I'm really starting to love this WR room. We quietly got better

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Gaslighting?  OMG that is rich coming from you haha.  FYI:  Brandon Beane literally said Keon is playing the "WR1 and X role with some Z" for the Bills...verbatim in one of his post draft interviews.  No one spit anything out.

 

 

 

 

Actually........FYI:

 

"He can actually play some inside...you know....I think position 1....you know......I think Joe would probably line him up outside as a standard X receiver on the outside".          

                                                                 -Brandon Beane press conf on 2nd round selection Keon Coleman

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't gaslighting us............but you TOTALLY misread his comments.    

 

He was saying the first position that they'd line him up at was as a standard X.   

 

Nobody assigns numbers to the WR positions.   Letters.   Letters.   Get it straight, dude. 

 

 

Edited July 15 by BADOLBILZ

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Magox said:

This isn't difficult, the Bills traded back knowing they could get Coleman or another WR that they would have had rated right around as high as Coleman and pick up a couple more picks.  If the Bills had picked Worthy with their original pick very few people would have complained and probably would have been somewhat satisfied with how the Bills addressed the Receiver spot in the draft.   But since they picked Coleman which wasn't rated as high on TBD and it was a trade back some of those same people now believe the Receiver spot was not sufficiently addressed.

 

It's clear the Bills think otherwise, they disagree with all your assessments and your expert evaluations.   We'll find out soon enough if Coleman was a good selection and one side of the debate will come out on top.     My hunch is that Coleman will end up being a solid starting WR in this league.

And there you go.  Game, set, match.

[FireChans]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

What I am saying is he has conversations which led him to believe he was going to get his guy.  Which has only gone on since drafts were invented.  But I forget, you are smarter than the professionals.  

Oh you have proof of this? Oh wait, no of course not, you’re just another rando on the internet. 
 

“Get over yourself” indeed lmao.

[GoBills808]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Again I'll point to the video of Brandon being excited when Coleman ran a slower-than-expect 40 at the Combine.  He was also a top-30 visit (as was Worthy, who they let go to the Chefs).  And I've heard many times people saying "they could have traded down and gotten him anyway."

 

I guess all that's left to do is see how it all plays out.  If Coleman becomes a stud, it won't matter where he was picked.

And I'll point to the near certain likelihood that they film dozens of clips of Beane saying nice things about a lot of prospects, then edit it down to the ones we actually draft

 

Come on man those videos are cool but they're obvious propaganda

[oldmanfan]

Just now, FireChans said:

Oh you have proof of this? Oh wait, no of course not, you’re just another rando on the internet. 
 

“Get over yourself” indeed lmao.

Do I have proof this is how GMs work a draft?  That this is what GMs get paid to do?  One does not have to prove something so blindingly simple.

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

And I'll point to the near certain likelihood that they film dozens of clips of Beane saying nice things about a lot of prospects, then edit it down to the ones we actually draft

 

Come on man those videos are cool but they're obvious propaganda

It’s crazy that Hard Knocks had so much footage of them loving Malik Nabers predraft that they released long after they drafted him. Talk about a lucky coincidence!

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Do I have proof this is how GMs work a draft?  That this is what GMs get paid to do?  One does not have to prove something so blindingly simple.

“Hey you guys aren’t gonna take Coleman if we trade back, right? I’ll take you at your word if you all say you won’t touch him” 
 

- Beane to all 31 other GMs, mid phone call with the Chiefs to trade back, in the mind of @oldmanfan

[Rampant Buffalo]

4 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The reality is he had the 28 pick, then traded back to the 32nd pick, then traded to the 33rd pick, to draft his “priority” weapon.

 

It doesn’t sound as convincing as the “he used his first pick on him!” take.

 

We don't know what the Bills' draft board looked like. It's possible they had the same or very similar grades on several WRs, with Coleman being one of them. If such was indeed the case, the right move is to do what they did. Trade back from 28 to 33. Take a guy at 33, who maybe had the same grade as anyone available at 28.

 

My guy was Ladd McConkey. McConkey went at 34. I personally don't mind the trade-back, but I wish they'd gone in a different direction at 33!

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

It’s crazy that Hard Knocks had so much footage of them loving Malik Nabers predraft that they released long after they drafted him. Talk about a lucky coincidence!

“Hey you guys aren’t gonna take Coleman if we trade back, right? I’ll take you at your word if you all say you won’t touch him” 
 

- Beane to all 31 other GMs, mid phone call with the Chiefs to trade back, in the mind of @oldmanfan

You think you’re smarter than Beane.  That is hilarious.

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

You think you’re smarter than Beane.  That is hilarious.

I don’t need to think that. I just know I’m smarter than you lol

[oldmanfan]

Just now, FireChans said:

I don’t need to think that. I just know I’m smarter than you lol

Neither of us are draft experts or we’d do it for a living.   I just really wonder why you and others are so damned determined to see the Bills fail.

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Rampant Buffalo said:

 

We don't know what the Bills' draft board looked like. It's possible they had the same or very similar grades on several WRs, with Coleman being one of them. If such was indeed the case, the right move is to do what they did. Trade back from 28 to 33. Take a guy at 33, who maybe had the same grade as anyone available at 28.

 

My guy was Ladd McConkey. McConkey went at 34. I personally don't mind the trade-back, but I wish they'd gone in a different direction at 33!

I think it's more than possible, it's very likely

 

I'm not arguing that it wasn't the right move, just that it shouldn't be held up as proof of this serious investment in offensive weapons

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, Rampant Buffalo said:

 

We don't know what the Bills' draft board looked like. It's possible they had the same or very similar grades on several WRs, with Coleman being one of them. If such was indeed the case, the right move is to do what they did. Trade back from 28 to 33. Take a guy at 33, who maybe had the same grade as anyone available at 28.

 

My guy was Ladd McConkey. McConkey went at 34. I personally don't mind the trade-back, but I wish they'd gone in a different direction at 33!

That’s all fine and a logical possibility. 
 

But then the “Coleman was our guy all along” propaganda is just that.

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Neither of us are draft experts or we’d do it for a living.   I just really wonder why you and others are so damned determined to see the Bills fail.

My posts have exactly 0.0% to do with if the Bills succeed or fail.
 

I enjoy discussing them at an intellectual level when it comes to teambullding and overarching strategy because it’s the most fun part of the off-season and you can learn a lot from other posters and exchange/debate ideas. 
 

I’ll be cheering for Coleman to be the best WR in NFL history every Sunday. 
 

But if that’s what you’re looking for from here, it’s not gonna happen. It’s no fun to say “Aw shucks I hope he’s great, Beane knows best.” Talk about absolutely ***** boring.

[Alphadawg7]

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

The reality is he had the 28 pick, then traded back to the 32nd pick, then traded to the 33rd pick, to draft his “priority” weapon.

 

It doesn’t sound as convincing as the “he used his first pick on him!” take.

 

This is now flip flopping the "priority" comment from prioritizing a position to now prioritizing a specific player.  

 

Whether or not you think Keon was "priority" enough or not is irrelevant to the comment made about the Bills prioritizing the position.  Now had Beane taken a DB or some other position and got Keon with his next pick, you would have a point.  But weighing how much he specifically prioritized Keon is a completely different topic.  

 

When a GM makes a small trade back they do so because they have multiple players they are good with taking and know at least one will still be there.  Beane verbatim even said this about his initial trade back from 28.  Then Beane said that they were set to take Keon at 32 but decided to call Carolina last minute to see if they move up one since it was no secret they wanted Legette.  This was confirmed on Embedded when they showed it unfolding.

 

So if you want to doubt how much of a priority Keon specifically was is one thing, to doubt that WR was a priority after Beane stated many times it was and then used his first pick in the draft on one is not accurate.  

[oldmanfan]

9 minutes ago, FireChans said:

That’s all fine and a logical possibility. 
 

But then the “Coleman was our guy all along” propaganda is just that.

My posts have exactly 0.0% to do with if the Bills succeed or fail.
 

I enjoy discussing them at an intellectual level when it comes to teambullding and overarching strategy because it’s the most fun part of the off-season and you can learn a lot from other posters and exchange/debate ideas. 
 

I’ll be cheering for Coleman to be the best WR in NFL history every Sunday. 
 

But if that’s what you’re looking for from here, it’s not gonna happen. It’s no fun to say “Aw shucks I hope he’s great, Beane knows best.” Talk about absolutely ***** boring.

Glad to hear

[FireChans]

5 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

This is now flip flopping the "priority" comment from prioritizing a position to now prioritizing a specific player.  

 

Whether or not you think Keon was "priority" enough or not is irrelevant to the comment made about the Bills prioritizing the position.  Now had Beane taken a DB or some other position and got Keon with his next pick, you would have a point.  But weighing how much he specifically prioritized Keon is a completely different topic.  

 

When a GM makes a small trade back they do so because they have multiple players they are good with taking and know at least one will still be there.  Beane verbatim even said this about his initial trade back from 28.  Then Beane said that they were set to take Keon at 32 but decided to call Carolina last minute to see if they move up one since it was no secret they wanted Legette.  This was confirmed on Embedded when they showed it unfolding.

 

So if you want to doubt how much of a priority Keon specifically was is one thing, to doubt that WR was a priority after Beane stated many times it was and then used his first pick in the draft on one is not accurate.  

Good point.  Actually. 

[Alphadawg7]

42 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Actually........FYI:

 

"He can actually play some inside...you know....I think position 1....you know......I think Joe would probably line him up outside as a standard X receiver on the outside".          

                                                                 -Brandon Beane press conf on 2nd round selection Keon Coleman

 

 

 

I didn't misread that as that was not was I was referring to nor was it even something I read, it was an interview I watched like I watch almost every Beane interview and press conference.

 

But I can't help but notice you once again deflected away from the main part of the post where you were asked to commit to something.  You said Samuels is probably WR1 while also saying you believe Shakir is putting up 900 yards.

 

So are you going to commit to Samuels putting up more than 900 yards given that for him to be WR1 he would have to at least top Shakir?  You are always so keen on people committing to takes, so here is your shot to commit to yours.  

[Doc]

49 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

And I'll point to the near certain likelihood that they film dozens of clips of Beane saying nice things about a lot of prospects, then edit it down to the ones we actually draft

 

Come on man those videos are cool but they're obvious propaganda

 

True, they can be.  But you can't fake a top-30 visit.  And IIRC, every top Bills draft pick came from a top-30 visit.

[HappyDays]

2 hours ago, Magox said:

If the Bills had picked Worthy with their original pick very few people would have complained and probably would have been somewhat satisfied with how the Bills addressed the Receiver spot in the draft.   But since they picked Coleman which wasn't rated as high on TBD and it was a trade back some of those same people now believe the Receiver spot was not sufficiently addressed.

 

I supported both the trade back and drafting Coleman. Exactly what happened was literally my dream scenario. Still I do not think WR was sufficiently addressed this offseason. In fact that's two years in a row that the Bills took my draft crush with their first pick. Still I wish they had done more.

 

For me the individual moves are secondary to the larger philosophy. My personal player preferences are just opinions. The idea that the Bills need to overinvest in pass catchers is, to me, a cold hard fact. I would have rather taken Worthy followed by Franklin than just Coleman alone, even though I liked Coleman better than both of those players, because the first scenario would have represented what I KNOW to be a necessary change in the teambuilding philosophy. Instead I fear this regime has learned nothing and is stubbornly continuing to prioritize the wrong positions.

[Rampant Buffalo]

6 minutes ago, FireChans said:

That’s all fine and a logical possibility. 
 

But then the “Coleman was our guy all along” propaganda is just that.

 

 

Well . . . not necessarily. Maybe Beane's thought process was the following:

 

If I stay at 28, my guy is Coleman. If I trade down from 28 to 33, I'm pretty sure Coleman will still be there. But let's say I'm wrong about that, and Coleman is gone. I've got some other WRs graded almost as highly as Coleman. If I trade down, my upside is guaranteed: I know I'm getting the extra picks. There probably won't be a downside: Coleman will probably still be there. But if there is a downside it will be small, because I'll be able to take some other WR with almost as good a grade as Coleman.

 

[YattaOkasan]

5 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

You see I would say that there is an abundance of data that tells us to expect these guys to underwhelm.

 

Samuel, entering year 8.   MVS year 7.   Claypool year 5.   KJ Hamler year 5.   Shakir year 3.   It's not like it's some young, unproven(one way or another) group that's 23 years of combined NFL experience.

 

They have A LOT of history that proves who they are.

 

As fo players getting a bump in production playing with Allen..........in reality that data isn't very encouraging either.    The lesser invested players have all failed to produce.    MVS,  Claypool and Hamler(who is kept together with popsicle sticks and gum at this point) are all dumpster dives.    It's not like they paid good money for productive players like Diggs, Brown and Beasley.    

 

Beasley entering year 8

diggs entering year 6

Brown entering year 6

these players had a LOT of history and they still proved they had more to show. 
 

what is your data to say playing with Allen doesn’t give a bump? 

 

correct they didn’t make big investments for the most part. However Samuel very much was an investment.  None of those players were considered world beaters when we signed them and we got good production out of them.