Who Should the Bills take at #28 (TSW Mock 2.0 2024) *Mitchell has been removed please revote!

[DJB]

I just don’t think we can drop out of round 1 and still get an impact WR. All the teams at the top of round 2 have big WR needs so we would be left with scraps if we move back to about 40

 

Not a good idea imo 

[Virgil]

7 minutes ago, DJB said:

I just don’t think we can drop out of round 1 and still get an impact WR. All the teams at the top of round 2 have big WR needs so we would be left with scraps if we move back to about 40

 

Not a good idea imo 

 
Based on how the board is looking now, I would respectfully disagree.  We are still in line to get one of the two receivers we spent a lot of time with, and acquired a 3rd round pick.  

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

8 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 
Based on how the board is looking now, I would respectfully disagree.  We are still in line to get one of the two receivers we spent a lot of time with, and acquired a 3rd round pick.  

 

One of those receivers, Tez Walker, even went in the third round of Mock Draft 1.0. 

[Low Positive]

1 hour ago, Virgil said:

 
Based on how the board is looking now, I would respectfully disagree.  We are still in line to get one of the two receivers we spent a lot of time with, and acquired a 3rd round pick.  

Beane has to be careful. I remember in 2018 we had posters on TBD that pounded the table for Roquon Smith at 12 and Mason Rudolph in the second because of “value.” Screw value. Get your guy.

[MrEpsYtown]

1 minute ago, Low Positive said:

Beane has to be careful. I remember in 2018 we had posters on TBD that pounded the table for Roquon Smith at 12 and Mason Rudolph in the second because of “value.” Screw value. Get your guy.

I think that’s the point though. The board here is very split. I’m sure the Bills have a specific target in mind in the real world. But for the purpose of this excercise and the way this thing is playing out the options seem to be:

 

1. Huge trade up for one of the big 3

2. Smaller trade up for Thomas

3. Sit tight or tiny trade up for AD Mitchell

4. if Thomas is gone and they don’t like Mitchell it makes sense to trade down. 
 

Mitchell would have won the vote again, but for this mock he was not an option. Thomas was gone, we could not take Mitchell and so it made sense to trade down imo. 

[RyanC883]

11 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

I guess I would trade back (out of the first) at this point. Regarding trading that 2025 second rounder, I'm looking at this - https://walterfootball.com/draft2025charlie.php - and noticing a lot of pass rushing talent going early. I could see the Bills being all in on that position come 2025 and will want the draft capital to move up. They'll need to replace Von Miller.

 

wow, only one WR in the first!   your right, tons of D.  

[No_Matter_What]

8 hours ago, RyanC883 said:

 

wow, only one WR in the first!   your right, tons of D.  

It's actually 2 WRs but the point remains.

[Kirby Jackson]

11 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:

I think that’s the point though. The board here is very split. I’m sure the Bills have a specific target in mind in the real world. But for the purpose of this excercise and the way this thing is playing out the options seem to be:

 

1. Huge trade up for one of the big 3

2. Smaller trade up for Thomas

3. Sit tight or tiny trade up for AD Mitchell

4. if Thomas is gone and they don’t like Mitchell it makes sense to trade down. 
 

Mitchell would have won the vote again, but for this mock he was not an option. Thomas was gone, we could not take Mitchell and so it made sense to trade down imo. 

I think that option 5 is the veteran route. MAYBE you can trade 1 of your 4ths & the Vikings 2025 2nd for Aiyuk (for example)? 
 

Regardless of everyone’s preference it feels like WR1 is inevitable. 

[NoSaint]

54 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that option 5 is the veteran route. MAYBE you can trade 1 of your 4ths & the Vikings 2025 2nd for Aiyuk (for example)? 
 

Regardless of everyone’s preference it feels like WR1 is inevitable. 

It’s just worrisome to walk into the year with  samuel- Shakir - 3rd tier rookie that is not a slam dunk and even if good likely takes some time to get there. 
 

I said it elsewhere but the idea that we could be week 1 with Shakir- a very green leggette -shorter and hollins if Curtis Samuel rolls an ankle or pulls a muscle in camp is not great. 

suddenly it puts some of that super man requirement on Josh way too early in the season 

[Kirby Jackson]

8 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

It’s just worrisome to walk into the year with  samuel- Shakir - 3rd tier rookie that is not a slam dunk and even if good likely takes some time to get there. 
 

I said it elsewhere but the idea that we could be week 1 with Shakir- a very green leggette -shorter and hollins if Curtis Samuel rolls an ankle or pulls a muscle in camp is not great. 

suddenly it puts some of that super man requirement on Josh way too early in the season 

I don’t disagree. I’ve been on team, “trade way up for top 3” for a little while. I want a second guy as well (and maybe a 3rd).
 

If the Bills do plan on waiting until 28 (which I don’t believe) then I think you have to get 2 guys before 60. The need for them to get roughly 200 targets from guys not yet on the roster, keeps bumping McConkey up to me. He can handle 100 targets tomorrow with his skill set, route running and SEC experience. You can then turn around and try to come up for Legette (my choice). I don’t think that the Bills can count on a raw toolsy prospect as their top pick without pairing that with a more dependable skill set to complement him. 

[Virgil]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that option 5 is the veteran route. MAYBE you can trade 1 of your 4ths & the Vikings 2025 2nd for Aiyuk (for example)? 
 

Regardless of everyone’s preference it feels like WR1 is inevitable. 

 

I really don't see the Bills rushing to add another WR they are going to have to immediately pay.  I think the rookie deal is part of the benefit and what we need right now.  We are decent with the cap next year, but not 30 mil to one player decent.  

[stinky finger]

38 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I don’t disagree. I’ve been on team, “trade way up for top 3” for a little while. I want a second guy as well (and maybe a 3rd).
 

If the Bills do plan on waiting until 28 (which I don’t believe) then I think you have to get 2 guys before 60. The need for them to get roughly 200 targets from guys not yet on the roster, keeps bumping McConkey up to me. He can handle 100 targets tomorrow with his skill set, route running and SEC experience. You can then turn around and try to come up for Legette (my choice). I don’t think that the Bills can count on a raw toolsy prospect as their top pick without pairing that with a more dependable skill set to complement him. 

Yessir - I'm crushing on Ladd right about now. Draft and play WR. Josh would have his most reliable WR since........he who shall not be mentioned.

 

Then, go get Leggette, Troy or Tez.

[Kirby Jackson]

10 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

I really don't see the Bills rushing to add another WR they are going to have to immediately pay.  I think the rookie deal is part of the benefit and what we need right now.  We are decent with the cap next year, but not 30 mil to one player decent.  

I think that I agree here. With the Bills resetting the cap next year though, it could make sense. It could be both as well. If the Bills make the deal referenced above (for example) they can still take a guy at 28 because they have a starting spot available. If you added Ayiuk (for example) you can take a higher upside guy with some question marks at 28 (Mitchell, Legette or gasp, Coleman). I’m not advocating for it but could certainly get behind it. 

3 minutes ago, stinky finger said:

Yessir - I'm crushing on Ladd right about now. Draft and play WR. Josh would have his most reliable WR since........he who shall not be mentioned.

 

Then, go get Leggette, Troy or Tez.

Ladd and Legette would be really nice IMO. 

[nosejob]

5 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that I agree here. With the Bills resetting the cap next year though, it could make sense. It could be both as well. If the Bills make the deal referenced above (for example) they can still take a guy at 28 because they have a starting spot available. If you added Ayiuk (for example) you can take a higher upside guy with some question marks at 28 (Mitchell, Legette or gasp, Coleman). I’m not advocating for it but could certainly get behind it. 

Ladd and Legette would be really nice IMO. 

But if one were forced to choose, do you take Ladd, miss Legette and shoot for Walker/ Burton /Baker/Polk?  Or get Leggette than maybe target a Pearsall?

 

Ladd and Legette would a dream to me.

Edited April 13 by nosejob

[NoSaint]

14 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that I agree here. With the Bills resetting the cap next year though, it could make sense. It could be both as well. If the Bills make the deal referenced above (for example) they can still take a guy at 28 because they have a starting spot available. If you added Ayiuk (for example) you can take a higher upside guy with some question marks at 28 (Mitchell, Legette or gasp, Coleman). I’m not advocating for it but could certainly get behind it. 

Ladd and Legette would be really nice IMO. 

Yea, if you stay put or fall back you really limit the pool unless as you mention you get 2 guys. 
 

other vet trades- had interest in Hopkins previously and could still be the bridge to a guy like leggette being ready. Not a star at this point but would be a win now vet presence 

 

 

Edited April 13 by NoSaint

[Kirby Jackson]

10 minutes ago, nosejob said:

But if one were forced to choose, do you take Ladd, miss Legette and shoot for Walker/ Burton /Baker/Polk?  Or get Leggette than maybe target a Pearsall?

 

Ladd and Legette would a dream to me.

Ladd & Baker or Legette and Pearsall are both great outcomes to me. I like Polk too. Burton & Walker have a couple too many questions but would jump at either in the 4th. There are lots of options.

 

I have gone back and forth on the best way to do this. It’s changed since the Diggs trade too. For me, getting one of the top 3 is option 1. You’re getting a number 1, with limited questions, on a rookie deal. Yes, you’ll spend draft capital but tell me a better use for it than getting Josh a number 1 on a rookie deal? Yes, the Bills need pass rushers too but can throw cap space at it next year and/or whatever draft capital is left.

 

My second choice is 2 in the top 60 with complementary skill sets. They have to have a guy that can contribute now and can gamble on a high ceiling guy.

[HappyDays]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

If the Bills do plan on waiting until 28 (which I don’t believe) then I think you have to get 2 guys before 60. The need for them to get roughly 200 targets from guys not yet on the roster, keeps bumping McConkey up to me. He can handle 100 targets tomorrow with his skill set, route running and SEC experience. You can then turn around and try to come up for Legette (my choice). I don’t think that the Bills can count on a raw toolsy prospect as their top pick without pairing that with a more dependable skill set to complement him. 

 

I would actually rather get two freaks at WR. Shoot for the moon. In my mind I've decided the most exciting pair would be Xavier Legette and Xavier Worthy. Trust that putting two freaks on the field with a freak QB will lead to explosive results. There might be rough patches at first, but hopefully by the time the playoffs roll around we would have an offense that could attack literally any spot on the field.

[Kirby Jackson]

5 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I would actually rather get two freaks at WR. Shoot for the moon. In my mind I've decided the most exciting pair would be Xavier Legette and Xavier Worthy. Trust that putting two freaks on the field with a freak QB will lead to explosive results. There might be rough patches at first, but hopefully by the time the playoffs roll around we would have an offense that could attack literally any spot on the field.

I’d be okay with that because I don’t see massive risk with Worthy. I know he’s small but he is a quality WR. It isn’t just a little fast guy.

[NoSaint]

17 hours ago, Virgil said:

 
Based on how the board is looking now, I would respectfully disagree.  We are still in line to get one of the two receivers we spent a lot of time with, and acquired a 3rd round pick.  

Similarly I’d challenge: we don’t know how long Josh will last and this WR selection will be among the most defining pieces of our window the next couple years. Do you play games with that in order to get a third? Or do you get that guy if he’s there?

Edited April 13 by NoSaint

[Nephilim17]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

I would actually rather get two freaks at WR. Shoot for the moon. In my mind I've decided the most exciting pair would be Xavier Legette and Xavier Worthy. Trust that putting two freaks on the field with a freak QB will lead to explosive results. There might be rough patches at first, but hopefully by the time the playoffs roll around we would have an offense that could attack literally any spot on the field.

Interesting idea. 

However, who do you take off the field to play Legette and Worthy? Kincaid stays. Cook will be on most of the time.

Do you sit Samuel (3 years, $24 million with $15 million guaranteed) and use him as depth? 

Or do you not play Shakir who had a good year in the slot last year?

My thinking is to sit Shakir. Some might think that's a waste of young drafted talent. Others might point to his historically short arms and say his ceiling is limited anyway.

What say you?