Is there any defensive player you'd be happy with at pick 27?

[GunnerBill]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

I don't think Beane will draft a safety in the 1st round. They've gotten production out of that position from exclusively late round picks. He has treated 1st round picks with proper positional value every year so I'll be surprised if he suddenly breaks that trend.

 

So what do you in the event that all the top WRs and OL are off the board? In that scenario we are either looking at a trade down, or drafting the best front 7 player available.

 

I created this thread because to a lot of Bills fans an offensive player is a foregone conclusion at pick 27. But the board could fall a certain way to where there is no value left on offense. And then Nolan Smith, Lukas Van Ness, Jack Campbell, a player like that could seriously be in contention.

 

I could get my head around Van Ness, maybe. 

 

I dunno. I really hate this draft class 😂. I have a higher grade on Johnson than any of those 3, so given that I think this class sucks I'd almost say throw out all my normal conceptions of positional value and say who do I think has the best chance to be a good pro. And I really like Johnson. Of the three you list Van Ness I could get behind. Nolan Smith is a 3-4 linebacker. Campbell to me belongs in a 3-4 or a team who play a more conventional 4-3 base and just ask their MLB to attack the line of scrimmage. 

[Since1981]

No. Unlikely. 
it’s a bogus question really because context at that exact moment is GIGANTIC. 
 

you want a need + better available

but there’s so much context. 
 

Likely best available O unless 15 GMs go completely brain dead and leave a top 15 D sitting there. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Since1981

[3rdand12]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

At #27 it's a no from me on Campbell. If they trade out of round 1 and make Campbell their first pick middle of the 2nd, fine. I don't love his fit in this D though. His lateral movement skills are the biggest question mark on his scouting report for me. And the Bills D asks their linebackers to go sideline to sideline a lot.

Appreciate the clarification Gunner

 But if he is not a good fit, then no matter which pick , he would still not be a good pick.
Expecting Edmunds to be gone. Milano can call plays.
Where do they get that MLB to replace Edmunds then ?

[GunnerBill]

Just now, 3rdand12 said:

Appreciate the clarification Gunner

 But if he is not a good fit, then no matter which pick , he would still not be a good pick.
Expecting Edmunds to be gone. Milano can call plays.
Where do they get that MLB to replace Edmunds then ?

 

Well maybe they are planning to totally change the scheme (I doubt it) and Campbell doesn't suck. He is a really good player. I just don't love the fit if I work on the basis the Bills will be the Bills schematically. I can see them loving the fit personality and character wise and I wouldn't have said schematically Elam was the obvious choice either tbf. 

[HappyDays]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

At #27 it's a no from me on Campbell. If they trade out of round 1 and make Campbell their first pick middle of the 2nd, fine. I don't love his fit in this D though. His lateral movement skills are the biggest question mark on his scouting report for me. And the Bills D asks their linebackers to go sideline to sideline a lot.

 

If they want their next MLB to do exactly what Edmunds did then yeah Campbell probably isn't a good fit. But part of me thinks/hopes that with Edmunds moving on they are going to modify their scheme a bit to let the MLB play a more traditional role. I'm not asking for an entirely new scheme but some change-ups would be welcome lest we become stale. In that case are you more open to Campbell? I'm no scout, I just see a player that sets the tone for his defense and plays with instinctual awareness that puts him in position to force turnovers.

[3rdand12]

27 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Seriously?

 

Its a reasonable question. Depending if Bills can fill some holes in FA. ( not sure they can , but we do need starters at at least two positions )

 I am thinking the WRs in the draft will offer Bills a chance for a starter on the outside though in the 1st.

24 minutes ago, Allen2Diggs said:

I would like to tag-and-trade Edmunds for a 3rd rounder, then take Jack Campbell in the 1st, a receiver in the second, and a guard and safety in the 3rd (I'm assuming we don't re-sign Poyer.

 

Thats a lot of Likes !

 But I would sign up for that theoretically
Plus trickle in some FA and draft a speed receiver who could develop later in the draft ?

 

Wish lists right

[Since1981]

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

offensive player is a foregone conclusion at pick 27. But the board could fall a certain way to where there is no value left on offense.

Exactly. If a top 4 Edge slid, you’d have to take him. Unlikely. 

The GM tension has to nuts in 20s where the need to hit the balance of need vs value vs trade. 

[Brand J]

16 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

At #27 it's a no from me on Campbell. If they trade out of round 1 and make Campbell their first pick middle of the 2nd, fine. I don't love his fit in this D though. His lateral movement skills are the biggest question mark on his scouting report for me. And the Bills D asks their linebackers to go sideline to sideline a lot.

Perhaps he doesn’t play quick, but his lateral movement skills tested as “elite” for a player at his size and weight. His 6.74 3 cone in particular is freakish. 

[3rdand12]

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

If they want their next MLB to do exactly what Edmunds did then yeah Campbell probably isn't a good fit. But part of me thinks/hopes that with Edmunds moving on they are going to modify their scheme a bit to let the MLB play a more traditional role. I'm not asking for an entirely new scheme but some change-ups would be welcome lest we become stale. In that case are you more open to Campbell? I'm no scout, I just see a player that sets the tone for his defense and plays with instinctual awareness that puts him in position to force turnovers.

Many of of us have asked for MLB who does just that, sets the tone. Plays aggressive to ball. Especially in the run game.

 That would be a great tweak to the defense !
I have felt they held on to Edmunds to long more because he affected how the Defense played. To its detriment. yes i said it
 They used him more for his height and wingspan and perceived speed to the sideline.
Get a guy who doesnt get washed and has better instincts . Let Milano and T Johnson run around with their hair on fire lol

[GunnerBill]

12 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

If they want their next MLB to do exactly what Edmunds did then yeah Campbell probably isn't a good fit. But part of me thinks/hopes that with Edmunds moving on they are going to modify their scheme a bit to let the MLB play a more traditional role. I'm not asking for an entirely new scheme but some change-ups would be welcome lest we become stale. In that case are you more open to Campbell? I'm no scout, I just see a player that sets the tone for his defense and plays with instinctual awareness that puts him in position to force turnovers.

 

So I don't want them to change their scheme in that way particularly, but if they do, then yes. But still not at #27. I just don't think he is worth that pick. I get it that in this class almost nobody us going to be worth the pick that gets spent on them. It will be mainly 2nd round talents in round 1 and mainly 3rd round talents in round 2. But I don't think a "traditional MLB" is any better positional value than a safety. So I'd end up back at who do I think is the better player and better fit. Personally, I think it's Johnson. 

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:

Perhaps he doesn’t play quick, but his lateral movement skills tested as “elite” for a player at his size and weight. His 6.74 3 cone in particular is freakish. 

 

Yea that is encouraging. I am not anti Jack Campbell. I like him a lot. I just don't love the tape when you see him moved laterally and as such don't think he is a super good fit for what the Bills have done with their MLB. 

Just now, ScottLaw said:

My head will explode if they take a safety in round 1. 

 

I get that. I don't want it either. 

[LyndonvilleBill]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So I don't want them to change their scheme in that way particularly, but if they do, then yes. But still not at #27. I just don't think he is worth that pick. I get it that in this class almost nobody us going to be worth the pick that gets spent on them. It will be mainly 2nd round talents in round 1 and mainly 3rd round talents in round 2. But I don't think a "traditional MLB" is any better positional value than a safety. So I'd end up back at who do I think is the better player and better fit. Personally, I think it's Johnson. 

I wonder if they planned a change to more of a traditional 4-3 when the drafted Bernard. Now with Frazier gone as well.

 

Milano(Will)-MLB-Bernard(Sam). 

[CNYfan]

My position here is that I would want an "impact player".  Someone who does exciting things...does his 1/11 but also stands out.  A playmaker.

 

[Drew21PA]

I am looking at it like this

 

edmunds walks - will it really matter ?  Never did I see him excel in big moments like Milano anyways - he’s expendable and won’t be missed

 

poyer? Eh we did without Hyde all year I think next man up there too.

 

corners and a lot are good

 

von back next year 

 

I think it wouldn’t be best to draft defense when offense is going to keep us rolling in the playoffs with the current philosophy and make up of the game 

[SCBills]

I’m fine with a defensive pick if he’s BPA and we’ve let Edmunds and Poyer walk, while trading Oliver to re-allocate to the Offense prior to the Draft. 
 

[947]

If we draft Defense at #27, that player absolutely must be an immediate contributor. We can't afford another guy who needs to be brought along slowly & barely play half the games.

 

I think Campbell could be that type of player, and possibly the only one I'd be OK with. If we draft another rotational DL who makes little impact as a rookie, we deserve to suffer for it.

[LABILLBACKER]

10 minutes ago, 947 said:

If we draft Defense at #27, that player absolutely must be an immediate contributor. We can't afford another guy who needs to be brought along slowly & barely play half the games.

 

I think Campbell could be that type of player, and possibly the only one I'd be OK with. If we draft another rotational DL who makes little impact as a rookie, we deserve to suffer for it.

I agree. Campbell would only make sense if we return to a more traditional 4-3. But only if OL/WR options are exhausted.  If we bust on another early round defensive player the fanbase will lose their minds. Not to mention to offensive portion of the locker room.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

After his remarks to Steak Shapiro and his public intoxication charge, am I allowed to consider Stetson Bennett a 'defensive player'? 🤔😇

[Kirby Jackson]

I don’t think that I can. It would have to be some freakish situation where someone absolutely plummets (like Carter 😂😂). If this situation gets a whole lot worse, maybe I could make that work but he’s going to go in the top 5. 
 

I’m in the camp of Bijan or TE > defense. WR and OL are my wishes but I’m not sure that a WR, of value, will make it to 27. He OL will have some guys there maybe but possibly not great fits. This class gives me anxiety. 

[Mike in Horseheads]

Jalen Carter