Who Should the Bills take at #28 (TSW Mock 2.0 2024) *Mitchell has been removed please revote!

[Virgil]

4 minutes ago, NeverOutNick said:

Ok I get it now 

 

personally in this epic WR class I’m going to that well 3 times. I’d go day 1, day 2 and day 3 because it’s such a deep and awesome class and it’s the position we need most. And lastly it’s the position outside of OT or pass rusher that costs the most to find really good Free agents so might as well just get cheap beasts in the draft 

I would’ve taken Franklin but since he has no chance I’ll go trade back and double dip at WR with 2 of our 3 second rounders 

 

If we somehow got Mitchell and Franklin, I would lose my mind with happiness. 

[section122]

38 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

We have one trade back offer with the Packers: 

 

Green Bay would do 41 (490) and 58 (320) and 88 (150) for 28 (660) 60 (320) 

 

You good with closing the poll at 3p est?  I think we have enough information

 

Set to close at 3.  I narrowed it down to the 2 options if anyone feels strongly either way make sure you get in your vote.

 

Anyone who voted for any of the other options please recast your vote.

 

FWIW I would do that trade lol.

[Udubalum07]

20 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

If we somehow got Mitchell and Franklin, I would lose my mind with happiness. 

I would throw Leggette in there.  If we got any combination of two out of those 3, I would be extremely happy. 

[NeverOutNick]

Is this really the value? 
 

Trade Back with Green Bay. Bills receive 41 (490) 58 (320) and 88 (150) Packers Receive 28 (660) 60 (320)

 

feel like we’re getting a late 3rd round pick to move back 13 spots to the middle of the second round. Beane would’ve done better 

[Virgil]

10 minutes ago, NeverOutNick said:

Is this really the value? 
 

Trade Back with Green Bay. Bills receive 41 (490) 58 (320) and 88 (150) Packers Receive 28 (660) 60 (320)

 

feel like we’re getting a late 3rd round pick to move back 13 spots to the middle of the second round. Beane would’ve done better 

 

The Bills would only be short by 20 points in trade value.  I did request another late round pick to balance it out. 

[MrEpsYtown]

3 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

The Bills would only be short by 20 points in trade value.  I did request another late round pick to balance it out. 

 

14 minutes ago, NeverOutNick said:

Is this really the value? 
 

Trade Back with Green Bay. Bills receive 41 (490) 58 (320) and 88 (150) Packers Receive 28 (660) 60 (320)

 

feel like we’re getting a late 3rd round pick to move back 13 spots to the middle of the second round. Beane would’ve done better 

 

In theory, the Bills could use some of these extra picks late picks to move back up in that 35 range and they get back the 3rd rounder they lost in the Douglas trade. 

[NeverOutNick]

2 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

The Bills would only be short by 20 points in trade value.  I did request another late round pick to balance it out. 

I’m not doubting your ability to make the value right because it makes sense but the eye test doesn’t feel right:

 

I see it as we’re giving up a first round player who we get to hold for 5 years to move back to mid second round so that we get one of the last picks in the 3rd round. It’s probably fair I just don’t know if it’s worth the risk of missing out on AD Mitchell or Troy Franklin. I guess we’ll see since I also voted for it over Leggette 

[Virgil]

The poll is now closed.  

 

The Bills trade #28 and #60 to the Packers for #41, #58, #88, and #169

 

4 minutes ago, NeverOutNick said:

I’m not doubting your ability to make the value right because it makes sense but the eye test doesn’t feel right:

 

I see it as we’re giving up a first round player who we get to hold for 5 years to move back to mid second round so that we get one of the last picks in the 3rd round. It’s probably fair I just don’t know if it’s worth the risk of missing out on AD Mitchell or Troy Franklin. I guess we’ll see since I also voted for it over Leggette 

 

We are literally going off the trade value chart, to be fair and consistent with all trades.

 

To me, there's players the Bills could take at 28 that will most likely be there in the trade back.  Yes, we lose that 5th year option, but we get a better position in round 2 and a 3rd rounder.  

 

With that trade, we can still get Franklin (whom the Bills have spent a lot of time with), and are in position to trade back up, or sit still and still get a starting S and DE/DT/OG (whichever you prefer).

 

If they can't trade up to get one of the big 3, I think this is a healthy plan B.

 

And don't forget, AD Mitchell would have been the pick.  This is just scenario 2

[julian]

So what is it.. 12 picks now ? That’s crazy

[Virgil]

5 minutes ago, julian said:

So what is it.. 12 picks now ? That’s crazy

 

Now I hope we have time for 3 rounds.  I would love to see the Bills trade back up again in the 2nd, or back and get more 3rd round picks.  

 

[OldTimer1960]

9 minutes ago, julian said:

So what is it.. 12 picks now ? That’s crazy

Most of that currency is nickels and pennies.  Counting the number of picks without regard to the total value is pretty meaningless.  The media hyped the whole “11 picks” thing.  In reality, the 11 picks they have combined are worth less than some other team’s first round pick on its own.

[julian]

7 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Most of that currency is nickels and pennies.  Counting the number of picks without regard to the total value is pretty meaningless.  The media hyped the whole “11 picks” thing.  In reality, the 11 picks they have combined are worth less than some other team’s first round pick on its own.

Yeah I agree, I’m just looking at a rookie class of 12 players and thinking that’s crazy, not sure what the record is for most players drafted in the 7 round era but 12 has to be close.

[No_Matter_What]

I love this result, it is at least good experiment to see what a trade down like this can mean and who can we miss out on. Or, on the other side, who we can still get lower. 41 is little too low for my taste but still a good exercise.

Edited April 12 by No_Matter_What

[Nephilim17]

58 and 60 are almost a wash. So this trade is about trading down 13 spots from 28 to 41 for the extra 88 pick.

If there's a guy you really like at 28, don't risk it; pull the trigger. If there's no one you're excited about, do it.

But I imagine Legette and maybe a couple other guys might be there and it's not worth it.

[H2o]

People would like to drop out of Round 1, 13 total spots, to move up 2 spots in Round 2 and then get the 24th pick of the 3rd Round? That would put GB @ #28 and then the rest seen below before we pick. You still think we would get an impact WR at that point? I don't. 

 

[BuffaloBillyG]

The New York Giants have heard the cries of Western NY. And we've also heard you're into a WR this year. We are fully willing to send Isiah Hodgins back to Buffalo for pick 28. Heck, being we're pals, I'll throw in Jordan Phillips as well. Let me know!

[FLFan]

1 hour ago, H2o said:

People would like to drop out of Round 1, 13 total spots, to move up 2 spots in Round 2 and then get the 24th pick of the 3rd Round? That would put GB @ #28 and then the rest seen below before we pick. You still think we would get an impact WR at that point? I don't. 

 

This does set them up perfectly for that rotational DL we have all been craving though.

[Warcodered]

4 hours ago, H2o said:

People would like to drop out of Round 1, 13 total spots, to move up 2 spots in Round 2 and then get the 24th pick of the 3rd Round? That would put GB @ #28 and then the rest seen below before we pick. You still think we would get an impact WR at that point? I don't. 

 

Yeah trading back made sense since it seemed like one of the guys they were looking at WR would still be there so do it and improve your position/get more capital in the draft deeper in. But moving back 13 feels like you're really flirting with missing one of the guys you're looking at.

Edited April 13 by Warcodered

[Alphadawg7]

3 hours ago, gonzo1105 said:

I think he’s going to go somewhere between 40-50 myself. I took him in the last mock because I wanted a high upside guy to go with Harrison or I would have gone McConkey 

 

Yeah, I remember, and I initially didn't like the pick because I thought there were corners at that spot they would certainly take ahead of them.  But I had forgotten AZ had 2 firsts and overlooked you already added a corner with their 2nd pick, so once you cleared that up and I realized I didn't see that then the WR pick made a lot more sense to me.

 

Although AZ has some real needs in a lot of spots like edge, DT, IOL, etc.  So it is gonna come down to how the draft falls.  I am running AZ now, and I traded back 2 spots from 4 to 6 (giving me Odunze) and adding an extra 3rd and 4th round pick.  Then at 27 I got a trade offer from KC moving back to 32 and adding yet another 3rd round pick.  

 

So now, I have 5 third round picks and 2 4ths plus the second rounder at 37 coming up.  With that much 3rd and 4th round ammo I may very well look WR here too depending on who else is there on DL and OL.  

 

Cardinals have a lot of draft ammo already with entering the draft with an additional first and two additional 3rds.  Giants are a potential trade back partner and they could add more quality picks and still get an elite WR.  At 27 there will be a lot on the board likely, so if they get someone wanting to come up, they can move back a little and still get a great pick at CB, DL, or IOL and add yet another quality pick this year.  

 

They are going to be a fun team to watch navigate the real draft if they do start to move around. 

[Low Positive]

2 hours ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

The New York Giants have heard the cries of Western NY. And we've also heard you're into a WR this year. We are fully willing to send Isiah Hodgins back to Buffalo for pick 28. Heck, being we're pals, I'll throw in Jordan Phillips as well. Let me know!

No Boogie? No dice!

[DJB]

I just don’t think we can drop out of round 1 and still get an impact WR. All the teams at the top of round 2 have big WR needs so we would be left with scraps if we move back to about 40

 

Not a good idea imo 

[Virgil]

7 minutes ago, DJB said:

I just don’t think we can drop out of round 1 and still get an impact WR. All the teams at the top of round 2 have big WR needs so we would be left with scraps if we move back to about 40

 

Not a good idea imo 

 
Based on how the board is looking now, I would respectfully disagree.  We are still in line to get one of the two receivers we spent a lot of time with, and acquired a 3rd round pick.  

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

8 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 
Based on how the board is looking now, I would respectfully disagree.  We are still in line to get one of the two receivers we spent a lot of time with, and acquired a 3rd round pick.  

 

One of those receivers, Tez Walker, even went in the third round of Mock Draft 1.0. 

[Low Positive]

1 hour ago, Virgil said:

 
Based on how the board is looking now, I would respectfully disagree.  We are still in line to get one of the two receivers we spent a lot of time with, and acquired a 3rd round pick.  

Beane has to be careful. I remember in 2018 we had posters on TBD that pounded the table for Roquon Smith at 12 and Mason Rudolph in the second because of “value.” Screw value. Get your guy.

[MrEpsYtown]

1 minute ago, Low Positive said:

Beane has to be careful. I remember in 2018 we had posters on TBD that pounded the table for Roquon Smith at 12 and Mason Rudolph in the second because of “value.” Screw value. Get your guy.

I think that’s the point though. The board here is very split. I’m sure the Bills have a specific target in mind in the real world. But for the purpose of this excercise and the way this thing is playing out the options seem to be:

 

1. Huge trade up for one of the big 3

2. Smaller trade up for Thomas

3. Sit tight or tiny trade up for AD Mitchell

4. if Thomas is gone and they don’t like Mitchell it makes sense to trade down. 
 

Mitchell would have won the vote again, but for this mock he was not an option. Thomas was gone, we could not take Mitchell and so it made sense to trade down imo. 

[RyanC883]

11 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

I guess I would trade back (out of the first) at this point. Regarding trading that 2025 second rounder, I'm looking at this - https://walterfootball.com/draft2025charlie.php - and noticing a lot of pass rushing talent going early. I could see the Bills being all in on that position come 2025 and will want the draft capital to move up. They'll need to replace Von Miller.

 

wow, only one WR in the first!   your right, tons of D.  

[No_Matter_What]

8 hours ago, RyanC883 said:

 

wow, only one WR in the first!   your right, tons of D.  

It's actually 2 WRs but the point remains.

[Kirby Jackson]

11 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:

I think that’s the point though. The board here is very split. I’m sure the Bills have a specific target in mind in the real world. But for the purpose of this excercise and the way this thing is playing out the options seem to be:

 

1. Huge trade up for one of the big 3

2. Smaller trade up for Thomas

3. Sit tight or tiny trade up for AD Mitchell

4. if Thomas is gone and they don’t like Mitchell it makes sense to trade down. 
 

Mitchell would have won the vote again, but for this mock he was not an option. Thomas was gone, we could not take Mitchell and so it made sense to trade down imo. 

I think that option 5 is the veteran route. MAYBE you can trade 1 of your 4ths & the Vikings 2025 2nd for Aiyuk (for example)? 
 

Regardless of everyone’s preference it feels like WR1 is inevitable. 

[NoSaint]

54 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that option 5 is the veteran route. MAYBE you can trade 1 of your 4ths & the Vikings 2025 2nd for Aiyuk (for example)? 
 

Regardless of everyone’s preference it feels like WR1 is inevitable. 

It’s just worrisome to walk into the year with  samuel- Shakir - 3rd tier rookie that is not a slam dunk and even if good likely takes some time to get there. 
 

I said it elsewhere but the idea that we could be week 1 with Shakir- a very green leggette -shorter and hollins if Curtis Samuel rolls an ankle or pulls a muscle in camp is not great. 

suddenly it puts some of that super man requirement on Josh way too early in the season 

[Kirby Jackson]

8 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

It’s just worrisome to walk into the year with  samuel- Shakir - 3rd tier rookie that is not a slam dunk and even if good likely takes some time to get there. 
 

I said it elsewhere but the idea that we could be week 1 with Shakir- a very green leggette -shorter and hollins if Curtis Samuel rolls an ankle or pulls a muscle in camp is not great. 

suddenly it puts some of that super man requirement on Josh way too early in the season 

I don’t disagree. I’ve been on team, “trade way up for top 3” for a little while. I want a second guy as well (and maybe a 3rd).
 

If the Bills do plan on waiting until 28 (which I don’t believe) then I think you have to get 2 guys before 60. The need for them to get roughly 200 targets from guys not yet on the roster, keeps bumping McConkey up to me. He can handle 100 targets tomorrow with his skill set, route running and SEC experience. You can then turn around and try to come up for Legette (my choice). I don’t think that the Bills can count on a raw toolsy prospect as their top pick without pairing that with a more dependable skill set to complement him. 

[Virgil]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that option 5 is the veteran route. MAYBE you can trade 1 of your 4ths & the Vikings 2025 2nd for Aiyuk (for example)? 
 

Regardless of everyone’s preference it feels like WR1 is inevitable. 

 

I really don't see the Bills rushing to add another WR they are going to have to immediately pay.  I think the rookie deal is part of the benefit and what we need right now.  We are decent with the cap next year, but not 30 mil to one player decent.  

[stinky finger]

38 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I don’t disagree. I’ve been on team, “trade way up for top 3” for a little while. I want a second guy as well (and maybe a 3rd).
 

If the Bills do plan on waiting until 28 (which I don’t believe) then I think you have to get 2 guys before 60. The need for them to get roughly 200 targets from guys not yet on the roster, keeps bumping McConkey up to me. He can handle 100 targets tomorrow with his skill set, route running and SEC experience. You can then turn around and try to come up for Legette (my choice). I don’t think that the Bills can count on a raw toolsy prospect as their top pick without pairing that with a more dependable skill set to complement him. 

Yessir - I'm crushing on Ladd right about now. Draft and play WR. Josh would have his most reliable WR since........he who shall not be mentioned.

 

Then, go get Leggette, Troy or Tez.

[Kirby Jackson]

10 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

I really don't see the Bills rushing to add another WR they are going to have to immediately pay.  I think the rookie deal is part of the benefit and what we need right now.  We are decent with the cap next year, but not 30 mil to one player decent.  

I think that I agree here. With the Bills resetting the cap next year though, it could make sense. It could be both as well. If the Bills make the deal referenced above (for example) they can still take a guy at 28 because they have a starting spot available. If you added Ayiuk (for example) you can take a higher upside guy with some question marks at 28 (Mitchell, Legette or gasp, Coleman). I’m not advocating for it but could certainly get behind it. 

3 minutes ago, stinky finger said:

Yessir - I'm crushing on Ladd right about now. Draft and play WR. Josh would have his most reliable WR since........he who shall not be mentioned.

 

Then, go get Leggette, Troy or Tez.

Ladd and Legette would be really nice IMO. 

[nosejob]

5 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that I agree here. With the Bills resetting the cap next year though, it could make sense. It could be both as well. If the Bills make the deal referenced above (for example) they can still take a guy at 28 because they have a starting spot available. If you added Ayiuk (for example) you can take a higher upside guy with some question marks at 28 (Mitchell, Legette or gasp, Coleman). I’m not advocating for it but could certainly get behind it. 

Ladd and Legette would be really nice IMO. 

But if one were forced to choose, do you take Ladd, miss Legette and shoot for Walker/ Burton /Baker/Polk?  Or get Leggette than maybe target a Pearsall?

 

Ladd and Legette would a dream to me.

Edited April 13 by nosejob

[NoSaint]

14 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that I agree here. With the Bills resetting the cap next year though, it could make sense. It could be both as well. If the Bills make the deal referenced above (for example) they can still take a guy at 28 because they have a starting spot available. If you added Ayiuk (for example) you can take a higher upside guy with some question marks at 28 (Mitchell, Legette or gasp, Coleman). I’m not advocating for it but could certainly get behind it. 

Ladd and Legette would be really nice IMO. 

Yea, if you stay put or fall back you really limit the pool unless as you mention you get 2 guys. 
 

other vet trades- had interest in Hopkins previously and could still be the bridge to a guy like leggette being ready. Not a star at this point but would be a win now vet presence 

 

 

Edited April 13 by NoSaint

[Kirby Jackson]

10 minutes ago, nosejob said:

But if one were forced to choose, do you take Ladd, miss Legette and shoot for Walker/ Burton /Baker/Polk?  Or get Leggette than maybe target a Pearsall?

 

Ladd and Legette would a dream to me.

Ladd & Baker or Legette and Pearsall are both great outcomes to me. I like Polk too. Burton & Walker have a couple too many questions but would jump at either in the 4th. There are lots of options.

 

I have gone back and forth on the best way to do this. It’s changed since the Diggs trade too. For me, getting one of the top 3 is option 1. You’re getting a number 1, with limited questions, on a rookie deal. Yes, you’ll spend draft capital but tell me a better use for it than getting Josh a number 1 on a rookie deal? Yes, the Bills need pass rushers too but can throw cap space at it next year and/or whatever draft capital is left.

 

My second choice is 2 in the top 60 with complementary skill sets. They have to have a guy that can contribute now and can gamble on a high ceiling guy.

[HappyDays]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

If the Bills do plan on waiting until 28 (which I don’t believe) then I think you have to get 2 guys before 60. The need for them to get roughly 200 targets from guys not yet on the roster, keeps bumping McConkey up to me. He can handle 100 targets tomorrow with his skill set, route running and SEC experience. You can then turn around and try to come up for Legette (my choice). I don’t think that the Bills can count on a raw toolsy prospect as their top pick without pairing that with a more dependable skill set to complement him. 

 

I would actually rather get two freaks at WR. Shoot for the moon. In my mind I've decided the most exciting pair would be Xavier Legette and Xavier Worthy. Trust that putting two freaks on the field with a freak QB will lead to explosive results. There might be rough patches at first, but hopefully by the time the playoffs roll around we would have an offense that could attack literally any spot on the field.

[Kirby Jackson]

5 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I would actually rather get two freaks at WR. Shoot for the moon. In my mind I've decided the most exciting pair would be Xavier Legette and Xavier Worthy. Trust that putting two freaks on the field with a freak QB will lead to explosive results. There might be rough patches at first, but hopefully by the time the playoffs roll around we would have an offense that could attack literally any spot on the field.

I’d be okay with that because I don’t see massive risk with Worthy. I know he’s small but he is a quality WR. It isn’t just a little fast guy.

[NoSaint]

17 hours ago, Virgil said:

 
Based on how the board is looking now, I would respectfully disagree.  We are still in line to get one of the two receivers we spent a lot of time with, and acquired a 3rd round pick.  

Similarly I’d challenge: we don’t know how long Josh will last and this WR selection will be among the most defining pieces of our window the next couple years. Do you play games with that in order to get a third? Or do you get that guy if he’s there?

Edited April 13 by NoSaint

[Nephilim17]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

I would actually rather get two freaks at WR. Shoot for the moon. In my mind I've decided the most exciting pair would be Xavier Legette and Xavier Worthy. Trust that putting two freaks on the field with a freak QB will lead to explosive results. There might be rough patches at first, but hopefully by the time the playoffs roll around we would have an offense that could attack literally any spot on the field.

Interesting idea. 

However, who do you take off the field to play Legette and Worthy? Kincaid stays. Cook will be on most of the time.

Do you sit Samuel (3 years, $24 million with $15 million guaranteed) and use him as depth? 

Or do you not play Shakir who had a good year in the slot last year?

My thinking is to sit Shakir. Some might think that's a waste of young drafted talent. Others might point to his historically short arms and say his ceiling is limited anyway.

What say you?