Peterson, Lynch, Willis all are sitting there at 12...

[jri111]

The Bills drafts have been anything but predictable for like the past 5 seasons. I don't know, before these "trade talks" about Spikes started heating up I had this thought, but now that they're here and it's a real possibility that he's going to be gone this thought is becoming more prevelant...

 

If Peterson falls to us that means that lynch will also most definitley be there. Willis has been skyrocketing up draft boards but unless the 49ers take him, I still think he's going to be there at 12 ( I think the niners will go for Carkiker -spelling?). So the 12th pick rolls around and all three players are still there, what happens?

 

the easy and coventional answer is that we take Peterson. There has been cracks about how the Bills set a new record for how fast they hand in the card. I gotta admit, I don't see how I could personally pass on him.

 

that said, we ARE talking about the Bills. If/When Spikes leaves heres what our LB core looks like: Crowell, Ellison, Stamer, Haggen, DiGiorgio, Wire, Manning, Harrison.

 

You can scratch Manning and Harrison off the 52-man roster. Stamer, Haggen DiGiorgio, and Wire are all special teams standout but are nothing more, nor will they ever be anything more, then average back-ups. So who does that leave? Crowell is obviously one starter, and you can pretty much pencil in Ellison as the other, because you're not going to be able to find two starting LBer's in the draft. Bottom line, we are REALLY thin at LB and there are only three LB's with potential to start from Day one as we would need: Willis, Puz, and Timmons. All are projected to go in round 1.

 

SO...

 

Question 1: If all three guys were still on the board, would the Bills do the unthinkable and pass on Peterson and take the best available linebacker? (could you imagine the national media on this one?!)

 

Question 2: Who would you take at 12 if these three guys and Puz and Timmons were available (assuming Okoye and branch are gone and we don't go CB)?

 

 

**note of course this isn't contingent on trade downs, but I don't see very many situations where the Bills would trade down. Should they if they were presented with this hypothetical and collect kings ransom for a team that wants petterson? you betcha. will they? personally, i don't think so... thoughts?

[DrDawkinstein]

in any scenario im taking Willis. Peterson can go the way of Leinhert.

[ndirish1978]

Wilils or Pos, git 'er done Marv

[Special K]

in any scenario im taking Willis. Peterson can go the way of Leinhert.

 

I agree with taking one of the defensive prospects(Willis, Okoye) over Peterson---I hope Marv feels this way as well.

 

However, I'd bet that if this draft plays out like that, the "takling heads" at ESPN would rip Marv a new one just like last year.

[CosmicBills]

Here's the rub with this scenario: It's all about value.

 

There are more available LBs in this draft than marquee RBs. Arguably there is only one marquee RB (Peterson) in the draft yet there are several possible marquee LBs (Willis, Timmons, Polz). If Peterson is sitting there at 12 along with the three LBs, then you have to take Peterson from a value standpoint alone.

 

Both LB and RB are equal needs on this team right now, so if you get lucky and the only marquee RB falls in your lap, you take him. The logic being there's a chance you can still land one of the three remaining LBs later in the draft (either by trading up or one of them falling).

 

Now, personally Peterson scares the hell out of me so I would never want to see the Bills trade up to get him. But if he's there at 12, regardless of which LBs are left, they have to take him.

[DrDawkinstein]

please submit these sacred charts of arbitrary "value" numbers for review. cause as far as im concerned, if Willis is there at 12, with our needs, we grab him.

 

i think the RBs we could find in the 2nd or 3rd would be better than the LBs we could find in the same spots

[CosmicBills]

please submit these sacred charts of arbitrary "value" numbers for review. cause as far as im concerned, if Willis is there at 12, with our needs, we grab him.

 

i think the RBs we could find in the 2nd or 3rd would be better than the LBs we could find in the same spots

See, that's the whole issue. There are no RBs in the draft who are close to Peterson's talent level. Lynch is the closest, and even he isn't in the same class.

 

However, there are multiple LBs in the first round (and some in the second) who are all pretty close. Willis, Timmons and Polz are all pretty equal. Willis might be the "star" but he's not that far ahead of the other two. In later rounds you have another crop.

 

The second tier RBs in this draft are all about the same. Irons, Bush etc. etc. are all fairly equal, you're right. If the Bills don't go RB in round 1, then it doesn't really matter if they go RB in round 2 or 3 since those backs are all the same.

 

However, if Peterson is there, you take him. On the flip side, if Peterson is gone and two of those LBs are gone as well, then you take the LB.

[DrDawkinstein]

See, that's the whole issue. There are no RBs in the draft who are close to Peterson's talent level. Lynch is the closest, and even he isn't in the same class.

 

However, there are multiple LBs in the first round (and some in the second) who are all pretty close. Willis, Timmons and Polz are all pretty equal. Willis might be the "star" but he's not that far ahead of the other two. In later rounds you have another crop.

 

The second tier RBs in this draft are all about the same. Irons, Bush etc. etc. are all fairly equal, you're right. If the Bills don't go RB in round 1, then it doesn't really matter if they go RB in round 2 or 3 since those backs are all the same.

 

However, if Peterson is there, you take him. On the flip side, if Peterson is gone and two of those LBs are gone as well, then you take the LB.

 

i disagree with your LB assessments. i think Willis is THE guy at LB and after that it all drops off. and since MLB is basically our QB of the defense, and we are going to use a couple different RBs as that has proven to be a very successful plan in todays league... i see every reason to go Willis at 12 even if Peterson is there. we need to have THE guy at MLB, we can get away with A guy for one of our 3 RBs.

[CosmicBills]

i disagree with your LB assessments. i think Willis is THE guy at LB and after that it all drops off. and since MLB is basically our QB of the defense, and we are going to use a couple different RBs as that has proven to be a very successful plan in todays league... i see every reason to go Willis at 12 even if Peterson is there. we need to have THE guy at MLB, we can get away with A guy for one of our 3 RBs.

 

But don't you think that Angie is going to be the MLB anyway? He was Fletch's backup for the past few years and is extremely athletic. He's the perfect fit for the Cover 2.

 

Sure, you could still take Willis and move Crowell to the outside. But then Willis becomes more of a luxury pick. Again, it comes down to the overall value of the players.

 

And of course, you may well be right and that's exactly how OBD sees it. But I would be shocked if Peterson is there (well ... I will be shocked if he slips to 12 at all, frankly I don't think he will) and the Bills take Willis over him. Shocked.

[DrDawkinstein]

if we pick Willis then HE is definitely going to be our MLB

[jri111]

Here's the rub with this scenario: It's all about value.

 

There are more available LBs in this draft than marquee RBs. Arguably there is only one marquee RB (Peterson) in the draft yet there are several possible marquee LBs (Willis, Timmons, Polz). If Peterson is sitting there at 12 along with the three LBs, then you have to take Peterson from a value standpoint alone.

 

Both LB and RB are equal needs on this team right now, so if you get lucky and the only marquee RB falls in your lap, you take him. The logic being there's a chance you can still land one of the three remaining LBs later in the draft (either by trading up or one of them falling).

 

Now, personally Peterson scares the hell out of me so I would never want to see the Bills trade up to get him. But if he's there at 12, regardless of which LBs are left, they have to take him.

 

 

It all depends on who they have at what value....

 

Personally I think there is 1 marquee RB in this draft and that's Peterson. I think there is one, could be marquee RB in this draft and that's lynch (but i wouldn't take him in the first half of round 1). The rest of the RB's have the potential to be good in their own right, but all have certain knocks agaisnt them (hunt - speed, Pittman, Irons - size, Bush - health, Leonard - RB or FB, etc...)

 

As for LB's i see it this way: Although there is more depth here, there are 3 marquee guys (guys that can start today in the NFL). that's willis, Puz and Timmons. Willis will be gone in the top 15 and Puz and Timmons will be gone somewhere between 10-25 (IMO). After that there are good players, but you are taking a big chance if you don't have one of those three guys slotted as a starter on day 1.

 

so where does that leave you?

 

Personally, i love Peterson, i value him VERY high and would never dream about passing on him if he fell in our laps. AT THE SAME TIME.... and i think this may be the thinking of Marv and Co., is that we can find a RB to go with A-train anywhere between rounds 1-3 and it has the potential to be a good running game, however, if we don't get one of the top three LB'ers, we're going to have a hole in that Defense that wont be able to be filled. Therefore, although there is only one marquee RB and three marquee Lbs (according to my personal ratings), the Bills may feel the need to ensure that they'll get one of those LB's, even if that means passing up on Peterson....

 

 

Unless there is a real curveball in the draft i see it playing out one of two ways:

 

Senario 1:

1. Peterson/lynch

1a. Puz/Timmons

3. CB (someone like hughes?)

4. another LB (Tim shaw?)/CB

**I think if we go RB in round 1 it becomes imperative in this senario that we trade up enough to get either Puz or Timmons (assuming they are still there)

 

OR

 

Senario 2:

1. Willis/Puz/Timmons

2. CB or RB (Hughes/Hunt/Pittman/Irons/etc...)

3. CB or RB (Hunt/Pittman/Irons/Jackson/etc...)

3. WR/LB/DT?

4. LB? DT?

 

 

It's funny, when people started talking about taking a RB in round 1 i was against it 100%. I still am to a degree, unless it's Peterson. But it may result in higher quality players, however. HOWEVER, whereas senario one is more ideal, it is also much more risky and the players you want might not be there. This is why I would not be shocked in the least bit if we went with senario two (even if Peterson or lynch are still on the board)...

[CosmicBills]

if we pick Willis then HE is definitely going to be our MLB

I don't doubt that.

 

But the staff seems to be content with Angie as the MLB. So, the hole on the team is OLB, a position that Willis doesn't play.

[CosmicBills]

It all depends on who they have at what value....

 

Which is exactly why in round one you take the best player available regardless of need. If Willis and Peterson are sitting there at 12, you take Peterson because he is the best player available IMO.

 

If it's Willis and Lynch? Then you take Willis.

 

But realisitically, in order for Peterson to fall to 12, Willis will have to be drafted before the Bills get on the clock (and visa versa), making this discussion moot.

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't doubt that.

 

But the staff seems to be content with Angie as the MLB. So, the hole on the team is OLB, a position that Willis doesn't play.

I really think they just put Crowell there because there is no one else and told him that he will probably be playing there. But they don't know if they are going to draft an MLB or a OLB, and can easily move him back to OLB if we draft Willis or another inside guy. With the fact he can play both they can look to draft the best LB whether he is in the middle or not.

[Koufax]

Here's the rub with this scenario: It's all about value.

 

There are more available LBs in this draft than marquee RBs. Arguably there is only one marquee RB (Peterson) in the draft yet there are several possible marquee LBs (Willis, Timmons, Polz). If Peterson is sitting there at 12 along with the three LBs, then you have to take Peterson from a value standpoint alone.

 

Both LB and RB are equal needs on this team right now, so if you get lucky and the only marquee RB falls in your lap, you take him. The logic being there's a chance you can still land one of the three remaining LBs later in the draft (either by trading up or one of them falling).

 

Now, personally Peterson scares the hell out of me so I would never want to see the Bills trade up to get him. But if he's there at 12, regardless of which LBs are left, they have to take him.

 

I'm personally in the Peterson vs. Willis tossup phase. It needs to be based on two things, since we will add both a RB and a LB in the draft:

 

1) How do Peterson and Willis compare as football players in terms of total value over the next four years? Conventional Wisdom puts Peterson ahead of Willis, which is why you hear about Peterson maybe going #3, but Willis's high water mark is #11. Could be wrong, but it would seem that by most measures people expect more impact from Peterson.

 

2) How do the off position options compare in round 2? If we assume the above question is very close and we would get the opposite position in round 2 if possible, how do the LBs likely available at #44 compare with the RBs available at #44. How does a David Harris compare to a Tony Hunt? Here I would give the advantage again likely tot he RB.

 

So which is a better choice at #12? Peterson and hope for a Harris in the 2nd? Or Willis and hope for a Hunt in the 2nd? (or a substitute elsewhere in the draft, it doesn't have to be 100% at #44). In terms of actual talent, it is hard to tell which is the better combo to replace these two positions. Right now I think we don't pass on Peterson, and our draft board (for the likely candidates, obviously we have people like Calvin Johnson even higher):

 

Peterson

Willis

Okoye

Lynch

[jri111]

But realisitically, in order for Peterson to fall to 12, Willis will have to be drafted before the Bills get on the clock (and visa versa), making this discussion moot.

 

 

How so? the only teams that would take Peterson are the Browns, Falcons and Texans. Willis is more likley to go to the Niners.

 

What if the Browns take Quinn, falcons take Landry, Texans take Brown and the 49er's take Willis. This is not a prediction, just to show that it could happen that they are both there at 12.

 

...and I think Peterson has a much better chance of falling then people think. Will he go to Celveland at 3? probably, but if they decide to go with Quinn if he's still there then who knows. Falcons needs a saftey and love Landry. Texans have like 5 RB's on the roster and are paying green $5million a year already...

[Chilly]

Yeah, but, you forgot that Peterson is a Sooner. Therefore, he sucks.

[CosmicBills]

I really think they just put Crowell there because there is no one else and told him that he will probably be playing there. But they don't know if they are going to draft an MLB or a OLB, and can easily move him back to OLB if we draft Willis or another inside guy. With the fact he can play both they can look to draft the best LB whether he is in the middle or not.

I think that is a fair point, and probably accurate. I still say it's a somewhat pointless debate since there are no real scenarios where both players will be available to choose from at 12.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm personally in the Peterson vs. Willis tossup phase. It needs to be based on two things, since we will add both a RB and a LB in the draft:

 

1) How do Peterson and Willis compare as football players in terms of total value over the next four years? Conventional Wisdom puts Peterson ahead of Willis, which is why you hear about Peterson maybe going #3, but Willis's high water mark is #11. Could be wrong, but it would seem that by most measures people expect more impact from Peterson.

 

2) How do the off position options compare in round 2? If we assume the above question is very close and we would get the opposite position in round 2 if possible, how do the LBs likely available at #44 compare with the RBs available at #44. How does a David Harris compare to a Tony Hunt? Here I would give the advantage again likely tot he RB.

 

So which is a better choice at #12? Peterson and hope for a Harris in the 2nd? Or Willis and hope for a Hunt in the 2nd? (or a substitute elsewhere in the draft, it doesn't have to be 100% at #44). In terms of actual talent, it is hard to tell which is the better combo to replace these two positions. Right now I think we don't pass on Peterson, and our draft board (for the likely candidates, obviously we have people like Calvin Johnson even higher):

 

Peterson

Willis

Okoye

Lynch

Personally, I think a Peterson/Harris combo easily makes us a better team than a Willis/Hunt combo.

[CosmicBills]

How so? the only teams that would take Peterson are the Browns, Falcons and Texans. Willis is more likley to go to the Niners.

 

What if the Browns take Quinn, falcons take Landry, Texans take Brown and the 49er's take Willis. This is not a prediction, just to show that it could happen that they are both there at 12.

 

...and I think Peterson has a much better chance of falling then people think. Will he go to Celveland at 3? probably, but if they decide to go with Quinn if he's still there then who knows. Falcons needs a saftey and love Landry. Texans have like 5 RB's on the roster and are paying green $5million a year already...

 

You're discounting the notion that teams will trade up to get Peterson if he slips past the Browns.

 

... and in your example, Willis goes to the 49ers at 11, proving my point. There aren't any realistic scenarios where both Willis and Peterson are both available at 12.