BRAWNDO Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 Considering all the holes on this roster the BPA will probably fill a need.
Dr. Trooth Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) BPA is not carved in stone. Not every team will have the same player ranked at #8. And as the draft moves on, that bpa gets even more coudy. For the sake of arguement, lets say the bpa at #8 was a rb. The Bills have two quite capable backs but no qb to steer the ship. Bills select the rb... now you've got 3 capable ba ks, only one tradeable, and no qb. The Bills could trade spiller for a lower #1 pick and perhaps a #2 during the draft, but there is no guarantee that the Bills would get their guy at qb and have to settlle for their second or third choice. Then, there's no guarantee the rb selected at #8 is gonna be better than what you just traded away. I'm sure the eagles thought Mamula was the bpa, the bills mike williams, whitner, and maybin the bpa. But how did that work out? This year the bills gotta go qb unless their guy is gone at #8. They dug their hole when they cut fitz without having a suitable replacement. Bpa is in the eye of the beholder and unless he's a consensus once in a generation guy, you take the best on your board at your position of need. Edited March 23, 2013 by Dr. Trooth
H2o Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 BPA 80% of the time. For the sake of arguement, lets say the bpa at #8 was a rb. The Bills have two quite capable backs but no qb to steer the ship. Bills select the rb... now you've got 3 capable ba ks, only one tradeable, and no qb. The Bills could trade spiller for a lower #1 pick and perhaps a #2 during the draft, but there is no guarantee that the Bills would get their guy at qb and have to settlle for their second or thirdchoice Could you imagine the outrage that would consume the board if we drafted a RB @ #8, assuming there was one worthy of the selection, and traded Spiller after doing it? There would be a riot that would rival the one in Los Angeles in 1992.
NFLBighits Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) BPA is not carved in stone. Not every team will have the same player ranked at #8. And as the draft moves on, that bpa gets even more coudy. For the sake of arguement, lets say the bpa at #8 was a rb. The Bills have two quite capable backs but no qb to steer the ship. Bills select the rb... now you've got 3 capable ba ks, only one tradeable, and no qb. The Bills could trade spiller for a lower #1 pick and perhaps a #2 during the draft, but there is no guarantee that the Bills would get their guy at qb and have to settlle for their second or third choice. Then, there's no guarantee the rb selected at #8 is gonna be better than what you just traded away. I'm sure the eagles thought Mamula was the bpa, the bills mike williams, whitner, and maybin the bpa. But how did that work out? This year the bills gotta go qb unless their guy is gone at #8. They dug their hole when they cut fitz without having a suitable replacement. Bpa is in the eye of the beholder and unless he's a consensus once in a generation guy, you take the best on your board at your position of need. Well you would trade down and we should've many times by now as you know it's hard to trade down in the NFL . Edited March 23, 2013 by NFLBighits
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 Could you imagine the outrage that would consume the board if we drafted a RB @ #8, assuming there was one worthy of the selection, and traded Spiller after doing it? There would be a riot that would rival the one in Los Angeles in 1992. I worry about Bill if they draft a RB or CB. On the other hand, they are just about due to draft Spiller's replacement. A serious answer to the original question is that the Bills need to hit on several picks. They have to add dominant players to their roster. They are just treading water (or worse) to pick up 1 average starter a draft. And, treading water will get the whole thing blown up for another rebuild in a few years like clockwork.
machine gun kelly Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 Since we keep reaching on need over the last decade, what do you think?
NFLBighits Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 I'd say let the fans majority vote then take that guy : )
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 I'm a firm believer in BPA unless you have a huge hole at QB, like the Bills do, then I think you make the exception. That is what results in guys like losman, Cade mcnown, akili smith and others getting drafted.
machine gun kelly Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 Well said JR. BPAand stop trying to fix the problems in two years. You can't short change success. Gice the right people time and we will win.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 Could you imagine the outrage that would consume the board if we drafted a RB @ #8, assuming there was one worthy of the selection, and traded Spiller after doing it? There would be a riot that would rival the one in Los Angeles in 1992. Wouldn't that be something if the name of the running back the Bills drafted was Rodney King?
Bufcomments Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 I say get your QB at 8 because there is a strong chance he will not be there in the 2 rd. This team needs a QB. Badly. Take the guy you like the most and hope you are right. That way we don't have to give up a draft pick( 4th rounder ) to move back into the first. BPA does not apply when you need a starting QB.
Fan in San Diego Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 Don't worry Buddy will draft a RB or a CB in the #8 spot.
KeisterHollow Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 It's funny when I listen to people talking about how bad the QB class is this year, all I keep thinking about is how TERRIBLE Fitz was the last almost 2 years! I mean, had we had a DECENT QB last year, we might have been 9-7. Fitz's limitations had to do with arm strength - he didn't have a strong enough arm to throw an accurate pass more than 15 yards on even a remotely regular basis. We all would love to get a perennial pro-bowl QB - BUT, our offense is going to look SO much better even with a slightly above average QB. Sure, Fitz had qualities that were excellent - his ability to read defenses and make quick decisions. However, his weaknesses became team weaknesses, at least offensively. If we get a QB like Manuel, Glennon, Bray, Jones, or any of them with a good arm - we'll be okay. That's why I'm not against us taking a QB at 8, or trading down, or waiting until the second round. I think we'll all be happy to see any QB with a decent arm, and it will dawn on us just how limiting Fitz was.
K-9 Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 These kind of statements crack me up. How do people "know" this? Exactly when are team's boards released to the general public? I can't speak for anyone else in the forum, but my opinion is based on direct conversations with two BLESTO scouts, 1 National Services scout, and a personnel director for an NFL team. Their consensus was that Dareus was the 3rd best player in the draft just ahead of Green by mere percentage points in their rankings. That consensus, particularly in the case of BLESTO, is important as those opinions are disseminated to all member teams. Is it possible that each team in turn further refined their rankings? Of course. That goes without saying. But these opinions were so strong that I personally find it doubtful there was much disagreement with those rankings across the board. From what I've seen this off season, the top three are all OLmen, BTW. GO BILLS!!!
OldTimer1960 Posted March 24, 2013 Posted March 24, 2013 It's funny when I listen to people talking about how bad the QB class is this year, all I keep thinking about is how TERRIBLE Fitz was the last almost 2 years! I mean, had we had a DECENT QB last year, we might have been 9-7. Fitz's limitations had to do with arm strength - he didn't have a strong enough arm to throw an accurate pass more than 15 yards on even a remotely regular basis. We all would love to get a perennial pro-bowl QB - BUT, our offense is going to look SO much better even with a slightly above average QB. Sure, Fitz had qualities that were excellent - his ability to read defenses and make quick decisions. However, his weaknesses became team weaknesses, at least offensively. If we get a QB like Manuel, Glennon, Bray, Jones, or any of them with a good arm - we'll be okay. That's why I'm not against us taking a QB at 8, or trading down, or waiting until the second round. I think we'll all be happy to see any QB with a decent arm, and it will dawn on us just how limiting Fitz was. A good arm without the other qualities that Fitz has could be much worse than what Fitz produced. There is a long history of QBs with very strong arms who have had worse careers than Fitz. It is hard to find a good complete QB that can be a good NFL starter - it isn't as simple as just finding someone with a stronger arm.
Orton's Arm Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 A good arm without the other qualities that Fitz has could be much worse than what Fitz produced. There is a long history of QBs with very strong arms who have had worse careers than Fitz. It is hard to find a good complete QB that can be a good NFL starter - it isn't as simple as just finding someone with a stronger arm. An excellent point. The two things I consider most important in a QB are accuracy and decision-making. Fitz had one of those things. His lack of arm strength further limited him. Yeah, the Bills need a QB who's less limited by arm strength than Fitz. More importantly, they need someone who's much more accurate at throwing the football.
Coach Tuesday Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 I can't speak for anyone else in the forum, but my opinion is based on direct conversations with two BLESTO scouts, 1 National Services scout, and a personnel director for an NFL team. Their consensus was that Dareus was the 3rd best player in the draft just ahead of Green by mere percentage points in their rankings. That consensus, particularly in the case of BLESTO, is important as those opinions are disseminated to all member teams. Is it possible that each team in turn further refined their rankings? Of course. That goes without saying. But these opinions were so strong that I personally find it doubtful there was much disagreement with those rankings across the board. From what I've seen this off season, the top three are all OLmen, BTW. GO BILLS!!! Um... http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/blog/rob-rang/19156280/tom-modrak-hired-as-blesto-scouting-director
Buffaloed in Pa Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 I say get your QB at 8 because there is a strong chance he will not be there in the 2 rd. This team needs a QB. Badly. Take the guy you like the most and hope you are right. That way we don't have to give up a draft pick( 4th rounder ) to move back into the first. BPA does not apply when you need a starting QB. I agree. I say take 2. then 3 linebackers 1 receiver. free agent the rest .not every player will make the team anyway. I remember the steelers drafting 4 linebackers one year.
Section242 Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Glenn Dorsey, Aaron Curry, and Robert Gallery at one time were considered BPA and safe picks. The Bills can keep draft BPA and if they don't get an above-average starting QB they'll continue to be terrible.
K-9 Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Um... http://www.cbssports...outing-director Um what? Between National and BLESTO, 26 teams are privy to the same scouting reports. It's a very small community and information is freely shared within it. The guys I talk to have neen knocking around the game since the mid-70s and that free flow of information hasn't changed. Even among non-member teams and their regional scouts. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts