Bills 28th in draft capital spent on WR’s since 2020

[BuffaloBillyG]

Should mix Kincaid in there, but he's not a WR.

 

Bills (mis)used their first pick in each of the last 2 drafts on pass catchers. 

[MasterStrategist]

2 hours ago, DJB said:

 

Look at 26-32....there are some really good WR rooms on that list (or were in Rams case).

 

Point being, you can still build a very good WR room by hitting on draft picks in mid rounds.

[Maine-iac]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Giants once.

Bengals twice

Broncos once

Jets zero

Chargers twice

 

Obviously the issue with the Jets, Broncos, Giants is the QB spot.  So your point gets lost immediately here...

 

 

 

Not including Rogers who is probably a future hall of famer, 2 out of the 3 teams you are using here had a QB that made the playoffs this year with another team.  So as you would say your point gets lost immediately here ........

[Malazan]

1 hour ago, Mikie2times said:

This board is funny right? I mean, Buffalo can barely get past the divisional round and we theorize we are just a play or two away from a Super Bowl title. Yet the 2nd leading scoring team in NFL history wouldn't have been better off with Randy Moss because they lost one game all year by 3 points?

 

By all means, explain that one to me. 

 

Ahh, the classic moving the goalposts. Another staple of a sound mind.

[Mikie2times]

22 minutes ago, Malazan said:

 

Ahh, the classic moving the goalposts. Another staple of a sound mind.

Sorry if I got in the way of your run it back celebration. I understand anything past “we are really close” is a challenging thing for some to consider 

[Malazan]

3 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

Sorry if I got in the way of your run it back celebration. I understand anything past “we are really close” is a challenging thing for some to consider 

 

Not a thing I said or even intimated, but another classic of trying to setup a strawman to argue against. You're a gem.

[ProcessTruster]

3 hours ago, MJS said:

Does the Diggs 1st rounder count?

 

Also, considering many of those teams in the top 10 suck, is this indicative of success do you think?

nope

[Mikie2times]

10 minutes ago, Malazan said:

 

Not a thing I said or even intimated, but another classic of trying to setup a strawman to argue against. You're a gem.

Am I play or two away from being a diamond? 

[Kirby Jackson]

Many of us have been screaming to get more help for Josh. Don’t make him overcome a lack of weapons. Let those weapons be an accelerant to the best player in franchise history. If the Bills, god forbid, don’t win one with Josh Allen, this will be a WAY bigger deal in hindsight. It will be viewed as malpractice. 
 

If they are to win, it’ll be BECAUSE of Josh Allen. Priority number 1 should be, “get him whatever the hell he wants/needs to be the best version of himself.” Everything else comes after that. Other teams are built differently. The Bills are perennially contenders because of a bad division and Josh Allen. There are no other reasons. They have okay coaching. They have had pretty solid defenses. They’ve had average to below average skill players and an above average OL. They’ve won 5 straight division titles because of Allen. They are doing it without all pros and pro bowlers. They are doing it without guys that are top 5 at their positions. 

Edited Tuesday at 01:02 AM by Kirby Jackson

[FireChans]

9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Many of us have been screaming to get more help for Josh. Don’t make him overcome a lack of weapons. Let’s those weapons be an accelerant to the best player in franchise history. If the Bills, god forbid, don’t win one with Josh Allen, this will be a WAY bigger deal in hindsight. It will be viewed as malpractice. 
 

If they are to win, it’ll be BECAUSE of Josh Allen. Priority number 1 should be, “get him whatever the hell he wants/needs to be the best version of himself.” Everything else comes after that. Other teams are built differently. The Bills are perennially contenders because of a bad division and Josh Allen. There are no other reasons. They have play coaching. They have had pretty solid defenses. They’ve had average to below average skill players and an above average OL. They’ve won 5 straight division titles because of Allen. They are doing it without all pros and pro bowlers. They are doing it without guys that are top 5 at their positions. 

What’s more impressive or annoying, is that I think since 2020 the Bills are probably one of the highest in investing in running backs for draft capital.

 

3rd, 4th and 2nd is quite a bit for RBs.

It’s a bit of a wire cross for Beane and co. Too much on RB’s, not enough on WR’s. Only one of those position groups is going through a historic contract boom where cheap talent is outrageously valuable. 

[RyanC883]

3 hours ago, Maine-iac said:

Yet here we are in the playoffs every year and a top team in scoring as well.  Top 5 on that list have how many playoff visits out of 25 chances?

 

and 2, 8, and 14 have made and/or won SBs in that timeframe.  

3 hours ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

Guys I get it,and there is still 1 WR spot that really needs filled.  That's said, we have to hit big time on Defense this draft.

 

I agree, but needing to hit on the D is getting old, as is needing a WR1.  

[Mikie2times]

25 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

and 2, 8, and 14 have made and/or won SBs in that timeframe.  

 

I agree, but needing to hit on the D is getting old, as is needing a WR1.  

As perennial AFC East champions, I agree 

[billsfan89]

3 hours ago, TheWeatherMan said:

But…but…but Beane gives Josh everything he needs, it’s all a lie that it’s all Josh.

Bills do have a top 5 offensive line and a good RB core. To act like they are devoid of offensive talent outside of Josh is just inaccurate 

[DJB]

19 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

Bills do have a top 5 offensive line and a good RB core. To act like they are devoid of offensive talent outside of Josh is just inaccurate 

If we had a true #1 young elite WR nobody would complain 

 

But right now we have a 2, three #3 WR’s and two average TE’s

 

Thats it 

[billsfan89]

35 minutes ago, DJB said:

If we had a true #1 young elite WR nobody would complain 

 

But right now we have a 2, three #3 WR’s and two average TE’s

 

Thats it 

There’s a big gap between the team could use a big piece vs there’s no talent besides Josh is all I am saying.

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, MJS said:

Does the Diggs 1st rounder count?

 

Also, considering many of those teams in the top 10 suck, is this indicative of success do you think?

 

 

Cha-ching!!!

 

This!!

 

 

7 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Giants once.

Bengals twice

Broncos once

Jets zero

Chargers twice

 

Obviously the issue with the Jets, Broncos, Giants is the QB spot.  So your point gets lost immediately here...

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, just the opposite.

 

It's largely teams without a real QB, and perhaps a clue as well, who spend the most draft capital on WRs.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:58 AM by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

I don't think using Allens talent to subsidize the rest of this roster is any sort of proof we did things the right way. But you do you.   

I would think think draft capitol is inversely correlated to wins. Worse teams have more capital. 

 

 

There isn't a team in history that had a great QB who didn't do their absolute best to use that guy's talent to subsidize the rest of the roster. 

 

Hell, there isn't a team in history that has had any terrific players who didn't do their best to use that guy to subsidize the rest of the team.

 

As a coach or GM, that's your duty when you get a great player.

 

As for your argument on draft capitol, that's only so if you count the  #1 pick as higher than the #2 pick, and so on. I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly, but it's the best guess) that Sharp, wanting to compare how much emphasis each team put on WR in the draft rather than how much value each team's picks had, probably valued all first round picks the same, all seconds the same, and so on.

 

In that case, worse teams do not have more capitol, unless they traded for it, got comp picks, etc. Which would make it much clearer, by the way, how much teams spent on WRs compared to other teams in the draft.

 

I don't know Sharp's methodology, but taking pick order out of the equation would make it much less murky how much they valued WR over other positions. If you're a member of his site or just had info on his method, let us know. That'd be really useful info.

[FireChans]

12 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

As for your argument on draft capitol, that's only so if you count the  #1 pick as higher than the #2 pick, and so on. I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly, but it's the best guess) that Sharp, wanting to compare how much emphasis each team put on WR in the draft rather than how much value each team's picks had, probably valued all first round picks the same, all seconds the same, and so on

Sharp makes it very unclear

 

But just from bar napkin math, the Vikings have drafted 2 WR’s in the first round alone but they are only middle of the pack. In addition, they have a fifth, fifth and sixth.
 

now off the top of my head, from a draft pick valuation standpoint, that should probably be among the highest valued.

 

For the Bengals, they have a second, a first, a fourth, a sixth and a third.

 

The Giants have a first, a third, a third, and a first.

 

I am suspicious that this list is truly kind of nonsense.

Edited Tuesday at 05:42 AM by FireChans

[Thurman#1]

10 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

 

3 years prior to 2007 New England finished with a top 10 offense 3 consecutive years and won a Super Bowl (in addition to getting booted in the divisional and Championship rounds). It was common at that time to think Brady really didn't need elite weapons, I mean they won a Super Bowl and went deep the other two years. That offseason they landed Moss. As we know, they didn't win the Super Bowl, but had they had a guy like Randy the whole time, they probably would have 3-4 more rings easy. That offense was the best of all time. So when we say, geez, this offense is already #1, what else do we need? Well, look at how Moss elevated that Patriots offense  

 

 

 

Elevating an offense isn't the goal. This is what many people get wrong. ELEVATING THE TEAM is the goal.

 

In Moss' three years with the Pats, their offense was better.

 

But the team? 

 

Last Mossless year - 12-4 lost AFC championship

1st year with Moss - 16-0 lost Super Bowl 

2nd year with Moss - 11-5 no playoffs (the Cassel year)

3rd year with Moss - 10-6 lost Wild Card game

1st year after Moss - 14-2 lost Division Game

 

For the Pats during the Brady/Belichick years, that's not a particularly fruitful three year period. Certainly was a terrific first year, we have to give them that. But you have to throw in all three years Moss was with them.

 

No championships. One Super Bowl loss, one year losing the Wild Card Game and another with no playoffs. The Cassel year helps explain that second year. But what about the 3rd, when they lost he Wild Card Game and had a 10-6 record with Brady and Moss?

 

In any case, the Pats got Moss for a 4th round pick. If we have a chance to get a #1 WR for a 4th rounder, I would support it 1000%. The question is more about the draft, I think, than trades or FAs, 

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:21 AM by Thurman#1

[Doc Brown]

9 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Before last draft we were tied 32nd.

I thought it was 31st.  It would be interesting if he included Diggs as a first rounder where we would land.

Edited Tuesday at 06:55 AM by Doc Brown