Cole Beasley interested in returning to Bills in 2023

[Woodman]

From trading McKenzie for a 6th/7th rounder or just cutting him.

How much would we save?

[notacon]

So now we're prioritizing slot WR over starting LB or SS? That's not a decision I'm comfortable with.

We already have one of the best starting tandems at LB in the NFL. The last thing the Bills need is a “starter” at LB.

WR is a huge position of need. Gabe Davis is just not good enough to be considered a true #2 WR....not nearly good enough to take the pressure off Diggs.

Prioritizing a “starting LB” over a bona fide #2 WR would be dumb.

[Woodman]

We can't blow this draft period.

[Mr. Pink]

Where’s that money coming from given our other needs and cap situation?

Cutting McKenzie.

[Mr. Pink]

So now we're prioritizing slot WR over starting LB or SS? That's not a decision I'm comfortable with.

We should build like the Chiefs.

They ignore their D and just give Mahomes weapons year after year....and it's working out pretty well for them

[Novacane]

I think Shakir is ready to step into the slot role. I'd take Beasley back for vet min since he'll be backing up Shakir

[DraftBoy]

We already have one of the best starting tandems at LB in the NFL. The last thing the Bills need is a “starter” at LB.

WR is a huge position of need. Gabe Davis is just not good enough to be considered a true #2 WR....not nearly good enough to take the pressure off Diggs.

Prioritizing a “starting LB” over a bona fide #2 WR would be dumb.

No we don’t. Edmunds is a free agent, not our starter unless we re-sign him.

[kgun12]

Why not Shakir taking over Davis’s spot and Beasley stays in the slot?

[DraftBoy]

We should build like the Chiefs.

They ignore their D and just give Mahomes weapons year after year....and it's working out pretty well for them

Ignore their D? They drafted Chris Jones whose become one of the most dominant DL in the league and just the past year spent their top draft pick at CB and made their biggest free agent singing a safety.

[Ginger Vitis]

To say the chiefs ignore their D and give mahomes weapons year after year is wrong... since 2019 the chiefs have taken more defensive players with day 1 and 2 picks than they have offensive players.. Hill and Kelce were with chiefs before they drafted mahomes

[YardRat]

So now we're prioritizing slot WR over starting LB or SS? That's not a decision I'm comfortable with.

I wouldn't consider trading/cutting a depth WR to have assets to sign a vet-minimum slot receiver a "priority". It's basically a lateral for a bottom half roster spot.

LOL "priority".

[YardRat]

How much would we save?

I think $2.2 mil from getting rid of McKenzie. Vet minimum for Beasley = $1.165 million, so a net savings of $1.035.

[DraftBoy]

I wouldn't consider trading/cutting a depth WR to have assets to sign a vet-minimum slot receiver a "priority". It's basically a lateral for a bottom half roster spot.

LOL "priority".

Not given our cap situation. Cutting McKenzie to commit $2+ to Beasley is a big commitment given we already are going to be challenged to find enough money to adequately replace what we are going to be losing. Spending anything more than the vet minimum on Beasley is an unnecessary luxury at this point.

[YardRat]

Not given our cap situation. Cutting McKenzie to commit $2+ to Beasley is a big commitment given we already are going to be challenged to find enough money to adequately replace what we are going to be losing. Spending anything more than the vet minimum on Beasley is an unnecessary luxury at this point.

None of that screams "priority".

[DraftBoy]

None of that screams "priority".

Cool, so where are you willing to sacrifice to pay Beasley an extra million plus since it’s no big deal? Because cutting McKenzie and brining in Beasley for no cap savings helps you not one bit. So which other position are you cutting money from to bring him in?

[YardRat]

Cool, so where are you willing to sacrifice to pay Beasley an extra million plus since it’s no big deal? Because cutting McKenzie and brining in Beasley for no cap savings helps you not one bit. So which other position are you cutting money from to bring him in?

If you want to see the Beasley for McKenzie details see my response to Woodman.

If you want to see proposals for getting under the cap see the Roster Evaluation thread.

[Mace]

So now we're prioritizing slot WR over starting LB or SS? That's not a decision I'm comfortable with.

With their aversion to starting rookies though, what starting lb or ss can you see them drafting and plugging right in to their rigid scheme ? If there is one and we spend a pick on him in the first round, we're going to lose one of the best ol prospects we have a shot at at g or c.

FA addition will cost more than slot receiver.

[DraftBoy]

If you want to see the Beasley for McKenzie details see my response to Woodman.

If you want to see proposals for getting under the cap see the Roster Evaluation thread.

That’s not an answer. The proposal was to give Beasley $2M plus bonuses to get to $3. To do that you proposed cutting McKenzie which would result in almost no savings. Since McKenzie is one of the guys you’ve mentioned multiple time as being cut to save money the question is where else you’re willing to sacrifice since you’re now no longer going to see any savings from cutting McKenzie.

[DraftBoy]

With their aversion to starting rookies though, what starting lb or ss can you see them drafting and plugging right in to their rigid scheme ? If there is one and we spend a pick on him in the first round, we're going to lose one of the best ol prospects we have a shot at at g or c.

FA addition will cost more than slot receiver.

I don’t think you have one in this draft on a preliminary look. I’d be much more comfortable with a slot rookie WR that brings true cost savings with little production sacrifice.

[YardRat]

That’s not an answer. The proposal was to give Beasley $2M plus bonuses to get to $3. To do that you proposed cutting McKenzie which would result in almost no savings. Since McKenzie is one of the guys you’ve mentioned multiple time as being cut to save money the question is where else you’re willing to sacrifice since you’re now no longer going to see any savings from cutting McKenzie.

Well, if you want to speak to Pink's proposal only, $2.2 savings from McKenzie pays for Pink's $2mil salary to Beasley and the incentives...not necessarily bonuses...would have to be determined if they are LTBE or not before counting anything against a cap number.

So getting rid of McKenzie still pays for Beasley, there just isn't as much cap savings. So, it actually is an answer.