PIZ Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I would think if AP fall to 6 Marv should make a deal. I can't see him getting past Minnesota, Atlanta, and Houston. What would Marv have to give up to move from 12 to 6? I really thought they would trade their 2nd for Turner, but the uncertainty of that will cause the Bills to think RB eariler. Would this make sense? Take a LB (Willis or POZ) at 12 and trade back into the 1st round to take Marshawn Lynch, likely before Green Bay. What would it take to get back into the 1st round to get Lynch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 We are assuming he has a big interest in him. But if the interest level is very high, as you are assuming, Arizona or Washington would seem to be the fit. Having no idea what their board looks like makes it very exciting this year. Peterson may be gone at #3 or drop to #12 . The QB from Cal was projected to go very high in 2005, and ended up being in the lower half of the first round, and Whitner was not projected to go as high as he did. But the SELECTION slot for these players seem much more accurate than the PROJECTION slot leading up to the draft. A solid draft for the Bills, would, IMO, make the team in 2008 a possible Contender to win it all.... and wouldn't that be sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I don't think I'd include the #2 pick. I'd offer the 12th and 74th pick and then just see if anyone decided to bite. It likely won't be enough to get the Bills to #6, most likely, but might be sufficient to provide a smaller move up the board should he fall to perhaps 8th or 10th overall. As for Lynch, if he's a target for Green Bay at 16, then the Bills' only realistic choice is likely to just select him at 12. To move up from 43 back into the first half of R1 would almost certainly cost us at least next year's #1 pick, possibly even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I don't think I'd include the #2 pick. I'd offer the 12th and 74th pick and then just see if anyone decided to bite. It likely won't be enough to get the Bills to #6, most likely, but might be sufficient to provide a smaller move up the board should he fall to perhaps 8th or 10th overall. As for Lynch, if he's a target for Green Bay at 16, then the Bills' only realistic choice is likely to just select him at 12. To move up from 43 back into the first half of R1 would almost certainly cost us at least next year's #1 pick, possibly even more. I would not move up for a RB. They can get a serviceable back with upside in round 2 or 3. I could see them moving to #10 for Willis if they felt strongly that SF would take him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I don't think there's any chance that the Bills will land Peterson. He's a blue chip player in a draft with very, very few of them. The 12 slot is just too far away to land someone like him. Also, remember that whatever team traded down to us would still have to pay a considerable sum of money to a non-elite player. Peterson shows every sign of being a potential elite player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I would not move up for a RB. They can get a serviceable back with upside in round 2 or 3. I could see them moving to #10 for Willis if they felt strongly that SF would take him. I would do it in a heartbeat for Peterson, but it's academic - he's not going to be available beyond the seventh pick, and there's no reasonable trade scenario that could result. The Bills aren't going to give up a second and a third (what it would take at the very least), and no team is going to trade down to a slot where all the elite players will be gone just to obtain another second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I would do it in a heartbeat for Peterson, but it's academic - he's not going to be available beyond the seventh pick, and there's no reasonable trade scenario that could result. The Bills aren't going to give up a second and a third (what it would take at the very least), and no team is going to trade down to a slot where all the elite players will be gone just to obtain another second. It depends. Marv has shown that he (or at least his staff) will trade future picks if they feel really good about a player -- see Cornelius Bennett. But it'll take a really good cost-benefit analysis. How good is Peterson compared to what you might get in the second round? Can the RB position be a by-committee proposition for this year with a second/third round RB in the mix, and addressed further in next year's draft (or with a UFA Turner, presuming he isn't traded) if the talent is right? Lots of decisions make this an unpredictable and exciting draft for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I would not move up for a RB. They can get a serviceable back with upside in round 2 or 3. I could see them moving to #10 for Willis if they felt strongly that SF would take him. Do you just cut and paste this from every post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 It depends. Marv has shown that he (or at least his staff) will trade future picks if they feel really good about a player -- see Cornelius Bennett. But it'll take a really good cost-benefit analysis. How good is Peterson compared to what you might get in the second round? Can the RB position be a by-committee proposition for this year with a second/third round RB in the mix, and addressed further in next year's draft (or with a UFA Turner, presuming he isn't traded) if the talent is right? Lots of decisions make this an unpredictable and exciting draft for us. The Bills really need another good running back. I like Anthony Thomas as a person and as a gamer, but the simple fact of the matter is that he's really not very good at this point in his career and doesn't scare defenses. The point is that if you're going to do a running back-by-committee thing, you really need both guys to be legitimate starters (i.e., Jones-Drew and Taylor). Otherwise, you've got a tandem only because neither of the guys are good enough to start. If one is clearly better than the other, they'll get the load (see Henry, Travis, from the 2006 Titans). At present, the Bills don't have *any* good running backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 The Bills really need another good running back. I like Anthony Thomas as a person and as a gamer, but the simple fact of the matter is that he's really not very good at this point in his career and doesn't scare defenses. The point is that if you're going to do a running back-by-committee thing, you really need both guys to be legitimate starters (i.e., Jones-Drew and Taylor). Otherwise, you've got a tandem only because neither of the guys are good enough to start. If one is clearly better than the other, they'll get the load (see Henry, Travis, from the 2006 Titans). At present, the Bills don't have *any* good running backs. It seems to me like you're saying you'd like to see the Bills put a bulk of the chips on Peterson. I wouldn't have one problem with that. But is that what you're saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 It seems to me like you're saying you'd like to see the Bills put a bulk of the chips on Peterson. I wouldn't have one problem with that. But is that what you're saying? I don't think I conveyed what I was thinking very well. I'd of course love to have Peterson, but I don't think the Bills have any realistic chance to get him. I'm guessing they'll either draft Lynch or spend a second rounder on someone, but in the end I don't think the Bills will have a very strong stable of running backs this year. Who knows, though -- maybe Lynch or whoever it is that they draft (or even Turner) will surprise. It's not like I haven't been wrong about these things a million times before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I doubt we go RB in rd 1 even if Peterson is there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cincinnati Kid Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 The only guy we move up for is Willis from Ole Miss, but I think that the likelyhood of us trading down is much greater than us trading up into the top 10. The fact is that if DJ and Marv really want to RBBC then we do not need or want a guy like Peterson. I believe that should he be there at 12 we certainly take him because of the skills he has, but we arent moving to get him. We'll stand firm at 12 unless someone gives us an outrageous offer to move back into the late teens or early 20s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paup 1995MVP Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I don't think I conveyed what I was thinking very well. I'd of course love to have Peterson, but I don't think the Bills have any realistic chance to get him. I'm guessing they'll either draft Lynch or spend a second rounder on someone, but in the end I don't think the Bills will have a very strong stable of running backs this year. Who knows, though -- maybe Lynch or whoever it is that they draft (or even Turner) will surprise. It's not like I haven't been wrong about these things a million times before. If the Bills really want Adrian Peterson badly enough, they need to move ahead of Minnesota to get him. If he is still on the board at 6 when Washington is picking don't be shocked if we offered next years first round pick to move up and take him. I am sure a lot of people will say this is way too much to give up. I say if you want to win in this league you need marquee players. Peterson will be just that. If we get him we have a chance to do something really big this year. Yea, I know we need linebackers, but we can win if we can get the offense in gear. Look at where we ranked the past few years on O. AT THE BOTTOM. With a good offensive line, Adrian Peterson will run wild for us. What does everyone think about giving up next year's first? Is that too much when there are many other running backs to choose from later on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 If the Bills really want Adrian Peterson badly enough, they need to move ahead of Minnesota to get him. If he is still on the board at 6 when Washington is picking don't be shocked if we offered next years first round pick to move up and take him. I am sure a lot of people will say this is way too much to give up. I say if you want to win in this league you need marquee players. Peterson will be just that. If we get him we have a chance to do something really big this year. Yea, I know we need linebackers, but we can win if we can get the offense in gear. Look at where we ranked the past few years on O. AT THE BOTTOM. With a good offensive line, Adrian Peterson will run wild for us. What does everyone think about giving up next year's first? Is that too much when there are many other running backs to choose from later on? next year's #1 is only valued as a 2nd round pick in the 2007 draft. I would take Brandon Jackson / Lorenzo Booker in the 3rd and sign Chris Brown / Corey Dillon / Ricky Williams instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I suspect there is not a need to trade up. I see Willis, Peterson and Okoye as worthy of the 12 pick and ONE of them will be there at twelve. I know some will say Okoye won't make it, some say Peterson won't slip, some say Willis won't. I'd bet that no matter how you cook it, ONE of them will make it. No need to trade up for anyone...take the blue chipper that falls your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 IMO, there are too many holes to fill to trade up 5-7 slots for a RB. This draft has to be about quantity as much as quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I don't think I conveyed what I was thinking very well. I'd of course love to have Peterson, but I don't think the Bills have any realistic chance to get him. I'm guessing they'll either draft Lynch or spend a second rounder on someone, but in the end I don't think the Bills will have a very strong stable of running backs this year. Who knows, though -- maybe Lynch or whoever it is that they draft (or even Turner) will surprise. It's not like I haven't been wrong about these things a million times before. I think that if he does slide down to 6 or 7, there is a solid chance the Bills will trade up for him Dave. The reason I think this is because of the age of Marv and Ralph. If they think that Peterson is THAT good, what have they to lose? They DID get rid of older players last year and I praise them for doing so, but at some point the age issue will factor in, or so one could reasonably suspect. Edit: I don't think it will happen. I think it is pretty clear where Marv will go in round 1, but I don't throw out the possibility of trading up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 If we got a good LB at 12 I'd rather trade our 2nd and a conditional 2-4 next year for Turner if that's possible. Lynch and Peterson have potential, but Turner is a proven commodity at the pro level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I really don't see Peterson sliding to #12 or us trading up for him. I really think that our first pick will be a defensive player. People aren't expecting anything out of RB Fred Jackson and rightfully so, but I think that Marv is really enarmored with this kid. If I'm accurate then drafting a RB in the 3rd rd (Brandon Jackson?) is more than likely. I'm Ok with this as long as our first pick is an animal on defense and contributes right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts