Rumor: Bills trying aggressively to move up for a WR in round one

[Kirby Jackson]

35 minutes ago, longtimebillsfan said:

What hasn't changed is the fact that many wrs taken after the 1st round will exceed some of these 1st round "studs" in their NFL careers.

Yep 

 

The draft is an inexact science. Recent early WRs have been good (Chase, Wilson, Olave, Flowers, Addison, etc..). The top 3 guys in this draft have graded out as high or higher than any WR in the previous 2 drafts. There is no sure thing but not everyone has the same likelihood to succeed either. 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Um, it’s a different world than 10 years ago. The Bills have a franchise QB. The cost for a high end WR is roughly double the cap space that it was a decade ago. There are LOTS of logical reasons to go way up. Sammy Watkins not working out 10 years ago isn’t even a data point that the Bills are considering when deciding what to do. There is no correlation between him not working out and the 2024 Bills draft. Julio Jones is a better example because the Falcons had a high end starter and wanted to get him a star. That’s infinitely more relevant to this conversation but still isn’t a factor in the Bills decision making process. 
 

Secondly, the college game changed the pro game not the other way around. NFL spread offenses designed to get the ball to playmakers in space are just copies of  college offenses. Receivers translate easily and for those of us that watch a lot of college football, those guys are easily identifiable.
 

Does someone really believe that the WR that the Bills draft will not be their number 1 immediately?? 😂😂 Is that for real? The Bills have a solid slot WR with good production on low volume. They have a gadget guy that is good with the ball in his hands. If we do not understand that the draft pick walks off the bus as the alpha in the WR room we do not understand the current WR room.

I wonder how many people still get this reference? 

 

 

Sammy Watkins is absolutely a data point they've looked at. They'd be stupid not to, and they're not stupid.

 

Is it one of the main things they're looking at, no, almost certainly not, but the likelihood of top ten receivers succeeding in justifying their draft spots completely is decent, but far from great. Same was true back when we traded up for Sammy. Which means that drafting a receiver high is a very reasonable move, but giving up a lot of valuable draft picks to do so is really really not.

 

Julio Jones is also something they'll have looked at, but not a main focus. Julio is a case where they got that pick exactly right and it still didn't do enough to lift a 13-3 team enough to win a Super Bowl or even to being a really good team for most of Julio's stay there. The guys they lost the chance to pick in that trade appear to have hurt the team as much as having Julio helped it.

 

Sammy is part of the the phenomenon that Massey and Thaler reported on, that GMs consistently over-rate their ability to correctly know who to draft, and that inability to correctly  risks leads them to take risks that are stupid, specifically by giving up high round picks to move up to pick one guy. What they found is that moving up a bit doesn't seriously harm your odds, but that big move-ups should not be undertaken, as they significantly reduced the odds of draft success.

 

The way to maximize your draft success is to maximize the number of darts you can throw, particularly with valuable big-time picks. There is an exception: trading way up for a possible franchise QB is worth doing because your odds of teams success without a franchise QB are so low. The same can't be said for other positions.

 

And those guys are very very smart, they're not fans in Mom's basement. Thaler has won a Nobel Prize in behavioral economics, which is precisely the area they're looking at in this draft study. And all the studies - all of them - say the same. Drafting is too difficult. But these guys spend so much time studying and preparing and strategizing and discussing, that there tends to be a sense that with so much prep they gain more control. And you don't. These guys, NFL GMs, who know way more than the rest of us, still don't do well enough at picking to make really big trade-ups a good idea.

 

 

Edited April 24 by Thurman#1

[GunnerBill]

39 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

 

Does someone really believe that the WR that the Bills draft will not be their number 1 immediately?? 😂😂 Is that for real? The Bills have a solid slot WR with good production on low volume. They have a gadget guy that is good with the ball in his hands. If we do not understand that the draft pick walks off the bus as the alpha in the WR room we do not understand the current WR room.

 

 

Indeed even the much lamented Sammy Watkins came in and WAS our number 1 immediately. That that is a trade that was seen to have failed for obvious reasons. But in 2014 he stepped onto the field as our #1 in week 1 and had 900+ yards. He had 1,000 yards and 9 touchdowns his second year. The reasons it fell apart after that are well documented and the Bills definitely drafted the wrong guy from that receiver class. But even then that guy gave their passing game an immediate and significant boost. 

[dave mcbride]

10 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Sammy Watkins is absolutely a data point they've looked at. They'd be stupid not to, and they're not stupid.

 

Is it one of the main things they're looking at, no, almost certainly not, but the likelihood of top ten receivers succeeding in justifying their draft spots completely is decent, but far from great. Same was true back when we traded up for Sammy. Which means that drafting a receiver high is a very reasonable move, but giving up a lot of valuable draft picks to do so is really really not.

 

Sammy is part of the the phenomenon that Massey and Thaler reported on, that GMs consistently over-rate their ability to correctly know who to draft, and that inability to correctly calculate risks leads them to take risks that are stupid, specifically by giving up high round picks to move up to pick one guy. What they found is that moving up a bit doesn't seriously harm your odds, but that big move-ups should not be undertaken, as they significantly reduced the odds of draft success.

 

The way to maximize your draft success is to maximize the number of darts you can throw, particularly with valuable big-time picks. There is an exception, trading way up for a possible franchise QB are worth doing because your odds of teams success without a franchise QB are so low. The same can't be said for other positions.

 

And those guys are very very smart, they're not fans in Mom's basement. Thaler has won a Nobel Prize in behavioral economics, which is precisely the area they're looking at in this draft study. And all the studies - all of them - say the same. Drafting is too difficult. But these guys spend so much time studying and preparing and strategizing and discussing, that there tends to be a sense that with so much prep they gain more control. And you don't. These guys, NFL GMs, who know way more than the rest of us, still don't do well enough at picking to make really big trade-ups a good idea.

That paper is from 2005 and based on data mostly from the  1980s/1990s, when some GMs were still consulting Street and Smith's to figure out who to take in the third round and/or spending top five picks on running backs. Teams have a LOT more resources now and are generally better evaluators than they were then. No one is trading an entire draft for Ricky Williams. And as for the model recently, just look at the Pats - they followed the Massey/Thaler advice yet from 2014-2023, yet their hordes of draft picks mostly resulted in a vast wasteland. Has anyone tried to replicate their analysis for this analytics-dominant era? I honestly suspect that the results will not be replicated.

Edited April 24 by dave mcbride

[Kirby Jackson]

16 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Sammy Watkins is absolutely a data point they've looked at. They'd be stupid not to, and they're not stupid.

 

Is it one of the main things they're looking at, no, almost certainly not, but the likelihood of top ten receivers succeeding in justifying their draft spots completely is decent, but far from great. Same was true back when we traded up for Sammy. Which means that drafting a receiver high is a very reasonable move, but giving up a lot of valuable draft picks to do so is really really not.

 

Sammy is part of the the phenomenon that Massey and Thaler reported on, that GMs consistently over-rate their ability to correctly know who to draft, and that inability to correctly calculate risks leads them to take risks that are stupid, specifically by giving up high round picks to move up to pick one guy. What they found is that moving up a bit doesn't seriously harm your odds, but that big move-ups should not be undertaken, as they significantly reduced the odds of draft success.

 

The way to maximize your draft success is to maximize the number of darts you can throw, particularly with valuable big-time picks. There is an exception, trading way up for a possible franchise QB are worth doing because your odds of teams success without a franchise QB are so low. The same can't be said for other positions.

 

And those guys are very very smart, they're not fans in Mom's basement. Thaler has won a Nobel Prize in behavioral economics, which is precisely the area they're looking at in this draft study. And all the studies - all of them - say the same. Drafting is too difficult. But these guys spend so much time studying and preparing and strategizing and discussing, that there tends to be a sense that with so much prep they gain more control. And you don't. These guys, NFL GMs, who know way more than the rest of us, still don't do well enough at picking to make really big trade-ups a good idea.

Random things that didn’t work a decade ago, with different regimes, aren’t relevant. I promise you Sammy Watkins is not a part of the Bills decision making. There is no correlation. Julio is a better comparison and even that has no correlation. They will draft based on the quality of the players not a 2014 draft gamble. 
 

As @dave mcbride points out, the data and analytics today are light years beyond what they were even a decade ago. The draft bust rate would speak to that too. Teams hit at a much higher percentage in 2024 than they did even in 2014.

Edited April 24 by Kirby Jackson

[Thurman#1]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Indeed even the much lamented Sammy Watkins came in and WAS our number 1 immediately. That that is a trade that was seen to have failed for obvious reasons. But in 2014 he stepped onto the field as our #1 in week 1 and had 900+ yards. He had 1,000 yards and 9 touchdowns his second year. The reasons it fell apart after that are well documented and the Bills definitely drafted the wrong guy from that receiver class. But even then that guy gave their passing game an immediate and significant boost. 

 

 

Yes, Sammy gave the passing game a significant boost. 

 

But he didn't give the win-loss record a boost at all. They scored four more points the year they brought in Sammy than they did the year before. What happened that year is the D got better and they won three more games, moving up to 9-7 and not doing any better than that very mediocre 9-7 for Sammy's whole tenure.

 

And the goal isn't to give the passing game a significant boost, or it shouldn't be. It should be to give the whole team a significant boost.

 

They should draft a WR in the top two rounds. Maybe even do a trade-up of a few spots.

 

 

[Thrivefourfive]

 

BTJ at pick #20 or Nabers at pick #10?
 

Let’s just say all other trade pieces

being equal, Nabers costs a 1st in 2025, and Thomas costs #60. If you had to choose, which way are you going?

[OldTimer1960]

58 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

I agree. This is how I see it playing out. We get into the top 9 for a top 3 WR, but the price will be steeper than most here expect. This team will have to win with offense this season and they need a stud WR for the offense to do that. The fact that the team is at the forefront of PSL sales and needs to keep the fan base stoked adds pressure from the top. 2025 draft capital will be sacrificed. 

For several years if they trade future picks.

[warrior9]

12 hours ago, Logic said:

I think it's down to what Tyler Dunne said today:

The two scenarios for the Bills are either:

1) Trade up for Rome Odunze

2) Xavier Worthy

 

It's gonna be one of those two things.

I like the idea of both. A true alpha X receiver would be great. A truly electrifying Z receiver with terrifying speed to open up the middle for Kincaid, Shakir, Samuel, and Cook is great. Either one would improve the Bills offense greatly. Two different flavors, but both would make us more dynamic.

I really believe it's down to those two options as the most likely.

I don't understand why people are enamored with Worthy. He is sooo skinny and one trick and that is NOT the kind of receiver we need. We lose to the Chiefs because we can't get off the line. We would probably have the smallest receiving corps in the NFL if we draft him. He will be a monumental bust, IMO. 

 

There is next to 0 chance Beane takes Worthy. 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yes, Sammy gave the passing game a significant boost. 

 

But he didn't give the win-loss record a boost at all. They scored four more points the year they brought in Sammy than they did the year before. What happened that year is the D got better and they won three more games, moving up to 9-7 and not doing any better than that very mediocre 9-7 for Sammy's whole tenure.

 

And the goal isn't to give the passing game a significant boost, or it shouldn't be. It should be to give the whole team a significant boost.

 

They should draft a WR in the top two rounds. Maybe even do a trade-up of a few spots.

 

 

 

When you have Josh Allen at Quarterback I think one may well lead to the other. 

 

I'm not saying the Bills have to trade into the top 10. I was responding to the idea that a first round receiver pick wouldn't necessarily be the #1. I think it is very likely someone they take at #28 would be the #1 receiver in 2024. It is almost a guarantee someone they traded into the top 10 for would be the #1 on this team in 2024. 

[FireChans]

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

And the goal isn't to give the passing game a significant boost, or it shouldn't be.

It should be when you have JAGs playing WR.

[Thurman#1]

10 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Random things that didn’t work a decade ago, with different regimes, aren’t relevant. I promise you Sammy Watkins is not a part of the Bills decision making. There is no correlation. Julio is a better comparison and even that has no correlation. They will draft based on the quality of the players not a 2014 draft gamble. 

 

 

True, random things aren't relevant.

 

But looking at how similar strategies have worked in the past is extremely relevant. It just is. There's no randomness involved here. They're looking at whether to follow the exact same strategy that produced the - failed - Sammy Watkins trade and many others besides. Un-random.

 

And again, there's no particular reason to think the Julio trade was a success. They got a terrific WR, an all-timer. And they went from a 13-3 record the year before they drafted him to never winning a Super Bowl and having far more losing years than winning years.

 

They will draft based on the quality of the players this year. Of course. Very fair and completely correct.

 

But if they are smart - and they are  - they will strategize whether or not to make trades and particularly what kind of trades to make or not make, based on what has worked and what has very notably NOT worked in the past.

 

 

 

Again, Massey-Thaler makes this clear. Massive trade-ups fail a lot more than they succeed.

[BarleyNY]

5 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

For several years if they trade future picks.

This year and next. They will have cap space to make some moves for 2025 though. 

[section122]

4 minutes ago, warrior9 said:

I don't understand why people are enamored with Worthy. He is sooo skinny and one trick and that is NOT the kind of receiver we need. We lose to the Chiefs because we can't get off the line. We would probably have the smallest receiving corps in the NFL if we draft him. He will be a monumental bust, IMO. 

 

There is next to 0 chance Beane takes Worthy. 

 

I disagree strongly that he is a 1 trick pony.  He is indeed fast but he was the leading wr for texas with ad mitchell on the team.  He can play the position.  Being fast is the cherry on top.

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

True, random things aren't relevant.

 

But looking at how similar strategies have worked in the past is extremely relevant. It just is. There's no randomness involved here. They're looking at whether to follow the exact same strategy that produced the - failed - Sammy Watkins trade and many others besides. Un-random.

 

And again, there's no particular reason to think the Julio trade was a success. They got a terrific WR, an all-timer. And they went from a 13-3 record the year before they drafted him to never winning a Super Bowl and having far more losing years than winning years.

 

They will draft based on the quality of the players this year. Of course. Very fair and completely correct.

 

But if they are smart - and they are  - they will strategize whether or not to make trades and particularly what kind of trades to make or not make, based on what has worked and what has very notably NOT worked in the past.

 

 

 

Again, Massey-Thaler makes this clear. Massive trade-ups fail a lot more than they succeed.

If your analysis is 

 

“they didn’t win the Super Bowl so it wasn’t a good move,”

 

it’s not good analysis 

[section122]

18 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

 

As @dave mcbride points out, the data and analytics today are light years beyond what they were even a decade ago. The draft bust rate would speak to that too. Teams hit at a much higher percentage in 2024 than they did even in 2014.

 

I agree data and analytics are light years ahead which is why I will trust the process lol.  If Beane believes a trade way up is the best option I will believe they weighed all their options and determined this was the best course of action.

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

If your analysis is 

 

“they didn’t win the Super Bowl so it wasn’t a good move,”

 

it’s not good analysis 

An hour ago you argued with me the Rams won the super bowl so it was a good move lol.

[Brandon]

10 minutes ago, warrior9 said:

I don't understand why people are enamored with Worthy. He is sooo skinny and one trick and that is NOT the kind of receiver we need. We lose to the Chiefs because we can't get off the line. We would probably have the smallest receiving corps in the NFL if we draft him. He will be a monumental bust, IMO. 

 

There is next to 0 chance Beane takes Worthy. 

 

I don't think he's a 'one trick' type by any stretch.  The size issue is definitely a real concern,  IMO,  but he's otherwise a real receiver prospect,  not just a track guy running vertical routes.  He's been a 60+ catch guy three years in a row at Texas.  He can run routes. 

 

I'm not sure he's their first choice or anything,  but I definitely think he's in play for the Bills.   

Edited April 24 by Brandon

[FireChans]

Just now, section122 said:

 

I agree data and analytics are light years ahead which is why I will trust the process lol.  If Beane believes a trade way up is the best option I will believe they weighed all their options and determined this was the best course of action.

An hour ago you argued with me the Rams won the super bowl so it was a good move lol.

No, I argued they risked and won. 
 

There is a difference. 

[JohnBonhamRocks]

2 hours ago, BeastMode54 said:

So there seems to be a lot of smoke regarding Worthy. I'm not totally opposed to it, but have flashbacks of Goodwin and/or Graham. My question is, if Worthy ran a 4.4 40 and not the fastest ever, would he still be regarded as a 1st round wr?

Yes. Years of production. Elite ball tracking. Plays bigger than his listed size. Good route runner.
 

I did not like him breaking the 40 record because I liked him as a prospect pre-Combine and assumed people would then be asking your very question. I also buy that he cut down to 165 lbs just so he could break that record but usually plays closer to 175. 

[Bangarang]

It would be amazing if we somehow landed Odunze.