stuckincincy Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Need. They were 5 - 11 and can't afford the best available anything...
Brandon Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Pick the better prospect. The fact is that both are need positions.
JAMIEBUF12 Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 i would say a defensive tackle is alot more "needy" than a tight end..we let sam adams go and we still have our 3rd round draft tight end from last year on the roster.go bills in'06
34-78-83 Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Both are needs and both are the best available at their respective positions. In fact, if you add Huff into the mix, that goes for all 3 of 'em. It is likely that one of these 3 will not live up to their billing, and will bust. Nobody knows who that will be unfortunately. The draft is just as much a gamble as it is a science. Personally, I'd be happy with any of these 3 at the 8 spot.
The Dean Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Always...ALWAYS...best player. BUT, that should take need into consideration. That is, who is the best player available for the Bills? "Need" has to be factored into any callculation of ranking these plaers. But, it's crazy to reach for a player to fill a need, if that player is not worthy of that particular draft pick. This is especially true at #8. The Bills REALLY need DT and OL. So DT and OL should be weighted up quite a bit for us. We also may need Safety help, TE help, a FB some help af LB, if Moulds gos a WR, a developmental QB...etc. These positions should be weighted to their perceived need. (Of course, this all gets revised after we make our play in FA.) Also, you have to consider what is likely to be available later in the draft. (That becomes part of the calculation.) So...if Ngata is available at #8...we clearly need a DT. But, if the Bills think that Vernon Davis, or Huff or Jimmy Williams is so much better that, even given our DT need they represent far better value to the Bills than Ngata, then they have to go in that direction. For example, maybe the Bills think Ngata is decent, but not dominant. Also, maybe they see a DT they think they can get in round #2 or #3 who is not much of a drop-off from Ngata. Then let's say they think Davis is phenomenal and a can't miss prospect at TE. Well, maybe they make that move at #8. This was just an example...I have no idea how any of these guys really rates right now. The only positions I feel should be off limits for Round #1, pick #8 are QB, RB, WR, P and K. The reason they should be oflimits is there need is so low right now, anyone at those positions should be weighted down heavily for the Bills in the early rounds (especially #1).
Brandon Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 i would say a defensive tackle is alot more "needy" than a tight end..we let sam adams go and we still have our 3rd round draft tight end from last year on the roster.go bills in'06 620209[/snapback] We have two third round picks at DT on the roster. It doesn't matter, though. Of Edwards, Anderson and Everett, none of the three have established themselves as starters at their positions. Everett hasn't even played and is coming off major injury.
JDG Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 what to do ? 620190[/snapback] You act like TE is not a need......
stuckincincy Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 You act like TE is not a need...... 620235[/snapback] If they need to draft a TE after spending a 3rd round pick last year, they are goofier than I imagined.
Brandon Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 If they need to draft a TE after spending a 3rd round pick last year, they are goofier than I imagined. 620243[/snapback] That might be true if Levy and Jauron had drafted him and if Everett wasn't coming off a major injury.
gblakely14 Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 If they need to draft a TE after spending a 3rd round pick last year, they are goofier than I imagined. 620243[/snapback] First of all Kevin Everett has yet to play a down in the NFL. Secondly he is coming off of an injury. Third he never produced like he should have at the U. Fourth the regime that drafted him is no longer here, and the new regime may not think as highly of him. Vernon Davis is a freak and an once in a decade type prospect. DT can be addressed in RD 2, it is an extremely deep DT draft, as well as some free agents out there that can be had for a reasonable price (Bernard, Pickett) that are both young and up and coming. TE, S, OT, OG, DT are all needs, and out of these who can we get at 8 that will be an instant contributor within our system, Davis at TE and Huff at S could both be instant starters. Ngata is exactly the same type of player Sam Adams is and if you listen to Marv and Dick when they cut him, it was because he was the type of DT they are lookign for in our new system. Winston Justice may also be a good option but only if we trade down a couple of picks, not at Number 8. There certainly arent any guards at 8 that are worth it. Broderick Bunkley would also be a choice if we traded down.
William O Darby Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 I think Davis will be our guy. -Jaruon's scheme likes D-lineman who are quick one gap guys. Ngata is a 2 gap guy. Davis is best available at one of the bills positions of need--I don't think they are counting on a guy who might have decent physical tools but underperformed at U Miami. Bills will be able to pickup 1 gap DT in later rounds or FA.
R. Rich Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 If we don't address the lines in FA, then I'd hope we would either trade up for Ferguson or Super Mario or trade down and get someone else. Maybe DE Tamba Hali, OG Max Jean-Gilles, DE/LB Manny Lawson (pass rush), DT Gabe Watson, or C Nick Mangold (the last 2 could be acquired w/ additional picks in a trade down, should we find a good trade down deal).
stuckincincy Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Hmmm...just me, but it seemed that Bills receivers got open well enough. The key is having a qb, and the time for same to notice those open receivers. I'm sure Davis can wave his arms just as well - maybe better - than the current bunch.
K-9 Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 what to do ? 620190[/snapback] Gotta be best player available every damn time. You need FOOTBALL players, regardless of positon in this league. It just doesn't matter if you have a real good player already in place in a position, if there is a can't miss blue chipper available you jump on him. Can't go wrong with best player available. You can go wrong when reaching for a need. Now, if it so happens that the two shall meet, all the better. GO BILLS!!!
JDG Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Winston Justice may also be a good option but only if we trade down a couple of picks, not at Number 8. There certainly arent any guards at 8 that are worth it. Broderick Bunkley would also be a choice if we traded down. 620285[/snapback] Why not? Because anchoring one of the best lines in college football for one of the best offense's in college football history over the past few years isn't good enough credentials? Because Mel Kiper said so? If Marv thinks that Winston Justice is going to be a Pro Bowl Tackle in the NFL you better believe that he is worth the #8 pick no matter what Mel Kiper thinks..... JDG
stuckincincy Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Gotta be best player available every damn time. You need FOOTBALL players, regardless of positon in this league. It just doesn't matter if you have a real good player already in place in a position, if there is a can't miss blue chipper available you jump on him. Can't go wrong with best player available. You can go wrong when reaching for a need. Now, if it so happens that the two shall meet, all the better. GO BILLS!!! 620307[/snapback] Three years of tapping the best available player resulted in 5 -11 last year.
The Dean Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Three years of tapping the best available player resulted in 5 -11 last year. 620362[/snapback] Maybe they weren't the best players.
stuckincincy Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Maybe they weren't the best players. 620375[/snapback] So you question our football betters? Blasphemy.
The Quebecer Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 My take is that if you pick in the top 10, you go BPA... more so if the aformentioned BPA is looked upon as a blue-chip, can't-miss, freakish-type, once-in-a-decade, type of player... Now, if the BPA turns out to be at a need position, fine... But you still go BPA if you have a top 10 pick... after the 10th pick, then need might factor in a little more...
Recommended Posts