Rumor: Bills trying aggressively to move up for a WR in round one

[Mat68]

16 minutes ago, nosejob said:

I'd rather...and believe Beane will pull a pick or 2 from next year out of his pocket to make sure we get a handful of impact players this year. We'll have FA money next year, so now's the time for him to ball out.

I think a 2nd next year is in the chamber.  If they can go all the way up next years 1 instead of a 2nd is in play. 

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, Fan in Chicago said:

Simply keeping up with the Chiefs means we will stay one step behind. We need to leap frog them. With weapons to over come the gap in coaching 

I really think it's a fool's errand to expect that superior talent can over come mediocre coaching.   I think it's a strategy that works, at best, for a year or so, but then you're quickly stuck again with talent that matches every other team.   This happens because of the draft, the cap, and free agency.  Every team's roster turns over quickly.    I think the average is something like a third of your roster changes from year to year.  Now, granted, that's weighted toward the lower end of the roster, but there are significant departures almost annually, and certainly over three years.  QB is the only position that doesn't turn over.  If you have your starter, you keep him.  Left tackle is next. 

 

Because of the roster turnover, it's a coaches' league.   And because it's a coaches' league, you're always going to be in a hole if you don't have quality coaches.  As I said yesterday, Dorsey was a serious mistake.  Daboll was decent, and we'll see about Brady, but the Bills essentially wasted two seasons by letting Dorsey run the offense.   

 

If you believe, as I do, that Reid's talent at designing and implementing offense is a major part of the Chiefs' success, I think you also can see how unlikely it is that the Bills could accumulate so much talent that they could overcome what Reid does.   His offensive success essentially means that he makes every player on offense better, and it isn't possible to upgrade every position on defense so that the talent of your players overcome the advantage they have because of coaching.  

 

The Bills need a really good OC, and they need to hold on to him for several seasons.   I think Brady could be the guy, but I don't know.   This season will tell us a lot.  The Bills will have the offensive roster they want - yes, even at wide receiver - they'll have an offensive line they have confidence in, and of course they have the QB.   It's very much up to Brady, and a part of that is driven by the leadership he gets from McDermott.  

1 hour ago, Mat68 said:

I think a 2nd next year is in the chamber.  If they can go all the way up next years 1 instead of a 2nd is in play. 

I agree about the second, not the first.   He said it his presser - it's no fun sitting in on the first night of the draft with no pick.  My own rule is that major trade ups in the first round are prudent only for a QB - no other position is worth the draft capital it costs.   

Edited April 25 by Shaw66

[Saint Doug]

1 hour ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

Horrible take. If you need to wait 4+ years to get quality contribution from your draft choices, your drafting must suck. This isn’t the NHL or baseball. In the salary cap era, draft picks needs to contribute by their 2nd year, if not their rookie season. 

[SCBills]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

I really thing it's a fool's errand to expect that superior talent can over come mediocre coaching.   I think it's a strategy that works, at best, for a year or so, but then you're quickly stuck again with talent that matches every other team.   This happens because of the draft, the cap, and free agency.  Every team's roster turns over quickly.    I think the average is something like a third of your roster changes from year to year.  Now, granted, that's weighted toward the lower end of the roster, but there are significant departures almost annually, and certainly over three years.  QB is the only position that doesn't turn over.  If you have your starter, you keep him.  Left tackle is next. 

 

Because of the roster turnover, it's a coaches' league.   And because it's a coaches' league, you're always going to be in a hole if you don't have quality coaches.  As I said yesterday, Dorsey was a serious mistake.  Daboll was decent, and we'll see about Brady, but the Bills essentially wasted two seasons by letting Dorsey run the offense.   

 

If you believe, as I do, that Reid's talent at designing and implementing offense is a major part of the Chiefs' success, I think you also can see how unlikely it is that the Bills could accumulate so much talent that they could overcome what Reid does.   His offensive success essentially means that he makes every player on offense better, and it isn't possible to upgrade every position on defense so that the talent of your players overcome the advantage they have because of coaching.  

 

The Bills need a really good OC, and they need to hold on to him for several seasons.   I think Brady could be the guy, but I don't know.   This season will tell us a lot.  The Bills will have the offensive roster they want - yes, even at wide receiver - they'll have an offensive line they have confidence in, and of course they have the QB.   It's very much up to Brady, and a part of that is driven by the leadership he gets from McDermott.  

 

The thing that I can't wrap my head around is the development of Championship DNA.   

 

And maybe that just comes with winning, and we have to get over the hump to do so.

 

McDermott owns 13 seconds.  I don't who to blame for CIN.. that just seems like an absolute mess all around leading into that game.

 

Then this year.. injury luck.  EVERY. YEAR.  KC stays healthy at key positions and we either have big injuries or a depleted roster.   KC's WR room.. which couldn't catch a cold all year, played great against us.. and pretty much everyone in the postseason.  Conversely, we had to rely on Sherfield due to injury (Beane to blame for WR issues) and he clearly did not step up to the moment.  And Diggs.. supposed to be our guy to offset Kelce.  And he gets clamped, fumbles, drops passes.  Playoff non-factor in big games year in/year out.   

 

And alright, those two are gone.  Who's our Jones?  Maybe Oliver?... Oliver dominated the Steelers in the WC Game, but then got owned by KC.  

 

What's it going to take to get people to elevate with Josh Allen when it matters?

 

[Mat68]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I really thing it's a fool's errand to expect that superior talent can over come mediocre coaching.   I think it's a strategy that works, at best, for a year or so, but then you're quickly stuck again with talent that matches every other team.   This happens because of the draft, the cap, and free agency.  Every team's roster turns over quickly.    I think the average is something like a third of your roster changes from year to year.  Now, granted, that's weighted toward the lower end of the roster, but there are significant departures almost annually, and certainly over three years.  QB is the only position that doesn't turn over.  If you have your starter, you keep him.  Left tackle is next. 

 

Because of the roster turnover, it's a coaches' league.   And because it's a coaches' league, you're always going to be in a hole if you don't have quality coaches.  As I said yesterday, Dorsey was a serious mistake.  Daboll was decent, and we'll see about Brady, but the Bills essentially wasted two seasons by letting Dorsey run the offense.   

 

If you believe, as I do, that Reid's talent at designing and implementing offense is a major part of the Chiefs' success, I think you also can see how unlikely it is that the Bills could accumulate so much talent that they could overcome what Reid does.   His offensive success essentially means that he makes every player on offense better, and it isn't possible to upgrade every position on defense so that the talent of your players overcome the advantage they have because of coaching.  

 

The Bills need a really good OC, and they need to hold on to him for several seasons.   I think Brady could be the guy, but I don't know.   This season will tell us a lot.  The Bills will have the offensive roster they want - yes, even at wide receiver - they'll have an offensive line they have confidence in, and of course they have the QB.   It's very much up to Brady, and a part of that is driven by the leadership he gets from McDermott.  

I agree about the second, not the first.   He said it his presser - it's no fun sitting in on the first night of the draft with no pick.  My own rule is that major trade ups in the first round are prudent only for a QB - no other position is worth the draft capital it costs.   

True.  I think in the heat of the moment he can talk himself into thinking that Vikes 2nd will be about the same as our 1st when we win the superbowl. 

[BarleyNY]

2 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:

Horrible take. If you need to wait 4+ years to get quality contribution from your draft choices, your drafting must suck. This isn’t the NHL or baseball. In the salary cap era, draft picks needs to contribute by their 2nd year, if not their rookie season. 

 

That isn’t what he is saying. He’s saying that you draft players for what they can provide over at least the next four years, not just in season one. Basically draft for the long term, not short term. That’s what smart teams do. 

[SCBills]

Just now, BarleyNY said:

 

That isn’t what he is saying. He’s saying that you draft players for what they can provide over at least the next four years, not just in season one. Basically draft for the long term, not short term. That’s what smart teams do. 

 

Perfect example of that for us would be Terrell Bernard.  Pick made no sense in a vacuum of one year for where he was taken, with Edmunds and Milano on the roster.

 

Fast forward two years and the guy is a key piece of the defense and an absolute stud in our system. 

[Mat68]

1 minute ago, SCBills said:

 

Perfect example of that for us would be Terrell Bernard.  Pick made no sense in a vacuum of one year for where he was taken, with Edmunds and Milano on the roster.

 

Fast forward two years and the guy is a key piece of the defense and an absolute stud in our system. 

I think the idea is round 1 impact player. Round 2 starter and round 3 role player future starter.  Beane has made is money on day 3.  He seems to have a good feel.  His worst pick is Elam but imo Elam starts for half the league.

[BADOLBILZ]

2 minutes ago, SCBills said:

 

Perfect example of that for us would be Terrell Bernard.  Pick made no sense in a vacuum of one year for where he was taken, with Edmunds and Milano on the roster.

 

Fast forward two years and the guy is a key piece of the defense and an absolute stud in our system. 

 

 

Yep.   The easiest way to look at it is "needs change fast".   

 

Nobody thought the Bills need DL help in spring of 2014.........when they could have just saved picks and selected Aaron Donald,  the best DL of the first quarter of this century.    By spring of 2016 they were reaching for Shaq Lawson and Adolphus Washington in the first 3 rounds of the draft.     

[SCBills]

1 minute ago, Mat68 said:

I think the idea is round 1 impact player. Round 2 starter and round 3 role player future starter.  Beane has made is money on day 3.  He seems to have a good feel.  His worst pick is Elam but imo Elam starts for half the league.

 

Just saw a graphic our 1st Round Picks... We've done pretty well.  One question mark in Elam, but I'm willing to give him this year before I say "bust" because he clearly has talent. 

 

The next biggest issue I'd have is Oliver for where he was drafted.  He very good, but not yet elite.. and that was our chance (for where we drafted) to get that elite piece.  

[julian]

4 hours ago, Buffalo Ballin said:

I don't see how Marvin Harrison Jr. is just as great as his old man, the OG Marvin Harrison. Shaking my head. I don't get it. I have never seen the son surpassing the father WHEN the father is already top tier. The son would be lucky just to be in the same tier as his dad.

 

I don't care how these scouts and Youtubers are selling MHJ. I rather have Nabers, too.

Ed McCaffrey and Christian McCaffrey, although Ed won’t be remembered in the same vein as Jerry Rice, Andre Reed, Micheal Irving and Chris Carter’s who played in his era, he was still excellent when he was targeted like a #1 for a couple years in Denver. Ed obviously won’t be considered elite for this argument but had a long successful career and Christian is one of the greatest weapons we’ve ever seen.

[Logic]

Just to circle back to previous Xavier Worthy discussions. 

Not that it should be at all shocking that the fastest guy in combine history would go in round 1, but...Vegas seems to think that's what's about to happen.
 

 

[BillsVet]

 

21 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

This.  When we traded for Diggs, we only gave up 1 - late first rounder.

 

It would be next year's 1st, probably the next year's 2nd we got for Diggs, maybe this year's second.    So then you have to figure in the opportunity cost of the players you would have drafted and had a chance to keep on a cost-controlled contract for 4 years.

 

The bottom line is, no one really knows for sure the effect it will have on a man to have a net worth of ~$20M (#10 pick) overnight - what effect it will have on his lifestyle, his work ethic, his willingness to sacrifice his body for teammates, his humility and willingness to listen carefully and take coaching.  Will he keep his ears open, or will he become an "alligator station"?

 

Everything doesn't have to be a mechanical discussion Beck.  The problem here is that you understand cost without value.  Yeah, trading for Diggs cost a 1st in 2020 and paying his salary, which led to the contract extension he desired.  On-field, the production offered meant there was value to the move.  It gave the QB a much better receiving option and, in 2020, their offensive exploded.    

 

With any trade up, we're talking about maximizing the biggest asset - Josh - with someone who'll be a primary receiving target for him.  Someone who elevates the other players in their roles beyond the QB.  As in, it allows Samuel to be a Z, Shakir (or someone else) to the play the slot and Kincaid to be their flex TE.  That threat should help the running game.

 

Besides, the human element to the player they select is why you do the research.  There's risk in taking a kid who'll be handed a large contract.  That's where having a coach who understands people with a development program is crucial.  Controlling risk becomes a priority when you lack confidence.  And draft night is all about being confident in your research, scouting, and decision-making ability.   

[Beck Water]

15 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

You missed the point.   It's not that some guys aren't valuable.  Those guys you name are extraordinarily valuable.   And they put up nice stats.  They just don't fit the stud receiver mold.   They aren't tall, they aren't big, and they aren't fast.   They have other skills that make that, combined with decent size and speed, makes them valuable.  

 

I've been talking to people here about the fact that the typical stud receiver - the big, tall, fast guys - aren't the kind of guys that teams are looking for now.  Blazing speed is nice, but not necessary.   Size is nice, but not necessary.   There are a lot of guys with measurables like Samuel and St. Brown and Kupp, they're all over the place.  What teams are looking for is guys with with decent size and speed and who are good scheme fits. 

 

Now this is interesting.  We've been talking about #1 receivers.  

 

I just went back and looked at what you wrote in your post to which I replied.  You did not use the phrase "typical stud receiver" or "big tall fast guys".  This is what you said:

 

"I think, in fact, that receivers are becoming a dime a dozen, just like running backs.   Successful teams don't need a top-five running back, and I think the passing game already has evolved to the point that they don't need a top-five receiver.  I mean, they'll have a guy who is top-five in the stats, but he'll get there by being a scheme fit rather than being a great receiver.   I think that's exactly what we've seen in Kansas City.  And it's what we've seen in LA and Detroit and SF. "

 

I'm speaking to the point that guys like Kupp, Samuel, and St Brown are special players, and their teams regard them as special players.  They are getting paid like special players.   To use Emmanual Acho's term, they are "Freakazoids".

 

I searched your content for stuff about #1 receivers, stud receivers, and big tall fast guys.  Bearing in mind the search engine here has its flaws, I don't find a lot of stuff where you specify that to you, #1 receiver or stud receiver means "tall big fast" to you.  In fact, to the contrary.  So if that's now what #1 receiver or stud receiver means to you, I'll agree that teams have value for WR who don't fit that mold now a days.  But I don't think that's because receivers are a dime a dozen or because they are 'scheme fits', as you said in the post I responded to above.

 

From your post linked above, you said "A typical #2 is not good to great at getting separation and is not good to great at making contested catches.   A guy who is good to great at one or both of those skills is a #1 receiver.   People are naming players like Hill and Waddle and Cinci's wideouts.   Someone mentioned Gronk and Edelman.   They're all #1 receivers.  Why?  Because they're all good to great at getting open using their own skills, or in Gronk's case they're open when they're covered, so they don't need to separate."

 

I agree completely with your description of a #1 receiver quoted above, from August of 2023 to be fair.  There's nothing in there about "big tall fast guys", and I think that's appropriate.  I call to mind something Dawkins said about watching Diggs during an off season throwing session right after Diggs was traded to the Bills.  It was something to the effect of "until then, I didn't realize a human could be that good at football". 

 

That's a #1 WR to me: not a "big tall fast" guy, but a human who is "that good at football", who can separate, who can make contested catches, who - as you said in Aug 2023 - is "good to great at getting open using their own skills or is open when covered" or as Dawkins said, is "just that good at football"  Jefferson is a #1 WR even though he's not that tall and not that fast, because he has those traits.  Amon-Ra St Brown, same.

 

I believe teams still covet big tall fast guys and super-fast shifty guys who are "just that good at football".  The catch (see what I did there?) is that while in theory, these guys superior physical traits should help them get open or be "open when covered".  But a lot of times, other things aren't equal, which is why a 5th round receiver like Diggs or a 4th round receiver like Amon Ra St Brown who has enough height and speed but also the hard-to-define ability run deceptive routes, to fake DBs out of their cleats, who have passion and works at their craft, becomes better at football.  

 

I don't believe so many WR get drafted in the first round because they are "decent scheme fits", nor do they get highly paid because of this.  They get drafted in the first round because based upon college tape and measurables, GMs believe they will be "a human who could be just that good at football" in the NFL.  And that's why they get paid, too, once they prove that's who they are.
 

Elsewhere, I made the point as far as I can tell, "#1 receiver" is becoming like "franchise QB" used to be on this board BA (before Allen): a term that people define in different ways, without realizing it, resulting in a lot of talking past each other.  But in this exchange, it seems to me you are changing up what you're talking about, to insert a definition of #1 WR as a "big tall fast stud" that you weren't stating in your various posts on this topic, and that differs from a definition you have used in previous posts (like last August, quoted above).

 

 

Edited April 25 by Beck Water

[stinky finger]

2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Barry Bonds wants a word with you!

True. But what a scummy douchebag.

[dave mcbride]

5 minutes ago, stinky finger said:

True. But what a scummy douchebag.

Sure, but probably the best player ever outside of Babe Ruth even factoring in the steroids. But yeah, the opposite of likable.

[Alphadawg7]

39 minutes ago, Logic said:

Just to circle back to previous Xavier Worthy discussions. 

Not that it should be at all shocking that the fastest guy in combine history would go in round 1, but...Vegas seems to think that's what's about to happen.
 

 

Too bad the fastest guy in combine history doesn’t translate to the field and play like the fastest player in history.  Too much is being made about his straight line speed in shorts IMHO.  Actual game day speed is made up of more than a forty time.  Meanwhile he only caught 6 of the 23 deep ball targets and only caught 5 of his 21 contested catch targets.  40% of his snaps were in slot, and 21% of his targets were screens.  
 

Worthy is going to get over drafted and most likely be a complimentary piece somewhere than a lead dog.  

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Too bad the fastest guy in combine history doesn’t translate to the field and play like the fastest player in history.  Too much is being made about his straight line speed in shorts IMHO.  Actual game day speed is made up of more than a forty time.  Meanwhile he only caught 6 of the 23 deep ball targets and only caught 5 of his 21 contested catch targets.  40% of his snaps were in slot, and 21% of his targets were screens.  
 

Worthy is going to get over drafted and most likely be a complimentary piece somewhere than a lead dog.  

I think the issue is if the fastest guy hits, you automatically have one of the best weapons in football.

 

it’s a ceiling v floor argument

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree about the second, not the first.   He said it his presser - it's no fun sitting in on the first night of the draft with no pick.  My own rule is that major trade ups in the first round are prudent only for a QB - no other position is worth the draft capital it costs.   

Chris Trappaso (CBS) made a good point on WGR last night.

 

When you're picking 28th and lower every year, a 1st round pick is really a 2nd round pick. In most draft years, there are only about 20-25 first round graded players. 

So if you're a team like the Bills, who is consistently picking late 20's in the first round, trading a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick is similar to trading 2 second round picks.

[Logic]

4 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Too bad the fastest guy in combine history doesn’t translate to the field and play like the fastest player in history.  Too much is being made about his straight line speed in shorts IMHO.  Actual game day speed is made up of more than a forty time.  Meanwhile he only caught 6 of the 23 deep ball targets and only caught 5 of his 21 contested catch targets.  40% of his snaps were in slot, and 21% of his targets were screens.  
 

Worthy is going to get over drafted and most likely be a complimentary piece somewhere than a lead dog.  

Disagree. You talk about him like he wasn't actually a good college football player.

He was a freshman breakout and posted three years of good production at Texas.

But honestly...I don't want to spend the second best day of the football year arguing about any prospects. I've done enough of that the past few months. Today is a day for joy and pizza and booing Roger Goodell.

We'll stick with "agree to disagree" on Worthy, and we can check back in with each other as his NFL career goes along.

 

[SCBills]

I'd actually be ok with Worthy at 28.

 

I still think we need another legit investment at WR on Day 2 (maybe early Day 3) or a FA addition when Tre's money clears, but Worthy's speed outside with Shakir/Samuel underneath and their YAC ability would be a very different look next year from the Diggs/Davis years of zero YAC.

[Roundybout]

1 minute ago, SCBills said:

I'd actually be ok with Worthy at 28.

 

I still think we need another legit investment at WR on Day 2 (maybe early Day 3) or a FA addition when Tre's money clears, but Worthy's speed outside with Shakir/Samuel underneath and their YAC ability would be a very different look next year from the Diggs/Davis years of zero YAC.

I would be ok with Worthy and someone like Polk later.

[stinky finger]

5 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I think the issue is if the fastest guy hits, you automatically have one of the best weapons in football.

 

it’s a ceiling v floor argument

Of all the potential WRs we could take, Worthy makes me most uneasy because of exactly this. 
 

He’s gonna boom or bust. 

[Shaw66]

10 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Now this is interesting.  We've been talking about #1 receivers.  

 

I just went back and looked at what you wrote in your post to which I replied.  You did not use the phrase "typical stud receiver" or "big tall fast guys".  This is what you said:

 

"I think, in fact, that receivers are becoming a dime a dozen, just like running backs.   Successful teams don't need a top-five running back, and I think the passing game already has evolved to the point that they don't need a top-five receiver.  I mean, they'll have a guy who is top-five in the stats, but he'll get there by being a scheme fit rather than being a great receiver.   I think that's exactly what we've seen in Kansas City.  And it's what we've seen in LA and Detroit and SF. "

 

I'm speaking to the point that guys like Kupp, Samuel, and St Brown are special players, and their teams regard them as special players.  They are getting paid like special players.   To use Emmanual Acho's term, they are "Freakazoids".

 

I searched your content for stuff about #1 receivers, stud receivers, and big tall fast guys.  Bearing in mind the search engine here has its flaws, I don't find a lot of stuff where you specify that to you, #1 receiver or stud receiver means "tall big fast" to you.  In fact, to the contrary.  So if that's now what #1 receiver or stud receiver means to you, I'll agree that teams have value for WR who don't fit that mold now a days.  But I don't think that's because receivers are a dime a dozen or because they are 'scheme fits', as you said in the post I responded to above.

 

From your post linked above, you said "A typical #2 is not good to great at getting separation and is not good to great at making contested catches.   A guy who is good to great at one or both of those skills is a #1 receiver.   People are naming players like Hill and Waddle and Cinci's wideouts.   Someone mentioned Gronk and Edelman.   They're all #1 receivers.  Why?  Because they're all good to great at getting open using their own skills, or in Gronk's case they're open when they're covered, so they don't need to separate."

 

I agree completely with your description of a #1 receiver quoted above, from August of 2023 to be fair.  There's nothing in there about "big tall fast guys", and I think that's appropriate.  I call to mind something Dawkins said about watching Diggs during an off season throwing session right after Diggs was traded to the Bills.  It was something to the effect of "until then, I didn't realize a human could be that good at football". 

 

That's a #1 WR to me: not a "big tall fast" guy, but a human who is "that good at football", who can separate, who can make contested catches, who - as you said in Aug 2023 - is "good to great at getting open using their own skills or is open when covered" or as Dawkins said, is "just that good at football"  Jefferson is a #1 WR even though he's not that tall and not that fast, because he has those traits.  Amon-Ra St Brown, same.

 

I believe teams still covet big tall fast guys and super-fast shifty guys who are "just that good at football".  The catch (see what I did there?) is that while in theory, these guys superior physical traits should help them get open or be "open when covered".  But a lot of times, other things aren't equal, which is why a 5th round receiver like Diggs or a 4th round receiver like Amon Ra St Brown who has enough height and speed but also the hard-to-define ability run deceptive routes, to fake DBs out of their cleats, who have passion and works at their craft, becomes better at football.  

 

I don't believe so many WR get drafted in the first round because they are "decent scheme fits", nor do they get highly paid because of this.  They get drafted in the first round because based upon college tape and measurables, GMs believe they will be "a human who could be just that good at football" in the NFL.  And that's why they get paid, too, once they prove that's who they are.
 

Elsewhere, I made the point as far as I can tell, "#1 receiver" is becoming like "franchise QB" used to be on this board BA (before Allen): a term that people define in different ways, without realizing it, resulting in a lot of talking past each other.  But in this exchange, it seems to me you are changing up what you're talking about, to insert a definition of #1 WR as a "big tall fast stud" that you weren't stating in your various posts on this topic, and that differs from a definition you have used in previous posts (like last August, quoted above).

 

 

I don't agree with you, but that's okay.  

 

I think receivers are becoming a dime a dozen and you just don't see it yet.  In fact, you go in the opposite direction - that receivers are becoming a need like a franchise QB, or at least people here seem to talk that way.   I agree, they do talk that way, and I think that perception is incorrect. 

 

One way I think you can see what I'm talking about is those three receivers you named who have gotten big contracts - St. Brown, Kupp, and Samuel.  They are exactly the right examples.   They got drafted in the fourth, third, and second rounds, respectively.   That means that these three NFL stars at the position, three guys who at least in terms of money are among the most valuable players at their position, all were viewed as ordinary prospects coming out of college, and that in each case, there were several other guys whom the NFL GMs thought were better prospects to build their teams around.  (Note that Shakir is another one - a guy who seems to be developing a more significant role in the offense than his draft status would suggest.)   Why has this happened?  Because what NFL teams need at receiver has changed from five years ago, just like the change that began at running back maybe 15 years ago.   

 

Those guys are getting money from their teams that KC didn't give to Tyreek Hill.  Why didn't the Chiefs pay Hill?  Well, I wasn't in the room, but I think it was because they could see that the colleges were turning out a lot of guys who didn't have Hill's speed but who were fast enough, guys who could be plugged into an effective offense at a fraction of the cost of Tyreek Hill.  In other words, they could see that, given what they wanted from receivers, receivers were a dime a dozen.  I think that is exactly why Beane seemed to be saying the other day that he wasn't concerned about the receiver position and that he would love to have a true #1 but it isn't necessary.  We can argue about what exactly he meant, but I think what he meant is that he doesn't need a Justin-Jefferson-type game changer.  

 

I've lived my whole life as a Bills fan thinking the Bills need a stud #1, and that was probably true for several decades.  It certainly was true when the Bills were going to the Super Bowl.   I'm pretty sure it's not so true any longer.   I think a stud QB, good starting role players, and good coaching is what's needed.  

[longtimebillsfan]

23 hours ago, mannc said:

Thank you.  No one in the top 10 is interested in moving to 28, and the Bills’ first next year is a devalued asset because the assumption is that it too will be a late pick.   A move up to the mid-teens is possible, but that’s about it.  Although I do think it’s possible that Odunze slides to that part of the draft…

I would be okay with Odunze st 28.

[london_bills]

1 minute ago, stinky finger said:

Of all the potential WRs we could take, Worthy makes me most uneasy because of exactly this. 
 

He’s gonna boom or bust. 

I always think of Marquise Goodwin when is see Worthy 

[Alphadawg7]

6 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I think the issue is if the fastest guy hits, you automatically have one of the best weapons in football.

 

it’s a ceiling v floor argument

 

Agree, but Worthy size limits his role at the next level IMHO.  Guys like Hill and Tank Dell play bigger than their size, Worthy doesn't and the lack of strength I think is going to limit his ability at the next level.  And guys like Tank are more the exception than the rule on top of that.  For a team like say Dallas, I can see him being a great addition potentially opposite Lamb, on turf, etc.  But for a team looking for a WR1...I don't think he is that dude.

[Roundybout]

Just now, london_bills said:

I always think of Marquise Goodwin when is see Worthy 

Goodwin split his training between football and the Olympics, though. I think Worthy is more of a complete receiver 

[BuffaloRebound]

Worthy probably doesn’t make it to pick 28.  I think Worthy or Thomas are the pick if we stay at 28.  If they’re both gone, it means Nix/Penix or one of the OT’s are still available at 28 and we trade back. 

Edited April 25 by BuffaloRebound

[nedboy7]

I have a new idea.  I want BT and XL both. 

[Alphadawg7]

6 minutes ago, Logic said:

Disagree. You talk about him like he wasn't actually a good college football player.

He was a freshman breakout and posted three years of good production at Texas.

But honestly...I don't want to spend the second best day of the football year arguing about any prospects. I've done enough of that the past few months. Today is a day for joy and pizza and booing Roger Goodell.

We'll stick with "agree to disagree" on Worthy, and we can check back in with each other as his NFL career goes along.

 

 

Yeah all good dude...but the college resume stuff isn't a great counter point as the first round draft history is littered with the corpses of stud college players at big schools who flamed out in the NFL.  

 

Hey, thats the beauty of the draft, lots of opinions and no facts (facts being NFL on field experience)...just hopes and dreams for all.  Gonna be a fun night, this is one of the more exciting and interesting overall drafts in a while.  Enjoy bud

[SectionC3]

9 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I'd actually be ok with Worthy at 28.

 

I still think we need another legit investment at WR on Day 2 (maybe early Day 3) or a FA addition when Tre's money clears, but Worthy's speed outside with Shakir/Samuel underneath and their YAC ability would be a very different look next year from the Diggs/Davis years of zero YAC.

I was against it initially because I think we need a larger human who can break a tackle or two and punish teams who want to lay back in cover 2 or cover 3 on us.  But I’ve come around on the idea in the last couple of weeks.  I’d still like to see us come out of this with a bigger body at the position, but if the FO decides it’s Worthy, I won’t get on the internet and complain anonymously because they’ve earned the benefit of the doubt. 

1 hour ago, SCBills said:

 

The thing that I can't wrap my head around is the development of Championship DNA.   

 

And maybe that just comes with winning, and we have to get over the hump to do so.

 

McDermott owns 13 seconds.  I don't who to blame for CIN.. that just seems like an absolute mess all around leading into that game.

 

Then this year.. injury luck.  EVERY. YEAR.  KC stays healthy at key positions and we either have big injuries or a depleted roster.   KC's WR room.. which couldn't catch a cold all year, played great against us.. and pretty much everyone in the postseason.  Conversely, we had to rely on Sherfield due to injury (Beane to blame for WR issues) and he clearly did not step up to the moment.  And Diggs.. supposed to be our guy to offset Kelce.  And he gets clamped, fumbles, drops passes.  Playoff non-factor in big games year in/year out.   

 

And alright, those two are gone.  Who's our Jones?  Maybe Oliver?... Oliver dominated the Steelers in the WC Game, but then got owned by KC.  

 

What's it going to take to get people to elevate with Josh Allen when it matters?

 

I blame a certain Instagam “influencer” for having an unannounced yard sale the evening before the game.  Nobody I’ve seen post here has the other piece of that episode, and it is bonkers.  

[BigDingus]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

My own rule is that major trade ups in the first round are prudent only for a QB - no other position is worth the draft capital it costs.   

 

I agree, unless we're talking a small trade up just a handful of places. 

 

But definitely not worth the cost to jump from the end of the Draft all the way up into the top 10.

 

The more I read about how the draft pick value chart came to be, the more broken it seems. It was meant as a snapshot reflecting trades up until that point. But despite how much has changed, teams strated treating it as gospel.

 

This makes things so much more lopsided in favor of teams that trade back than those trading up. If it's for a QB, it's at least understandable. 

[dave mcbride]

7 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yeah all good dude...but the college resume stuff isn't a great counter point as the first round draft history is littered with the corpses of stud college players at big schools who flamed out in the NFL.  

 

Hey, thats the beauty of the draft, lots of opinions and no facts (facts being NFL on field experience)...just hopes and dreams for all.  Gonna be a fun night, this is one of the more exciting and interesting overall drafts in a while.  Enjoy bud

Yup, I agree that is one of the more interesting ones in a while. I think that's the because the Bills are at a true inflection point, moving from phase one of the Josh Allen Bills to phase two of the Josh Allen Bills (and I think there will be three phases in the end). All elite franchise QBs who stick around get basically an entirely new team every 6-7 years. Just look at Brady/Pats, Roethlisberger/Steelers, Rogers/Packers, etc. Mahomes still has Kelce but not for much longer, and even there it's basically an entirely new group outside of Kelce. Anyway, the Bills have to nail this draft AND the post-June 1 FA landscape. I have a sneaking suspicion based on no evidence that they have a deal in place with Justin Simmons, who bizarrely hasn't been signed yet. Something is up with that. He's a really good player - second team all pro four out of the past five years! Maybe the fact that he's 30 worries teams, but he's too good to be sitting there.

Edited April 25 by dave mcbride

[SCBills]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I was against it initially because I think we need a larger human who can break a tackle or two and punish teams who want to lay back in cover 2 or cover 3 on us.  But I’ve come around on the idea in the last couple of weeks.  I’d still like to see us come out of this with a bigger body at the position, but if the FO decides it’s Worthy, I won’t get on the internet and complain anonymously because they’ve earned the benefit of the doubt. 

 

Xavier Worthy at 28 and Javon Baker on Day 2 would completely revamp our WR room.  

 

Will we double dip?   Doubt it, but we'd have a YAC monster in the slot with Samuel, inside/outside flex with Shakir, speed outside in Worthy and a big body outside recevier in Baker.

 

Locked up for:

 

2 years Shakir

3 years Samuel

4 years Baker

5 years Worthy

[FireChans]

9 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Agree, but Worthy size limits his role at the next level IMHO.  Guys like Hill and Tank Dell play bigger than their size, Worthy doesn't and the lack of strength I think is going to limit his ability at the next level.  And guys like Tank are more the exception than the rule on top of that.  For a team like say Dallas, I can see him being a great addition potentially opposite Lamb, on turf, etc.  But for a team looking for a WR1...I don't think he is that dude.

Meh, if folks thought Hill and Dell were gonna play bigger than their size and be what they are today, they would’ve been picked much higher.

 

That’s the risk.

[longtimebillsfan]

10 minutes ago, london_bills said:

I always think of Marquise Goodwin when is see Worthy 

I had the exact same thought.

[wppete]

10 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

I have a new idea.  I want BT and XL both. 

This would be a home run! Cmon Beane make it happen! 

[boyst]

16 minutes ago, Einstein said:

Chris Trappaso (CBS) made a good point on WGR last night.

 

When you're picking 28th and lower every year, a 1st round pick is really a 2nd round pick. In most draft years, there are only about 20-25 first round graded players. 

So if you're a team like the Bills, who is consistently picking late 20's in the first round, trading a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick is similar to trading 2 second round picks.

polian has said similar. he is amazing to listen to basically saying that no one knows shiz.

 

but a good story he recently retold was drafting one year he wanted to move up with a 4th from next year to get into the 5th this year. the guy they identified was someone who has talent and was graded above the value that he was at on their draft board. he had to convince the orginzation that a 5th round pick this year is more important than a 4th round pick next year because you get that player now and don't wait a year. that when you have talent you think is worth the grade giving up potential next year is not as important to have a player on the team now.

 

that player was robert matthis.

 

he said it does not always work out but looking at next years draft is not the same as looking at this years draft. he doesn't like the jimmy johnson board. drafts are not equal. ever.

[jahnyc]

I think selecting Worthy at 28 would be reasonable value if he is available, but I am not seeing anything that suggests that he is or will become a true #1 WR, which, if true, means we would still need to fill that role.