WR trade candidates, who do you want?

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Logic said:

If the compensation required is not too high, I'd say DeAndre Hopkins.

He can be the immediate starting X, allowing Coleman to work in more gradually without needing to be THE GUY from day one. It would also allow Coleman to play more of the move/big slot position that he seems better suited for. You can still bring Coleman along at X behind Hopkins, but also still get him on the field in other ways. Hopkins would be an excellent example for Coleman to learn from, in terms of how to win in the NFL as a bigger bodied guy without elite speed.

That said, my top choice would still be "buy a time machine, go back and trade for Diontae Johnson or Jerry Jeudy, and/or go back to the draft, and take Franklin, Walker, Baker, or Washington in the middle rounds".

Time machine preference not withstanding, the Bills still need help at WR.

 

 

I'd take Hopkins.

 

Probably cost a 4th.

 

But if the Chiefs then subsequently landed DK Metcalf.......as they were reportedly attempting to do around the draft.........that would be discouraging.

[Warriorspikes51]

1 minute ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

I'd take Hopkins.

 

Probably cost a 4th.

 

But if the Chiefs then subsequently landed DK Metcalf.......as they were reportedly attempting to do around the draft.........that would be discouraging.

 

more like VOMIT INDUCING  

[GunnerBill]

26 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Of course they will.  The Bills do not have a WR1 on the roster for 2024, or for that matter for 2025. 

 

The Bills have draft capital - extra 2nd and 4th, money coming in - Tre $10M, and kept the spot open - didn't draft 2 and didn't hit FA hard.

 

All signs point to picking up a good WR.

 

Brandon Beane has answered this twice and said not and I think they were pretty straight answers. I don't get any sense at all that they are planning to trade for a guy before the season. In season pre-deadline? Possibly. I'd be surprised if anything happens between now and September. 

[billybob71]

Lou Piccone

[Orlando Buffalo]

Every one of these would be dependent on the cost, as none of these are THE missing piece to me. In order of preference:

Davante Adams, by a big margin

DJ Moore, I think he would not be as focused on money as much as winning. 

Metcalf, he is a beast.

 

The rest I don't particularly care about. 

[BADOLBILZ]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Brandon Beane has answered this twice and said not and I think they were pretty straight answers. I don't get any sense at all that they are planning to trade for a guy before the season. In season pre-deadline? Possibly. I'd be surprised if anything happens between now and September. 

 

 

Yeah,  I tend to agree that they are going to risk it and go into the season without a proven WR1 or WR2.    That's just feels but it feels like they are willing to crash and burn on this one if necessary.    But Beane lies about this kind of stuff ALL THE TIME.   Because he knows that if he reverses course on this type of thing the fan base will be happy and not be upset that he was disingenuous.   Setting expectations low and then hurdling those lowered bars is how he keeps his stock strong with the fans.     

[Blackbeard]

43 minutes ago, Logic said:

Except for Beane saying "there is no trade for a receiver forthcoming" and "We like our room. We're in good shape there".

Since when are we taking anything Beane says as proof positive?

 

Cmon.  We ALL know better at this point.

Metcalf would be INSANE with Allen.

 

And we seem to be going big, large receivers.  

 

Would LOVE this.  Big, tough QB with big, tough WRs.  

 

 

Edited May 13 by Blackbeard

[oldmanfan]

To all obsessing about having to have a “true” #1 WR, and whom to trade for:

 

I f a “true” #1 is so necessary and valuable,  why would a team who has one trade him?

[Bangarang]

1 hour ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Common misconception.  The Bills get $10M Tre money June 1st, also potential Josh restructure money. 

 

If you look at the salary aspects, none of those seem bad, it is the future money where the expense will be, and the Bills have room in the future.

 

Beane already shut down the Aiyuk trade suggestion and said he costs too much. 

1 hour ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Common misconception.  The Bills get $10M Tre money June 1st, also potential Josh restructure money. 

 

If you look at the salary aspects, none of those seem bad, it is the future money where the expense will be, and the Bills have room in the future.

 

Beane already shut down the Aiyuk trade suggestion and said he costs too much. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Justin Jefferson and CeeDee Lamb.

[Lost]

1 hour ago, Logic said:

Yep.

Adding a viable number one would make the whole WR corps look much better.

Coleman looks more capable of being a quality WR2 than he does of being THE GUY. Shakir looks to be a viable slot WR and third option. Samuel would be an amazing WR4, move player, and depth at all three of the top spots. Mack Hollins WR5 and primarily special teams.

The WR corps is actually set up quite well to be the supporting unit to a legitimate WR1 -- the Bills just don't appear to have one on the roster.

 

 

They should trade for Stefon Diggs

[Gunsgoodtime]

Not going lie, the thought of Metcalf playing with Allen gives me a chubby.Bills should have drafted him when they had the chance, but for some reason WR seems to be the least valuable position for this regime.

[Einstein's Dog]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

To all obsessing about having to have a “true” #1 WR, and whom to trade for:

 

I f a “true” #1 is so necessary and valuable,  why would a team who has one trade him?

1.  Because they are rebuilding and need a QB so they want draft capital (see Raiders D Adams and Seattle DK Metcalf).

2.  Because player is disgruntled and wants out (see Diggs, and Aiyuk).

3.  Because of glut of WRs and the player is no longer their #1 (see Tenn and D Hopkins)

4.  Because team has new regime and want their own players (Chi DJ Moore)

 

There are logical reasons why good players can be had in a trade.

[BADOLBILZ]

2 minutes ago, Blackbeard said:

Since when are we taking anything Beane says as proof positive?

 

Cmon.  We ALL know better at this point.

 

 

Yeah he's adept at choosing the right truth for the moment.   It's a strength of his.   I mean, what was to gain from saying "expect a big splash in free agency"?   If a deal comes together, then you look like you accomplished something.   If it doesn't,  the perception is you've failed.  

 

Same with addressing the top of the WR depth chart.  

 

Who benefits from saying you are concerned about it in May?

 

 In the free agency era the Bills have traditionally had GM's that were either unsophisticated road scouts(Butler/Nix/Whaley) or stubborn hot-heads who would shoot from the hip with the media(Polian/Donahoe) or just clueless green-horns(Marv/Brandon).    Beane isn't the best personnel man around by any stretch.....but he might be the best "executive" GM in the NFL.   He is really good at bullsh!tting for profit and still seeming like a good guy to the people he deals with.

[Mat68]

6 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

1.  Because they are rebuilding and need a QB so they want draft capital (see Raiders D Adams and Seattle DK Metcalf).

2.  Because player is disgruntled and wants out (see Diggs, and Aiyuk).

3.  Because of glut of WRs and the player is no longer their #1 (see Tenn and D Hopkins)

4.  Because team has new regime and want their own players (Chi DJ Moore)

 

There are logical reasons why good players can be had in a trade.

Poles is still the GM.  He was very vocal that any trade with Carolina would involve Moore.  Moore is viewed at the number 1.  

[Logic]

18 minutes ago, Blackbeard said:

Since when are we taking anything Beane says as proof positive?

 

Cmon.  We ALL know better at this point.

Metcalf would be INSANE with Allen.

 

And we seem to be going big, large receivers.  

 

Would LOVE this.  Big, tough QB with big, tough WRs.  

 

 

Since...always?

I'm not talking about what I would LIKE to see happen. I've already state 7 billion times I want another receiver.

I'm talking about what I think WILL happen. Beane's a pretty honest guy. If a trade was realistically on the table, he'd give his usual vague "look, I won't rule anything out, if it improves the Bills, I'll do it". But he didn't even say THAT. He said "there is no trade for a receiver coming" and "we're happy with the WR room, we feel we're in good shape there".

I know that when things Beane says don't match with what people WANT to see happen, the first reaction is to say "It's a smokescreen! GMs lie!", but...Beane has proven to be a pretty honest, pretty straight shooting guy. 

The reason we all have a lingering feeling of wanting the Bills to trade for a WR is because we can see that they haven't done enough at the position. Unfortunately, I don't think they agree, and I don't think it's gonna happen. I'll be thrilled to be wrong, but I doubt I am.

[Rubes]

7 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Yeah he's adept at choosing the right truth for the moment.   It's a strength of his.   I mean, what was to gain from saying "expect a big splash in free agency"?   If a deal comes together, then you look like you accomplished something.   If it doesn't,  the perception is you've failed.  

 

Same with addressing the top of the WR depth chart.  

 

Who benefits from saying you are concerned about it in May?

 

 In the free agency era the Bills have traditionally had GM's that were either unsophisticated road scouts(Butler/Nix/Whaley) or stubborn hot-heads who would shoot from the hip with the media(Polian/Donahoe) or just clueless green-horns(Marv/Brandon).    Beane isn't the best personnel man around by any stretch.....but he might be the best "executive" GM in the NFL.   He is really good at bullsh!tting for profit and still seeming like a good guy to the people he deals with.

 

Yeah, I don't know. We all thought similarly last year when we went into the season without a proven MLB, and thought he'd be crazy to stick with Bernard.

 

Turned out to be the right choice, but it's not like anyone knew Bernard would excel the way he did.

 

I just think he's taking the same approach this time with the WR position.

 

[Mikey152]

14 minutes ago, Rubes said:

 

Yeah, I don't know. We all thought similarly last year when we went into the season without a proven MLB, and thought he'd be crazy to stick with Bernard.

 

Turned out to be the right choice, but it's not like anyone knew Bernard would excel the way he did.

 

I just think he's taking the same approach this time with the WR position.

 

You know, for a team that has the second most wins in football over the last 5 years...there is A LOT of distrust regarding the FO and coaching staff. I know that stems from a lack of SB victories (or even appearances), but wow. 

 

Everyone loved the Von Miller signing until they didn't...now they want to repeat it at WR AND give picks??? You'd think situations like Bernard would temper opinions, but people wiped that egg right off and got right back on the no-name train.

Edited May 13 by Mikey152

[BADOLBILZ]

17 minutes ago, Rubes said:

 

Yeah, I don't know. We all thought similarly last year when we went into the season without a proven MLB, and thought he'd be crazy to stick with Bernard.

 

Turned out to be the right choice, but it's not like anyone knew Bernard would excel the way he did.

 

I just think he's taking the same approach this time with the WR position.

 

 

 

Yeah,  like I said,  I feel that way too.   They are just making the wrong decision at WR again, IMO.   Same as they have the previous couple offseasons when they stupidly went all-in on Gabe Davis opposite their All Pro Diggs and did little else.    Now they are expecting to replace Diggs and Davis with Coleman and Samuel(and a cast of cast-offs).   That is an even greater leap of faith than those prior offseasons.

 

It's not like the MLB position in that regard.......that was the first time they'd risked leaving themselves short at the position.  This is them tripling down on not doing enough at WR.   I was 100% behind their plan at MLB last year.   Everybody they had used in place of Edmunds over the years had produced in limited roles.  Pedestrian-Preston Brown lead the NFL in tackles under McDermott in 2017.   There was AMPLE reason to trust in that decision.  

 

Not so much at WR.

 

Skepticism should be the order of the day there. 

 

 

Edited May 13 by BADOLBILZ

[Einstein's Dog]

41 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Yeah,  I tend to agree that they are going to risk it and go into the season without a proven WR1 or WR2.    That's just feels but it feels like they are willing to crash and burn on this one if necessary.    But Beane lies about this kind of stuff ALL THE TIME.   Because he knows that if he reverses course on this type of thing the fan base will be happy and not be upset that he was disingenuous.   Setting expectations low and then hurdling those lowered bars is how he keeps his stock strong with the fans.     

The only way I can think they would do this is if it came from T Pegula.  That is my fear, that without Kim, T Pegula may be tightening the purse strings and want to save for a boost next year with the stadium filling as a concern.

 

But this would have to be against Beane's wishes.  Beane will look terrible if this is the talent he is sending out there this year.  It would be his worst year as a GM by a lot.