #1. Equally though Nabers isn't a total consensus as #2. The other option is a trade up to say #13 with the Raiders which costs a smaller price and take Thomas.

I'm not sure it is dreaming. They now have the sort of ammunition you need to make it possible without completely mortgaging the future. It is going to take two ones and a two. They can't give up this year's #2 because they don't have a #3. They couldn't before give up next year's #1 and #2 without hollowing out their draft. They now are in a position where they can give up next year's 1 and one of their #2s and still have a 2nd, a 3rd and two 4s (comp formula allowing). That is still 4 picks in the top 130 or so.

I can absolutely see something like that. I think the Bills trading into the top 10 just became possible.

Correct. You can't trade money already paid. Reason being it has already been paid. The person in possession of that money that lies on the Bills cap as dead money is Stefon Diggs.