Bills Related Draft News & Discussion

[GunnerBill]

22 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Yeah he's not the type of WR I'm interested in to fill out our room. Either a pure outside separator or a vertical threat, ideally both. Burden is another slot YAC guy. Reminds me of Laviska Shenault coming out, or Treylon Burks. There's a narrow path to success for that archetype of WR.

 

In general I don't see any WRs that would excite me with our 1st round pick. None of the realistic options really fit what we need. I continue to believe it is a major position of need for our roster but I can't convince myself to fall in love with any of these guys. Even Matthew Golden, I like him but it feels like we'd have to pass on a potentially elite talent to reach for him at #30. At this point I'm in favor of best CB or best DL available at #30, and then take a WR with one of our 2nd round picks where the value matches up better.

 

I see a ton of Shenault on the Burden film. I don't like him as a route runner at all. His technique is sloppy, he displays a laziness at the top of his routes and while I know he timed well and he definitely has that initial burst and acceleration he doesn't seem to pull away from people at the top of the route. Maybe that is just the slightly lazy approach maybe it is a question about the longer speed but it does concern me if you want to use him outside in a more vertical sense. I think he is more talented than Shenault and I do think his ball tracking skills on deeper throws are special but I think he is a primarily slot / gadget guy who you don't tell to run routes you just tell to find space within 10-15 yards of the line and then get him the ball in his hand and ask him to make magic happen. It's kinda how the Bills use Shakir... although again, to be clear, I think Burden has a higher ceiling than someone like Shakir. 

Edited Thursday at 05:59 PM by GunnerBill

[nosejob]

12 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

While all options I am sure are on the table, I do think we are more likely to stay at 30 or even move up than we are to trade down.  

1. We don't have nearly as much turnover and holes to fill this year...so we are not coming in "needing" more picks.  
2. This team isn't in a mini retool like last year.  We were on the door step of a SB in 2024 with the league MVP.  This is about getting over the hump this year, where last year we were in more of a transition year away with more turnover due to age and cap.  
3. While we don't have our 3rd again like last year, we do have 2 seconds and 2 4ths as well as 3 5ths.  Beane has plenty of ammo, recouping our 3rd isn't important or a need like last year was, especially having 3 picks still in the first 2 rounds.
4. With have tons of ammo in rounds 4-6 to use to move back into round 3 if they really want a pick there as opposed to moving down in an earlier round to get one.

To be fair, if there isn't a guy they covet at 30, or if there is several they would take, then a move back is still in play.  I just think there will be at least one from DL, DB, or WR groups that will be on the board at 30 that would be worth the pick personally (if not a move up for), so I think staying put or trading up feels more likely this year.  

We need to hit on those 1st 4 picks...hopefully 5. We can't throw 2 4s and 2 5s at the no 3rd round problem. It just doesn't make sense. Have some nads and take that 2026 1st...pick 31/32 and make hay now.  I've said this in other threads, but there's teams with 2 2nds and 2 3rds.  With that trade we can move up in 2 and gain a 3. (Throw in 132 or 170 whatever).  Pick 30 / 2  2nds / mid 3rd and 109 all can, and need to be hits.

Edited Thursday at 05:11 PM by nosejob

[SoonerBillsFan]

Its a draft where we don't need quantity, we need quality, and dang good quality to boot.

[nosejob]

25 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

Its a draft where we don't need quantity, we need quality, and dang good quality to boot.

Yep Trade with Seattle. 2026 1st. They get 2026 1st / no. 62 and 132.  Bills go from 62 to 52 and pick up 82 or 92.  Seahawks still have 50/62 and 1 3rd as well as 2 1sts for 2026 after a year of Darnold without Kevin O'Connell....ok Jefferson and Addison. Win / Win

Edited Thursday at 05:41 PM by nosejob

[SoonerBillsFan]

20 minutes ago, nosejob said:

Yep Trade with Seattle. 2026 1st. They get 2026 1st / no. 62 and 132.  Bills go from 62 to 52 and pick up 82 or 92.  Seahawks still have 50/62 and 1 3rd as well as 2 1sts for 2026 after a year of Darnold without Kevin O'Connell....ok Jefferson and Addison. Win / Win

All these 5ths and 6ths need to go.

[nosejob]

2 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

All these 5ths and 6ths need to go.

They won't get us a 3rd and it would be nuts for one pick. Those picks are perfect for finding gems and building for the future. Best pick last year will end up being Solomon.

We need to hit this year. DT  / EDGE /CB /Safety  /WR    5 picks we can put on the 53. I believe it can be done.

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

And I wasn't refuting that 1 trick guys in college more often don't become more than that in the NFL.  My main point is that all players are not equal.  You have to watch the film, understand how he was used, look at the traits where he is raw at and see if the potential to improve in those areas are there.  DK tested incredibly poor in short area agility, this was the concern about him at the next level, could he separate anywhere other than vertical routes.  That is not the concern with Thornton, and its an incorrect comparison for those who keep using DK as the example.  

 

Thornton isn't coming from that same physical limitation.  Watch the video I posted, he shows athletic ability in all areas of the field, not just straight line vertical speed.  His tape looks like a guy who was used a certain way and is raw in some others where he can be coached up to be more than just a 1 trick guy.  This is very different than DK and reminds me a lot more of BTJ where BTJ also had concerns about whether he could be a true WR1 or just vertical specialist.  I am not saying he grades the same as BTJ, saying that he compares more in style to BTJ than DK. 

 

FWIW Alpha I am not just generalizing. As you know I am very much in favor of adding WR talent. To the point that when I evaluate a WR prospect I am looking for reasons to fall in love with them. Especially WRs with vertical traits which to me remains a huge need. This draft class unfortunately is very limited in that regard. The only vertical WR I've somewhat fallen in love with is Kyle Williams so that's who I'd be targeting on day three.

 

Thornton is one that I looked at because of his vertical traits and I'm just not that impressed. I even went back and watched the video you posted on page 3. To me all I see is a guy that can run straight past college CBs because he is bigger and faster than them. That advantage won't exist at the NFL level. Sure he can run some hitches and comebacks against off coverage in a college offense designed to scheme those routes open, but that doesn't mean he is actually versatile. Metcalf did test very poorly in the agility drills. The thing is that Thornton didn't even run them... and for good reason I'm sure. To me he is a pure straight liner and he isn't a special enough athlete to compensate for that lack of twitch, like Metcalf was/is. His size/speed combo is very good but it's not truly elite. His vertical jump was below average. He is a great college athlete but nothing NFL CBs are going to have difficulty handling since they won't really have to worry about covering a diverse route tree.

 

And before we start throwing around comparisons to Metcalf and BTJ, let's acknowledge that Thornton is not close to that caliber of prospect. The consensus mock draft database has him in the 6th round... I know the consensus mock draft is not gospel but that tells you something. If he becomes even Marquez Valdes-Scantling at the next level that will be considered a positive outcome. So if we want to draft him on late day three with the intention of stashing him on the PS I'm fine with that but I'm not expecting much.

[GunnerBill]

25 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

All these 5ths and 6ths need to go.

 

I think the best use of them is if there sre prospects there we really like to trade up from our spots in round 4. Earlier than that they are next to useless as trade capital. 

 

But using say #169 and #177 gets us from #109 in the early 4th to say #96 at the enr of the 3rd. And then #173 can turn #132 at the end of the 4th into about #116 in the mid 4th. 

 

And the Bills would still have their own 5th and 6th rounders. So you'd end up with

 

Own 1st

Two late 2nds

One late 3rd

One mid 4th

One late 5th

One late 6th

 

Seven picks but two 2nds and no 7th. And 5 picks in the top 120 of the draft. Something like that is, I think, both realistic and attractive.

 

Edited Thursday at 06:12 PM by GunnerBill

[nosejob]

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

FWIW Alpha I am not just generalizing. As you know I am very much in favor of adding WR talent. To the point that when I evaluate a WR prospect I am looking for reasons to fall in love with them. Especially WRs with vertical traits which to me remains a huge need. This draft class unfortunately is very limited in that regard. The only vertical WR I've somewhat fallen in love with is Kyle Williams so that's who I'd be targeting on day three.

 

Thornton is one that I looked at because of his vertical traits and I'm just not that impressed. I even went back and watched the video you posted on page 3. To me all I see is a guy that can run straight past college CBs because he is bigger and faster than them. That advantage won't exist at the NFL level. Sure he can run some hitches and comebacks against off coverage in a college offense designed to scheme those routes open, but that doesn't mean he is actually versatile. Metcalf did test very poorly in the agility drills. The thing is that Thornton didn't even run them... and for good reason I'm sure. To me he is a pure straight liner and he isn't a special enough athlete to compensate for that lack of twitch, like Metcalf was/is. His size/speed combo is very good but it's not truly elite. His vertical jump was below average. He is a great college athlete but nothing NFL CBs are going to have difficulty handling since they won't really have to worry about covering a diverse route tree.

 

And before we start throwing around comparisons to Metcalf and BTJ, let's acknowledge that Thornton is not close to that caliber of prospect. The consensus mock draft database has him in the 6th round... I know the consensus mock draft is not gospel but that tells you something. If he becomes even Marquez Valdes-Scantling at the next level that will be considered a positive outcome. So if we want to draft him on late day three with the intention of stashing him on the PS I'm fine with that but I'm not expecting much.

Well, I can't argue. Look at Franklin last year and where he went.

[Allen2Moulds]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

 

I don't think DK has ever actually dispelled those concerns. He IS a one trick pony. Has been his entire NFL career. He is just elite at that trick and so it hasn't mattered. His success rate on anything other than go routes, post routes and crossers - i.e. routes that require very little change of direction and no short area quickness - is way below average. 

 

I think @HappyDays is right to say the number of profiles of that type who succeed is relatively small compared to the ones that fail. I think if you crunched the numbers that would be true, even compared to general success / fail rates. 

 

On Thornton particularly.... I haven't really done any kind of deep dive on him as yet, so I don't have a super strong position to speak from. I do think the speed and size is a bit leading to swoony eyes at this stage. He looks pretty raw, but as I say I need to properly get into his film still.

SOLD!

[gonzo1105]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think the best use of them is if there sre prospects there we really like to trade up from our spots in round 4. Earlier than that they are next to useless as trade capital. 

 

But using say #169 and #177 gets us from #109 in the early 4th to say #96 at the enr of the 3rd. And then #173 can turn #132 at the end of the 4th into about #116 in the mid 4th. 

 

And the Bills would still have their own 5th and 6th rounders. So you'd end up with

 

Own 1st

Two late 2nds

One late 3rd

One mid 4th

One late 5th

One late 6th

 

Seven picks but two 2nds and no 7th. And 5 picks in the top 120 of the draft. 

 

I know this is you just responding. A lot of people thought we weren’t going to keep the vast  majority of our picks last year and if we did they wouldn’t make the team. This was echoed by a lot of posters last year and we drafted 10 guys and all 10 guys are still in Buffalo in some capacity. 
 

Everyone thinks that we are not going to do it again, and maybe we don’t take 10 but it wouldn’t surprise me if we keep 8-9 players again. With the tight salary cap, aging roster, and our ability to develop late round talent into at least depth players I see us continuing to get younger and cheaper especially with the ability to get out of a bunch of high level contracts in 2026

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, gonzo1105 said:

I know this is you just responding. A lot of people thought we weren’t going to keep the vast  majority of our picks last year and if we did they wouldn’t make the team. This was echoed by a lot of posters last year and we drafted 10 guys and all 10 guys are still in Buffalo in some capacity. 
 

Everyone thinks that we are not going to do it again, and maybe we don’t take 10 but it wouldn’t surprise me if we keep 8-9 players again. With the tight salary cap, aging roster, and our ability to develop late round talent into at least depth players I see us continuing to get younger and cheaper especially with the ability to get out of a bunch of high level contracts in 2026

 

Yea, it is possible. I do think there were more potentially open spots last year in fairness. But it is fair to say the Bills haven't generally been big move uppers later in drafts under this regime. Their MO has more been up early, back late if anything.

[boyst]

41 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea, it is possible. I do think there were more potentially open spots last year in fairness. But it is fair to say the Bills haven't generally been big move uppers later in drafts under this regime. Their MO has more been up early, back late if anything.

On the starting lineup last year into the season I think there were less questions, with all due respect. We had two corners, two safeties, 3 linebackers, and a bunch of DL. On offense we had questions on the line but experience. We had weakness on the WR unit but experience. The QB, RB, and TE were the same.

 

We are down on the corners and DL depth.

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, boyst said:

On the starting lineup last year into the season I think there were less questions, with all due respect. We had two corners, two safeties, 3 linebackers, and a bunch of DL. On offense we had questions on the line but experience. We had weakness on the WR unit but experience. The QB, RB, and TE were the same.

 

We are down on the corners and DL depth.

 

I don't think we did have two safeties, did we? I went into last year's dradt thinking we had zero safeties. We had about the same depth at defensive tackle, possibly a bit more at edge but a big question mark over who would start opposite Groot and how much they'd get out of Von in a rotational role. Then from a depth perspective I'd put Hamlin's job and Ingram's job and the OL backups as a lot more secure for the 53 now than they felt a year ago. Likewise there was definitely one running back job up for play going into the 2024 draft. 

 

Going in this year I feel like there is possibly a tight end job, a receiver job, a couple of corner jobs, a safety job and possibly two defensive line. Oh and a punter. In terms of the easiest places for rookies to make the team its there.

[BuffaloBillyG]

Very interesting....

[Warriorspikes51]

17 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

Very interesting....

would be quite surprising if we went WR Bond at 30!  

[BuffaloBillyG]

3 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

would be quite surprising if we went WR Bond at 30!  

It would. Maybe he's in the "Keon Coleman" package of this year's draft for the Bills where a slight trade back and they would pull the trigger top of second round? Or package the 2 2nds and jump up if he's there? I still think high second would be a bit rich for him, but if they are desperate enough....

[SoonerBillsFan]

25 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

would be quite surprising if we went WR Bond at 30!  

He won't make it to 30 at this rate.

[Aussie Joe]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think the best use of them is if there sre prospects there we really like to trade up from our spots in round 4. Earlier than that they are next to useless as trade capital. 

 

But using say #169 and #177 gets us from #109 in the early 4th to say #96 at the enr of the 3rd. And then #173 can turn #132 at the end of the 4th into about #116 in the mid 4th. 

 

And the Bills would still have their own 5th and 6th rounders. So you'd end up with

 

Own 1st

Two late 2nds

One late 3rd

One mid 4th

One late 5th

One late 6th

 

Seven picks but two 2nds and no 7th. And 5 picks in the top 120 of the draft. Something like that is, I think, both realistic and attractive.

 

This is both a realistic and highly possible strategy …. I see no chance that Beane patiently sits there from 62 to 109 twiddling his thumbs ..its  highly probable he moves up into the third …

 

Another possibility is a trade up in the second 10 spots or so in return for a move back from second to third with the other second round pick…maybe they do this to make sure they secure a CB they want in the second …

[gonzo1105]

5 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:

This is both a realistic and highly possible strategy …. I see no chance that Beane patiently sits there from 62 to 109 twiddling his thumbs ..its  highly probable he moves up into the third …

 

Another possibility is a trade up in the second 10 spots or so in return for a move back from second to third with the other second round pick…maybe they do this to make sure they secure a CB they want in the second …

I think your scenario # 2 is more spot on.  I think they stick at 30 , stick at 56 unless there is a player they really want to trade up for and move down from 62 into the 3rd and then start using those back end picks if they so desire to move around