TSW 1.0 Poll - Who should the Bills select at #62?

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

So Bond has off field allegations too?

 

 

I don't think specific allegations so much as personality questions. Been likened to Jermaine Burton by some. 

[DJB]

Im taking Judkins. 
 

3 down back with upside and he’s the clear best player on the board.

 

If we are going to replace Cook this is the RB draft to do it as it’s talented and had depth. Any other year and Judkins is a top of the 2nd type prospect 

[BobbyC81]

9 hours ago, BigAl2526 said:

I voted Jordan Burch.  His production doesn't always match his traits which are first round caliber.  The Bills will have to judge if he can be coached up.  The productivity seems to be due more to technique than effort.  It is the end of the second round.  You're not getting a flawless prospect here.  I declined on the DTs.  All are undersized for 1 tech, just more of what Buffalo has already.  What they lack is a big bodied dude who is not over the hill and can be relied on to improve run defense as well as free up the 3 techs to create havoc.  Another offensive tackle or double up on safety?  Give me a break.  Not interested in a guard before round 6.  I wouldn't mind Bond or Royals.

No, we don’t want a project.  We want a stud who can help right away.

[OldTimer1960]

8 hours ago, BuffaloBillsGospel2014 said:

This is what happens when you draft for need but I'd go Burch here and it's not really close.

Aren’t you arguing that drafting a CB first for need means they won’t get a DT that they need?

8 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

I'd rather wait on West than take Farmer at 62. The DTs that should go in the second are gone. 

Might not have a chance to get West or even Caldwell a round and a half from here.

[Ralonzo]

7 hours ago, KOKBILLS said:

I get that folks are getting hung up on needs. And the Bills do have needs at DT. But if the board falls like this you can steal one of these WR's who are flat out better prospects IMHO than a guy like Farmer who I see as more of a late 3rd - early 4th DT... I really think folks are sleeping on some of these WR's... This may not be a top heavy WR class but it's DEEP in the 2nd tier. My personal preference for the Bills specifically has been Dont'e Thornton... But if I'm going to follow my board I have to take Royals or Noel here... Both would top off this Bills WR room in a big way. 

 

Hah, that's about where I'm at. But my preference for roster building with the Bills is to look for a WR5 with upside to WR1 or WR2 - kind of what they thought Shorter was, but wasn't. The 2nd round is a bit much for that unless you have a place to play him this year or he's just so clearly BPA you'll take him and fit him somewhere. But the two guys I'm zeroed in for that are Thornton as you mentioned and my Senior Bowl crush Isaac Teslaa. But both are reaches here.

 

I don't think it's so much drafting for need as drafting where they can compete for a roster spot and despite the Bills being within a window now, you have to take swings at high-ceiling guys too because the other thing (of about 800) TSW complains about is the Bills not having difference-makers. So out of the available options I think that's Burch because there's no double-team eating 1T's on this list and he's a huge edge that unlike Ivey can actually run. If he pans out then you're done with AJE after this year and you've upgraded that position.

 

That said, after drafting Amos and Watts, the Bills can draft for competition at: DT 1T, EDGE, LB, WR, RB and with the later picks go for high upside development prospects to stash on the PS.

[OldTimer1960]

Bond worries me both in terms of the character rumors and that he was ineffective late season and in the playoffs, but I understand that he had a bad ankle.  The team does need speed and he has that (and quickness as well).  I would have much rather taken help for the defense, but I don’t see much left there.  
 

i know nobody wants a RB, but Judkins would bring a power element and ability to grind out yards/close out games that would help the defense by keeping them off the field.

[frostbitmic]

Deone Walker - DT - Kentucky is my vote.

[Virgil]

First round of cuts have been made.  

[BuffaloBillyG]

I went Bond. Isaiah Bond. 

 

Rumors nod character concerns this time of year always come up. As well as the ever popular "does he really love football" narrative. Pish posh. I view these as things put out by GMs hoping to get certain guys to slip down the board in many circumstances. 

 

I've never been in a meeting with Bond so I can't attest to his attitude. And even if he is a bit of a temperamental guy, we definitely have the locker room to absorb one or two of these guys. We did with Diggs. Our QB is a polarizing Golden Lab who I think can help get anyone a bit more positive.

 

The talent is there and he adds a speed element that just isn't there. If Bond is there at this pick based on skill set and film, this is almost a no brainier pick IMO. 

[Ralonzo]

33 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Aren’t you arguing that drafting a CB first for need means they won’t get a DT that they need?

Might not have a chance to get West or even Caldwell a round and a half from here.

 

Farmer is not the DT they need. But, this is another argument for a trade down. I'd love to see the Bills, if TSW 2.0 falls this way, trade out of the spot and acquire a 3rd and top-of-4th in return to give them 5 of the top 110 picks. Seeing that the Bills had 4 predominant roster needs but went BPA with Watts (a DIFFERENCE MAKER??) then you've got your CB in Amos but still want to secure DT1T, EDGE, and WR and you do it with top 100-ish picks.

 

Beane has shown in prior trades he tracks very closely to Rich Hill value chart. Here's teams that I'd be calling to see if they want to pop up to 62 for a guy, that have the right ammunition:

CLE: #62+132+170 for #67+104 [111pts - 108pts]

CAR: #62+170 for #74+111  [93pts - 93pts]

SF: #62+132 for #75+100 [102pts - 98pts]

NE: #62+169 for #77+106 [93pts - 92pts]

HOU: #62+132 for #79+89 [102pts - 103pts]

SEA: #62+170+206 for #82+92 [97pts - 97pts]

lesser fits:

JAX: #62 for #70+142 (with an eye to package 132+142 for 110 or better)  [84pts - 84pts]

NO: #62+109 for #71+93 [114pts - 113pts]

ARI: #62+206 for #78+115 [88pts - 86pts]

 

[Ralonzo]

10 hours ago, BuffaloBillsGospel2014 said:

This is what happens when you draft for need but I'd go Burch here and it's not really close.

 

Watts was clearly BPA and not a roster hole so this is a lazy argument and 50% invalid from the get-go. Drafting for fit - not need - was the problem with the DL at #30. If you assume Amos and DT3T's were in a similar grade tier (many scouting sites say they are) then the tiebreaker is - positional value (CB >> DT3T), scarcity in the draft class (CB >> DT3T) and finally roster fit (CB >> DT3T). Even if you have Amos a tier below, those factors still are an influence weighing on the decision to draft him.

 

I do agree with Burch among the listed options.

Edited April 6 by Ralonzo

[OldTimer1960]

8 minutes ago, Ralonzo said:

 

Farmer is not the DT they need. But, this is another argument for a trade down. I'd love to see the Bills, if TSW 2.0 falls this way, trade out of the spot and acquire a 3rd and top-of-4th in return to give them 5 of the top 110 picks. Seeing that the Bills had 4 predominant roster needs but went BPA with Watts (a DIFFERENCE MAKER??) then you've got your CB in Amos but still want to secure DT1T, EDGE, and WR and you do it with top 100-ish picks.

 

Beane has shown in prior trades he tracks very closely to Rich Hill value chart. Here's teams that I'd be calling to see if they want to pop up to 62 for a guy, that have the right ammunition:

CLE: #62+132+170 for #67+104 [111pts - 108pts]

CAR: #62+170 for #74+111  [93pts - 93pts]

SF: #62+132 for #75+100 [102pts - 98pts]

NE: #62+169 for #77+106 [93pts - 92pts]

HOU: #62+132 for #79+89 [102pts - 103pts]

SEA: #62+170+206 for #82+92 [97pts - 97pts]

lesser fits:

JAX: #62 for #70+142 (with an eye to package 132+142 for 110 or better)  [84pts - 84pts]

NO: #62+109 for #71+93 [114pts - 113pts]

ARI: #62+206 for #78+115 [88pts - 86pts]

 

If the board falls that way, trading down is a bit attractive but I might be more inclined to trade back from 30 - I don’t think there is much difference in who the Bills would pick (in terms of grades) between 30 and about 40.  Another option would be to package a couple of the 5ths with 109 to move up to late 3rd - or 132  & 169 & 170 to move towards to pf round 4?

[Ralonzo]

1 minute ago, OldTimer1960 said:

If the board falls that way, trading down is a bit attractive but I might be more inclined to trade back from 30 - I don’t think there is much difference in who the Bills would pick (in terms of grades) between 30 and about 40.  Another option would be to package a couple of the 5ths with 109 to move up to late 3rd - or 132  & 169 & 170 to move towards to pf round 4?

 

Valid... but I got me some sleepers I wanna nab with some of those 5th's  

[Kirby Jackson]

If the Bills start Amos, Watts, Farmer, 75% of TBD will be calling for Beane’s head 🤣🤣. We screwed up the 1st and couldn’t dig out the way that the board fell. 
 

Nolen, Porter, Bond > Amos, Watts, Farmer

[OldTimer1960]

8 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

If the Bills start Amos, Watts, Farmer, 75% of TBD will be calling for Beane’s head 🤣🤣. We screwed up the 1st and couldn’t dig out the way that the board fell. 
 

Nolen, Porter, Bond > Amos, Watts, Farmer

Your assumption that Porter will be available at 56 is very risky.  Who is playing CB if Porter is gone?  
 

I don’t like how the board fell in this scenario and it is a big quandary.  For me, if Harmon or Grant are available at 30, I might nab them and try to get a CB, but they might miss out completely on CB then.  
 

I hope that the way this fell is because we’ve all been talking almost exclusively about players the Bills could use and that influenced the picks.  If that isn’t true, I think they need to trade up from 56 to be able to get both DT and CB.  I don’t want to give up the other 2nd or even the 4ths but they might have to.

[Kirby Jackson]

7 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Your assumption that Porter will be available at 56 is very risky.  Who is playing CB if Porter is gone?  
 

I don’t like how the board fell in this scenario and it is a big quandary.  For me, if Harmon or Grant are available at 30, I might nab them and try to get a CB, but they might miss out completely on CB then.  
 

I hope that the way this fell is because we’ve all been talking almost exclusively about players the Bills could use and that influenced the picks.  If that isn’t true, I think they need to trade up from 56 to be able to get both DT and CB.  I don’t want to give up the other 2nd or even the 4ths but they might have to.

Just doing it based on this mock. He was here. It’s like anything, you have no idea who will be there in the real draft. 
 

I agree on your thoughts as to how this went. @MrEpsYtown mentioned it earlier in one of the threads. We tend to overdraft guys that we’ve been talking about. It’s not unrealistic though the way this has fallen.
 

It was more of an observation that when you prioritize need at one position vs. BPA (pretty much anywhere but QB & OL) you’ll end up with more talent on the roster. In this situation we drafted a good player in Amos but left a better player on the board. That started the trickle down. Watts was BPA in my opinion but not as big of a need. Now, we may reach on a guy that could go a round later because of need. We talk so much about BPA vs. need and then when given the same challenge, we went need first. 🤣🤣

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Just doing it based on this mock. He was here. It’s like anything, you have no idea who will be there in the real draft. 
 

I agree on your thoughts as to how this went. @MrEpsYtown mentioned it earlier in one of the threads. We tend to overdraft guys that we’ve been talking about. It’s not unrealistic though the way this has fallen.
 

It was more of an observation that when you prioritize need at one position vs. BPA (pretty much anywhere but QB & OL) you’ll end up with more talent on the roster. In this situation we drafted a good player in Amos but left a better player on the board. That started the trickle down. Watts was BPA in my opinion but not as big of a need. Now, we may reach on a guy that could go a round later because of need. We talk so much about BPA vs. need and then when given the same challenge, we went need first. 🤣🤣

Of course, it's easy to note how the board fell, and adjust to a more optimum set of selections, but you are correct in your interpretation. And this is how you build a good team that lacks elite playmakers, which contributes to the failure to reach the SB.

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, Dr. Who said:

Of course, it's easy to note how the board fell, and adjust to a more optimum set of selections, but you are correct in your interpretation. And this is how you build a good team that lacks elite playmakers, which contributes to the failure to reach the SB.

Well said! That’s the larger point. We have a lot of good players and very few elite players.

[NewEra]

11 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Your assumption that Porter will be available at 56 is very risky.  Who is playing CB if Porter is gone?  
 

I don’t like how the board fell in this scenario and it is a big quandary.  For me, if Harmon or Grant are available at 30, I might nab them and try to get a CB, but they might miss out completely on CB then.  
 

I hope that the way this fell is because we’ve all been talking almost exclusively about players the Bills could use and that influenced the picks.  If that isn’t true, I think they need to trade up from 56 to be able to get both DT and CB.  I don’t want to give up the other 2nd or even the 4ths but they might have to.

💯 

if we went Nolan round 1- i am confidant that  someone would’ve drafted him before our pick in 2nd 2.  
 

I definitely agree that trading up in rd 2 is the key (if it falls like this)-  I’d go so far as to trade both of our 4th and maybe another to move up with both of our 2nd.  Feels like the guys remaining are 3rd rounder.  
 

If it fell like this I’d probably take Bond or judkins (and get whatever I could for cook, even if it’s a 5th) or trade down.  

 

 

[Ralonzo]

1 hour ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

I went Bond. Isaiah Bond. 

 

I'm just thinking he's a Z playing behind Samuel. If you're going that direction, Chimere D1ke (seriously?) is bigger & faster, also returns punts and plays gunner too. Recall what McD said about "looking for guys for ST" again (blahh). Probably there in the 5th.

Edited April 6 by Ralonzo