Dr. Who

Yeah, I agree with that. For me, McConkey is a top 5 or 6 WR in this draft. I think you need someone that plays his "role," though the precise skill sets will differ. So, maybe Pearsall or Franklin as alternative. Then you still need that big deep threat (I don't think Franklin checks the box for both. Maybe some do.)

So, it seems to me that teams may be playing that one-and two-high safety defense because they could potentially be threatened by a deep threat. If that disappears enough from the arsenal of weapons and strategic tactics of OCs, the defense will adapt to whatever offense is dominant. I don't know either, precisely, where the game is evolving, but I can only repeat my prejudice that having something akin to a traditional WR1 helps the entire WR room. Yet if one draws back from that, it's still largely a matter of semantics, imo, because I still don't think trying the "new" approach means you can dismiss the advantages of having better players at the WR position. I don't think it means having solid pass catchers with more modest ability is sufficient. Let's grant provisionally that the current offenses are now going to emphasize moving pieces, those "multi-skilled" players you talk about, who are they? Does it mean getting MHJ or Nabers or Odunze is less important, or does it mean that their skills will be plugged into the new formula, and the superior talent plays out differently in terms of tactics, but recurs in terms of the better WRs still giving an edge to the team that has them? Maybe somehow this will result in the WR position being devalued somewhat akin to what has happened to RB. I am skeptical, but maybe so. Regardless, Beane may see Kincaid as emerging as a significant threat. That's possible, and it wouldn't shock me. I advocated for drafting him last year with that hope. I'll be disappointed if Beane is content to go with a late round 2 WR to be the main piece in filling the WR room. I think it would be a big mistake. I've already written numerous posts on the fellas I think he should go get. Whatever happens, I'll root for Beane to be right and for the Bills to flourish.

Is he going to draft McCarthy? That would be kinda crazy.

All this time I've been worried McD was going to insist on Cooper Dejean or Chop Robinson, and I should have been looking over my shoulder for Kneeland. That would really be dumb overdrafting for need, and then Roman Wilson is not anywhere near my top 7 or 8 WR choices. I wouldn't take him, actually.

Maybe I misinterpreted, but I think he means Legette reminds him of Metcalf, and we should trade up from 60 to get him.

I think there are other needs, but I would sacrifice some to get the WRs early. DE, DT, CB, S, OL, RB2, lots of places I would add if given sufficient resources. I do think it is a terrible year at edge and mediocre at S. WR (first two rounds, especially), OL, and CB are pretty deep. There are some decent mid-round DT depth if you have to wait on that. Right now, we have a second round pick at #60 and no third.

I have some similar players, some taken with the exact same pick (the last two). This is a different usage of the 2025 2s. I used one along with pick 133 to move up for Thomas. The other second was used to move up from 60 for McConkey. Outside of the top 3, those are my favorite receivers in the draft. 22. Brian Thomas Jr.WR LSU 40. Ladd McConkeyWR Georgia 128. Audric EstimeRB Notre Dame 144. Tykee SmithS Georgia 160. Jordan JeffersonDT LSU 163. Beaux LimmerOC Arkansas 200. Khristian BoydDT Nothern Iowa 204. Tip ReimanTE Illinois 248. Gabriel MurphyEDGE UCLA

That is a popular strategy of late. I am not as confident in the Green Bay model. I'd still rather get a WR1. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing you have to trade up for one of the big 3, or even for Thomas, though I'd like it if they got him. I do think they need two WRs early. Folks want to try something else, that's fine. I'm just stating my preference. I like McConkey. I think he can be the next Diggs. He's not Diggs. He won't have the exact vertical game, but he's silky smooth, snaps off routes, and is not a gritty slot. That is a misnomer. He's faster than many seem to think. And I think he's a volume receiver year one. Then I'd like Thomas, or Mitchell, or Legette for the second early receiver. Maybe that can't be done. We might not have the picks or the opportunity to make that happen, but I would pursue trying to make it so. I don't know if that is a GB WR room or not, but if you mean wait and take a shot on Rice and McCaffrey, etc., I think that is too low an investment. It might work, but I think you're still more likely to hit with early round picks. (I like Rice and McCaffrey, btw.)

That is definitely the argument from authority. I like Beane. I'm not against him, but I think you are giving him too much credit. Some Socratic irony is needed, though, of course, it's just my opinion.

Yeah, I'm counting on Beane growing past his proclivities. He may be blind to the situation based on prejudices that have some success behind them, but I find it hard to believe he can't see the problem. And Carolina ran Cam Newton into the ground. That is not a model to follow.

If Beane doesn't understand that the team needs to add superior talent at WR, there's a problem. And btw, I was not one of those who was terribly worried about LB last year. Obsession is a pejorative term. Maybe you think everyone who is worried about the talent in the WR room is overwrought and that Beane has shown himself to be shrewd, and so successful that his acumen should be automatically granted the benefit of the doubt. Justin Shorter is not likely the WR equivalent of Bernard. Shakir and Samuel are not true WR2 in my estimation, nor is the collective combination of what is on the roster, plus Knox, Kincaid, and Cook a remedy for the current state of WR talent on the roster. As it stands, it is in the bottom ten of the NFL, imo. Fortunately, I think Beane knows this. I also think he agrees with those "obsessed fans," but it doesn't behoove him to say so. If you're comfortable thinking that there is no urgency to significantly upgrade, that is your prerogative, but right now, they don't have a big WR to stretch the field, and I don't think they have someone to adequately fill Diggs' role down the line. Nor do I think you can just divvy up the targets to adequate WRs to make up the difference. Having a player of Diggs' quality (when he was playing well) opened up opportunities for other receivers that won't be there if you don't have a top WR to stress the defense. I think they need two early picks there to develop starting now. I don't think Josh would be happy with the usual take a middle round WR Carolina tradition. Beane has built a consistent winner, but he needs more playmakers. We lose in the post-season because we lack them.

128, 144, and a 2025 4th rounder to move up 5 spots? That's not a bad deal, and it doesn't involve any early 2025 picks. I am a fan of that trade. I think Thomas will develop and grow his game, but right now he immediately fills a big vacancy in our WR room for a big X that can get downfield and force the defense to cover more of the field. Yeah, I just got done saying that with less details. I'd love the trade, and if they stay at #60, Bishop is a pick I like there. I like Bishop or Bullard early, Tykee Smith later at S.

If Beane's telling the truth, he's a terrible poker player and a damn fool. He's got to have learned something since leaving Carolina. I think he's fibbing.

They really have to drop to 8 or 9 for even a plausible expensive trade up. Everything else is fantasy land or an absurd price that would be crippling.

Slowly we are getting to a point of understanding, at least as to what we each mean. I would prefer to go WR early twice, but if they wait until #60, there is very little chance a WR I would value at that pick will be on the board. So my position is trade up from #60 to get the second WR. If you're not willing or unable to do that, and end up staying at #60, I suspect the best pick will be some other position. I do not want to just take any WR or the best left on the board if that doesn't happen to be one of a small number that I favor, all of which I expect to be selected well before then. In that case, any one of the defensive positions you outline are possible, and I would not discount OL early either for that matter, because the value could be there as well. It may turn out different, but my sense is they either have to move up or move back from that spot.

Alright, I thought your premise in the previous post was 2 WRs. I disagree. I think they need to be more proactive, and I would prioritize WR. #60 is definitely not a good spot for WR, so if you stay there, it's likely another position.

Nope, that won't work if you want 2 early WR picks, imo. Even if you stick at #28 or trade back, #60 is not a good spot. There will be a run on WRs starting at the top of the second and petering out somewhere in the mid-forties. Have to move up, and you can get pretty high up from #60 with one of those 2025 seconds. You need a RB2 somewhere in the draft, and it would be foolish not to pick up OL depth.

That's good, because that certainly would be part of the cost.

Well reasoned, though I really do not like Coleman. I don't see him as likely to be an effective boundary receiver, and I think his best chance to flourish is as a big slot, so he would require Kincaid being off the field to be successful. Maybe that's wrong, but that's how I see it. I'd rather they traded up reasonably high for Thomas. Yet one more week of trying to figure all the angles. Watch him take Cooper Dejean.

It wouldn't be a total shock if Beane trades up big for Odunze if he falls to #9. There's no need to broadcast that option if he is in fact contemplating its possibility. Too many unknowns have to fall into place before it could be enacted. More likely, he trades up for Thomas, or waits at #28. McConkey is, and should be in play. All that being put out just now on Mitchell, the timing of it is suspicious. Maybe it's all true and that data just exacerbates the questions about him, but it's awfully convenient if you are a team that wants him to fall within range. I still think they need two early (top 40 or so picks) invested at WR, regardless of other needs. Shakir and Samuel are only nice pieces if they are not counted on to be WR2, imo. I highly doubt Beane is going to let Davis go and trades Diggs without a plan that is more than a wing and a prayer. It would also be irresponsible to just give up on a season of Josh Allen's prime.

You're making a case for Kneeland in the second. They're not taking him at #28. Taking everything that's been said, I think the possibility of McConkey has gone up, which is fine by me.

Pretty sure that is common knowledge. The passions involved in arguing for or against particular prospects is motivated by that awareness. No one really knows how a specific individual will turn out, and so much of it depends on incalculable factors. The best you can do is try to find the best fit of talent, character, and scheme, and hope you can get the fella that matches. If you have a larger point, I'm not sure what it is. Do you think folks should just shut up or stifle their enthusiasm because it might not work out?

I would love to find a way to get both Thomas and McConkey. My second choice is McConkey and Legette. I think if they go for just one, Beane will trade up for Thomas.

Stick with Ladd. He'll play golf with you, too.

So long you'll decide to cut the lawn.