tennesseeboy Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Pittman, Irons and a few others are not too far from the Peterson Lynch quality. Hence it wouldn't bother me if we got our RB in the second or EVEN third round. I think this class of running backs is grossly under-rated.
DanInSouthBuffalo Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Pittman is one of the guys I want. If we can't get Patrick Willis, I'd rather trade down and pick up another #2 to ensure we get a guy like Pittman in round #2
stinky finger Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Fast and Strong These clips do suggest he's strong and fast. Any durability issues?
Gordio Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Pittman is my guy if we cant cant get Turner, Peterson or Lynch.
Helmet_hair Posted April 5, 2007 Author Posted April 5, 2007 These clips do suggest he's strong and fast. Any durability issues? None that I know of, he is bit green and small but very tough. I real steal in the second round for first round talent. This guy does a pretty good job of summing him up
OnTheRocks Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 I don't know...Out of that highlight reel I think there were a total of 20 plays and only 5 or 6 were against ranked teams. I do think he will be an ok back, but I don't see him as a franchise back.
GG Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 I don't know...Out of that highlight reel I think there were a total of 20 plays and only 5 or 6 were against ranked teams.I do think he will be an ok back, but I don't see him as a franchise back. And of those runs, how many holes were big enough for Tim Tindale to run through?
seq004 Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Great? no. He's a a solid back but I would take Irons in a 2nd round pick over him.
PromoTheRobot Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 And of those runs, how many holes were big enough for Tim Tindale to run through? Good point. Not saying Pittman hasn't got skills, but you have to remember they won't see holes that big playing for the Bills. My take: LB first, then RB in the draft. PTR
bluv Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 I wouldn't have any issues at all with taking him in round 2 or later as he'd form a pretty good rotation with the A-Train. Some will bash him because of his size; TT, Barry, and Emmit seemed to do pretty good being similar size. If he can come in and be the next TH I'd be happy with that. With 4.4 speed he can add to this team what we desperately need: more playmakers. The only one we have on offense is Lee Evans and maybe Roscoe if given the chance. I'd much rather see us draft a stud defensive player (LB or CB than can start day 1) or WR than a RB in rd 1.
Matt in KC Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 ...we desperately need: more playmakers. The only one we have on offense is Lee Evans and maybe Roscoe if given the chance. With his more accurate throws and a few effective scrambles, I think you have to add JP to the list.
Git'er Done Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 One of the problems with finding the "next Clinton Portis" in the 2nd or 3rd round is that even if you have miraclously identified this diamond in the rough among the big list of guys rated for the 2nd and 3rd rounds, you have to hope he lasts until you pick. That takes ALOT of luck. Pittman would be third on my RB list but if he is picked before we can get him we could be really F@#!ed. I really don't buy this "yea, just get one of those 2nd rounders". Year to year there are only one or two that have good careers (bring on the "look at all the first rd busts") there are waaaaaayyyyyy more 2nd and 3rd round backs that end up special teamers.
bluv Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 With his more accurate throws and a few effective scrambles, I think you have to add JP to the list. I could but when I think of playmakers on offense I think more of RB's and WR who can take a short or even bad play, make a few defender miss or run over them and make a long gainer or TD out of it. QB's, unless they are Vick (whom I'm definitely NOT a big fan off!) don't fall into that category.
Helmet_hair Posted April 5, 2007 Author Posted April 5, 2007 I wouldn't have any issues at all with taking him in round 2 or later as he'd form a pretty good rotation with the A-Train. Some will bash him because of his size; TT, Barry, and Emmit seemed to do pretty good being similar size. If he can come in and be the next TH I'd be happy with that. With 4.4 speed he can add to this team what we desperately need: more playmakers. The only one we have on offense is Lee Evans and maybe Roscoe if given the chance. I'd much rather see us draft a stud defensive player (LB or CB than can start day 1) or WR than a RB in rd 1. This is what I was thinking; he fits the Bills new RB system. He would make a great change up/ rotational back, plus just think what he could do on special teams! A lot have him going mid to late in the second, very good bang for the buck!
dollars 2 donuts Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Pittman is one of the guys I want. If we can't get Patrick Willis, I'd rather trade down and pick up another #2 to ensure we get a guy like Pittman in round #2 I hear ya and agree with you 95% on this one, Dan. Although I would consider Lynch if he were still there. However, I am leaning more and more towards hoping and praying that Willis will be there... ...which means he won't be there.
Koufax Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Thanks for the video, and I do like Pittman. I don't think the highlights on the video necessarily show everything, since a lot of them were huge holes and straight runs. From this video I didn't see the agility or elusiveness he would need to be an absolute stud at his size, but I think he could be an excellent pickup, and is why unless Peterson falls I would rather go with a round 2 back and take Willis at #12 than break the bank for Turner or draft Lynch.
Captain Hindsight Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 I think pittman is a great back in terms of potential, my brother lives in ohio and he said he saw Pittman, Troy Smith and Ted Ginn signing autographs Smith and Ginn were asking for 10$ for each item for "personal use" Pittman wanted 50$ No thanks
Recommended Posts