Pyrite Gal Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 Good post. We need to come out of the draft with a starting RB and a starting LB. We also need a strong prospect for CB. My stratgey would be to hold off on Turner until our pick comes up. then lets see who iss there and who wants to deal. If Peterson is there (assume Lynch is to) then Turners value goes down. I would take Peterson and then still have 3 picks to address LB and CB needs. Maybe we can trade up to get a player that can start at LB? I prefer that we pick Willis at 12 and then trade for Turner without giving up a first rounder. That would give us two starters as for sure. It would be great to have a strong prospect at CB (and at WR, and at TE, and at K for that matter as well) but I do not see that as a big priority for this team in this draft. I see this as true because overall the Cover 2 is a scheme which does not demand or make good use of strong CB prospects. Just as "playmaker" Dre Bly got out of dodge as fast as he could as an FA and was on record bemoaning the Cover 2 style he was required to play. Also the Bills were more than willing to promise not to franchise NC a second time because they knew no CB was worth even the new average of the top 5 CB salaries in the Cover 2, almost any prospect who is a stud CB is not a good investment in the Cover 2. The 2nd reason is that we do have a strong prospect (prospect like potential means you have not done anything yet) at CB in Youbouty who was talked about in last years crew as a potential 1st round choice. If anything the rather than a prospect the Bills could use a reasonable cost starter to increase competition for the slot because one cannot be sure Youbouty will actually produce but though a strong prospect would be nice to have it comes no where near the need for a 2 replacements for lost LBs and as many as 2 strong prospects at RB with our #1 gone and us arguably being a prospect short at RB given the current vogue of having 2 top-flight RB talents (A-Train is good as a #2 but no one would argue that he is near as good as even the second level talent in the McCalister/Bush duo or the Dillon/Mulroney duo and some folks for some reason expect him to be our #1).
YOOOOOO Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 If you actually think all these things are really true, then I can see why you are so desperate to draft Lynch at #12. Although I'm still not sure why you seem so compelled to post the same thing several hundred times. However in your brief analysis I think your overexcitement has caused you to ascribe several traits to Lynch which he simply does not possess.Great size? 5'11" 217lbs is great size?! Might want to scratch that one out. I stopped here cuz obviously your confused.... great size for a RB.....5'11 217 is exactly that.... you dont think so...??
Kelly the Dog Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 I stopped here cuz obviously your confused.... great size for a RB.....5'11 217 is exactly that.... you dont think so...?? I wouldn't call that great size at all. It's not great height and it's not great weight. It's decent height and decent to good weight. How do you figure that is great size? Granted, there are great RBs without great size but that has nothing to do with this argument. He's not huge, he's not tall, he's not wide. That's not "great size."
Simon Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 I stopped here cuz obviously your confused.... great size for a RB.....5'11 217 is exactly that.... you dont think so...?? Instead of stopping there, maybe you should read the rest too......... And 5'11" 217lbs is not great size for a running back, it's average. Just like his speed is average. And his explosiveness is average at best. And I don't want to spend the #12 overall pick on an average Running Back.
YOOOOOO Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 I wouldn't call that great size at all. It's not great height and it's not great weight. It's decent height and decent to good weight. How do you figure that is great size? Granted, there are great RBs without great size but that has nothing to do with this argument. He's not huge, he's not tall, he's not wide. That's not "great size." for a RB it is..... 5'11 217 is exactly what you want..... For a RB "great" size is exactly that 5'10 to 6'0 210 to 230..... you any bigger or smaller you have to be something special in todays game....
Kelly the Dog Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 for a RB it is.....5'11 217 is exactly what you want..... For a RB "great" size is exactly that 5'10 to 6'0 210 to 230..... you any bigger or smaller you have to be something special in todays game.... Well then you're talking semantics and 80% of the running backs in the league have "great size". There's also a pretty big range between 210 and 230.
YOOOOOO Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 Well then you're talking semantics and 80% of the running backs in the league have "great size". There's also a pretty big range between 210 and 230. and you wonder why there not many in the bigger or smaller range....??
Kelly the Dog Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 and you wonder why there not many in the bigger or smaller range....?? When someone talks about "great size" it is almost always talking about being large. On the upper level of height and weight. They are not talking about common size or average size. And I don't think there is anything like an ideal size for a RB. LT, Priest Holmes, Tiki Barber, Frank Gore were kinda short. LJ , Stephen Jackson are kinda tall. To Simon and myself, and i assume others, when someone says a back has great size that means he's a big back.
YOOOOOO Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 When someone talks about "great size" it is almost always talking about being large. On the upper level of height and weight. They are not talking about common size or average size. And I don't think there is anything like an ideal size for a RB. LT, Priest Holmes, Tiki Barber, Frank Gore were kinda short. LJ , Stephen Jackson are kinda tall. To Simon and myself, and i assume others, when someone says a back has great size that means he's a big back. Great size... doesnt equal BIG.....especially for a RB... As any scout what great size for a RB is......they will all answer the same.... LJ and Jackson are that exception in the bigger range.....were they have to be something special to make it...to have that package of size and 4.45 speed...its rare for a RB....usually your that big and that fast your a LB not a RB.... as for LT, Holmes are 5'10, Gore is 5'9 ....all weighing in the 215-225 area....so they dont exactly fit the smaller back type.... a guy like Bush makes it weighing 205 cause he has exceptional ability....he brings alot more to the table... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ and to Simon Lynch, you say he isnt explosive...I disagree....I'd make my arguement but you'd throw them away, saying PAC-10 D's are weak...ok thats fine.....we disagree.... He doesnt have speed yet he runs a 4.45 -40.....Def above average...wouldnt you say.... One thing that you cant argue is that he is a complete back, the most complete back in this draft....do you agree to that.... you say he's not explosive enough to be a #12 pick...ok we disagree.... See the dude in my avatar...Lynch is him...with more speed, more agility, more athletism, better hands, better blocker, smarter, better overall football instincts...I'll take that at #12... As for who is right or wrong ... we will have to wait and see.... save this we will bring it back in 2009
The Dean Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 and you wonder why there not many in the bigger or smaller range....?? I think you mean he has "ideal size", which is true.
rafter Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 I think you mean he has "ideal size", which is true. Thank you. I was about to break out the thesaurus and pick 10 words more fitting than great. I think people were having trouble discerning between the great wall of China and Pamela Anderson.
Dibs Posted April 9, 2007 Author Posted April 9, 2007 At the risk of repeating myself, allow me to re-iterate: you're a dick. At the risk of removing any doubt.....I'm a dick Sorry Simon. I think this is yet another case of "only read the last(or first) bit" syndrome. I don't know why....I normally thoroughly read posts.......it doesn't matter. I apologize unreservedly.
Gordio Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 My guess is that Peterson is going to go to Atlanta & either Willis or Okoye are going to SF. If Willis & AP are off the boards, I think the bills should draft Lynch. This guy is a playmaker. I may venture to say that I think he is going to be better then AP. If you do that, try to get back into the 1st round & get Poz or maybe Timmons or Beason(not even sure you have to get back into the 1st round to get these guys).
The Dean Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 My guess is that Peterson is going to go to Atlanta & either Willis or Okoye are going to SF. If Willis & AP are off the boards, I think the bills should draft Lynch. This guy is a playmaker. I may venture to say that I think he is going to be better then AP. If you do that, try to get back into the 1st round & get Poz or maybe Timmons or Beason(not even sure you have to get back into the 1st round to get these guys). I LOVE Lynch. But, if he and Willis OR Okoye are there, I'd rather have the D guy. That's one of the big reasons I hope the Bills find a way to get Turner.
Recommended Posts