2024 WR Draft Class

[Warriorspikes51]

2 minutes ago, TheBeaneBandit said:

Yeah I would imagine Diggs would be ave to agree to a completely reworked deal of some sort to even make a trade of any kind even possible. Now, if in the next few weeks we see reworked deal of some sort with Diggs then sure, something could be possible then.

considering his production the 2nd half of the season, there should be a good chance the Bills approach him to do that regardless of the trading aspect. Same should happen with Von

[OldTimer1960]

22 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

SI, Fan Duel and PFF all seem to believe teams would be willing to trade a 1st for him. We should know by March when he’s due 18.5 million

If they can get a 1st for Diggs at this age and not destroy the cap in trading him, then go ahead.  I don’t know the cap hit if they trade him now, but I don’t think it would be trivial.

[Warriorspikes51]

5 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

If they can get a 1st for Diggs at this age and not destroy the cap in trading him, then go ahead.  I don’t know the cap hit if they trade him now, but I don’t think it would be trivial.

I may be mistaken, but believe it’s an additional 3.25 miliion against the cap this year if he’s traded. Certainly not impossible. Then next year you’d be paying something like 22 million? for him to not be on the roster.

 

Bills would need to weigh the impact.  Can he still produce at a WR1 level? Probably.

 

Is his attitude and behavior having enough of a negative impact on the team to move him? 
 

I would really only want to trade him if a  1st is coming back, or he goes off the deep end to the point you have no choice but to take the best offer and move on 

Edited February 18 by Warriorspikes51

[OldTimer1960]

9 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

considering his production the 2nd half of the season, there should be a good chance the Bills approach him to do that regardless of the trading aspect. Same should happen with Von

Just wondering what you think Diggs’ and Miller’s answer would be when approached?  I think they already paid each of them A LOT up front anyway.

[GunnerBill]

15 minutes ago, NeverOutNick said:

Maybe Zay Flowers too 😉 

 

Moderately wrong on Zay. My main point was he needed really specific usage. 

[Warriorspikes51]

1 minute ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Just wondering what you think Diggs’ and Miller’s answer would be when approached?  I think they already paid each of them A LOT up front anyway.

I have no idea how those conversations go. But, contracts are re-worked often to help the team’s cap and not necessarily decrease the players potential earnings

[John from Riverside]

46 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

did you see who the Chiefs just won with?

 

Rashee Rice and MVS.  Yes, they have Kelce. But still…..

 

their rookie Rice was fantastic down the stretch and in the playoffs. 

They also won with a defense that was sporting several rookie players, but was still dominant
 

We are in a position where we’re gonna have to start making some tough decisions and we can’t allow the team to fall apart while we’re doing it or we are just wasting Josh Allen years

 

 

[Warriorspikes51]

1 minute ago, John from Riverside said:

They also won with a defense that was sporting several rookie players, but was still dominant
 

We are in a position where we’re gonna have to start making some tough decisions and we can’t allow the team to fall apart while we’re doing it or we are just wasting Josh Allen years

 

 

they have maybe the best DC in the league.  Allen would have had 4-5 TDs instead of 3 if Diggs and Sherfield caught the passes they should have

[NewEra]

2 hours ago, KOKBILLS said:

 

It's still REAL early... But if Thomas and Franklin are gone by 28, and I think Thomas will be for sure... Franklin I would put at about 65% probable... I think the guy the Bills take will be Worthy... Just a feeling I have... 

I hope your feeling is wrong.  I don’t hate Worthy, I like his skills- I’m just bullish on 170lb players in the NFL, especially with a first rd pick.  
 

I know I know, but Devonta Smith!  Seems like the exception rather than the rule.

[OldTimer1960]

2 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

I may be mistaken, but believe it’s an additional 3.25 miliion against the cap this year if he’s traded. Certainly not impossible. Then next year you’d be paying something like 22 million? for him to not be on the roster.

 

Bills would need to weigh the impact.  Can he still produce at a WR1 level? Probably.

 

Is his attitude and behavior having enough of a negative impact on the team to move him? 

That might be manageable from cap this year, but almost certainly they will be eating a lot of the cap next year moving on from Miller.  He will be 36 during 2025 season.

[DCOrange]

58 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

interesting. He reportedly ran a 4.38 at Georgia

I think this has been misattributed from an article that was talking about Georgia WRs. Georgia’s Rivals.com site reported that a different Georgia WR ran a 4.38 but it pops up for Mitchell on Google so sites like Stadium Rant see it and run with it. Mitchell doesn’t look anything like a 4.38 guy IMO and I know most Texas fans are predicting him to run around a 4.50-4.55, which at his height is still totally fine. 

[BillsFanForever19]

1 hour ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

If we’re looking to add a veteran to replace + upgrade from Gabe Davis, I would look at Cortland Sutton.   
 

he’s rumored to be available for a 4th round pick and we can lower his cap hit to 3.5 million.  
 

10TDs on 90 targets last year. Big bodied WR who is great at making difficult catches.  I think he could really excel here

 

I just don't see that happening.

 

The Broncos are in rough shape cap wise. They'd save 13.6 cutting him with a 6/1 designation. They'd save 9.7 by trading him. So we'd essentially have to give up something worth them taking on 4m in cap space, when they're in a tough spot. I'm not sure if a Day 3 pick is going to be enough for them to do that. And if I'm spending a Day 2 pick on him and taking on his contract, I'd rather just get a player we'll have for 4 seasons and for a fraction of the price.

 

And then, we may be able to get him down to 3.5 or whatever this year - but what's that going to do later? And what will it cost us to keep him or cut him next year if we do that? He's a 17.8m cap hit next season.

 

Yeah, no. If we're going vet, it'll be someone who won't cost us a pick and will be more affordable.

[Warriorspikes51]

2 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

I just don't see that happening.

 

The Broncos are in rough shape cap wise. They'd save 13.6 cutting him with a 6/1 designation. They'd save 9.7 by trading him. So we'd essentially have to give up something worth them taking on 4m in cap space, when they're in a tough spot. I'm not sure if a Day 3 pick is going to be enough for them to do that. And if I'm spending a Day 2 pick on him and taking on his contract, I'd rather just get a player we'll have for 4 seasons and for a fraction of the price.

 

And then, we may be able to get him down to 3.5 or whatever this year - but what's that going to do later? And what will it cost us to keep him or cut him next year if we do that? He's a 17.8m cap hit next season.

 

Yeah, no. If we're going vet, it'll be someone who won't cost us a pick and will be more affordable.

what more affordable vet would you like to see that can provide close to the production of Sutton? 

[BillsFanForever19]

3 hours ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

what more affordable vet would you like to see that can provide close to the production of Sutton? 

 

Idk. But that's not the point. You say he's affordable. Yeah, he's affordable - after you spend a Draft Pick and after you restructure his deal, pushing money out into further years, and that's not even taking into account the number he's on next year - which is a massive number.

 

The point is the cost in draft compensation, the cost in contract - both in later years for reducing the number this year and for his 17.8m cap hit next year. And in the end, it's still better on Denver's end to cut him than trade him.

 

Beane's not going to do that and I'd be surprised if they trade him instead of cut him anyways. If he's got to give up a pick, he'll just Draft a guy he'll have for 4 years for pennies on the dollar and/or sign a guy on a contract he has complete control over to structure how he sees necessary and doesn't also cost Draft compensation.

 

And if we did make a move for a guy like that, you can say goodbye to also Drafting a guy in Round 1. With the holes we have, we wouldn't give up a 2nd or a 3rd for Sutton and then spend a 1st on a guy who would be just coming off the bench in relief of Diggs and Sutton in Year 1.

 

I can't foresee the future and give you a name. But I do believe if we play it smart and save a little money for later in FA, we can get a bargain on a vet. If we would have not spent what we spent earlier and not signed Floyd at DE - we could have made something like Hopkins happen last offseason.

 

This year, if we sit on some money and wait - I think we can pull off the Floyd situation at WR. Wherein a guy overplayed his hand early in FA, the musical chairs ended and they're left without a team and have to take less, and/or a guy is a surprise cut late after the Draft, like Hopkins was last year.

Edited February 19 by BillsFanForever19

[boater]

On 1/27/2024 at 1:42 PM, Brand J said:

Do NOT trade up. Whoever we take, I can just about guarantee a guy will go later who will be just as good or better. Happens every draft.

Trading up for Kincaid worked out well.

 

Trading up one or two spots is OK, any more than that is unwise.

[GASabresIUFan]

WR is the one area that I don't think a veteran presence is at all important.  GB made the playoffs with a WR group and TE group consisting of all 1st and 2nd year players and their top 4 WRs and top 2 TEs produced as many yards and more TDs than our mixed group of 4 vets, 1 2nd yr player (Shakir), and one rookie (Kincaid).

 

The 2 vets we signed last year gave us 26 catches for 236 yards and 2 TDs.

 

IMHO dump Harty, don't sign any vets, and just draft 2 quality receivers.  They'll be cheaper, probably healthier, and likely more productive.  The only caveat here is whether or not management believes in Shorter.  If they do, draft the BPA receiver with our 1st pick, and then don't worry about it.  Don't forget Hamler (a small speed receiver) has been signed to a futures contract/ 

 

 

[Brand J]

3 minutes ago, boater said:

Trading up for Kincaid worked out well.

 

Trading up one or two spots is OK, any more than that is unwise.

I didn’t like the trade up, but of course am glad it worked out. I take a bit of solace in knowing the 4th we gave up probably wouldn’t have amounted to much in his first year (judging by player selections around that pick). The glaring miss was Puka Nacua, but if the Bills wanted him, they could’ve had him in the 5th.

 

In contrast, looking at the player selections in the 2022 draft, the 4th we gave up for Elam could’ve had a chance to be an immediate contributor. There were a number of starters that were selected in the 4th (or later) that year. 
 

With every trade up, you’re taking away opportunities for your club to find a gem on a cheap contract. And in most instances, there’s a good chance that whoever you’re trading up for won’t work out better than a player taken later. The math actually says there’s a coin flip chance. Keep those picks, add to them if possible, and get an influx of young, cheap talent in here. 

[boater]

3 minutes ago, Brand J said:

I didn’t like the trade up, but of course am glad it worked out. I take a bit of solace in knowing the 4th we gave up probably wouldn’t have amounted to much in his first year (judging by player selections around that pick). The glaring miss was Puka Nacua, but if the Bills wanted him, they could’ve had him in the 5th.

 

In contrast, looking at the player selections in the 2022 draft, the 4th we gave up for Elam could’ve had a chance to be an immediate contributor. There were a number of starters that were selected in the 4th (or later) that year. 
 

With every trade up, you’re taking away opportunities for your club to find a gem on a cheap contract. And in most instances, there’s a good chance that whoever you’re trading up for won’t work out better than a player taken later. The math actually says there’s a coin flip chance. Keep those picks, add to them if possible, and get an influx of young, cheap talent in here. 

Your points are true.

 

Hidden benefit--the Kincaid trade up really screwed the Cowboys who had eyes on him. There's bonus points for that.

[BillsFanForever19]

23 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

They'd have to devote the first two picks to WR for that to happen. I think Beane should. The folks who focus on D want to spend the early picks on DT, Edge, and S. They think the focus on WR weapons is indulgent and foolish. There's one fella who believes all the offense needs is a serviceable WR2, and everything else should be poured into the other side of the ball. He's fully absorbed McD's proclivities.

 

I don't see an Edge player worth #28. The few that will go before then, frankly, are not more important than getting Josh Allen superior weapons. And I personally think you can find a few DTs in the middle rounds. You won't find a true IT, and if Sweat is there in the second, maybe you have to consider that, but I think this is the year to go heavy at WR. Those who say you can wait because it is a deep draft at the position are getting it wrong. It's the perfect year to double dip early, and maybe take another swing late, because you multiply your chances in a year with greater potential hits to improve at one of the premium, impact positions, and to do so on rookie deals.

 

And to those who rhetorically ask "What are you going to do to fix the D?" my answer is, "well, so far, pouring a lot of prime draft resources into the D has produced abysmal playoff failure." This doesn't mean neglect the defense, but this is a year for an asymetrical approach. Bolster the Oline and the WR weapons early. Get younger on D with the mid-round picks, rather than the usual strategy of using those picks to supplement the receiving corps.

 

All that said, I expect WR in round one likely, followed by round 2 and 3 devoted to DL and S.

 

I tend to fall in the middle.

 

I think it's fair to say we have put too many assets into Defense financially and with high Draft picks and that we should focus on WR. But I also see many of these people swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction.

 

Don't spend a 1st or high priced contracts on these replacements at DE, DT, and S. But it's also crazy to say we should devote 2-3 of our first 3 picks on WR, spend money on Offense, and put Day 3 Rookies out as Starters (something you just cannot rely on).

 

Sticking cheap Day 2 inexperienced Rookies out as Starters IS allocating lesser assets on Defense already. To say worry about these things on Day 3 is neglecting that side of the ball too much.

 

Draft a starting WR2 Round 1, double down in Round 4 or 5 for depth and hedging your bet, find a DL starter in Round 2, and a potential starting Safety in Round 3.

Edited February 19 by BillsFanForever19

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

I tend to fall in the middle also.

 

I think it's fair to say we have put too many assets into Defense financially and with high Draft picks and that we should focus on WR. But I also see many of these people swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction.

 

Don't spend a 1st or high priced contracts on these replacements at DE, DT, and S. But it's also crazy to say we should devote 2-3 of our first 3 picks on WR, spend money on Offense, and put Day 3 Rookies out as Starters across the board.

 

Sticking cheap Day 2 inexperienced Rookies out as Starters IS getting allocating lesser assets on Defense already. To say worry about these things on Day 3 is neglecting that side of the ball too much. 

I just put a mock in the simulator thread. I think it's reasonable, though obviously just playing out various possible scenarios. No doubt the valuation of specific players is going to change a lot, and the actual boards of NFL teams will doubtless differ greatly from these simulator lists. It goes WR, DT, S, DT, WR, S, Edge, RB, OT, WR. In short, it follows the most likely heuristic based on need and past proclivities at OBD. Regardless, I expect Beane will find a way to finagle the cap sufficiently to bring back enough vets to lessen overall dependence on rookies.