Poll: How would you grade the Bills overall draft?

[RyanC883]

12 hours ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

Did a good amount in the offseason on the offensive line and when bates mace his way into the starting lineup down the stretch they started playing great.  We were one corner away from being the superbowl champs imo and we’ve gotta start getting prepared for edmunds’ exit as well.  

 

another reason I couldn’t give it an A.  We did not get an Edmunds replacement B+ is good.  

[1ManRaid]

16 hours ago, jahnyc said:

It is silly to rate this draft now, but other than liking the picks for Elam, Shakir and Araiza, not sure that any of the other picks will become significant contributors.  Do not like the pick of Cook for the reasons others have noted, including that he may be at best no more than a part time player, which does not seem like good value for a second round pick.  Gave the overall draft by the Bills a "C".

 

Hard to find "significant contributors" to fill holes if we don't have holes to fill.  We upgraded starters at CB and P, and the rest are still in line to have roles and graduate to starters down the line as free agents move on.  It's a really good problem to have.

[Nelius]

Added a starting corner. Added another corner. Added speed, and more options for Josh. Got a Day 1 punter - anything less will be a huge disappointment.

 

I would have like to have seen a guard and another TE, but I voted A. Closer to A- though compared to the rest of the NFL, I don't think it was as good as Baltimore's or several others. But a darn good draft, and furthermore one where the fanbase and decision makers seemed pretty aligned. No surprises at all really.

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, SCBills said:

 

Im not sure there were any late RD2 OG’s that could supplant Bates or Saffold.. perhaps. Definitely not in RD3, and we had a chance with Parham on the board and clearly weren’t interested. 
 

 

I agree there were not OL standing out in round 2. As for round 3.... that is one of my issues. They clearly did have at least some level of interest in Parham - he had a top 30 visit here. They also knew surely in doing that his likely draft range was early 3rd to early 4th. I caveat this with I have not seen Bernard play. Maybe he is so outstanding and was so much higher on their board that they had to take him.... but looking at impact now amd going forward... maybe both are backups in year 1. But Saffold and Edmunds are both FAs so maybe both could potentially have a route to be starters in year 2. So with those things being equal their instinct is ties go to the defensive player. That does frustrate me somewhat. 

[DCofNC]

7 hours ago, SCBills said:

We took a starter in RD1

 

After CB, the only places we had openings for starters were RB and OG.

 

The only RB1 that made sense for us was Breece Hall, and the Jets snagged him in the very beginning of RD2. 
 

Im not sure there were any late RD2 OG’s that could supplant Bates or Saffold.. perhaps. Definitely not in RD3, and we had a chance with Parham on the board and clearly weren’t interested. 
 

My only criticisms of this draft are that I don’t buy the whole “look at the group of pass catchers as a whole unit and not by position” line WGR folks keep telling us.  Perhaps that will work just fine, but I’m still worried about Diggs or Davis missing any time and all of a sudden it’s Kumerow/Stevenson out there or a Slot WR, of which we now have 3. 
 

Also, I feel like we simply threw away our only OL pick.  Dude is a less athletic, more awkward Tommy Doyle.  
 

I’d agree with this.  I think the depth of the roster is grossly overstated to be honest.  The offense is good and the WRs have looked good because you have Allen covering flaws.  If Diggs misses time, I think the O is in trouble. Maybe Davis is ready to step into the spot light, but we don’t know.  He hasn’t taken the #1 role and proven it doesn’t matter who you put in him like Diggs has.  
 

I think there were quality guys that could have been taken in the second, frankly I thought they should have gone up a couple spots and secured McBryde as he was coming down the board.   Knox is going to command big money next season and I would have been looking at a short term up grade, long term replacement scenario, the depth at TE is thin.  There was line help available and LBs that made sense too.  Reaching for a RB was not a good play.  I don’t really agree Hall was the only one they could want, but I didn’t see any point in drafting Cook, you have the same skill set on the roster in Duke Williams and you saw the market value of it in McKissic, why spend a second on that?

 

Totally agree on the throw away pick at OL, the guy has next to zero chance of making the practice squad, seemed like another complete waste.

 

You should go BPA unless there is a glaring hole to fill with a player that’s nearly equal.  They didn’t, they haven’t, and it’s hurt a lot. This regime has forced pick after pick for need, it needs to stop and people need to quit believing Beane is drafting BPA, he’s not.  From his very first draft he has forced picks to fill holes, even Allen was a forced pick, obviously that was a great one, but then Edmunds to fill their LB scheme, to Ford, to Oliver etc.  they have gone with intentions to fill holes, not just take the best talent, that’s how you end up missing great players.

[Pags24]

I voted B- and am very surprised by the national media giving us such high grades.  I'm happy with Elam in the first, but not sure about the rest.  This draft was noted as being deep in OL and especially interior OL.  So why not add a mid-rounder G/C pick??  I like our current starters on the OL but there's nothing wrong with young depth at those positions. 

[DasNootz]

I think it's a solid B+.  It filled positions of need and largely mirrors what we saw in mock drafts by pundits and fans alike.  

Outside of the Bernard pick which seemed really early at the time, there weren't any shock moments.  Having listened to interviews after the pick, I can see where he impressed them.  My guess is they had a 4th round grade on him, but didn't want to risk it or couldn't find a trade back partner.

[JESSEFEFFER]

15 hours ago, QCity said:

 

Pretty much where I'm at. I like Elam, but trading that 4th didn't seem shrewd. I think we saw the consequences of that by overdrafting Bernard in the 3rd, something that might not have happened if we had that 4th rd pick.

 

Everyone in the NFL world knew the Bills primary need was CB.  The Bills saw only one CB worthy of #25 remaining on their board.  If any other CB needy team saw it the same way, they could trade to GET #24 from the Cowboys and snipe the Bills most favored player.  The 4th rounder was merely a proactive measure to insure that they got the player they most wanted and expected to play the most snaps in 2022.  It would have been a mini disaster to sit back and let that happen.

[HappyDays]

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

They clearly did have at least some level of interest in Parham - he had a top 30 visit here.

 

Maybe on that visit they determined that he isn't a good culture/character fit, or can't physically do the things that we will be asking our guards to do. We'll never know.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

Maybe on that visit they determined that he isn't a good culture/character fit, or can't physically do the things that we will be asking our guards to do. We'll never know.

 

Certainly the character thing is a possibility. And we will never know. But it just felt like a benefit of the doubt goes to the defense selection.