Ralonzo Posted April 26 Posted April 26 2 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said: I agree Diggs and Davis fell off and Shakir rose, and Kincaid looks like he will be excellent. But to me, we still want two good WRs. It's an important position. Having Diggs not be good was extremely costly - seems like they had already factored and game planned for Davis' dropoff. I want a good rookie WR - hoping for McConkey/Franklin/coleman/AD group. But I also want a good vet WR. I'm hoping the moves Beane made can bring home both - that the man I know as a wizard. I don't disagree. I'm not advocating to replace them with Sherfield and Shorter, haha. But I also don't think it's as dire as Bill Mafia in general seem to think. The Bills were winning without a lot of help from Davis at X and Diggs at Z, simply upgrading those roles to something near average should be a boon to the offense - similar to upgrading the guards from "disaster" to "ok" did for the OL last year. Samuel might be an average Z for the Bills which leaves X. Remember when Davis got a game ball for a 0 catch performance against iirc Dallas, for his blocking? Is that something that's supposed to be hard to replace? I'd be pleased with literally anyone who can block near as well and at least run the right route so the ball doesn't go flying to where he was supposed to be for a pick. 2
ngbills Posted April 26 Posted April 26 6 minutes ago, Turbo44 said: I wan both. Mitchell at 33, Ladd at 37ish (pick 60, a 5th and a 3rd next year, or something along those lines) I will take Mitchell and McCaffrey later. 13 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said: And the Bills seems to like him. Whats his upside as you see it ? I think he can be an above average S or zone CB. Maybe a really good one. If we are talking about him in 3rd or 4th and we already have a WR I am fine with it. But I dont know if he starts over Rapp or Edwards next year and is not playing over Johnson.
jkeerie Posted April 26 Posted April 26 If they decide to trade down...the only move I'd make is with Washington...33 and 60 for 36 and 40. 4 1
Warriorspikes51 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 Just now, jkeerie said: If they decide to trade down...the only move I'd make is with Washington...33 and 60 for 36 and 40. we would need to add
ngbills Posted April 26 Posted April 26 8 minutes ago, Ralonzo said: I don't disagree. I'm not advocating to replace them with Sherfield and Shorter, haha. But I also don't think it's as dire as Bill Mafia in general seem to think. The Bills were winning without a lot of help from Davis at X and Diggs at Z, simply upgrading those roles to something near average should be a boon to the offense - similar to upgrading the guards from "disaster" to "ok" did for the OL last year. Samuel might be an average Z for the Bills which leaves X. Remember when Davis got a game ball for a 0 catch performance against iirc Dallas, for his blocking? Is that something that's supposed to be hard to replace? I'd be pleased with literally anyone who can block near as well and at least run the right route so the ball doesn't go flying to where he was supposed to be for a pick. Winning without (guy did not have a lot of stats) is different than winning without (not on the field). Diggs took attention and teams planned around defending him. With him gone its easier to defend other guys. A TE benefits from teams having a stud WR because the S help goes that direction instead of helping with a TE. The less weapons period hurts everyone.
jkeerie Posted April 26 Posted April 26 Just now, Warriorspikes51 said: we would need to add Screw the draft chart. You pay the premium for the first pick. 1
OldTimer1960 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 21 minutes ago, Monty98 said: I would love Polk, but honestly I don't think we love him. Buffalo has very minimal if any contact with him so far. I think it's Coleman at 33🤮 or Dejean which I'd be okay with...same with Kool-Aid and take best WR at 60 In my opinion, Coleman would be a pretty bad pick. What would he help besides maybe a jump ball or 2? Definitely not explosive (at least speed and quickness). Not a deep threat nor a good technical route runner. 24 minutes ago, Monty98 said: I would love Polk, but honestly I don't think we love him. Buffalo has very minimal if any contact with him so far. I think it's Coleman at 33🤮 or Dejean which I'd be okay with...same with Kool-Aid and take best WR at 60 What do you see in Polk that you like? I get that he is the try-hard guy and is good at contested catches, but I don’t see speed or quickness evident in his play. He can make a team and maybe be a starting receiver, but I don’t see more than an average NFL player. 1
Back2Buff Posted April 26 Posted April 26 23 minutes ago, ngbills said: We have Shakir and Samuel. I dont think the WR gets better with McConkey. We need Mitchell, Polk or Franklin . McConkey plays a bit different than both these guys. I personally would rather partner McConkey with Baker. Baker is one of the best deep ball guys in the draft. I would even take a flyer on Burton with all these picks we have.
njbuff Posted April 26 Posted April 26 (edited) If the Bills stay put..... nfl.com has the Bills taking Mitchell and S Jaden Hicks from WSU at 60. I can DEFINITELY see that happening. Edited April 26 by njbuff 2
nedboy7 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 I hope they keep trading down until my heart explodes. It's Friday. I could theoretically get medical help and still make it to work Monday. 1 2
Turk71 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 Troy Franklin was a top 3 wr recruit coming out of high school, rated higher than every single wr in this draft. Joe Brady was a big fan and tried hard to get him to LSU. Franklin's college career reaffirmed that he was one of the very best. If he had been healthy at the combine he would be off the board already imo. I consider him a top 4 wr in this draft and would rather have him than Thomas, Worthy, Mitchell, Legette, etc. I hope he's the target 6
DrW Posted April 26 Posted April 26 (edited) A view not from TV, but from the sidelines. My son played tuba in the Longhorn band until last fall, and he very much preferred Mitchell over Worthy. In his words " The reason many people remember Worthy more is because he is the more explosive of the two and played a lot of kick/punt returner as well. He’s a very good receiver and of course very fast, but struggled with drops at times especially on deep routes, which was very frustrating. Mitchell is solid, consistent, and still pretty fast. Best of all he is a big target for contested catches and was a touchdown machine last year." My vote goes for Mitchell at 33. Edited April 26 by DrW 2
Big Turk Posted April 26 Posted April 26 15 hours ago, Virgil said: We spent a lot of time with DeJean, Franklin and Walker pre-draft. I think tomorrow, we either go DeJean and Walker, or Franklin and ?? I'm going to roll with another trade down a few picks and for a pick next year a round higher than they would have gotten this year. So maybe a 4th next year...I think there are multiple players that are all around the same grade at different positions and they would be cool with taking whatever one is still on the board at their spot.
Turbo44 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 24 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said: we would need to add I'd rather just pick my palyer of choice at 33 then trade 60 and next year's 2nd or 3rd for something in the late 30's. Then Grab Dejean and Best WR available in the late 30s or grab 2 of the following- Ladd, Mitchell, Coleman, Polk, Franklin 1
Ralonzo Posted April 26 Posted April 26 7 minutes ago, jkeerie said: If they decide to trade down...the only move I'd make is with Washington...33 and 60 for 36 and 40. The premium Washington is paying for that move is approximate value of a mid-3rd. I don't think they'd touch that. The most Beane can reasonably expect as a bidding-war premium is the value of a low 4th. The goal here is to get Buffalo to where they have 4 to 5 of the top-100 picks. Washington can facilitate that if they have a target and want to pay a premium to go to 33. Something like 33 + 95 + 128 for 40 + 67 + 100. Washington pays a premium close to the value of the 128 pick by allowing Buffalo to upgrade the two lower picks, leaving Buffalo picking at: 40, 60, 67, 100. This configuration seems to align nicely to present value players for Bills roster needs in those slots. 1
TheWeatherMan Posted April 26 Posted April 26 31 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said: we would need to add We can give them one of our 18 5th round picks to sweeten the deal. 1
Monty98 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 23 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said: In my opinion, Coleman would be a pretty bad pick. What would he help besides maybe a jump ball or 2? Definitely not explosive (at least speed and quickness). Not a deep threat nor a good technical route runner. What do you see in Polk that you like? I get that he is the try-hard guy and is good at contested catches, but I don’t see speed or quickness evident in his play. He can make a team and maybe be a starting receiver, but I don’t see more than an average NFL player. Yeah, I want no part of Coleman, hence the puke emoji. Polk was someone I thought shined in big games. He was a big play waiting to happen, he was a good route runner, good speed. 9 TDs this year. I'd prefer Mitchell or Rice size wise but Polk is a guy that watching him play made him stick out on film 1
Ralonzo Posted April 26 Posted April 26 31 minutes ago, ngbills said: Winning without (guy did not have a lot of stats) is different than winning without (not on the field). Diggs took attention and teams planned around defending him. With him gone its easier to defend other guys. A TE benefits from teams having a stud WR because the S help goes that direction instead of helping with a TE. The less weapons period hurts everyone. I had suspected that with Diggs around, he was dictating where the ball had to go. The other team would triple Diggs on 3rd down and Allen would jam the ball in there anyway and he would drop it or get defended because EVERYONE knew it was going there and the Bills punt and I'm cursing at the screen about "well don't throw it THERE." It was different from when Allen wasn't yes established and/or he was making the grabs, but it just got too predictable. Being less rote as to where the defense needs to key in critical situations - I wouldn't be at all surprised if overall efficiency of the Bills offense improves for the absence of Diggs in that instance.
ndirish1978 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 (edited) 42 minutes ago, jkeerie said: If they decide to trade down...the only move I'd make is with Washington...33 and 60 for 36 and 40. That is NOWHERE near fair value for them. Have you ever looked at a trade value chart? We would be giving 268 and receiving 315 which is equivalent to them just flushing a mid 3rd rd pick down the toilet I'm scared of AD Mitchell, he has huge upside but he takes plays off and could wind up being a huge flop and a headache. I'd rather take McConkey, who has a lower ceiling and a higher floor. Edited April 26 by ndirish1978
nedboy7 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 21 minutes ago, Turk71 said: Troy Franklin was a top 3 wr recruit coming out of high school, rated higher than every single wr in this draft. Joe Brady was a big fan and tried hard to get him to LSU. Franklin's college career reaffirmed that he was one of the very best. If he had been healthy at the combine he would be off the board already imo. I consider him a top 4 wr in this draft and would rather have him than Thomas, Worthy, Mitchell, Legette, etc. I hope he's the target Fully agree w this. But I could see the Bills outsmarting themselves and doing odd things.
Recommended Posts