Tipster19 Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 I think that we can all put to rest us taking a WR at the #11 spot. Trading for a veteran WR would not surprise me at all. It would give us an instant return and a clear idea on exactly what we would be getting. I think Green Bay has more than their share of WRs, and as once someone mentioned it before and I echoed it, Ruvell Martin would be a fine addition for our team. If a scenario were to unfold like this than I would love for us to use a 2009 pick rather than one from this year's draft. I love this excerpt from Gil Brandt in the article. “It has the biggest mortality rate of any position percentage-wise,” Gil Brandt, the former Dallas personnel executive and current NFL.com analyst, said at the NFL Scouting Combine in February. “It’s a very hard position to learn. Second-hardest other than being a quarterback. So buyer beware.” http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/billsnfl/story/322332.html
Brandon Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 I don't think that fear of past failures at the position is a legitimate reason to bypass drafting a WR in R1. If the scouting staff feels that he's worth that pick, you listen to them and give that player equal consideration. I do not expect them to trade for a veteran WR. No reason, I just don't think it will happen.
ans4e64 Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 I think that we can all put to rest us taking a WR at the #11 spot. Trading for a veteran WR would not surprise me at all. It would give us an instant return and a clear idea on exactly what we would be getting. I think Green Bay has more than their share of WRs, and as once someone mentioned it before and I echoed it, Ruvell Martin would be a fine addition for our team. If a scenario were to unfold like this than I would love for us to use a 2009 pick rather than one from this year's draft. I love this excerpt from Gil Brandt in the article. “It has the biggest mortality rate of any position percentage-wise,” Gil Brandt, the former Dallas personnel executive and current NFL.com analyst, said at the NFL Scouting Combine in February. “It’s a very hard position to learn. Second-hardest other than being a quarterback. So buyer beware.” http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/billsnfl/story/322332.html Your solution is Ruvell Martin? Are you kidding me? Yeah, he'd be good to add... as a 4th or 5th receiver who has some size. But not taking one of these top WR's over Ruvell Martin? You say buyer beware with WRs, and are scared if we select one they wont pan out. So your solution is to trade for a WR that we KNOW already hasn't panned out? Why wouldn't you take a chance that one of these receivers do, instead of trading for a WR you know hasn't. Oh.... and Ruvell Martin? WTF?
Tipster19 Posted April 13, 2008 Author Posted April 13, 2008 Your solution is Ruvell Martin? Are you kidding me? Yeah, he'd be good to add... as a 4th or 5th receiver who has some size. But not taking one of these top WR's over Ruvell Martin? You say buyer beware with WRs, and are scared if we select one they wont pan out. So your solution is to trade for a WR that we KNOW already hasn't panned out? Why wouldn't you take a chance that one of these receivers do, instead of trading for a WR you know hasn't. Oh.... and Ruvell Martin? WTF? Not with our first pick and who said anything about being scared??! How is it that Martin hasn't panned out? We're looking for a #2 WR, not a Jerry Rice.
KOKBILLS Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 I think that we can all put to rest us taking a WR at the #11 spot. Maybe You can... But for My part in the "We" I actually expect The Bills to sit tight at #11 and take Devin Thomas...It's just a gut feeling I have...Not saying they should or should not...But if You think You know what The Bills are going to do chances are you're wrong...So with the likely exception of RB or QB, I'm not putting any Position to rest at #11 personally... We'll just have to wait and see...
Pete Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 I agree somewhat and that is why I am convinced we are going WR in the first. Lee is a free agent and if there is not a play maker at WR he has us over a barrel. We would be so dependent on Lee for production this season and if we did not have a WR from this draft that panned out- we would have to draft a WR in the first next year-maybe to replace Lee. Devin Thomas is whom I predict we pick.
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 I agree somewhat and that is why I am convinced we are going WR in the first. Lee is a free agent and if there is not a play maker at WR he has us over a barrel. We would be so dependent on Lee for production this season and if we did not have a WR from this draft that panned out- we would have to draft a WR in the first next year-maybe to replace Lee. Devin Thomas is whom I predict we pick. I couldn't agree more. We are in desperate need of a stud WR on this team and Devin Thomas looks to me like the best available. Bringing an athlete like DT into our offense could open things up tremendously for LE, Roscoe, and the running game. IMO, there's no question that DT is our pick at 11.
ans4e64 Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Not with our first pick and who said anything about being scared??! Could it be that the thread title is called "Taking WRs too early is a gamble" or "I love this excerpt from Gil Brandt in the article. “It has the biggest mortality rate of any position percentage-wise,” or even “It’s a very hard position to learn. Second-hardest other than being a quarterback. So buyer beware.” ? How is it that Martin hasn't panned out? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call 37 career receptions for 600yds and 5 TDs exactly panning out. I'd like someone who can actually produce as our #2 WR. We're looking for a #2 WR, not a Jerry Rice. So you're not looking for the best WR available because we're "only looking for a #2?" That is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Yeah, we only need a number 2 receiver, so lets try to NOT find the best receiver out there. Good one.
Fewell733 Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 a bigger gamble is going into the season without an adequate receiving corps. Either way we're picker receiver in the first 41 picks - will it be the guy we like the best, or the guy we like 6th best. Who do we trust more to contribute. Either way we're probably going to have to devote another pick to receiver before the draft is out.
BeastMode54 Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Maybe You can... But for My part in the "We" I actually expect The Bills to sit tight at #11 and take Devin Thomas...It's just a gut feeling I have...Not saying they should or should not...But if You think You know what The Bills are going to do chances are you're wrong...So with the likely exception of RB or QB, I'm not putting any Position to rest at #11 personally... We'll just have to wait and see... Buffalo News reported that the Bills don't rate any of the WR's high enough to use withthe #11. So if we don't trade down, we're not taking one
Guest dog14787 Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Malcom Kelly at the 11th pick, I don't care what the stop watch says (OK I do a little) but the kid can play. The Bills would look awfull foolish watching Malcom Kelly in the pro bowl a couple of years from now if we pass him up. Malcom Kelly plays big on the field, real big.
KOKBILLS Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Buffalo News reported that the Bills don't rate any of the WR's high enough to use withthe #11. So if we don't trade down, we're not taking one Right...Because The Buffalo News always knows what The Bills are going to do on Draft Day... Anyway...They are probably right...But all I'm saying is I'll believe it when I see it...The Bills have been FAR from predictable over the past few Years, so I'm not eliminating many possibilities just yet...
BeastMode54 Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Malcom Kelly at the 11th pick, I don't care what the stop watch says (OK I do a little) but the kid can play. The Bills would look awfull foolish watching Malcom Kelly in the pro bowl a couple of years from now if we pass him up. Malcom Kelly plays big on the field, real big. I kind of agree with on this one. But I would trade down to get him. His game film is impressive and he has a proven track record. Scouts said that although his 40 times was slow, he impressed in all the receiving frills. He has great hands and would be a great red zone target. I'm not sure if the value is there at 11, but I wouldn't mind. Maybe we are one of the few who agree on this
Rockinon Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Malcolm Kelly doesn't sound like a real good choice considering his attitude.
lets_go_bills Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 So you're not looking for the best WR available because we're "only looking for a #2?" That is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Yeah, we only need a number 2 receiver, so lets try to NOT find the best receiver out there. Good one. I think what he meant was that we need a guy to be a starter opposite Evans, but not someone to step in and be the number one guy right away.
Tipster19 Posted April 14, 2008 Author Posted April 14, 2008 I think what he meant was that we need a guy to be a starter opposite Evans, but not someone to step in and be the number one guy right away. Thanks, I appreciate your support. Lee Evans is supposed to be our guy, we should be looking for a compliment to him. If Buffalo isn't going to re-sign Evans then I could quickly change my mind on our draft priority but I'm expecting (hoping) that Evans will be wearing Buffalo blue for a long time. Here's Martin's bio, tell me what you think. The guy has paid his dues and he could be ready for more responsibility. I'm only using Martin as an example for our #2 WR. I feel that he, or someone like him, could fulfill this role for us. The learning curve would be eliminated in trading for an experienced WR versus drafting a WR with our first pick in the draft. Martin was good enough for the Packers and Farve but he's not good enough for our #2 WR?? I know, Earnest Woolford was the end all answer for us. Get real. http://www.packers.com/team/players/martin_ruvell/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruvell_Martin
apuszczalowski Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 Thanks, I appreciate your support. Lee Evans is supposed to be our guy, we should be looking for a compliment to him. If Buffalo isn't going to re-sign Evans then I could quickly change my mind on our draft priority but I'm expecting (hoping) that Evans will be wearing Buffalo blue for a long time. Here's Martin's bio, tell me what you think. The guy has paid his dues and he could be ready for more responsibility. I'm only using Martin as an example for our #2 WR. I feel that he, or someone like him, could fulfill this role for us. The learning curve would be eliminated in trading for an experienced WR versus drafting a WR with our first pick in the draft. Martin was good enough for the Packers and Farve but he's not good enough for our #2 WR?? I know, Earnest Woolford was the end all answer for us. Get real. http://www.packers.com/team/players/martin_ruvell/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruvell_Martin I think we all do, but that still doesn't mean the Bills shouldn't be looking for the best available WR to compliment him right now, because he could become better then him in a couple years and take his #1 spot. Sure, its easy to say they only need a #2 and not a Jerry Rice, but finding a Jerry Rice to play #2 right now, and possibly become a better #1 then what they have right now is not a bad thing. Who here would complain because the Bills found a WR that eventually pushes Lee to a #2 spot?
Astrobot Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 I think we all do, but that still doesn't mean the Bills shouldn't be looking for the best available WR to compliment him right now, because he could become better then him in a couple years and take his #1 spot. Sure, its easy to say they only need a #2 and not a Jerry Rice, but finding a Jerry Rice to play #2 right now, and possibly become a better #1 then what they have right now is not a bad thing. Who here would complain because the Bills found a WR that eventually pushes Lee to a #2 spot? I wouldn't even complain if the Bills took two WR's that could push him to a better negotiating spot.
apuszczalowski Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 I wouldn't even complain if the Bills took two WR's that could push him to a better negotiating spot. back in the TD days, everyone complained because he took the skill players high over the trenches, leaving them depleted, and now it is almost the opposite, they need to upgrade the WR position.
Tonawanda Troy Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 We don't need any premadona WR's with the first pick. I say pick someone to beef up the O-Line. I want a guy that is in on every offensive play to make some impact. We would not be wise to take a WR and have to wait 2 or 3 years for him to shine. Games are won and lost in the trenches! Every one knows it. When we dominated the league we had a top notch O-Line. Lets bring back the glory through the most Unglorified position, Right Gaurd. Or Center.
Recommended Posts