Beck Water

So the Panthers do have a new Buffalo connection since they hired Dan Morgan as Assistant GM in 2021 and just promoted him to GM....I haven't looked at the value match for swapping #28 for #33 - looks like an 80 point difference which would be like maybe their high 4th round pick with a Buffalo 5th rounder given back as change? If there was some reason they wanted to trade back into the 1st round for that extra option year or to lock up a player they want.

I didn't get the tune at first now I can't Un Get It EDIT: Never say TBD is not educational, @Ralonzo. I was THIS many days old when I learned that shaving cream is flammable!

Oooh, James Lofton was pretty chill by the time the Bills acquired him at age 33. But in his younger days as a Star of Stars in Green Bay ...... he definitely had his Diva side. He was also in serious legal trouble, although acquitted: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-05-23-sp-1829-story.html

So let me ask you this: Do you believe him? Because that's really what I'm trying to discuss. It seemed as though you believe him and were advancing arguments as to why you believe that to be true. If you're just the messenger, then of course, there's no point in arguing, but that seems like a segue to much of the post I responded to. It seemed like something you believed, and were offering arguments to back up your belief.

While we're talking visual arguments, this is from Sal Capaccio. -At this point, the Bills rank 5th fewest receiving yards on the roster -Prior to the Diggs trade, it would have been 7th most I'm not sure how much 'career receiving yards' means; Diggs accounts for a lot because he's been in the league since 2015, for example. I think most people would say the Bengals have one of the best receiving corps in the league, but of course Ja'Marr Chase has 3 seasons and Tee Higgins 4. So they're 11th fewest.

Larry Fitzgerald after that it kind of depends upon how you define "diva"

Well, I suspect Beane does disagree, though he won't do so publicly. I know I do. I would personally say we have needs at DT, DE, and S at minimum; some might add CB. Yes, I know we have two safeties on the team, but based on performance on the field I am not comfortable with Taylor Rapp and Mike Edwards starting at safety, and I think both our backups are career backups at this point. We need to draft a guy with upside we can develop. If that's not a need because we can pencil in names, then hey - we can pencil in names that have played many games at WR, too, so I guess that's not a need. Quality matters. Similar with DT and DE. Da'Quan is on a 1 yr deal and hasn't made it through the last 2 seasons. Draft a DT if there's a decent one anywhere near us. DE: Casey Toohill is a career journeyman at DE who has finally, after 7 years in the league, made it to where he started 8 games last year. Right now at DE we got Rousseau, Epenesa, the Ghost of Von Miller, and Toohill. *shudder* I'd say that 's a need. I got to say that's an impressive body of work, @GunnerBill. Just kudos for putting in that effort, year after year. As far as your comment I bolded above, I think Beane said something pretty similar in his presser - I can't find it on a fast run through, but it was something to the effect of the quality probably continues into the initial part of round 2 then tails off after that.

Mmmmm. Well, there are places where you're probably right. I have it on good authority that eyelash length isn't a factor, because with the increase in visor use the DBs are no longer distracted by the WR batting their lashes at a high rate of speed. Likewise, with the wide variety of custom cleats and orthopedics, toe length has now been shown to be irrelevant. "If a guy can shake his defender" is a big "if". Given that the defender *is* allowed to put his hands on the WR for 5 yds, and that refs typically allow hand-fighting all the way down the field - arm length seems directly relevant. Sure, technique matters, but when you have two players with great technique, it matters if one guy can put his hands on you while you can't even reach him. The questions for you are: -Is arm length that small of a talking point? Joe Marino did a podcast that was linked here where it was said only 2 WR had built successful careers with arms shorter than 30": Hunter Renfrow, and Isaiah McKenzie. Of course, there can always be a third exception, but sometimes when there's a rule there's a reason. -Can you construct a rational argument why it doesn't matter, given the legality of physical play w/in 5 yds of the LOS and it being allowed afterwards? Analogy: I'm one who kind of poo-poos the 40 yd dash times as "underwear Olympics" because it seems like a lot of guys who are super-speedy at the combine play slower, while guys who were slow at the combine play faster during games. My rational argument is now, GPS sensor technology allows scouts to track the actual playing speed college players show on the field and that's more relevant than 40 yd dash measurements. Do you have something like that to argue why arm length isn't important to help a receiver get off press man? Can't disagree on Josh being the best QB and share your hope that Brady will use Samuel well, and I'm all about drafting 2 WR though not necessarily 1st rd and 2nd rd.

Question: How many of his snaps did Shakir play from the slot last year? Someone here must know. I don't think the Bills are planning to use Samuel as a "gadget WR4". I think they intend him to split his snaps between the slot (primary) and outside. I don't think we disagree. My primary point was just that I read a lot of people writing as though Shakir and/or Samuel can simply replace Davis, and while they can both potentially increase their production from what they had last season, they're not going to replace Davis role or the production that came from Davis filling that role. Shakir overall had 52% of the offensive snaps last season, but he had more like 30% during the first half of the season, and 70% during the 2nd half. Samuel had ~ half the offensive snaps for Washington through the entire season. During his best season (2020) he had 68%.

Really good finds, Thanks. I'm not sure I 100% buy pro-bowls as a great metric now-a-days when it seems to have become some kind of popularity contest. What it comes down to is opportunity cost, and I'm not invested enough to fully lay this out as a mathematical problem but here are the trade offs: On the one hand: You improve your chances of landing "The Man" from 33/100 to 55/100 moving up from pick 28 to pick 10 so 22%. Against that you set that Pick 10 ~1300 and Pick 28 ~660 so you need to essentially provide the equivalent of 640 points. Since next year's picks devalue about a round, that might be next year's 1st PLUS this year's 2nd (300). That represents 2 talented players (1 next year, 1 this) who can help fill other team needs on a cost-controlled basis. Meanwhile, even in the top-10 picks, there's still a 45/100 chance you won't pick The Man, but now you've not fizzed there, but you've lost your chance to reload and fire again. I hesitate to speak for @Thurman#1, but it was my understanding of his intended point that "Franchise QB" is a position worth risking the opportunity cost for as without a franchise QB, it's tough sledding to get to the playoffs much less championship.... ....but that trading the farm for a hoped-for #1 WR is not the same impact to offset the opportunity cost. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, @Thurman#1

While it's pretty much a given that Beane is going to know all this and more....it doesn't follow that because he has 20 1st round grades, he needs to trade up, right? You can bet on it that different teams have different players with 1st round grades. So the chances are very high that all through the 1st round, a player the Bills have a 1st round grade on will be available. Now that said....I don't believe that any GM is truly a "best player available" guy with no concern for the valuation of different positions AND the specific holes on his team.

I think it means this:

OK, so two points here. Samuel and Davis are two very different cats with different primary skillsets as WR. Samuel is a converted running back who during his career best year and in Washington, has taken most of his snaps from the slot. He has the release moves and the speed to be more effective as a boundary receiver than, say, Beasley, but it's not been his primary thing. Davis, on the other hand, just could not run those crisp routes over the middle; he lacked the quickness. Maybe it was his ankle injuries, I don't know. But he had the physicality and the strength to win outside and the ball tracking skills to seal the deal. Bottom line: Davis production, and Samuel production, different production. Would have added to each other great, don't replace each other. Now maybe Shakir can become an outside threat, but he'd kind of be the first 29" armed player to pull that off. Never say never, I guess. He merits more targets, for sure though.

Agree on your conclusion 100%. And 100% not to pick on you @DCofNC, but I'm reading what I'll call "numbers logic" from quite a few - to me, it just doesn't work to say something to the effect of "OK, Samuel can step up and give us 75% of Diggs production and Shakir can double his production and we're even" because they're different guys. In Samuel's best year, I believe the stats were he played 74% of the time from the slot. I'm not sure how often Shakir has lined up outside, but I don't think it's much. So can they both be more productive, sure, but we still need those guys who pose a significant downfield threat. It's not just a numbers game, it's a skills game. I don't sense that you disagree, I just feel it's appropriate to stress that.

Well, I don't see it that way, obviously, though there probably is more element of that than I'd prefer to acknowledge. Here's what I think you're missing: Yes, a draft pick might go wrong. In fact, statistically, something like 30-50% of first round picks do go wrong, in the sense that they just don't develop into quality NFL players, let alone Superstars. And that hurts the team that year, maybe for the next 2 years, in the form of taking up space on the roster that could be occupied by someone more productive. There's a bit of "opportunity cost' there. And if the team trades up - there's the opportunity cost of the extra draft picks, which, to get into the top half of the draft, could be substantial. A player such as Aiyuk has shown he can play at an NFL level, so barring injury, the risk of a trade for him going wrong in the sense of not landing a guy who can actually play (as with trading for Diggs) is much lower. But he's going to demand a large chunk of cap space, such that the "opportunity cost" if he is injured or for some reason doesn't work out for the duration of his huge contract, goes far beyond his spot on the roster. It not only means the lost opportunity represented by the draft picks we gave up for him, but the lost opportunity to re-sign some of our own talented players or to recruit FA because he's taking up so much cap. It's even higher than the cost of drafting a #1. What I really want, of course, is for Beane and his group to have such good scouting that they can identify a potential #1 talent within easy reach of our #28 pick up or down, and then if he misses, to keep taking reasonably high value draft shots year after year until he hits. This is very eloquent, but I'd like to know who are these "several of the best" offenses that operated without a "true #1"? Otherwise I risk talking past you. I would argue that the 49ers are a "different cat", in that they (like the Ravens) are a run-first team with a very even run/pass split (50% run for the '9ers, 52% for the Ravens. Now maybe Brady sees the Bills becoming one of those teams, but if so - we're way underinvested in RB, and way overinvested in a very talented passing QB. So I would say perhaps that wouldn't be the best use of Josh Allen's prime years. And I would also say, Christian McCaffery is a unicorn. As far as "guys who are multiple", I would agree that guys who can line up at different positions and run different routes are valuable, but I think you might be confusing ability to do this, with equal skill at all aspects of doing this. It's true that Shakir and Samuel *can* line up outside and run downfield routes, but it's not the role Shakir has the best body type for. It's not Samuel's best skill. His career year to date was, I believe, 74% from the slot. Cook has run a few routes a la Thurman Thomas and looked good at times, but with 11% drops on 54 targets, I think he has a bit to prove as a reliable receiving target. Kincaid is the biggest dark horse. I don't know whether the Bills think he can run downfield routes (he did in college IIRC). They used him very close to the LOS last season with an average 5 YBC. (By the way, Jefferson has for several years been a very multiple receiver. He's talked about this in interviews. It's how he went from 88 to 128 receptions and from 1400 to 1800 yds. And I think 30 of 30 GMs who don't have Jefferson or Chase on their roster would sign up for that PDQ) So...the Bills have on the roster right now, 4 guys who excel on the short/intermediate routes and from the slot, and Mack Hollins. To be sure we're on the same page, by "true #1", what I believe someone like Greg Cosell means, is a guy who can stretch the field as an X, an outside or boundary receiver. He can uncover consistently >10 yds from the LOS and force the other team to account for him in their scheme with safety help over the top, giving the underneath guys space in which to operate. He is usually a larger guy and can bring in contested catches down the field. He's not necessarily the guy who gets the most touches or the most targets, though. He's the guy whose primary skill is the downfield threat (though of course it's a plus if he can line up all over). I think as a defensive-minded coach, McDermott would tell you that an offense is much harder to defend when they force the defenders to cover the whole field. And right now, the Bills do not have starting quality guy who can play outside and win downfield, either by getting open downfield or hauling in contested catches on a regular basis. And that's what the Bills need. This isn't some keyboard hallucination of mine, by the way - all over the board, folks who know something are pointing this out as a gap, as are media guys I respect for their football acumen such as Greg Cosell and Lance Zierlein.

https://www.buffalobills.com/video/nfl-total-access-should-the-bills-draft-two-receivers-in-the-first-three-rounds Be nice if he'd explain how the Bills get a draft pick in the 3rd round. Bottom line: seems nobody buys Beane's presser about how WR isn't a gaping hole for the Bills. Anyway, Lance Zierlein isn't just a clickbait talking head. He's the guy who does all the draft profiles for NFL.com, and while his grades and round projections are off, when go back and I read his actual scouting reports for strengths and weaknesses after the player has been in the league a while, I find myself nodding.

The thing is, and call me a stubborn atavist if you wish (I've surely been called worse) but while it would be glorious if he did, I just can't wrap my mind around it being realistic to expect Shakir to become that #1-type downfield threat boundary guy. I don't think there ever has been a stubby-armed WR who has succeeded in that role. Doesn't mean he can't be the first I guess, but how would it work? Shakir has shown real talent in the roles he was asked to play last season, which should be expanded and extended, but why ask him to "ascend" into a role he's not physically suited for? On the other hand, if we give him more of what he was asked to do last year, I feel he's already demonstrated his NFL quality. Overall after diving into this, I think Bryan Thompson is the "dark horse" I have the most hope for. He's the only one who has Bernard-like superlatives buried in his pre-draft scouting report, and he had a full season on the PS to work on his game. KWIM? Oh, I'll put it here. Bernard's pre-draft profile pegged him as a 5th round pick, "average backup or special teamer". But it also said stuff like "Bernard possesses elite intangibles and teams will be drawn to him because of it. He's resilient, productive and showed a willingness to play through pain." and "Scouts rave about his leadership and character. Never-quit attitude despite adversity. Film junkie who rang up 100-plus tackles in 2019 and 2021. Rapid read and response against play-action. On a continuous quest to go get the football. Loose and fluid in pursuit and change of direction. Bends and flattens off the corner as a blitzer. Speed to cover man targets underneath." When we drafted him I focused more on the grade and assessment. Then after he took over at MLB and racked up 23 tackles, 2 TFL, 2 sacks, 2 INT, 2 TFL, and a fumble recovery in his first 3 games I was like "who TF is this masked man?" and went back and read more carefully and went "uh huh, OKAY, I see now". Anyway, when I read the pre-draft profiles and looked at the injury history, the only one of those WR who had some elite stuff a la Bernard hidden in his pre-draft profile was Bryan Thompson: "Runs sharp routes, stays low exiting breaks, and positions himself to make the reception. Possesses eye/hand coordination, tracks the pass in the air, and gets vertical to make the reception. Displays strong hands, snatches the fastball from the air, and easily adjusts to the pass to make the catch in stride. Shows focus and eye/hand coordination and makes plenty of difficult catches." FWIW - probably not much. For the record, I'd love to see Shorter succeed, but I think when a guy comes into the NFL with a history of hammy injuries and spends his rookie year on IR not practicing with the team due to hammy, it doesn't bode well. When he's described in his scouting profile as " too leggy and gradual in short spaces to escape press quickly or win consistently underneath" and "Slow getting off the snap and into the pattern. Linear release allows press to touch him up. Loses route momentum making turns.", well, trying to improve on all that with an injured hammy is a Big Ask.

I agree with you completely here. On all points. It truly frustrates me when people see a player like Shakir, or Samuel, who have made good contributions in specific roles, and suddenly project them as having similar success all over the field. Shakir was quietly a YAC-grabber last season, with 46% of his yards being YAC. Samuel, very similar, 42%. But someone has to stretch the field and scare the defense. The only point I'm wondering about is if they possibly see Kincaid in that downfield passing game role? I know, I know, but Hear Me Out lol. Officially, his 40 time rules that out - he's "slug like" at 4.71. And I don't think he came in with the physical skills to release against press man or handfight downfield. But as any defender who's tried to chase him around the backfield or catch him downfield would attest, Josh Allen sure as hell moves faster than his 4.76 40 time would suggest, and skills can be developed. It's a stretch (see what I did there?) but I went back and looked at some pre-draft highlights, and he was winning downfield on some routes.

I surely hope you are correct. 2 would be good. Here's the thing, though, Thrive. We agree that Shakir is a talented receiver, and should get a larger target share than the 45 targets he got last season. So far so good. But the success he found, was in a specific role and largely from the slot. When we refer to a #1 WR, we typically mean a guy who can play on the outside and win contested catches downfield. Never say never, but as others have pointed out very few WR with <30" arms build a successful career in the NFL, and those who have are playing primarily from the slot (Renfrow) or as "gadget guys" (McKenzie). Nothing sets a good player up for failure more than asking a player who has shown talent in one role, into a role he isn't physically equipped to handle.

I suspect you are correct, although, I wouldn't rule out that they were attempting to correct a persistent, repeating issue that he was playing through. After digging into all these guys background, I would be surprised (pleasantly of course) if Shorter took a step. He seems like a guy who peaked as the top WR recruit in HS and couldn't really live up to the hype in college - EDIT possibly injuries played a big role here.

I think that's a reasonable take. I will now pour salt on the wounds by pointing out to all he was chosen by the Bills, 27 picks ahead of Puka Nacua.

That's actually a valid point, for some reason I keep mentally editing out Curtis Samuel who has shown he is a solid player. So we have 3 receivers who between them, last season, contributed 174 catches and 1899 yds. I honestly do think Samuel is a good player who has the potential to 'do a Beasley' and exceed his previous career year, so contribute in the high-800s/low 900s in a chain moving way from the slot. I think I keep editing him out because last time I was modestly enthused about a low-level off season signing it went awry.

Thanks, @Shaw66, appreciated. (And from the responses you're getting, you can see others appreciatecha too) I feel the problem with trading for a player like Aiyuk is that at this point, the Bills have to be judicious about who they pay. And it's not just the pick you give up, it's all the cap space you give up. Diggs and Von Miller are providing Beane and Bills fans with a very visceral demonstration of what happens when a GM guesses wrong on the window for ROI re-signing a veteran player. I do hear you that with Beane, anything can happen regardless of what he says, and he's not closing any doors. I personally feel that Beane "did the experiment" of trying to operate the offense without a #1 in 2019, and showed that we can win the regular season that way, but in the playoffs or playing the best teams, it's not enough.

OK, fair, I misunderstood - but I thought you were arguing for drafting up? The reason I misunderstood is that it doesn't make sense to me to argue for drafting up, by including a guy we both tag as a success who would be drafted by standing pat or trading BACK. How and why does that support your argument for trading up? I don't know...my guess is "not" but I think your top-3 success rate would also decrease. Ultimately, while I appreciate and applaud the work you put in, honest comment I feel choosing "top 3 WR" (when they're drafted at different pick numbers year to year) is a bit problematic. People, including myself and organizations like PFF, have tried to look at success rates by criteria like "top 10 picks" or "top half of the first" or "first" - some of it is in other threads on this board right now. The point is that while drafting, teams can't predict who the top 3 guys at a position will be, they can only make an educated guess about how early they need to draft to get a particular player. The bottom line is that the best success for any position is usually in the top half of the 1st round - something like 50%. Overall, in the first round, it's 30% and usually not much lower in the top 10 picks of the 2nd round. The second round as a whole stays pretty high, 20-25%. Third round something like 15-20%, then it plummets. Let me rummage a bit and I'll put a link to some of the recent stuff people have posted about WR success by draft round here.... Um, yes, you did include Ruggs as a "hit" when you brought up that the success would be 80% for a trade-up if you just included him - " If Ruggs didn't end up in prison and he continued on his upward trajectory in 2021, that hit rate for a top 3 Wide Receiver in the last 5 drafts goes up to 80%... think about that... 80% hit rate potentially over the last 5 years if you just draft one of the first 3 WRs in the draft???" My point is that if you include one hypothetical to claim a hypothetical marvelous 80% hit rate, you open a can of worms where other hypotheticals can enter the fray. And um, I'm not sure where you get the notion I'm upset. Not following you on the QB comment, but that's a nit. .....looping back to link some of the recent posts https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/254036-how-to-pick-a-top-wr/#comment-9016893 looked at top receivers for the last 3 seasons and where they were drafted. 39% of them from 1st round, equal split between top and bottom half of the 1st round 25% of them from 2nd round 21% from 3rd round I'm not looking at "how many receivers were drafted where, and what % succeeded? I'm looking at "successful WR, where did they draft?" Here's one by Rigotz https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/254044-1st-vs-2nd-round-wr-hit-rate/#comment-9017898 He goes back 9 years but omits the 22 and 23 draft as too recent for good data...you'll like his conclusion 11 out of 28 first round picks ended up being plus starters (39%). 6 out of 33 second round picks ended up being plus starters (18%). [So he would support you, don't trade back] Here's one where I was looking at the most successful players in each draft, vs draft order https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/254021-interesting-wr-scenario-posed-by-a-friend/page/5/#comment-9016980 Just some different ways of approaching the same problem. Hope it's of interest.

Personally, I can't even pretend to have any kind of meaningful opinion - I just don't watch that much college football. But you're absolutely right that a lot goes into whether or not a guy succeeds beyond his innate talent. In addition to the factors you mention, there's also the intangibles of, how does this kid react to becoming an overnight millionaire? It doesn't help that to my observation with HS athletes, really talented athletes tend to get special treatment and the scope of it only gets bigger as they move up into college etc. I think that's one reason why the draft, even the top of the first round where the physical talent is undoubtedly elite, tends to be such a crap shoot. You can watch their film and measure their vertical leap, but not their heart or how hard they continue to work once paid.