How should we address WR?

[Dr. Who]

17 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I guess that we just have a different idea of how often they will throw. I have them at 36 pass attempts a game. Without big play availability that feels about right. They averaged 33 pass attempts a game with Brady. That’s a little bit misleading though because they only threw the ball 15 times vs. Dallas. We disagree at how often the Bills will throw.

 

We also disagree that the rest of those guys are capable of taking that kind of target share. Some of these guys were productive with low target share and low attention from the defense. The Bills don’t have anyone that scares teams in the passing game with the exception of maybe Kincaid (if he keeps developing). The rest of those guys are role players and without an alpha in the room they are going to be defended like top players. That’s not ideal. The Bills NEED an alpha. All of those guys need that guy to take attention.
 

If the Bills top receivers are on the roster now, they won’t go to the playoffs. they have to get 1 of the top 3 or 2 of the top 12. They can’t bank on “hoping” to be right in the 4th or 5th. That’s not an option any longer. It was a bad idea when Diggs was here. Now, it isn’t a thought. 

I don't think a lot folks are buying the need for an alpha. Many seem to think the idea of WR1 is obsolete. They believe all you have to do is spread the ball around to capable receivers. There's no sense that the stress imposed by a dominant WR opens up space for the role players, and that without that fella, the space goes away and with it, much of the productivity of the role players.

 

Indeed, there are those who argue that we found Davis and Shakir in the mid-rounds, and presuming they were/are "good enough," there's no urgency, or they point to a deep draft at the position and think one can safely let the draft come to you. This relative complacency perpetuates the same m.o. of asking Josh Allen to elevate mid-level talent, rather than providing him with some elite talent to work with. It's disheartening to me to see that mindset, and I don't understand how it is compelling to many, but apparently it is.

Edited April 10 by Dr. Who

[Beck Water]

4 hours ago, njbuff said:

Trading down is a good option if all the coveted WR's are all taken by 28 and the cost of moving up is too much. 

 

It wouldn't be a bad thing and the Bills still have a roster to fill out. So, trading back isn't a bad option at all.

 

Allen doesn't need an elite receiver. He needs someone who will HOLD ON TO THE DAMN BALL. 

 

He needs both - a WR who is elite at faking out defenders and getting open, AND who will hang on to the damned ball.

But, as I hope is obvious from a post I did in another thread, that doesn't translate to "move up in the draft at all costs" or even "draft WR in the 1st".

 

The trick is always to figure out which of the prospects is actually gold.

Edited April 10 by Beck Water

[billsfan89]

6 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I guess that we just have a different idea of how often they will throw. I have them at 36 pass attempts a game. Without big play availability that feels about right. They averaged 33 pass attempts a game with Brady. That’s a little bit misleading though because they only threw the ball 15 times vs. Dallas. We disagree at how often the Bills will throw.

 

We also disagree that the rest of those guys are capable of taking that kind of target share. Some of these guys were productive with low target share and low attention from the defense. The Bills don’t have anyone that scares teams in the passing game with the exception of maybe Kincaid (if he keeps developing). The rest of those guys are role players and without an alpha in the room they are going to be defended like top players. That’s not ideal. The Bills NEED an alpha. All of those guys need that guy to take attention.
 

If the Bills top receivers are on the roster now, they won’t go to the playoffs. they have to get 1 of the top 3 or 2 of the top 12. They can’t bank on “hoping” to be right in the 4th or 5th. That’s not an option any longer. It was a bad idea when Diggs was here. Now, it isn’t a thought. 

We can quibble about the targets but the targets available aren’t going to be more than a 5% increase and I think a lot of the Diggs 160 target volume is not going to be absorbed just by two rookies. Shakir is going to likely have 45 more targets and Kincaid 20 more targets. That’s already chipping away 65 targets from Diggs. 

 

I think the Bills will need impact from a rookie and that’s why it is imperative they draft one with their first pick. But I do doubt that the Bills fortunes are resting on a depth WR who’s at best only going to be a WR4 and get 40-50 targets if there are no major injuries and it’s probably closer to 30 targets more likely if health is not a factor.

 

If the Bills can find a rookie to who can have a good impact and absorb 70-80 targets efficiently then I think the Bills will be in a good spot. I think they don’t have to draft a WR at pick 60 if there isn’t a good one there or the value is much greater at another position of need.

 

They can find a WR at pick 128 or 133 to add depth and take on 30-40 targets.

[Victory Formation]

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

We can quibble about the targets but the targets available aren’t going to be more than a 5% increase and I think a lot of the Diggs 160 target volume is not going to be absorbed just by two rookies. Shakir is going to likely have 45 more targets and Kincaid 20 more targets. That’s already chipping away 65 targets from Diggs. 

 

I think the Bills will need impact from a rookie and that’s why it is imperative they draft one with their first pick. But I do doubt that the Bills fortunes are resting on a depth WR who’s at best only going to be a WR4 and get 40-50 targets if there are no major injuries and it’s probably closer to 30 targets more likely if health is not a factor.

 

If the Bills can find a rookie to who can have a good impact and absorb 70-80 targets efficiently then I think the Bills will be in a good spot. I think they don’t have to draft a WR at pick 60 if there isn’t a good one there or the value is much greater at another position of need.

 

They can find a WR at pick 128 or 133 to add depth and take on 30-40 targets.

Don’t mind me, I’m just a “bro scout” at best but wouldn’t it make sense to double down on WR at 28 and 60? This is a very nice class. What other holes do we have?

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

We can quibble about the targets but the targets available aren’t going to be more than a 5% increase and I think a lot of the Diggs 160 target volume is not going to be absorbed just by two rookies. Shakir is going to likely have 45 more targets and Kincaid 20 more targets. That’s already chipping away 65 targets from Diggs. 

 

I think the Bills will need impact from a rookie and that’s why it is imperative they draft one with their first pick. But I do doubt that the Bills fortunes are resting on a depth WR who’s at best only going to be a WR4 and get 40-50 targets if there are no major injuries and it’s probably closer to 30 targets more likely if health is not a factor.

 

If the Bills can find a rookie to who can have a good impact and absorb 70-80 targets efficiently then I think the Bills will be in a good spot. I think they don’t have to draft a WR at pick 60 if there isn’t a good one there or the value is much greater at another position of need.

 

They can find a WR at pick 128 or 133 to add depth and take on 30-40 targets.

My numbers had already account for Diggs’ targets to drop by like 35. 
 

I’m sorry. I misunderstood. I haven’t read the whole thread. I thought that you were advocating waiting until the 4th to add their 1st WR. I think that it’s reasonable to wait until the 4th to try to add the 2nd guy. I wouldn’t but that’s not insane. That holds especially true if they go up for one of the big 3. I don’t think Javon Baker makes it to the 4th but he would be amazing. There are guys in that range that have different skill sets. The Bills picked the right draft to be desperate for WR help. This draft is LOADED at the position. 

[billsfan89]

11 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

My numbers had already account for Diggs’ targets to drop by like 35. 
 

I’m sorry. I misunderstood. I haven’t read the whole thread. I thought that you were advocating waiting until the 4th to add their 1st WR. I think that it’s reasonable to wait until the 4th to try to add the 2nd guy. I wouldn’t but that’s not insane. That holds especially true if they go up for one of the big 3. I don’t think Javon Baker makes it to the 4th but he would be amazing. There are guys in that range that have different skill sets. The Bills picked the right draft to be desperate for WR help. This draft is LOADED at the position. 

No problem I get caught up in threads haha. I think the Bills won’t be in a position to trade up for a top 3 WR without having to give up a lot to the point where I don’t think it would be worth it. I think there also little chance Brian Thomas lasts past the 20-22 range either. 
 

So I think the Bills at pick 28 are going to have to “let the draft come to them” so to speak and just see whose there at pick 28 and either trade down a bit if that’s available or take the 5th WR on the board (likely Franklin, McConkey or Legette). 
 

I think at pick 60 if a really good WR is there no issue taking them but if a top Guard/DT/DE is there those needs shouldn’t be ignored to double up at WR if the value is lackluster. 
 

I think if you take a WR in the 26-35 range I think you can wait to pick 128 to add some depth.

Edited April 10 by billsfan89

[Beck Water]

41 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I don't think a lot folks are buying the need for an alpha. Many seem to think the idea of WR1 is obsolete. They believe all you have to do is spread the ball around to capable receivers. There's no sense that the stress imposed by a dominant WR opens up space for the role players, and that without that fella, the space goes away and with it, much of the productivity of the role players.

 

Indeed, there are those who argue that we found Davis and Shakir in the mid-rounds, and presuming they were/are "good enough," there's no urgency, or they point to a deep draft at the position and think one can safely let the draft come to you. This relative complacency perpetuates the same m.o. of asking Josh Allen to elevate mid-level talent, rather than providing him with some elite talent to work with. It's disheartening to me to see that mindset, and I don't understand how it is compelling to many, but apparently it is.

 

So I think there are a couple of layers to this.

 

The first is the layer I already covered elsewhere - drafting a player high in the 1st, or even in the 1st at all, does not guarantee an elite talent.  It gives teams the highest probability, but it's far from a certainty.    Nor does drafting later exclude an elite talent.  So to a certain extent, those who feel we can "let the draft come to us", point to the intrinsic uncertainty of player evaluations, and the fact that draft picks are an alignment between the team's internal talent evaluation and their sense of "how the frog will jump" for the other 31 teams.

 

The second layer is that there's a difference between what's needed to win in the regular season, vs what's needed to win in the playoffs.  The Bills managed 10 wins and a trip to the playoffs with no #1 WR, sort of "#1 by committee" between John Brown, Cole Beasley, creative play design, and a handful of "guys".  But they couldn't close the deal.

 

Next year we went to the AFCCG with the addition of Diggs as a true #1 (by the way, I hate that term "alpha".  It gets used all the time by a bunch of chest-thumpers who feel the need to tell the world they're the top wolf in a theory of pack hierarchy that's been debunked for several decades - in fact, the same scientist who developed it, later debunked it.  But I digress).  It wasn't quite good enough to get us into the Superbowl, but arguably we were close on offense.   

 

But then we saw Brown decline, and obviously not quite enough done to replace them with Davis 2nd year, and 34 year old Sanders/32 year old Beasley.  We were still good to stack W in the regular season, but just having a #1 in Diggs wasn't enough in the playoffs.

 

So the third layer is, if asked whether it's more important to have a #1 WR or to have a number of capable receivers to spread the ball around, my vote is "Both are needed".  In the playoffs, with the best defenses, if you don't have a #1, they'll stifle all your receivers. If you do have a #1 but not enough depth, they'll stifle your #1 and the rest of the guys won't be able to do enough.

Anyway TL;DR I'm not sure the mindset you think you're seeing, is exactly the mindset people have.  But maybe I'm wrong.  

[HappyDays]

2 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

Shakir 100

 

More than doubling Shakir's targets from last year is not a solution. I can't even imagine a scenario where this would be true. Even if you just look at the last 11 games of the season (when he was the leading receiver on the team) he paced for 62 targets over a 17 season.

 

You're actually making the pro-"draft two WRs high" argument here. You've proven that a world where the Bills don't draft two WRs high is a world where Shakir has to get a ridiculously high number of targets just to even have a functional passing offense. That world can't exist.

 

Edited April 10 by HappyDays

[In Summary]

The double dip is most likely round 1/2 and round 4/5.

[Dr. Who]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

So I think there are a couple of layers to this.

 

The first is the layer I already covered elsewhere - drafting a player high in the 1st, or even in the 1st at all, does not guarantee an elite talent.  It gives teams the highest probability, but it's far from a certainty.    Nor does drafting later exclude an elite talent.  So to a certain extent, those who feel we can "let the draft come to us", point to the intrinsic uncertainty of player evaluations, and the fact that draft picks are an alignment between the team's internal talent evaluation and their sense of "how the frog will jump" for the other 31 teams.

 

The second layer is that there's a difference between what's needed to win in the regular season, vs what's needed to win in the playoffs.  The Bills managed 10 wins and a trip to the playoffs with no #1 WR, sort of "#1 by committee" between John Brown, Cole Beasley, creative play design, and a handful of "guys".  But they couldn't close the deal.

 

Next year we went to the AFCCG with the addition of Diggs as a true #1 (by the way, I hate that term "alpha".  It gets used all the time by a bunch of chest-thumpers who feel the need to tell the world they're the top wolf in a theory of pack hierarchy that's been debunked for several decades - in fact, the same scientist who developed it, later debunked it.  But I digress).  It wasn't quite good enough to get us into the Superbowl, but arguably we were close on offense.   

 

But then we saw Brown decline, and obviously not quite enough done to replace them with Davis 2nd year, and 34 year old Sanders/32 year old Beasley.  We were still good to stack W in the regular season, but just having a #1 in Diggs wasn't enough in the playoffs.

 

So the third layer is, if asked whether it's more important to have a #1 WR or to have a number of capable receivers to spread the ball around, my vote is "Both are needed".  In the playoffs, with the best defenses, if you don't have a #1, they'll stifle all your receivers. If you do have a #1 but not enough depth, they'll stifle your #1 and the rest of the guys won't be able to do enough.

Anyway TL;DR I'm not sure the mindset you think you're seeing, is exactly the mindset people have.  But maybe I'm wrong.  

Yes, you are certainly wrong. Or perhaps not, but I like to start with a strong statement that affirms all my prejudices.

 

It seems to me your argument, if I follow you well, is rather reminiscent of a similar argument with regard to the defense. It performs admirably in the regular season, then fades into disappointment once the zebras tend to allow more holding, and one is confronted with the better qbs, etc. Folks say we lack playmakers, and that hits both sides of the ball. We have depth, and we have good players, but few elite talents that can rise to the challenge of the moment once the post-season comes. 

 

I do think we currently lack the minimum threshold for that quality of playmaker, though we have some young guys who might ascend to that level. Josh is the only one I comfortably count as one. This doesn't mean he has not had failures, but our franchise qb is certainly someone who can be that player. (I am not using alpha as a technical scientific term, debunked or otherwise. I just grabbed it as part of a conversation, but if it offends you or bothers you because it is populist nonsense, I have no attachment to it whatsoever.) However we get them, first round, fifth round, free agent, trade, I think we need to elevate the talent level of the WR room beyond capable players.

 

I'm not sure we can pay the price for a top 3 WR, and of course, even the so-called safest pick has some element of risk. So many factors play into life, and it is true in sports as elsewhere. It's not a science, but an art, and the best scientists also have an aesthetic sense. Mathematicians and physicists often intuit the answer before they find the "proof" for it. I'm pretty sure you know all this. So, I would be excited to get one of those top 3 WRs, but probably be rather appalled at the price tag. My own sense of balancing prudence and risk is to opt for a double dip early at the position. I still think the odds of finding a playmaker talent at WR favor getting them early, so I'd prefer two lottery tickets. And I think you could get geometric payoffs, where the combination exceeds the value of each alone.

 

Personally, I love McConkey, and as a few others have surmised, I think he could fill the Diggs' role. He's not just a slot, and he's simply a smooth, beautiful route runner with more speed than some credit. Then I'd like to add a big-bodied X: Thomas, Mitchell, Legette are my preferences. This is not selling off next year's first, but it would cost something to come away with two of those. 

Edited April 10 by Dr. Who

[billsfan89]

23 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

More than doubling Shakir's targets from last year is not a solution. I can't even imagine a scenario where this would be true. Even if you just look at the last 11 games of the season (when he was the leading receiver on the team) he paced for 62 targets over a 17 season.

 

You're actually making the pro-"draft two WRs high" argument here. You've proven that a world where the Bills don't draft two WRs high is a world where Shakir has to get a ridiculously high number of targets just to even have a functional passing offense. That world can't exist.

 

 

90 targets is not that unrealistic for Shakir in my opinion. Shakir last season went into the season buried in the depth chart and not practicing with Josh and the starters as much. He was also just in his second year and didn't play much his rookie year. Add another full season of experience and an off-season/training camp of working as a starter with Josh and I think he is in a position where he can up his targets to 90. 

 

I also think it is not necessarily accurate to compare his last 11 games and extrapolate that to this upcoming season. First off Shakir was not the leading receiver on the team in that time period he was just the most efficient. Shakir only had 27 targets in the last 11 games. That was 4th most on the team in that time period. Diggs had 94 targets, Kincaid 72 and even Gabe Davis had 51 in that same game span compared to Shakir's 27. 

 

The Bills no longer have to force the ball into Diggs who despite 94 targets only caught those 94 targets at a poor 61.7% rate. The Bills can get Shakir and Kincaid the ball more and still have an efficient offense and enough depth of weapons if they can get a WR at pick 28 to contribute around 70-80 targets. 

 

If you draft a WR at pick 28 and at pick 60 how many targets are each of those players getting? Let's say you draft a WR at pick 28 then the WR depth chart puts that second rookie you drafted 60th overall as a WR4 at best, how many targets is a WR4 on an offense that is going to use 2 TE sets frequently and throw to their running backs a lot going to have for the 4th WR on the depth chart? And that's assuming a player like Shorter or Hollins doesn't soak in targets at a good clip. 

[BuffaloRebound]

3 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

They need them as much to be a “threat” to open up those guys. The Bills have a bottom 3 WR room in the league right now (with the Giants and Chargers). I’d have the Bills at 31. That’s awful. That holds especially true when your best player is your QB. Help him.

 

In terms of targets, I think that there are 200(ish) targets currently available. These 2 guys (one could come in FA or trade) but the Bills will be adding 2 guys that will receive 80+ targets.

Here is what I had for targets prior to the Diggs trade:

 

To recap (620 targets):

diggs - 130

wr2 (1st or 2nd round) - 110

kincaid - 110

Shakir - 80

Samuel - 55 (another 55 carries)

Cook - 50

Knox - 40

Hollins - 30

everyone else - 15

 

Let’s say that Knox picks up 20 and the rest of the group picks up an additional 50. That is really aggressive. That still leaves 170 targets needed out of this class (and FA). They are in a bad spot. They need 2 that can play tomorrow.

When it’s put into numbers like that, makes me think we sign a vet like Tyler Boyd.  Can’t count on 2 rookie WR’s getting that many targets.  

[HappyDays]

18 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

I also think it is not necessarily accurate to compare his last 11 games and extrapolate that to this upcoming season. First off Shakir was not the leading receiver on the team in that time period he was just the most efficient. Shakir only had 27 targets in the last 11 games. That was 4th most on the team in that time period. Diggs had 94 targets, Kincaid 72 and even Gabe Davis had 51 in that same game span compared to Shakir's 27. 

 

WRs are ranked by yards, not by targets. Shakir WAS the #1 pass catcher on the team by that metric over the last 11 games. He bested #2 and #3 by over 300 yards each. And don't make the mistake of assuming his yards per target will stay the same as his total targets go up. His skill set lends itself to low volume high efficiency usage. Don't mess with a good thing like we did with Gabe Davis after he excelled as the WR4 in 2020.

 

18 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

If you draft a WR at pick 28 and at pick 60 how many targets are each of those players getting?

 

A lot! Do you realize we currently have zero starting caliber WRs on the roster that can play outside full time? Shakir should be in the slot 75% of the time, Samuel should be at best a 50/50 split, and the other WRs on the roster aren't even worth mentioning. We have a QB who excels at throwing outside the numbers to the intermediate area of the field better than any other QB in the league, and I repeat we have zero true outside WRs on the roster.

 

We can't afford to screw this up. Diggs and Davis both could be planted outside. We no longer have either on the roster. So we need TWO replacements, not one. And both replacements have to be good enough to start. If we wait until the end of the 4th to find the second guy, I guess we'll have to sign OBJ or something like that just to have a functional outside passing offense. But I would rather just invest high in young players and start making up the massive under-investment we've made at that position since 2020.

 

Edited April 10 by HappyDays

[Beck Water]

54 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Yes, you are certainly wrong. Or perhaps not, but I like to start with a strong statement that affirms all my prejudices.

 

LOL

 

54 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

It seems to me your argument, if I follow you well, is rather reminiscent of a similar argument with regard to the defense. It performs admirably in the regular season, then fades into disappointment once the zebras tend to allow more holding, and one is confronted with the better qbs, etc. Folks say we lack playmakers, and that hits both sides of the ball. We have depth, and we have good players, but few elite talents that can rise to the challenge of the moment once the post-season comes. 

 

I do think we currently lack the minimum threshold for that quality of playmaker, though we have some young guys who might ascend to that level. Josh is the only one I comfortably count as one. This doesn't mean he has not had failures, but our franchise qb is certainly someone who can be that player.

 

On "Speak", one of the hosts - Emmanuel Acho maybe?  - was talking about what he called "freakazoids".  He said almost every team in the league has about 3 "freakazoids", players who have an uncanny amount of physical talent.  And that without enough "freakazoids", doesn't matter how well coached the team is, doesn't matter how hard you practice or how hard you play, going to lose because you don't have enough talent.

 

So yeah, I tend to agree with you.  On offense right now, we have Josh.  Maybe Cook might become a "freakazoid", he shows freakazoid flashes, but only flashes and then some significant lapses (the drops!).  Maybe Dalton Kincaid might become a "freakazoid", he's so silky smooth and seems to have beautiful hands.  But we sure could use another.

 

On defense right now, we have Milano and maybe, in flashes, Ed Oliver, maybe Rasul Douglas or he might just be a very solid high quality player?  Von Miller was a hoped-for freakazoid, but got injured and hasn't been the same.  Tre' White was a freakazoid before the ACL and looked to be coming back to form this season before the Achilles.

 

But yes, I've probably made that argument about the defense.  I think McDermott's defensive plan is to build an intricate defensive machine where all the parts work together in a way that is far greater than the sum of its parts.  The problem is if enough of the starting parts are taken out, there isn't enough freakish talent to overcome that.

 

54 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

My own sense of balancing prudence and risk is to opt for a double dip early at the position. I still think the odds of finding a playmaker talent at WR favor getting them early, so I'd prefer two lottery tickets. And I think you could get geometric payoffs, where the combination exceeds the value of each alone.

 

I can not reasonably pretend to know enough about college football and the WR prospects to tell where the balance of risk and prudence lies.  I'm just concerned, given the Rousseau/Basham debacle.

[billsfan89]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

WRs are ranked by yards, not by targets. Shakir WAS the #1 pass catcher on the team by that metric over the last 11 games. He bested #2 and #3 by over 300 yards each. And don't make the mistake of assuming his yards per target will go up as his total targets go up. His skill set lends itself to low volume high efficiency usage. Don't mess with a good thing like we did with Gabe Davis after he excelled as the WR4 in 2020.

 

 

A lot! Do you realize we currently have zero starting caliber WRs on the roster that can play outside full time? Shakir should be in the slot 75% of the time, Samuel should be at best a 50/50 split, and the other WRs on the roster aren't even worth mentioning. We have a QB who excels at throwing outside the numbers to the intermediate area of the field better than any other QB in the league, and I repeat we have zero true outside WRs on the roster.

 

We can't screw this up. Diggs and Davis both could be planted outside. We no longer have either on the roster. So we need TWO replacements, not one. And both replacements have to be good enough to start. If we wait until the end of the 4th to find the second guy, I guess we'll have to sign OBJ or something like that just to have a functional outside passing offense. But I would rather just invest high in young players and start making up the massive under-investment we've made at that position since 2020.

 

Sorry to keep splitting hairs but your logic on Shakir not being able to take on big targets is not making sense to me. 90 targets is not a lot for Shakir as 90 targets is usually right around the second or third highest total for most teams. He took 45 targets and caught 39 receptions for 571 yards. He gave you no indication he couldn't take on a larger load given that he can go into the off-season as a starter and work with Josh and the offensive starters more. 

 

Gabe Davis is not a viable comparison here as Davis in the regular season was always a massively inefficient player from 2020-2021 in the regular season he averaged about a 56% catch rate and in 2021 he had a very high drop rate at 7.9% and even in 2020 while his drop rate was better it was not good at 4.9%. Gabe just exploded in the 2021 playoffs so the Bills banked on him building off of that one insane game in KC. What slotted Gabe in as an ideal WR3/4 was that he was a tremendous blocker and he has big play ability. But his drops and low catch rate were only going to get worse if you upped his targets which is exactly what happened. So you probably want to keep Davis as a 70ish target boundary WR and have an elite WR1 with a very good TE and slot WR so that you don't have to lean on him too much. 

 

Shakir produced an 11 game stretch in the regular season for a team mostly playing for their lives and changing their offensive coordinator and was insanely efficient. Shakir even had several games during that 11 game stretch where he wasn't on the field for 70% or more of the offensive snaps (he was on the field less than 70% of offensive snaps for 4 games and was never above 80%). Watching him he always seemed to catch the ball even as teams were keying in on him when Diggs was lesser utilized. I think if you draft a WR up high who can play on the boundary you can flex Samuel and Shakir into the slot and out of the boundary while utilizing Knox as a TE 2 to take a WR off the field. 

 

I just don't see where you find enough targets to justify a 2nd round WR after a 1st round WR selection. At best you maybe get someone 40-50 targets but I would rather take a player in the 4th to soak in those possible targets and develop while addressing a need elsewhere after you already took a WR up high. 

 

 

[Victory Formation]

16 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

WRs are ranked by yards, not by targets. Shakir WAS the #1 pass catcher on the team by that metric over the last 11 games. He bested #2 and #3 by over 300 yards each. And don't make the mistake of assuming his yards per target will stay the same as his total targets go up. His skill set lends itself to low volume high efficiency usage. Don't mess with a good thing like we did with Gabe Davis after he excelled as the WR4 in 2020.

 

 

A lot! Do you realize we currently have zero starting caliber WRs on the roster that can play outside full time? Shakir should be in the slot 75% of the time, Samuel should be at best a 50/50 split, and the other WRs on the roster aren't even worth mentioning. We have a QB who excels at throwing outside the numbers to the intermediate area of the field better than any other QB in the league, and I repeat we have zero true outside WRs on the roster.

 

We can't afford to screw this up. Diggs and Davis both could be planted outside. We no longer have either on the roster. So we need TWO replacements, not one. And both replacements have to be good enough to start. If we wait until the end of the 4th to find the second guy, I guess we'll have to sign OBJ or something like that just to have a functional outside passing offense. But I would rather just invest high in young players and start making up the massive under-investment we've made at that position since 2020.

 

Don’t forget that Beane traded our #1 WR while taking a $30M cap hit. He has a lot of skin on the line. If he doesn’t deliver, he could be in deep dog doo doo.

[Dr. Who]

2 hours ago, Beck Water said:

I can not reasonably pretend to know enough about college football and the WR prospects to tell where the balance of risk and prudence lies.  I'm just concerned, given the Rousseau/Basham debacle.

Well, given the state of our WR room today, Beane has rather backed himself into, or allowed himself, to be placed in a momentarily dangerous position. Minus WR1 and WR2, bracketing out whether Diggs was still a WR1 or Davis an adequate WR2, the overall talent is very poor relative to the rest of the NFL. Beane simply has to make a best effort play, and endure the risk of inherent uncertainty that is crystallized in the drama of sport, but part of the existential nature of choice. It's either push all your chips in on a top 3, should that option present itself, split the difference on a fella like Thomas, or double dip at #28 and a trade up from #60.

 

The folks who think there is another plan, like waiting till #60, or God forbid, even later to address the WR deficit are deceiving themselves about what we currently have, even if Kincaid becomes the fella we all hope he can be, and Samuel and Shakir are at least capable pros. 

[Kirby Jackson]

5 hours ago, BuffaloRebound said:

When it’s put into numbers like that, makes me think we sign a vet like Tyler Boyd.  Can’t count on 2 rookie WR’s getting that many targets.  

I think a vet is possible as the 2nd option. I do think though, in 2024, WRs transition in pretty seamlessly.
 

If one of the guys that they draft is a great route runner (like McConkey for example) I think that guy will see a lot of balls. If they go with raw physical skills (like Coleman for example) that guy won’t see volume early on. That’s some good for thought that really didn’t dawn on me until responding. If the Bills do have 200ish targets to go around there are certain prospects more capable of taking on a heavy target share early.

[Jimmy Harris 69]

Moving up always gives one the chance to “win the draft” in the eyes of some expert. History has shown the cost is too high, and it fails to be the difference maker (see the falcons with no trophy and see the chiefs hoisting the trophy using a bunch of what-sis). I’d be satisfied with a staying at 28 or even moving down a tad. Moving down and dealing Minnesota’s 2025 number 2 could potentially get us a starting receiver, DT and safety in rounds 2 and 3. We could then grab another receiver in round 4 or 5, in addition to staying open to veterans on the market this summer. We need edge, cb and rb help as well. McConkey, Worthy should still be in play in late round 1, the others in later rounds. This list is from cbs sports. 
 

Ladd McConkey, UGA, 6-0 / 185

 Worthy, TEXAS, 6-1 / 172

Coleman, FSU, 6-4 / 215

Baker, UCF, 6-1 / 208

Franklin, OREG, 6-3 / 187

McMillan, WASH, 6-1 / 192

Corley, WKY, 5-11 / 210

Polk WASH, 6-2 / 204

 Legette, SC, 6-3 / 227

Smith, TXAM, 5-10 / 200

Wilson, MICH, 6-0 / 192

 Cowing, ARIZ, 5-11 / 175

 

[nosejob]

14 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

We can quibble about the targets but the targets available aren’t going to be more than a 5% increase and I think a lot of the Diggs 160 target volume is not going to be absorbed just by two rookies. Shakir is going to likely have 45 more targets and Kincaid 20 more targets. That’s already chipping away 65 targets from Diggs. 

 

I think the Bills will need impact from a rookie and that’s why it is imperative they draft one with their first pick. But I do doubt that the Bills fortunes are resting on a depth WR who’s at best only going to be a WR4 and get 40-50 targets if there are no major injuries and it’s probably closer to 30 targets more likely if health is not a factor.

 

If the Bills can find a rookie to who can have a good impact and absorb 70-80 targets efficiently then I think the Bills will be in a good spot. I think they don’t have to draft a WR at pick 60 if there isn’t a good one there or the value is much greater at another position of need.

 

They can find a WR at pick 128 or 133 to add depth and take on 30-40 targets.

The first thing that popped in my head when I read the bolded was...Ladd McConkey.

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, nosejob said:

The first thing that popped in my head when I read the bolded was...Ladd McConkey.

 

 

I am just now getting familiar with McConkey’s game but is he more of a slot or a boundary WR? The Bills need a boundary WR as Shakir and Samuel are more hybrid slot boundary WR’s and at best even if the Bills view Shakir as a true boundary WR they won’t likely view Samuel as that so I he issue is the Bills can’t likely draft a slot high up. 

[Nephilim17]

Marino's latest podcast offers compelling reasons to not freak out if the Bills take a higher-graded D prospect in the first and then take a WR in the 2nd.

He points to Green Bay and other examples of good WR rooms and players that didn't involve a first rounder.

Sorry, if already posted in this thread but here it is (again) and it's a good listen:
 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

37 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

 

I am just now getting familiar with McConkey’s game but is he more of a slot or a boundary WR? The Bills need a boundary WR as Shakir and Samuel are more hybrid slot boundary WR’s and at best even if the Bills view Shakir as a true boundary WR they won’t likely view Samuel as that so I he issue is the Bills can’t likely draft a slot high up. 

He’s a little bit of both. Size and athletically he’s basically identical to Garrett Wilson. There are stereotypes with guys that look like him 😂😂. He can play either place. He reminds me of Diggs honestly. The Antonio Brown comparisons are reasonable as well.

[billsfan89]

22 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

He’s a little bit of both. Size and athletically he’s basically identical to Garrett Wilson. There are stereotypes with guys that look like him 😂😂. He can play either place. He reminds me of Diggs honestly. The Antonio Brown comparisons are reasonable as well.

 

My concern with the Bills is that whomever they draft can't be a pure slot guy (which McC doesn't seem to be) and ideally the player would be more of a pure boundary player. I think of Shakir and Samuel as hybrid slot boundary players (although of the two I think Shakir is more capable of consistently playing on the boundary but he should flex into the slot now and again). Seems like from the description of what you are telling me about McC if asked to play the boundary consistently it wouldn't be a bad fit? If so I like what I see from him, I think he would be a good fit on this offense, they can then take a mid-round WR whose more of a pure boundary player to round out the depth.  

[billsfan89]

3 hours ago, Jimmy Harris 69 said:

Moving up always gives one the chance to “win the draft” in the eyes of some expert. History has shown the cost is too high, and it fails to be the difference maker (see the falcons with no trophy and see the chiefs hoisting the trophy using a bunch of what-sis). I’d be satisfied with a staying at 28 or even moving down a tad. Moving down and dealing Minnesota’s 2025 number 2 could potentially get us a starting receiver, DT and safety in rounds 2 and 3. We could then grab another receiver in round 4 or 5, in addition to staying open to veterans on the market this summer. We need edge, cb and rb help as well. McConkey, Worthy should still be in play in late round 1, the others in later rounds. This list is from cbs sports. 
 

Ladd McConkey, UGA, 6-0 / 185

 Worthy, TEXAS, 6-1 / 172

Coleman, FSU, 6-4 / 215

Baker, UCF, 6-1 / 208

Franklin, OREG, 6-3 / 187

McMillan, WASH, 6-1 / 192

Corley, WKY, 5-11 / 210

Polk WASH, 6-2 / 204

 Legette, SC, 6-3 / 227

Smith, TXAM, 5-10 / 200

Wilson, MICH, 6-0 / 192

 Cowing, ARIZ, 5-11 / 175

 

 

I actually think moving up massively/significantly for a non-QB or a lackluster QB prospect actually leads to pundits saying that the team that traded back more often than not won the trade. I think many feel that trade ups of more than a few spots high up tend not to be worth it most of the time. NFL roster building is almost more about not having weaknesses and good depth than it is about what your top elite talent looks like (outside of the QB position). Getting more picks or swapping out lower end picks for higher ones and get more or better "bites at the apple" to bring in talent all over the roster is better than going up higher on the board. 

 

You do need at least 2-3 elite non-QB players but the issue is that even trading up well into the top 10 does not guarantee that at that much higher a degree and as we have seen throughout NFL history elite top 5 at their position players are found all places in the draft and even some like Jason Peters un-drafted (although UDFA's being elite players is rare). 

 

I think given how deep this draft class is staying at 28 unless Brian Thomas maybe falls to around 24/25 (which would be a smaller more manageable trade up) the Bills best bet is to "let the draft come to them" and draft a WR at pick 28 like Legette or McConkey or trade down 5-10 spots and pick up a 3rd round pick and still take a WR like Franklin or Wilson and use that 3rd round pick to fill a need elsewhere on the roster and then take another WR at pick 128 for added depth while using pick 60 and whatever you got from the trade down to build the defensive line or if at pick 60 a top guard or center is there add a piece to the offensive line. 

[Kirby Jackson]

8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

My concern with the Bills is that whomever they draft can't be a pure slot guy (which McC doesn't seem to be) and ideally the player would be more of a pure boundary player. I think of Shakir and Samuel as hybrid slot boundary players (although of the two I think Shakir is more capable of consistently playing on the boundary but he should flex into the slot now and again). Seems like from the description of what you are telling me about McC if asked to play the boundary consistently it wouldn't be a bad fit? If so I like what I see from him, I think he would be a good fit on this offense, they can then take a mid-round WR whose more of a pure boundary player to round out the depth.  

I agree 100% with this. McConkey can play the boundary and is polished. He can take targets early. Honestly of all of the guys that we talk about, with the exception of the top 3, he’s most capable of volume. 

[Mat68]

I think all options are on the table at this point.  I went with wr at 28 and different position at 60.  I think the Bills are digging deep into Alabama and Jermaine Burton.  Went to Alabama pro day instead of Texas both were on the same day.  Maybe taking attention off Texas wideouts. 

 

Trading all the way up for one of the top 3 seems a bit rich.  If they do it I would be excited but pretty much rolling with the dline as it is.  I think they need to do something at 60 to add depth to Edge or draft Jones successor at DT.  
 

I could see a trade up to the 20s late teens including a 25 2nd.  Beane really likes a guy he will go get them.  

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I actually think moving up massively/significantly for a non-QB or a lackluster QB prospect actually leads to pundits saying that the team that traded back more often than not won the trade. I think many feel that trade ups of more than a few spots high up tend not to be worth it most of the time. NFL roster building is almost more about not having weaknesses and good depth than it is about what your top elite talent looks like (outside of the QB position). Getting more picks or swapping out lower end picks for higher ones and get more or better "bites at the apple" to bring in talent all over the roster is better than going up higher on the board. 

 

You do need at least 2-3 elite non-QB players but the issue is that even trading up well into the top 10 does not guarantee that at that much higher a degree and as we have seen throughout NFL history elite top 5 at their position players are found all places in the draft and even some like Jason Peters un-drafted (although UDFA's being elite players is rare). 

 

I think given how deep this draft class is staying at 28 unless Brian Thomas maybe falls to around 24/25 (which would be a smaller more manageable trade up) the Bills best bet is to "let the draft come to them" and draft a WR at pick 28 like Legette or McConkey or trade down 5-10 spots and pick up a 3rd round pick and still take a WR like Franklin or Wilson and use that 3rd round pick to fill a need elsewhere on the roster and then take another WR at pick 128 for added depth while using pick 60 and whatever you got from the trade down to build the defensive line or if at pick 60 a top guard or center is there add a piece to the offensive line. 

Only 1 I could fully get behind is Marvin Harrison Jr.  I would say the Andrew Luck prospect of WR.  Was a future 1st round pick since highschool

[billsfan89]

9 minutes ago, Mat68 said:

I think all options are on the table at this point.  I went with wr at 28 and different position at 60.  I think the Bills are digging deep into Alabama and Jermaine Burton.  Went to Alabama pro day instead of Texas both were on the same day.  Maybe taking attention off Texas wideouts. 

 

Trading all the way up for one of the top 3 seems a bit rich.  If they do it I would be excited but pretty much rolling with the dline as it is.  I think they need to do something at 60 to add depth to Edge or draft Jones successor at DT.  
 

I could see a trade up to the 20s late teens including a 25 2nd.  Beane really likes a guy he will go get them.  

Only 1 I could fully get behind is Marvin Harrison Jr.  I would say the Andrew Luck prospect of WR.  Was a future 1st round pick since highschool

 

I would think a trade up to 3 would be at such a steep cost that I would pass. And Marvin Harrison JR as good of a WR prospect as he is (and I think he's probably the best prospect at WR since Calvin Johnson or Julio Jones in my opinion certainly as blue chip a WR prospect can get) is simply not worth the huge trade up that would likely be required. 

 

I think if the package was picks 28, 60, 128 and 144 this year plus a 1st and 2nd next year I wouldn't hate it, its a steep price but you are getting Josh as good of a cost controlled WR1 as possible and you still have a 2nd next year even if you give up one in a trade up. BUT I think the price AZ will want to go all the way down from 3 to 28 is likely to be picks 28, 60, 128 and 144 plus 1st round picks in 2025 and 2026 along with a 2nd rounder in 2025 and a 3rd in 2026. 

 

AZ is going to want to set up their drafts in 2025 and 2026 with multiple firsts and two additional premium picks. I just don't think any non-QB prospect is truly worth giving up a future first let alone two. 

[njbuff]

Would you double dip and how would you do it?

 

A. Major trade up for Harrison, Nabers or Odunze, then sign Boyd post draft.

 

or

 

B. Take WR’s in the first two rounds?

 

That’s assuming that you wanna double dip.

[Dr. Who]

3 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

 

I am just now getting familiar with McConkey’s game but is he more of a slot or a boundary WR? The Bills need a boundary WR as Shakir and Samuel are more hybrid slot boundary WR’s and at best even if the Bills view Shakir as a true boundary WR they won’t likely view Samuel as that so I he issue is the Bills can’t likely draft a slot high up. 

He played 70% of his snaps on the outside at UGA. He's not primarily a slot receiver. I think he can fill the Diggs' role. You still need an X -- Thomas, Legette, Mitchell, etc. I think we need two WR early, and I'd be thrilled if McConkey were one of them.

[billsfan89]

5 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

He played 70% of his snaps on the outside at UGA. He's not primarily a slot receiver. I think he can fill the Diggs' role. You still need an X -- Thomas, Legette, Mitchell, etc. I think we need two WR early, and I'd be thrilled if McConkey were one of them.

I know we have gone back and forth on this but I do want to ask why you think the Bills need two boundary WR’s to come in as rookies? Are Shakir and Samuel splitting snaps at the slot in your mind? 

 

Genuinely asking because it just doesn’t seem likely that any offense is going to give more snaps to a second round rookie over Shakir a player who is a third year player coming off a very strong end to his second season and Samuel a proven 28 year old vet they just signed to a fairly big contract. The offense is also likely to employ Knox as a second TE at least for a good chunk of formations which leads to the Bills employing on two WR’s and I think Shakir or Samuel will be one of them in those situations.

 

I definitely think this team needs a boundary WR who can soak in 70-80 targets effectively. But I don’t think this team needs a second boundary WR that is going to play heavy snaps over Shakir/Samuel/Knox and even Hollins may get situational snaps.

 

I just don’t think the Bills would have signed Samuel and only think he can play slot unless they thought Shakir could play outside. Or if they thought Shakir was playing only in the slot then they probably feel comfortable with Samuel on the boundary at least a good chunk of the time.

 

If you view Shakir as a slot and you need to replace Gabe and you are knowing Diggs is not certain why sign a player whose a slot exclusively to your largest free agency deal?

Edited April 11 by billsfan89

[Dr. Who]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

I know we have gone back and forth on this but I do want to ask why you think the Bills need two boundary WR’s to come in as rookies? Are Shakir and Samuel splitting snaps at the slot in your mind? 

 

Genuinely asking because it just doesn’t seem likely that any offense is going to give more snaps to a second round rookie over Shakir a player who is a third year player coming off a very strong end to his second season and Samuel a proven 28 year old vet they just signed to a fairly big contract. The offense is also likely to employ Knox as a second TE at least for a good chunk of formations which leads to the Bills employing on two WR’s and I think Shakir or Samuel will be one of them in those situations.

 

I definitely think this team needs a boundary WR who can soak in 70-80 targets effectively. But I don’t think this team needs a second boundary WR that is going to play heavy snaps over Shakir/Samuel/Knox and even Hollins may get situational snaps.

 

I just don’t think the Bills would have signed Samuel and only think he can play slot unless they thought Shakir could play outside. Or if they thought Shakir was playing only in the slot then they probably feel comfortable with Samuel on the boundary at least a good chunk of the time.

 

If you view Shakir as a slot and you need to replace Gabe and you are knowing Diggs is not certain why sign a player whose a slot exclusively to your largest free agency deal?

I have no idea what they are going to do, or what Beane is thinking, obviously, but I don't think Samuel was signed as a replacement for Davis, as some appear to speculate. They will line him up all over the place, including the backfield. I don't see him as a boundary receiver primarily. Samuel is a versatile weapon that fits Brady's vision for the offense, but if anything, I'd rather picture him as an upgrade to the role Harty was supposed to fulfill. In addition, I am not convinced a significant leap in targets for Shakir is the best option. As others have pointed out, he would be an outlier as a success on the outside given his short arms. I like him as a weapon, but I don't see him as expanding his targets so much that the WR room can't tolerably add two WRs that command significant targets.

 

You can get by with 1 WR early. You could just adjust the targets and give more to Samuel and Shakir, Kincaid and Knox, etc. I personally still do not see a big-bodied X to replace Davis. If you think that is all you need, then someone like Thomas, Mitchell, or Legette should be the main interest in the draft. I am not convinced Coleman can be a boundary receiver like that because of limited speed, but some like him. Maybe Burton, Walker, or Polk could be considered on day 2.

 

My argument for McConkey is that I think he's a special talent who can play the role that Diggs has been playing. Franklin could, too, but I like McConkey better. Lots of folks probably have it the other way around. I think his ceiling is well above Shakir's. I would rather keep Shakir's targets on the lower end, where I think you can maximize his talent, than expand them significantly. I like the idea of two rookie contracts for a potential WR1 and WR2 that can grow together with Josh, and I'd rather have some redundancy in the WR room in the sense that you have more latitude where the targets can be spread around, and backup options if someone gets injured.

 

That may not be efficient, but that's the way I prefer to go with it, and some of this is to take advantage of the extraordinary depth at the position early in the draft (the tiers of WR that will go in the first 40 to 45 picks.) Some will counter that we have too many other needs and this is a luxury set of choices. I don't see it precisely that way, but I am not strictly motivated by filling out the roster as completely as possible. 

[steven50]

I dont normally post on the off season because:

 

1. Mock drafts are stupid. Unless there is an obvious 1 or 2 at QB none of them are ever right.

 

2. The Bills rarely (never?) pick the fan consensus in the draft. Seriously, the most often heard sound at the NFL draft is groans and boos.

 

I dont think this one will be really different. From what little I have seen of our new offensive coordinators old body of work He is more of a "spread the ball around", , kind of guy then a, "Number 1 receiver force them the ball!" kind of guy.

 

Quote

 

LSU

Brady, who had a key role in that offense with the title "pass game coordinator/wide receivers coach," wanted to spread defenses out with three-plus receivers, use motion every third drop back on average and take to the air early and often.

 

With Burrow, Chase and Co. at LSU, the Tigers utilized motion on 34.2% of their dropbacks, the 29th-highest rate in college football (out of around 130 teams).

 

Carolina Panthers

He sent out "11" or "10" personnel on 69.6% of the team's dropbacks that season, which ranked 19th in football.

 

Brady deployed motion more frequently in Carolina in 2020 than at LSU the year before -- a sizable 46.5% of the club's drop backs

 

In 2020, the Panthers ranked 5th in the NFL in pass success rate to RBs

 

Buffalo before Brady

2023: Buffalo was in the bottom third of motion rate and has been one of the heaviest "12" personnel -- one back, two tight ends -- clubs in football.

 

 

 

The offense Brady was play calling for last year was not his offense. I think the Bills will look entirely different this year and the running backs will be a much bigger part of that as well as the spread.

 

I could be wrong because the draft is nothing but speculation but it wouldn't shock me if we dont pick a Wide receiver with our first pick if the guy(s) they want are gone.

 

If the guy they want is gone I think they go BPA.

 

 

 

Edited April 11 by steven50
same sentence twice

[billsfan89]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I have no idea what they are going to do, or what Beane is thinking, obviously, but I don't think Samuel was signed as a replacement for Davis, as some appear to speculate. They will line him up all over the place, including the backfield. I don't see him as a boundary receiver primarily. Samuel is a versatile weapon that fits Brady's vision for the offense, but if anything, I'd rather picture him as an upgrade to the role Harty was supposed to fulfill. In addition, I am not convinced a significant leap in targets for Shakir is the best option. As others have pointed out, he would be an outlier as a success on the outside given his short arms. I like him as a weapon, but I don't see him as expanding his targets so much that the WR room can't tolerably add two WRs that command significant targets.

 

You can get by with 1 WR early. You could just adjust the targets and give more to Samuel and Shakir, Kincaid and Knox, etc. I personally still do not see a big-bodied X to replace Davis. If you think that is all you need, then someone like Thomas, Mitchell, or Legette should be the main interest in the draft. I am not convinced Coleman can be a boundary receiver like that because of limited speed, but some like him. Maybe Burton, Walker, or Polk could be considered on day 2.

 

My argument for McConkey is that I think he's a special talent who can play the role that Diggs has been playing. Franklin could, too, but I like McConkey better. Lots of folks probably have it the other way around. I think his ceiling is well above Shakir's. I would rather keep Shakir's targets on the lower end, where I think you can maximize his talent, than expand them significantly. I like the idea of two rookie contracts for a potential WR1 and WR2 that can grow together with Josh, and I'd rather have some redundancy in the WR room in the sense that you have more latitude where the targets can be spread around, and backup options if someone gets injured.

 

That may not be efficient, but that's the way I prefer to go with it, and some of this is to take advantage of the extraordinary depth at the position early in the draft (the tiers of WR that will go in the first 40 to 45 picks.) Some will counter that we have too many other needs and this is a luxury set of choices. I don't see it precisely that way, but I am not strictly motivated by filling out the roster as completely as possible. 

We are in full agreement on the need to draft a WR early but I just don’t think McBeane who generally speaking is very prudent when building a roster is spending 8-10 million a year on a replacement for your WR4. 
 

It would be a foolish waste of resources to spend your largest free agent contract  on upgrading a role player slot. Which leads me to believe they feel that Samuel is a slot or slot boundary hybrid and that Shakir is likely a slot boundary hybrid player at a minimum.

[Kirby Jackson]

4 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

We are in full agreement on the need to draft a WR early but I just don’t think McBeane who generally speaking is very prudent when building a roster is spending 8-10 million a year on a replacement for your WR4. 
 

It would be a foolish waste of resources to spend your largest free agent contract  on upgrading a role player slot. Which leads me to believe they feel that Samuel is a slot or slot boundary hybrid and that Shakir is likely a slot boundary hybrid player at a minimum.

The only thing that I’ll say in contrast (and we generally agree on it) is that the Bills wanted that player. It wasn’t like they thought, “we need WR and will decide between Samuel and OBJ.” The Bills wanted Samuel because of his skillset. The Bills were less looking at it as Samuel plays “___” snaps on the boundary and “___” snaps in the slot. The Bills looked at him as a guy that they said, “we want him to get 8 touches a game.” That’s a little more aggressive than what Deebo gets but in line.
 

I think Deebo is a better pure receiver but Samuel a better runner. It may be something like 3 catches and 5 carries or some variation there. The Bills were pretty clear that they needed more explosion. Samuel provides that. I think that they paid for that. They paid for the 8 touches more than paying for the routes run. It’s just a small area where we disagree a little. To me Samuel is a rich man’s Harty/McKenzie or a poor man’s Deebo. He is more chess piece than WR. 

[GunnerBill]

17 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I agree 100% with this. McConkey can play the boundary and is polished. He can take targets early. Honestly of all of the guys that we talk about, with the exception of the top 3, he’s most capable of volume. 

 

I think he can play as a move receiver. He can play on the boundary 75% of his time but you are not running a ton of down the field stuff with him. I see him as more Deebo Samuel in usage than Stefon Diggs. He lines up wide about 3/4s of the time but then runs mainly in cutting or horizontal stuff. I don't think he can play as a vertical receiver to anywhere near the extent Diggs did or has in his NFL career. Stef was kind of a move/vertical hybrid. CeeDee Lamb is that too. Antonio Brown at his peak was as well. But those guys are rare. 

Edited April 11 by GunnerBill

[nosejob]

17 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I agree 100% with this. McConkey can play the boundary and is polished. He can take targets early. Honestly of all of the guys that we talk about, with the exception of the top 3, he’s most capable of volume. 

Yeah I think he's the one guy who can come in and take 70 targets like he's been here for a year already. However, I would love Ladd and Legette, which leads to question..Do you secure that monster 1st, then settle for a Pearsall?.....or take Ladd and hope to get a Coleman?

 

I'm all for trading next year's 26-32 pick to a team like GB for 41 and 88.(they are just one of the teams with 2  2s and 2  3s).

My hope would to be Ladd at 28 then maybe move 41 to 37 for Legette.  Then I'm looking to lock down Sweat and willing to move to the mid 50s to get him.

 

Btw Maason Smith at 88

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, nosejob said:

Yeah I think he's the one guy who can come in and take 70 targets like he's been here for a year already. However, I would love Ladd and Legette, which leads to question..Do you secure that monster 1st, then settle for a Pearsall?.....or take Ladd and hope to get a Coleman?

 

I'm all for trading next year's 26-32 pick to a team like GB for 41 and 88.(they are just one of the teams with 2  2s and 2  3s).

My hope would to be Ladd at 28 then maybe move 41 to 37 for Legette.  Then I'm looking to lock down Sweat and willing to move to the mid 50s to get him.

 

Btw Maason Smith at 88

That’s a tough one. I love the idea of Ladd and Legette. I also love the idea of the top 3. Pearsall is a guy that I’m higher on than most. I like him more than Coleman (even at the same spot). Baker is another guy in that mold that you might be able to get.
 

I think that you need 2 for sure. The quality of the 2nd is dependent on who is the 1st. If your first pick is McConkey you can shoot for upside with your next pick because he has a high floor (if healthy). If your first pick is Coleman, you need a higher floor guy with your 2nd WR pick. You can’t draft 2 boom or bust guys. 

[nosejob]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

That’s a tough one. I love the idea of Ladd and Legette. I also love the idea of the top 3. Pearsall is a guy that I’m higher on than most. I like him more than Coleman (even at the same spot). Baker is another guy in that mold that you might be able to get.
 

I think that you need 2 for sure. The quality of the 2nd is dependent on who is the 1st. If your first pick is McConkey you can shoot for upside with your next pick because he has a high floor (if healthy). If your first pick is Coleman, you need a higher floor guy with your 2nd WR pick. You can’t draft 2 boom or bust guys. 

Well one thing's for sure, and I'm betting it will happen is that...Beane has to at the very least, create a 3rd rd. pick. Late picks won't get us there and moving down into the 30s could kill the plan.

 

He's gonna have to use a pick from next year.

[Victory Formation]

@billsfan89

@Dr. Who

@nosejob

 

As far as targets go, Cover 1 has a video on this very topic tonight at 7PM on YouTube, make sure you guys check them out, they do a great job over there!