Brand Beane Press Conf 4/18

[Alphadawg7]

2 hours ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

Arizona said 3 #1 picks is what they possibly want. 

Great write up.  Some fans aren't listening to Beane and still think we are trading away a buttload of draft picks to move up.

 

I now feel almost 100% we trade back and get a 3rd rounder. I also think Franklin is their pick.

I do think a trade back is very much in play, especially listening to Beanes presser, however I also have no doubt that if someone graded higher Beane wants gets near them…say pick 20 or closer, that Beane will start looking at making a move and could pull the trigger to get him.  

[SoonerBillsFan]

8 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I do think a trade back is very much in play, especially listening to Beanes presser, however I also have no doubt that if someone graded higher Beane wants gets near them…say pick 20 or closer, that Beane will start looking at making a move and could pull the trigger to get him.  

Agreed.

[FireChans]

10 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I do think a trade back is very much in play, especially listening to Beanes presser, however I also have no doubt that if someone graded higher Beane wants gets near them…say pick 20 or closer, that Beane will start looking at making a move and could pull the trigger to get him.  

I’ll go one step further. I think they may trade up, trade back or make a pick at 28.

[Alphadawg7]

3 hours ago, NoSaint said:

my point being he didn’t say much. 
 

Might stay put or trade up or down a little. Probably not up a lot cause it takes a lot lining up is loosely the gist and that’s a really practical statement even from a guy desperate to get there. 
 

I don’t believe he hasn’t talked to anyone. Even if on a surface level you don’t think he particularly wants to move up - but you do think he wants to move back… who would he be talking to about those possible moves? Teams at the top of 2. The same teams at the top of the first. 

ultimately I do believe also that alpha will have his chance to spike the ball and do a victory tour reminding us for all eternity that he was right about the lack of trade up 

 

but I think in not an inconsequential part that’s because it’s a lot harder to make a big move than it is to make a small move or no move at all. 
 

similar to @BADOLBILZstatements - he’s managing that expectation now. He knows there are viral clips, and his star player saying he’s doing it. He can’t let the fans expect it though even if he’s actively trying because it’s difficult and he has only so much control over it 

Lol, dude it’s not something anyone can be right or wrong about, so this whole “Alpha gonna spike the ball if we don’t trade up” childish take is stupid.  Beane literally does NOT know what he is going to do right now, let alone me or any other person.  And he won’t until the draft starts and begins to play out.
 

I didn’t even say he won’t trade up, neither did Beane.  I said he doesn’t seem to be actively looking to get into the top 10, but he literally said he would take any call about it and while he hates trading future first round picks that is the deal makes sense he would do it.  
 

Some of you have a real issue of deciphering between analytically looking at possible scenarios and deciphering what might be more or less likely versus making absolute declarations of what will for sure happen.  
 

All I did was provide my take aways of what Beane appears to be thinking right now, which he pretty clearly stated that he’s not made or received calls about the top 10.  He also said this is the week where phones ring off the hook.  So yeah, I believe he has not yet had any convos about the top 10…doesn’t mean he won’t have though. 
 

More importantly, your counter point of why isn’t he calling the top 10 guys about a trade back since they would be the teams to trade up to 28 with the Bills is pretty obvious and simple.  I mean Beane literally said those calls don’t start happening until this week, and second, most of the time those calls, especially at the back of the draft happen during the draft because no one knows how the board will fall and if there is someone there they are willing to spend picks to go get.

 

So yeah, you can take the snarky “Alpha gonna gloat” childish stuff elsewhere.  Nothing about my take aways were about being “right” nor are they possible to be “right” given Beane doesn’t know now what he will do until the draft starts playing out.  I did NOT rule anything completely out, just commenting on what I think the likeliness of different scenarios happening.

 

And I still very much think Beane will absolutely trade up if a guy he wants gets within reasonable trade range.  I just believe it’s to a place closer to us than the top 10, like late teens or 20 and closer.

 

 

Edited April 19 by Alphadawg7

[Alphadawg7]

8 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I’ll go one step further. I think they may trade up, trade back or make a pick at 28.

I will take it a step further.  Bills may miss the playoffs, make the playoffs, or win the Super Bowl.  So let’s all log off since it’s all covered and nothing to discuss about it.  Another quality post by you 🙄
 

Wake me when you actually add something to a conversation

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I will take it a step further.  Bills may miss the playoffs, make the playoffs, or win the Super Bowl.  So let’s all log off since it’s all covered and nothing to discuss about it.  Another quality post by you 🙄
 

Wake me when you actually add something to a conversation

It’s fun when you reach an understanding of the point and still somehow simultaneously don’t.

 

Schrodinger’s TBD

[Alphadawg7]

6 minutes ago, FireChans said:

It’s fun when you reach an understanding of the point and still somehow simultaneously don’t.

 

Schrodinger’s TBD

Again…wake me when you actually add something to the convo

[Big Turk]

18 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

https://www.buffalobills.com/video/your-team-has-to-evolve-bills-general-manager-brandon-beane-speaks-ahead-of-the-2024-nfl-draft-buffalo-bills

 

Take aways:

1. I do not think Beane is even thinking about moving into the top 10 to get one of the big 3 WR. 
   1. He said he would take any call, but he also said teams in the top 10 don't generally call teams down at 28.  
   2. When asked about him calling them, he mocked them even wanting to take his call and made it clear he hasn't called them.  
   3. Worth noting as well, Bills have no reported visits or meetings with MHJ, Nabers, or Odunze.  We did reportedly meet once with Thomas.  
   4. He is not a fan at all of moving a future first, which I will cover in comments below.  
2. I think he made it pretty clear as well that we are not going to be trading for a proven guy such as Aiyuk or Higgins as many have been wanting.  
   1. Specifically said when we traded for Stef, Allen was an ascending player and the offense needed a guy like that.  
   2. But that now with Allen ascended to the player he is, that is not a requirement and not necessary.
3. He made it clear he is very comfortable making a small trade up to make sure he can get the guy he covets.  So if there is one he wants where a small move up to go get him is on the table, I think he will pull that trigger. 
4. He also made it very clear he really does NOT want to move next years 1st, but did admit he would if the deal made sense to do it.  
   1. Referenced regretting those kind of moves in the next draft when they did them in Carolina when the next draft came and the guy they gave up that first didn't really get them over the top.
5. He also doesn't plan to move the 2nd we got for Diggs, but wouldn't rule it out if they felt the right deal was there.  
6. Between Josh, McD and Beane interviews, I think it was pretty clear they have a lot of confidence in the core of Samuel, Shakir, Kincaid, Knox, and Cook.  It is clear we are going after a WR in first 2 rounds, but I would not expect us to go back to back WR or take 2 early as some around here have suggested.  If we take a 2nd one, I would expect it later like rounds 4 and on.  
7. Beane made it clear that trading back is very much in play at 28 and pointed out if they couldn't get Kincaid they had a real good trade back worked out he really liked.  
8. Also added he would love to add someone on the DL that can contribute this season.  
   1. While he said it could be in the first, would have to see what is there at 28 in general, but went on to say he sees guys outside the first in this draft that can come in and contribute this year.

 

So what I came away with is that I think there is very little chance we are making a move to get MHJ, Nabers, or Odunze.  It was also clear it was just as unlikely we are going after someone like Aiyuk, Higgins, etc either.  And that has been my belief all along as well.  

 

While I wouldn't say that anything he said rules out moving up into the teens to get Thomas (like say Jags at 17), I think it's a low possibility he goes up outside the 20's.  The thing that most often stuck out was the reluctance on using high future picks to move up.  I think Beane really likes the idea of having a first and two 2nd's next year and really prefers not trading them.   And I do think that trading back is a very strong possibility for us to try and get a 3rd this year or maybe even a third 2nd for next year.

 

All in all this was a good listen...and Beane has a track record for being pretty straight forward and candid on these things, so I think he is shooting pretty straight with his comments like he always has. 

 

 

 

Believing anything anyone says at this time of year is a fools errand.  If they are talking about the draft at this time of the year, they are lying or at best telling half-truths or statements with a glimmer of truth. Count on it.

Edited April 19 by Big Turk

[Fan in Chicago]

3 hours ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

Yep, just opinions my friend.  And YES, if someone is in striking distance he will possibly make a move.  But he isn't budging on next years 1st or the 2 second round picks next year

 

I would take the latter with a grain of salt too. With our available cap space next year, having draft picks in 2025 draft is much less important than having them this year. Plus with the long term goal of team building, we need to use this year's draft to also keep the pipeline full especially at the postions where the FAs next year are projected to be slim.

[MrEpsYtown]

2 hours ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

I hope it's guys, not guy from your list (which i agree 100% with).

 

I do think it will be very difficult to come away with 2 of Worthy, McConkey, Franklin, Leggette...but possible! 

 

I guess the challenge is to identify the next group of guys who seem to fit their "type." 

 

Corley and Washinton are probably just RAC slots. Cowing is a guy I like a lot but he is probably just a slot. Baker, Pearsall, and Thrash seem to check a bunch of those boxes and seem like the type they like as multi-purpose receivers. Walker, McMillan and Rice to some extent are very interesting and check some of those boxes. 

 

[SoonerBillsFan]

1 minute ago, Fan in Chicago said:

I would take the latter with a grain of salt too. With our available cap space next year, having draft picks in 2025 draft is much less important than having them this year. Plus with the long term goal of team building, we need to use this year's draft to also keep the pipeline full especially at the postions where the FAs next year are projected to be slim.

True

 

 

[Fan in Chicago]

1 hour ago, Cash said:

 

-I continue to think that Beane doesn’t go into the draft with a specific plan. Meaning like, “I’m trading up for Nabors, then taking a safety with my next pick, then fill holes with my remaining picks.” I do think he goes in with preference, and with various possibilities outlined in advance. But the story is written real-time during the draft, so he doesn’t try to go in with a pre-written story. It’s more of an improv exercise than a writing exercise, if that makes sense. If I’m right, then even Beane doesn’t know what he’s going to do yet. And as a side note, I think this is the right way to approach the draft. 

He should go into the draft with broad goals in mind but not about specific players. The draft can fall in many many different ways and he needs to keep himself flexible to react. We saw this last year in trading up for Kincaid when he found out that the Cowboys wanted him. Here is where networking and his contacts with the likes of Schoen and in the Panthers organization help. 

[Alphadawg7]

38 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Believing anything anyone says at this time of year is a fools errand.  If they are talking about the draft at this time of the year, they are lying or at best telling half-truths or statements with a glimmer of truth. Count on it.

Did you listen to the full interview?  Based on your comments it doesn’t sound like it because if you did you would know he didn’t discuss anything that gives away, or even suggests, their strategy and plans.  Nothing about that his interview was strategic in that type of nature.  

[Big Turk]

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Did you listen to the full interview?  Based on your comments it doesn’t sound like it because if you did you would know he didn’t discuss anything that gives away, or even suggests, their strategy and plans.  Nothing about that his interview was strategic in that type of nature.  

 

Ever watch SwordFish?  What does Travolta's character say about how Houdini was able to captivate audiences without them being able to ever detect anything as to how he was able to do his tricks?

 

Misdirection.

 

 

[ndirish1978]

16 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Great summary, Thanks for this.

 

I will say, I think Beane was trying a little too hard to persuade everyone that he thinks the WR room is just fine and we'll be casually looking to add another piece or two at some point in the future, not anxiously perusing the draft board for guys who have "WR" listed for position as our draft picks approach.

 

But I agree with you that all signs point to "disinclined to make a big splash to move up to the top-10"

 

I thought it was interesting that Beane mentioned "guys who are already on the roster" contributing at WR and made an analogy to Terrell Bernard who had to "prove it" that he could step up.  Khalil, after the end of the season, I think has left no doubt he can play in the league although as a #1 or #2 is a good question.

 

Does anyone think he might have been referring to Justin Shorter, last year's 5th round pick?

 

 

 

Shorter was on IR last year and hasn't given anyone reason to believe he can be a contributor, he was talking about Shakir.

 

As far as "trying too hard", I dunno what else people would expect him to say about the WR room "we're screwed, I traded for a narcissist who whined his way off the team and now we are desperate to land a player in the draft. We will pay a premium for him. Oh please, please fleece us because we're desperate."

 

Outside of the top 3 WRs in this draft you have Javon Baker and Legette that are true X receivers who look like they could develop into all-around players - you are likely looking at rd 2 for Legette and 3 for Baker, then you have a bunch of solid guys like Worthy, McConkey and Mitchell and a bunch of others who can play specific roles. We will pick up 1-2 of these guys and develop them. Dline may be the bigger target in the 1st because the talent is thin and drops off a cliff after the top 3-4 players.

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, Fan in Chicago said:

I would take the latter with a grain of salt too. With our available cap space next year, having draft picks in 2025 draft is much less important than having them this year. Plus with the long term goal of team building, we need to use this year's draft to also keep the pipeline full especially at the postions where the FAs next year are projected to be slim.

 

I wouldn't say take it with a grain of salt per se, but I phrase it more as not to completely rule out a big trade up.  I think Beane is being very authentic when loathing about giving up future first rounders.  He went into detail on when we knew we would be trading up to get Josh Allen that he went out of his way to make sure he had the assets prior to avoid giving up future first rounders.   

 

But...he did also make clear if there is a deal that makes sense, he would include next years first, so its not off the table.  The take away for me is NOT that he won't at all do it, but that he doesn't seem to be actively looking to make a trade into the top 10 happen like a lot of people think he is.  He will however listen to offers and give them consideration, but the main issue is that teams picking that high don't generally want to move all the way down to 28 as I assure you there are no teams who have 28 first round graded players in this draft.  So they go from an elite prospect, to risking not even getting a first round graded player at 28.  

 

So that begs the question...what kind of comp is it going to take to make a team give up on an elite talent?  Popular choice is people citing Chicago only have 4 picks...well if we are trading to 9, then at least one of the big 3 are still on the board.  For Chicago to give up an elite WR prospect to pair with their rookie QB just to move back to 28 is a big ask.  They aren't going to give it away cheap just to add some mediocre picks, they would just take Odunze or one of the other top graded players at another position like Bowers or someone on the OL/DL.  

 

And quite frankly, Bears are going to have a lot of suitors for pick 9 between picks 11 and 20 where they would probably feel more comfortable trading back to.  Just like how if we trade back, no one wants us to go too far and miss out on some of the guys we would take on the trade back.  It takes both teams wanting the trade to make it happen.

 

Which is why I think a big move inside the top 10 seems like low probability right now, although not impossible obviously given Beane flat out said if it made sense he would do it.  But we aren't getting into the top 10 with 28 and a low first rounder next year.  It will cost more than that.  

 

There does seem to be some buzz about a potential trade at 20 with Pitt though...so maybe thats the spot he would go get BTJ if he is still on the board.  Its also not crazy for BTJ to make it to 28 either, most the places he is penciled in ahead of in mocks don't have WR as their biggest need with top prospects at other positions of need still on the board.  So each of those popular spots like Jags, Bengals, and Steelers where BTJ is often mocked too (when not reaching us) could easily pass on him too.  

 

But if he gets to say 20, and Beane really is high on him and has him as their guy, I think he starts looking to go get him to make sure one of the other teams like Balt, Det, KC don't leap frog us for him or someone like Dallas or Arizona snag him ahead of us.

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Thanks, @Shaw66, appreciated. (And from the responses you're getting, you can see others appreciatecha too)

 

I feel the problem with trading for a player like Aiyuk is that at this point, the Bills have to be judicious about who they pay.  And it's not just the pick you give up, it's all the cap space you give up.  Diggs and Von Miller are providing Beane and Bills fans with a very visceral demonstration of what happens when a GM guesses wrong on the window for ROI re-signing a veteran player.

 

I do hear you that with Beane, anything can happen regardless of what he says, and he's not closing any doors.

 

I personally feel that Beane "did the experiment" of trying to operate the offense without a #1 in 2019, and showed that we can win the regular season that way, but in the playoffs or playing the best teams, it's not enough.

 

 

Beck, I think you're talking about of both sides of your mouth.   On the one hand, you say you want a stud #1 and you question what Beane is doing.   On the other hand, you don't want to pay someone like Aiyuk, because it might go wrong.  Well, trading up to get a stud might go wrong, too.   

 

One thing about Beane is that he's fearless.   He wasn't afraid to trade up for Allen, he wasn't afraid to trade up for Edmunds, he wasn't afraid to deal for Diggs, he wasn't afraid to go get Miller.    He's going to look at what opportunities he has, and he won't shy away from pulling the trigger.  

 

And I think you misperceive the reality of 2024 NFL offense.  A true #1 may have been necessary in 2019, but multiple offenses last season, several of the best, operated without a true #1.    One way to understand the difference between then and now is to think about whether you'd rather have Saquon Barkley or McCaffrey in you backfield.   In my mind, it's quite clear that McCaffrey is much more valuable in current NFL offenses.   Stud specialists, like Barkley and Henry, and I think Jefferson and Chase, aren't as valuable in offenses as guys who are multiple.  That's why the Bills got Cook, and that's why the Bills got Samuel.  And that's why Beane said he doesn't think he needs a true #1.   He's looking for a talented guy who is smart, athletic, can run a complex route tree, can block, etc. etc. etc.  

 

If somehow a stud #1 falls to him, great, he'll take him.  But he doesn't see it as a need. What he needs is another multi-talented guy to go with Cook, Shakir, Samuel, and Kincaid.  That's what McDermott and Brady have asked Beane to find.  

 

I remember when the Bills got Diggs, I was excited because it was, in my words, an upgrade at three positions.   They got a true #1, they got a better #2 my sliding Brown into that role, and they got a better #3 by moving Beas to his natural position.  Well, offenses don't have clear 1s, 2s, and 3s any more.   Offenses are multiple.  They want five skill players on the field, each of whom can attack all areas on the field.   The 49ers are the best example.  Neither Samuel nor Aiyuk was a true #1, but man, those two plus Kittle and McCaffrey cause headaches.  That's what Beane is after.  

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I wouldn't say take it with a grain of salt per se, but I phrase it more as not to completely rule out a big trade up.  I think Beane is being very authentic when loathing about giving up future first rounders.  He went into detail on when we knew we would be trading up to get Josh Allen that he went out of his way to make sure he had the assets prior to avoid giving up future first rounders.   

 

But...he did also make clear if there is a deal that makes sense, he would include next years first, so its not off the table.  The take away for me is NOT that he won't at all do it, but that he doesn't seem to be actively looking to make a trade into the top 10 happen like a lot of people think he is.  He will however listen to offers and give them consideration, but the main issue is that teams picking that high don't generally want to move all the way down to 28 as I assure you there are no teams who have 28 first round graded players in this draft.  So they go from an elite prospect, to risking not even getting a first round graded player at 28.  

 

So that begs the question...what kind of comp is it going to take to make a team give up on an elite talent?  Popular choice is people citing Chicago only have 4 picks...well if we are trading to 9, then at least one of the big 3 are still on the board.  For Chicago to give up an elite WR prospect to pair with their rookie QB just to move back to 28 is a big ask.  They aren't going to give it away cheap just to add some mediocre picks, they would just take Odunze or one of the other top graded players at another position like Bowers or someone on the OL/DL.  

 

And quite frankly, Bears are going to have a lot of suitors for pick 9 between picks 11 and 20 where they would probably feel more comfortable trading back to.  Just like how if we trade back, no one wants us to go too far and miss out on some of the guys we would take on the trade back.  It takes both teams wanting the trade to make it happen.

 

Which is why I think a big move inside the top 10 seems like low probability right now, although not impossible obviously given Beane flat out said if it made sense he would do it.  But we aren't getting into the top 10 with 28 and a low first rounder next year.  It will cost more than that.  

 

There does seem to be some buzz about a potential trade at 20 with Pitt though...so maybe thats the spot he would go get BTJ if he is still on the board.  Its also not crazy for BTJ to make it to 28 either, most the places he is penciled in ahead of in mocks don't have WR as their biggest need with top prospects at other positions of need still on the board.  So each of those popular spots like Jags, Bengals, and Steelers where BTJ is often mocked too (when not reaching us) could easily pass on him too.  

 

But if he gets to say 20, and Beane really is high on him and has him as their guy, I think he starts looking to go get him to make sure one of the other teams like Balt, Det, KC don't leap frog us for him or someone like Dallas or Arizona snag him ahead of us.

This definitely sounds like the most probably scenario.  I don't see any way Beane will move into the top 10.  But he's demonstrated plenty of appetite for moving up two to eight or ten picks to get a guy he really likes.  I think it's most likely, because Beane doesn't like sitting around waiting and hoping for his guy.  If he has a guy, he'll go get him. 

 

However, given what he's said about not needing a true #1, I can also see him sitting tight or even trading back.   

[Mark Vader]

22 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

They target arm length and wingspan at the position. Groot and AJ were in the top 3 DE's in that category, both in the high 80 and 90th percentile in that category. It wasn't by some accident.

 

Kneeland is this year and they already hosted him for a visit in Buffalo. So as much as I would also hate this pick I don't think it's very far fetched. We have shown it's a position we will invest heavily in. We have need. We have shown interest in Kneeland and his profile is similar to two players we drafted prior. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

 

 

 

I like McConkey a lot. He really stepped up when Bowers went down. I think he can do a lot of things for us. 

You really think that they would take him in the first round?

[Einstein's Dog]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

So that begs the question...what kind of comp is it going to take to make a team give up on an elite talent?  Popular choice is people citing Chicago only have 4 picks...well if we are trading to 9, then at least one of the big 3 are still on the board.  For Chicago to give up an elite WR prospect to pair with their rookie QB just to move back to 28 is a big ask.  

 

Maybe the conversation with Chicago will be what it will take for one of their veteran WRs.  If Chicago is looking at picking up one of the big three WRs to go with their rookie QB, then all of a sudden they look over-invested in the WR room.  K Allen, DJ Moore and now a highly touted first rounder.  Getting draft picks for one of those two veterans would then be awfully tempting.  DJ Moore was a Carolina product with a reasonable $15M salary.

 

Same logic applies for Tenn.  If they want one of the big 3 then Tenn looks over-invested with Ridley/DHop/and big 3 rookie.  DHop looks like a trade target (and he has a very reasonable $13M salary).

 

The draft capital offered for the veteran WRs would be cheap.  The Bills would still hopefully use an early pick on a WR to use and develop.

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Beck, I think you're talking about of both sides of your mouth.   On the one hand, you say you want a stud #1 and you question what Beane is doing.   On the other hand, you don't want to pay someone like Aiyuk, because it might go wrong.  Well, trading up to get a stud might go wrong, too.   

 

Well, I don't see it that way, obviously, though there probably is more element of that than I'd prefer to acknowledge.  Here's what I think you're missing:

 

Yes, a draft pick might go wrong.  In fact, statistically, something like 30-50% of first round picks do go wrong, in the sense that they just don't develop into quality NFL players, let alone Superstars.  And that hurts the team that year, maybe for the next 2 years, in the form of taking up space on the roster that could be occupied by someone more productive.  There's a bit of "opportunity cost' there.  And if the team trades up - there's the opportunity cost of the extra draft picks, which, to get into the top half of the draft, could be substantial.

 

A player such as Aiyuk has shown he can play at an NFL level, so barring injury, the risk of a trade for him going wrong in the sense of not landing a guy who can actually play (as with trading for Diggs) is much lower.  But he's going to demand a large chunk of cap space, such that the "opportunity cost" if he is injured or for some reason doesn't work out for the duration of his huge contract, goes far beyond his spot on the roster.  It not only means the lost opportunity represented by the draft picks we gave up for him, but the lost opportunity to re-sign some of our own talented players or to recruit FA because he's taking up so much cap.  It's even higher than the cost of drafting a #1.

 

What I really want, of course, is for Beane and his group to have such good scouting that they can identify a potential #1 talent within easy reach of our #28 pick up or down, and then if he misses, to keep taking reasonably high value draft shots year after year until he hits.

 

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

One thing about Beane is that he's fearless.   He wasn't afraid to trade up for Allen, he wasn't afraid to trade up for Edmunds, he wasn't afraid to deal for Diggs, he wasn't afraid to go get Miller.    He's going to look at what opportunities he has, and he won't shy away from pulling the trigger.  

 

And I think you misperceive the reality of 2024 NFL offense.  A true #1 may have been necessary in 2019, but multiple offenses last season, several of the best, operated without a true #1.    One way to understand the difference between then and now is to think about whether you'd rather have Saquon Barkley or McCaffrey in you backfield.   In my mind, it's quite clear that McCaffrey is much more valuable in current NFL offenses.   Stud specialists, like Barkley and Henry, and I think Jefferson and Chase, aren't as valuable in offenses as guys who are multiple.  That's why the Bills got Cook, and that's why the Bills got Samuel.  And that's why Beane said he doesn't think he needs a true #1.   He's looking for a talented guy who is smart, athletic, can run a complex route tree, can block, etc. etc. etc.  

 

If somehow a stud #1 falls to him, great, he'll take him.  But he doesn't see it as a need. What he needs is another multi-talented guy to go with Cook, Shakir, Samuel, and Kincaid.  That's what McDermott and Brady have asked Beane to find.  

 

I remember when the Bills got Diggs, I was excited because it was, in my words, an upgrade at three positions.   They got a true #1, they got a better #2 my sliding Brown into that role, and they got a better #3 by moving Beas to his natural position.  Well, offenses don't have clear 1s, 2s, and 3s any more.   Offenses are multiple.  They want five skill players on the field, each of whom can attack all areas on the field.   The 49ers are the best example.  Neither Samuel nor Aiyuk was a true #1, but man, those two plus Kittle and McCaffrey cause headaches.  That's what Beane is after.  

 

This is very eloquent, but I'd like to know who are these "several of the best" offenses that operated without a "true #1"?  Otherwise I risk talking past you.  I would argue that the 49ers are a "different cat", in that they (like the Ravens) are a run-first team with a very even run/pass split (50% run for the '9ers, 52% for the Ravens.  Now maybe Brady sees the Bills becoming one of those teams, but if so - we're way underinvested in RB, and way overinvested in a very talented passing QB.  So I would say perhaps that wouldn't be the best use of Josh Allen's prime years.  And I would also say, Christian McCaffery is a unicorn.

 

As far as "guys who are multiple", I would agree that guys who can line up at different positions and run different routes are valuable, but I think you might be confusing ability to do this, with equal skill at all aspects of doing this.  It's true that Shakir and Samuel *can* line up outside and run downfield routes, but it's not the role Shakir has the best body type for.  It's not Samuel's best skill.  His career year to date was, I believe, 74% from the slot.  Cook has run a few routes a la Thurman Thomas and looked good at times, but with 11% drops on 54 targets, I think he has a bit to prove as a reliable receiving target.  Kincaid is the biggest dark horse.  I don't know whether the Bills think he can run downfield routes (he did in college IIRC).  They used him very close to the LOS last season with an average 5 YBC.  

 

(By the way, Jefferson has for several years been a very multiple receiver.  He's talked about this in interviews. It's how he went from 88 to 128 receptions and from 1400 to 1800 yds.  And I think 30 of 30 GMs who don't have Jefferson or Chase on their roster would sign up for that PDQ)

 

So...the Bills have on the roster right now, 4 guys who excel on the short/intermediate routes and from the slot, and Mack Hollins.  To be sure we're on the same page, by "true #1", what I believe someone like Greg Cosell means, is a guy who can stretch the field as an X, an outside or boundary receiver.  He can uncover consistently >10 yds from the LOS and force the other team to account for him in their scheme with safety help over the top, giving the underneath guys space in which to operate.  He is usually a larger guy and can bring in contested catches down the field.    He's not necessarily the guy who gets the most touches or the most targets, though.  He's the guy whose primary skill is the downfield threat (though of course it's a plus if he can line up all over).

 

I think as a defensive-minded coach, McDermott would tell you that an offense is much harder to defend when they force the defenders to cover the whole field.  And right now, the Bills do not have starting quality guy who can play outside and win downfield, either by getting open downfield or hauling in contested catches  on a regular basis.   And that's what the Bills need.  This isn't some keyboard hallucination of mine, by the way - all over the board, folks who know something are pointing this out as a gap, as are media guys I respect for their football acumen such as Greg Cosell and Lance Zierlein.

Edited April 19 by Beck Water

[Shaw66]

10 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Well, I don't see it that way, obviously, though there probably is more element of that than I'd prefer to acknowledge.  Here's what I think you're missing:

 

Yes, a draft pick might go wrong.  In fact, statistically, something like 30-50% of first round picks do go wrong, in the sense that they just don't develop into quality NFL players, let alone Superstars.  And that hurts the team that year, maybe for the next 2 years, in the form of taking up space on the roster that could be occupied by someone more productive.  There's a bit of "opportunity cost' there.  And if the team trades up - there's the opportunity cost of the extra draft picks, which, to get into the top half of the draft, could be substantial.

 

A player such as Aiyuk has shown he can play at an NFL level, so barring injury, the risk of a trade for him going wrong in the sense of not landing a guy who can actually play (as with trading for Diggs) is much lower.  But he's going to demand a large chunk of cap space, such that the "opportunity cost" if he is injured or for some reason doesn't work out for the duration of his huge contract, goes far beyond his spot on the roster.  It not only means the lost opportunity represented by the draft picks we gave up for him, but the lost opportunity to re-sign some of our own talented players or to recruit FA because he's taking up so much cap.  It's even higher than the cost of drafting a #1.

 

What I really want, of course, is for Beane and his group to have such good scouting that they can identify a potential #1 talent within easy reach of our #28 pick up or down, and then if he misses, to keep taking reasonably high value draft shots year after year until he hits.

 

 

This is very eloquent, but I'd like to know who are these "several of the best" offenses that operated without a "true #1"?  Otherwise I risk talking past you.  I would argue that the 49ers are a "different cat", in that they (like the Ravens) are a run-first team with a very even run/pass split (50% run for the '9ers, 52% for the Ravens.  Now maybe Brady sees the Bills becoming one of those teams, but if so - we're way underinvested in RB, and way overinvested in a very talented passing QB.  So I would say perhaps that wouldn't be the best use of Josh Allen's prime years.  And I would also say, Christian McCaffery is a unicorn.

 

As far as "guys who are multiple", I would agree that guys who can line up at different positions and run different routes are valuable, but I think you might be confusing ability to do this, with equal skill at all aspects of doing this.  It's true that Shakir and Samuel *can* line up outside and run downfield routes, but it's not the role Shakir has the best body type for.  It's not Samuel's best skill.  His career year to date was, I believe, 74% from the slot.  Cook has run a few routes a la Thurman Thomas and looked good at times, but with 11% drops on 54 targets, I think he has a bit to prove as a reliable receiving target.  Kincaid is the biggest dark horse.  I don't know whether the Bills think he can run downfield routes (he did in college IIRC).  They used him very close to the LOS last season with an average 5 YBC.  

 

(By the way, Jefferson has for several years been a very multiple receiver.  He's talked about this in interviews. It's how he went from 88 to 128 receptions and from 1400 to 1800 yds.  And I think 30 of 30 GMs who don't have Jefferson or Chase on their roster would sign up for that PDQ)

 

So...the Bills have on the roster right now, 4 guys who excel on the short/intermediate routes and from the slot, and Mack Hollins.  To be sure we're on the same page, by "true #1", what I believe someone like Greg Cosell means, is a guy who can stretch the field as an X, an outside or boundary receiver.  He can uncover consistently >10 yds from the LOS and force the other team to account for him in their scheme with safety help over the top, giving the underneath guys space in which to operate.  He is usually a larger guy and can bring in contested catches down the field.    He's not necessarily the guy who gets the most touches or the most targets, though.  He's the guy whose primary skill is the downfield threat (though of course it's a plus if he can line up all over).

 

I think as a defensive-minded coach, McDermott would tell you that an offense is much harder to defend when they force the defenders to cover the whole field.  And right now, the Bills do not have starting quality guy who can play outside and win downfield, either by getting open downfield or hauling in contested catches  on a regular basis.   And that's what the Bills need.  This isn't some keyboard hallucination of mine, by the way - all over the board, folks who know something are pointing this out as a gap, as are media guys I respect for their football acumen such as Greg Cosell and Lance Zierlein.

Lok, you can argue with me all you want, but what I'm telling you is what I think the Bills are doing, and what in fact Beane TOLD us he's doing.  He doesn't see a #1 guy as a necessity.  He just doesn't.   He wants a receiving corps like the 49ers, and the Lions, and the Chiefs.  Yes, Kelce is a star #1, but that's an offense that spreads the ball around to all the receivers, and one guy gets 1500 yards.  That's exactly what Beane and McDermott want.  

 

Beane has told us he doesn't need a classic #1.   Argue with it all you like, but I'm just the messenger.  

 

As for the cap hit of signing Aiyuk and the potential for failure, sure, he can get injured, but that's a risk every team takes with every high paid guy they sign.   The Bills are going to have SOME guys with big contracts.   You might not want it be Aiyuk, but there will be some.  And those guys might get injured.   Aiyuk isn't a higher risk than any of the others.   Rousseau may get a big contract soon, and he might get injured.   

 

And again, Beane is going to get the pieces he thinks he needs wherever he finds them.  He doesn't care, not very much, whether he drafts them or they are free agents.  So, I don't think he's getting Aiyuk, and I'm not even saying I would do it if I were he.  All I'm saying is that a move to get a star player would not be all that unusual for Beane.  He did it for Diggs and he did for Miller.   He'll do it again before he's done in Buffalo.  

[Mikie2times]

1 hour ago, Mark Vader said:

You really think that they would take him in the first round?

 

 

The rumors of teams in the mid to late 20's being interested are picking up.  He has had official visits with with several teams picking in the mid to late 20's. I don't think it's a stretch like it was a months ago. 

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/2024-packers-draft-visits-marshawn-kneeland

 

https://atozsports.com/indianapolis/colts-2024-nfl-draft-visit-marshawn-kneeland-edge-rusher/

 

https://www.pewterreport.com/bucs-mailbag-surprise-coming-first-round-pick/

 

https://athlonsports.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/bills-central/news/nfl-mock-draft-buffalo-bills-first-round-pick-marshawn-kneeland

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2024-nfl-mock-draft-3-teams-trade-up-for-non-qbs-as-packers-cardinals-move-back-bears-land-franchise-qb-wr/

[Beck Water]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Lok, you can argue with me all you want, but what I'm telling you is what I think the Bills are doing, and what in fact Beane TOLD us he's doing.  He doesn't see a #1 guy as a necessity.  He just doesn't.   He wants a receiving corps like the 49ers, and the Lions, and the Chiefs.  Yes, Kelce is a star #1, but that's an offense that spreads the ball around to all the receivers, and one guy gets 1500 yards.  That's exactly what Beane and McDermott want.  

 

Beane has told us he doesn't need a classic #1.   Argue with it all you like, but I'm just the messenger.  

 

So let me ask you this:  Do you believe him?  Because that's really what I'm trying to discuss.  It seemed as though you believe him and were advancing arguments as to why you believe that to be true.

 

If you're just the messenger, then of course, there's no point in arguing, but that seems like a segue to much of the post I responded to.  It seemed like something you believed, and were offering arguments to back up your belief.

Edited April 20 by Beck Water

[Dr. Who]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

So let me ask you this:  Do you believe him?  Because that's really what I'm trying to discuss.  It seemed as though you believe him and were advancing arguments as to why you believe that to be true.

 

If you're just the messenger, then of course, there's no point in arguing, but that seems like a segue to much of the post I responded to.  It seemed like something you believed, and were offering arguments to back up your belief.

If Beane's telling the truth, he's a terrible poker player and a damn fool. He's got to have learned something since leaving Carolina. I think he's fibbing.

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

So let me ask you this:  Do you believe him?  Because that's really what I'm trying to discuss.  It seemed as though you believe him and were advancing arguments as to why you believe that to be true.

 

If you're just the messenger, then of course, there's no point in arguing, but that seems like a segue to much of the post I responded to.  It seemed like something you believed, and were offering arguments to back up your belief.

Yes, I believe.  I've never found him to be not believable.  

 

This tear's can obsession with wideouts is like last year's with middle linebacker.  I don't think the fans understand what the team needs, and Beane does.

[Beck Water]

34 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, I believe.  I've never found him to be not believable.  

 

This tear's can obsession with wideouts is like last year's with middle linebacker.  I don't think the fans understand what the team needs, and Beane does.

 

Well, that's fine, but if you believe Beane and had a whole long post advancing arguments as to why he might be right, isn't it then appropriate for others (like me) to debate your arguments, and not side-step behind "I'm just the messenger, argue with it all you like"?

 

You're entitled to just be the messenger and not asked to defend what you present (because, messenger)

You're entitled to believe Beane and present arguments you believe support what he says

 

"either or not both"

[Dr. Who]

17 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, I believe.  I've never found him to be not believable.  

 

This tear's can obsession with wideouts is like last year's with middle linebacker.  I don't think the fans understand what the team needs, and Beane does.

If Beane doesn't understand that the team needs to add superior talent at WR, there's a problem. And btw, I was not one of those who was terribly worried about LB last year. Obsession is a pejorative term. Maybe you think everyone who is worried about the talent in the WR room is overwrought and that Beane has shown himself to be shrewd, and so successful that his acumen should be automatically granted the benefit of the doubt. Justin Shorter is not likely the WR equivalent of Bernard. Shakir and Samuel are not true WR2 in my estimation, nor is the collective combination of what is on the roster, plus Knox, Kincaid, and Cook a remedy for the current state of WR talent on the roster. As it stands, it is in the bottom ten of the NFL, imo.

 

Fortunately, I think Beane knows this. I also think he agrees with those "obsessed fans," but it doesn't behoove him to say so. If you're comfortable thinking that there is no urgency to significantly upgrade, that is your prerogative, but right now, they don't have a big WR to stretch the field, and I don't think they have someone to adequately fill Diggs' role down the line. Nor do I think you can just divvy up the targets to adequate WRs to make up the difference. Having a player of Diggs' quality (when he was playing well) opened up opportunities for other receivers that won't be there if you don't have a top WR to stress the defense.

 

I think they need two early picks there to develop starting now. I don't think Josh would be happy with the usual take a middle round WR Carolina tradition. Beane has built a consistent winner, but he needs more playmakers. We lose in the post-season because we lack them.

 

 

[Beck Water]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

If Beane doesn't understand that the team needs to add superior talent at WR, there's a problem. ....

I don't think Josh would be happy with the usual take a middle round WR Carolina tradition. Beane has built a consistent winner, but he needs more playmakers. We lose in the post-season because we lack them.

 

Editing to whittle down to the bones of my own concern....it's that "usual take a middle round WR Carolina tradition" Beane cut his GM teeth with, combined with his talk about "no gaping hole" in the WR group.  Add that to the WR situation Beane happily brought Allen into in 2018 (which he later admitted was a mistake), and the improvements, but not enough improvements, he made in 2020.... It's not always unreasonable to predict the way a frog (or a GM) jumps, from looking at its past jumping pattern.

I agree with you completely on the playmakers and post-season.

 

 

[Sierra Foothills]

 

Wow. Lots of dissecting Beane's sentences with multiple paragraphs.

 

6 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Maybe the conversation with Chicago will be what it will take for one of their veteran WRs.  If Chicago is looking at picking up one of the big three WRs to go with their rookie QB, then all of a sudden they look over-invested in the WR room.  K Allen, DJ Moore and now a highly touted first rounder.  Getting draft picks for one of those two veterans would then be awfully tempting.  DJ Moore was a Carolina product with a reasonable $15M salary.

 

Same logic applies for Tenn.  If they want one of the big 3 then Tenn looks over-invested with Ridley/DHop/and big 3 rookie.  DHop looks like a trade target (and he has a very reasonable $13M salary).

 

The draft capital offered for the veteran WRs would be cheap.  The Bills would still hopefully use an early pick on a WR to use and develop.

 

Interesting thought.

 

The Bills could theoretically upgrade their receiver room significantly without a heavy investment in one of the Top 3 rookie WRs or Brandon Aiyuk.

 

I see where DJ Chark (who ran a 4.34 40 at the combine) is still making free agent visits.

 

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Editing to whittle down to the bones of my own concern....it's that "usual take a middle round WR Carolina tradition" Beane cut his GM teeth with, combined with his talk about "no gaping hole" in the WR group.  Add that to the WR situation Beane happily brought Allen into in 2018 (which he later admitted was a mistake), and the improvements, but not enough improvements, he made in 2020.... It's not always unreasonable to predict the way a frog (or a GM) jumps, from looking at its past jumping pattern.

I agree with you completely on the playmakers and post-season.

 

 

Yeah, I'm counting on Beane growing past his proclivities. He may be blind to the situation based on prejudices that have some success behind them, but I find it hard to believe he can't see the problem. And Carolina ran Cam Newton into the ground. That is not a model to follow. 

[Shaw66]

11 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Well, that's fine, but if you believe Beane and had a whole long post advancing arguments as to why he might be right, isn't it then appropriate for others (like me) to debate your arguments, and not side-step behind "I'm just the messenger, argue with it all you like"?

 

You're entitled to just be the messenger and not asked to defend what you present (because, messenger)

You're entitled to believe Beane and present arguments you believe support what he says

 

"either or not both"

I get this argument from time to time.  Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.  However, once Beane says what he is thinking, i don't see much point in arguing.  I don't care much if you think the Bills need this or that if Beane doesn't agree with you.  It is just an academic argument.  And i don't have any interest in pretending that i know better than he does.

 

 

[Dr. Who]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I get this argument from time to time.  Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.  However, once Beane says what he is thinking, i don't see much point in arguing.  I don't care much if you think the Bills need this or that if Beane doesn't agree with you.  It is just an academic argument.  And i don't have any interest in pretending that i know better than he does.

 

 

That is definitely the argument from authority. I like Beane. I'm not against him, but I think you are giving him too much credit. Some Socratic irony is needed, though, of course, it's just my opinion.

Edited April 20 by Dr. Who

[Ralonzo]

On 4/18/2024 at 4:14 PM, Logic said:

The random report from Andrew Filiponi a few days ago that the Bills and Steelers swapping 1st round picks was "something to watch out for" raised my eyebrows.

It wouldn't be cost prohibitive for the Bills, it would match the M.O. of a modest round 1 trade-up that we all know Beane seems to love, and if I'm not mistaken, the Steelers need a center, and they could still likely get a JPJ or Graham Barton at 28.

If a Brian Thomas Jr or Cooper DeJean (or whomever they like) is sitting there at 20, it won't shock me one bit if this trade comes to fruition on draft night.

 

It might be cost prohibitive. Without invoking futures what the charts indicate is that something like #20 + #98 from PIT for #28 + #60 from BUF is close in value.

28 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

If Beane doesn't understand that the team needs to add superior talent at WR, there's a problem. And btw, I was not one of those who was terribly worried about LB last year. Obsession is a pejorative term. Maybe you think everyone who is worried about the talent in the WR room is overwrought and that Beane has shown himself to be shrewd, and so successful that his acumen should be automatically granted the benefit of the doubt. Justin Shorter is not likely the WR equivalent of Bernard. Shakir and Samuel are not true WR2 in my estimation, nor is the collective combination of what is on the roster, plus Knox, Kincaid, and Cook a remedy for the current state of WR talent on the roster. As it stands, it is in the bottom ten of the NFL, imo.

 

 

I'd be fine with Beane adopting whatever plan the Packers seem to be using for a productive WR assemply line where the next "Who the hell is that guy?" plugs in for 100 yards and a TD or 2.

[Dr. Who]

3 minutes ago, Ralonzo said:

 

It might be cost prohibitive. Without invoking futures what the charts indicate is that something like #20 + #98 from PIT for #28 + #60 from BUF is close in value.

 

I'd be fine with Beane adopting whatever plan the Packers seem to be using for a productive WR assemply line where the next "Who the hell is that guy?" plugs in for 100 yards and a TD or 2.

That is a popular strategy of late. I am not as confident in the Green Bay model. I'd still rather get a WR1. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing you have to trade up for one of the big 3, or even for Thomas, though I'd like it if they got him. I do think they need two WRs early. Folks want to try something else, that's fine. I'm just stating my preference. I like McConkey. I think he can be the next Diggs. He's not Diggs. He won't have the exact vertical game, but he's silky smooth, snaps off routes, and is not a gritty slot. That is a misnomer. He's faster than many seem to think. And I think he's a volume receiver year one.

 

Then I'd like Thomas, or Mitchell, or Legette for the second early receiver. Maybe that can't be done. We might not have the picks or the opportunity to make that happen, but I would pursue trying to make it so. I don't know if that is a GB WR room or not, but if you mean wait and take a shot on Rice and McCaffrey, etc., I think that is too low an investment. It might work, but I think you're still more likely to hit with early round picks. (I like Rice and McCaffrey, btw.)

[Einstein's Dog]

8 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

Wow. Lots of dissecting Beane's sentences with multiple paragraphs.

 

 

Interesting thought.

 

The Bills could theoretically upgrade their receiver room significantly without a heavy investment in one of the Top 3 rookie WRs or Brandon Aiyuk.

 

I see where DJ Chark (who ran a 4.34 40 at the combine) is still making free agent visits.

 

My thinking is Beane would probably want to stay away from the divas wanting out, which require big money and draft capital.  Preferable to that would be the veteran WR that is expendable because the team he is on gets one of the highly touted new ones.

 

So, if Tenn takes a big 3, DHop would be a much more manageable get than say J Jeff or Aiyuk.  If Seattle takes one, D Metcalf might shake loose.  If Tampa gets a new one C Godwin may be available.  As mentioned above with Chicago- K Allen or DJ Moore become expendable.

 

Personally, I'm back on the DHop train. DHop looked like he still had the goods last year.  DHop has a cheap contract that Beane could do a lot of tricks with.

 

Beane should be working out options with Tenn prior to the draft to encourage them to take one of the big 3.  Tell Tenn if they take a WR, the Bills will give them a 4th (5th?) for Dhop.  Beane would tell Tenn If they don't take it the Bills have other options behind them (Chic, Sea, TB)  -  because as an aside no GM is believing this garbage that Beane is going to have 2 lower drafted rookies as major contributors in a prime J Allen year- it would be a complete failure as a GM.

[Shaw66]

14 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

That is a popular strategy of late. I am not as confident in the Green Bay model. I'd still rather get a WR1. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing you have to trade up for one of the big 3, or even for Thomas, though I'd like it if they got him. I do think they need two WRs early. Folks want to try something else, that's fine. I'm just stating my preference. I like McConkey. I think he can be the next Diggs. He's not Diggs. He won't have the exact vertical game, but he's silky smooth, snaps off routes, and is not a gritty slot. That is a misnomer. He's faster than many seem to think. And I think he's a volume receiver year one.

 

Then I'd like Thomas, or Mitchell, or Legette for the second early receiver. Maybe that can't be done. We might not have the picks or the opportunity to make that happen, but I would pursue trying to make it so. I don't know if that is a GB WR room or not, but if you mean wait and take a shot on Rice and McCaffrey, etc., I think that is too low an investment. It might work, but I think you're still more likely to hit with early round picks. (I like Rice and McCaffrey, btw.)

The thing about being a dinosaur is, well, dinosaurs are dead.   They lost the Darwinian wars.   Football evolves faster than the species do.  The game keeps changing.  Nobody is looking for Bronco Nagurski any more, because the game has moved on.  Well, the Chiefs letting Tyreek Hill go was a pretty clear sign that the game, for now, anyway, has moved on from the big deep threat.  People talk about getting Metcalf.   Metcalf is a dinosaur.  (Hill isn't, because he's always been useful in the short game, too.)   

 

It seems to me that when you have four of the acknowledged great offensive minds in the game (Reid, Shanahan, McVay, and LaFLeur) all playing the game, successfully, without a classic #1 guy, yes, you might be a dinosaur. 

 

Let me back off, just a bit.  I don't know.  I don't know how to build a successful NFL offense.  I don't know what skills it takes, and which players are the right fit.   I just watch and try to understand what teams are doing, and then I try to draw conclusions about it.  What I hear from the commentators is that all the defenses are playing one- and two-high safeties to take the deep ball away, and what I see is the best offenses attacking with waves of multi-talented skill players, all orchestrated by great QBs who can throw and who can manage the offense.  So, when I hear Beane say he doesn't necessarily need the classic #1, it makes sense to me.   

[Dr. Who]

12 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

The thing about being a dinosaur is, well, dinosaurs are dead.   They lost the Darwinian wars.   Football evolves faster than the species do.  The game keeps changing.  Nobody is looking for Bronco Nagurski any more, because the game has moved on.  Well, the Chiefs letting Tyreek Hill go was a pretty clear sign that the game, for now, anyway, has moved on from the big deep threat.  People talk about getting Metcalf.   Metcalf is a dinosaur.  (Hill isn't, because he's always been useful in the short game, too.)   

 

It seems to me that when you have four of the acknowledged great offensive minds in the game (Reid, Shanahan, McVay, and LaFLeur) all playing the game, successfully, without a classic #1 guy, yes, you might be a dinosaur. 

 

Let me back off, just a bit.  I don't know.  I don't know how to build a successful NFL offense.  I don't know what skills it takes, and which players are the right fit.   I just watch and try to understand what teams are doing, and then I try to draw conclusions about it.  What I hear from the commentators is that all the defenses are playing one- and two-high safeties to take the deep ball away, and what I see is the best offenses attacking with waves of multi-talented skill players, all orchestrated by great QBs who can throw and who can manage the offense.  So, when I hear Beane say he doesn't necessarily need the classic #1, it makes sense to me.   

So, it seems to me that teams may be playing that one-and two-high safety defense because they could potentially be threatened by a deep threat. If that disappears enough from the arsenal of weapons and strategic tactics of OCs, the defense will adapt to whatever offense is dominant.

 

I don't know either, precisely, where the game is evolving, but I can only repeat my prejudice that having something akin to a traditional WR1 helps the entire WR room. Yet if one draws back from that, it's still largely a matter of semantics, imo, because I still don't think trying the "new" approach means you can dismiss the advantages of having better players at the WR position. I don't think it means having solid pass catchers with more modest ability is sufficient.

 

Let's grant provisionally that the current offenses are now going to emphasize moving pieces, those "multi-skilled" players you talk about, who are they? Does it mean getting MHJ or Nabers or Odunze is less important, or does it mean that their skills will be plugged into the new formula, and the superior talent plays out differently in terms of tactics, but recurs in terms of the better WRs still giving an edge to the team that has them? Maybe somehow this will result in the WR position being devalued somewhat akin to what has happened to RB. I am skeptical, but maybe so.

 

Regardless, Beane may see Kincaid as emerging as a significant threat. That's possible, and it wouldn't shock me. I advocated for drafting him last year with that hope. I'll be disappointed if Beane is content to go with a late round 2 WR to be the main piece in filling the WR room. I think it would be a big mistake. I've already written numerous posts on the fellas I think he should go get. Whatever happens, I'll root for Beane to be right and for the Bills to flourish.

[OldTimer1960]

14 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

That is a popular strategy of late. I am not as confident in the Green Bay model. I'd still rather get a WR1. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing you have to trade up for one of the big 3, or even for Thomas, though I'd like it if they got him. I do think they need two WRs early. Folks want to try something else, that's fine. I'm just stating my preference. I like McConkey. I think he can be the next Diggs. He's not Diggs. He won't have the exact vertical game, but he's silky smooth, snaps off routes, and is not a gritty slot. That is a misnomer. He's faster than many seem to think. And I think he's a volume receiver year one.

 

Then I'd like Thomas, or Mitchell, or Legette for the second early receiver. Maybe that can't be done. We might not have the picks or the opportunity to make that happen, but I would pursue trying to make it so. I don't know if that is a GB WR room or not, but if you mean wait and take a shot on Rice and McCaffrey, etc., I think that is too low an investment. It might work, but I think you're still more likely to hit with early round picks. (I like Rice and McCaffrey, btw.)

I love McConkey, worry about injury at his size, but I could be pretty happy if he is the pick - but I don’t think he solves the need for a deep target, in spite of his 4.39 40.  He and maybe Legette, now we’re cooking, but that’ll cost to pull off.

[oldmanfan]

I think he’s had conversations about moving into the top 10 to get a guy like Harrison, but didn’t like what he heard.  I still think he’ll move up somewhere in round 1 to get a guy he really likes,  whether it’s a WR or not we’ll see.  To me a first round pick should go to someone you think has All-Pro potential, and if that’s at a position other than WR so be it.

Edited April 20 by oldmanfan