You're the Bill's GM and it's April 26th- 11th pick

[seq004]

Now that's a loaded poll if I've ever seen one.

So true. Look if we don't take Sweed or Kelly then we need to address the position via trade since all the free agent options are gone. That being said I would be happy with taking Sweed or Kelly at 11 even if some "experts" have the best WR at 27.

[The Dean]

So you'd pass up Joe Montana and take Perry Tuttle?

 

Drafting for need is generally a recipe for disaster. Eric Flowers anyone?

 

 

What?

 

Montana was no "can't miss" prospect and didn't go until the third round. Now, if your crystal ball can guarantee that Ryan will turn out like Montana, THEN it is a no-brainer. Right now they are ALL prospects and potential. To risk a #11 pick on a prospect, in a position with no immediate need (IF there is a very good prospect that can help make the team better by filling an immediate need) doesn't make a whole lot of sense, for a team with so many needs to fill. I could see a solid team with no screaming needs making that move, though. NE would be wise to look at Ryan.

 

ANY player you draft might end up being great, good, fair or a bust.

[stuckincincy]

What?

 

NE* would be wise to look at Ryan.

 

So would BUF...

[AKC]

So true. Look if we don't take Sweed or Kelly then we need to address the position via trade since all the free agent options are gone. That being said I would be happy with taking Sweed or Kelly at 11 even if some "experts" have the best WR at 27.

 

You sir, may be the most honest among the very exclusive membership of the Wild Receivers Club.

[Brandon]

So true. Look if we don't take Sweed or Kelly then we need to address the position via trade since all the free agent options are gone. That being said I would be happy with taking Sweed or Kelly at 11 even if some "experts" have the best WR at 27.

 

I agree. No one is going to remember that Limas Sweed, for example, was a 'reach' at pick 11 a few years from now if he's busy catching 80 passes and 10-12 TDs per season.

 

The rankings are subjective. What's the expectation of a late first round player? Its usually that he'll become a near Pro Bowl caliber player. I can live with that at 11, in most cases, especially when the team is being crippled by a lack of talent at the particular position.

[K-9]

What?

 

Montana was no "can't miss" prospect and didn't go until the third round. Now, if your crystal ball can guarantee that Ryan will turn out like Montana, THEN it is a no-brainer. Right now they are ALL prospects and potential. To risk a #11 pick on a prospect, in a position with no immediate need (IF there is a very good prospect that can help make the team better by filling an immediate need) doesn't make a whole lot of sense, for a team with so many needs to fill. I could see a solid team with no screaming needs making that move, though. NE would be wise to look at Ryan.

 

ANY player you draft might end up being great, good, fair or a bust.

 

I appreciate your argument, but the bolded part is WHY you take the best player available. Theoretically, the best rated player has a better chance of panning out.

 

And, you can NEVER have enough good players, regardless of position.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

What if Derrick Harvey is already off the board, and the best two cornerbacks are gone as well??

 

I dont see that happening but say the following 10 are gone in no particular order

 

 

1. gholston 2. chris long 3. dorsey 4. ellis 5. mcfadden 6. mike jenkins 7. matt ryan 8. jake long 9.harvey. 10. DRC

 

If this were to happen I'd look for best available trade down. Assuming someone wanted to trade up, for a Keith Rivers, Kenny Phillips, Talib, or Johnathan Stewart, or Clady or someone like that. Then and only with Harvey gone, would I'd entertain the thought of a trade down. It would make taking a wr a little bit more realistic, and more in line with their correct value. As far as the wr I'd take with a trade down scenairo. I'd probably go with Devin Thomas. His yards after catch ability, and speed is intriguing. Believe me though after that I'd be hoping a Lawrence Jackson, Phillip Merling or Calais Campbell made it to the Bills in the 2nd. I have no problem taking a wr. I have a problem overdrafting, for a wr, when there will probably be a better player available, at one of the most important positions in the game. I just can't buy into. That a complimentary wr, is more important then a pass rusher. I don't understand that sort of logic.

[K-9]

I agree. No one is going to remember that Limas Sweed, for example, was a 'reach' at pick 11 a few years from now if he's busy catching 80 passes and 10-12 TDs per season.

The rankings are subjective. What's the expectation of a late first round player? Its usually that he'll become a near Pro Bowl caliber player. I can live with that at 11, in most cases, especially when the team is being crippled by a lack of talent at the particular position.

 

True, but they're sure as hell gonna remember (and excoriate the front office) if he's a dud.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Brandon]

I appreciate your argument, but the bolded part is WHY you take the best player available. Theoretically, the best rated player has a better chance of panning out.

 

And, you can NEVER have enough good players, regardless of position.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

That argument is a double-edged sword.

 

It also means that a higher-rated WR will have a better probability of panning out than a lower rated one. If you believe that the Bills have a critical need at the position, it may be in their best interests to take that best WR, provided that they aren't passing up Bruce Smith to do so.

[AKC]

I agree. No one is going to remember that Limas Sweed, for example, was a 'reach' at pick 11 a few years from now if he's busy catching 80 passes and 10-12 TDs per season.

 

The rankings are subjective. What's the expectation of a late first round player? Its usually that he'll become a near Pro Bowl caliber player. I can live with that at 11, in most cases, especially when the team is being crippled by a lack of talent at the particular position.

 

Let me just make sure- Brandon, you're on board with ignoring our draft board even if it shows we're pushing aside 16 better football players to take a Wide Receiver at 11; your belief is that would be the best thing for the Buffalo Bills in 2008?

[Brandon]

True, but they're sure as hell gonna remember (and excoriate the front office) if he's a dud.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

That's true and its why the front office would need to be right about it, but you can just as easily say that of any player selected at 11.

 

He wouldn't be rated 27th overall or whatever if he were expected to be a dud. Likewise, Derrick Harvey wouldn't be rated in the mid teens if he were a can't miss prospect. The reality is that neither player is perfect and some people really need to get over it.

[K-9]

Let me just make sure- Brandon, you're on board with ignoring our draft board even if it shows we're pushing aside 16 better football players to take a Wide Receiver at 11; your belief is that would be the best thing for the Buffalo Bills in 2008?

 

I think, if you read between the lines in his post, Brandon is saying, "Take the highest rated DT on the board in every round!"

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Cornerville]

DE all the way!!!!! Keep building the lines

[Brandon]

Let me just make sure- Brandon, you're on board with ignoring our draft board even if it shows we're pushing aside 16 better football players to take a Wide Receiver at 11; your belief is that would be the best thing for the Buffalo Bills in 2008?

 

As I've said time and again, it depends upon what the actual player grades are on the Bills board. 11th vs 27th may look like a large gap, but in reality, it could be a tiny difference if they're packed closely together. That's something that neither you nor I know.

[K-9]

That argument is a double-edged sword.

 

It also means that a higher-rated WR will have a better probability of panning out than a lower rated one.

 

That's why I said "theoretically."

 

If you believe that the Bills have a critical need at the position, it may be in their best interests to take that best WR, provided that they aren't passing up Bruce Smith to do so.

 

There's that double edged sword again. And that's why you take the highest rated player as I said earlier. We don't have enough good football players, especially on defense. And defense is what we need to compete with NE.

 

But it's a crapshoot, no matter what. It's just a question of limiting your liability.

 

 

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Brandon]

I think, if you read between the lines in his post, Brandon is saying, "Take the highest rated DT on the board in every round!"

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Some people want a team of nothing but DEs, so I guess I wouldn't be alone in that if it were true.

 

You know what the irony is here? I fully agree with the need of pass rushing DE and would not be disappointed with the selection of Derrick Harvey at 11. I don't think he's 'can't miss', however, nor do I think he's an appreciably better prospect at his position than some of these WRs are. If I view the overall player quality roughly the same, yes, I will give a somewhat higher priority to need.

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

Some people want a team of nothing but DEs, so I guess I wouldn't be alone in that if it were true.

 

You know what the irony is here? I fully agree with the need of pass rushing DE and would not be disappointed with the selection of Derrick Harvey at 11. I don't think he's 'can't miss', however, nor do I think he's an appreciably better prospect at his position than some of these WRs are. If I view the overall player quality roughly the same, yes, I will give a somewhat higher priority to need.

 

I think some people miss one minor detail in this issue. While Harvey may/may not be aprreciably better at dend then the best wr is. Harvey is a better de then anything that will come off the board after him, for damn near the rest of the draft. A lot like the difference between Dorsey/Ellis every other dt. The dropoff at dend after Harvey is pretty large. Filled with tweeners, and projects. Which might be fine for the people who disillusion themselves, into thinking we're anything above mediocre at defensive ends. Even that's a stretch to say.

 

As far as the wr's go. From the best of the prospects to damn near the 4th rd. You can pretty much get comparable talent. From Limas Sweed/Malcolm Kelly to Adarius Bowman/Jordy Nelson. We're not talking about taking a Calvin Johnson over say Gaines Adams or Jamaal Anderson via last year. We're talking about the difference between, a legit fringe top 10 pass rusher, vs the need for "someone better then josh reed". 10 times out 10 you take the pass rusher in this scenairo. We took a #1 receiver in the top 15 in Lee Evans, passing up guys like Tommie Harris and Vince Wilfork in the process. Taking a wideout because he'd make a good #2, over a potential top tier pass rusher, just doesn't make good football sense.

[DreamOnDan]

Some people want a team of nothing but DEs, so I guess I wouldn't be alone in that if it were true.

 

You know what the irony is here? I fully agree with the need of pass rushing DE and would not be disappointed with the selection of Derrick Harvey at 11. I don't think he's 'can't miss', however, nor do I think he's an appreciably better prospect at his position than some of these WRs are. If I view the overall player quality roughly the same, yes, I will give a somewhat higher priority to need.

thats what i meant

[Alaska Darin]

What?

 

Montana was no "can't miss" prospect and didn't go until the third round. Now, if your crystal ball can guarantee that Ryan will turn out like Montana, THEN it is a no-brainer. Right now they are ALL prospects and potential. To risk a #11 pick on a prospect, in a position with no immediate need (IF there is a very good prospect that can help make the team better by filling an immediate need) doesn't make a whole lot of sense, for a team with so many needs to fill. I could see a solid team with no screaming needs making that move, though. NE would be wise to look at Ryan.

 

ANY player you draft might end up being great, good, fair or a bust.

Way to totally miss the point. But thanks for telling an Irish fan where Montana was drafted. I learn something new every day.

 

There are way more examples of teams reaching for needs like Flowers and passing on studs like Keith Bullock because apparently they don't need to fill their teams with guys who can actually play football (and in the salary cap era puts such things even further under the scope). The wideouts in rounds 2-7 in this draft aren't significantly worse than the few who currently have "marginal" first round grades. If they spend 11 on a wideout, they better be damn sure they know something that virtually no one else in the country apparently does.

[Brandon]

I think some people miss one minor detail in this issue. While Harvey may/may not be aprreciably better at dend then the best wr is. Harvey is a better de then anything that will come off the board after him, for damn near the rest of the draft. A lot like the difference between Dorsey/Ellis every other dt. The dropoff at dend after Harvey is pretty large. Filled with tweeners, and projects. Which might be fine for the people who disillusion themselves, into thinking we're anything above mediocre at defensive ends. Even that's a stretch to say.

 

As far as the wr's go. From the best of the prospects to damn near the 4th rd. You can pretty much get comparable talent. From Limas Sweed/Malcolm Kelly to Adarius Bowman/Jordy Nelson. We're not talking about taking a Calvin Johnson over say Gaines Adams or Jamaal Anderson via last year. We're talking about the difference between, a legit fringe top 10 pass rusher, vs the need for "someone better then josh reed". 10 times out 10 you take the pass rusher in this scenairo. We took a #1 receiver in the top 15 in Lee Evans, passing up guys like Tommie Harris and Vince Wilfork in the process. Taking a wideout because he'd make a good #2, over a potential top tier pass rusher, just doesn't make good football sense.

 

I agree. Harvey is significantly better than any other DE prospect likely to be available the rest of the way. Where I differ is in the belief that this is anything more than an ordinary WR draft. It looks like a typical year at both, IMO. There are 4-5 good prospects, a few nice projects, and a whole lot of crap.