Jeremiah has us taking a DT at 28 in his latest mock

[TheBeaneBandit]

31 minutes ago, mannc said:

The problem with that strategy is that seemingly every year, there is major run on WRs early in the second round. The year we drafted Cook was an example.  I think Beane really wanted one of the WRs, but they were all gone by the time our number came up and Beane kept trading back...I suspect guys like Leggette, Franklin, Worthy, McConkey and Coleman will get snapped up by midway through round 2, if they don't go in the first.

This is exactly what will happen if the Bills fk around they'll find out. This ain't the draft to try and get cute. Get Allen the young dog.

Edited March 20 by TheBeaneBandit

[SoMAn]

I think it's all going to come down to the grades they have on prospects when their choice comes up. If it's a choice between a DT on whom they have a high grade, or a WR who they like, but doesn't get a first round grade on their board, it's going to be the DT.  It could be some other position, but I believe the Bills would apply the same strategy to their pick, regardless.

 

If they can't get a player they grade high enough, I can see them trading back a few picks, maybe into the low second round if that would give them an extra pick in the third.  I don't think they want to make the same mistake (I believe) that they made reaching for Elam.

 

They're going to get cap compliant with a young low-wage squad and attempt to let the super stars keep the team competitive. 

[GoBills808]

since 2017 the Bills have used 1,466 points of draft capital selecting DTs

 

in that same time period they have drafted 146 points worth of WRs

[FireChans]

8 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

since 2017 the Bills have used 1,466 points of draft capital selecting DTs

 

in that same time period they have drafted 146 points worth of WRs

Including Diggs trade?

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Including Diggs trade?

No but even including that it's not close, Diggs included is 780 iirc

 

It's not a one for one imo, the rookie is cost controlled and more valuable

Edited March 20 by GoBills808

[NastyNateSoldiers]

20 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Probably because we've invested so much into it only to watch them get steamrolled when it counts

I lost confidence a long time ago that the Bills can't draft at DE. I trust them more when it comes to DT though. 

[FireChans]

8 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

No but even including that it's not close, Diggs included is 780 iirc

 

It's not a one for one imo, the rookie is cost controlled and more valuable

Agreed, but it's still using draft capital.  Maybe with an asterisk.

 

Either way its far too low. 

 

I'd like to think Beane has learned his lesson, but he was a part of the FO that subjected Cam Newton to trash targets for 5 years, so I don't know.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

Agreed, but it's still using draft capital.  Maybe with an asterisk.

 

Either way its far too low. 

 

I'd like to think Beane has learned his lesson, but he was a part of the FO that subjected Cam Newton to trash targets for 5 years, so I don't know.

It's mostly context for the 'we draft plenty of wideouts and no DTs' crowd

 

 

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

It's mostly context for the 'we draft plenty of wideouts and no DTs' crowd

 

 

 

I don't think anyone has said we draft plenty of wideouts. If they have that is just plain wrong. 

 

That have only drafted two defensive tackles in seven drafts though. Not that I am arguing they should draft one early. I don't think they should. They need to take some day 3 shots at their Dline IMO.

15 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Agreed, but it's still using draft capital.  Maybe with an asterisk.

 

Either way its far too low. 

 

I'd like to think Beane has learned his lesson, but he was a part of the FO that subjected Cam Newton to trash targets for 5 years, so I don't know.

 

I mean so far the Bills drafting trends are very similar to the trends of the Carolina front office he was part of. 

[FireChans]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I mean so far the Bills drafting trends are very similar to the trends of the Carolina front office he was part of. 

That's my issue with the, "Beane has to have learned his lesson, he will definitely take 1-2 WR's this draft,"  take.

 

We have no proof that he learned his lesson from Carolina. Why would he learn his lesson from Gabe Davis leaving in FA?  Running their athletic QB into the ground and ending their career 3-4 years before it should've by surrounding him with bargain bin bums seems to be their MO.

 

They didn't draft Kelvin Benjamin until after they lost their old #1WR.  They are not proactive at the position.

 

 

Edited March 20 by FireChans

[GoBills808]

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think anyone has said we draft plenty of wideouts. If they have that is just plain wrong. 

 

That have only drafted two defensive tackles in seven drafts though. Not that I am arguing they should draft one early. I don't think they should. They need to take some day 3 shots at their Dline IMO.

 

I mean so far the Bills drafting trends are very similar to the trends of the Carolina front office he was part of. 

As always feel free to miss the point chasing a rhetorical flourish

[K-9]

8 minutes ago, FireChans said:

That's my issue with the, "Beane has to have learned his lesson, he will definitely take 1-2 WR's this draft,"  take.

 

We have no proof that he learned his lesson from Carolina. Why would he learn his lesson from Gabe Davis leaving in FA?  Running their athletic QB into the ground and ending their career 3-4 years before it should've by surrounding him with bargain bin bums seems to be their MO.

 

They didn't draft Kelvin Benjamin until after they lost their old #1WR.  They are not proactive at the position.

 

 

I don’t know if Beane has learned any lessons or not, but he was not the GM in Carolina nor did he run Cam Newton into the ground. How players are used and what they do in games is on the coaches and players themselves.
 

And for the hundredth time, Newton’s career wasn’t cut short because he ran the ball too much. It was cut short by a shoulder injury sustained in the pocket while attempting a pass. 

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I don’t know if Beane has learned any lessons or not, but he was not the GM in Carolina nor did he run Cam Newton into the ground. How players are used and what they do in games is on the coaches and players themselves.
 

And for the hundredth time, Newton’s career wasn’t cut short because he ran the ball too much. It was cut short by a shoulder injury sustained in the pocket while attempting a pass. 

No

It was on an attempted tackle after throwing a pick

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/cam-newton-says-2016-shoulder-injury-affected-him-for-years

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I don’t know if Beane has learned any lessons or not, but he was not the GM in Carolina nor did he run Cam Newton into the ground. How players are used and what they do in games is on the coaches and players themselves.
 

And for the hundredth time, Newton’s career wasn’t cut short because he ran the ball too much. It was cut short by a shoulder injury sustained in the pocket while attempting a pass. 

I know that Beane wasn’t the GM. But it was very clear they did not surround him with a lot of help on the offensive side.

 

You’d think a guy who witnessed that first-hand would think, “hey, when I’m running my own team, and I get a franchise QB, I don’t want him running around in circles trying to do carry the entire offense every game.”

 

But he clearly didn’t. So why should we expect he is laser focused on WR help for Josh now?
 

And that’s all well and good that you think that Cam’s career decline can be pinpointed to one singular injury. All I know is if I have a franchise QB, the guy I rely on to keep my job and keep my team in SB contention year after year, I want him putting himself in harm’s way the least amount possible. 

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I know that Beane wasn’t the GM. But it was very clear they did not surround him with a lot of help on the offensive side.

 

You’d think a guy who witnessed that first-hand would think, “hey, when I’m running my own team, and I get a franchise QB, I don’t want him running around in circles trying to do carry the entire offense every game.”

 

But he clearly didn’t. So why should we expect he is laser focused on WR help for Josh now?
 

And that’s all well and good that you think that Cam’s career decline can be pinpointed to one singular injury. All I know is if I have a franchise QB, the guy I rely on to keep my job and keep my team in SB contention year after year, I want him putting himself in harm’s way the least amount possible. 

There are a lot of parallels tbh

 

I followed the Cam years in Carolina owing to my brother

[Alphadawg7]

31 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

We don't need a "quality player" at WR. There are plenty of those available all the time. We need a difference maker. I think this is where the entire disconnect lies. A certain percentage of the fanbase thinks that the "need" at WR is just getting a starting caliber body, which is why that side of the fanbase is using Curtis Samuel and 2nd-3rd round prospects as an excuse to draft some other position high. But that's not the need. We need a difference maker who can play outside who has true #1 upside, and unlike a lot of years we have a real chance to draft that caliber of WR near the end of the 1st round because of the overall strength of the draft class. Passing up that opportunity to draft another small 3T would be a franchise shattering decision and I'm shocked that anybody in the fanbase would even preemptively defend it.

 

 

Most the difference making WR's didn't come from the first round, and in this draft they will come in several rounds most likely.  So this notion that if you don't take him at 28 you won't get a difference maker isn't accurate.  

 

What if we trade back at 28 and get the same WR they would have taken at 28?  Or take another player and then trade up higher in 2nd and get the same WR they would have taken at 28?  Both of those are better than reaching at 28 to take same player wouldn't you agree?  

 

Im all for WR in the first...I even want to move up if need be to get our guy.  I am just saying this draft is so deep at WR that I am not married to one way to find our guy.  

 

[FireChans]

20 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

There are a lot of parallels tbh

 

I followed the Cam years in Carolina owing to my brother

the most telling thing of all is that @BADOLBILZ@HappyDays @GunnerBill you and I can disagree on a trillion different topics, and yet have all agreed for years that the lack of investment in WR is brutal.
 

Beane needs a small council. We are approaching “Whaley being afraid to draft a QB” status. 

21 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

 

Most the difference making WR's didn't come from the first round, and in this draft they will come in several rounds most likely.  So this notion that if you don't take him at 28 you won't get a difference maker isn't accurate.  

 

What if we trade back at 28 and get the same WR they would have taken at 28?  Or take another player and then trade up higher in 2nd and get the same WR they would have taken at 28?  Both of those are better than reaching at 28 to take same player wouldn't you agree?  

 

Im all for WR in the first...I even want to move up if need be to get our guy.  I am just saying this draft is so deep at WR that I am not married to one way to find our guy.  

 

I wonder if that’s gonna change in the coming years. Obviously, when most teams are targeting to have 3 or more decent wideouts, there’s a bit of a numbers game of mid to late rounders filling those roles. 
 

But similar to how late first/early second graded QB’s are taken high in the first, I wonder if we’ll see some (reasonable) value inflation. 
 

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a biggest number of WR’s drafted in the first 60 picks ever, personally. When the alternative is paying decent pros like Jeudy $60M, it just makes sense.

[HappyDays]

32 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

 

Most the difference making WR's didn't come from the first round, and in this draft they will come in several rounds most likely.  So this notion that if you don't take him at 28 you won't get a difference maker isn't accurate.  

 

What if we trade back at 28 and get the same WR they would have taken at 28?  Or take another player and then trade up higher in 2nd and get the same WR they would have taken at 28?  Both of those are better than reaching at 28 to take same player wouldn't you agree?  

 

Im all for WR in the first...I even want to move up if need be to get our guy.  I am just saying this draft is so deep at WR that I am not married to one way to find our guy.  

 

 

It goes without saying that there will be difference makers at every position found beyond the 1st round. But it also goes without saying that the chances are much greater in the 1st round. Half of the 1,000+ yard WRs last year were drafted in the 1st round. Half of the top 10 WRs in receiving yards were drafted in the 1st round. Out of 28 WRs with 1,000+ yards last season only 10 were drafted beyond the 2nd round. So yes it is possible but you're decreasing your chances exponentially with each round that you wait.

 

I am fine if Beane trades back out of the 1st, in fact I have advocated for it. I would be wary of going past #36. But I am confident a 1st round caliber WR will still be available in that range.

[Alphadawg7]

5 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

It goes without saying that there will be difference makers at every position found beyond the 1st round. But it also goes without saying that the chances are much greater in the 1st round. Half of the 1,000+ yard WRs last year were drafted in the 1st round. Half of the top 10 WRs in receiving yards were drafted in the 1st round. Out of 28 WRs with 1,000+ yards last season only 10 were drafted beyond the 2nd round. So yes it is possible but you're decreasing your chances exponentially with each round that you wait.

 

I am fine if Beane trades back out of the 1st, in fact I have advocated for it. I would be wary of going past #36. But I am confident a 1st round caliber WR will still be available in that range.

 

I agree you can increase odds taking better prospects...my only point is you don't really when you reach and over draft someone though.  I am only against reaching for the sake of taking a position.  

[Dillenger4]

We have also been mocked to take DE/Defensive lineman Laiatu Latu. In fact, the mock has us moving up to 22, trade with Eagles to take Latu.

IMO - this is the BEST move for the The Bills. Our D needs stud help!

If we can secure a Safety before the draft, Latu would be a stud of a pick. Best rusher in the draft, hands down!

Then WR in second.