BillsVet

The average drafts are starting to hurt the franchise now. When you've got needs at DE and WR, both now and in the future, yet insist on taking development WRs, safeties, and DT's with your top picks it'll catch up with you. Especially one trying to improve from perennial playoff team to SB appearance. Even last year, when they fell short of the 2023 WR's, they had to settle for Kincaid, then went guard and LB. Year before that they missed on Elam, which, OK, but then took a RB and LB. It's easier to hit on those positions, but that's almost mitigated by still having question marks at the premium positions. And it looks like they'll shift to more M2M coverage, so CB carries added importance this year. How they address WR and DE this off-season is pretty much the tale of the tape. And perhaps at CB. The rest is just fluff.

Certainly not. That refrain is often a fans' perspective when this subject arises during the off-season.

This is the first draft review thread I've seen in a long time that emphasizes it takes 3 years to judge a draft class. As true as that is, this sentiment only gets mentioned if the class wasn't all that impressive. Then again, we're in year 2 of the 2023 draft and that one doesn't really appear much better. Their last few drafts are really similar in they've been about building depth/rounding out the roster with low positional value selections. The last time they drafted dominant physical players was 2021 when they took Rousseau and then Brown. And even then, they were drafting at the bottom of the round, so it shouldn't be viewed as unlikely to find players.

Let's be honest...people create their own anxiety/crises better now than at any point in human history.

It's not a narrative, it's an opinion and for the cost of 1 top-10 1st, a later 1st, and 2 mid-2nd round picks they still don't have an impactful DL. Rousseau I'd argue is their best DL and at times he disappears. Just because OBD prioritizes DL doesn't mean they have the right ones. Or, that their scheme, coaching, and game-planning is getting the most out of those players.

When is the last time the Bills under McBeane acquired/drafted "nasty" DLinemen? 8 off-seasons and aside from perhaps drafting Rousseau and signing Von Miller the DLines they've built have not held up when it mattered most. It's mostly lunchpail types who underwhelm. Point is, when McBeane tell you their solutions are just that, I'd be skeptical it's not repackaging what hasn't worked. Because I'm not convinced they're that good evaluating talent and will spin the wheel to ensure it winds up on "we need more defense." Which invariably means, the offense will get by with lesser expenditures.

There's a strong debate being made not to re-sign any of the 2022 draft class. The highly picked RB that comes off the field, an undersized LB who gets nicked up, a good slot only WR and Benford who's an injury concern. That said, they got some good value for the Day 3 picks. Yet, from a positional value standpoint Buffalo has used their last 7 RD2/3 picks on low positional value selections: 2022: RB, LB 2023: G, LB 2024: WR, S, DT I count Coleman as low positional value as a WR because it's clear he's not a boundary receiver yet.

This reminds me of the debate on Edmunds couple years ago. Lot of people here said Buffalo had to re-sign him to a huge contract because they didn't have anyone else on the roster to fill the position. Didn't hear much about it after Bernard took the job and almost immediately showed that Edmunds actually wasn't worth keeping. There are trade-offs to not re-signing players who have produced, namely the uncertainty about who'll replace them. Mr. Wizard, Beane, has gotten away with re-signing their own because his drafting hasn't been that great. But if they're ever going to get some cap room it's going to take not keeping all of your own and finding similar type players in UFA or especially the draft who won't get paid big money.

On all of your asterisks: I really don't care Margaret.

You can really see after so many years together that OBD conducts their football business consistent with the personalities of the HC and GM. It's pretty conservative: in the offensive and defensive schemes they run, game-planning, player personnel decisions, and assistants largely promoted from within. This entire thread has become a yearly occurrence, albeit louder this year. They're not really improving under the current leadership and have become stale. Ironically, the boldness they exhibited to move up and draft Josh hasn't been there since 2018 save for trading for Diggs and signing Miller in 2022. They've had some pedestrian off-seasons the last couple years that patched up holes or threw the equivalent of deck chairs off the Titanic. I still find it ironic the GM talks about finding dynamic players and the HC is firing again firing a coordinator as though these are immediate reasons for their stagnation. I think we'll know a lot about who the 2025 Bills are after the first week of UFA. If there's some audacity on display, perhaps they've abandoned their predictable and safe ways. If not, they just replicated their approach in previous off-seasons.

The blitz I'll always remember from McD came at the end of the Broncos home game last season and the subsequent FG. Didn't go quite as well. McD's feel for the game on defense leaves something to be desired. On the other side, he certainly has never fully embraced a modern passing game, nor allowed them to develop one these last few seasons.

It's funny that people every off-season point to the inevitable salary cap increase without understanding the league growing revenue is mostly what permits this. Whether that's television, merchandise, whatever...yeah, it's contingent on growing the game. Continuous improvement seems like a concept lost to some who want things to remain the same. I get it that losing a home game stinks, but then again, part of that benefit might be the ability to fit another UFA under the cap when the ceiling goes up 5M.

It's not cost-effective to maintain with significant investment an entire defensive unit. Those Seattle teams had so many high picks, UFAs, and contract extensions, yet only offered a 5 year window even with Russell Wilson, who admittedly was not easy to scheme an offense with. Every year we discuss addressing what was weak the previous season and this off-season is no different. Secondary, DL, perhaps LB's. Then, at playoff time the offense is scrambling to score points in the Divisional Round and later as the defense struggles. Their solution in 2024 was to slow the offense down to keep the defense off the field which worked well through the Wild Card Round matchup. Patching holes isn't cutting it anymore and they need a course correction in overall strategy. I doubt it'll happen, but they did it their way and came up short again. I'd also consider that their franchise QB is coming up for a contract after 2025 and keeping him is an absolute necessity.

As you noted previously, those 2 completions to Cooper in the regular season KC game were absolutely paramount to sustaining those drives. When they played the Championship game, they had to go to Hollins and Shakir...neither of whom I'd trust on those throws. To their credit they made those catches. Perhaps Cooper was hurt and not capable, but that points to having another receiver who can be depended on to run intermediate to deeper routes. Regardless, it's easy to see the benefits of a ball control style with short throws, notably winning time of possession, the turnover battle, and field position. The cost which remains difficult to quantify is how a more risk-averse offense inhibits play-calling unpredictability. If Beane and McDermott are truly committed to being open-minded to reviewing their last loss and finding solutions, they'd largely scrap the offensive scheme they went with this year. It'll be hard because they don't have the WR/TE group right now to run a more explosive offense, but the benefits will out-weigh the costs.

It would be great to have difference makers on both sides, yes. Going about that in terms of cap, etc. is the tricky part. But that's for another day.