Nick in RaChaCha Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 We are going to have to overpay at a couple of positions..... 629854[/snapback] Yes and we started with our recent TE signing. We will have to over pay for players... as long as they are not in the last 2 years of their career I have no problem with it.
BuffLord Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 We have a bunch of money. There is ZERO way of knowing for sure if this guy is going to be a 3 or 4 or 5 million a year player. It's impossible to know that. What we do know is that we have money and we have a bunch of holes to fill. If we know we have Triplett lined up next to Pickett, with Anderson in the rotation, suddenly the linebackers are going to be a little better. And the only gaping hole on defense may be at safety, which is usually cheap to fill. This would allow us to make some moves at OL, and allow us to draft a Vernon Davis or Huff. I really think some times you need to spend a little bit more money than you want, or you think a guy is worth, to be able to make some other moves. This would solve a big problem for us, probably the biggest problem in the entire 2005 problempalooza, our inability to stop the run on first and second down. 629771[/snapback] Id rather overpay for guys under 30 with Marv, than overpay for guys OVER 30 with TD.
obie_wan Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 Not to be a wiseass KTD, but would you mind briefing us on what "moves" the Bills could make that would allow us to draft a Safety or a TE at #8? C'mon Bro, we are WEAK! We need big, strong players to win football games. If Davis has the talent to be the next Kellen Winslow Sr., it wouldn't matter so much to us. He would flounder away while our qb is on the turf, bleeding and battered. Huff will be rendered useless if we are 3 and out on offense. Sorry, these are probably the very last players we need. I don't care if we must trade up, down, or stay put. The Bills need players to block and tackle. We have enough "flash." It isn't working. 629798[/snapback] You take difference makers in the top 10- if they happen to play a position of need - all the better. but you don't pass on superior talent and playmaking ability just to reach for a player to fill a need. and unfortunately Marv's philosophy is to develop a draft board and will not deviate by trading up or down on draft day. So in all likelihood, the Bills will be picking at 8. Huff will probably be the pick since he is a playmaker and he will fill a need position and Ferguson will be long gone. The Bills are filling the DT hole and will also obtain some flexibility on the line thru FA. They need Pickett, even if they have to overpay. The Bills will likely draft an interior OL in the 2nd or 3rd round capable of starting.
BUFFALOTONE Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 I believe Fonoti signed with the Raiders, as far as Overpaying for pickett I have to disagree. If we're gonna overpay for a dt I'd rather it be rocky bernard. Bernard is quickly establishing himself as a great defensive tackle, where as pickett just isnt at that level, and I doubt he ever will be. Bernard/Triplett would be a much better tandem then pickett/triplett. 629815[/snapback] [ First of all Pickett lead all DT's in tackles and also had 2 sacks. He is a young space eater that will be perfect for our system. Bernard has had one good year. I think we give pickett the money, it will be a great investment.
2003Contenders Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 Why is everyone so sure that Marv wouldn't consider trading up or down? He was around when we worked out the deal with the Colts to get Biscuit, no?
stuckincincy Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 Why is everyone so sure that Marv wouldn't consider trading up or down? He was around when we worked out the deal with the Colts to get Biscuit, no? 630281[/snapback] Not everyone is... Certainly he would trade down. In his last stint, he had a pretty deep club so I suppose there wasn't a lot of reasons to do so. I would be very surprised if the Bills traded up.
JDG Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 What we do know is that we have money and we have a bunch of holes to fill. But we don't have enough money for Eric Moulds, and so should instead be creating another hole at the WR position, right? You cannot look past two years, Unless its the WR position, where getting a younger player who will be around in three years is apparently paramount.... JDG
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 You cannot look past two years, IMO. Runyan would be that player, good for two years. I think we can sign a decent guard to start, and then have Anderson and Gandy and #2 picks as back-ups. With three decent tough veterans, Peters, Preston at C, and a blocking TE, we could probably move the ball. It wouldnt solve our decade long problem on the OL, but there simply is not a OL I would draft at #8. 629834[/snapback] I would be scared to get Runyan, yes he would be better then what we have but Philly who is a very good team( last years record was because of all the issues they had not because of talent) does not want to bring him back to protect Mcnabb tells me something. Big money for a player in decline is scary. Philly is the type of team that should try to get him to make their push because they are alot closer then we are and they are nto looking to bring him back.If he would come to Buffalo for a low salary then go for it, but dont give him Mega bucks.
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 You take difference makers in the top 10- if they happen to play a position of need - all the better. but you don't pass on superior talent and playmaking ability just to reach for a player to fill a need. 630258[/snapback] See Dwight Freeney, Levi Jones for contradiction to your statement. Both reaches, both filled need areas for their teams, both overachievers who fit their schemes. I'm far more concerned that the Bills get a player that fits what they're trying to do here than someone who simply fills a need or is a so-called star in the making. Unless that player is going to totally define what you do, you look to what player will fill your needs and fit your system. IMO you don't really get a shot at the pure difference makers (the guys who would be awesome no matter what team they're on) unless you're in the top 3.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 15, 2006 Author Posted March 15, 2006 I would be scared to get Runyan, yes he would be better then what we have but Philly who is a very good team( last years record was because of all the issues they had not because of talent) does not want to bring him back to protect Mcnabb tells me something. Big money for a player in decline is scary. Philly is the type of team that should try to get him to make their push because they are alot closer then we are and they are nto looking to bring him back.If he would come to Buffalo for a low salary then go for it, but dont give him Mega bucks. 630327[/snapback] That's why we want him, because he would not cost megabucks, and he would be a stopgap for two years which we desperately need. We need to shore up the line with some talented young guys and some proven veterans. He would be the proven veteran.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 15, 2006 Author Posted March 15, 2006 But we don't have enough money for Eric Moulds, and so should instead be creating another hole at the WR position, right?Unless its the WR position, where getting a younger player who will be around in three years is apparently paramount.... JDG 630305[/snapback] We easily have enough money for Eric Moulds. We don't want to pay him 11 million because he isn't worth 11 million, not because we don't have the money. What i meant by you cannot look beyond two years, obviously, is that you don't know what the make-up of your team is going to be three or more years from now (a strength now could easily be a weakness then and vice versa) and you cannot count on what kind of performance you're going to get out of a player more than two years from now. We basically know what we would get for Runyan for two years, and we know what we would get for Moulds for two years, too. Three years from now, I think you would be able to predict it far less accurately because of their ages. It seems like most people believe that Runyan and Moulds have two years left in the tank. Moulds may have three or even more but I would NOT want to pay out serious money banking on it.
JAMIEBUF12 Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 ya i 2nd that motion just get pickett signed,one less position to worry about come draft day! go bills in'06
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts