Jump to content

Poll - Who Should the Bills take with their 2nd pick (For TSW Mock Draft)


Virgil

Who Should the Bills take in the 2nd round  

220 members have voted

  1. 1. With their 2nd round pick, the Buffalo Bills select:

    • Clyde Edwards-Helaire, RB, LSU
      46
    • Cole Kmet, TE, Notre Dame
      9
    • Damon Arnett, DB, Ohio St
      11
    • Cam Akers, RB, FSU
      16
    • Zach Moss, RB, Utah
      3
    • Terrell Lewis, OLB, Alabama
      29
    • Curtis Weaver, DE, Boise St
      18
    • Cameron Dantzler, DB, Mississippi St
      2
    • Julian Okwara, DE, Notre Dame
      23
    • Chase Claypool, WR, Notre Dame
      63


Recommended Posts

Just wanted to say I love these drafts.

Thanks Virgil and who ever else is involved.

Smart reasoning and good discussion.

Do we have any past ones to compare how you guys/girls do with the real draft?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Logic said:

This is insane. Instead of taking a stud running back — RB2 is currently TJ freaking Yeldon — or an athletic young pass rusher or a playmaking TE to pair with Knox or even a young CB2 candidate...the leading vote getter is a WR?!

 

Madness. 

 

For all the 21 and 11 personnel this team is gonna be running, we’re taking a WR4 with our highest draft pick?! Glad TSW won’t be making the call in real life.

I didn't vote for Claypool and don't really think he's worth the pick here, but to be fair, I'm not sure any of the pass rushers or TEs available are good enough prospects to warrant the pick either. I do think a corner, safety, or RB probably should have been the pick in this scenario.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Logic said:

 

Still a yuck for me.

 

For the reasons you mentioned, I’m all for the Bills taking a WR (or 2!) in this draft. But because of the deep crop of WRs, they can do it in the 3rd-6th rounds. No need to spend such a premium pick on a WR when it’s the deepest position in the draft.

 

Besides, let’s suppose the Bills hadn’t traded for Diggs and had instead used pick 22 to take a rookie WR. In that scenario, would people still want the Bills to then turn around and spend their 2nd round pick on a WR, too? It’s nuts. Bills fans just have hard-ons for height/weight/speed WR candidates, which was exacerbated by the success of DK Metcalf last year. It’s silly.

 

The way Beane has the team setup right now, I'm fine with BPA regardless of the position. Whether that's a RB, WR, Safety, CB, or even Kicker. I dont really have a positional preference at 54 or 86.

 

Tough to compare the Diggs acquisition to a rookie there. But if we didnt pull off the trade, and didnt sign any FAs, I wouldnt be jumping off the roof if Beane went WR 1 and 2. Again, not a lot of glaring needs to make me worry.

 

I think the love of measurables was pretty well supported last year when there were a handful of times our Smurfs couldnt get open, or couldnt make a play on a well-thrown ball, because of their stature. The Baltimore game for certain. Good chance we tie it up on that pass that Brown got out-muscled on.

 

I'm not pounding the table on any of this, just playing devils advocate, and saying dont get too upset with however they go. We're finally back in a spot where us fans can sit back and just enjoy the ride and let Beane drive. Should be fun to see play out.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, H2o said:

Comparing CEH to Thurman?

 

Why not?   Thurman wasn't that big a part of the passing game at Oklahoma State, but we saw how he made the offense hum when he was a Bill.    That kind of passing game production is easily projected on CEH...

 

    Rushing Receiving Scrimmage
Year School Conf Class Pos G Att Yds Avg TD Rec Yds Avg TD Plays Yds Avg TD
Career Oklahoma State         956 4847 5.1 43 84 598 7.1 2 1040 5445 5.2 45
*1984 Oklahoma State Big 8   RB 12 205 843 4.1 7 22 122 5.5 0 227 965 4.3 7
*1985 Oklahoma State Big 8   RB 12 327 1650 5.0 15 25 142 5.7 1 352 1792 5.1 16
1986 Oklahoma State Big 8   RB 11 173 741 4.3 4 18 150 8.3 1 191 891 4.7 5
1987 Oklahoma State Big 8   RB 11 251 1613 6.4 17 19 184 9.7 0 270 1797 6.7 17

 

Edited by Lurker
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Virgil said:

I really don’t get the WR love here.  Beasley and Brown aren’t going anywhere for at least 2 years.  Why spend a 2nd round pick on a #4 receiver 

Because Beasley & Brown are in their 30's and only signed for 2 more seasons.

 

This is a rich WR class, and we should take advantage of that, so that we can get the best product on the field.

 

The Bills can have better players than Foster, Williams, McKenzie & Roberts, who could step in and eventually replace Beasley & Brown.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Virgil said:

Claypool is the pick. 

 

Thank you everyone

Sorry, but you biased the results by waiting until you got a certain result and then stopped.  The WR won by 6% when you stopped. RB's actually won, 31 % to 28%.  There were 3 RB options and only one WR option.

 

Edited by maryland-bills-fan
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Sorry, but you biased the results by waiting until you got a certain result and then stopped.  The WR won by 6% when you stopped. RB's actually won, 31 % to 28%.  There were 3 RB options and only one WR option.

 

 

He was the only WR within 10 value positions in either direction of the pick.  There were 3 running backs that fit the same criteria.  You could make the same argument for the other positions.  Either way, it's a mock and I didn't want too many poll options. 

 

The best part is, I didn't even have the WR on the original list because I don't view it as a position of need.  I only added him because there's a few mocks in the Buffalo area that have us taking him there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Hardhatharry said:

I knew people would panic and pick RB.

Not how things happen.  People panic and "it is a wonderful draft for WR and we don't want to get left out.  Draft SOMEBODY"!!!

 

31 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

He was the only WR within 10 value positions in either direction of the pick.  There were 3 running backs that fit the same criteria.  You could make the same argument for the other positions.  Either way, it's a mock and I didn't want too many poll options. 

 

The best part is, I didn't even have the WR on the original list because I don't view it as a position of need.  I only added him because there's a few mocks in the Buffalo area that have us taking him there.

Well, when you run a poll or an election, you can influence the results by splitting the vote.   In political elections, 2, 3 or 4 "third party candidates" can suck votes out of a candidate and throw the election to the guy from the other side.  I think the Bills might have several good RB candidates to chose from at #54 or a mild trade up from there.  To me, that means they can selected the best "flavor" for their needs (they know better than me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Not how things happen.  People panic and "it is a wonderful draft for WR and we don't want to get left out.  Draft SOMEBODY"!!!

 

Well, when you run a poll or an election, you can influence the results by splitting the vote.   In political elections, 2, 3 or 4 "third party candidates" can suck votes out of a candidate and throw the election to the guy from the other side.  I think the Bills might have several good RB candidates to chose from at #54 or a mild trade up from there.  To me, that means they can selected the best "flavor" for their needs (they know better than me).

 

You've officially put way more thought into this than I have ?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

He was the only WR within 10 value positions in either direction of the pick.  There were 3 running backs that fit the same criteria.  You could make the same argument for the other positions.  Either way, it's a mock and I didn't want too many poll options. 

 

The best part is, I didn't even have the WR on the original list because I don't view it as a position of need.  I only added him because there's a few mocks in the Buffalo area that have us taking him there.

I think the only logically fair option is to have the top 2 or 3 do a final poll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WorstTEever81 said:

I think the only logically fair option is to have the top 2 or 3 do a final poll

 

The only huh?

 

This is the closest vote we've had in the 3 years of doing this with multiple drafts each year.  I'm also trying to get these done in a reasonable time to where we can get our final one in. 


End of the day, it provides the context that there's a decent split in wanting a WR or a RB.  That's the ultimate point

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

I just gave CEH his 22nd vote.  Question:  If we take a RB at #2 in this mock, do some people's heads still explode?  That should be reserved for the if the Bills do it I would think.  Just wondering.

Not at all. If by some miracle Taylor or Dobbins fall to 54 you take them. I'm still convinced the RB carries will be split 50/50. If they're both gone go get Claypool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...