gonzo1105 Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 1 minute ago, The Jokeman said: Thomas, Mitchell and Legette have size and speed. Franklin/Coleman are lighter in weight and as a result perceived as small. Now I could argue so do Cornelius Johnson, Bub Means, De'Corian Clark fit this mold of boundary WRs but may not be as NFL ready as the first 3. Coleman is 6’3 215. I’m guessing you meant Worthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 Just now, gonzo1105 said: Coleman is 6’3 215. I’m guessing you meant Worthy I edited my initial post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCOrange Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) 3 hours ago, JohnBonhamRocks said: I love Harmon’s work and Samuel has obviously played with pretty iffy QBs for most of his career, but the production simply hasn’t been there against man coverage. Like I said, I think he has the skills to potentially be a good WR against man but he’s going on Year 7 or whatever and people are still hoping for him to really break out. I don’t want it to come across like I think he sucks or anything; I like Samuel and am excited to have him on the team. I just don’t think it would be wise to assume we’re all set with he and Diggs as the man beaters. Would much rather add one more weapon that projects to be that type of player. Even if you want to assume Samuel will be a beast against man, we still have more of a need for that skillset than beating zone IMO. Edited March 27 by DCOrange 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBonhamRocks Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 50 minutes ago, The Jokeman said: Thomas, Mitchell and Legette have size and speed. Franklin/Coleman either thinner or slower and as result perceived less than ideal. Now I could argue Cornelius Johnson, Bub Means, De'Corian Clark fit this mold of boundary WRs but may not be as NFL ready as the first 3. Curious whether you think Worthy and McConkey can or cannot be effective from the outside 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBonhamRocks Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 27 minutes ago, DCOrange said: I love Harmon’s work and Samuel has obviously played with pretty iffy QBs for most of his career, but the production simply hasn’t been there against man coverage. Like I said, I think he has the skills to potentially be a good WR against man but he’s going on Year 7 or whatever and people are still hoping for him to really break out. I don’t want it to come across like I think he sucks or anything; I like Samuel and am excited to have him on the team. I just don’t think it would be wise to assume we’re all set with he and Diggs as the man beaters. Would much rather add one more weapon that projects to be that type of player. Even if you want to assume Samuel will be a beast against man, we still have more of a need for that skillset than beating zone IMO. When you say the production simply has not been there against man coverage, is that re: the Bills WRs recently or re: Samuel? If the latter, then how do you reconcile that statement with Harmon’s stats showing he consistently beats man? FWIW, the single most important trait for a WR prospect, to me, is the ability to separate and do it quickly, be it against man or zone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat68 Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 25 minutes ago, DCOrange said: I love Harmon’s work and Samuel has obviously played with pretty iffy QBs for most of his career, but the production simply hasn’t been there against man coverage. Like I said, I think he has the skills to potentially be a good WR against man but he’s going on Year 7 or whatever and people are still hoping for him to really break out. I don’t want it to come across like I think he sucks or anything; I like Samuel and am excited to have him on the team. I just don’t think it would be wise to assume we’re all set with he and Diggs as the man beaters. Would much rather add one more weapon that projects to be that type of player. Even if you want to assume Samuel will be a beast against man, we still have more of a need for that skillset than beating zone IMO. In man situations he is an upgrade over Davis. 90% of the offensive production is short to intermediate. Having guys that excel in that area will make for a more efficient passing attack. Without Davis the offense needs a deep threat. Samuel fills a hole. At 28 Wr isnt as obvious. I think Beane adds a wr with deep ball ability with one of their top 3 picks. May not be 28. The wr class is deep enough where Beane can find that player rd 2 or 3 if they really like some better rd 1 or 2. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 4 hours ago, DCOrange said: Oh duh lol I was reading the wrong part of the chart. 4.0 still isn't #1 in the class though (but it is #2). Anthony Gould was at 4.3 this year. Given that it came from Warren Sharp, I wouldn’t be shocked if he took Legette’s YPPR against man coverage and compared it to everyone else’s overall YPPR, or otherwise was shady statistically. Dude is either a scam artist or stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCOrange Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 3 minutes ago, Mat68 said: In man situations he is an upgrade over Davis. 90% of the offensive production is short to intermediate. Having guys that excel in that area will make for a more efficient passing attack. Without Davis the offense needs a deep threat. Samuel fills a hole. At 28 Wr isnt as obvious. I think Beane adds a wr with deep ball ability with one of their top 3 picks. May not be 28. The wr class is deep enough where Beane can find that player rd 2 or 3 if they really like some better rd 1 or 2. 100% agreed. Think Samuel is a nice upgrade for the offense but doesn’t address the deep ball threat/perimeter threat that we are missing after losing Gabe. Fortunately it’s a fantastic draft for WRs; we should have plenty of options to choose from to add that element. And I tend to think we should pass on the WRs in the first round unless Thomas happens to slide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat68 Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 8 minutes ago, JohnBonhamRocks said: Curious whether you think Worthy and McConkey can or cannot be effective from the outside Imo Worthys speed will create cushion. Some teams dont press and some that do may not want to press him. Ladd has the footwork to get off press. Ladds production and injury history is what will keep him out of rd 1 imo. Both will be able to line up anywhere. Ladd more a technician and Worthy with explosiveness. You dont need to be 6-2 over 200 pds to play outside. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCOrange Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 3 minutes ago, Cash said: Given that it came from Warren Sharp, I wouldn’t be shocked if he took Legette’s YPPR against man coverage and compared it to everyone else’s overall YPPR, or otherwise was shady statistically. Dude is either a scam artist or stupid. It’s also possible he was just talking about Legette’s rank among the guys that are perceived as great WR prospects. Gould is an intriguing Day 3 option but he’s not viewed anywhere near the same caliber of prospect as a guy like Legette. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo1105 Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 1 minute ago, DCOrange said: It’s also possible he was just talking about Legette’s rank among the guys that are perceived as great WR prospects. Gould is an intriguing Day 3 option but he’s not viewed anywhere near the same caliber of prospect as a guy like Legette. Gould is like 5’8 too isn’t he? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 4 minutes ago, Mat68 said: In man situations he is an upgrade over Davis. 90% of the offensive production is short to intermediate. Having guys that excel in that area will make for a more efficient passing attack. Without Davis the offense needs a deep threat. Samuel fills a hole. At 28 Wr isnt as obvious. I think Beane adds a wr with deep ball ability with one of their top 3 picks. May not be 28. The wr class is deep enough where Beane can find that player rd 2 or 3 if they really like some better rd 1 or 2. I guess it partly depends on what the plan is exactly. If all the Bills are looking for is to complete their weaponry with a vertical threat they can probably find a raw speedster with some demonstrated receiving ability in later rounds. The class is deep. If instead they are looking for a player to develop into a #1 to take over from Diggs they would be best taking him at 28 or indeed possibly even sooner should the suitable opportunity arise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEBills Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 1 hour ago, Roundybout said: Give me all the Troy Franklin and Brenden Rice stock One thing to keep in mind with McConkey - who is a great receiver - on this chart is he only had about 150 pass plays this year per @DCOrange Google doc which is less than half most the other top guys so the smaller sample size may affect it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat68 Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 Just now, starrymessenger said: I guess it partly depends on what the plan is exactly. If all the Bills are looking for is to complete their weaponry with a vertical threat they can probably find a raw speedster with some demonstrated receiving ability in later rounds. The class is deep. If instead they are looking for a player to develop into a #1 to take over from Diggs they would be best taking him at 28 or indeed possibly even sooner should the suitable opportunity arise. Adding Samuel allows them to pivot if that guy isnt available at 28 in their eyes. At 28 the guy should have the potential to take over for Diggs. Outside of the top 4 the rest is beauty in the eyes of the beholder. The Wr prospect everyone will pound the table for at 28 may be there at 60. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 2 minutes ago, Mat68 said: Adding Samuel allows them to pivot if that guy isnt available at 28 in their eyes. At 28 the guy should have the potential to take over for Diggs. Outside of the top 4 the rest is beauty in the eyes of the beholder. The Wr prospect everyone will pound the table for at 28 may be there at 60. I doubt that any receiver seriously projected as a potential pick at 28 would still be on the board at 60. OTOH outside of the top three, Mitchell and Thomas, given the depth of the class, I would trade back if all are gone when we pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 2 hours ago, JohnBonhamRocks said: Which top WR draft prospects do you think are not redundant and would add that extra dimension? Legette, Mitchell, Coleman, MHJ This receiving corps needs a more typical boundary receiver and someone who doesn't necessarily need the separation to make a big catch. Josh has never had top-calibre WR with that ability. Closest was Benjamin for a year? All he's ever had are some backup-calibre guys with plus size traits. As good as Diggs has been, he's obviously not a big guy. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmotionallyUnstable Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 The idea of McConkey is growing on me. Guy is a straight baller. Quick, smooth, reliable. Feel like if we go into #28 looking for WR1 we are going to be disappointed. Take the best player regardless of if we feel he can play outside, etc. Not interested in ppl saying “we have Shakir” as if these guys are not versatile. The NfL is changing. I am not sold we need an alpha at WR just a play maker. Diggs McConkey Samuel Shakir 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo1105 Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 1 minute ago, EmotionallyUnstable said: The idea of McConkey is growing on me. Guy is a straight baller. Quick, smooth, reliable. Feel like if we go into #28 looking for WR1 we are going to be disappointed. Take the best player regardless of if we feel he can play outside, etc. Not interested in ppl saying “we have Shakir” as if these guys are not versatile. The NfL is changing. I am not sold we need an alpha at WR just a play maker. Diggs McConkey Samuel Shakir I 100% agree that people who think a guy at 28 even in a deep WR is going to come in and get massive targets with Diggs, Cook , Kincaid etc etc here are delusional. I was one of the first to be on McConkey as a Bills possibility and I think it’s still there depending what’s on the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat68 Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 13 minutes ago, starrymessenger said: I doubt that any receiver seriously projected as a potential pick at 28 would still be on the board at 60. OTOH outside of the top three, Mitchell and Thomas, given the depth of the class, I would trade back if all are gone when we pick. Some are talking about Leggette and Franklin and many other names could still be available at 60. At 28 Mitchell is a question mark. Expecting guys to produce more in the NFL than in college at a skill position can be a fools errand. He has the tools but was never the guy at either school. Im on the fence with Mitchell. Mitchell and Robinson are similar prospects in my opionon. DE as a position has a higher track record of those style guys succeeding than wr does. I think given the choice Buffalo goes Robinson over Mitchell. 8 minutes ago, EmotionallyUnstable said: The idea of McConkey is growing on me. Guy is a straight baller. Quick, smooth, reliable. Feel like if we go into #28 looking for WR1 we are going to be disappointed. Take the best player regardless of if we feel he can play outside, etc. Not interested in ppl saying “we have Shakir” as if these guys are not versatile. The NfL is changing. I am not sold we need an alpha at WR just a play maker. Diggs McConkey Samuel Shakir Im ok with Ladd but would prefer a trade back to pick up a 3rd. At 28 I would go Worthy over Ladd. Worthy was more productive every year of his career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.