Do you take a corner in the first?

[Alphadawg7]

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

On the pure BPA vs BPA at a position of need vs BPA at a premium position.... the answer is from the guys that I have spoken to that have been in the league and been in draft rooms, there is no hard and fast rule that all teams use. But broadly it is this:

 

1 - Quarterback is special. If you have one you believe is the guy for at least 2 more seasons then you never take the Quarterback (and generally if there is a QB as BPA you should be able to trade back and that is the smart play). If you don't have a guy you believe is the guy for at least 2 more seasons then you should take a Quarterback even if they are not BPA. If they are within two tiers of players. It is the only position that is worth reaching through tiers for. 

 

Agreed, and I am pretty sure every GM in the NFL has the same feelings about the QB position.  

 

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

2 - Other than that you should NEVER reach down a tier. So if BPA means 1 player in a tier above every other prospect on your board you should select him even if it isn't a need spot. You want an example of that? CeeDee Lamb to the Cowboys. They had just signed Cooper to a big deal, fresh off a career year, and they had Michael Gallup, cheap for two more years, fresh off a 1,000 yard season. But Lamb was in a different tier to the other prospects left on the board, so even though they had two 1,000 yard receivers already you have to take the receiver. 

 

I agree and somewhat disagree here.  What I don't like is the "NEVER" statement, which I just don't think is applicable here.  And the reason for that, the tiers are all subjective, especially once you are out of the top 10 picks where they really get murky.  What one teams sees as reaching down a tier another may see as the BPA.   I mean one team might see the same 2 prospects a closely graded and another think they are in 2 separate tiers.  And this happens all the time.  

 

I get why you cited the Cowboys there as an example, but I am not sure it was so cut and dry.  Lamb was by far the consensus top player on the board on their pick, so thats accurate to say they took the highest graded guy when it wasn't a big need.  But I don't think that was the "why"...Jones always prioritizes offense and I think he was drooling at the chance to draft one of the big 3 WR's even before the draft started.  I mean they even talked about it ahead of the draft, most mocks had them even taking a WR, just varied on which one depending which ones went first.

 

So I think it was more to do with "want" than must take him based on draft grade.  And while Gallup had put some numbers up, there had never really been anything special about him either, as in they weren't enamored with him.  

 

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

3 - If you have multiple players in a tier, and that generally means within a point or two of one another on your board... so you have three guys at a 7.3 and then one guy at a 7.4... then it is normal for a team to say "okay the 7.4 is a safety and we have two high quality safeties in their prime but one of the 7.3 guys is a corner and we have no high quality corners on the roster, take the corner."

 

Agreed, and Beane has said as much himself.  He also factors in depth of the position too.  If one of those positions really falls off after this pick and the other has other prospects they feel they like and can in the next rounds, they will factor that in and potentially take the guy whose position really falls off after this pick.  Something Beane has also said.

 

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

4 - positional value matters on days 1 and 2.... generally ties are broken first by reference to positional value even before by reference to need.... and then chance to make the roster matters on day 3. Beane has alluded to this previously as well - on day 3 is your BPA in round 5 is an offensive lineman but you are already 9 deep with guys you feel really good about on the offensive line then maybe you do look at the next guy on your board who is say a defensive tackle where you only have 2 guys as locks to make the roster (the current Bills are arguably the other way round but it is just supposed to be an indicative example). 

 

Agreed - Those later rounds they are also looking for ST contributions as well, guys who may not make the roster just off their natural position but could make the roster through special teams.  

 

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Now you do get teams who break those general principles. The Bills during the drought were often an example of what not to do. 2006 a classic example. They wanted Michael Huff, the safety from Texas. He went a pick ahead of them and so rather than then taking Ernie Sims or Haloti Ngata who were recognised as being in that same tier as Huff they reached down the board for the "second safety" and selected Donte Whitner. Now Whitner ended up having a better career than Huff and than Ernie Sims for that matter so you could argue "the Bills were right" but they still reached down a tier and Whitner didn't play his best football in Buffalo in any event. I feel like the Giants did it last year as well. They were planning for one of the top 3 receivers: Chase, Waddle, Smith to fall to them at #11 but the Eagles traded up ahead of them and took the final one of the three - Smith - at #10. The Giants then did the right thing, they traded back to #20 and let Chicago come up for the Quarterback... but then at #20 they just reached down a tier through players like Newsome and Darrisaw and Farley for the next best receiver on their board which was gadget guy Kadarius Toney. Those are two example of "reaching for need" and it rarely, if ever, pays off in the long run - EXCEPT at Quarterback. 

 

 

Raiders under Gruden and Mayock also reached a lot early.  Overall good post Gunner, and agreed with most as you saw.  And I too have people I have known that have spent time in draft war rooms who echo all the same things.  

 

[DCofNC]

On 4/7/2022 at 6:08 AM, Yantha said:

I'd take a corner if the board shaped up that way in the first.

 

Really depends on who might slip down to 25.  There are players in our first round BIG BOARD that I'd take over a corner.  I agree that corner is a huge need, but at the same time, I think we should have addressed this need a bit more in FA.

 

Do we really want to make a serious superbowl challenge with ANY rookie corner matching up against a seasoned vet, playoff-caliber WR?

 

Corners need developing, even the best draftees.

Vs the guys we have now? I’d take a good rookie

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I agree and somewhat disagree here.  What I don't like is the "NEVER" statement, which I just don't think is applicable here.  And the reason for that, the tiers are all subjective, especially once you are out of the top 10 picks where they really get murky.  What one teams sees as reaching down a tier another may see as the BPA.   I mean one team might see the same 2 prospects a closely graded and another think they are in 2 separate tiers.  And this happens all the time.  

 

 

Of course this is true. But that is just differences of talent evaluation. You should still never reach down tiers other than for Quarterback. Two teams will have guys in different tiers for all sorts of reasons. Asante Samuel last year was an example of that. Teams who play some man ob the backend really liked him. He was almost certainly at least 1 tier lower for primarily zone teams. There is no objective draft ranking but every team will have tiers on their board. And you should never reach down a tier. 

 

As for the Cowboys I maintain Lamb was a pure BPA pick. They are one of the best teams in the league at staying true to BPA in round 1. They did it again last year with Parsons. Love them or hate them over the past decade the Cowboys are one of the best drafting teams in the NFL. 

[Allen2Moulds]

On 4/8/2022 at 4:48 PM, whorlnut said:

I know plenty about football boss. I also know there are still vets that are unsigned and I know there are other rounds besides the first round to get a rookie. Heck, we developed a UDA and a seventh rounder recently, so o think the odds are VERY high that we don’t use a first rounder on a corner. 

Give me a first round weapon in round 1 and Taylor-Britt or Josh Williams in round 3. 

I'll have to do some youtube scouting on Taylor Britt and Josh Williams.

[T master]

I feel as if they will take the player at 25 that they will see as a replacement for the players that they won't be able to keep because of the contracts of those players coming due to resign will be asking for i feel LB very well could be a top priority in this draft .

[whorlnut]

47 minutes ago, Allen2Moulds said:

I'll have to do some youtube scouting on Taylor Britt and Josh Williams.

Taylor-Britt is fast, long, and fits our scheme really well. 
 

Kyle Crabbs compares him to James Bradberry…a guy that a lot of us have been hoping the bills trade for. 
 

I’d love this guy in the third. 

Edited April 12, 2022 by whorlnut

[Yantha]

19 hours ago, DCofNC said:

Vs the guys we have now? I’d take a good rookie

I'd take a good rookie too.  Just that they are hard to find.

 

I really wish we addressed this in FA.

[ehfeuh57]

I would not.

 

There are a lot of good CB's you can get in 2nd and 3rd every year (if we do in 1st, i like Booth the best out of the projected available options)

 

My philosophy is: A big AND fast player should be targeted in 1st RD

 

Why? because you can get a fast player OR a big player in every other round, but not both

[HOUSE]

I virtually guarantee Brandon Beane will not.

 

Why? Because you think he will

[Beerball]

On 4/7/2022 at 1:01 AM, Billsfanatixs said:

   I was interested to know if anyone has a position preferance year to year (Need for Franchise QB not included)? Mine was never draft or WR or DB in the first round because those positions in the 90' and probably up to the early 2000's where positions that took time to develope.

We spent high picks to develope player who became amazing by thier 4th year and we couldn't afford that luxery.

 

Just wondering if any of you felt the same way, these positions are way more pro ready TODAY and you spend a day 1 pick to get results during most of the rookie contract?

 

Remember all those soon to be probowl WR and Corners that left the year of thier prime? To me I saw the meat head O-line & D-line guys were the "stick around type" some were really hard to get rid of lol. The Diva WR and Corners were off getting paid. (Not that is anything wrong with that).

 

All that being said, is a 1st round corner a good idea? Starting to think so, interested in other ideas

No

[Canadian Bills Fan]

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

So NFL.com has a draft pick prediction by Chad Reuter up in which the Bills Do Just That in the first round

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/2022-nfl-draft-ideal-top-two-picks-for-every-team

 

Here's their take on the Bills:

 

Buffalo Bills

Round 1: No. 25 overall -- Trent McDuffie, CB, Washington

Round 2: No. 57 overall -- Joshua Ezeudu, OG, North Carolina

 

McDuffie is an excellent corner who battles receivers and takes on running backs in the open field. His height (just under 5-foot-11) and length (arms measuring less than 30 inches) are not ideal for the position, but general manager Brandon Beane is smart enough to overlook those perceived shortcomings. Ezeudu's an underappreciated prospect who gave North Carolina guard-tackle versatility on the left side and could play either spot in the NFL. 

[Rocket94]

If the Bills are all in this year, a trade up is not out of the realm of possibility.

[Richard Noggin]

On 4/12/2022 at 2:41 AM, GunnerBill said:

As for the Cowboys I maintain Lamb was a pure BPA pick. They are one of the best teams in the league at staying true to BPA in round 1. They did it again last year with Parsons. Love them or hate them over the past decade the Cowboys are one of the best drafting teams in the NFL. 

 

The Lamb pick is an illuminating example of why BPA, NO MATTER WHAT (except for QB), is probably a team's best approach to drafting in the 1st round. Depth charts are dynamic over the course of a SINGLE season, and exponentially so over the course of MULTIPLE seasons, so stocking the roster with the best young talent (with 5-year contract control) regardless of position is SO beneficial.

 

Lamb was a luxury pick when drafted (although WHERE he played his college ball should mitigate our praise or at least our surprise for him being drafted by Dallas). It just fell perfectly for everyone involved. Either way, him being the #1 guy at WR now moving forward for Dallas is a great example of how quickly things change YoY. 

[machine gun kelly]

To the contrast of what every team states, there has always been a balance between BPA and need.  It wasn’t by accident we picked DE’s in the first and second round last year and the year before in the second.

 

Its why I’ll be surprised if we don’t take a CB and a WR in the first two rounds.  Probably a G and RB in the third and fourth rounds.  After we’ll probably really go with BPA in the 5th and 6th rounds.

 

Lastly, guessing a punter in the 7th.

[Einstein's Dog]

One disadvantage of taking a CB in the first is the devaluing of the gem they found/developed in D Jackson.  Looks to me like D Jackson can be starting material.  But Jackson could be crowded out if you add Booth to Tre/Taron + the 2 safeties.  On the other side at WR, Gabe would still get plenty of opportunity even with a new WR in the mix.

 

 I see more long term benefit of adding a stud WR than CB.  Give Josh/Dorsey 4-5 years of a stud, home grown WR to develop and use.  It would be exciting to watch.

 

That's why I am hoping that the BPA at premium position of use works out on their board to be a WR.  I hope the FO is valuing a C Watson/T Burks over McDuffie for instance.  And i hope Booth is gone by our pick so they are not even tempted.

 

 

[whorlnut]

4 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

One disadvantage of taking a CB in the first is the devaluing of the gem they found/developed in D Jackson.  Looks to me like D Jackson can be starting material.  But Jackson could be crowded out if you add Booth to Tre/Taron + the 2 safeties.  On the other side at WR, Gabe would still get plenty of opportunity even with a new WR in the mix.

 

 I see more long term benefit of adding a stud WR than CB.  Give Josh/Dorsey 4-5 years of a stud, home grown WR to develop and use.  It would be exciting to watch.

 

That's why I am hoping that the BPA at premium position of use works out on their board to be a WR.  I hope the FO is valuing a C Watson/T Burks over McDuffie for instance.  And i hope Booth is gone by our pick so they are not even tempted.

 

 

Well said. I’ve been saying this over and over…I think the staff REALLY likes Dane Jackson and doesn’t feel the “need” as much as posters on this board. Give me the WR all day long. The passing game is our identity. Keep the cupboard full. 

[OldTimer1960]

1 hour ago, whorlnut said:

Well said. I’ve been saying this over and over…I think the staff REALLY likes Dane Jackson and doesn’t feel the “need” as much as posters on this board. Give me the WR all day long. The passing game is our identity. Keep the cupboard full. 

It would be great, of course, if Jackson is really a decent starting outside CB.  I’m just struggling to see how to draw the conclusion that the staff sees him that way.  They had Levi Wallace playing ahead of Jackson until White was injured.  They let Wallace walk in FA for a pretty small contract.  One I interpretation of that *could* be that they really want Jackson to start - but if true, why wasn’t he starting over Wallace before White’s injury?

 

Other possible interpretations include:

- they view Jackson as basically the same as Wallace 

- they think Jackson is a good backup and they want a better starter.

 

Given that Jackson sat behind Wallace, whom they didn’t like enough to keep for low-end starter $, Jackson was a late draft pick and that Jackson didn’t test as a super-upside athlete, I think likely that they would prefer to find a better starter and keep Jackson for depth.  
 

If I am wrong, then that leaves an opportunity to take a WR or OL in round 1.  If I am right,  not addressing CB early or by FA or by trade, leaves them very exposed.

 

In conclusion, I hope that you are right and that Jackson can be a mid-level starter, but that still leaves a hole on the other side if White misses time early.

 

I am NOT one of those that thinks that RAS or any particular athletic testing score necessarily defines a player, but Dane Jackson's RAS was well below average for the position he plays, so if you are right and Dane is fine as a starter, it will be based on his smarts, experience and maybe that the scheme can hide some of his below average athletic ability (relative to NFL athletes).  Here is a link to his RAS: https://ras.football/2020/02/07/dane-jackson-ras/

 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by OldTimer1960

[RochesterLifer]

I think it is obvious the Bills will draft a cornerback in the first round - to the point of even trading up to get one of the premier CB's if a run on them materializes on draft day. The line up is set, everywhere except CB. We need CB depth and one with starting abilities. It is Super Bowl time in Buffalo and the front office has shown we're all in. We cannot go into the season with CB holes in this pass-happy league. 

[Buffalo Ballin]

On 4/8/2022 at 6:17 PM, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Offensive Line.  Wide Receiver.  Offense.

 

Remember that.....the Bills had the #1 ranked pass defense in 2021 despite being only 10th in sacks.

 

Levi Wallace came undrafted.

Dane Jackson came 6th round.

Taron Johnson was in the 4th round.

Jordan Poyer 7th round.

Micah Hyde 5th round.

 

 

Maybe you shouldn't worry about the secondary.......there are plenty of them..........if where they were drafted is your rationale.

So what do you think of CB Kaiir Elam with our first pick? Beane disagreed with you, dude.