Coach Tuesday Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 The Redskins now have what, 1 pick in the top 100? They'll be dying to slide down a few spots if they can add a pick or two. And we're in desperate need of an elite LT. Okung should be available at 4, but he'll be long gone by 9. Peter King opines that both Okung and Bulaga will go in the top 5, and I'm of the view that Trent Williams will be gone by 8. I know, I know, this front office values draft picks too much, and we never trade up in Round 1. Ever. But we need to at least try to make this happen. The question is, can we move up from 9 to 4 without losing our second round pick? Perhaps, but it may involve sending a player or two in the process... which I'm fine with, if it means we get a blue chip player. I am just terrified that Nix & Co. will sit tight at the 9 spot and be stuck with a choice of Anthony Davis or a non-need position. Thoughts?
Beerball Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 The Redskins now have what, 1 pick in the top 100? They'll be dying to slide down a few spots if they can add a pick or two. And we're in desperate need of an elite LT. Okung should be available at 4, but he'll be long gone by 9. Peter King opines that both Okung and Bulaga will go in the top 5, and I'm of the view that Trent Williams will be gone by 8. I know, I know, this front office values draft picks too much, and we never trade up in Round 1. Ever. But we need to at least try to make this happen. The question is, can we move up from 9 to 4 without losing our second round pick? Perhaps, but it may involve sending a player or two in the process... which I'm fine with, if it means we get a blue chip player. I am just terrified that Nix & Co. will sit tight at the 9 spot and be stuck with a choice of Anthony Davis or a non-need position. Thoughts? King mentions today that the #2 pick might be available. Why stop at 4, move on up to #2 and draft the monster NT this defense needs.
damj Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 The Redskins now have what, 1 pick in the top 100? They'll be dying to slide down a few spots if they can add a pick or two. And we're in desperate need of an elite LT. Okung should be available at 4, but he'll be long gone by 9. Peter King opines that both Okung and Bulaga will go in the top 5, and I'm of the view that Trent Williams will be gone by 8. I know, I know, this front office values draft picks too much, and we never trade up in Round 1. Ever. But we need to at least try to make this happen. The question is, can we move up from 9 to 4 without losing our second round pick? Perhaps, but it may involve sending a player or two in the process... which I'm fine with, if it means we get a blue chip player. I am just terrified that Nix & Co. will sit tight at the 9 spot and be stuck with a choice of Anthony Davis or a non-need position. Thoughts? Nice idea, but it would cost a 2nd rounder to move up. We need quantity as well as quality.
Cotton Fitzsimmons Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 Nice idea, but it would cost a 2nd rounder to move up. We need quantity as well as quality. I agree, but if it meant getting Suh, I'm okay with that. Other positions would suffer... and it wouldn't be ideal for our O-line, but I really think Suh is worth it. He's the type of player that can single handedly change what the opposition is allowed to do. We haven't had a player like that in a very long time, and it would go a long way in helping us become a force again.
PaattMaann Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 I agree, but if it meant getting Suh, I'm okay with that. Other positions would suffer... and it wouldn't be ideal for our O-line, but I really think Suh is worth it. He's the type of player that can single handedly change what the opposition is allowed to do. We haven't had a player like that in a very long time, and it would go a long way in helping us become a force again. ummmm...neither Mccoy or Suh are NT people, they are DT people, square peg into a round hole
KOKBILLS Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 I agree, but if it meant getting Suh, I'm okay with that. Other positions would suffer... and it wouldn't be ideal for our O-line, but I really think Suh is worth it. He's the type of player that can single handedly change what the opposition is allowed to do. We haven't had a player like that in a very long time, and it would go a long way in helping us become a force again. I like Suh a lot...But taking the RIGHT 2 prospects at #9 and #41 Overall will always be better that just one guy who may or may not be a great Player... The Bills simply need to start Drafting well...I know that's an understatement, but Trading away Premium Draft Picks, Picks that can bring you 10 year Starters if you just Pick the right guy, is NOT the way to build a Championship Team...Especially when your basically building from scratch...
damj Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 I agree, but if it meant getting Suh, I'm okay with that. Other positions would suffer... and it wouldn't be ideal for our O-line, but I really think Suh is worth it. He's the type of player that can single handedly change what the opposition is allowed to do. We haven't had a player like that in a very long time, and it would go a long way in helping us become a force again. Probably couldn't get McCoy or Suh at 4 ... so we would have to get to #2 or 3 ... most likely 2 since Det wants out of that spot. Now we're probably talking this year's #2 and a #2 next year.
1B4IDie Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 The Redskins now have what, 1 pick in the top 100? They'll be dying to slide down a few spots if they can add a pick or two. And we're in desperate need of an elite LT. Okung should be available at 4, but he'll be long gone by 9. Peter King opines that both Okung and Bulaga will go in the top 5, and I'm of the view that Trent Williams will be gone by 8. I know, I know, this front office values draft picks too much, and we never trade up in Round 1. Ever. But we need to at least try to make this happen. The question is, can we move up from 9 to 4 without losing our second round pick? Perhaps, but it may involve sending a player or two in the process... which I'm fine with, if it means we get a blue chip player. I am just terrified that Nix & Co. will sit tight at the 9 spot and be stuck with a choice of Anthony Davis or a non-need position. Thoughts? 1.) You can't use the Bills' past draft history as an indicator of future history, its a new administration. 2.)The Deadskins have a huge need at LT, why would they possibly trade out of getting the Blue Chip Tackle in the draft? Makes 0 sense for the Deadskins. 3.) What position is "non-need" for the Bills? Punter. The truth is Beluga and obviously Okung is exactly what the Bills need but it would take a whole lot to move up the 6 spots to get him. No one wants Lynch. We have no other players of any real value to trade, so we would need to trade a whole hell of alot of picks to get up to #2,3,5. Its not likely. Just hope that CJ. Spillers is there at 9 and someone is willing to trade up for him. If not then its most likely going to be someone like Branden Graham or Derrick Morgan at 1.09 With Rodger Safford, LT Indiana at 2.09
Gabe Northern Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 I am just terrified that Nix & Co. will sit tight at the 9 spot and be stuck with a choice of Anthony Davis or a non-need position. Thoughts? Not sure what roster you're looking at to think there are so many "non-need" positions. Beyond LT I see NT, WR, C, RT, ILB, and OLB (not seeing Kelsay fitting in rushing off the edge of dropping in coverage). If the run on OTs happens, you either take McClain (best available) or hope Clausen is still there and trade down to an organization high on him. We need LOTS of help. If Nix is the talent evaluator we think/hope he is, we need those picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds more than the move up to 4 overall.
Mr. WEO Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 I like Suh a lot...But taking the RIGHT 2 prospects at #9 and #41 Overall will always be better that just one guy who may or may not be a great Player... The Bills simply need to start Drafting well...I know that's an understatement, but Trading away Premium Draft Picks, Picks that can bring you 10 year Starters if you just Pick the right guy, is NOT the way to build a Championship Team...Especially when your basically building from scratch... Who is more likely to be a 10 year starter, Suh or the Bills #41 pick?
Trader Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 1.) You can't use the Bills' past draft history as an indicator of future history, its a new administration. 2.)The Deadskins have a huge need at LT, why would they possibly trade out of getting the Blue Chip Tackle in the draft? Makes 0 sense for the Deadskins. 3.) What position is "non-need" for the Bills? Punter. The truth is Beluga and obviously Okung is exactly what the Bills need but it would take a whole lot to move up the 6 spots to get him. No one wants Lynch. We have no other players of any real value to trade, so we would need to trade a whole hell of alot of picks to get up to #2,3,5. Its not likely. Just hope that CJ. Spillers is there at 9 and someone is willing to trade up for him. If not then its most likely going to be someone like Branden Graham or Derrick Morgan at 1.09 With Rodger Safford, LT Indiana at 2.09 The McNabb trade leaves Bulaga to the Redskins and they will take him there.
apuszczalowski Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 you do realise that the Redskins also need a LT to protect McNabb now too
Coach Tuesday Posted April 5, 2010 Author Posted April 5, 2010 you do realise that the Redskins also need a LT to protect McNabb now too Yes I do. And I think they'd be happy with Anthony Davis if it means picking up an extra draft pick or two.
Gabe Northern Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 3.) What position is "non-need" for the Bills? Punter. With Rodger Safford, LT Indiana at 2.09 Exactly (although, in fairness our secondary looks set after all of the investments made there during the old regime). Gotta trade down when you have this many holes.
ChanOverChin Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 The Bills are not going to trade up from #9 overall. They can't afford to. If anything, they need to to trade to acquire MORE picks within the first four round. Washington has two R1 picks this year so I don't think they need picks. They could trade down with one of their R1 picks to acquire the R2 pick that they traded for McNabb.
Coach Tuesday Posted April 5, 2010 Author Posted April 5, 2010 I don't think you trade up PERIOD in what is going to be the deepest draft the NFL has seen in years. Especially when the Bills have so many holes. Trading up into the top 5 (when you are already in the top 10) is one of the riskiest moves a team can make and it rarely pays off the dividends one expects. I would much rather have the Bills take the best player available at their positions of need at 9 and then trade back into the late 1st round if they really need to. We need to seriously get off this mentality that the Bills 100% NEED to draft a certain position w/ their first pick. It is a **** mentality that has handicapped the organization for the past 10 years. Draft the best player available instead of reaching to solve one of our many positions of need. Anthony Davis and Campbell are not Buddy Nix type players. If he ends up drafting one, I will have a lot of faith in the pick mainly bc Nix is very tentative about drafting players with short-term collegiate success. So if either of those two players (both athletic specimens who are very raw) get drafted, I will have faith in the pick. But please get rid of this idea that we NEED Bulaga or Okung. If we ever traded up into the 1st round it better be for Sam Bradford. And we all know he is going #1. Ordinarily, I would agree with you. But I'll say this: if this regime does not emerge from this offseason with a starting-caliber left tackle, there will be folks out of jobs very soon. Mark it down.
purple haze Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 The Redskins now have what, 1 pick in the top 100? They'll be dying to slide down a few spots if they can add a pick or two. And we're in desperate need of an elite LT. Okung should be available at 4, but he'll be long gone by 9. Peter King opines that both Okung and Bulaga will go in the top 5, and I'm of the view that Trent Williams will be gone by 8. I know, I know, this front office values draft picks too much, and we never trade up in Round 1. Ever. But we need to at least try to make this happen. The question is, can we move up from 9 to 4 without losing our second round pick? Perhaps, but it may involve sending a player or two in the process... which I'm fine with, if it means we get a blue chip player. I am just terrified that Nix & Co. will sit tight at the 9 spot and be stuck with a choice of Anthony Davis or a non-need position. Thoughts? No. If you trade up to #2 you take that LT. Bigger value and impact position for the money.
please stop the pain Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 1.) You can't use the Bills' past draft history as an indicator of future history, its a new administration. With Rodger Safford, LT Indiana at 2.09 God I really hate to say this, but it looks like Dick J had an outstanding draft last year (yes of course if we ignore 1st round)
purple haze Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 Exactly (although, in fairness our secondary looks set after all of the investments made there during the old regime). Gotta trade down when you have this many holes. Agreed. That's IF the opportunity presents itself. Depends on how the top of the draft goes. Who is there at 9 someone wants badly enough and believes Jacksonville, Denver or Miami would take before them?
VanCity Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 Who is more likely to be a 10 year starter, Suh or the Bills #41 pick? Actually, statistically speaking, there is no sure thing. The odds are pretty much dead even. Suh is a beast, but that 2nd rounder could end up as a ten-year starter as well. Having a first-rounder that has a long career to go along with that 2nd rounder is definitely a Bills need at this point. Though we were able to sign some strong FA's in the "glory years" our drafts were also extremely solid. Although, you might use a Bruce/Suh comparison to counter my argument, I think the majority of this board knows that we need quality and quantity in our current state.
Recommended Posts