MLB Jack Campbell #53 in the top 100 of The Athletic... is this our guy???

[Bookie Man]

1 minute ago, gobills404 said:

So all I got from this is Sanders is much better at blitzing (which nobody disagrees with) and would be a better DE in a hypothetical scenario that will never happen. That’s fine because Campbell is better actually being a MLB.

 

“It would be a HUGE mistake to take him period” did Jack Campbell screw your wife or something?? Dude is a very smart and experienced player, won the Butkus award, is an elite athlete just like Sanders while being 15lbs heavier, and has elite intangibles. Talk about insane hyperbole.

Did he screw my wife? No man, cmon that's my neighbors job. But no seriously.  I have nothing at all against the guy. I'm just stating my opinion after watching all of the video available to me. How much have you watched? I don't mean just highlight videos. I mean complete games and watch him every play. If you haven't you should. I'll bet your perspective changes. If you compare on film Campbell and Sanders, the difference is glaring. He has great intangibles, but bad instincts. 

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

 

And then you watch Campbell's game video and you see the disconnect between his measurables and his play. He doesn't play as big, fast, or quick as he measures IMO.

 

100% true. I expected him to be fine when it came to testing but his performance surprised me. It has been said elsewhere how much football means to him. He is a smart kid from a good family, my guess is he did some serious combine training (which fair play to him if he did, it's a job interview, you should take it seriously) but I think that probably slightly overstates what kind of athlete you will get on the field on Sundays. 

 

I don't have a huge gap between him and Sanders, it is close on my board, but I have Sanders graded just a tad higher. And Simpson higher than both of them. I think Jack Campbell will have a solid career, but I think on this board at least he has an almost God like status which I am not sure he totally warrants.

Edited April 11, 2023 by GunnerBill

[gobills404]

1 hour ago, ßookie_tech said:

Did he screw my wife? No man, cmon that's my neighbors job. But no seriously.  

Stop trying to make me chuckle

 

1 hour ago, ßookie_tech said:

How much have you watched? I don't mean just highlight videos. I mean complete games and watch him every play. If you haven't you should. I'll bet your perspective changes. 

Every game from 2022 I could get my hands on for both (7 games for Sanders, 9 for Campbell). I’ll admit my reaction was too harsh (especially since

I don’t want either in the first round) but I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. To me they both have similar ceilings as the MIKE in the McD’s system, but Campbell has a MUCH higher floor. If the Bills ran a 3-4 defense or wanted another Lorenzo style SAM/EDGE hybrid then give me Sanders all day every day. But talking strictly as an Edmunds replacement at MLB, I’d rather have Campbell and it’s not close.

Edited April 11, 2023 by gobills404

[nosejob]

Well after Campbell working with Luke, I'm sure McBeane will be able to get a view from someone they know who has all the creds and can give an opinion on the level of a LB coach. I like the fact that the FO is getting this kind of intel and applaud them for that.

[Sherlock Holmes]

5 minutes ago, nosejob said:

Well after Campbell working with Luke, I'm sure McBeane will be able to get a view from someone they know who has all the creds and can give an opinion on the level of a LB coach. I like the fact that the FO is getting this kind of intel and applaud them for that.

Might as well just bring Luke in full time

[Doc]

13 minutes ago, nosejob said:

Well after Campbell working with Luke, I'm sure McBeane will be able to get a view from someone they know who has all the creds and can give an opinion on the level of a LB coach. I like the fact that the FO is getting this kind of intel and applaud them for that.

 

OTOH that might work against the Bills.  Kuechly's going to say the kid is a stud regardless of any deficiencies he (still) sees while working with him.

[nosejob]

15 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

OTOH that might work against the Bills.  Kuechly's going to say the kid is a stud regardless of any deficiencies he (still) sees while working with him.

Why would you just assume that? Who benefits in that?....unless he was told, "That's gonna be our pick no matter what."....Just get him ready.

 

EDIT:.......which would actually be cool. Jack Campbert would be ready to lay some wood Day 1.

Edited April 11, 2023 by nosejob

[Doc]

29 minutes ago, nosejob said:

Why would you just assume that? Who benefits in that?....unless he was told, "That's gonna be our pick no matter what."....Just get him ready.

 

EDIT:.......which would actually be cool. Jack Campbert would be ready to lay some wood Day 1.

 

Campbell and Kuechly.  If he goes 27th overall instead of mid-2nd rounder like many said he would, he gets a lot more money and Kuechly looks better for it.  And AFAIK no one with ties to the team is coaching-up SImpson or Sanders.

 

Ultimately I just hope they draft a stud MLB.  Doesn't matter who.

[KOKBILLS]

12 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

 

And then you watch Campbell's game video and you see the disconnect between his measurables and his play. He doesn't play as big, fast, or quick as he measures IMO.

 

Ya...I watched him plenty...He'll be fine...There's no perfect player coming in and a million variables to consider once they get into NFL games.

 

Assuming he stays healthy and gets into a Defense (like the Bills) that will take advantage of his strengths, as he grows into the league he's going to become one of the more instinctive LB's in the NFL because he's smart. Once those smarts and instincts catch up to the athletic profile, some team is going to be very lucky to have him...

[Buffalo Barbarian]

On 3/30/2023 at 12:39 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

We all know the hole to fill. Yes it's possible the Edmunds replacement is on our roster, but c'mon... who really doesn't think we're adding an ILB???? 

 

Jack Campbell has been the buzz since the Combine. Yet, The Athletic just came out with their top 100. Here's what they said about him:

 

Campbell has excellent size to take on blocks in the box, and he’s more than willing to do so. An effective communicator pre-snap, Campbell plays with good awareness to discern play concepts and effectively play the run. He flashes the ability to stack and shed climbing offensive linemen while being a sound tackler.

 

But he will let the game come to him at times instead of being the aggressor. He is a good athlete, but it doesn’t always show because he plays in a controlled manner — there are times you wish he used his gifts more.

 

Campbell’s awareness does carry over against the pass. He is at his best in zone, where he can read the game, make plays on the ball and get into passing lanes. He’s also a fluid enough mover to hold his own in man.

Campbell has the size and athleticism to quickly adjust to the NFL. He doesn’t always play to his testing numbers, but if he becomes more comfortable, he has the ideal traits and play style to be a three-down linebacker.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but there were many parts of that report that absolutely screamed Buffalo.

 

It'd be amazing if we got him in the 2nd, but wouldn't be shocked if we took him in the 1st.

 

this is why we are taking Sanders.

 

 

On 3/30/2023 at 12:50 AM, Mark Vader said:

Agreed.

 

Trading down in general to get more picks would be a good move for the Bills this year.

 

I'd rather have more picks than signing a ton of UDFA's.

 

We should always trade down, unless going for a QB or some obviously ridiculous talent.

 

 

[BananaB]

Probably a good fit to fill a spot of need. Does it really matter where we pick him if he contributes right away? That’s what we need, can’t draft this guy and have sit behind the other average guys who have a little more experience. Draft him, play him and let him learn on the fly. 

[NastyNateSoldiers]

On 3/30/2023 at 3:39 PM, whorlnut said:

Awesome. We take a LB and the chiefs and bengals get more offensive weapons that our spanking new MLB can’t stop.

Offensive weapons in this draft is almost like throwing your pick in the trash. We need to take Bpa in this draft more then other years because the draft overall is very weak especially in the top rds. Going Offensive line or even Dline is better way to go in first this yr. 

[LabattBlue]

I just want a LB who…

 

- has better instincts in terms of run defense

 

- can shed a blocker

 

- makes impact plays more than 2-3 a year

 

[machine gun kelly]

Yes if we can drive down value on a draft day trade for Hopkins, and then draft another WR in the 2nd.

 

TE-3rd

G-4th

[Sierra Foothills]

FWIW, The Athletic's respected annual Draft Guide, "The Beast" came out on Monday. It's written by their draftnick Dane Brugler.

 

In their rankings Jack Campbell is the 3rd rated LB behind Sanders and Simpson. In addition The Beast gave Campbell a 2nd round grade. Here's an excerpt of what they had to say about him:

 

STRENGTHS: Above-average size and frame with room to add more mass ... anticipates well and trusts his eyes to play out in front ... has the range and awareness to mirror the run at the line of scrimmage ... shows the gap-to-gap quickness and lateral shuffle to work around the noise and find the ball carrier ... transitions well in his zone coverage drops (his 6.74 three-cone and 4.24 short shuttle were No. 1 among linebackers at the Combine) ... displays a keen sense for route spacing and finds passing lanes (15 career passes defended) ... plays with the body strength to match up with blockers ... elite toughness ... two-year team captain in high school and again in college ... not very vocal, but his teammates say he sets the tone with his tenacious effort, and his coaches call him an “amazing” practice player (Iowa head coach Kirk Ferentz: “Everything he does, he goes hard”) ... egoless and humble off the field (didn’t pursue NIL deals and considers social media a “distraction”) ... film study in the foundation of his game ... became the first Iowa player to win the William V. Campbell Trophy (Academic Heisman) ... combined for 271 tackles over his final two seasons.

WEAKNESSES: Doesn’t play with sudden twitch in his lower half to quickly react to ball carriers or blockers, especially in space (his testing showed better short-area suddenness than on tape) ... average lateral and closing burst ... occasionally waits for the action instead of thumping downhill consistently ... inconsistent stack-and- shed skills and must improve his leverage, reach and handwork ... vision is focused on the ball and late to locate climbing or side-angled blocks ... needs a clear lane to be effective as a blitzer ... strong tackler, but not an explosive tackler ... missed 2022 spring practices because of a knee injury ... has battled a nagging left UCL injury.

SUMMARY: A two-year starter at Iowa, Campbell was the “MIKE” linebacker in defensive coordinator Phil Parker’s 4-3 base scheme. Head coach Kirk Ferentz wanted to move him to defensive end or center as a freshman because of his frame, but Campbell pushed to stay at linebacker and averaged 10.0 tackles in his 27 starts, and became the first Hawkeyes player to win the Butkus Award (nation’s top linebacker) and William V. Campbell Trophy (academic Heisman). Fueled by his preparation and smarts, Campbell plays with impressive play speed and awareness vs. both the run and the pass, working relentlessly to maximize everything in his tool box. Though he has a keen eye for tendencies and a nose for the ball, he tends to wait instead of attacking downhill and struggles to quickly redirect/react when ball carriers or route runners put a move on him. Overall, Campbell is inconsistent as a thumper, but his athleticism, intangibles and instincts will keep him in the NFL for a long time. He has the talent to compete for starting reps as an NFL rookie.

GRADE: 2nd Round (No. 52 overall)

 

Link (behind a paywall... subscribers only): https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/2023/04/10172057/TheBeast_NFL_Draft_Guide-2-1.pdf

[Einstein's Dog]

17 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

FWIW, The Athletic's respected annual Draft Guide, "The Beast" came out on Monday. It's written by their draftnick Dane Brugler.

In their rankings Jack Campbell is the 3rd rated LB behind Sanders and Simpson. In addition The Beast gave Campbell a 2nd round grade. 

 

STRENGTHS: Above-average size and frame with room to add more mass ...

well in his zone coverage drops (his 6.74 three-cone and 4.24 short shuttle were No. 1 among linebackers at the Combine) ... elite toughness ...

two-year team captain in high school and again in college ...... egoless and humble off the field (didn’t pursue NIL deals 

William V. Campbell Trophy (Academic Heisman)

 

GRADE: 2nd Round (No. 52 overall)

 

Wow.  Thanks for posting.  Campbell has awards and "Above-average size and frame with room to add more mass" and yet two others are ahead of him.  Wonder how the Bills view it.  Would be interesting to see if they are all available what the Bills would do.

 

What grade and round did they have for Sanders and Simpson?

[Sierra Foothills]

32 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Wow.  Thanks for posting.  Campbell has awards and "Above-average size and frame with room to add more mass" and yet two others are ahead of him.  Wonder how the Bills view it.  Would be interesting to see if they are all available what the Bills would do.

 

What grade and round did they have for Sanders and Simpson?

 

Apparently all three are fairly closely grouped because Sanders and Simpson were both given grades of "1st-2nd" round grades whereas Campbell was given "2nd."

 

[Einstein's Dog]

On 4/11/2023 at 3:26 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

100% true. I expected him to be fine when it came to testing but his performance surprised me. It has been said elsewhere how much football means to him. He is a smart kid from a good family, my guess is he did some serious combine training (which fair play to him if he did, it's a job interview, you should take it seriously) but I think that probably slightly overstates what kind of athlete you will get on the field on Sundays. 

 

I don't have a huge gap between him and Sanders, it is close on my board, but I have Sanders graded just a tad higher. And Simpson higher than both of them. I think Jack Campbell will have a solid career, but I think on this board at least he has an almost God like status which I am not sure he totally warrants.

Are you kidding with the "he did some serious combine training" diss?  What serious candidate wouldn't?  You don't think Sanders trained?  You're entitled to your opinion, but discounting Campbells results by coming up with some type of "he gamed the system" theory is fabricating an excuse to support your bias.  Extra points for taking Campbells care for the game, intelligence, and a good family and twisting it into a negative.  The RAS has always been one data point to consider.

 

You don't see a huge gap but when I look at several data points -  RAS, advantage in mlb experience, awards (Butkus), along with markers indicating intelligence (gpa), loyalty (no transfers), and team personality (captain)- Campbell looks like he is in a tier of his own.  I wouldn't be surprised if the top 3 WRs and top OL are gone by #22, that the Bills make a small move to get ahead of the Giants to get Campbell. 

[Warriorspikes51]

Please not in the 1st. 

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Are you kidding with the "he did some serious combine training" diss?  What serious candidate wouldn't?  You don't think Sanders trained?  You're entitled to your opinion, but discounting Campbells results by coming up with some type of "he gamed the system" theory is fabricating an excuse to support your bias.  Extra points for taking Campbells care for the game, intelligence, and a good family and twisting it into a negative.  The RAS has always been one data point to consider.

 

You don't see a huge gap but when I look at several data points -  RAS, advantage in mlb experience, awards (Butkus), along with markers indicating intelligence (gpa), loyalty (no transfers), and team personality (captain)- Campbell looks like he is in a tier of his own.  I wouldn't be surprised if the top 3 WRs and top OL are gone by #22, that the Bills make a small move to get ahead of the Giants to get Campbell. 

 

I made clear it was not a diss. Good on him for taking it so seriously. But the testing at the combine is not matched by the film. I am not saying he isn't athletic or that he is slow, or anything like that. But the film does not show someone with elite explosion and elite agility. Normally when the two don't mesh you have a guy who has trained for the combine specific drills. 

 

The things that you see on tape in terms of weaknesses are his lack of twitch, his lateral movement skills and his change of direction. Everything Jack Campbell does inside 'the box' is high level - lane discipline in the run game, aggressive downhill tackler, awarness in zone drops, but once you get him outside the box - ask him to pursue on runs to the outside, recovery speed, pick up tight ends and backs in man coverage - that is where you see the limitations that make him LB3 for me. I think he has the safest floor of the 3. If someone asked me which if Simpson, Sanders and Campbell is definitely still in the league in 8 years time I'd say Campbell. I just don't think the ceiling is there the way it is with Simpson (who is a top 16 talent in this class IMO) and Sanders. 

 

[LyndonvilleBill]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I made clear it was not a diss. Good on him for taking it so seriously. But the testing at the combine is not matched by the film. I am not saying he isn't athletic or that he is slow, or anything like that. But the film does not show someone with elite explosion and elite agility. Normally when the two don't mesh you have a guy who has trained for the combine specific drills. 

 

The things that you see on tape in terms of weaknesses are his lack of twitch, his lateral movement skills and his change of direction. Everything Jack Campbell does inside 'the box' is high level - lane discipline in the run game, aggressive downhill tackler, awarness in zone drops, but once you get him outside the box - ask him to pursue on runs to the outside, recovery speed, pick up tight ends and backs in man coverage - that is where you see the limitations that make him LB3 for me. I think he has the safest floor of the 3. If someone asked me which if Simpson, Sanders and Campbell is definitely still in the league in 8 years time I'd say Campbell. I just don't think the ceiling is there the way it is with Simpson (who is a top 16 talent in this class IMO) and Sanders. 

 

GB, if you have Simpson in the top 16, where do you have Sanders and Campbell ranked?

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

GB, if you have Simpson in the top 16, where do you have Sanders and Campbell ranked?

 

I'm not right in front of my board so number rankings not sure... but Simpson is a 1st/2nd borderline grade and I have Sanders and Campbell as upper / mid 2nds.

[KingBoots8]

I love Jack Campbell as our first pick.

 

…. as long as that pick is traded back and taken between 36-48. This is not a knock on him in any way, but I think we really need to consider moving back and getting as much value as we can if there’s a willing trade partner out there.
 

There really isn’t any prospect I 100% love at 27 that we can’t trade back for and either still get, or at least get a comparable (if not as highly regarded) prospect.

[ScorpionZero]

I like Sanders as the first pick, he adds a different dynamic than Campbell. Most importantly as a pass rusher.

[Einstein's Dog]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I made clear it was not a diss. Good on him for taking it so seriously. But the testing at the combine is not matched by the film. I am not saying he isn't athletic or that he is slow, or anything like that. But the film does not show someone with elite explosion and elite agility. Normally when the two don't mesh you have a guy who has trained for the combine specific drills. 

 

The things that you see on tape in terms of weaknesses are his lack of twitch, his lateral movement skills and his change of direction. Everything Jack Campbell does inside 'the box' is high level - lane discipline in the run game, aggressive downhill tackler, awarness in zone drops, but once you get him outside the box - ask him to pursue on runs to the outside, recovery speed, pick up tight ends and backs in man coverage - that is where you see the limitations that make him LB3 for me. I think he has the safest floor of the 3. If someone asked me which if Simpson, Sanders and Campbell is definitely still in the league in 8 years time I'd say Campbell. I just don't think the ceiling is there the way it is with Simpson (who is a top 16 talent in this class IMO) and Sanders. 

 

I get it, you didn't see it on tape.  You didn't expect good results from Campbell.  And when confronted with the good results you make excuses for them to discount the data point and keep your preconceived bias.   You didn't see twitch and assumed Campbell was slow, you didn't see change of direction and assumed Campbell had poor lateral movements.   Combine results show your conclusions were wrong.

 

Most of the field is training for the combine.  So yes, it is a diss when you imply that Campbell's numbers are somehow less meaningful.

 

Often times the RAS can be used as a negative.  It can be used as indicator that a prospect doesn't have the requisite physical attributes to succeed, such as speed or agility.  Clearly these limitations are not applicable to Campbell.  It doesn't matter if he trained, he can do it.  

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Einstein's Dog said:

I get it, you didn't see it on tape.  You didn't expect good results from Campbell.  And when confronted with the good results you make excuses for them to discount the data point and keep your preconceived bias.   You didn't see twitch and assumed Campbell was slow, you didn't see change of direction and assumed Campbell had poor lateral movements.   Combine results show your conclusions were wrong.

 

Most of the field is training for the combine.  So yes, it is a diss when you imply that Campbell's numbers are somehow less meaningful.

 

Often times the RAS can be used as a negative.  It can be used as indicator that a prospect doesn't have the requisite physical attributes to succeed, such as speed or agility.  Clearly these limitations are not applicable to Campbell.  It doesn't matter if he trained, he can do it.  

 

No. Then combine does not show that. If you think the combine trumps the tape, all power to you. I didn't assume he was slow or had poor lateral movements. What I did was assess what I saw on tape. I have no axe to grind with Jack Campbell at all. But when the combine doesn't match the tape I'd trust the tape. 

[Einstein's Dog]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No. Then combine does not show that. If you think the combine trumps the tape, all power to you. I didn't assume he was slow or had poor lateral movements. What I did was assess what I saw on tape. I have no axe to grind with Jack Campbell at all. But when the combine doesn't match the tape I'd trust the tape. 

I understand taking the tape over the combine.  You went further than that though and started to discount Campbells combine.

 

The larger point though is, I believe your ranking does not match the Bills (and probably not the Giants either).  And I'm starting to think the gulf between Campbell and the next rated mlb could be significant.  So much so that if things break in a somewhat expected way,  (like top 3 WRs gone and top OL gone and all 3 mlbs available) at #22, the Bills would be tempted to jump the Giants.

 

Most of the board would not like it, but I can see it.

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

I understand taking the tape over the combine.  You went further than that though and started to discount Campbells combine.

 

The larger point though is, I believe your ranking does not match the Bills (and probably not the Giants either).  And I'm starting to think the gulf between Campbell and the next rated mlb could be significant.  So much so that if things break in a somewhat expected way,  (like top 3 WRs gone and top OL gone and all 3 mlbs available) at #22, the Bills would be tempted to jump the Giants.

 

Most of the board would not like it, but I can see it.

 

Nope. I did not discount his combine. Not at all. Indeed I gave him credit for it. You took it as a diss. I told you it wasn't. You continued to interpret it as such. I can't do anything about that. 

[GunnerBill]

9 hours ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

GB, if you have Simpson in the top 16, where do you have Sanders and Campbell ranked?

 

Home now checked board:

#16 Simpson

#27 Sanders

#30 Campbell

[mjt328]

Even the fans pushing for Jack Campbell at #27 admit it's not really good value.

They are ONLY in favor, because they are worried he won't last until #59 and we will then be screwed.

 

To me, this is a huge indictment of Brandon Beane's roster building.  A contender should never go into a draft with a need so big, they can't go anywhere else with their picks.  At this point, the Bills MUST reach terribly for a Middle Linebacker with their first pick... or they will need to make a significant trade-up in the 2nd Round to get one.  That is a terrible situation to be in.

 

I can only hope I'm wrong, and either Sean McDermott is planning some kind of scheme change that changes the type of LB we need... or we have a backup plan with a veteran (trade or signing) if the draft doesn't fall our way.  

 

[mannc]

5 hours ago, KingBoots8 said:

I love Jack Campbell as our first pick.

 

…. as long as that pick is traded back and taken between 36-48. This is not a knock on him in any way, but I think we really need to consider moving back and getting as much value as we can if there’s a willing trade partner out there.
 

There really isn’t any prospect I 100% love at 27 that we can’t trade back for and either still get, or at least get a comparable (if not as highly regarded) prospect.

How do you know this?  You can't know who will be available at 27, much less if you could still get them in a trade back...

[KingBoots8]

9 minutes ago, mannc said:

How do you know this?  You can't know who will be available at 27, much less if you could still get them in a trade back...

Maybe I worded it poorly, but my overall feeling is that we should explore whatever trade back options we have available as we have a few more holes than usual to fill and only 6 picks to do it with. I like Campbell, but I don’t think we need to rush to the podium to take him at 27. I think we could trade back to the late 30’s or early 40’s and still get him. If he was drafted before we get him, we still can get either another somewhat similar player with that pick, or use it to take the BPA as we have multiple positions of need. We can always come back around to address the LB position in the 3rd round of our top rated guys are gone.

I’d rather see if we can get an extra 3rd rounder to help fill roles for positions of need next year like WR, DT or S. No sense drafting ahead of where we can get a player if there is a trade partner willing to movie up to 27

 

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by KingBoots8

[Einstein's Dog]

24 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

Even the fans pushing for Jack Campbell at #27 admit it's not really good value.

They are ONLY in favor, because they are worried he won't last until #59 and we will then be screwed.

 

To me, this is a huge indictment of Brandon Beane's roster building.  A contender should never go into a draft with a need so big, they can't go anywhere else with their picks.  At this point, the Bills MUST reach terribly for a Middle Linebacker with their first pick... or they will need to make a significant trade-up in the 2nd Round to get one.  That is a terrible situation to be in.

 

What?  Some fans think Jack Campbell would be an excellent choice.

 

Why is Jack Campbell (JC) bad value at #27 and D Sanders is not, if the Bills have Campbell rated higher?  Many mocks have Sanders going before our pick, and GB above ranks Simpson at #16.   I could see Beane valuing JC at $4M on a one year deal if he were a free agent, certainly above the slotted $2.5M they would pay.  That's immediate value.  Outside of the top 3 WRs, they are not worth over $2.5M for the year, you are paying on the hope of rise in future value (and JC's value would rise also).

 

I've suggested that Jack Campbell may have separated himself as the top candidate with the combine.  I've tried my best to give forewarning to the board that if Beane sees it way, not only would JC be the first pick, Beane might move up to do it.

 

[Dr. Who]

4 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

What?  Some fans think Jack Campbell would be an excellent choice.

 

Why is Jack Campbell (JC) bad value at #27 and D Sanders is not, if the Bills have Campbell rated higher?  Many mocks have Sanders going before our pick, and GB above ranks Simpson at #16.   I could see Beane valuing JC at $4M on a one year deal if he were a free agent, certainly above the slotted $2.5M they would pay.  That's immediate value.  Outside of the top 3 WRs, they are not worth over $2.5M for the year, you are paying on the hope of rise in future value (and JC's value would rise also).

 

I've suggested that Jack Campbell may have separated himself as the top candidate with the combine.  I've tried my best to give forewarning to the board that if Beane sees it way, not only would JC be the first pick, Beane might move up to do it.

 

Pretty sure you have repeated your narrative with the logic behind it enough that anyone who is more than a casual reader of this board is aware of it. We'll see if it works out that way.

[LyndonvilleBill]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Home now checked board:

#16 Simpson

#27 Sanders

#30 Campbell

Thank You. So, far from a "reach" if the Bills took him at 27 based on your board and a realistic option based upon our needs in your opinion?

 

 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

Thank You. So, far from a "reach" if the Bills took him at 27 based on your board and a realistic option based upon our needs in your opinion?

 

No I don't think in this class it would be fair to call him a reach at the end of round 1. N a lot of other classes he would be. But you can only draft the players who are in this class.

 

I think the issue some are pondering is whether there is a lot of difference between the 27th player and the 40th player and whether you might maximise your value trading back a few spots. 

[LyndonvilleBill]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No I don't think in this class it would be fair to call him a reach at the end of round 1. N a lot of other classes he would be. But you can only draft the players who are in this class.

 

I think the issue some are pondering is whether there is a lot of difference between the 27th player and the 40th player and whether you might maximise your value trading back a few spots. 

Again thank You.

 

With that being said, where does the cutoff begin for a 5th year option on value? Is it worth trading down 5-10 spots or is the 5th yr option better?

[NewEra]

I’d SOOOOOOO much rather have Simpson over Campbell.  

3 minutes ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

Again thank You.

 

With that being said, where does the cutoff begin for a 5th year option on value? Is it worth trading down 5-10 spots or is the 5th yr option better?

I’d rather have 2 top 80 players for 4 years than 1 for 5 years. 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

Again thank You.

 

With that being said, where does the cutoff begin for a 5th year option on value? Is it worth trading down 5-10 spots or is the 5th yr option better?

 

I think it is if you are drafting a big money position. If you are moving back 4 or 5 spots and still planning to take a linebacker at 34 or 35 or wherever not sure it makes that much difference. 

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think it is if you are drafting a big money position. If you are moving back 4 or 5 spots and still planning to take a linebacker at 34 or 35 or wherever not sure it makes that much difference. 

 

LB isn't a big money position?