DrDawkinstein Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 you take Patrick Willis and let those guys keep falling. cause all that means is more RBs for us to choose from in the 2nd or 3rd!!!
Special K Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 you take Patrick Willis and let those guys keep falling. cause all that means is more RBs for us to choose from in the 2nd or 3rd!!! Am I the only one still on the Amobi Okoye bandwagon??
DrDawkinstein Posted March 11, 2007 Author Posted March 11, 2007 Am I the only one still on the Amobi Okoye bandwagon?? i like Okoye too. but in this little fantasy i have to imagine that if Lynch, Peterson AND Willis are there, then Okoye is gone. but if he ii is Okoye and those 2 RBs then i say go Okoye too.
Dawgg Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 Correction: You TRADE DOWN to a team desperate for a RB and collect an extra 2nd. Then draft Willis later in the first. you take Patrick Willis and let those guys keep falling. cause all that means is more RBs for us to choose from in the 2nd or 3rd!!!
Special K Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 i like Okoye too. but in this little fantasy i have to imagine that if Lynch, Peterson AND Willis are there, then Okoye is gone. but if he ii is Okoye and those 2 RBs then i say go Okoye too. Willis is my number two preference behind Okoye as well. You have to be strong in the middle for the cover 2 to be successful.
Steve O Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 you take Patrick Willis and let those guys keep falling. cause all that means is more RBs for us to choose from in the 2nd or 3rd!!! If Peteson falls to 12 it means someone like Willis went higher than expected.
1billsfan Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 you take Patrick Willis and let those guys keep falling. cause all that means is more RBs for us to choose from in the 2nd or 3rd!!! My problem with this strategy is that I think the dropoff from Peterson/Kynch to the next viable RB is very steep. While I think the dropoff from Willis to the other top LBs isn't as big. If you take one of the highly rated tailbacks, you still have a shot at trading the 2nd and the original Bill's 3rd round pick to move back into the later part of the first round and get a shot at Puz or Timmons. If they take Willis at 12, I will be praying that they are working San Diego for a deal for Turner because I think this team will have a really tough season if we are forced to start one of the also ran RBs like Bush, Hunt or Irons. I sense our defense will be shaky (even with a Willis), so this offense needs another homerun threat besides Evans (ie Turner, Lynch or Peterson), so we can have a shot when our defense breaks down. Either way we are sure to get a hell of a player at 12, can't wait to see who it is.
In space no one can hear Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 you take Patrick Willis and let those guys keep falling. cause all that means is more RBs for us to choose from in the 2nd or 3rd!!! Adrian Peterson would be the VERY easy choice here IMHO. Peterson is a superstar franchise back. Runs high? I don'r give a sh--!!!
port allegany Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 If Peterson gets to us at #12 - PICK HIM and throw a party. It won't happen but if it did - wow! I'm a Texas alumnus and I'm convince this kid is a difference maker. Some may think no back is that much different than the next and they are interchangeable. I tend to agree, except for the couple of 'special' backs (the Emmit Smiths, Barry Sanders, Earl Campbells, and, yes, even Eric Dickersons - since Peterson is most compared to him). Those backs change defenses. I don't know about Lynch so I'd probably pass on him.
DrDawkinstein Posted March 12, 2007 Author Posted March 12, 2007 Correction: You TRADE DOWN to a team desperate for a RB and collect an extra 2nd. Then draft Willis later in the first. no way, cause if you trade down you risk not getting anyone you wanted in the 1st. however, if pick trading is what youre after, i think that if they keep falling, we can trade our 3rd and 2nd and get back into the 1st to snag one. i wouldnt be too upset if they grabbed a RB at 12, then traded back in to grab a LB too. but either way, i dont trade out of #12. My problem with this strategy is that I think the dropoff from Peterson/Kynch to the next viable RB is very steep. While I think the dropoff from Willis to the other top LBs isn't as big. If you take one of the highly rated tailbacks, you still have a shot at trading the 2nd and the original Bill's 3rd round pick to move back into the later part of the first round and get a shot at Puz or Timmons. If they take Willis at 12, I will be praying that they are working San Diego for a deal for Turner because I think this team will have a really tough season if we are forced to start one of the also ran RBs like Bush, Hunt or Irons. I sense our defense will be shaky (even with a Willis), so this offense needs another homerun threat besides Evans (ie Turner, Lynch or Peterson), so we can have a shot when our defense breaks down. Either way we are sure to get a hell of a player at 12, can't wait to see who it is. meh, i guess i just see it oppositely. i think that Bush/Hunt/Irons can all be starting backs and the gap between Willis and the VERY FEW LBs in this draft(especialy MIDDLE LBs) is huge. but i agree about the trading back in to the first. theoretically, we could do that next year too and Marv would start his reign with 6 1st round picks in 3 years... im lovin it.
Dawgg Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 This is the exactly line of thinking that made the Bills stupidly stay at #8 because they targeted "their guy" Whitner. The whole point of trading down is to aquire extra, high quality picks to fill out your roster. A lot of times you do so targetting one player, but in most cases, it is done to aquire extra picks. Suppose they trade down and Patrick Willis is gone. BIG DEAL. There are plenty of good players available in the draft and that's why they have a "draft board." no way, cause if you trade down you risk not getting anyone you wanted in the 1st. however, if pick trading is what youre after, i think that if they keep falling, we can trade our 3rd and 2nd and get back into the 1st to snag one.
PistolPeaTear Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 you take Patrick Willis and let those guys keep falling. cause all that means is more RBs for us to choose from in the 2nd or 3rd!!! best post of the day, by far.
DrDawkinstein Posted March 12, 2007 Author Posted March 12, 2007 This is the exactly line of thinking that made the Bills stupidly stay at #8 because they targeted "their guy" Whitner. The whole point of trading down is to aquire extra, high quality picks to fill out your roster. A lot of times you do so targetting one player, but in most cases, it is done to aquire extra picks. Suppose they trade down and Patrick Willis is gone. BIG DEAL. There are plenty of good players available in the draft and that's why they have a "draft board." so you just like having picks? picks! picks! picks! maybe we can trade down and get EVERY pick in the 6th round!! then our 2 in the 7th would just be bonus!! frankly, i LIKE the line of thinking that had us stay and get "our 16 game starting, 107 tackle making, starting SS for the next 10 years guy" and besides Whitner, how many of our rookies ended up playing a starting role? 4? 5? 6 if McCargo stays healthy? THAT is from getting the guys you want. not from throwing the nets out and getting what you think MAY be the best talent LEFT at that time. We are in control of our own destiny, you dont trade that away in this league just for more picks
ROCCEO Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 Am I the only one still on the Amobi Okoye bandwagon?? You're not, I think he may have launched himself into the top 10 though. However, I hear the 49ers are smitten with Adam Carriker, which would be good for us. I just pray that Okoye or WIllis is there at 12, Id rather wait on a RB or CB. If Peterson gets to us at #12 - PICK HIM and throw a party. It won't happen but if it did - wow! I'm a Texas alumnus and I'm convince this kid is a difference maker. Some may think no back is that much different than the next and they are interchangeable. I tend to agree, except for the couple of 'special' backs (the Emmit Smiths, Barry Sanders, Earl Campbells, and, yes, even Eric Dickersons - since Peterson is most compared to him). Those backs change defenses. I don't know about Lynch so I'd probably pass on him. You really think Emmitt Smith was all that special? Did you just get off the "terrell davis is a hall of famer" bus by any chance? ES was VERY VERY GOOD, he was not what I call a "herschel walker player"(meaning a guy I would pull the trigger on the HW trade for). ES benefitted from a variety of things, namely: top shelf QB, one of the best Olines of all time, and most notably he was lucky enough to stay healthy for the most part. When Emmitt broke the record a few years ago, I dont know if Ive ever been sick of a word grouping(besides "tedy bruschi") more than, "is emmitt the best ever": not even close.
Dawgg Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 Doctor, You have not properly diagnosed the patient. The Buffalo Bills have many needs. - They are razor thin at running back - They will likely be in need of 2, maybe more quality linebackers (to replace Spikes & Fletcher) - They need a playmaking cornerback (to replace Clements) - They need defensive linemen (they need more depth at DL and DE) If they happen to lose out on Willis, there are plenty of other options that can help this team. If this team was a player or two away, honing in on a single player makes sense. Unfortunately, that is far from the case. so you just like having picks? picks! picks! picks! maybe we can trade down and get EVERY pick in the 6th round!! then our 2 in the 7th would just be bonus!! frankly, i LIKE the line of thinking that had us stay and get "our 16 game starting, 107 tackle making, starting SS for the next 10 years guy" and besides Whitner, how many of our rookies ended up playing a starting role? 4? 5? 6 if McCargo stays healthy? THAT is from getting the guys you want. not from throwing the nets out and getting what you think MAY be the best talent LEFT at that time. We are in control of our own destiny, you dont trade that away in this league just for more picks
DrDawkinstein Posted March 12, 2007 Author Posted March 12, 2007 Doctor, You have not properly diagnosed the patient. The Buffalo Bills have many needs. - They are razor thin at running back - They will likely be in need of 2, maybe more quality linebackers (to replace Spikes & Fletcher) - They need a playmaking cornerback (to replace Clements) - They need defensive linemen (they need more depth at DL and DE) If they happen to lose out on Willis, there are plenty of other options that can help this team. If this team was a player or two away, honing in on a single player makes sense. Unfortunately, that is far from the case. i definitely agree with you on the many holes, as i think i posted earlier in the thread: im all for us staying put with 4 pics and NOT trading back into the 1st. any posts where i talked about doing that is obviously just speculating on our numerous possibilities. However i am also NOT a fan of trading down in the 1st. personally, i like having our 4 first day picks. i know we have more than 4 holes to fill, but we can always hope for some second day success and some guys stepping it up. right now (and for this season) im not expecting the Bills to win or make the Super Bowl. I AM expecting an improvement from last season, and that would mean a serious run at the division and a wild card spot. considering we have ZERO starters going to be Free Agents after this season, that means we can have ALL the holes filled by next offseason. i know we all want to "win now" but i think there is finally a plan at One Bills Drive, and as long as we "win a little more now than last year" ill be happy. and if we grab a RB in the 2nd/3rd and he turns out to be good and not great, we very well may be in the position to use our extra picks next year to trade up in the first and get THE guy. thats where are real reign in the AFC East begins...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 Am I the only one still on the Amobi Okoye bandwagon?? No. It's now a tie between Amobi Okoye, Patrick Willis, and Leon Hall.
dubj04 Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 Take Peterson, and worry about te rest later. If he falls he will be the steal of the draft. A few years down the road everyone will kick themselves for not taking him. Don't forget we need a solid back to play well in Buffalo conditions. Willis will be a nice player, but Peterson has the chance to be a legend. If we don't get a back this year we need to figure out how to get McFadden from Ark. next year.
port allegany Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 You're not, I think he may have launched himself into the top 10 though. However, I hear the 49ers are smitten with Adam Carriker, which would be good for us. I just pray that Okoye or WIllis is there at 12, Id rather wait on a RB or CB.You really think Emmitt Smith was all that special? Did you just get off the "terrell davis is a hall of famer" bus by any chance? ES was VERY VERY GOOD, he was not what I call a "herschel walker player"(meaning a guy I would pull the trigger on the HW trade for). ES benefitted from a variety of things, namely: top shelf QB, one of the best Olines of all time, and most notably he was lucky enough to stay healthy for the most part. When Emmitt broke the record a few years ago, I dont know if Ive ever been sick of a word grouping(besides "tedy bruschi") more than, "is emmitt the best ever": not even close. We're talking about the 12th pick in the draft - not the overall #1. I would be very happy to have Emmitt Smith for a 8-10 years in our backfield with the 12th pick. In some fashion I agree with you that he isn't the best runner of all-time but wouldn't you like to draft a player with the #12 pick that eventually was a participant in the best runner of all-time argument? It could also be noted that having Emmitt Smith as a running and receiving threat (and a first quality blocker and teammate) made Aikman's job a lot easier. In the end, all I was pointing out is if Peterson is anywhere close to what 'experts' are saying (and what I've watched for 3 years) then he is a special enough player to draft if he falls to #12. This is all academic because he won't fall out of the top 5.
Recommended Posts