OCinBuffalo Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 ...is all this FLEXIBILITY really a positive, or can it possibly create convoluted thinking/way over complicate this? I think it would be easier if we were either drafting at 1-6 or 18-32 because it would make things a hell of a lot easier. We might me be too high on the board to really make a trade up effective in terms of value. I mean if we are going to trade up, where to? I.E., what does moving up to #6 get us, really, in terms of what we have to give up? How do we know that the guys we want won't be there at 12 anyway-> is there that much of a talent drop off once you get past the top 5 value picks? Likewise, we may be too low to make a trade down effective. I.E. is Cincy really gonna be willing to trade up 6 slots and at the same time give up a 3rd/4th round pick? What does that really buy them? I can see if they were to trade into the top ten, but #12? If a guy is around at #12, what's to say he won't be there at #18? There seems to be a much larger number of "Must Have According to TSW Poster (insert name here)" draft prospects for the Bills than last year. There are at least 9 guys(the usual suspects listed in no particular order: Peterson, Lynch, Leonard(my guy), Willis, Okoye, Bush, Poz(my guy too), Hall, Revis) that we all seem to think would at least be good for the Bills. I don't hear much in terms of real negatives about these guys in comparison to the troves of positives. IF any of these guys would be a good fit, does it really matter who we get? I realize that there are needs, but ask yourself this: do we really need LB more than RB? or DT? or CB? We all know all the arguments on this, but is there any one argument that clearly stands out/can't be countered reasonably by another? We know that RB is a need, but so is LB, but RBs can be had in the 2nd round, but so can LBs.(you can use DT or CB in this as well and this debate can go on forever with no clear answer resulting from it) So given all of this, does anyone see that this has the potential for trouble? especially in those critical 15 minutes before we pick? Certainly it creates the potential for Marv to give another team a serious ass-raping in terms of trading down, but the reverse it true as well. Does it make the most sense to stand pat where we are, for at least the first round? since we have so many players available that are sure to help us?
Brandon Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 They have some significant needs, but none that are so critical that they require an investment of a #1 pick. I think they've set themselves up well so that they can simply take their highest ranked player at those need positions without feeling the pressure to reach somewhat as if they had a gaping hole in the roster. I think the only way they can screw it up is if they try to get too cute with all of it, but I believe that this staff takes a much more practical approach than the last.
Recommended Posts