Sketch Soland Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 WM is an ok running back. Nothing special. He will play better next year because he will be looking to his next contract. We'll be fine at running back. We CAN'T stop the running game. Okoye. Just like last year I was saying Ngata. While Whitner is a fine addition to the team and a worthy #8 pick, if we had picked Ngata we'd have been in the playoffs this year. We pick Okoye we'll be in the playoffs next year. We pick Marshawn we'll be treading water at the edge of the playoffs for the next year. It is easy to say that we would be in the playoffs with Ngata. But look at it this way: we may not have had a top ten ranked pass defense if Whitner is not there in the backfield, and we easily could have had problems with stopping big pass plays. sure, who knows if this would have happened, but the point is that it is way too easy to say that with ngata we would be in the playoffs. same thing with drafting okoye: sure, he would most likely help a big area of need, but drafting him instead of lynch is no guarantee of playoffs next year. i would not categorically say that drafting lynch at 12 would lead to no playoffs. we could just as easily draft a DT in round 2 who ends up being better than okoye or sign somebody in FA that fills the void unexpectedly. and mccargo could all of a sudden turn in to bada*s numero uno. lots of possibilities. lynch coupled with a couple other line acquisitions via draft or FA could be an even greater impact scenario.
Saint Doug Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 with a little improvement at O-line and a little contract-year motivation, our running game is more than adequate. losing a bunch of starters to FA on a defense that already cant stop the run is the biggest issue on hand for the bills. Well, with the 27th ranked rushing offensive this season, we definitely have room for improvement. And contract year motivation sickens me. These people are making millions. Is the potential to make 20 mil instead of 15 mil their only motivation? And if this is the case, what happens the year after the contract year? Willis's motivation and numbers go into the pooper? We might as well just draft a replacement now. They can both share the field for one year while Willis gains motivation to leave. Face it, we need to address the RB position either now or next year. Why is it when we draft a CB with the intention of having our current starter leave, nobody bats an eyelash? I was very jealous watching the playoffs this year. I was watching teams actually run the ball for first downs. Also, excellent RBs will also help the defense. By chewing up the clock, they keep the defense off the field, resting.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 17, 2007 Author Posted January 17, 2007 Well, with the 27th ranked rushing offensive this season, we definitely have room for improvement. And contract year motivation sickens me. These people are making millions. Is the potential to make 20 mil instead of 15 mil their only motivation? And if this is the case, what happens the year after the contract year? Willis's motivation and numbers go into the pooper? We might as well just draft a replacement now. They can both share the field for one year while Willis gains motivation to leave. Face it, we need to address the RB position either now or next year. Why is it when we draft a CB with the intention of having our current starter leave, nobody bats an eyelash? I was very jealous watching the playoffs this year. I was watching teams actually run the ball for first downs. Also, excellent RBs will also help the defense. By chewing up the clock, they keep the defense off the field, resting. i do agree with you a lot as far as philosophy of the game and how players should act go. but how we think and how they actually act are 2 very different things. also, mcgahee isnt even making a mil per year yet(nor should he). i would be happy pounding the rock for $100,000/year. but if someone said to you "hey, youre making $50k/yr now, if you have a killer year youll end up making $200k for the next 5 years" you know you'd work that much harder too. so contract year does end up being a lot of motivation for these guys. and we drafted that CB in the 3rd round. if we take tony hunt in the 2nd(or 3rd) id be very happy with that too. with the life expectancy of RBs being 3 years, im just not for picking a RB in the 1st right now. if we let mcgahee walk next year, then grab one in next years draft when we need to, like we need to get Defensive help now. (edit: i dont know if we drafted yobouty "with every intention" of letting nate go. im pretty sure thats a "just in case" pick. i guess we'll see how serious they are about keeping nate in the next couple months)
BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 losing a bunch of starters to FA on a defense that already cant stop the run is the biggest issue on hand for the bills. How much are we losing if they "already can't stop the run" ? New blood from FA/Draft may be just what the doctor ordered.
billybob Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 I don't know if I hated Donahoe's philosophy I really never figured out what it was- I know I hated some of his draft picks and some of his off-season moves- 1. Mike Williams over Bryant Mckinny- The knock on Mckinny was that he was soft as a run blocker- the knock on Williams was that he was too top heavy to pass block effectively- if your OT is soft you run to the other side- if your OT can't passblock you're going get your QB killed- when they called Mike Williams I said awwww wtf 2. Willis McGahee, who takes a player who you know won't be able to play right away with a first round pick- it's like trading your first round pick for something next year, teams do it but the going price tends to be a 2nd this year and a 1st and something else next year- if I'm Greg Williams I'm still looking to punch Donahoe in the mouth for that move. 3. Ted Washington and Pat Williams defense good- lose Ted defense not so good- Add Sam Adams defense good- lose Pat defense not so good- lose Adams even worse- you can tell me about the virtures of small quick dts but my experience has been big is better.
tennesseeboy Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 And who were your starting safeties in this scenario? Troy Vincent and Ko... wouldn't have let him go and we'd have been ok at the safety position. New England wouldn't have run that long game killing drive in the first game, and we'd have stopped the run throughout the year without a major loss at the safety or db positions. Hence...9 or 10 wins and a playoff berth.
Saint Doug Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 i do agree with you a lot as far as philosophy of the game and how players should act go. but how we think and how they actually act are 2 very different things. also, mcgahee isnt even making a mil per year yet(nor should he). i would be happy pounding the rock for $100,000/year. but if someone said to you "hey, youre making $50k/yr now, if you have a killer year youll end up making $200k for the next 5 years" you know you'd work that much harder too. so contract year does end up being a lot of motivation for these guys. and we drafted that CB in the 3rd round. if we take tony hunt in the 2nd(or 3rd) id be very happy with that too. with the life expectancy of RBs being 3 years, im just not for picking a RB in the 1st right now. if we let mcgahee walk next year, then grab one in next years draft when we need to, like we need to get Defensive help now. (edit: i dont know if we drafted yobouty "with every intention" of letting nate go. im pretty sure thats a "just in case" pick. i guess we'll see how serious they are about keeping nate in the next couple months) Fine. But, we need to add a legitimate RB onto our roster for next year. I don't care if he comes from the 7th round or NFL Europe, but he must be able to legitimately compete with Willis (and hopefully beat him out). Willis needs to know that he must be the better RB of the two. If not, he rides the pine. You cannot sit on the bench your contract year or you will watch the prospect of signing a lucrative deal go down the drain. Then after the season, we wish him luck. I am sick of the dancing.
Sketch Soland Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Troy Vincent and Ko... wouldn't have let him go and we'd have been ok at the safety position. New England wouldn't have run that long game killing drive in the first game, and we'd have stopped the run throughout the year without a major loss at the safety or db positions. Hence...9 or 10 wins and a playoff berth. Only problem with this is that vincent and ko are both free safeties. And a good part of the reason vincent was deemed expendable was because he did not fit the cover-2 MO very well. Now would he have been a better converted SS than Whitner as a rookie SS? Maybe, but then again, our pass D this year was a top ten rated unit, so very hard to argue that case imo.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 17, 2007 Author Posted January 17, 2007 Fine. But, we need to add a legitimate RB onto our roster for next year. I don't care if he comes from the 7th round or NFL Europe, but he must be able to legitimately compete with Willis (and hopefully beat him out). Willis needs to know that he must be the better RB of the two. If not, he rides the pine. You cannot sit on the bench your contract year or you will watch the prospect of signing a lucrative deal go down the drain. Then after the season, we wish him luck. I am sick of the dancing. agleed, id love for the bills to be in a position to bench mcgahee this year
Dawgg Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 There is nothing wrong with preparing for a free agent loss one year ahead of time. If the Bills have decided they don't want to extend McGahee under any circumstances, then there is nothing wrong with going RB in the first round. When the Bills brass decided they wouldn't sign Thomas Smith, they drafted Winfield even though they had 2 solid starting cornerbacks in Smith and Irvin at the time. When the Bills brass decided they wouldn't sign Winfield, they drafted Clements even though CB wasn't a huge "need" at the time. If they are undecided on McGahee, then perhaps you are right... For a board that ran Donahoe out of town, you guys are following right in his footsteps with this "sexy" pic. if ol Tom were still here and everyone was (still) threatening to not renew their tickets, all he would have to do is pick Lynch and you'd all be fooled again. and the bills will be 6-10, again. stop being silly. we NEEEEED defensive help. help that will not be completely found in FA. people that say #12 is too high to pick Willis, or at #12 you pick the biggest talent on the board are just following Donahoe's draft techniques. and we all know how well THAT builds winning teams. get ready for Marv to sit at 12 and pick the player who will come in and make a difference right away. no matter his name or position or whether Mel Kiper and the rest of you have heard of him or not.
ans4e64 Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 For a board that ran Donahoe out of town, you guys are following right in his footsteps with this "sexy" pic. if ol Tom were still here and everyone was (still) threatening to not renew their tickets, all he would have to do is pick Lynch and you'd all be fooled again. and the bills will be 6-10, again. stop being silly. we NEEEEED defensive help. help that will not be completely found in FA. people that say #12 is too high to pick Willis, or at #12 you pick the biggest talent on the board are just following Donahoe's draft techniques. and we all know how well THAT builds winning teams. get ready for Marv to sit at 12 and pick the player who will come in and make a difference right away. no matter his name or position or whether Mel Kiper and the rest of you have heard of him or not. Drafting a RB, WR, or QB is not always a "sexy pick." A sexy pick normally applies to a player that you dont necessarily need, but you pick him because of a big name or for luxery. A team that needs to desperately add to their running attack and drafts a RB should not be considered a "sexy pick." Just because a team drafts a skill position doesnt mean it is "sexy." I am curious as to why you say our defensive help will not be found in free agency. In my opinion, adding veteran help at certain positions is a better idea than adding more young players to a possible playoff contender. It is known that you adress your needs in free agency, and build your team through the draft. I would say that for our defensive line needs, it would be a better scenario to sign a DT in free agency since we will already have a 1st round pick coming back in McCargo. I think a veteran siging for our CB situation is a necessity as well. Whether that means keeping Clements (a FA) or letting him go, a veteran will need to be brought in to assist Youboty or whoever they decide to put there.
Simon Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Another very important factor to consider re: Lynch is that he was playing in Jeff Tedford's brilliantly designed offense which regularly created opportunities for him to get into space against a bunch of embarassingly pathetic PAC-10 defenses. In the NFL he's not going to be playing in that kind of space, nor is he going to be playing against a bunch of scurvy little fist-fu(kers like he was in that weak conference. Spending that #12 pick at that position on a guy like that would be a piece of idiocy rivaled only by spending that pick on a wanker like Dwayne Jarret.
JimBob2232 Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Im okay with drafting Lynch provided that 1) we trade down from #13, and pick up a 2nd rounder AND lynch 2) we trade willis mcgahee for at least a 2nd round pick this year. Otherwise, keep willis for the year and then rethink the RB position.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 17, 2007 Author Posted January 17, 2007 Drafting a RB, WR, or QB is not always a "sexy pick." A sexy pick normally applies to a player that you dont necessarily need, but you pick him because of a big name or for luxery. A team that needs to desperately add to their running attack and drafts a RB should not be considered a "sexy pick." Just because a team drafts a skill position doesnt mean it is "sexy." I am curious as to why you say our defensive help will not be found in free agency. In my opinion, adding veteran help at certain positions is a better idea than adding more young players to a possible playoff contender. It is known that you adress your needs in free agency, and build your team through the draft. I would say that for our defensive line needs, it would be a better scenario to sign a DT in free agency since we will already have a 1st round pick coming back in McCargo. I think a veteran siging for our CB situation is a necessity as well. Whether that means keeping Clements (a FA) or letting him go, a veteran will need to be brought in to assist Youboty or whoever they decide to put there. hey, id rather fix the holes in FA too. but a) who are we going to sign, at a fair price, to fix the DT position? and the MLB position? b) im not completely sold that Lynch is as great as everyone who is drinking the koolaid says (see simon's post above for more on this) c) our running game can improve by adding a dominant RG (thru FA) and with JP/Evans/passing game improving as well im not saying that drafting a skill position is what makes it "sexy" its the fact that everyone has their panties in a bunch about willis and his off field BS that they are just jumping at anyone who can replace him once again, im not happy with #23's onfield performance, but i think it can improve with some help up front, and a slight change in attitude. and we dont HAVE to worry about replacing him right now, but we DO have plenty of other things that need attention for now.
Sketch Soland Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Another very important factor to consider re: Lynch is that he was playing in Jeff Tedford's brilliantly designed offense which regularly created opportunities for him to get into space against a bunch of embarassingly pathetic PAC-10 defenses. In the NFL he's not going to be playing in that kind of space, nor is he going to be playing against a bunch of scurvy little fist-fu(kers like he was in that weak conference.Spending that #12 pick at that position on a guy like that would be a piece of idiocy rivaled only by spending that pick on a wanker like Dwayne Jarret. Good post. This would definitely be the knock on him. It will be interesting to see where the cards fall. I, for one, would be extremely surprised if we took Lynch at 12, although i wouldn't hate it, depending on how we address the other pertinent positions
ans4e64 Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 hey, id rather fix the holes in FA too. but a) who are we going to sign, at a fair price, to fix the DT position? and the MLB position? b) im not completely sold that Lynch is as great as everyone who is drinking the koolaid says (see simon's post above for more on this) c) our running game can improve by adding a dominant RG (thru FA) and with JP/Evans/passing game improving as well im not saying that drafting a skill position is what makes it "sexy" its the fact that everyone has their panties in a bunch about willis and his off field BS that they are just jumping at anyone who can replace him once again, im not happy with #23's onfield performance, but i think it can improve with some help up front, and a slight change in attitude. and we dont HAVE to worry about replacing him right now, but we DO have plenty of other things that need attention for now. Ok, now that's a better post lol
Dr. Fong Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 get ready for Marv to sit at 12 and pick the player who will come in and make a difference right away. no matter his name or position And if his name is Lynch? And his position is RB? Suffice to say I agree with you on the Bills having many holes to fill, but I don't agree that it necessitates that you pass up rare talent in favor of need.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 17, 2007 Author Posted January 17, 2007 glad youre happy now (to ans4e64)
DrDawkinstein Posted January 17, 2007 Author Posted January 17, 2007 And if his name is Lynch? And his position is RB? Suffice to say I agree with you on the Bills having many holes to fill, but I don't agree that it necessitates that you pass up rare talent in favor of need. show me rare talent. lynch is good, in the pac10, playing for Cal... but hes not "rare" we could get probably the same thing out of tony hunt from penn state in the 2nd/3rd
Mikie2times Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Another very important factor to consider re: Lynch is that he was playing in Jeff Tedford's brilliantly designed offense which regularly created opportunities for him to get into space against a bunch of embarassingly pathetic PAC-10 defenses. In the NFL he's not going to be playing in that kind of space, nor is he going to be playing against a bunch of scurvy little fist-fu(kers like he was in that weak conference.Spending that #12 pick at that position on a guy like that would be a piece of idiocy rivaled only by spending that pick on a wanker like Dwayne Jarret. The reasons you discredit Lynch could just as easily be applied to Walter Peyton (Jackson State), Marshall Faulk (San Diego State), or LT (TCU). All of whom had a significant amount of space to work with do to inferior competition threw out college. RB will be a need in 2008, and if we decide Lynch is an elite RB it's not pure idiocy to consider drafting him.
Recommended Posts