Einstein's Dog

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.

I think a big part of the problem is that Cook's team sees that there is no chance of the monster year happening in Buffalo. The Bills like what they had, and have everyone back, for a semi-repeat of 2024. The outlook for Cook with the Bills is nowhere near 2,000 total yards, nor 20TDs. Cook has never been a workhorse, bellcow RB and shouldn't be expecting to be paid as such without showing he can do it. That is why I think he wants out of Buffalo. He could go to another team and play on the $5M contract as long as he got the opportunity to expand his role prior to hitting FA. So, for the right team Cook is a great value. They get a top ten, motivated workhorse RB for $5M. Teams in need of an RB that miss out on Jeanty (and maybe Hampton) may really like the Cook option - teams like Dallas, Pitt, NYG.

Cook and a 4th for the Giants #34 pick.

Yes, putting his house on the market was a stunt. It was a sign, and not a good one from a Bills fan perspective. It is showing more tendencies towards how Cook could become a distraction. Getting PAID is not so simple. One it's generally not been what the Bills want to do with RBs. Secondly, you don't get big money if you're a 2 down back - which is what it looks like is his role in Buffalo. You say "given his apparent compensation demands", I contend we really don't know Cook's compensation demands. Cook may very well be open to playing on another team (where he is given the bellcow role) for the $5M contracted amount. This would be a great deal for the acquiring team. So if the Bills FO is in fear of a "hold-in" from Cook, which they could be, moving Cook during the draft could make sense. A team like the Cardinals or Pitt who miss out on Jeanty/Hampton may deal for Cook.

If the Bills trade Cook, yes they need another RB. And the draft would be the way to do it. It doesn't have to be with one of their first three picks though. Yes, the Bills spent a pick last year on RB, and I bet they are glad they did now with the Cook dilemma in full bloom. This is not 2010, there are more games. A team would be foolish to not have depth, especially at RB.

I think the more interesting aspect for the Cook saga is when, and for what, would you move him for? The first opportunity comes at the draft. For instance if J Barron drops down a ways, packaging Cook and our first to move up could make sense. Moving Cook during the draft would then allow the Bills to include an RB in their draft strategy.

Saquan's season is light years ahead of what Cook did, not really a good comparison. Henry is already under contract for 2025, if they extend him it would be for future years. And yes, Cook should be interested in what Henry gets.

But don't you think you need to look at how the draft will play out as a whole? I think this exercise is showing the FO needs to do exactly that, look at the draft as a whole (or at least for the DL/CB portion) and not an isolated pick at a time. By not taking a CB in the first people are not even considering taking one in the second because it seems like a reach at this point. That's a bad position to be in.

Or maybe they double dip - didn't hurt last time.

Yes, you can call it drafting for need. The FO has intentionally left the CB2 spot able to be filled by a draft pick. This is a great way to manage the cap. The selections above for another rotational DL or a flyer on a WR don't offer the same odds of hitting on filling a costly position. There will always be second guessing. Always able to say "man that guy we passed on". But what looks to be the best 2025 draft for the Bills would be to say they got a DLman and a CB that worked into the starting rotation. With that in mind, you do not wait, the selections don't get any better for a CB.

The idea of reach is subjective. If you feel the Bills need a DL and CB above all else, getting a CB here is not unreasonable. The selections won't get any better obviously.

Where are the CB selections? Isn't this the draft where Grant is taken in the first? If so, there should be some CBs to choose from with the second pick - I don't care what any of the services say about where they should be taken. Your choices on CBs certainly won't get any better the longer you wait. Dorian Strong, Zy Alexander, Denzel Burke, someone.

I disagree with what you're saying. Henry did not play on a 1 year deal. Henry got a 2 year $16M deal according to Spotrac. Nothing really prove it about it, people here were talking about whether the Bills should make a bid. Similarly Saquon was not playing on a one year deal. He had signed a 3 year $37.75 contract.

I think Beane had a fair price offer to Cook that was flat out rejected - and was the impetus behind the $15M outburst. Yes, it would be a blow to the 2025 offense but it looks like people need to be aware of the possibility and realize what Beane is up against. There is a realistic way to look at the Cook social media crusade as right out of the Diggs textbook on how to get out of town. Why after the draft? I would hope if the decision has been made then moving Cook during the draft for improvements could be done.

You say Cook is not on the same level as D Henry. D Henry makes $8M/yr. What Cook did is like a poster going on LinkedIn and posting they want twice the going rate for their salary. What do you think his team expected by doing that? It's a shame to lose Cook early when if he played it would be at the bargain of $5M for the season for this exciting player. But Beane has a problem waiting, and giving Cook a raise without an extension would set a bad precedent. I can see Beane investigating all possibilities on how to move Cook.

The fans don't need to have any patience, it was Cook (and his team) that have gone down the social media path. And there could be a reason to trade him at this time and that is if Cook intends to not play for the first 11 games. Fans aren't making this call. Beane needs to evaluate the situation and determine the odds of a "hold-in". If Cook isn't going to play the first 11 games then moving Cook prior/during the draft is the preferred option. If you're missing Cook for over half the season I would like to see a decent rookie brought in as the third RB.

A backfield of just Ray Davis/Ty Johnson seems pretty thin. It's why I think the FO may want to get ahead of this problem and see if they can make something happen during/prior to the draft so that a rookie could be worked in.

How about 30 and J Cook to get J Barron? Like if J Barron slides into the 20s. Have this prearranged with Pitt (jump ahead of GB). Pitt could still get Dart at 30.

The Cook hate is getting ridiculous (and I'm as disappointed as anyone with Cook). Scoring inside the 10 is what most RB TD leaders do. Is D Henry's TD total also misleading? IMO if you wanted to call Cook's TD count misleading would be to say he had a lot that weren't inside the 10, meaning he is not as much of a short yardage specialist as the total would indicate. But then the recency bias of Cook's fourth down, will not be denied, effort against KC would erase a lot of those thoughts.