Potential Hint to Draft Priorities?

[thurst44]

3 minutes ago, DJB said:

 

Epenesa over JK Dobbins and Chinn last year for me. 

 

You could argue Ford as well but to me I think they just had him rated highly and its a straight up draft miss. 

 

Otherwise hes been pretty darn good at going BPA

Really? Just b/c you think someone is better than the others does not mean that others do or that Beane is not drafting BPA. From the phone call, it was clear he thought he was BPA. However, yes Dobbins and Chinn looked great this year and Epenesa had a slow start (i thought he was beginning to show flashes at the end of the year.

 

Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were a good prognosticator (at least for rookie year, the book on these players are nowhere near closed) and not just picking the two names from the second round who happened to shine in their first season. Most mocks had Epenesa in the first round and higher than both those players.

 

First draft I found has Epenesa at 23 with Dobbins at 54 (to the Bills, funnily enough) and Chinn at 64.

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/03/20/mock-draft-11-three-rounds

 

An update of that kept Epenesa and Chinn the same and moved Dobbins up to 44

 

The next one: Epenesa 37, Dobbins 45, Chinn 47
The next one: Epenesa 35, Dobbins 49, Chinn 51

The next one: Epenesa 37, Dobbins 45, Chinn 71

The next one: Epenesa 23, Dobbins 39, Chinn 50

 

Maybe he was not BPA in your mind, but to many football experts, Epenesa was clearly BPA. Also, your logic falls apart as clearly the team saw RB as a need as they drafted Moss in the next round.  

 

 

[DCOrange]

22 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Question:  Why do people keep listing WR as an immediate need?  I dont get why thats an immediate need right now

It isn't an immediate need, but depending on who you take they could conceivably replace McKenzie's role this year or be in line for a significant role the following year.

[YattaOkasan]

19 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

A 1st round CB will most likely start, pushing Levi Wallace to cb 4. 

I would also argue a 2nd round iOL could start by taking Felciano or Ford's spot.  Edge in the first round could also "start" by which I mean get the most snaps.  

[jahnyc]

This is an interesting topic with a lot to speculate about.  I could see the Bills drafting a CB, center, WR or LB with the first or second round pick for the reasons noted in this thread.  A first round CB could be a day 1 starter.  The Bills also could be thinking about a replacement for Star, so I would add DT to the list, including in the first round.  The Edmunds situation will be interesting. I have a feeling that they will not pick up the option but say all the right things when announced that they want to negotiate a long-term extension with him, whether or not there is real interest in doing so.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

11 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

Please given an example where Beane has not drafted BPA.

 

Allen - self-evident

Edmunds - P Brown was not brought back and they had no other viable option at MLB, traded up to fill the spot

Knox - at the time he was drafted Kroft was the only TE on the roster

Ford - Mills was not brought back creating an immediate need at RT

Epenesa - edge was clearly a need but you could argue with the free agent moves before the draft this was not a true need at the time of the draft

 

[glazeduck]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

It is not. But Beane talked about drafting a guy who could learn behind players with 1 year left. Beasley and Sanders fall in that camp. 

 

I am at the point where #30 (if they don't trade out) is down to Travis Etienne, a corner, a project pass rusher or a receiver based on the presser.

I still maintain a trade up is V likely too. Obviously mocks aren't the be-all/end-all, but it does feel like a handful of guys a tier higher than those that we're discussing go in the mid/late-20s. Ex: to me, a guy like Farley (if he checks out medically) or Newsome or Paye is probably worth paying the cost to move up 5ish spots, rather than taking a Campbell or Ossai...

1 minute ago, jahnyc said:

The Bills also could be thinking about a replacement for Star, so I would add DT to the list, including in the first round.  The Edmunds situation will be interesting. I have a feeling that they will not pick up the option but say all the right things when announced that they want to negotiate a long-term extension with him, whether or not there is real interest in doing so.

Problem is -- unless we're changing schemes, there's no one remotely worth a 1st rd. pick at DT.

[thurst44]

2 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Allen - self-evident

Edmunds - P Brown was not brought back and they had no other viable option at MLB, traded up to fill the spot

Knox - at the time he was drafted Kroft was the only TE on the roster

Ford - Mills was not brought back creating an immediate need at RT

Epenesa - edge was clearly a need but you could argue with the free agent moves before the draft this was not a true need at the time of the draft

 

This is a fair enough analysis, but just b/c the draft fills a need does not mean that the player was not the BPA, for example, we picked Epenesa 17 picks later than any mock draft I could find. If the BPA happens to be at a spot that is a weaker spot on your roster than others, do you not draft the BPA just to show you are not drafting for need. Ford was a first round pick in some mocks. Knox, sure. Edmunds was a top ten pick in many mocks that year and I remember at the time the trade happened getting giddy and texting friends that it had to be for Tremaine Edmunds b/c he was dropping down the board. Allen, well, duh. With hindsight, he's the BPA :). 

[Paup 1995MVP]

13 minutes ago, CommonCents said:

You really can’t see why replacing a 34 year old WR who is on a one year deal is a priority? I love Sanders, he made one of the best comebacks from an achilles that I know of but he isn’t a beastly number two at this stage. He is a placeholder. 

 

WR is very much a need, Cole is also on the wrong side of 30. Unless they know that they nailed the Hodgins pick, they need to draft one.

 

 

WR is somewhat of a need.  But not a huge need right now.  Beasley and Sanders may have 2-3 solid to very good years left in them.  Davis is young.  And Hodgins maybe a beast.  And there are guys coming out every year now that are very good wideouts.  The college game is so different then it was even 10-15 years ago.  Teams (except for the Maize and Blue, Wisconsin and Iowa) love to throw the ball all over the place.  So there are many more higher end WR's to choose from every year then say in the 80's and 90's.

 

I think that Beane will have a hard time not picking Najee Harris or Travis Etienne if they are there when we pick at 30.  

[Ethan in Cleveland]

29 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

If you look at the Bills roster, the only position where a rookie could potentially start on Day 1 is at Running Back. 

All the other spots have solid veterans in place for 2021.  And even if the Bills drafted Travis Etienne/Najee Harris, it's very possible they are forced to play behind Devin Singletary/Zack Moss at first.

 

Not sure anything can be taken from Beane's comments.

 

Also, there hasn't been a "delay" in activating the 5th-Year Option on Tremaine Edmunds.  The deadline isn't until after the draft, and none of the NFL teams have activated those options yet.  The Bills haven't done it for Josh Allen either.

 

Epenesa and Addison are not locks to start, so an edge could start. Realistically though its a rotation at DE and they all get snaps

[glazeduck]

One more thought: I totally spaced RB on the stock up/down/shrug...

 

Kenny Gainwell might be one to watch and is someone not talked a lot about on these boards... He doesn't possess the typical size of a lead/bellcow back, but he's incredibly dynamic. Per Beane's "future" comment, and knowing what we do(n't) have at RB and in the return game already, I could absolutely see him being a guy that they could give 5ish touches/game, get involved in the return game too and to learn, and basically take slowly to gauge how much he could be a lead back (my opinion, he could be an 18-20 touch guy like Kamara). 

 

Somewhat random, but definitely feels like -- outside of size -- checks a LOT of boxes.

[mannc]

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It is not. But Beane talked about drafting a guy who could learn behind players with 1 year left. Beasley and Sanders fall in that camp. 

 

I am at the point where #30 (if they don't trade out) is down to Travis Etienne, a corner, a project pass rusher or a receiver based on the presser.

100 percent agreement here.  Which one it is will depend on who's available.  Obviously.  

[NewEra]

4 minutes ago, glazeduck said:

One more thought: I totally spaced RB on the stock up/down/shrug...

 

Kenny Gainwell might be one to watch and is someone not talked a lot about on these boards... He doesn't possess the typical size of a lead/bellcow back, but he's incredibly dynamic. Per Beane's "future" comment, and knowing what we do(n't) have at RB and in the return game already, I could absolutely see him being a guy that they could give 5ish touches/game, get involved in the return game too and to learn, and basically take slowly to gauge how much he could be a lead back (my opinion, he could be an 18-20 touch guy like Kamara). 

 

Somewhat random, but definitely feels like -- outside of size -- checks a LOT of boxes.

[mannc]

37 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Question:  Why do people keep listing WR as an immediate need?  I dont get why thats an immediate need right now

The Bills utilize WRs more than any team in the league.  Two of their top 4 WRs are well over 30 years old, and their number 1 guy will be 28 to start the season.  All it takes is an injury to one of the top 4 guys and all of a sudden, it's a major need.  As long as JA is slinging it like he did last year, we'll be looking to draft a WR just about every year--as we should. 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

1 minute ago, thurst44 said:

This is a fair enough analysis, but just b/c the draft fills a need does not mean that the player was not the BPA, for example, we picked Epenesa 17 picks later than any mock draft I could find. If the BPA happens to be at a spot that is a weaker spot on your roster than others, do you not draft the BPA just to show you are not drafting for need. Ford was a first round pick in some mocks. Knox, sure. Edmunds was a top ten pick in many mocks that year and I remember at the time the trade happened getting giddy and texting friends that it had to be for Tremaine Edmunds b/c he was dropping down the board. Allen, well, duh. With hindsight, he's the BPA :). 

For the record I don't understand why people feel drafting for need is a bad thing? I agree if there is a run on OT's you don't want to take the 8th best OT when you could have a better player at another position.  

[Don Otreply]

51 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Beane lies. He says he drafts BPA but drafts for need.  He is an idiot if he is drafting for long term. The window to win the SuperBowl is now and next year.  He should be drafting for immediate help!  Now that can be nuanced.  Drafting a 1-tech DT or edge early can fit both a short term and long term need. 

The only position that I would say should be drafted for long term is a true center so they can move on from Morse next year.  

Beane does indeed draft for need, as does the entire league, they as you said just give lip service to the BPA thing, BUT! The window for success is not  this and next season, not by a long shot, tell Brady and Belicheck that they had a two year window..., Beane and McDermott are setting up this franchise for the long haul not a two year window and then fall back into the mediocre team BS that the Bills for all to long, that is not the game they are playing, many folk here can’t seem to wrap their minds around what is actually happening at OBD..., they fully intend to be in the SB mix for decades, not two years.

 

Just my humble opinion...

[thurst44]

10 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

For the record I don't understand why people feel drafting for need is a bad thing? I agree if there is a run on OT's you don't want to take the 8th best OT when you could have a better player at another position.  

I guess it's semantics. I agree that sometimes it's good, sometimes it isn't.  My annoyance (I was not annoyed by your post, btw... even said fair analysis) tends to stem from people who use this sort of thing to denigrate our current players. And it's a stupid pet peeve of mine when people act like there was a perception before the draft that just was not true (i.e. Epenesa was a stretch when he went over 17 picks after where the lowest person I could find had him). Sometimes BPA & need converge as you can arguably say happened with Edmunds. When I was doing mocks in Fanspeak et al, I usually had to trade up to get him when on a lark I did a non-QB draft.

 

Allen is a great example of when drafting for need was a good idea. Although even then, Mel Kiper had him as the top player available. And, what do I know, I wanted Rosen. Allen won me over within a week, but still..

[thurst44]

13 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

Beane and McDermott are setting up this franchise for the long haul not a two year window and then fall back into the mediocre team BS that the Bills for all to long

That's as good an argument that I've seen that they are going BPA, whatever you think he did the last few years, as the best player at any position is most likely to help you in the long run. I've always looked at BPA as best player for the longterm as opposed to best player immediately. For example, if you're drafting for the longterm it might make you more liable to draft, say, Caleb Farley, if you think his injury is temporary.

 

Ultimately, what might be the problem here is that people have their own definitions of what "BPA" means or what different teams' needs are. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by thurst44
brain freeze?!? hopefully not early dementia

[Royale with Cheese]

43 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Allen - self-evident

Edmunds - P Brown was not brought back and they had no other viable option at MLB, traded up to fill the spot

Knox - at the time he was drafted Kroft was the only TE on the roster

Ford - Mills was not brought back creating an immediate need at RT

Epenesa - edge was clearly a need but you could argue with the free agent moves before the draft this was not a true need at the time of the draft

 

 

You have no idea what the draft board looks like so you cannot say these are just "need" picks.  You're basically saying every single time you improve a weakness in the draft, it's a need pick and not BPA.  

 

Why would someone draft a position they don't need at all?  Would it make sense for us or KC to draft a QB in the first round?

Would it make sense for the Bucs to draft a MLB?

Would it make sense for the Pats to draft a tight end?

 

You always criticize Beane for drafting players to improve areas for whatever reason.

 

The Jags and Jets both need QB's and they're both drafting QB's....need pick.

 

12 minutes ago, thurst44 said:

I guess it's semantics. I agree that sometimes it's good, sometimes it isn't.  My annoyance (I was not annoyed by your post, btw... even said fair analysis) tends to stem from people who use this sort of thing to denigrate our current players. And it's a stupid pet peeve of mine when people act like there was a perception before the draft that just was not true (i.e. Epenesa was a stretch when he went over 17 picks after where the lowest person I could find had him). Sometimes BPA & need converge as you can arguably say happened with Edmunds. When I was doing mocks in Fanspeak et al, I usually had to trade up to get him when on a lark I did a non-QB draft.

 

Allen is a great example of when drafting for need was a good idea. Although even then, Mel Kiper had him as the top player available. And, what do I know, I wanted Rosen. Allen won me over within a week, but still..

 

We have no idea what Beane's draft board looks like.

 

It's just childish for Ethan to call Beane an idiot and a liar. 

[Draconator]

Too many words to read in this thread. I prefer single sentences or a glorious gif.

[teef]

1 hour ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Beane lies. He says he drafts BPA but drafts for need.  He is an idiot if he is drafting for long term. The window to win the SuperBowl is now and next year.  He should be drafting for immediate help!  Now that can be nuanced.  Drafting a 1-tech DT or edge early can fit both a short term and long term need. 

The only position that I would say should be drafted for long term is a true center so they can move on from Morse next year.  

It’s hard to enjoy your posting.