Einstein's Dog

Maybe Pickens for J Cook? Trade problems on their contract years.

Wow, on Cook's side, that's different from me. I'm firmly in the trade Cook now camp. It was Cook that put out the ridiculous $15M. It has been Cook (meaning Cook's team - his bitter brother and newbie agent) doing the social media escapades - $15M, scrubbing account, putting house on sale, etc. Now doing a modification to Cook's contract to include incentives lessens Beane future negotiating. It also would make the players who Beane did previous deals with question if they did the right thing. Giving the squeaky media hound a break starts turning the Bills into Dallas North. The Bills just paid a big price with removing Diggs, stay the course and flush out Cook for the future of the team. The Bills have a bright future. Yes, you lose a talented top 10 RB by trading Cook. But you also cut loose a distraction early (before a Diggs level problem). You lessen a risk - Cook doing a "hold-in" for over half the season. You get something for 2025 by doing it now, and you get to replenish the RB room with another RB. And it would be exciting to get another 2nd round draft pick.

Round 2 is a good place to move J Cook (maybe to Dallas). Get a decent pick to use on some of the upper players. - like Scourton + Collins and/or a S. And then figure out moving up in the 3rd for an RB.

Getting close to a Cook trade to move up for a 1st round rated CB.

Along with Barron

Hope the Cowboys don't do anything stupid like take an RB (Hampton).

Bowers

Was hoping Jeanty would go in the top 10. Helps move the value of Cook up for a trade.

Mike Florio's draft had the Bills taking Luther Burden - that was different. It was right after D Harmon then S Revel went (Grant had gone earlier) Didn't see J Barron on his list.

Yeah, kind of backwards here, usually you trade up to get your particular target - which I could understand if J Barron was here. If you have several in the same tier that allows you to wait. With Amos, Grant, Harmon and Hairston still on the board I don't think a move up is needed, especially when it usually costs around a 4th to do it.

Could be. Would be nice if Jeanty goes in the top 10. Cook and a 6th for the Cowboys 2nd. Cowboys could get a top WR at 12, Cook with their 2nd - that should help Jerry with headlines and offensive potential.

It's unfortunately too late to be able to reallocate the Cook budget into the WR room at this point. It's upsetting to think that had they known of Cook's demands the FO may have chosen the DK Metcalf route instead of the Palmer+Cook plan. My prediction is they are moving Cook during the draft. While missing the voluntary workouts doesn't move the needle, the needle has already been pushed into "get rid of" territory. Cook already doesn't like the proposed extension, will not like the proposed usage (same as 2024), and has already started acting out. To me, the signs are all there that moving him now is the best course of action - get rid of the malcontent and distraction, get rid of the risk of someone holding out half the year, reload with a young, eager rookie. Better to move on a year early than a year late. They didn't tolerate this from Diggs, no need to put up with it from Cook. Makes the draft more interesting to me.

On the flip side, if there are 12 players with a round 1 grade and one of them slides into the early 20s (J Barron), it may be very tempting to see what it takes to get him (Cook and a pick for instance).

Counter points: *Missing voluntary OTAs is just another step in the Diggs playbook. It's not unexpected for someone unhappy. You don't know how seriously McBeane is taking this, and part of the business side of the NFL is trading players (once again similar to what he did with Diggs). The players would understand. *Cook may be traded, certainly a possibility (you're claiming otherwise comes off as a little ridiculous). The physical exam is a mere formality. There are actually very few RBs in this draft better than Cook. And a team getting Cook does not have to pay him a huge contract yet, the trade can be for the $5M bargain price. *Cook may have a great year ahead with the Bills, or Cook may have a year similar to 2024 - the same RB room from 2024 is back, and the Bills may want to watch Cooks workload to have him ready for the playoffs. And the scary kicker is Cook may just want to be paid based on the 2024 stats and sit out a good portion of 2025. *While the Bills may want Cook to have a great season, the priority for the Bills is for the team to have a great season. And as mentioned above that may mean work load management on the RBs. *Drafting an RB this week would make the most sense if Cook is traded. There would be RB room, the drafted RB would now be the R Davis insurance, and the RB room would be bargain basement prices - in line with the past philosophy of not paying RBs.

J Cook is a top ten-ish back, teams missing out on Jeanty and maybe Hampton then Cook would be a clearly superior back IMO. Teams like Dallas, Pitt, and NYG could be interested. Hoping it doesn't become a distraction is risky (and that is if Beane doesn't think it is already a distraction). Moving Cook during the draft gives the Bills the opportunity to replenish the RB room.

Not only that but our last 2 moves up a few spots required our 4th, and those were to go up 2-3 spots, to go up 9 spots would take a lot more than that.

I don't think so. According to the chart I looked at the difference between 21 and 30 is 65 points, which is a high third (or IMO J Cook).

Could have a great year as a Bill playing for the market as you say. Beane and Bills fans alike would love that. But Cook might do the "hold-in" to week 11 believing that his 2024 stats did enough for some team to pay him the coveted $15M. That's a big risk Beane is dealing with and the basis for my belief that there is a great chance Cook is moved during the draft. Trading Cook now eliminates the potential problem of Cook's not playing and allows the Bills to use a 3 to 4th round pick on reloading the RB room.

It would have been nice to have him for 2025, Cook is exciting and on the verge of elite. But we just got another sign. Can't blame Beane if he moves Cook during the draft. Makes the earlier rounds a little more interesting for me now, Cook could be packaged for the Bills to be moved up. Moving Cook early makes sense for the Bills because then they could use the later rounds in the draft for an RB.

I think this move allows much more leeway for a 2nd round pick at CB. Now they have Tre vs Dane for the CB2 spot until the rookie can take it. This screams of Revel/Porter possibilities. If they find a DLman in round 1 capable of rotating in day 1, it helps cover the blunder of the PED mess. The 2025 schedule looks like it sets up for the Bills to make a run at the #1 seed, that is huge, time for the Bills to take it.

This isn't meant to be some form of gotcha. Beane obviously had the choice of Watkins or Pickens when he chose Elam. People can say Beane's board had Elam higher but I think the need factor was baked into the board then (and I was agreeing with you on not liking that move).

So what you're saying to me is that the draft board is already factoring in position value. That is a subjective value, as is need. It is what allows Beane to say Elam was the highest person on his board while C Watkins and G Pickens were still there. One thing that hasn't been discussed is taking goals of the draft as a whole. For instance, it very well could be a huge goal of the FO is to come out with a good DLman and CB. They may have to consider the combination of the two with the picks available. For instance, in the mock 2.0 where Grant was taken, the board thought there wasn't even a CB worthy of consideration. The first mock looked a lot better in satisfying that goal. It certainly could be a factor in downgrading an early DLman pick thinking the pickings will be slim for CB at the next pick and may require a move up to get a guy you like.

I don't want it to pigeonhole the process too much, but I'm sure they narrow it down to some specific goals. And yes, CB is one of this years goals. And I agree that the one year with the Elam pick was a bit too much for me. When most people say BPA, they really mean Best Player Available at a premium `position of need. For instance they don't mean a great punter. And most don't expect the Bills to pick a QB early. So BPA is so rife with subjectivity (ie what is premium, where and how much do you factor in need) that I do not consider it a science.

I agree with most of what you say, and you can't ignore need. It hopefully wouldn't pigeonhole you into a decision where you pass over a great, elite player in a premium position to get one that fits your needs better at a different position - ie the example below. Interesting to me though, that you mention the Elam pick - I was hoping/thinking one of the WR options would be the pick - C Watkins or G Pickens.

I think you and several who are agreeing with you need to understand the change in philosophy of a top team maintaining its stature. The draft is now a tool for financial cap management. Leaving a potential premium, high dollar, spot to be filled with a capable draft player is a sensible strategy for a team looking to maintain its position as a top tier team into the future. Best Player Available is a subjective concept at best. The plan is not to have Dane Jackson as the outside corner in November. But if you want your draft pick to take that spot you don't bid high for an A Samuel or S Gilmore and block the path of the new guy. If you don't get one of the players you think can handle it you could always buy one of those two later. And speaking of precedent, the FO just reloaded the core of the reigning AFCE champs by extending the draft picks of Groot, Shakir, Benford, and Bernard at great prices. Maybe they're striving to keep doing that. IMO, you (and many like you) should work on changing your perception of what a doomsday draft looks like. In the mock 2.0 after selecting Grant in the first, the masses here didn't even include a CB in their second selection choices - absurd. The "value" wasn't there they said, totally brainwashed by a groupthink of Mel Kiper wannabes.