2024 WR Draft Class

[Warriorspikes51]

On 4/15/2024 at 2:51 PM, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I’m thinking about it. But Seattle seems to be a team the Bills could trade up to.

yes, for BTJ. 
 

I’ll say it again…if Seattle wants to go rebuild new regime…

 

We could pull off a huge trade. 

 

28, 128, 2025 1st, 2nd, 2nd

 

for 16 & DK Metcalf

 

 

Essentially breaks down:

 

28, 128, 2025 2nd for 16 (BTJ)

 

2025 1st, 2nd for DK Metcalf (extended)

(I think this is what it would take for them to move him and IMO it’s fair)

 

yes, you don’t have a 1st or 2nd next year

 

but you just added 2 huge Beasts on the outside who can also FLY & you kept pick 60 for whatever

 

 

DK Metcalf

Brian Thomas Jr

Samuel (line up anywhere)

Shakir (slot) 

 

+ Kincaid

 

We’re set for years. 
 

 

IMO Beane needs to be thinking along these lines.  The position is begging for a massive move

Edited April 16 by Warriorspikes51

[MiracleAtRich1393]

16 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

yes, for BTJ. 
 

I’ll say it again…if Seattle wants to go rebuild new regime…

 

We could pull off a huge trade. 

 

28, 128, 2025 1st, 2nd, 2nd

 

for 16 & DK Metcalf

 

 

Essentially breaks down:

 

28, 128, 2025 2nd for 16 (BTJ)

 

2025 1st, 2nd for DK Metcalf (extended)

(I think this is what it would take for them to move him and IMO it’s fair)

 

yes, you don’t have a 1st or 2nd next year

 

but you just added 2 Beasts on the outside & you kept pick 60 for whatever

 

 

DK Metcalf

Brian Thomas Jr

Samuel (line up anywhere)

Shakir (slot) 

 

+ Kincaid

 

We’re set for years. 

seems like overkill but YOLO!

[Aussie Joe]

21 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

yes, for BTJ. 
 

I’ll say it again…if Seattle wants to go rebuild new regime…

 

We could pull off a huge trade. 

 

28, 128, 2025 1st, 2nd, 2nd

 

for 16 & DK Metcalf

 

 

Essentially breaks down:

 

28, 128, 2025 2nd for 16 (BTJ)

 

2025 1st, 2nd for DK Metcalf (extended)

(I think this is what it would take for them to move him and IMO it’s fair)

 

yes, you don’t have a 1st or 2nd next year

 

but you just added 2 huge Beasts on the outside who can also FLY & you kept pick 60 for whatever

 

 

DK Metcalf

Brian Thomas Jr

Samuel (line up anywhere)

Shakir (slot) 

 

+ Kincaid

 

We’re set for years. 
 

 

IMO Beane needs to be thinking along these lines.  The position is begging for a massive move

Throw in 60 and keep 128 and  the Seahawks may even consider this …

 

Not for me personally 

[DCOrange]

27 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

yes, for BTJ. 
 

I’ll say it again…if Seattle wants to go rebuild new regime…

 

We could pull off a huge trade. 

 

28, 128, 2025 1st, 2nd, 2nd

 

for 16 & DK Metcalf

 

 

Essentially breaks down:

 

28, 128, 2025 2nd for 16 (BTJ)

 

2025 1st, 2nd for DK Metcalf (extended)

(I think this is what it would take for them to move him and IMO it’s fair)

 

yes, you don’t have a 1st or 2nd next year

 

but you just added 2 huge Beasts on the outside who can also FLY & you kept pick 60 for whatever

 

 

DK Metcalf

Brian Thomas Jr

Samuel (line up anywhere)

Shakir (slot) 

 

+ Kincaid

 

We’re set for years. 
 

 

IMO Beane needs to be thinking along these lines.  The position is begging for a massive move

FWIW, Benjamin Allbright is saying Seattle is basically a lock to take Troy Fautanu at #16.

[Donuts and Doritos]

 

 

[Warriorspikes51]

interesting!

[gonzo1105]

7 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

interesting!

 

I see two absolute underthrows where Mitchell had his guy beat, an inaccurate pass at the goaline that is a walk in touchdown if its on target and and overthrow on a wide open WR who was actually busting it.

[Warriorspikes51]

Get him

[NickelCity]

23 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

Get him

 

He's gonna be a star I think.

[Turbo44]

28 Ladd

60 plus 2025 2nd for 40 - Legette 

[GunnerBill]

8 hours ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

yes, for BTJ. 
 

I’ll say it again…if Seattle wants to go rebuild new regime…

 

We could pull off a huge trade. 

 

28, 128, 2025 1st, 2nd, 2nd

 

for 16 & DK Metcalf

 

 

Essentially breaks down:

 

28, 128, 2025 2nd for 16 (BTJ)

 

2025 1st, 2nd for DK Metcalf (extended)

(I think this is what it would take for them to move him and IMO it’s fair)

 

yes, you don’t have a 1st or 2nd next year

 

but you just added 2 huge Beasts on the outside who can also FLY & you kept pick 60 for whatever

 

 

DK Metcalf

Brian Thomas Jr

Samuel (line up anywhere)

Shakir (slot) 

 

+ Kincaid

 

We’re set for years. 
 

 

IMO Beane needs to be thinking along these lines.  The position is begging for a massive move

 

Except Thomas and Metcalf run the same 3 routes. Having them both together would be a limited offense IMO.

[Kirby Jackson]

I think that I’ve officially gotten to the point in the offseason that I’ve convinced myself that the Bills are trading up for Marvin Harrison Jr. It just makes sense. You rarely get the chance to marry (desperate) need, with a generational talent, at the 2nd most important position, on a rookie deal.

 

 

Edited April 17 by Kirby Jackson

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that I’ve officially gotten to the point in the offseason that I’ve convinced myself that the Bills are trading up for Marvin Harrison Jr. It just makes sense. You rarely get the chance to marr (desperate) need, with a generational talent, at the 2nd most important position, on a rookie deal.

 

 

I will say this: the two round mock I did way back in Jan pre-FA and the two exercises we have just done here in the @Virgil mocks has convinced me that I don't want to pick at #60. I think it is a really bad spot for value for a team like Buffalo. I'm thinking more you go up a few spots with it or back a few spots with it into the early 3rd and try and pick up another 4th that allows you to then come up into the late 3rd too by bundling picks.... #28, #69, #94 something like that.... BUT giving away #60 is not a deal breaker for me in making a trade into the top 6 for Harrison, Nabers, Odunze. Okay Harrison, a 4th, two 5ths, two 6ths and a 7th probably means you are not filling many holes in this draft but you'd end up in 2025 with a 2nd, a 3rd, two 4ths and two 6ths plus likely a couple of comp picks. And you'd have an elite difference maker. That is what we have been short of more than anything else IMO. 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I will say this: the two round mock I did way back in Jan pre-FA and the two exercises we have just done here in the @Virgil mocks has convinced me that I don't want to pick at #60. I think it is a really bad spot for value for a team like Buffalo. I'm thinking more you go up a few spots with it or back a few spots with it into the early 3rd and try and pick up another 4th that allows you to then come up into the late 3rd too by bundling picks.... #28, #69, #94 something like that.... BUT giving away #60 is not a deal breaker for me in making a trade into the top 6 for Harrison, Nabers, Odunze. Okay Harrison, a 4th, two 5ths, two 6ths and a 7th probably means you are not filling many holes in this draft but you'd end up in 2025 with a 2nd, a 3rd, two 4ths and two 6ths plus likely a couple of comp picks. And you'd have an elite difference maker. That is what we have been short of more than anything else IMO. 

The other part about 2025 is that you’d have lots of cap space to fill whatever needs you had. While you would sacrifice some picks, you could use the space to fill holes. You would have your QB, #1 WR and LT all under contract. Those are the most costly positions on offense. You could overpay if needed on elite talent (especially a pass rusher). 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The other part about 2025 is that you’d have lots of cap space to fill whatever needs you had. While you would sacrifice some picks, you could use the space to fill holes. You would have your QB, #1 WR and LT all under contract. Those are the most costly positions on offense. You could overpay if needed on elite talent (especially a pass rusher). 

 

I don't think they are going to have that much wiggle room cap wise in 2025. They have more than this year, sure, but by the time they have paid this rookie class they will be right on the cap number for next year (if it is around Spotrac's $273-275m estimate.... it may be a little higher than that). You can manufacture them 35-40m in space pretty easily, so they can go and do some business but it is 2026 before I think they become serious FA buyers again. 

[Kirby Jackson]

19 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think they are going to have that much wiggle room cap wise in 2025. They have more than this year, sure, but by the time they have paid this rookie class they will be right on the cap number for next year (if it is around Spotrac's $273-275m estimate.... it may be a little higher than that). You can manufacture them 35-40m in space pretty easily, so they can go and do some business but it is 2026 before I think they become serious FA buyers again. 

Fair. I guess what I meant earlier with the “anyone they want” comment was more about quality than quantity. If they want to pay Josh Sweat (for example) they can. It isn’t a year where they’re going to add 7 starters in FA but they can play in the top of the market if there is a guy that they need. That’ll hold especially true with no 1st. 

[EmotionallyUnstable]

@Kirby Jackson, prepare to be disappointed IMO. Right or wrong to do it, looking at Beane and his history of round 1 suggests otherwise. Even his three largest moves to date (Diggs, Allen, Edmunds) are not even close to the level of this kind of monumental deal. He’s been historically more likely to move slightly in RD1.

 

I’d be very surprised to see this happen and get to #4. 
 

Pair this with the cards reportedly asking for 3 #1’s….i just don’t see it. 

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, EmotionallyUnstable said:

@Kirby Jackson, prepare to be disappointed IMO. Right or wrong to do it, looking at Beane and his history of round 1 suggests otherwise. Even his three largest moves to date (Diggs, Allen, Edmunds) are not even close to the level of this kind of monumental deal. He’s been historically more likely to move slightly in RD1.

 

I’d be very surprised to see this happen and get to #4. 
 

Pair this with the cards reportedly asking for 3 #1’s….i just don’t see it. 

That’s all fair. I think Minnesota goes to 4 and takes McCarthy (😂😂). The Chargers and Giants both become viable trade partners at that point. Think how many offensive guards Harbaugh could draft with 2 firsts, 2 seconds, a fourth and a fifth!! That gives him 6 swings at a LG to replace the one that they drafted at 17 two years ago. 

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, EmotionallyUnstable said:

@Kirby Jackson, prepare to be disappointed IMO. Right or wrong to do it, looking at Beane and his history of round 1 suggests otherwise. Even his three largest moves to date (Diggs, Allen, Edmunds) are not even close to the level of this kind of monumental deal. He’s been historically more likely to move slightly in RD1.

 

I’d be very surprised to see this happen and get to #4. 
 

Pair this with the cards reportedly asking for 3 #1’s….i just don’t see it. 

 

I don't see a move to #4 because I think New England is picking a QB and then Minnesota is coming up to #4 and picking a QB (and the Cardinals will get their "three 1s" but they will give back their 2025 #2). The issue with #5 is while I think LA would go back, will they go that far? I'm not persuaded. 

 

Having said that, on your first point.... of course Beane's history isn't massive trade ups. No GM has that history. This is a once in a decade type move. Thomas Demitroff was GM of the Falcons for 12 years. The Juilo Jones trade wasn't a sign of a consistent pattern. It was a one off move to get a guy they thought was a star. In fact in his 12 years as GM he traded up 3 times in the first. The other two were moving up 4 or 5 spots within the 20s to get their guy..... that remind you of anyone? I am sceptical it will happen because I'm not sure I see a deal that makes sense. The mock that has it here makes it make sense my not having the Patriots take a QB and therefore Minnesota go to #3. Just not sure I see that myself. But I am not dismissing it because "Beane has never done it before." Of course he hasn't. It is a rare type of a move. 

[EmotionallyUnstable]

25 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't see a move to #4 because I think New England is picking a QB and then Minnesota is coming up to #4 and picking a QB (and the Cardinals will get their "three 1s" but they will give back their 2025 #2). The issue with #5 is while I think LA would go back, will they go that far? I'm not persuaded. 

 

Having said that, on your first point.... of course Beane's history isn't massive trade ups. No GM has that history. This is a once in a decade type move. Thomas Demitroff was GM of the Falcons for 12 years. The Juilo Jones trade wasn't a sign of a consistent pattern. It was a one off move to get a guy they thought was a star. In fact in his 12 years as GM he traded up 3 times in the first. The other two were moving up 4 or 5 spots within the 20s to get their guy..... that remind you of anyone? I am sceptical it will happen because I'm not sure I see a deal that makes sense. The mock that has it here makes it make sense my not having the Patriots take a QB and therefore Minnesota go to #3. Just not sure I see that myself. But I am not dismissing it because "Beane has never done it before." Of course he hasn't. It is a rare type of a move. 

Great history and info here. You can read into this so many ways. My initial reaction is that this move was a decade ago. The game has changed and WR is now a flooded draft pool. Is there no history in this because it’s not wise? I think those top talents are game changers but how certain are they vs someone at 25 or 28? 
 

I think Beane looks at all the variables and decides the risks are not worth the reward here. Worse case scenario could be devastating to this team in Allen’s next 2-3 seasons, right within his prime. 
 

Can we compare Demitroff’s history to Beane’? I am not convinced that looking at a different GMs patterns would indicate anything as to what our GM will do. The best predictor of the future is past behavior, not your neighbors. Rare moves are the outliers, and I don’t think the state of the roster and with the other factors (talent pool, cost, risk) I would be floored if this happened.