MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 Personally, I think a Peterson/Harris combo easily makes us a better team than a Willis/Hunt combo. especialy considering tony hunt is being viewed now by a lot of teams as a fullback. Hunt may be the one rb that makes tj duckett look fast by comparison. Assuming Peterson is gone which he probably will be baring a trade up, and willis gets past the niners I'll take Willis and someone like pittman or kenny irons. Yeah they're no peterson but definitely better then the likes of hunt.
DrDawkinstein Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 especialy considering tony hunt is being viewed now by a lot of teams as a fullback. Hunt may be the one rb that makes tj duckett look fast by comparison. Assuming Peterson is gone which he probably will be baring a trade up, and willis gets past the niners I'll take Willis and someone like pittman or kenny irons. Yeah they're no peterson but definitely better then the likes of hunt. hunt never looked too slow during games. but if you want to base your draft board on 40 times, go ahead
jri111 Posted March 26, 2007 Author Posted March 26, 2007 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. 1. my mistake about putting willis at 11, i mean carkiker (spelling?) its getting real late and it was a mis-type. but if you want a legitimate mock that has them both falling here: 1. Oak: Russell 2. Detroit: Joe Thomas 3. Cleveland: Quinn 4. TB: Johnson 5. Arizona: Gains Adams 6. Washinton: branch 7. Minnessota: Jamaal Anderson 8. Falcons: Leroy Landry 9. Miami: Okoye 10. Texans: Nelson 11. 49ers: Carriker not legit? 2. Who is going ot trade up to get Peterson? 13. St. Louis - Steven Jackson 14. Carolina - Denagelo Williams and Deshon Foster 15. Pittsburg - Willie Parker 16. Green bay (will come back to this in a second) 17. Jags - Fred Taylor and Jones-drew 18. Bengals - rudi johnson 19. Titans - White, possibly would trade up 20. Giants - Jacobs, Droughns 21. Broncos - T. Henry 22. Dallas - Jones and 23. Cheifs - LJ 24. Pats - Maroney 25. Jets - Jones and Washington 26. Philly - Westbrook 27. NO - mccallister and Bush 28. Pats - maroney 29. Ravens - Mcgahee 30. bolts - LT and Turner 31. Bears - benson 32. Colts - addai So that leaves GB And Tennessee. If Peterson is falling green bay has absolutly NO incentive to leap frog us to get him. That's because between the first pick in the draft and the 16th (where GB picks) there are only three teams in need of a starting RB - Cleveland, Buffalo and Green Bay. Therefore if Cleveland Passes on Peterson, Green Bay has to be sitting there at 16 knowing they have a pretty good chance that one of the top two RB's would fall to them. Not even fall because Lynch at 16 is right about where he's projected to go. The only other team is the Titans, but no team is going to want to trade down from a top ten pick to 19. That's too far of a jump. On the other end the Titans would have to give up a boat load to get up there and why would they do that when they just drafted White not a year ago?
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 hunt never looked too slow during games. but if you want to base your draft board on 40 times, go ahead If you wanna hype tony hunt by all means do so. He's a tough rb who has decent hands in the passing game, but comparing college games to the speed of the pro game is something people aren't taking into account with the hunt. The fact is he's very limited athleticaly with little to no lateral quickness. When he manages to get good steam running foward he can be tough to bring down. He'll never be a big play threat and because of his poor inital quickness there will be a lot of times he gets stuffed. This past year alone he was stoped for a loss 32 times. With the speed of nfl defenses tony hunt will be limited as betwen the tackles runner. We already have one of those. I'd rather not have a younger Anthony Thomas, and prefer more of a back who can be a game changer. Hunt isn't one.
obie_wan Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 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. Your analysis is incorrect. RB and LB needs are not equal. The bills do not have an impact MLB on the team and they can not get one in FA. There is only one impact MLB that the Bills wold have reasoanble expectation could start and make an impact in 2007 - Patrick Willis. Puz will be there in the 2nd round, but doesn't have the range and athleticsm to dominate and Timmons is an OLB. They can get by with Anthony Thomas, a 1st day draft pick and Chris Brown as their RB committee. They do not NEED an elite RB to generate the prodution they need from the RB slot. They do, however, need an impact playmaker at MLB to make the Cover-2 successful. Willis will be the 1st round pick and it will probably be at #10.
obie_wan Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 1. my mistake about putting willis at 11, i mean carkiker (spelling?) its getting real late and it was a mis-type. but if you want a legitimate mock that has them both falling here: 1. Oak: Russell 2. Detroit: Joe Thomas 3. Cleveland: Quinn 4. TB: Johnson 5. Arizona: Gains Adams 6. Washinton: branch 7. Minnessota: Jamaal Anderson 8. Falcons: Leroy Landry 9. Miami: Okoye 10. Texans: Nelson 11. 49ers: Carriker not legit? Branch is a turd who is probably only suited to play in a 3-4. Wash will trade their pick to someone who wants Peterson. SF will draft Willis based on their Senior Bowl relationship with him. That is why Marv will trade up to #10 to get Willis. 2. Who is going ot trade up to get Peterson? 13. St. Louis - Steven Jackson 14. Carolina - Denagelo Williams and Deshon Foster 15. Pittsburg - Willie Parker 16. Green bay (will come back to this in a second) 17. Jags - Fred Taylor and Jones-drew 18. Bengals - rudi johnson 19. Titans - White, possibly would trade up 20. Giants - Jacobs, Droughns 21. Broncos - T. Henry 22. Dallas - Jones and 23. Cheifs - LJ 24. Pats - Maroney 25. Jets - Jones and Washington 26. Philly - Westbrook 27. NO - mccallister and Bush 28. Pats - maroney 29. Ravens - Mcgahee 30. bolts - LT and Turner 31. Bears - benson 32. Colts - addai So that leaves GB And Tennessee. If Peterson is falling green bay has absolutly NO incentive to leap frog us to get him. That's because between the first pick in the draft and the 16th (where GB picks) there are only three teams in need of a starting RB - Cleveland, Buffalo and Green Bay. Therefore if Cleveland Passes on Peterson, Green Bay has to be sitting there at 16 knowing they have a pretty good chance that one of the top two RB's would fall to them. Not even fall because Lynch at 16 is right about where he's projected to go. The only other team is the Titans, but no team is going to want to trade down from a top ten pick to 19. That's too far of a jump. On the other end the Titans would have to give up a boat load to get up there and why would they do that when they just drafted White not a year ago?
colin Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 i don't think the bills pass on peterson unless someone offers the world (like GB giving up 1st, second and perhaps more). if peterson does fall to us, i see us trading back up into the 1st and getting a solid LB if available. with some (a lot) luck we might nab a falling peterson and willis. that might leave us with only one additional day one pick tho, but we could use that on the best CB, DT, or LB on the board then.
CosmicBills Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 Your analysis is incorrect. RB and LB needs are not equal. The bills do not have an impact MLB on the team and they can not get one in FA. There is only one impact MLB that the Bills wold have reasoanble expectation could start and make an impact in 2007 - Patrick Willis. Puz will be there in the 2nd round, but doesn't have the range and athleticsm to dominate and Timmons is an OLB. They can get by with Anthony Thomas, a 1st day draft pick and Chris Brown as their RB committee. They do not NEED an elite RB to generate the prodution they need from the RB slot. They do, however, need an impact playmaker at MLB to make the Cover-2 successful. Willis will be the 1st round pick and it will probably be at #10. But Obie, they have Crowell for MLB who has the range and athleticism necessary to play the Cover 2 successfully. He's not a stud, but he's like having A-Train as your starting RB. Neither is a stud, but both are capable. So I stand by my stance that the needs at LB and RB are pretty much equal.
dave mcbride Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 Simple answer, since theey're all need positions. Who is the best player at their position? That's who you take.
obie_wan Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 But Obie, they have Crowell for MLB who has the range and athleticism necessary to play the Cover 2 successfully. He's not a stud, but he's like having A-Train as your starting RB. Neither is a stud, but both are capable. So I stand by my stance that the needs at LB and RB are pretty much equal. Crowell is undersized as an outside LB, let alone an inside backer. Crowell in the middle is a stop gap at best and is no improvement in run defense because he doesn't attack the line and shed blocks well. If anything he is Fletcher all over again, but without the experience of playing MLB. Crowell has ZERO experience as a MLB in the cover-2 in real games. Willis is the real deal. He is tall, has long arms, is fast, has good instincts and has played MLB his enitre college career. Posters may not like it, but the Bills are elinminating their dire holes at all positions except MLB. Just like last year, they will have tunnel vision is targeting him as their pick. Unfortunately, SF is creating enough of an interest that the Bills will be forced to trade up with Houston to get Willis.
Pete Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 1. my mistake about putting willis at 11, i mean carkiker (spelling?) its getting real late and it was a mis-type. but if you want a legitimate mock that has them both falling here: 1. Oak: Russell 2. Detroit: Joe Thomas 3. Cleveland: Quinn 4. TB: Johnson 5. Arizona: Gains Adams 6. Washinton: branch 7. Minnessota: Jamaal Anderson 8. Falcons: Leroy Landry 9. Miami: Okoye 10. Texans: Nelson 11. 49ers: Carriker not legit? 2. Who is going ot trade up to get Peterson? 13. St. Louis - Steven Jackson 14. Carolina - Denagelo Williams and Deshon Foster 15. Pittsburg - Willie Parker 16. Green bay (will come back to this in a second) 17. Jags - Fred Taylor and Jones-drew 18. Bengals - rudi johnson 19. Titans - White, possibly would trade up 20. Giants - Jacobs, Droughns 21. Broncos - T. Henry 22. Dallas - Jones and 23. Cheifs - LJ 24. Pats - Maroney 25. Jets - Jones and Washington 26. Philly - Westbrook 27. NO - mccallister and Bush 28. Pats - maroney 29. Ravens - Mcgahee 30. bolts - LT and Turner 31. Bears - benson 32. Colts - addai So that leaves GB And Tennessee. If Peterson is falling green bay has absolutly NO incentive to leap frog us to get him. That's because between the first pick in the draft and the 16th (where GB picks) there are only three teams in need of a starting RB - Cleveland, Buffalo and Green Bay. Therefore if Cleveland Passes on Peterson, Green Bay has to be sitting there at 16 knowing they have a pretty good chance that one of the top two RB's would fall to them. Not even fall because Lynch at 16 is right about where he's projected to go. The only other team is the Titans, but no team is going to want to trade down from a top ten pick to 19. That's too far of a jump. On the other end the Titans would have to give up a boat load to get up there and why would they do that when they just drafted White not a year ago? good post. Marshawn might slide far if Peterson slides to 12
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 in any scenario im taking Willis. Peterson can go the way of Leinhert. Here here.
Lurker Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 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?!) 1.) Unthinkable? A blue chip LB would help this team a lot more than a similarly-rated RB 2.) Fug the national media
Lurker Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 If Peterson is sitting there at 12 along with the three LBs, then you have to take Peterson from a value standpoint alone. Only if you're Mel Kiper or playing fanatasy football. Draft value grades are the fools gold of professional sports. The important thing is to build a team, not win the Monday morning draft grade news article deluge.
NewEra Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 No question...I would take Peterson, hands down. We traded McGahee for a 3rd round pick, which gives us the luxury of trading a 3rd or 4th in order to trade up and get a LB like Brandon Siler in the end of the 1st/2nd round. Siler will make a better pro than ANY of the RB's we are talking about. Meanwhile we will be getting the best RB we've seen in a few years.
Billsjunkie Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 Its Peterson.........not Petterson. Sorry it has bothered me for the past week now. Its the second time he has posted a thread title with that spelling. Carry on.
CosmicBills Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 Crowell is undersized as an outside LB, let alone an inside backer. Crowell in the middle is a stop gap at best and is no improvement in run defense because he doesn't attack the line and shed blocks well. If anything he is Fletcher all over again, but without the experience of playing MLB. Crowell has ZERO experience as a MLB in the cover-2 in real games. Willis is the real deal. He is tall, has long arms, is fast, has good instincts and has played MLB his enitre college career. Posters may not like it, but the Bills are elinminating their dire holes at all positions except MLB. Just like last year, they will have tunnel vision is targeting him as their pick. Unfortunately, SF is creating enough of an interest that the Bills will be forced to trade up with Houston to get Willis. Don't get me wrong, I am not down on Willis, nor would I be upset if they take him at 12. Though I would be upset if they trade UP to get anyone in this draft ... whether it be Peterson or Willis or even Calvin Johnson. Now ... trading up in the later half of round 1 is a different story (perhaps to grab Polz or whoever slips out of the teens). And I don't forsee any scenario where both Willis and Peterson drop to 12. Jri111 has one scenario in this thread that is well thought out but I think that is a real long shot. In the end it's a more realistic scenario that both Peterson and Willis are gone when the Bills pick, leaving them to choose between Lynch, Timmons and Polz -- in which case you go LB.
jri111 Posted March 26, 2007 Author Posted March 26, 2007 Its Peterson.........not Petterson. Sorry it has bothered me for the past week now. Its the second time he has posted a thread title with that spelling. I fixed it for ya buddy so you wouldn't have coronary over an extra "t"
obie_wan Posted March 26, 2007 Posted March 26, 2007 Don't get me wrong, I am not down on Willis, nor would I be upset if they take him at 12. Though I would be upset if they trade UP to get anyone in this draft ... whether it be Peterson or Willis or even Calvin Johnson. Now ... trading up in the later half of round 1 is a different story (perhaps to grab Polz or whoever slips out of the teens). And I don't forsee any scenario where both Willis and Peterson drop to 12. Jri111 has one scenario in this thread that is well thought out but I think that is a real long shot. In the end it's a more realistic scenario that both Peterson and Willis are gone when the Bills pick, leaving them to choose between Lynch, Timmons and Polz -- in which case you go LB. [/quote If Willis, Peterson and Okoye are gone -- then Adam Carriker becomes a possibility. He can play inside and outside.
Recommended Posts