Alphadawg7 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 1 hour ago, Einstein's Dog said: You think a lower cost, 4th to 5th rounder WR is going to be more attractive than DHop? Or K Allen. And yes, I'm thinking short term for this vet. The hope would be our other WR that we take can ascend into the WR1 role - be it McConkey/Franklin/Coleman or AD. And I am also hoping the FO keeps putting draft resources into the WR position, isn't 2 years from now supposed to be a great WR draft? (again). No one will for sure get us over the hump, but I have always felt the best chance to get the big prize was to be a contender for multiple years. We lost our top WR in Diggs and I don't think a rookie is anywhere near an adequate replacement. You know value to the team extends past 1 year right? What I said was that the young player has more value unless you see that DHop is the missing piece this year to get over the hump. And I don't think anyone looks at us right now and says "if they only had that 1 old vet WR they would be the SB favorites this year" except for maybe some people on here. And there is no way to know how much DHop can or can't help this team until we see just how well the changes are key starting spots on both sides of the ball pan out in what is a semi-transitional year. So yes, I think in a WR draft class this deep that a 4th round WR very much could have more value to this team than just wasting cap space and a draft pick on DHop. Shakir was a 5th round pick. What if we had not drafted Shakir and instead used that pick on an aging 1 year rental of a vet WR instead? You think that would have changed anything against the Bengals where we got embarrassed and dominated in the trenches, where Bengals were more physical and Dorsey got his a** handed to him from a coaching stand point? Where is the guy who was screaming at everyone here because we didn't sign Julio Jones that year lol? I will take Shakir over any 1 year aging vet rental that would have made absolutely no difference in the finality of our season that year. And that is not even a close decision what so ever. The obsession this board has with aging names they now is crazy to me. DHop last year coming in and elevating what was seen as a Championship roster made some sense. But right now, in a loaded WR draft class and with a transitional change across the roster, give me the rookie over the aging 1 year vet all day long. 3
OldTimer1960 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 1 minute ago, Logic said: Supposedly, it's the worst kept secret of the draft this year that Washington wants to move up and get an offensive tackle to protect their new QB investment. While I don't necessarily trust the veracity of the person who posted the rumor or the specifics of the trade itself, it won't surprise me in the least if we DO trade with Washington. It's about as far back as I can see Beane being willing to move, too. I would like for them to trade down with Washington, if they get back decent value. I don’t see anyone at pick 33 who is “must have”.
ndirish1978 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 Only way I'd trade 33 is if we fleece someone to move WAY up from 60 as well. Too many solid projected starters at positions of need to drop more than 3-4 down.
Mojo44 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Back2Buff said: The profile of Dayle Forness says adult entertainment enthusiast and he is a Bills fan. I would throw this out the window. So he’s a Bill’s fan and he likes porn. I don’t see the problem. Edited April 26 by Mojo44
Turbo44 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 6 minutes ago, Low Positive said: I'm not sure Greg Cosell likes any players. he likes Mitchell
ndirish1978 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 Just now, Turbo44 said: he likes Mitchell Mitchell has all the tools to be a #1 and enough questions about his work ethic/maturity that he scared WR needy teams out of drafting him in the 1st round. I'd be happy if he's the pick, but I would feel zero peace that he's going to become a consistent player. 1 1
ngbills Posted April 26 Posted April 26 6 minutes ago, Back2Buff said: I see a lot of Copper Kupp in McConkey. They play very similar games. Kupp produced in college. Dude had like 30 games with over 100 yds and multiple 200+ games. McConkey has like 2 100 yards games...
HappyDays Posted April 26 Posted April 26 4 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said: I would like for them to trade down with Washington, if they get back decent value. I don’t see anyone at pick 33 who is “must have”. To get #36 and #40, we could give up #33, #60, and one of our 2025 2nds. That would be equal value by the Rich Hill chart. It is a risk though because NE needs a WR. But we could double dip at WR at #36 and #40 in that scenario. 1
LEBills Posted April 26 Posted April 26 29 minutes ago, SCBills said: Not sure if there’s any reliability here, but.. It’s all speculation but makes sense. Washington can get to 33 and have their pick of the remaining OTs ahead of the Pats
Mojo44 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 1 minute ago, ndirish1978 said: Mitchell has all the tools to be a #1 and enough questions about his work ethic/maturity that he scared WR needy teams out of drafting him in the 1st round. I'd be happy if he's the pick, but I would feel zero peace that he's going to become a consistent player. I have the same concerns. But if Buffalo does take him then I have to think, or at least hope, that they fully vetted these issues and are OK with taking him. We will see.
ngbills Posted April 26 Posted April 26 6 minutes ago, ndirish1978 said: Only way I'd trade 33 is if we fleece someone to move WAY up from 60 as well. Too many solid projected starters at positions of need to drop more than 3-4 down. We need 1 or even 2 starting/contributing WR's. If we can trade down and get 2 in the 2nd round maybe. Otherwise we need a starting WR at 33. That guy seems like Mitchell. 1
ndirish1978 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Mojo44 said: I have the same concerns. But if Buffalo does take him then I have to think, or at least hope, that they fully vetted these issues and are OK with taking him. We will see. I don't have that confidence. We gave Diggs a big extension and then cut him loose even though we had him in the building and knew his history and still didn't realize he was nuts. Edited April 26 by ndirish1978
itaos Posted April 26 Posted April 26 7 minutes ago, Mojo44 said: So he’s a Bill’s fan and he likes porn. I don’t see the problem. Bills fandom and porn are fine. Not having any sources could be an issue. 1
<bills4life> Posted April 26 Posted April 26 8 minutes ago, Mojo44 said: So he’s a Bill’s fan and he likes porn. I don’t see the problem. So what you are saying is that he is like most of the members on this message board.
Mojo44 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 5 minutes ago, ndirish1978 said: I don't have that confidence. We gave Diggs a big extension and then cut him loose even though we had him in the building and knew his history and still didn't realize he was nuts. Good point well taken. I’m not actually confident about this. I’m just hopeful.🤔 1
OldTimer1960 Posted April 26 Posted April 26 9 minutes ago, HappyDays said: To get #36 and #40, we could give up #33, #60, and one of our 2025 2nds. That would be equal value by the Rich Hill chart. It is a risk though because NE needs a WR. But we could double dip at WR at #36 and #40 in that scenario. I would strongly prefer not to trade 2025 picks at a discount, though obviously they might see it differently. If they got 36 and 40, I don’t think I could find 2 WR that I would want to double up on. I presume Mitchell is out of play based on the character/effort rumors (ad it we don’t know if true). What 2 WR would you want in that range?
Einstein's Dog Posted April 26 Posted April 26 6 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: You know value to the team extends past 1 year right? What I said was that the young player has more value unless you see that DHop is the missing piece this year to get over the hump. And I don't think anyone looks at us right now and says "if they only had that 1 old vet WR they would be the SB favorites this year" except for maybe some people on here. And there is no way to know how much DHop can or can't help this team until we see just how well the changes are key starting spots on both sides of the ball pan out in what is a semi-transitional year. So yes, I think in a WR draft class this deep that a 4th round WR very much could have more value to this team than just wasting cap space and a draft pick on DHop. Shakir was a 5th round pick. What if we had not drafted Shakir and instead used that pick on an aging 1 year rental of a vet WR instead? You think that would have changed anything against the Bengals where we got embarrassed and dominated in the trenches, where Bengals were more physical and Dorsey got his a** handed to him from a coaching stand point? Where is the guy who was screaming at everyone here because we didn't sign Julio Jones that year lol? I will take Shakir over any 1 year aging vet rental that would have made absolutely no difference in the finality of our season that year. And that is not even a close decision what so ever. The obsession this board has with aging names they now is crazy to me. DHop last year coming in and elevating what was seen as a Championship roster made some sense. But right now, in a loaded WR draft class and with a transitional change across the roster, give me the rookie over the aging 1 year vet all day long. The difference, to me, is you have settled to call this a "semi-transitional" year. I don't think we need to do that. In order to avoid the "semi-transitional" year we should add a veteran WR. The draft is for the future (and by the way, that is what Shakir was about). We definitely should add a WR for the future (and with an early round pick hopefully get earlier returns so they can be useful this year), And IMO start doing so on a more regular basis. For 2024 though, A WR veteran is easily >5th rounder. I give the DHop example but many others qualify. Beane can, and should, assemble a WR room that gets the Bills back to a talent level that is not considered "transitional".
MasterStrategist Posted April 26 Posted April 26 7 minutes ago, HappyDays said: To get #36 and #40, we could give up #33, #60, and one of our 2025 2nds. That would be equal value by the Rich Hill chart. It is a risk though because NE needs a WR. But we could double dip at WR at #36 and #40 in that scenario. I think that's a bit much, I'm also looking at Rich Hill chart. I think a possibility, without including 2025 2nd, is.... Buf: 33, 144, 163 Was: 36, 100 Pretty even and avoids 2025 picks being traded. Also gets us 1 additional pick in the top 100, by sacrificing an extra 5th 1 1
Recommended Posts