BADOLBILZ Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 The thing is, if we draft Davis, it somewhat lessons the need to keep Moulds and the 5 million could go to signing some linemen and a solid #3 WR. I do think we could get by with a WR set of Evans, a guy like Finneran, Parrish, and perhaps resign Josh. Throwing Everett and Davis in as double TEs and then splitting them wide could cause some trouble for defenses, and keep some extra CBs from being on the field. And while they may not be the best blockers right now, they're better than WR blockers. Plus, we're probably not going to the SB next year, so we will lose something but gain a lot for the future. 612777[/snapback] Great point about Moulds. I completely agree that the Bills can get by with Evans, Parrish and a journeyman at WR if they had a real threat at TE. In fact a TE as the #2 option would help Evans more than Moulds could by making the safeties respect the deep post and opening up a window on the deep sideline. TE is also a quick-results position to draft. If the Bills don't get Davis, I am hoping they can get Joe Klopfenstein with the Titans pick in round 3. I'm not a Kevin Everett fan, but I'm a Canes fan, so............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 If Marv is thinking about reimplementing the no-huddle, which he has hinted at, Vernon Davis makes good sense. Davis is a guy who can be deadly in the passing game and effective in the run game. The D would not be able to focus on the run nor the pass. They'd have to play the Bills straight up with a basic package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 The thing is, if we draft Davis, it somewhat lessons the need to keep Moulds and the 5 million could go to signing some linemen and a solid #3 WR. I do think we could get by with a WR set of Evans, a guy like Finneran, Parrish, and perhaps resign Josh. Throwing Everett and Davis in as double TEs and then splitting them wide could cause some trouble for defenses, and keep some extra CBs from being on the field. And while they may not be the best blockers right now, they're better than WR blockers. Plus, we're probably not going to the SB next year, so we will lose something but gain a lot for the future. 612777[/snapback] I'm with Kelly. All this talk about drafting starting lineman high is getting a little scary. Sure, get some - but would an experienced FA or 2 gell as OL starters faster than a couple rooks right out of college? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Ranchod Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Who we draft will depend heavily on who gets signed. Unless DaBrick falls to 8, we aren't picking an O-Lineman anyway. On the D-Line, I'd only consider Williams or Ngata worth selecting there. Davis rounds out the 4 guys I want and that the team needs. (edit: long-term, Huff makes a lot of sense here, too) There are numerous advantages to drafting a dynamic TE like Davis. For one, there's offsetting the Moulds loss and the decreased necessity to pass out of 3 WR/4 WR sets. Also, as with Crumpler, Shockey, and Gates, having a go-to TE who you can always count on to dump the ball off to does wonders for an up-and-coming QB. Combine that with a genuine deep threat receiver and a high-end RB and you've given your QB enough weapons to succeed (granted, of course, he has to have more than 1.7 seconds to make a decision on where he wants to go with the ball). If JP can't succeed with Evans, Davis and McGahee and a revamped, albeit not dominant by any means, OL, than I think we'll be a lot closer to having our answer on whether or not he's got what it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LevysEraII Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Take a look at all of the teams that went to the Super Bowl lately. NE(Graham), PHI(Lewis), CAR(Wiggins), PIT(Miller), SEA(Stevens), ST.L(Cleeland), TEN(Wycheck), DEN(Sharpe), Balt(Sharpe), DAL(Novacek) and SF(Jones). All of these teams had good to great TE's. To me, the selection of Vernon Davis is a no-brainer. You take him, especially if you lose EM. The only way you don't take him is if Mario Williams or D'Brick are still available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Here is the report from Scouts...Strengths: A dynamic athlete. Has rare speed......... Weaknesses: Possesses below average... speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 The thing is, if we draft Davis, it somewhat lessons the need to keep Moulds and the 5 million could go to signing some linemen and a solid #3 WR. I do think we could get by with a WR set of Evans, a guy like Finneran, Parrish, and perhaps resign Josh. Throwing Everett and Davis in as double TEs and then splitting them wide could cause some trouble for defenses, and keep some extra CBs from being on the field. And while they may not be the best blockers right now, they're better than WR blockers. Plus, we're probably not going to the SB next year, so we will lose something but gain a lot for the future. 612777[/snapback] Let me start by saying that I'd be happy drafting Vernon Davis. I'm a firm believer that you need difference-makers, and Davis is a difference-maker. I think that the Bills have ended up with a great year to be sitting at #8, what with three QB's likely to go ahead of us, at least 1 RB, and maybe 2, and then leaving some exciting potential prospects like Mario Williams, Haloti Ngata, D'brickshaw Ferguson, and Vernon Davis to chose frame. Heck, I wouldn't sneer at a Tamba Hali or Winston Justice at #8. The danger, of course, is that at least 25% of that above group will not pan out - the job of Marv Levy is to figure out which of the above are in that group, and to not draft one of them.... Anyhow, the problem with your scenario is that the Eric Moulds decision probably has to come well before the draft. If we still have Eric Moulds on draft day, and *then* draft Vernon Davis, then the cap savings from cutting Moulds probably don't amount to much. And I don't think we can gamble on Davis being there at #8 at this point. While I do hope that the Bills addres the offensive line in free agency, and with at least one 1st Day draft pick - I don't know why you think cutting Moulds will free up money to sign a solid #3 WR. As I see it, the Bills fully intend to use Parrish as a #3 WR. If the Bills cut Moulds they need to sign a solid *starting* WR - and the mere fact that a bidding war is about to erupt over Antwaan Randle-El is probably all the evidence we need about how thin a crop of free agent WR's is truly available this year. Finally, I also don't think that the prospects of the Bills lining up two rookie TE's is striking fear into the heart of Bill Belichick. O.k., even looking beyond this year, Everett is a huge unknown at this point - he was kind of a gamble when we drafted him, and the injury only adds to the question marks. At this point, if Everett pans out, I consider it a bonus, but my operating philosophy right now is that he is most likely to end up as a footnote in Bills history. That's why I'd be excited about drafting Vernon Davis.... but I don't think that anyone should be projecting Everett to be likely to amount to anything at this point. Hopefully, though, he proves the skeptics wrong, but in the meantime, TE is definitely a viable position of need. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 613655[/snapback] Does that mean he has dynamic rarely observed below average speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Let me start by saying that I'd be happy drafting Vernon Davis. I'm a firm believer that you need difference-makers, and Davis is a difference-maker. I think that the Bills have ended up with a great year to be sitting at #8, what with three QB's likely to go ahead of us, at least 1 RB, and maybe 2, and then leaving some exciting potential prospects like Mario Williams, Haloti Ngata, D'brickshaw Ferguson, and Vernon Davis to chose frame. Heck, I wouldn't sneer at a Tamba Hali or Winston Justice at #8. The danger, of course, is that at least 25% of that above group will not pan out - the job of Marv Levy is to figure out which of the above are in that group, and to not draft one of them.... Anyhow, the problem with your scenario is that the Eric Moulds decision probably has to come well before the draft. If we still have Eric Moulds on draft day, and *then* draft Vernon Davis, then the cap savings from cutting Moulds probably don't amount to much. And I don't think we can gamble on Davis being there at #8 at this point. While I do hope that the Bills addres the offensive line in free agency, and with at least one 1st Day draft pick - I don't know why you think cutting Moulds will free up money to sign a solid #3 WR. As I see it, the Bills fully intend to use Parrish as a #3 WR. If the Bills cut Moulds they need to sign a solid *starting* WR - and the mere fact that a bidding war is about to erupt over Antwaan Randle-El is probably all the evidence we need about how thin a crop of free agent WR's is truly available this year. Finally, I also don't think that the prospects of the Bills lining up two rookie TE's is striking fear into the heart of Bill Belichick. O.k., even looking beyond this year, Everett is a huge unknown at this point - he was kind of a gamble when we drafted him, and the injury only adds to the question marks. At this point, if Everett pans out, I consider it a bonus, but my operating philosophy right now is that he is most likely to end up as a footnote in Bills history. That's why I'd be excited about drafting Vernon Davis.... but I don't think that anyone should be projecting Everett to be likely to amount to anything at this point. Hopefully, though, he proves the skeptics wrong, but in the meantime, TE is definitely a viable position of need. JDG 613675[/snapback] First off, we will very likely be able to draft Vernon Davis at #8. It is not set in stone but very likely. And if we don't get to because he is drafted before us, we're going to get either D'Brick or Mario Williams, and I can live with that. The reason I said sign a #3 is that IMO having the big fast guy out there on every play at TE in effect becomes your #2. It's what the Chargers do, The Cheifs, The Falcons, the Giants, virtually any team with a good TE. The #3 in my scenario starts opposite Evans but is a good possession receiver and doesn't necessarily need to stretch the field. Davis will stretch the field. As Badol very well articulated, the defenses will be forced to account for him down the middle. Plus, on passing downs and other packages, we're going to have the fast little bastard Parrish able to cause some trouble and some defensive thinking. While you'd love to have an extra #2 worthy receiver, we will need to spend that money elsewhere. So the 5 mil savings can go to a OL or DT. Everett I don't project any numbers from at all, but just his size and speed as a double TE can also cause some troubles because he can split the field, and will be the #4 or #5 option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 First off, we will very likely be able to draft Vernon Davis at #8. It is not set in stone but very likely. And if we don't get to because he is drafted before us, we're going to get either D'Brick or Mario Williams, and I can live with that. There's 7 picks ahead of us... there seems to be near-consensus that those seven picks will include 3 QB's and Reggie Bush, although that isn't quite in stone yet with regards to the QB's. The other three picks could very easily be D. Ferguson, M. Williams, and V. Davis. The reason I said sign a #3 is that IMO having the big fast guy out there on every play at TE in effect becomes your #2. It's what the Chargers do, The Chiefs, The Falcons, the Giants, virtually any team with a good TE. The #3 in my scenario starts opposite Evans but is a good possession receiver and doesn't necessarily need to stretch the field. That sounds a lot like the way even Moulds' critics describe him. In any case, I think that's putting an awful lot of pressure on a rookie to plan to use him like Tony G, Antonio Gates, or Alge Crumpler in his very first year. In the meantime, you're leaving Evans to fend for himself, without a starting-caliber WR on the opposite side of the field. Can Evans handle being double-teamed every play? I hope so - but I can't say that we have any evidence of that. Davis will stretch the field. As Badol very well articulated, the defenses will be forced to account for him down the middle. Plus, on passing downs and other packages, we're going to have the fast little bastard Parrish able to cause some trouble and some defensive thinking. While you'd love to have an extra #2 worthy receiver, we will need to spend that money elsewhere. So the 5 mil savings can go to a OL or DT. Unless you are planning on going with Sam Aiken opposite Evans, you're not going to have $5mil in savings to use on other positions. Even Jeff Posey had something like a $1.5mil cap hit his first year, which would cut that figure down to $4 million. Signing anyone with name recognition only increases the price. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts