BeastMode54 Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Malcolm Kelly seems to be the favorite around here as far as who we should take with the 11 pick if we take a WR. Sweed had a wrist injury, not a leg, knee, cartilage, elbow, etc. Is the reason he is talked about less due to the fact he was hurt? In my honest opinion, I think he has a better head on his shoulders and a more proven track record. I say we take Sweed 11!!!!
Hazed and Amuzed Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Malcolm Kelly seems to be the favorite around here as far as who we should take with the 11 pick if we take a WR. Sweed had a wrist injury, not a leg, knee, cartilage, elbow, etc. Is the reason he is talked about less due to the fact he was hurt? In my honest opinion, I think he has a better head on his shoulders and a more proven track record. I say we take Sweed 11!!!! I still say no WR at #11 but if we do, Sweed or Thomas would be fine.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Id still rather have Malcolm Kelly, if we go receiver. He has a better build, and from what I've seen, makes better receptions, on poorly thrown balls. Looks like he'd be better at yac, and working the middle of the field, but has big play capability. Where as Sweed, is a terrific jumper, and will probably make a good redzone target. Body wise, he doesn't look like someone I'd want working the middle of the field. He's sorta lanky, and I'm not sure if he can take those kind of substained hits. I'm also not entirely positive how Sweed will gain seperation at the nfl level. He doesn't play to his timed speed, and doesn't look quick in movement, where as Kelly just seems more natural, but has to work on route running. Sweed may give us the better short term option. I see Kelly turning out to be the better pro. I'd forego wr in the 1st altogether an go de/te/cb in rds 1-3 just the same. Yes I do think a receiving te, is more important to an offense, then a prototypical #2 wr.
ndirish1978 Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 I don't like Kelsay, that's a given, but would someone please explain to me how it is the FO is going to sign a man to a 4 yr $24m contract and then draft a replacement for him with their first rd pick? They are going to eat this one and give him another year to pan out.
SouthTownBills51 Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Either Kelly or Sweed would work with me...at this point , im not too picky as long as he's big, can catch, and isn't afraid of snow..
Snorom Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 I still say no WR at #11 but if we do, Sweed or Thomas would be fine. we can trade down some, but we have NO choice here. We need an impact player at WR for this season and the chances of that happening decreases if we wait until round #2. Evans has not signed an extension yet, and we need a bonafide 1-2 punch at WR that we haven't had since Moulds/Evans. if Evans plays hard ball and doesn't sign an extension we better have his replacement on the roster already or we'll be in bigger trouble in 2009 in regards to WR's.
dischords Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 i'm sure the bills know whether or not they want kelly now that he's visited (and I assume the medical staff has had a chance to poke at him). i think either would be fine, but i don't see sweed being a bill...just a hunch. I'd be willing to bet the decision has pretty much already been made though.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 I don't like Kelsay, that's a given, but would someone please explain to me how it is the FO is going to sign a man to a 4 yr $24m contract and then draft a replacement for him with their first rd pick? They are going to eat this one and give him another year to pan out. The Bills have honestly done a great job in the personnel department the last few years, and the list of positions they need to upgrade is shrinking. That spot Kelsay and Denney occupy is one of the weaker starting positions on the team.
Astrobot Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 we can trade down some, but we have NO choice here. We need an impact player at WR for this season and the chances of that happening decreases if we wait until round #2. Evans has not signed an extension yet, and we need a bonafide 1-2 punch at WR that we haven't had since Moulds/Evans. if Evans plays hard ball and doesn't sign an extension we better have his replacement on the roster already or we'll be in bigger trouble in 2009 in regards to WR's. The choice we might have is to trade down and still get the impact WR. Especially since we can't decide which one is "IT" at #11.
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Too bad Clint Eastwood kicked his ass. Although everytime he caught a pass they could play SWEED,SWEED,SWEED,SWEED, over the PA.
Steely Dan Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Malcolm Kelly seems to be the favorite around here as far as who we should take with the 11 pick if we take a WR. Sweed had a wrist injury, not a leg, knee, cartilage, elbow, etc. Is the reason he is talked about less due to the fact he was hurt? In my honest opinion, I think he has a better head on his shoulders and a more proven track record. I say we take Sweed 11!!!! If Sweed isn't there I'd like them to pass on a WR in the first round and take Jordy Nelson in the second unless they think he'll still be available in the third. i'm sure the bills know whether or not they want kelly now that he's visited (and I assume the medical staff has had a chance to poke at him). i think either would be fine, but i don't see sweed being a bill...just a hunch. I'd be willing to bet the decision has pretty much already been made though. If he came for a visit then the Bills will not draft him if past draft seasons are any guide.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Malcolm Kelly seems to be the favorite around here as far as who we should take with the 11 pick if we take a WR. Sweed had a wrist injury, not a leg, knee, cartilage, elbow, etc. Is the reason he is talked about less due to the fact he was hurt? In my honest opinion, I think he has a better head on his shoulders and a more proven track record. I say we take Sweed 11!!!! I understand you want Sweed but I think we need to go after Thomas. He's basically the same as Sweed and Kelly but HAS played in cold weather.
Chilly Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 I understand you want Sweed but I think we need to go after Thomas. He's basically the same as Sweed and Kelly but HAS played in cold weather. I guess Sweed didn't play in a snow storm at Nebraska?
obie_wan Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 The choice we might have is to trade down and still get the impact WR. Especially since we can't decide which one is "IT" at #11. there are no elite WRs worthy of #11- They should fortify the lines or defense and take Earl Bennett in round 2
obie_wan Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 I understand you want Sweed but I think we need to go after Thomas. He's basically the same as Sweed and Kelly but HAS played in cold weather. he is also not currently broken
Recommended Posts