My Draft Thoughts

[Arm of Harm]

11 hours ago, glazeduck said:

I think the competition argument, to a certain degree, holds water -- especially when we've seen Beane actually use guys who would normally be cut to get back some value in trades.

 

But to me, especially this year, I think you go get the stud, the guy you need, the guy that's very obviously going to be a good player at a need spot. Even if he doesn't become an all-time great, by trading up for Pitts, you're all but guaranteeing that pick won't be a bust -- which I think is more than you can say than just about every other player in this draft...

 

Trading up for Pitts could definitely make a lot of sense, depending on how things play out. If I'm Brandon Beane, I wouldn't push too hard to get into the top 10 - 12 picks of the draft for Pitts. But, if he falls to maybe pick 15 or so, that's when I'd start making a major push.

 

One potential downside to a guy like Pitts is the quality and depth of the Bills' WR corps. There are only so many targets to go around. You'd obviously want to target your TE a lot more with Pitts than without him, and that means taking targets away from one of the best and deepest WR corps in the league. Don't get me wrong--I'd be absolutely thrilled to see Pitts in a Bills uniform--but his value would be somewhat diminished due to the targets he takes from the WRs.

 

If getting Pitts would be too expensive in terms of draft picks, the two other options I'd consider would be pass rusher and offensive lineman. It's been said that this is not a good draft to need a pass rusher, and the recent signings seem to diminish pass rusher as a need for this year. So at that point I'd be looking to improve the interior of the offensive line, either by taking a guy at 30 or trading down. I'd also like to see the Bills add a 1 tech DT, but probably not in the first round.

 

[glazeduck]

5 minutes ago, Arm of Harm said:

 

Trading up for Pitts could definitely make a lot of sense, depending on how things play out. If I'm Brandon Beane, I wouldn't push too hard to get into the top 10 - 12 picks of the draft for Pitts. But, if he falls to maybe pick 15 or so, that's when I'd start making a major push.

 

One potential downside to a guy like Pitts is the quality and depth of the Bills' WR corps. There are only so many targets to go around. You'd obviously want to target your TE a lot more with Pitts than without him, and that means taking targets away from one of the best and deepest WR corps in the league. Don't get me wrong--I'd be absolutely thrilled to see Pitts in a Bills uniform--but his value would be somewhat diminished due to the targets he takes from the WRs.

 

If getting Pitts would be too expensive in terms of draft picks, the two other options I'd consider would be pass rusher and offensive lineman. It's been said that this is not a good draft to need a pass rusher, and the recent signings seem to diminish pass rusher as a need for this year. So at that point I'd be looking to improve the interior of the offensive line, either by taking a guy at 30 or trading down. I'd also like to see the Bills add a 1 tech DT, but probably not in the first round.

 

No question the trade value has to make sense. 
 

I don’t think the targets thing is all that major of a concern, frankly. Short term — in the first year, he’d be a rookie with a veteran “in front of him” and vets out wide. Sure you give your new toy maybe 50 or 60 targets but that’s not the type of player you’d feed unless he just absolutely explodes, which would be a good problem to have. 
 

Longer term, Sanders moves on after this year and you’re splitting 600 targets among 4 main guys. That’s more than enough. 

[Arm of Harm]

16 hours ago, glazeduck said:

No question the trade value has to make sense. 
 

I don’t think the targets thing is all that major of a concern, frankly. Short term — in the first year, he’d be a rookie with a veteran “in front of him” and vets out wide. Sure you give your new toy maybe 50 or 60 targets but that’s not the type of player you’d feed unless he just absolutely explodes, which would be a good problem to have. 
 

Longer term, Sanders moves on after this year and you’re splitting 600 targets among 4 main guys. That’s more than enough. 

 

I can definitely see the value of adding Pitts. Pitts has the chance to become a special player. A special player normally has a longer career than a run-of-the-mill player, and can change games in ways a normal player can't. It would be difficult for defenses to try to double both Diggs and him. He'd give Allen a great outlet and a great target, especially if we once again run into a playoff situation where literally all our WRs are hurt.

 

The other value I see is in upgrading our OL. During the regular season the OL did well at pass protection but a poor job of run blocking. All it takes is one OL to get defeated on a running play, and that can easily spoil the whole play. During all three postseason games the Bills did not play at the same level as they had for most of the regular season. An important reason for that decline in play was the OL's failure to do a good job at either run blocking or pass protection.

 

If you could land a good, quality OG at #30 overall, that's a very solid step towards solving that problem. Then maybe go back to addressing the lines in round 2, with a 1 tech DT. Add another OG/C in round 3, and you're good to go! I'd be very excited if this is how things played out. The round 1 OL could help solve what was a huge problem for the offense in the postseason, and the 1 tech DT would help solve one of the defense's biggest problems. 

[Arm of Harm]

In another thread, there is a rumor that Beane is interested in using his first round pick on a RB. Not what I would do in his place, but let's say he does this anyway.

 

At that point you still really need an interior OL, so that's where I'd use the round 2 pick, assuming that the first round pick gets used on the RB. Then in round 3 you either draft a 1 tech DT, or you hope that the combination of Star + Harrison Phillips is enough to get you squared away at that position for now. If you don't draft the 1 tech DT, other options would be another interior OL, or a LB, or a TE.

[Dr. Who]

8 minutes ago, Arm of Harm said:

In another thread, there is a rumor that Beane is interested in using his first round pick on a RB. Not what I would do in his place, but let's say he does this anyway.

 

At that point you still really need an interior OL, so that's where I'd use the round 2 pick, assuming that the first round pick gets used on the RB. Then in round 3 you either draft a 1 tech DT, or you hope that the combination of Star + Harrison Phillips is enough to get you squared away at that position for now. If you don't draft the 1 tech DT, other options would be another interior OL, or a LB, or a TE.

I'd be fine with Travis Etienne or Najee Harris at 30. Edge is another position you might want to invest an early pick on. The new Panther's FA is a good depth signing, but we could use some youth there. Won't be anyone worth taking in the first, however. I suspect if they don't go RB, CB is another option late first.

[ColoradoBills]

On 3/25/2021 at 4:13 PM, LyndonvilleBill said:

I'm thinking trade back out of the 1st (maybe ATL? But not too far) pick up a 3rd or 4th. 1st pick, CB, 2nd pick s/lb/big nickel, 3rd NT (Shelvin or McNeill), 4th RB (R. Stevenson or Chris Evans, power type) then who knows.. TE, DE, OC/G..

 

 

I've said the same thing.  IF Beane moves down from #30 the Atlanta pick at #35 is the farthest back I would like to see.

Atlanta's 4th round pick is at #108 which is fair in both Draft Value Charts.

[CNYfan]

I think McNeill is going to move up.  Second round talent.  

Rare commodity.

Edited March 27, 2021 by CNYfan
added to the thought

[LyndonvilleBill]

24 minutes ago, CNYfan said:

I think McNeill is going to move up.  Second round talent.  

Rare commodity.

I think so as well. But from what I have seen on the mock sites both McNeill and Shelvin have dropped back about 10-15 spots in the last week. Maybe we'll get lucky and be able to get one of them in the 3rd...

[Governor]

6 hours ago, CNYfan said:

I think McNeill is going to move up.  Second round talent.  

Rare commodity.

Alim McNeill, DT, NC State?

 

I mentioned him earlier. I’m starting to see his name pop up often now. That’s got Beane written all over it. Maybe we should trade down and take the NC RB, then DT.

[BillsFan1988]

 

 

I rather trade bk with the Broncos 

Give up 1st #30 

Get 2nd- #40 & 3rd - 71st

 

Then trade bk up into 2nd rd with Colts 

Give up Den 3rd -71st & both 5ths and 4th next yr. 

 

That leaves us with

 

2nd #40- RB Ettiene 

2nd#54 - DE Perkins

2nd#60 - CB Melifonwu 

3rd#93 - DT1 Mcneil

 

Or

 

2nd #40 - RB Williams

2nd # 54- Edge Ossai

2nd #60- BN/S Naserildean

3rd#93- DT1 Shelvin 

 

I like the trade bk but consolidate method this gives us plenty options in the 2nd rd . I realize that some of these guys won't be where i got them being selected but u never know who else can be in this spots . I've seen multiple mocks that have JOK in the 2nd rd as well as these RBs . Trade bk and go BPA . 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tenhigh]

On 3/25/2021 at 1:41 AM, Jauronimo said:

We don't have enough open roster spots to fill if we stand pat and draft where we stand.  Trading back and accumulating more picks just so we can cut these guys later does not make much sense to me.

I tend to agree, with the exception that maybe trading for 2022 upgraded picks.  If we can trade our 2nd rd pick for another team's 2022 1st?  I'd definitely consider it. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Tenhigh

[NewEra]

17 hours ago, Arm of Harm said:

In another thread, there is a rumor that Beane is interested in using his first round pick on a RB. Not what I would do in his place, but let's say he does this anyway.

 

At that point you still really need an interior OL, so that's where I'd use the round 2 pick, assuming that the first round pick gets used on the RB. Then in round 3 you either draft a 1 tech DT, or you hope that the combination of Star + Harrison Phillips is enough to get you squared away at that position for now. If you don't draft the 1 tech DT, other options would be another interior OL, or a LB, or a TE.

Disagree.  Draft the best players with weight towards positions of value...then need

 

if that player is IOL, I’d be ok drafting him in rd 2.  If that player is a DT, pass rusher, CB, OT (with IOL flex) or WR, I feel the same

Edited March 28, 2021 by NewEra

[Don Otreply]

I’m thinking that drafting a big athletic guy who can cover big athletic TEs and take them to the ground would be a priority, this type of player would help the pass and run defense.  This and D and O line monsters. 
 

The trenches matter on every single play..,

[Arm of Harm]

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

Disagree.  Draft the best players with weight towards positions of value...then need

 

if that player is IOL, I’d be ok drafting him in rd 2.  If that player is a DT, pass rusher, CB, OT (with IOL flex) or WR, I feel the same

 

I'd like to see the Bills accomplish three things for this and all future drafts.

 

1) Fill needs

2) Minimize need-based penalty

3) Maximize position value

 

As for 2): suppose the need-based player is 80% as good as the best player available. That's a need-based penalty of 20%. Ideally I'd like to keep my need-based penalty to 10% or less, while still drafting for need. To accomplish that I may need to trade up or trade down. The goal being to get into a draft spot where one of the best players available is a player at a position of need. Failing that, I'd draft the best player available. It is almost never acceptable to pay too large a need-based penalty.

 

As for position value: some positions (LT, CB, WR, DE, QB) are considered more valuable than others. While I'd certainly take that into account, a strong component to my assessment of position value is longevity. If I expect an OG to have twice as long a useful career as a RB, then that's something which would (in my eyes) increase the position value of OG, relative to a RB.

 

I've heard this is a pretty good draft for interior OL. The unstated assumption of my earlier posts is that the Bills could use a 1st or 2nd round pick on an OG, without having to pay a significant need-based penalty. Whether that assumption is correct will obviously depend on how the Bills have these players graded, and on how the draft plays out.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

I think they trade down and stack some picks in rounds two through four by moving some late round picks.  OP is correct.  The roster is stacked at this point.  Unless they take a project QB or a Long Snapper to compete for very specific roles, there are very few holes for guys to fill.  I'd be happy if they only drafted 5 guys and moved some of the picks for next year too.  Just come away with the NT of the future, an edge rusher, a TE, a MLB, and a true center.  

[TheBeaneBandit]

18 minutes ago, FFadpecr said:

How do you guys feel about Elijah Moore at #30?

 

I get Emmanuel Sanders vibes.

 

Since Sanders is 34 and Beasley 32, should Bills draft Moore as their #2 WR of the future?

I think future WR2 absolutely needs to be considered. Not only a prime position, but possibly BPA.....

[NewEra]

52 minutes ago, FFadpecr said:

How do you guys feel about Elijah Moore at #30?

 

I get Emmanuel Sanders vibes.

 

Since Sanders is 34 and Beasley 32, should Bills draft Moore as their #2 WR of the future?

I love watching moore run.  I don’t like him @30.  He’s a slot guy imo.  Not much to offer on the outside.  That’s said, I feel he should be one of the best slot guys ever if he learned behind Cole and played his career in this offense.  62 sounds about right but he might be gone