Alphadawg7 Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 That makes a ton of sense. I believe that the Saints will make a pretty aggressive play as well. In terms of the other early pick he most often gets compared to Olsen in that he is a complete TE. Most of those other guys were oversized receivers or in Pettigrew's case a blocker. Howard does both. I'm not advocating for him but he can certainly be a valuable asset in the running and passing game. Yeah, I get that...but again, his production should have been better then. I just don't want to invest the #10 pick into a guy who could have been better in college but has reasons to why he was not. Just like I don't want to use a guy who was productive but doesn't project well based on size or physical abilities. Give me the guy who not only has the ability/skill set to succeed in the NFL and also showed that dominance consistently in College. Then you add in we have bigger needs and players at those needs will be higher on the BPA list when we pick, and I just can't see any reason to take him at 10.
3rdand12 Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 at ten you better draft a player, not a maybe. Hear me Dougie ?! trade down and collect players and a fine draft pick for next season. just in case we are not drafting at ten again !!
Augie Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 at ten you better draft a player, not a maybe. Hear me Dougie ?! trade down and collect players and a fine draft pick for next season. just in case we are not drafting at ten again !! I like all that, except that every pick has some degree of "maybe" to it. I know you realize that, and I know what you're saying. It's just worth stating the obvious again.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) Yeah, I get that...but again, his production should have been better then. I just don't want to invest the #10 pick into a guy who could have been better in college but has reasons to why he was not. Just like I don't want to use a guy who was productive but doesn't project well based on size or physical abilities. Give me the guy who not only has the ability/skill set to succeed in the NFL and also showed that dominance consistently in College. Then you add in we have bigger needs and players at those needs will be higher on the BPA list when we pick, and I just can't see any reason to take him at 10. The production wasn't there because they didn't throw him the ball. He actually had a 78.8% catch rate. When they needed him (the 2 National Championship games) he was completely dominant. Edited January 29, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
Augie Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 You know what they say about the only guy who could keep Michael Jordan under 20 at UNC..... This may be a similar case. Time will tell. I wish I knew.
aristocrat Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 Yeah, I get that...but again, his production should have been better then. I just don't want to invest the #10 pick into a guy who could have been better in college but has reasons to why he was not. Just like I don't want to use a guy who was productive but doesn't project well based on size or physical abilities. Give me the guy who not only has the ability/skill set to succeed in the NFL and also showed that dominance consistently in College. Then you add in we have bigger needs and players at those needs will be higher on the BPA list when we pick, and I just can't see any reason to take him at 10. olsen didn't really have a lot of production in college. neither did gronk or graham. similar stats to howard. it's weird how they don't use tight ends more in college.
3rdand12 Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 I like all that, except that every pick has some degree of "maybe" to it. I know you realize that, and I know what you're saying. It's just worth stating the obvious again. It is worth stating, again. I suppose that is part of the fun to our infatuation with the "game"
Augie Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 It is worth stating, again. I suppose that is part of the fun to our infatuation with the "game" If you get it right more than the other guys, and have a competent coach, you live drought free! Sounds easy, right? There's your answer. You're welcome!
3rdand12 Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 If you get it right more than the other guys, and have a competent coach, you live drought free! Sounds easy, right? There's your answer. You're welcome! a veritable Sage are you My Friend ! I have been considering a life Coach btw.
Alphadawg7 Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) olsen didn't really have a lot of production in college. neither did gronk or graham. similar stats to howard. it's weird how they don't use tight ends more in college. Yeah, I see what you're saying. Its probably why Gronk nor Graham were first round picks either. When you look at the best TE's in football over the last decade, how many were drafted in the first round? And how many TE's drafted in the first round lived up to that draft expectation? For what ever reason the best TE's in football have been found more often outside the first round and even as low round picks or UDFA's. As you said, for whatever reason the TE position in college isnt featured as much, so probably why value can be found all over the place in the draft at TE. If you are going to use the #10 pick on a TE then you better really need one and that TE better jump off the charts as a can't miss guy. Im not saying the kid can't play, he is obviously a very intriguing prospect, so this is not a slight on him and if we really needed a TE I would definitely be more open to him at 10 like I was about Ebron and Eifert when they came out. But at #10 there will be an Elite prospect with both the skills that project well and college production to show for it at positions that are way higher on our needs list. So I don't know why the Bills would take him over them. If the kid was there in 2nd, sure...I don't have an issue with it even though we still need help else where more. But if he was BPA, I wouldn't complain. But this thread was about using the #10 pick. OJ is not a better prospect than either Davis or Williams IMO, nor is he a better prospect than either of the top safeties nor some of the corners. Some of those players will be there at 10...so if is not BPA and is not a position of need, what justification do we have of taking a TE at #10 over those guys? Edited January 30, 2017 by Alphadawg7
H2o Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Relying on Kujo is just not where I'm at with him. IMO he is the definition of depth. I can't believe you just said if Glenn would agree we'd have bookends at tackle unlike we've seen in decades because of Kujo at LT. Did you see him play LT this year? He was better than average. He actually did a good job holding down the blindside. And yes, I did say we would have bookend OT's like we haven't had in years. Name the last set we did have if I'm that far off base my friend.
3rdand12 Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Did you see him play LT this year? He was better than average. He actually did a good job holding down the blindside. And yes, I did say we would have bookend OT's like we haven't had in years. Name the last set we did have if I'm that far off base my friend. Cyrus did put up some good tape for sure
aristocrat Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Yeah and neither Gronk nor Graham were first round picks either because of it. Think about it for a second...when you look at the best TE's in football over the last decade, how many were drafted in the first round? And how many TE's drafted in the first round lived up to that draft expectation? The point is, the best TE's in football have been found more often outside the first round and even as low round picks or UDFA's. As you said, for whatever reason the TE position in college isnt featured as much, so value can be found all over the place in the draft at TE. If you are going to use the #10 pick on a TE then you better really need one and that TE better jump off the charts as a can't miss guy. I just personally don't like players that high in a draft who require an explanation, even if its a valid one, especially at a position that isnt a top need. There is just too much talent typically in the top 10. Im not saying the kid can't play, he is obviously a very intriguing prospect, so this is not a sight on him...but my point was simply that at #10 there will be an Elite prospect with both the skills that project well and college production to show for it at positions that are way higher on our needs list. Why should the Bills pass on a Elite prospect at a position we desperately need help at who checks both boxes to take a TE who needs an explanation to validate why his resume doesn't match his skill set? If the kid was there in 2nd, sure...I don't have an issue with it even though we still need help else where more. But if he was BPA, I wouldn't complain. But this thread was about using the #10 pick. OJ is not a better prospect than either Davis or Williams IMO, nor is he a better prospect than either of the top safeties nor some of the corners. Some of those players will be there at 10...so if is not BPA and is not a position of need, what justification do we have of taking a TE at #10 over those guys? I agree no way taking him at 10. if we're talking moving back from 10 to say 18 and taking him i would be ok. Since olsen i don't think there has been a worthy 1st rounder taken in the draft. it's such a weird position.
Alphadawg7 Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 I agree no way taking him at 10. if we're talking moving back from 10 to say 18 and taking him i would be ok. Since olsen i don't think there has been a worthy 1st rounder taken in the draft. it's such a weird position. Yeah, you are totally right, it really is a weird position in college that isnt utilized like the top TE's in the NFL are very often. The 3 names that come to mind as high level prospects going into a draft as sure first rounders were Pettigrew, then Ebron, followed by Eifert. In fairness, Gronk probably goes in the first if not for the injury concerns coming out.
3rdand12 Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Yeah, you are totally right, it really is a weird position in college that isnt utilized like the top TE's in the NFL are very often. The 3 names that come to mind as high level prospects going into a draft as sure first rounders were Pettigrew, then Ebron, followed by Eifert. In fairness, Gronk probably goes in the first if not for the injury concerns coming out. Rather find one in the dumpster then draft one in the first. unless Bills were able to move up in the first for 2018 and grab another 4th rounder 2017. Who do we have left at TE anyways. I do like O'Leary quite a bit honestly. Would not mind seeing another Big Body available for red zone threat and more perhaps ?
1billsfan Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) This guy ranks David Njoku / Miami as the top TE... http://gbnreport.com/top-5-prospects-position/ Just watched tape and he does look faster and more athletic than Howard. Lot of great prospects in this draft. If I'm the Bills, I feel very comfortable trading back for more picks. Edited January 30, 2017 by 1billsfan
Recommended Posts