Logic

Correction, he said "at the beginning of the season", not "in year one", which I concede is a huge difference. Nevertheless, it likely means a few weeks of Mack Hollins as starter.

I'm sorry to keep bringing it up, but... If you had told me before the offseason got under way that our week one 2024 starting lineup at WR would be Curtis Samuel, Mack Hollins, and Khalil Shakir, with Keon Coleman coming off the bench, I probably would have tried to fight you. On paper, we have one of the worst 5 WR corps in the league.

Yeah. Apparently Beane said Coleman "will have a hard time starting in year 1". Something to that affect. So Samuel/Hollins/Shakir seems to be the opening day plan (save me the "Shaver or Shorter or Hamler are gonna surprise everyone and win a starting spot!" hopium), which is just...unfathomably depressing. I was so strongly hoping that the Bills would find a way to get better in the WR room this offseason, and they somehow appear to have gotten markedly worse. And then Beane has the gall to say "let's don't forget that we have good tight ends that we can throw to!". I need a drink.

Now that's interesting. Taking the same positions but going with Brugler's BPAs instead. Awesome. Love it. Totally fair point. In my original (pre-edit) version of this post, I mentioned within the first couple paragraphs that it was an inherently unfair exercise, because we have knowledge of where players ultimately wound up getting drafted which we can use to formulate the "ideal" draft board. Beane, of course, did not have this information, or his draft my have gone differently. I also agree that in future years, it makes more sense to do it right after each pick. I just wonder if, in the chaos of the actual draft still being in progress, anyone would take the time to play along. And you're right, by the way. I probably WOULD have picked Franklin at 60. I was much higher on him than NFL GMs were (as were many other people, it seems). I guess that's why I'm just a message board goofball and not an NFL GM.

Thanks to all the posters so far who took this thread in the spirit of fun in which it was intended and contributed your alternate draft. Fascinating to read everyone's preferences.

Fair enough. That's fine. Maybe you're right. Maybe it would've been better during the draft. Seeing as its not gaining traction the way I had hoped, maybe I'll try that instead next year. I mostly just thought the "LAMP" response was unwarranted, because it was meant to be a participatory thing for everyone, just for fun.

Absolutely. Yes. Yep. I want other people to participate by adding their own alternate draft class. It is not meant to be a "me" thing. I thought it would be a fun game for the draftniks on the board. Like a mock draft in reverse.

Beane specifically said today that they won't be trading for a WR. He outright said it's not happening. So that's out the window. As for free agents -- sure, yeah, I've conceded that IF they sign one, then that changes things. But there's no indication that's happening any time soon. When asked in his presser today, Beane said their WR room is in "good shape" and "we like the guys we have". He cited Shavers, Shorter, and Hamler. If they go out and sign Tyler Boyd or OBJ tomorrow, then sure, it makes the draft look a bit different in retrospect. But had they simply used one of their ELEVEN draft picks to take one, that wouldn't even be necessary. They got TWO offensive tackles. They got a PUNT RETURNER. They used a draft pick on a rugby player that has never played a down of football in his life. But no second WR. Nothing anyone can say to me will make that make any more sense to me.

Respectfully, what does that have to do with anything? Beane specifically said today that they will not be trading for a WR. Not "maybe", not "I never say no to anything". He said "the cap is the cap. There is no trade for a WR coming, nothing like that". He said they're happy with the WR room and they're in "pretty good shape" there.

My contention is that you need DEPTH in the NFL. That 3 viable WRs is not enough. That one injury will have us depending on Mack Hollins or Justin Shorter for offensive production, and that that's a bad position to be in for a team with a franchise QB in his prime. My contention is that one of the ways to address this issue would have been to spend a 2nd or 3rd day pick on another wide receiver. The draft is a crapshoot, and the more darts you throw at the WR position, the greater the chance that one of the guys you picks turns out to be a good player. Instead, the Bills threw just ONE dart, and if he doesn't come out swinging as a rookie, the Bills WR corps will be woeful.

If only we had one!

Nah. Beane went into a very deep WR draft armed with 11 picks. He had so many that he traded one away for a 2025 pick instead. He came out of the weekend with just one wide receiver prospect. He managed to add TWO offensive tackles, spend 4th round capital on a running back, and add a special teams linebacker and a punt returner...but he couldn't bring himself to take more than one bite at the apple at the biggest need position on the roster. Diggs may have set things in motion, but Beane had ample opportunity to do more to address the wide receiver position this weekend and chose not to.

Respectfully, a transition/retool/rebuild year seems like the PERFECT time to add a few rookie WRs. It's historically a position that takes a year or two to get up to speed. So why not draft more than ONE wide receiver when you have a screaming need at the position, 11 draft picks, and a deep WR draft class? Let them get their feet wet in this "transition year" and from 2025 onward, we're off and running. I don't see why having a transition year and meaningfully addressing your biggest roster hole with more than one player should have to be mutually exclusive.

Yeah. You said it well, and @FireChans said it well. The Bills came into the draft with a SCREAMING need at WR and 11 draft picks at their disposal in a very deep WR draft. They picked just one WR. Exiting draft weekend, WR is STILL their biggest roster need. It really, REALLY doesn't make any sense to me. No one can convince me that packaging some of those late picks (heck, they had so many that they didn't even want to use them all, and traded one away for a 2025 pick) to move up higher in the 4th and grab one of Franklin, Baker, or Walker wouldn't have been a great move. Or even using our last 5th on Malik Washington. Huge need, surplus of picks, deep WR draft......and yet you get ONE guy. And that one guy is 20 years old and will likely take a couple years to fill out and learn what he needs to know to be a good pro, to boot. We are one Curtis Samuel injury or slow developing summer from Coleman away from having to depend on Mack Hollins or Justin Shorter to play major offensive minutes. It's roster malpractice.

Well said, and in way less words than I said it (brevity has never been my strong suit). Thank you!

Well stated.

Yeah I mean..it's a game. It's supposed to be for fun. I was not seriously suggesting that anyone here would be a better GM than Brandon Beane. It's more of a "how would your draft class of choice stack up against the pros" kind of thing.

Yes, I grant that he hasn't had many to work with. The one that he most recently HAS had to work with was Gabe Davis. Davis's limited route variety, stiffness, and lack of separation ability all led to his being thrown to less and less, until by the end of last year he was barely a meaningful part of the passing game at all. My contention is that if we KNOW Josh does well with the fast, shifty guys, and we know that he has not historically demonstrated the same success with bigger guys -- albeit in a smaller sample size, and albeit with a less impressive group of players overall -- then why take on this experiment and this change in philosophy now? After we just saw his connection with big, limited, non-separating Gabe Davis deteriorate to the point of non-existence, why go back to the well of that type of WR?

True. Do you grant that my statement is also true? If so, the sum total of those two true statements would seem to be "The Bills should continue to draft smaller bodied WRs whose strengths are route running and separation.

I'd like to start a new tradition here on Two Bills Drive. The premise is simple. I want everyone who's interested in testing their drafting acumen against Brandon Beane's to list who theywould have chosen at each spot, based on who was available in real life, compared to who the Bills actually chose. I'll list where the Bills picked, who they picked in real life, and then who I would have picked. And I'd like each person who wants to participate to do the same. You can copy and paste the Bills picks and then post your own chosen player next to it (using the link below and picking only players who were available at that pick), unless you'd rather stick with who the Bills picked. The only rule is that you have to pick where the Bills actually picked. You can't undo a trade-down they made, and you can't invent a new trade-down or trade-up. You have to stick with the real draft slots that the Bills picked from. We can check back on this in future years and compare our own preferences to who Beane picked. A chance for each of us to put our money where our mouth is. Here's the listing of everyone picked in the 2024 NFL draft and where, for easy reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_NFL_draft I'll start: Bills 2024 draft class: Pick 33: WR Keon Coleman, Florida State Pick 60: S Cole Bishop, Utah Pick 95: DT DeWayne Carter, Duke Pick 128: RB Ray Davis, Kentucky Pick 141: C/G Sedrick Van Pran-Granger, Georgia Pick 160: LB Edefuan Ulofoshio, Washington Pick 168: DE Javon Solomon, Troy Pick 204: T Tylan Grable, UCF Pick 219: CB Daequan Hardy, Penn State Pick 221: G Travis Clayton, International Player Pathway Who I would've picked instead: Pick 33: WR Ladd McConkey, Georgia Pick 60: S Cole Bishop, Utah (same as Bills) Pick 95: WR Troy Franklin, Oregon Pick 128: CB TJ Tampa, Iowa State Pick 141: C/G Sedrick Van Pran-Granger, Georgia (same as Bills) Pick 160: RB Tyron Tracy Jr, Purdue Pick 168: DE Javon Soloman, Troy (same as Bills) Pick 204: OG Christian Mahogany, Boston College Pick 219: WR Brendan Rice, USC Pick 221: CB MJ Devonshire, Pitt

True or false: The most successful connections Josh Allen has forged in his NFL career have come with smaller bodied (relatively speaking) WRs whose strengths are route running and separation.

No. They did not do enough. They COULD have added enough, and rather easily: Xavier Worthy in the 1st and trading up for Javon Baker in the 4th. We would've added speed/explosion with Worthy and a true X in Baker. Trade up again for Jaylen Wright (I don't want to hear that they couldn't have gotten that done. Some teams traded future 3rds to get back into the 4th), instead of drafting Ray Davis. Or, alternately... Still take Keon Coleman in the 1st (if he was Josh's guy and they just HAD to have him) and then trade up for Troy Franklin or Tez Walker in the 4th and again for Will Shipley at RB. Either of the above would've added more quantity, more variety, and more explosiveness to the Bills' offense. Either one would've added a more legitimate group of weaponry than what the Bills did. Sure, we would've missed out on a depth DT and a special teams linebacker and maybe one of our two late round developmental tackles. But that's just it: Sacrificing a bit of defensive depth or special teams prowess in the name of improving the offense. Unfortunately, that's not a trade-off this staff appears willing to make.

I think Keon Coleman has some real strengths to his game, but "explosive" is not a word I'd use to describe him.

A post June 1st trade for Courtland Sutton -- who has a manageable cap number the next two years and who could be a valuable mentor for 20 year old Coleman, who has a very similar game to Sutton's -- would be a realistic and appealing goal, in my opinion.

Brandon Beane, speaking at his post draft presser just now, said "The cap is the cap. There is not a receiver trade coming". He said it point blank. So...I think at this point a free agency addition is far more likely.