L.EvansHands Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Since we now have 4 first day picks...would you trade 2 or 3 of them for this guy?
Pyrite Gal Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Nope. A rookie at RB is fine, as folks are correct that one can find credible starting RBs late in the draft (unlike MLB in our Cover 2 where even the best rookie MLB cannot be reasonably expected to start for us in a position which will require him to make reads like a vet or get burned a lot while he learns). However, most fans buoyed by the tremendous sales job ESPN has done with draft coverage and the popularity of fantasy leagues and Madden football simply overvalue the draft. Yes, the great finds get and deserve a lot of attention, but folks seem to forget the draft is really a crapshoot and for a team to bank on a rookie to be a definite NFL starter is too risky for most GMs that it won't happen and even if it did it is a bad football move. I m not arguing that it will not work as it often does if you are talking about a top 10 choice, but is this something one wants to count on it working and as Shaud Williams is our best RB under contract right now, you would be counting upon things with Peterson to work perfectly, if you are willing to give up other players (even the lesser ones which are 4 choices in the top 100 are) for this one stud. Its risky based on the injury factor alone. Add to this even if you make a very good pick and get a player at lets say Larry Johnson level, this stud whom we would be proud to have gained about 150 yards his rookie year and 500 as a sophomore. If we trade a way a ton of resources for Peterson we are counting on not only Peterson being extraordinary but extraordinary right away, We will have to see how this plays out but the Bills need to get one and probably two potential RB starters or platoon types in FA (Rhodes, Dillon and Brown all fit this description) then once we have them in we still likely need to get a consistent starting prospect for the future. Given that we also have huge needs elsewhere on this team (a run stuffing DT, a MLB, a CB) we have needs which we will need to fill though FA, trades which generate additional competition or solid starters and the draft. If I am going to package a few draft choices to enhance a deal I more likely give them to CHI to get them to take the tag off of Briggs to free me up to move Crowell over than invest in speculation to go after Peterson.
CosmicBills Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Nope. A rookie at RB is fine, as folks are correct that one can find credible starting RBs late in the draft (unlike MLB in our Cover 2 where even the best rookie MLB cannot be reasonably expected to start for us in a position which will require him to make reads like a vet or get burned a lot while he learns). However, most fans buoyed by the tremendous sales job ESPN has done with draft coverage and the popularity of fantasy leagues and Madden football simply overvalue the draft. Yes, the great finds get and deserve a lot of attention, but folks seem to forget the draft is really a crapshoot and for a team to bank on a rookie to be a definite NFL starter is too risky for most GMs that it won't happen and even if it did it is a bad football move. I m not arguing that it will not work as it often does if you are talking about a top 10 choice, but is this something one wants to count on it working and as Shaud Williams is our best RB under contract right now, you would be counting upon things with Peterson to work perfectly, if you are willing to give up other players (even the lesser ones which are 4 choices in the top 100 are) for this one stud. Its risky based on the injury factor alone. Add to this even if you make a very good pick and get a player at lets say Larry Johnson level, this stud whom we would be proud to have gained about 150 yards his rookie year and 500 as a sophomore. If we trade a way a ton of resources for Peterson we are counting on not only Peterson being extraordinary but extraordinary right away, We will have to see how this plays out but the Bills need to get one and probably two potential RB starters or platoon types in FA (Rhodes, Dillon and Brown all fit this description) then once we have them in we still likely need to get a consistent starting prospect for the future. Given that we also have huge needs elsewhere on this team (a run stuffing DT, a MLB, a CB) we have needs which we will need to fill though FA, trades which generate additional competition or solid starters and the draft. If I am going to package a few draft choices to enhance a deal I more likely give them to CHI to get them to take the tag off of Briggs to free me up to move Crowell over than invest in speculation to go after Peterson. Good post ... Quick question about Peterson though. I know he was injured this season, was it a broken collar bone? If so, I might shy away from him. That seems to be an often reoccurring injury -- and with the style of running Peterson would need to do in Buffalo, I think he would be more of an injury risk than even McGahee was when he was drafted. So trading UP to get him would be a huge risk. However, if he's sitting there at 12, and I don't think he will be, it might be worth a shot. Of course, this is just conjecture on my part.
Brandon Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 I'd consider picking him if he were available at 12, but I would not trade up for him. The Bills have too many areas to address to be trading away higher round picks for anyone. Peterson's injury history also scares me a little and I'd probably just sit back and select Lynch at 12, who I feel is a better fit anyway.
Recommended Posts