BuffaloBillsForever Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 Back to debating semantics I see...cool. I gather from your position in this thread that the players actually don't matter at all. A team is simply a construct; ambiguous and unidentifiable. We can remove Tom Brady from the Patriots and Jamaal Charles from the Chiefs and the teams stay exactly the same. Those guys don't matter--only the logo on the helmet does the winning and losing. That's not my position at all. My position is that I don't put a premium on the WR position (reaching in the draft, trading up, top 10).
FireChan Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I'd be willing to bet that just about every GM in the NFL would've taken Sammy over ODB if they had the 4th pick.
CountDorkula Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I'd be willing to bet that just about every GM in the NFL would've taken Sammy over ODB if they had the 4th pick. Not true, They all knew the ODBJ was going to be a beast, just like many here. Buffalo is stupid and everyone else is great.
FireChan Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 That's not my position at all. My position is that I don't put a premium on the WR position (reaching in the draft, trading up, top 10). So, what position do you take in the top ten? Are you the same guy who said teams who take WR's in the top ten don't win Superbowls, then we listed every other position taken in the top ten in the last 7 years, and there was barely any Superbowls?
YoloinOhio Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I'd be willing to bet that just about every GM in the NFL would've taken Sammy over ODB if they had the 4th pick. No. question. I think the issue is the trade. And everyone has their own opinion on whether THAT was worth it, or if they should have gone with the slightly lesser (but still good) talent and then taken someone in the 1st next year.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 So, what position do you take in the top ten? Are you the same guy who said teams who take WR's in the top ten don't win Superbowls, then we listed every other position taken in the top ten in the last 7 years, and there was barely any Superbowls? I mentioned this before in another watkins thread. QB, o-line. Top two priorities. Then defensive (LB, NT, DE)
Dopey Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 It is now clear that accurately predicting the future can still lead to questionable opinions.
YoloinOhio Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I mentioned this before in another watkins thread. QB, o-line. Top two priorities. Then defensive (LB, NT, DE) I think they can buy (and get more immediate contribution) from a premier OL in FA. If they do decide to take a QB, they can take one in the 2nd. I think DE is an area to draft as well, I'd take one in the draft. I'm not convinced LB or NT is a priority early. I'd sign a TE in FA. There are several very good ones (there is no way the Browns sign Cameron to a big deal with his injury history and he doesn't want to be there anyway) and you are likely to get better production with a vet than a rookie at that spot.
BillsVet Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I don't understand why second-guessing Buffalo's front office is automatically wrong to some. It's not like this current personnel group (with many of the same characters since the late nineties) has proven anything beyond being able to go 6-10. Watkins vs. Beckham Jr. is going to be a continuing debate whether people like it or not as both of their (and others) careers unfold.
peterpan Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I bet if anyone goes over to the giants board they are all saying how their guy is the best and they are glad they didn't trade upto get Watkins blah blah blah. It's all a bunch I homerizm.
Boatdrinks Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 No. question. I think the issue is the trade. And everyone has their own opinion on whether THAT was worth it, or if they should have gone with the slightly lesser (but still good) talent and then taken someone in the 1st next year. No, Sammy will never be worth it( or any other player except an elite QB) Unless he's the next Rice. But the Bills got an excellent player. How many firsts have we used ( in the draft) the past , say 14 years? Have any of those players gotten us to the playoffs? Don't overvalue 1 st rounders. The Watkins trade will not stop us from making the playoffs in 2015.
Dopey Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 it's now clear we should taken Tom Brady in the 6th round instead of Leif Larson...Just Saying...
YoloinOhio Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 No, Sammy will never be worth it( or any other player except an elite QB) Unless he's the next Rice. But the Bills got an excellent player. How many firsts have we used ( in the draft) the past , say 14 years? Have any of those players gotten us to the playoffs? Don't overvalue 1 st rounders. The Watkins trade will not stop us from making the playoffs in 2015. get outta my brain! That's how I see it as well. But it is a lightning rod situation and yes, it will be overblown forever.
peterpan Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I'd be willing to bet that just about every GM in the NFL would've taken Sammy over ODB if they had the 4th pick. Fwiw--- I read an article that anonymously quoted an NFC GM who said they they thought the best two WRs in this class were both playing at LSU (meaning Beckem and Landry)
CountDorkula Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I mentioned this before in another watkins thread. QB, o-line. Top two priorities. Then defensive (LB, NT, DE) So D-line was a top priority for you. So the strongest part of the football team is the part you would have targeted in the draft?
Wayne Cubed Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I mentioned this before in another watkins thread. QB, o-line. Top two priorities. Then defensive (LB, NT, DE) Yea because picking OL in the top 10 has yielded tons of Super Bowls. In the past 15 years at total of 1 OL picked in the top 10 has contributed to a Super Bowl and only 1 team that picked an OL in the top 10 has even been to the Super Bowl.
peterpan Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 Yea because picking OL in the top 10 has yielded tons of Super Bowls. In the past 15 years at total of 1 OL picked in the top 10 has contributed to a Super Bowl and only 1 team that picked an OL in the top 10 has even been to the Super Bowl. And how many drafted wrs? How many traded up for a WR?
YoloinOhio Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 Yea because picking OL in the top 10 has yielded tons of Super Bowls. In the past 15 years at total of 1 OL picked in the top 10 has contributed to a Super Bowl and only 1 team that picked an OL in the top 10 has even been to the Super Bowl. Yes and we don't need a OT. We need a OG. Cut Pears, sign a G better than CW in FA and move on.
CountDorkula Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 Fwiw--- I read an article that anonymously quoted an NFC GM who said they they thought the best two WRs in this class were both playing at LSU (meaning Beckem and Landry) Im gona say that GM is the Giants GM.
Wayne Cubed Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 And how many drafted wrs? How many traded up for a WR? That's not the point of this exercise. The point which was proven in another thread, regardless of which position is picked very few teams picking in the top 10 have yielded Super Bowls over the past 15 years.
Recommended Posts