glazeduck

Yeah, this is basically it -- totally depends on the player and position, but we should be good enough to make the playoffs without getting superstar contribution from a rookie. If they're ready to play like a dependable starter by the playoffs, that's good in my book. This is the reason I don't want low ceiling players like the UW CBs. Our staff has a good track record turning athletes into football players, and if you consider essentially the entire regular season as one long onramp, might as well go with the freaks and let them learn and develop. In my mind, it's our "safer" picks that haven't panned out as well lately (Ford, AJE, Basham [granted it's too early to dismiss him completely], for example).

From a "fun" standpoint, I definitely agree. More fun to have a bit of a challenge. From a "go Bills" standpoint... hard to not want the #1 player at a position of need at this point... Yep, same page. I meant my response more in general too.

I'm certainly not a "worshipper", there's a handful of other players on the board that I'd also be excited about (WOOLEN!!!!!) but I do think it would make a lot of sense if he really did fall that far.

You're probably right, but isn't the idea to replicate the draft, not game it to where the best players fall to us? Agree to disagree. Walker might be a slightly better pure runner than Hall, but he's one of the top 10 5 cleanest RB prospects to come out in the past decade analytically. He checks every box.

Cardinals absolutely could and have been connected to him quite a bit in the pre-draft process. Plus you also need to defend against teams behind you (Falcons, Bucs, Chiefs) leapfrogging you.

If the Bills really are interested in Breece Hall, THIS is the pick they'd need to go get. No way are the Pats dealing with us and Arizona is a definite threat for him. A move of just a handful of spots in the 2nd is absolutely worth it at this point.

Well crap, that's what I get for drafting before the coffee kicked in. No wonder he felt like a value! Let's try that again... Rescinding all of the previous back-patting, and after triple-checking that he's not been taken yet, the Minnesota Vikings shamble up to the podium after being that team and selects Travis Jones, DL, UCONN. A negligible need at this point, but the best value. Jones has the quickness and agility, combined with intelligence and leverage to play DE in the Vikings 3-4 and the strength, base and power to back up NT. NOW the Eagles @H2o are on the clock.

The Vikings are in a bit of a tricky spot here -- good talent still on the board at positions of need. They're kicking themselves for not making a small move up for Boye or Ebikitie, but with other talented prospects available, that didn't feel prudent. Travis Jones probably represents the best immediate impact/talent on the board, but NT is not a need and we spent on Harry, so that feels like a luxury pick. Woolen feels like the ideal prospect to learn under Peterson for a year or two, but we've tried the long/athletic CB early in drafts several times with less than great returns; McCreary, in a lot of ways is the polar opposite of Woolen, but offers a limited ceiling and likely ends up getting pigeonholed as a slot CB, which can be had later in the draft... It's less of an immediate need, but with the 50th selection, the Minnesota Vikings select Skyy Moore, WR, Western Michigan. The Vikings offense is getting revamped, and, by the numbers, are a virtual guarantee to pass more. While Jefferson and Thielen offer one of the better dynamic duos in the league, no one really took hold of the #3 role last year and Thielen is reaching his age cliff. The Vikings clearly like WRs who can play inside and out, and while Moore could stand to improve his physicality in his route running, he has the ability to do that long term. In the short term, Moore should get plenty of room to work underneath with defenses focused elsewhere, and this could be significant with Irv Smith as really the only viable pass-catching TE on the roster. It's a bit of a surprise pick (even to myself!) but I like the fit here short and long-term. The Eagles @H2o are on the clock.

The vikings are okay moving back a few picks if anyone is looking to move up...

A couple things... 1. My whole point is that most of Edmunds' critics aren't taking the proper context into account. 2. I didn't think I was really criticizing anyone too harshly, just throwing out my perspective that's come from college coaching, working with scouts/GMs/coaches and other front-office types, and generally being around the game for a long time. 3. I think people are making WAY too big of a deal of his contract beyond this year. That's how middling teams operate. We're arguably THE favorites to win the super bowl, we need to act like it (and downgrading our most important defensive position because "future" isn't that. 4. Just trying to have conversation. These are the topics that I enjoy the most, so for me, this has been a fun conversation. Not trying to put anyone on blast or call anyone idiots, just trying to add to the discussion and understanding to folks on the board. I hope you haven't taken offense to my comments, certainly wasn't my point...

I agree, which speaks to the quality of the roster, frankly. Not a lot of dead weight. I'm not being overly analytical with Dawkins, I'll be honest. I just feel like every time I focus on him, he's either whiffing on a block, giving up too much ground in pass-pro, making a stupid penalty or not doing a ton in the run game. This is picking nits though, I'm nowhere near calling him "bad", by any means.

I don't disagree with any of this. My perspective just comes down to replicable roles and production. I don't think it's a coincidence that Hyde and Poyer went from fringy depth guys (neither who played a full-time S role before coming here) and turned into stars. They're kind of the opposite on my take on Edmunds, I guess. While they're fantastic players, I think our staff views them as more replaceable and in less critical roles. Put another way, if you asked McBeane who they felt they could find better 1:1 replacements for, I think they'd say the safeties over Edmunds. And on Dawkins, I just find him to be exceedingly meh. Has some good moments, but for what we're paying I don't think he's anything exceptional. I've mentioned in the "Bills might trade a veteran to move up" thread, that he'd be the guy I'd look at using + 25 to move up and get one of the top rookies as a method of saving long-term. I think he's very replaceable.

Dawkins is the primary name who comes to mind. Both Poyer and Hyde are 2 more that I could make arguments for. Literally the entire RB stable (I know they don't cost a lot, but they also don't do a lot -- I guess those discussions wouldn't be nearly as polarizing or interesting )...

what's so funny is I feel like there's 4 or 5 others who are at minimum as worthy of such heated debates, but routinely skate, while TE takes just about every arrow from the board...

The point being what we'd be asking for does not mesh with what other teams would be willing to give up. Also, I assume by "Bush" you're thinking Devin Lloyd? I understand the contract angle, I do. You're right that we can't pay everyone (of the two, I happen to find Poyer a LOT more replaceable, but that's another discussion...) I don't feel like this front office is in a place where we can afford to take a step backwards at such a critical position -- especially if all you're bringing back is a late day 2 pick (which you'd effectively recoup as a comp pick if he signed elsewhere, anyway). If you want to pencil in a Muma or Anderson or Harris as the MLB in waiting, fine, draft them in the 3rd and have them back TE up. Problem is none of them have the same size/length/athleticism combo, so you're still not getting a 1 for 1 replacement. Rational minds can also argue evolving the defensive scheme with a new MLB, so that's certainly, possibly a thing, but also kind of untenable to debate in this discussion. So I come back to, if you're trading Edmunds, you have to offset losing him with greater gains elsewhere. I don't think even a 2 does that... As the Saints and Patriots have shown us, contracts can continually be adjusted, funny money is real in the NFL, so I just don't think you can make such a massive decision with that as the basis.

You're making my point for me. From the Bills' perspective, unless you come out as a clear winner and offsetting losing the central figure and quarterback of your defense with a larger upgrade it's not worth making that trade. From another team's perspective, you're bringing in a guy who's going to have to learn a new system and almost instantly pay him a bunch of money when you could draft one and have the same "start from ground zero" effect in play. You asked what I thought his trade value was, not what sensible deals would be for him. I happen to think the Bills have his trade value as extremely high. What does a 2nd, 3rd or 4th round pick get you that makes us better now aside from a cheaper salary? I just don't think that kind of thinking wins championships...

I usually bow out of discussions using that chart, because you just cant truly quantify what a player is worth on a static chart like that (not to mention I've been told by more than a couple NFL front office people that they don't even consider it in their trade discussions)... All that said and just for funsies... I'd say high -- like probably multiple valuable picks high. You have to take the whole picture into the equation: We're right in the middle of our SB window As established, I believe this staff thinks highly of everything he does for us His youth and athleticism His knowledge of the defense (even if you think one of the rookies is a "better" player, they absolutely will have a learning curve that could either create problems OR cause us to call a more simplified defense) Free agency isn't exactly flooded with great MLB options, so you're not going to find a 1 for 1 replacement there. Then there's also the consideration of not wanting to trade him to a contending or division team, which narrows your trading partners down by at least 1/3 of the league... So your takeback in an Edmunds trade is going to have to offset ALL of that. Does that exist? Maybe. Is his contract situation a potential reason to move him? I can see the argument. But speaking realistically, I think his value to us, is more than a team out there will want to give on top of a long term contract. If it were me, and I'm absolutely trading Edmunds, I'd be trying to position myself to land Jameson Williams, Breece Hall, an OL upgrade and a CB in the first 2 rounds. Sign a FA to man the spot for a year and a heir to the MLB spot in the 3rd... Would the Steelers give us their 1, 2 and something else to unite the Edmunds brothers? (1230+ points) Texans 1 and 2? (1680) Vikings? (1620) Just not a lot of obvious fits out there where you can talk yourself into the other team being interested... (and for the record, I don't think any of these are realistic)

Yeah I agree on all of this -- wasn't necessarily targeting you, more the larger narrative around him. I think this staff really highly values what he does for this defense, and between all of that, his age, length and athleticism, I don't think there's a better option walking in that door anytime soon. The numbers are what they are, and yes they're "worse" than previous years, but again, I'd also suggest that the staff is probably more concerned about the implication data of those recs, rather than the recs themselves in a vacuum -- what those look like, I don't know.

The problem with independent defensive player analytics like completions when targeted is that they don't encapsulate the whole picture. Like NewEra said, we actively schemed and funneled targets TO Edmunds. I'd want to know how many of those completed targets yac'd more than, say 3 or 4 yards? How many converted 1st downs? How many resulted in missed tackles? This is what anti-Edmunds people are missing. The degree to which this coaching staff trusts Edmunds to be the QB on the defense, make adjustments at the line, communicate and get everyone on the same page and then to also be the guy they want the ball going to, tells me they think he's the anchor of this defense, and it's been one that's been pretty good the last few years. Oh and by the way he's still young and athletic. To be clear, yes, I'd love to see him be better in coverage, OF COURSE it'd be great to have a Deion Sanders-like shutdown guy at MLB, but to expect a rookie, or frankly most of the NFL to do all of the things that Tremaine does for this defense, is asking for trouble.

This is a good thing. McDuffie was a horrendous pick.

Devonte Wyatt is a pretty screaming value at this point, multiple IOLs are high up the board, as is Dax Hill who seems like a great fit for what they do. You do you, but I'd be absolutely floored if they chose a WR at 20...

I'm guessing they'll pay him, but regardless, I'm not sure that justifies using such a high pick on a position they've proven over and over they can squeeze productivity out of for cheaper.

Wow. I don't think I have WR in the top 5 or 6 needs for the Steelers, especially considering their ability to find values later in the draft...

would be for a WR

I didn't think the idea to trade up for Stingley was a particularly good one, but THIS scenario at 20 feels perfect. Steelers and Bills owners are friends. 21-24 could all very conceivably take WRs. We'd have our pick (minus London) of any of the WRs on our board. 25-20 would be a much easier jump to make. If its true that the Steelers are looking at QBs, they can likely get a little more value and still select the same player at 25 that they would have at 20...