marck Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 I have read many posts on the Bills needs in this draft for a receiver and while I do agree that the need is their, I disagree on what type of receiver is needed. The 1st priority is to sign Lee Evans to a new long term contract. This will mean that once completed, we will need a quality #2 and one with the ability to be a possession receiver and an end zone mismatch for shorter corners. Assuming that is the need, then why pursue receivers like Sweed or Devin Thomas with our 1st round pick as they both are potential #1 WR's and would be a waste of talent where you could easily select a Jordy Nelson in round 2 who really would be a great complimentary receiver for the Bills. He has size, good but not great speed (4.51), can jump and has that magical quality of being open seemingly "all the time". Plus he has production history in college and is said to be of very high character. This to me is a quality pick in round 2 at the 41st pick. We can now focus on Round 1, at pick 11 we will have many options. I think any one of four players of interest and need will be available, they are: Dominique Rogers Cromartie Derrick Harvey Brandon Albert Keith Rivers I assume 3 of the 4 will be gone as Cromartie could be selected by the Patriots, Ravens or Saints, Harvey could be selected by New England or New Orleans, Albert could go as high as 5 to Kansas City and Rivers has been mentioned as a potential landing spot for New England, Cincinnati or New Orleans. We know that Jake Long, Chris Long, Glenn Dorsey, Vernon Gohlstein, Sedrick Ellis, Darrin McFaddin and Matt Ryan are going to be gone within the 10 1st picks. Leodis McKelvin should be gone by the 10th pick, leaving the four players I listed with one or maybe two still available when we pick at 11. If this scenario plays out, which way would you go. Take the player, trade down and with whom and which position would you select if WR and TE are addressed in rounds 2 and 3. Look forward to reading your thoughts on this.
Brandon Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 IMO, there is no such thing as a #2 WR, just as there is no such thing as a #2 CB. Both guys are just as important as the '#1' player on either side of the ball. The Bills don't necessarily have to spend a first round pick on another WR, but they do need a complete player who isn't limited by size/speed/whatever that opposing defenses can game plan around and exploit.
Hazed and Amuzed Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 I have read many posts on the Bills needs in this draft for a receiver and while I do agree that the need is their, I disagree on what type of receiver is needed. The 1st priority is to sign Lee Evans to a new long term contract. This will mean that once completed, we will need a quality #2 and one with the ability to be a possession receiver and an end zone mismatch for shorter corners. Assuming that is the need, then why pursue receivers like Sweed or Devin Thomas with our 1st round pick as they both are potential #1 WR's and would be a waste of talent where you could easily select a Jordy Nelson in round 2 who really would be a great complimentary receiver for the Bills. He has size, good but not great speed (4.51), can jump and has that magical quality of being open seemingly "all the time". Plus he has production history in college and is said to be of very high character. This to me is a quality pick in round 2 at the 41st pick. We can now focus on Round 1, at pick 11 we will have many options. I think any one of four players of interest and need will be available, they are: Dominique Rogers Cromartie Derrick Harvey Brandon Albert Keith Rivers I assume 3 of the 4 will be gone as Cromartie could be selected by the Patriots, Ravens or Saints, Harvey could be selected by New England or New Orleans, Albert could go as high as 5 to Kansas City and Rivers has been mentioned as a potential landing spot for New England, Cincinnati or New Orleans. We know that Jake Long, Chris Long, Glenn Dorsey, Vernon Gohlstein, Sedrick Ellis, Darrin McFaddin and Matt Ryan are going to be gone within the 10 1st picks. Leodis McKelvin should be gone by the 10th pick, leaving the four players I listed with one or maybe two still available when we pick at 11. If this scenario plays out, which way would you go. Take the player, trade down and with whom and which position would you select if WR and TE are addressed in rounds 2 and 3. Look forward to reading your thoughts on this. I agree whole heartedly. People are over-estimating the need for WR. While one is needed, We'd be better suited to go with later on.
stuckincincy Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 IMO, there is no such thing as a #2 WR, just as there is no such thing as a #2 CB. Both guys are just as important as the '#1' player on either side of the ball. The Bills don't necessarily have to spend a first round pick on another WR, but they do need a complete player who isn't limited by size/speed/whatever that opposing defenses can game plan around and exploit. Yep...
Adam Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 I agree whole heartedly. People are over-estimating the need for WR. While one is needed, We'd be better suited to go with later on. I agree and disagree with you (maybe I shourld run for President ) People actually underestimate the need to take the best player on the board
SuperKillerRobots Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 I agree and disagree with you (maybe I shourld run for President ) People actually underestimate the need to take the best player on the board That's the way to go, especially in the beginning rounds.
justnzane Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Ok, so let me get this straight, you'd rather have a guy with #2 receiver potential as opposed to somebody that could become a true #1 WR Tell me this, would you consider Issac Bruce and Torry Holt in their primes as #1 receivers, and if you answer yes, why wouldn't you like to have 2 #1 quality WR's as opposed to a #1 and #2? I would love to have a tandem like Bruce and Holt (before Bruce lost a step) or Boldin and Fitzgerald. The fact is I would want to have 2 go to guys as opposed to one that the defense would have to gameplan for. Now, when the Bills had Lofton and Reed, opposing defenses had to gameplan for both of them with someone keeping an eye on McKeller/ Metz as well as Thurman. I would want to have 4 or 5 playmakers at the skill positions instead of just the 2 that we have at the moment.
Ramius Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Just to refresh some memories, we have done absolutely NOTHING yet to improve the 30th ranked offense. And somehow this is ok with people, and we are willing to forgo a WR until round 3?
Brandon Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Just to refresh some memories, we have done absolutely NOTHING yet to improve the 30th ranked offense. And somehow this is ok with people, and we are willing to forgo a WR until round 3? If they draft a defender in R1, yes, I'd be willing to wait until R3 for a WR. Of course, that's because I'd plan on drafting the best receiving TE still on the board in R2. I'm just not convinced that this 2nd tier of WRs is all that great unless you want another smurf. I'm not entirely opposed to bringing in another WR under 6' tall, but I don't think that's what they're looking for. Otherwise, if you want a tall WR in R2, your options appear to be Jordy Nelson or Jordy Nelson, so if you don't like Jordy Nelson (or if he's off the board at 41), you're probably out of luck.
marck Posted April 16, 2008 Author Posted April 16, 2008 Youn bring up a good point, however if Derrick Harvey is available at 11, you make him the pick as he may very well be a Dwight Freeney type of DE. To take a WR at 11 would be a shame as no WR really merits a pick above 17th. Plus we are trying to be better next season and a "top" WR will not really be ready to contribute until 2009. Then we have a tougher schedule and may not be able to take advantage of this year's "soft schedule" Corner's, Defensive ends, russ linebackers and RB's provide the greatest difference making capability as history proves. In my opinion Jordy Nelson provides the best potential to make a valuable contribution in 2008. Ok, so let me get this straight, you'd rather have a guy with #2 receiver potential as opposed to somebody that could become a true #1 WR Tell me this, would you consider Issac Bruce and Torry Holt in their primes as #1 receivers, and if you answer yes, why wouldn't you like to have 2 #1 quality WR's as opposed to a #1 and #2? I would love to have a tandem like Bruce and Holt (before Bruce lost a step) or Boldin and Fitzgerald. The fact is I would want to have 2 go to guys as opposed to one that the defense would have to gameplan for. Now, when the Bills had Lofton and Reed, opposing defenses had to gameplan for both of them with someone keeping an eye on McKeller/ Metz as well as Thurman. I would want to have 4 or 5 playmakers at the skill positions instead of just the 2 that we have at the moment.
Adam Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Just to refresh some memories, we have done absolutely NOTHING yet to improve the 30th ranked offense. And somehow this is ok with people, and we are willing to forgo a WR until round 3? OK, say we reach for a WR at 11, then the defensive players we could have taken are gone, so we reach for a DL in the next round- we weaken ourselves for years by doing that. Screw the short term- we don't have to win now, we need to build a team to win long term.
Ramius Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Youn bring up a good point, however if Derrick Harvey is available at 11, you make him the pick as he may very well be a Dwight Freeney type of DE. To take a WR at 11 would be a shame as no WR really merits a pick above 17th. Plus we are trying to be better next season and a "top" WR will not really be ready to contribute until 2009. Then we have a tougher schedule and may not be able to take advantage of this year's "soft schedule" Corner's, Defensive ends, russ linebackers and RB's provide the greatest difference making capability as history proves. In my opinion Jordy Nelson provides the best potential to make a valuable contribution in 2008. A rook WR that we draft will not need to perform at a top level immediately. If he can perform at a #2 level, that will be excellent.
DreamOnDan Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Youn bring up a good point, however if Derrick Harvey is available at 11, you make him the pick as he may very well be a Dwight Freeney type of DE. To take a WR at 11 would be a shame as no WR really merits a pick above 17th. Plus we are trying to be better next season and a "top" WR will not really be ready to contribute until 2009. Then we have a tougher schedule and may not be able to take advantage of this year's "soft schedule" Corner's, Defensive ends, russ linebackers and RB's provide the greatest difference making capability as history proves. In my opinion Jordy Nelson provides the best potential to make a valuable contribution in 2008. I just don't understand... Derrick harvey is like the 3rd or 4th best DE in the draft isn't he? You mean that you looked at film and determined that There are 3 or 4 better DE, than any other best player at thier position. Its fair to say that he is really good. But its not like DE is our biggest need and why would you draft the 3rd or 4th best at their position when you have the 11th pick? I think its safe to say that there is one or maybe two superstars in the making at every position Right? Well, that is what I want. Whoever that is I'll gladly take it. I agree that DRC looks like a superstar. RG Brandon Albert, WR James Hardy, Rush LB Quentin Groves, WLB Keith Rivers, FS Kenny Phillips are the guys that will be future superstars. The Bills actually have a chance of drafting most of them. And they would all be the 1st player taken at there position. I just really go by guys that I think are gonna be Pro Bowl players. I'm probably way off... I doubt that there will be too many superstars beyond the best at there respective positions. I think that it is a lot easier to determine who is the best at there positions that to determine if the 3rd best of whatever position is better than the 1st best of a different position. You are talking about picking the best player available right? If you can get the very best player at a position you are actually in need of, why would you do anything else?
Adam Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 I just don't understand... Derrick harvey is like the 3rd or 4th best DE in the draft isn't he? You mean that you looked at film and determined that There are 3 or 4 better DE, than any other best player at thier position. Its fair to say that he is really good. But its not like DE is our biggest need and why would you draft the 3rd or 4th best at their position when you have the 11th pick? I think its safe to say that there is one or maybe two superstars in the making at every position Right? Well, that is what I want. Whoever that is I'll gladly take it. I agree that DRC looks like a superstar. RG Brandon Albert, WR James Hardy, Rush LB Quentin Groves, WLB Keith Rivers, FS Kenny Phillips are the guys that will be future superstars. The Bills actually have a chance of drafting most of them. And they would all be the 1st player taken at there position. I just really go by guys that I think are gonna be Pro Bowl players. I'm probably way off... I doubt that there will be too many superstars beyond the best at there respective positions. I think that it is a lot easier to determine who is the best at there positions that to determine if the 3rd best of whatever position is better than the 1st best of a different position. You are talking about picking the best player available right? If you can get the very best player at a position you are actually in need of, why would you do anything else? Lets forget the draft entirely- the mediocrre players we have are good enough
UpstateSwagger Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Besides those "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams. I can't think of many other teams that have been successful with two #1, feature type WRs. Thats because it doesn't work very well. You need role players. Just like the Pats this year. A WR who can stretch the field, a slot "always open" grinder and a few burners. A WR at 11 isn't going to improve this team immediately a rush end or CB could do that. See if Kelly or Hardy drops to us in the 2nd, if not, no need to panic take a Jordy Nelson or wait even longer for another big target. I know that sounds crazy but if we are as hard up for a big, difference making WR as some of you make it sound, we need to trade for one. Wideouts almost never step in and contribute. Some do. I think a guy named Colston did it pretty recently... Oh yeah, they drafted him in like the 15th round. BTW, Harvey is certainly not the third-best end in the draft. He is widely regarded as the best pure-pass rusher in this years class.
DreamOnDan Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Besides those "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams. I can't think of many other teams that have been successful with two #1, feature type WRs. Thats because it doesn't work very well. You need role players. Just like the Pats this year. A WR who can stretch the field, a slot "always open" grinder and a few burners. A WR at 11 isn't going to improve this team immediately a rush end or CB could do that. See if Kelly or Hardy drops to us in the 2nd, if not, no need to panic take a Jordy Nelson or wait even longer for another big target. I know that sounds crazy but if we are as hard up for a big, difference making WR as some of you make it sound, we need to trade for one. Wideouts almost never step in and contribute. Some do. I think a guy named Colston did it pretty recently... Oh yeah, they drafted him in like the 15th round. BTW, Harvey is certainly not the third-best end in the draft. He is widely regarded as the best pure-pass rusher in this years class. LOL
UpstateSwagger Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 I mean in all seriousness, I don't think our WRs are as bad off as some have made them out to be. Let's look at the "facts": Last year we had a revolving door at the QB position and neither of our slingers showed any semblance of consistent play. It was frankly hard to watch most of the season. We had quite possibly the worst OC of all time. There are Pop Warner teams out there that are running better plays with more savvy signal calling than we had last year. CSU may never break into the double-digits in the Steve "Sultan of Sorriness" Fairchild's tenure. Now I'll admit we have height issues at wideout, but do we really need to freak out to the tune of an 11 spot pick? I don't think we do. There is going to be good value at that pick; value at positions we could use a little help in. Now I'm not saying we don't need some backup red-zone wise, but reaching at 11 -- especially for a guy who is going to need babysitting like Devin Thomas -- is not the answer. There are receivers to be had later that can impact just as much as whoever we take at 11. I like guys like Earl Benett and Marcus Monk in rounds 4 or later.
stewy23 Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 I agree whole heartedly. People are over-estimating the need for WR. While one is needed, We'd be better suited to go with later on. No freakin' way. Just because there are no Calvin Johnson's in this draft doesn't mean we should start banking on Jacoby Jones. We can't afford to wait until rounds 3 and 4 to get a wideout. It's just plain silly. Round 1 you take the BPA which will not be a WR. Round 2 you have to go for the best WR on your draft board. If you wait until round 3 or 4 "hoping" that Malcolm Kelly or Manningham or whoever will be there you are shooting yourself in the foot. You don't know they'll be there and you're probably going to be left with nothing. We have to address the WR position in either the 1st (if we trade down) or the second round (James Hardy, please.) P.S. Whoever thinks that Derrick Harvey is a top pass-rusher or the next Dwight Freeney is smoking something illegal...he is a solid all-around player who plays well against the pass and the run. We already have two of those guys in Schobel and Kelsay. I agree that Harvey looks good and has a lot of potential to develop into a premiere pass-rusher, but so far he has not been stellar in that category.
Hazed and Amuzed Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 If you wait until round 3 or 4 "hoping" that Malcolm Kelly or Manningham or whoever will be there you are shooting yourself in the foot. I'll shoot myself in the foot if we draft EITHER of those guys. Also I meant later as in not pick #11. There is no WR that is worthy of that slot.
Recommended Posts