Benford - Was he being showcased? (Opinion, not a rumor)

[NewEra]

Interesting thought @Alphadawg7

 

i don’t believe it to be the case though.  He’s been playing well. Elam has not.  Dane is what he is. Good depth, below average starter.  If Dane is our starter, i think our chances of winning a SB will have slightly decreased to my original chances.  
 

Unless Elam has secretly played lights out in camp,  I think trading Benford would be a poor choice unless it were for a good MLB or OT

 

 

[Simon]

It is clearly not too early on the Left Coast to light one up.

 

'ere..... 

[Augie]

10 minutes ago, Airseven said:

Elam isn't "depth" if he can't play. He's a body. A bust. Luckily he may still have trade value given his youth and possible fit in a different scheme. Bills need to take advantage of that. 

 

You are very predictable. Wrong, but predictable. Nobody in their right mind would call him a bust at this point. They knew it would be a project. It may be disappointing up until now, but he’s not a bust. Time will tell, and NOW is not the time. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

36 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Let me clarify...I am not advocating to trade him or even saying he is for sure being traded.  Unlike many others, I am not concerned with the 3 way log jam at CB2 because I love having the depth, especially given the injury issues we have had at times at CB and the number of high level WR groupings we will face both in regular season and playoffs.  IMO, you can never have too many good CB's.  

 

BUT...we have a roster that isn't easy to make and we may need to make some tough decisions in places on players at various positions.  Plus Beane loves and needs more draft capital given our tight cap for the foreseeable future.  So, I don't think anyone would be surprised if Beane traded a player or two either for both roster space and gaining more draft capital.  

 

So why do I think Benford might be one of those players...2 main reasons:  

1. Beane already knows he has trade value and teams are interested given he was getting calls last year for Benford and he has only increased his value since then.  
2. His surprising start - In a 3 man battle at CB2, Dane was the clear leader in the race, and in the game where most starters played, Benford gets the start.

 

So this begs the question why did Benford start?

1.  Was it because he passed Dane?  Doubt it, Dane has not only been leading in the battle, but done nothing to lose his spot either as he has played well all camp and preseason and there is nothing Benford really does that Dane can't do.  
2. Was it to just give him his chance to "start" in the 3 CB race?  Doubt it because they did not do that with Elam who didn't start any preseason game despite being in the race to "start".  So there isn't a pattern of consistency there if they were all going to equally get that chance.
3. OR...Was it to showcase Benford, potentially increase his value as showing him as a possible starter and see what kind of trade interest it might create?  

 

Well, for me personally, I think it may be to showcase him to see what kind of trade interest and potential compensation it might create if he showed well, which he did.  This also tracks with what Beane has done in the past as well and its a common tactic when teams are considering a trade during preseason as well.  So while others are focusing on what Benfords start meant for Elam, I think it may be less about Elam and more about Benford and seeing what kind of trade value a good showing might drum up.  

 

I don't think Beane would "dump" any of the CB's for cheap if teams call, so I don't think he is say aggressively shopping him or trying to dump him.  But I think Benford starting may have been to try and increase his value for any calls he may get or already have gotten on one of our CB's.  To me I think it shows that maybe Benford of the 3 is the one he would be more willing to trade for the right offer.  And teams are always lookin for CB's, so I would suspect Beane will get some calls this year on one of them, if he hasn't already.

 

So while I like Benford and personally prefer to keep all 4 CB's (Tre, Dane, Elam, Benford) for depth, this feels like he was just showcased to maybe gauge trade interest and value.  And if Beane gets an offer he feels is good value for him, I think it might result in Benford being on the move.  

 

I vote for #1.  Jackson has done one thing to lose his spot, gets paid more.  If Jackson is again the starter, what do they do in the off season.  Re-sign  him to would likely require even more money than his current $2 mil, draft a rookie or give the job next year to either Elam or Benford, or sign a different FA likely also at a higher salary. 

 

So I see this as move for the future.  Either Benford or Elam starts this year and if get as good play from either as they do from Jackson, let Jackson walk next year.  Both Benford and Elam are on cheap contracts for 2 more years.

 

Think a better chance Elam gets traded, but again would only be for a good return, 3rd round or better.

 

But don't see this as had been an event ot showcase Benford for a trade.

 

[Alphadawg7]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There have been multiple reports that Benford has just got better and better as camp has gone on and then they went with Benford on Saturday. 

 

To me it at the very least suggests the three man race is down to two and Benford and Dane were nip and tuck. But if I had to have a bet right now, I'd put it on Benford playing the most snaps other than Tre week 1... the "start" matters less to me and I suspect Benford and Dane will both play some (similar to the way Dane and Kaiir both played in the two playoff games). But I think Benford is favourite to win the snap count. 

 

He was a 5th rounder.

Thanks, had not seen those reports.  So if that’s the case, then the start would make more sense.  My main thought here was that starting over Dane felt a bit more surprising given how well Dane has also played.  So the start felt more out of place on the surface to me because I had heard as much about Benford as Dane personally

[BuffaloBillyG]

Well, from the "could he be dealt" standpoint, anything is possible. Aside from a few players that have a contract where the dead cap would be unmanageable or a no trade clause, of course. There is a "purchase point" on almost every NFL player where if a team exceeded that point in an offer and the contract was doable...anyone is for sale 

 

So that would beg the questions, what would another team view his value at and where does Beane view his worth? If a team wanted to throw something ridiculous at the Bills...say a 2nd rounder then they would have to seriously consider that. And I don't see that happening.

 

At the end of the day I believe he's worth more to the Bills 2023 (and beyond) plans that what they would get in value from a trade. Even if he didn't actually beat Dane Jackson out (I believe he did) he will likely see some significant snaps and some starts this season IMO.

[dave mcbride]

7 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

He wasnt a 6th rd pick, he was a fifth round pick

Whoops. Regardless, close enough.

[Airseven]

6 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

You are very predictable. Wrong, but predictable. Nobody in their right mind would call him a bust at this point. They knew it would be a project. It may be disappointing up until now, but he’s not a bust. Time will tell, and NOW is not the time. 

 

Deal. You take hope and wishful thinking. I'll take what's actually occurring on football fields.

[Dopey]

A 5th round pick in his second season isn’t going to bring enough value to trade him. He is too valuable to trade for anything less than a starting mlb or a rt. No way do I trade him for draft picks, unless we’re blown away. 

[C.Biscuit97]

51 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Saw a Ravens guy on Twitter pushing for an Elam to the Ravens trade for a LB.

 

The Elam family has ties to the Ravens. Seems to think they would want Elam.

I think it was his uncle and he was one of the worst picks in Ravens history. I doubt many fans would welcome a second Elam who is currently struggling as well. 
 

And I don’t see how Benford could have much trade value. He looks to be a solid player. I’d rather keep him than get like a 7th roundere

[nedboy7]

Watch the Cover1 on Benford.  Dude is a stud.  He is a legit CB2. 

[Maynard]

Appreciate the thoughts on this. I think Benford is CB2 at this point. Be a bit crazy to trade him right now, especially for a future pick. Injuries happen, let’s keep this unit strong. Got Burrow and Mahomes to tend with. 

[whorlnut]

Great idea, OP!  Let’s trade a guy who is better than our first rounder just to make room for him. You might be onto something!🙄

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

If you have a 22 yo UDFA starting year 2 of a 4 year 3million dollar that can play cb2??? hell no do you trade that unless you are in rebuild mode and need draft capital. 
 

if I’m Beane looking to capitalize on deep db group,

 

(1) what’s TreD cap situation if traded? Do we move salary out of the way? If so even a 3rd or 4th plus cap room might make sense (8 mil this year, next year and 10 mil in ‘25)

 

(2) high pick or player for Elam. If you can get something decent for cb4 from a team who likes the press man skill set, take it. Take it.

 

Benford is a great value at a premium position that allows you to spend on talent at other spots. 

[gordong]

no as soon as you trade one someone gets hurt... why would you do that? 

 

[PayDaBill$]

Makes zero sense to trade a guy who is making progress for a position that were having depth is a good thing.

Edited August 28, 2023 by PayDaBill$

[BuffaloRebound]

McDermott loves Benford.  No way he gets traded.  Elam is only CB I could see being dealt and chance of that is remote.  

[TheyCallMeAndy]

Keep him unless it’s stupid compensation, 3rd or better. Hell, maybe 2nd or better. 

[Rubes]

@Alphadawg7 is catching some heat for this take, but I for one appreciate the thought-provoking question.

 

It's true we have a lot of good players at CB right now, but I have to think that the phrase "you can't have too many good corners" is one that can be taken literally.

 

Then again, everything has its price. If someone is willing to give up a promising player at another position in exchange for him or any of those corners, I think Beane is one to listen. I don't think he's going to get anything worthwhile in a 1:1 trade, but if he is packaged with a late-round pick next year, it might be enough for someone to offer a MLB or OT to make him really consider it.

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Rubes

[OldTimer1960]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

I think Benford will start for the Bills. 

Yep.  Even if Benford doesn’t start, you don’t trade a better player to clear the way for a disappointing high pick (Elam).

[TheBrownBear]

Why would you trade your second best corner when he is under contract for a few years on a 6th round salary?  No offense, but that's a terrible idea.

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

People always have these thoughts but what are you possibly getting for this guy? You are going to get such horrendous value for him…why not just keep him and have depth at a very important position? The trade would make no sense from a Bills perspective. You have a dirt cheap, young fringe starter at a key position that you invested basically nothing in. You wanna get a 7th back for him? Why bother?

[MasterStrategist]

Good post, regardless of opinions.  Maybe just not the right player, as I think Elam has more trade value/potential scheme transition.

 

I still like Elam, and it's a good problem to have (depth at CB).  But, it becomes a distraction in some ways when you have a 1st round talent on the bench/possibly not dressing on gameday.

 

Certain positions make sense to have a rotation.  I'm just not a huge fan of rotating players in secondary though (for a few main reasons), unless it's specific subpackages/down and distance situations. 

 

Hopefully whoever wins the CB2 battle provides a consistent presence/solid play.  Best chance of that, from what I saw in preseason, has been Benford or Dane.  Benford is a better player IMO (higher ceiling).  

 

If it was my call, I'd be hesitant to move Elam or any of the DBs right now.  Ultimately, Dane might be the only one I'd be willing to shop. Less value than Elam, but we know his ceiling and it's not a SB-defense CB2 caliber player.  I'd think he would be a backup RT trade piece.

 

*edit*: what happens if Benford is CB2? 

 

Path 1: Dane is CB3 (outside), Elam might not dress some weeks.  

 

Path 2: we trade Dane (let's say hypothetically for a backup RT), Elam as CB3, JaMarcus Ingram makes roster and likely reserve/sits on gameday

 

I'd vote Path 2, improve at backup RT and keep a versatile player like Ingram (over 1 year Dane).

Edited August 28, 2023 by MasterStrategist

[OldTimer1960]

47 minutes ago, Virgil said:

I think one should be traded because there are teams who need DBs and our guys have value.   I only mentioned Elam before because he seems to be DB4 and I think would fetch the most value.  
 

I don’t care who they trade, but they should trade someone.  We need more picks and will have more need of cheap labor as our cap gets tighter 

CB5 behind White, Johnson, Jackson and Benford.  There is something significant that the coaches don’t like about Elma’s play.  If it was even close, Elam would get the nod over Jackson and Benford.

[Doc]

What in the...?

[oldmanfan]

No.  Great CB depth - why do some fans insist on weakening it?

[damj]

TL:TS:DR

 

Too Long, Too Stupid, Didn't Reaf

[Alphadawg7]

30 minutes ago, Rubes said:

@Alphadawg7 is catching some heat for this take, but I for one appreciate the thought-provoking question.

 

It's true we have a lot of good players at CB right now, but I have to think that the phrase "you can't have too many good corners" is one that can be taken literally.

 

Then again, everything has its price. If someone is willing to give up a promising player at another position in exchange for him or any of those corners, I think Beane is one to listen. I don't think he's going to get anything worthwhile in a 1:1 trade, but if he is packaged with a late-round pick next year, it might be enough for someone to offer a MLB or OT to make him really consider it.

 

 

Ha, its all good...I figured most would take this wrong and react like I am saying we should or its for sure happening, which is not at all what I was saying.  

 

Im 100% with you, I don't want to trade him and feel the same as you where you can never have too many good corners.  And we have a gauntlet of WR's amongst the top contending teams in both AFC and even NFC.  

 

This was more about being surprised Dane didn't get the start in the dress rehearsal given he has been leading the race thus far and has had a great camp and preseason, so was a bit surprised to see Benford start over him this final week.  

 

Personally, as I have said before, I still think CB2 may be more of a platoon based on scheme and matchups anyway and that the "starter" designation doesn't mean as much as it does for say Tre who dominates the snaps at CB1.  

[Matt_In_NH]

Number 1 and 2 are totally plausible, you are reading too much into it.  If you hit a home run on a 6th round pick, you dont trade him away....especially on this team with the spending limits they have moving forward, you ride that pick for everything it has!

[Alphadawg7]

40 minutes ago, TheBrownBear said:

Why would you trade your second best corner when he is under contract for a few years on a 6th round salary?  No offense, but that's a terrible idea.

 

Where did I suggest it as an idea though?  I said I don't want to trade him right out the gate.  I just simply wondered if there was more to him starting over Dane who has had a great camp and preseason and lead the CB2 race all preseason.  

[I'm Spartacus]

So, Elam is now CB #3. If that is the case, I have to question Beane, our scouting staff, and McDermott's competence on player evaluation. Seems like a wasted 1st round pick. Now stay tuned for all the "you can't hit on every pick" apologists. Baloney...this looks like a big blunder. Square peg in a round hole on Elam

[Alphadawg7]

9 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

Number 1 and 2 are totally plausible, you are reading too much into it.  If you hit a home run on a 6th round pick, you dont trade him away....especially on this team with the spending limits they have moving forward, you ride that pick for everything it has!

 

I dont disagree with you at all, like I said, I want to keep him and agree with what you are saying here.

 

45 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:

Good post, regardless of opinions.  Maybe just not the right player, as I think Elam has more trade value/potential scheme transition.

 

I still like Elam, and it's a good problem to have (depth at CB).  But, it becomes a distraction in some ways when you have a 1st round talent on the bench/possibly not dressing on gameday.

 

Certain positions make sense to have a rotation.  I'm just not a huge fan of rotating players in secondary though (for a few main reasons), unless it's specific subpackages/down and distance situations. 

 

Hopefully whoever wins the CB2 battle provides a consistent presence/solid play.  Best chance of that, from what I saw in preseason, has been Benford or Dane.  Benford is a better player IMO (higher ceiling).  

 

If it was my call, I'd be hesitant to move Elam or any of the DBs right now.  Ultimately, Dane might be the only one I'd be willing to shop. Less value than Elam, but we know his ceiling and it's not a SB-defense CB2 caliber player.  I'd think he would be a backup RT trade piece.

 

*edit*: what happens if Benford is CB2? 

 

Path 1: Dane is CB3 (outside), Elam might not dress some weeks.  

 

Path 2: we trade Dane (let's say hypothetically for a backup RT), Elam as CB3, JaMarcus Ingram makes roster and likely reserve/sits on gameday

 

I'd vote Path 2, improve at backup RT and keep a versatile player like Ingram (over 1 year Dane).

 

The main reason I didn't look at Elam as a potential trade candidate is 2 fold:  First, they invested more into him just one year ago and Elam played well down the stretch last year including an INT in the playoffs.  They knew the areas he needed to improve when they drafted him and doubt they would just give up on him over those one year in after using a 1st and a 4th to get him.  Plus, he has had a pretty good camp himself and his rank on the depth chart is less about his struggles and more about all 3 guys have had strong camps.  

 

Second, if they were willing to trade him, I think they get him into this last preseason game either earlier or even as the starter to raise his value, especially given what they invested in him.  Moving him down to CB4 is going to lower his perceived trade value, and that doesn't seem like a Beane move to me.  So I am skeptical Elam went into the final preseason game as someone they were considering trading as it just doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

I still think its most plausible all 3 stay here and there are no trades at CB.  Just the late over taking of Dane by Benford in the final start felt odd given how well Dane played and made me wonder if its to see what kind of offers Benford might get given they already were getting calls for him last offseason as Beane stated.  

Edited August 28, 2023 by Alphadawg7

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 minutes ago, I'm Spartacus said:

So, Elam is now CB #3. If that is the case, I have to question Beane, our scouting staff, and McDermott's competence on player evaluation. Seems like a wasted 1st round pick. Now stay tuned for all the "you can't hit on every pick" apologists. Baloney...this looks like a big blunder. Square peg in a round hole on Elam

It’s so strange. The talk was we wanted a more physical man CB. So they drafted one only for the coaches to say he’s too “handsy”.

 

He’s a physical man CB. You know who else is handsy? Sauce Guardner. I’m not saying Elam is anything close but they drafted a CB that excels in something they don’t play. They’d rather have Dane Jackson retreating and playing 10 yards off.

[LEBills]

50 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:

Good post, regardless of opinions.  Maybe just not the right player, as I think Elam has more trade value/potential scheme transition.

 

I still like Elam, and it's a good problem to have (depth at CB).  But, it becomes a distraction in some ways when you have a 1st round talent on the bench/possibly not dressing on gameday.

 

Certain positions make sense to have a rotation.  I'm just not a huge fan of rotating players in secondary though (for a few main reasons), unless it's specific subpackages/down and distance situations. 

 

Hopefully whoever wins the CB2 battle provides a consistent presence/solid play.  Best chance of that, from what I saw in preseason, has been Benford or Dane.  Benford is a better player IMO (higher ceiling).  

 

If it was my call, I'd be hesitant to move Elam or any of the DBs right now.  Ultimately, Dane might be the only one I'd be willing to shop. Less value than Elam, but we know his ceiling and it's not a SB-defense CB2 caliber player.  I'd think he would be a backup RT trade piece.

 

*edit*: what happens if Benford is CB2? 

 

Path 1: Dane is CB3 (outside), Elam might not dress some weeks.  

 

Path 2: we trade Dane (let's say hypothetically for a backup RT), Elam as CB3, JaMarcus Ingram makes roster and likely reserve/sits on gameday

 

I'd vote Path 2, improve at backup RT and keep a versatile player like Ingram (over 1 year Dane).

Screen name checks out

[Alphadawg7]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

It’s so strange. The talk was we wanted a more physical man CB. So they drafted one only for the coaches to say he’s too “handsy”.

 

He’s a physical man CB. You know who else is handsy? Sauce Guardner. I’m not saying Elam is anything close but they drafted a CB that excels in something they don’t play. They’d rather have Dane Jackson retreating and playing 10 yards off.

 

I agree, I think people might be over analyzing or overly down on Elam thus far.  He was pretty good last year when he played, and got stronger down the stretch.  He has had a good camp for the most part, not like this competition is against scrubs, I mean Dane and Benford are having good camps too.  They are different players than Elam though and there have been plenty of times where both Dane and Benford were getting cooked out there due to the lack of speed and physicality.  So I think its going to be more of a platoon at CB2 and they are going to use Elam more in those situations and Dane/Benford as more the zone schemes and play calls.  

[Simon Says]

How do you know  Beane got calls about  Benford?

[BillsShredder83]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Let me clarify...I am not advocating to trade him or even saying he is for sure being traded.  Unlike many others, I am not concerned with the 3 way log jam at CB2 because I love having the depth, especially given the injury issues we have had at times at CB and the number of high level WR groupings we will face both in regular season and playoffs.  IMO, you can never have too many good CB's.  

 

BUT...we have a roster that isn't easy to make and we may need to make some tough decisions in places on players at various positions.  Plus Beane loves and needs more draft capital given our tight cap for the foreseeable future.  So, I don't think anyone would be surprised if Beane traded a player or two either for both roster space and gaining more draft capital.  

 

So why do I think Benford might be one of those players...2 main reasons:  

1. Beane already knows he has trade value and teams are interested given he was getting calls last year for Benford and he has only increased his value since then.  
2. His surprising start - In a 3 man battle at CB2, Dane was the clear leader in the race, and in the game where most starters played, Benford gets the start.

 

So this begs the question why did Benford start?

1.  Was it because he passed Dane?  Doubt it, Dane has not only been leading in the battle, but done nothing to lose his spot either as he has played well all camp and preseason and there is nothing Benford really does that Dane can't do.  
2. Was it to just give him his chance to "start" in the 3 CB race?  Doubt it because they did not do that with Elam who didn't start any preseason game despite being in the race to "start".  So there isn't a pattern of consistency there if they were all going to equally get that chance.
3. OR...Was it to showcase Benford, potentially increase his value as showing him as a possible starter and see what kind of trade interest it might create?  

 

Well, for me personally, I think it may be to showcase him to see what kind of trade interest and potential compensation it might create if he showed well, which he did.  This also tracks with what Beane has done in the past as well and its a common tactic when teams are considering a trade during preseason as well.  So while others are focusing on what Benfords start meant for Elam, I think it may be less about Elam and more about Benford and seeing what kind of trade value a good showing might drum up.  

 

I don't think Beane would "dump" any of the CB's for cheap if teams call, so I don't think he is say aggressively shopping him or trying to dump him.  But I think Benford starting may have been to try and increase his value for any calls he may get or already have gotten on one of our CB's.  To me I think it shows that maybe Benford of the 3 is the one he would be more willing to trade for the right offer.  And teams are always lookin for CB's, so I would suspect Beane will get some calls this year on one of them, if he hasn't already.

 

So while I like Benford and personally prefer to keep all 4 CB's (Tre, Dane, Elam, Benford) for depth, this feels like he was just showcased to maybe gauge trade interest and value.  And if Beane gets an offer he feels is good value for him, I think it might result in Benford being on the move.  

Interesting.  Theres a lot of reactions saying they dont like your thought process.  I hardly think we'll move him, but say for example someone calls up looking for a p4p trade?  MLB/T are two positions im sure the league is aware we'd like to upgrade, maybe it tuirns into something, maybe it doesnt.

 

I could see this as even a way of Beane doing some due diligence, give Benford some extra play time, while also being aware, it could generate a call about a player4player trade.  We know what we have in Dane, give benford some time and if it draws interest worst case scenario you say no. Wouldnt shock me. I like the outside the box post

[TheBrownBear]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Where did I suggest it as an idea though?  I said I don't want to trade him right out the gate.  I just simply wondered if there was more to him starting over Dane who has had a great camp and preseason and lead the CB2 race all preseason.  

You're right, dude.  My bad.  I think I was mostly responding to the thread's narrative than your original post/question.

[jkeerie]

I don't think the Bills get rid of any of their 4 outside corners.  Heck, last year they all ended up playing!  I think keeping all four gives them flexibility.  Elam proved his value last year in the real games.   Depending on the team, Elam being a solid man-to-man corner could be put on a certain receiver in a game, to take that player out.  

[Warriorspikes51]

Benford showed major potential before his arm injury last year.
 

He blanketed DJ Moore and then stuffed Fields 1 on 1 in the open field

Small sample size, but enough to warrant starting at CB2 until he either cements himself there full-time or is replaced by Dane/Elam