Einstein's Dog

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.

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.