UPDATE: DK Metcalf requests trade to a contender

[Process]

At least a third for DK? I thought we were looking at a first and maybe more. If we can get him for one of our 2nds it's a no brainier. 

[Maynard]

Screw the Seahawks, they owe us,

[jahnyc]

I would trade Coleman for Metcalf.  Our WRs would be Metcalf, Samuel and Shakir.  I would re-sign Hollins and draft a WR in the late rounds.

[Warriorspikes51]

2 minutes ago, jahnyc said:

I would trade Coleman for Metcalf.  Our WRs would be Metcalf, Samuel and Shakir.  I would re-sign Hollins and draft a WR in the late rounds.

it seems like we may not need to include a player 

[KOKBILLS]

Just a question... I'm curious...

 

Would y'all do Coleman, a 2nd and Ryan Van Demark if that's what it took?...

[Warriorspikes51]

1 minute ago, KOKBILLS said:

Just a question... I'm curious...

 

Would y'all do Coleman, a 2nd and Ryan Van Demark if that's what it took?...

would.  But, I’d trade Kincaid before Coleman if given a choice

[jahnyc]

Understood, but do we need Coleman if we trade for Metcalf?  Overall, would it be better to trade Coleman and use the draft pick or draft picks that would have been part of a trade for Metcalf on defense (in a strong draft for D-line, probably our biggest need)? 

[KOKBILLS]

2 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

would.  But, I’d trade Kincaid before Coleman if given a choice

 

I was just assuming they would want Coleman back, but it would be interesting to know who they would prefer of the two... I wonder how many snaps would be left for Keon though? Especially if they resign Mack. 

[Warriorspikes51]

1 minute ago, KOKBILLS said:

 

I was just assuming they would want Coleman back, but it would be interesting to know who they would prefer of the two... I wonder how many snaps would be left for Keon though? Especially if they resign Mack. 

DK

Shakir

 

Coleman

Hollins

Samuel

 

enough snaps IMO

Edited 8 hours ago by Warriorspikes51

[Buffalo Ballin]

4th rounder for this dude.

 

Sure, he's 27. He's explosive. But he's gonna be demanding a huge payday coming in.

[That's No Moon]

18 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

would.  But, I’d trade Kincaid before Coleman if given a choice

What would we do without Coleman's 3 catches for 22 yards in the playoffs? He had 8 whole targets.

[Big Blitz]

Add DK to this offense as is we would be ridiculous.  
 

Instantly the best O in the league. 
 

I think there is a significantly better chance of landing DK than Garrett.  
 

 

With these guys, it’s ultimately their call.  

 

He has to want to come to Buffalo.  
 

This is why keeping Von around as a  

recruiter is a big deal.  There are no other names on this team outside of Allen with the pull and influence he has.   

[Gambit]

16 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

What would we do without Coleman's 3 catches for 22 yards in the playoffs? He had 8 whole targets.

He was also a rookie. It's insane to think he can't possibly improve.

[Richard Noggin]

1 hour ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Get Metcalf!!!....Crosby is off the table.. Garrett is a real long shot, and looks to be delayed until June.

 

It sounds like a 2nd would get it done, do it now - quickly get it done.  Throw in Elam if they want him.

 

Get Metcalf...re-sign Hollins...re-sign Ty....have Cook play out his contract (but draft an RB for backup)...and that is it for offense for 2025!

 

How does the team "have Cook play out his contract" (emphasis mine) when it's not exactly up to the team? Or are you just listing hopeful outcomes that would help the offense be the same/better in 2025? 

 

I don't really think Cook would hold out an entire season (or even many/any regular season games) without a new deal, but I do get the sense he'd either hold out or even hold IN for all of training camp and pre-season. Strikes me as a guy focused solely on maximizing his one big NFL contract (and difficult to fault him for that, if we remove our fandom of the Bills and football in general from the equation and just see it from his perspective). 

[That's No Moon]

3 minutes ago, Gambit said:

He was also a rookie. It's insane to think he can't possibly improve.

not many guys get faster. I'd trade him right now if someone offered us something of value.  Kinkaid too. That's another waste of a pick.

[Doc Brown]

37 minutes ago, Buffalo Ballin said:

4th rounder for this dude.

 

Sure, he's 27. He's explosive. But he's gonna be demanding a huge payday coming in.

He's worth it.  His presence would have a 2020 Diggs like impact where Josh had his "breakout" and best statistical season.  An outside WR with his speed, height, and weight is rare and opens everything else up.  Seahawks offense was pathetic last year the couple of games he was out.

[GASabresIUFan]

2 hours ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

we had Diggs with a 31 million cap hit this year so….

 

pretty sure that wont be an issue

 

2 hours ago, Aussie Joe said:

Why can’t it ?

We ate 31 mill in dead cap just to get rid of the locker- room cancer named Diggs and the team was better for it.

 

As to Metcalf, who I really like, spending 27 mill on a WR does not work in our current cap structure when you have very limited cap space (-12 mill right now), 12-15 roster spots to fill, key internal FAs to re-sign like Ty Johnson and Hollins, and a need to upgrade DE, DT, S and CB in addition to WR.  Even if Beane is able to manipulate current contracts to create 35 mill in cap space, using up 27 mill on Metcalf still doesn't work.  There just isn't enough money to acquire and pay Metcalf and fix the other roster holes.

 

Does that make it clearer?  Truthfully we can get much of Metcalf's production out of a good rookie and or with a lower cost FA like Slayton or Brown or Moore.  

 

Lets also be realistic.  It's our defense that cost us the last two years in the playoffs.  Allocating our limited resources there makes infinitely more sense then spending wastefully on a luxury WR.  

 

PS: Beane just investment 15 mill per season in Shakir, is still on the hook for Samuel and has Hollins to re-sign.  I doubt he drops another big contract at WR given our other needs.

Edited 7 hours ago by GASabresIUFan

[Cash]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

He isn't a lost cause. But if he needs to be part of the package to get me DK he is disposable.

Agree with both of these statements. I think Kincaid’s best football is ahead of him. But Knox getting more PT wouldn’t be a problem in and of itself, and Z. Richardson might benefit from a real opportunity. 
 

Given age and contract, I wouldn’t expect to throw much more into the trade if I was the Bills. Kincaid has to be worth about a 2nd rounder right now IMO. And I don’t think Metcalf is worth a 1st rounder. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Cash

[GASabresIUFan]

@Warriorspikes51 Disagree with me all you want, but show me the math how Beane accommodates a new deal for Metcalf while retaining our key internal FAs and finding upgrades at DE, DT, CB and S filling out 12-15 other roster spots.  

 

Right now our cap space is -10 mill according to Spotrac.  The best articles I've seen show a reasonable way for Beane to get to 35 million in cap room.   Show us how you make the money work.

[Aussie Joe]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFan said:

 

We ate 31 mill in dead cap just to get rid of the locker- room cancer named Diggs and the team was better for it.

 

As to Metcalf, who I really like, spending 27 mill on a WR does not work in our current cap structure when you have very limited cap space (-12 mill right now), 12-15 roster spots to fill, key internal FAs to re-sign like Ty Johnson and Hollins, and a need to upgrade DE, DT, S and CB in addition to WR.  Even if Beane is able to manipulate current contracts to create 35 mill in cap space, using up 27 mill on Metcalf still doesn't work.  There just isn't enough money to acquire and pay Metcalf and fix the other roster holes.

 

Does that make it clearer?  Truthfully we can get much of Metcalf's production out of a good rookie and or with a lower cost FA like Slayton or Brown or Moore.  

 

Lets also be realistic.  It's our defense that cost us the last two years in the playoffs.  Allocating our limited resources there makes infinitely more sense then spending wastefully on a luxury WR.  

 

PS: Beane just investment 15 mill per season in Shakir, is still on the hook for Samuel and has Hollins to re-sign.  I doubt he drops another big contract at WR given our other needs.

I’m all for investment in the D…..as well as Metcalf …

 

I don’t understand the reference to Diggs in relation to possibly acquiring Metcalf?

 

You can’t sit here now and say with any degree of certainty that they will get the same production from a rookie…feel free to use the one they picked last year as a comparison…

 

Nothing you have said above prevents them making this move should they choose …

Hypothetically…Metcalf will not be costing $27mil against the cap in 2025 if he is acquired …it will probably be about  a quarter of that after  the new contract extension  is factored in  and a void year or two if needed ,,,leaving room for other moves to be made …

 

Josh Allen will never be better for the rest of his career than in 2025 … Im fully excepting Beane to make a splash move of this magnitude…if not this specific one …the future is now friend …

 

PS - they are paying Shakir $31m over the next three years and he can be released then with minimal dead cap …that contract won’t have a lot of bearing  on what they decided to do with Metcalf ..

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Aussie Joe