deep2evans Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 Among plausible scenarios, the worst thing this team could do would be to take DRC at #11. This team should not take a CB with its first round pick. Can I ask why you feel this way? There are no other slam dunk obvious picks here other than CB, and DRC seems to be the one with the most potential to be an all-pro. Rivers seems like a luxury pick considering Crowell/Poz/Mitchell are an above average group. Harvey wouldn't be bad, but a part of me wants to see what Schobel and Kelsey/Denney can do with much improved DTs. There are no WRs or TEs worthy of the pick. CB seems like an almost obvious move here.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 19, 2008 Author Posted April 19, 2008 Can I ask why you feel this way? There are no other slam dunk obvious picks here other than CB, and DRC seems to be the one with the most potential to be an all-pro. Rivers seems like a luxury pick considering Crowell/Poz/Mitchell are an above average group. Harvey wouldn't be bad, but a part of me wants to see what Schobel and Kelsey/Denney can do with much improved DTs. There are no WRs or TEs worthy of the pick. CB seems like an almost obvious move here. with WR being a much bigger need than CB, there is value in getting to be the first to choose a WR and guaranteeing you get the guy you want. whether or not Mel Kiper thinks he should be drafted there or 6 spots later.
deep2evans Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 with WR being a much bigger need than CB, there is value in getting to be the first to choose a WR and guaranteeing you get the guy you want. whether or not Mel Kiper thinks he should be drafted there or 6 spots later. I guess I don't know enough about the 2nd round CBs. I know Flowers is a gamer but will he last to 41? I like Jordy Nelson a lot so I would more than excited with a DRC/Nelson combo.
obie_wan Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 with WR being a much bigger need than CB, there is value in getting to be the first to choose a WR and guaranteeing you get the guy you want. whether or not Mel Kiper thinks he should be drafted there or 6 spots later. with that logic, they should use the #11 on the best true Center in the draft since that is also a need.
Huuuge Bills Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 with that logic, they should use the #11 on the best true Center in the draft since that is also a need. There is a big diference in "reaching" 6 spots for the best WR who you believe can contribute right away (Which would help out Evans, our 2nd year QB and our rushing attack), and "reaching" by about 100 picks for a center who will sit on the bench. (no great centers this year, top ones have the same strength problem as Fowler) And I say getting Merling would be the biggest mistake they could make. IMO Merling is Kelsay minus the experience.
Pyrite Gal Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 Can I ask why you feel this way? There are no other slam dunk obvious picks here other than CB, and DRC seems to be the one with the most potential to be an all-pro. Rivers seems like a luxury pick considering Crowell/Poz/Mitchell are an above average group. Harvey wouldn't be bad, but a part of me wants to see what Schobel and Kelsey/Denney can do with much improved DTs. There are no WRs or TEs worthy of the pick. CB seems like an almost obvious move here. I think most fans feel getting good players is simply getting good players and thus if the Bills come to #11 and a player they had rated in the top 5 or so has some how slipped to them they should take him even if it is not a position of need. However, I think many would be disappointed in a CB choice at #11 because the best CBs available like DRC are in no way elite players (which I define as a top 10 talent). The best CBs are rated as such because they have the talent to cover a WR all over the field. However, since we do not use the CB primarily in this way in our version of the Cover 2, we would simply be spending the #11 resource necessary to pick such a CB, but then we would not use him that way in our D. Perhaps if DRC was an elite talent it might be worth the pick, but he does not appear to be so we would not alter our entire D scheme merely to use him to his maximum potential. Even worse, the main argument for going CB is that our opponents are loading up on vets like Welker and Moss. DRC and in fact any CB which can be had in this draft are not good enough that one should expect them to shutdown a proven vet like a Welker or Moss (even if you were willing to vastly change our scheme merely to get more out of DRC. By far unless a true need to improve our pass protection like an elite pass rusher were to slip to us, the better football move would seem to be to trade down and increase our resources and pick a non-elite DL guy (or even an LB) with a non-elite lower pick. Folks would be disappointed if we took CB or DRC because not only is there a reasonable case to be made that they are a bit of a reach at #11, but then even if you think it is not a reach we would not use these players very well ibn our D. The way we generally employ the CB our pass protection is likely more improved with a second tier rusher than it is by a #11 CB.
ans4e64 Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 I think most fans feel getting good players is simply getting good players and thus if the Bills come to #11 and a player they had rated in the top 5 or so has some how slipped to them they should take him even if it is not a position of need. However, I think many would be disappointed in a CB choice at #11 because the best CBs available like DRC are in no way elite players (which I define as a top 10 talent). The best CBs are rated as such because they have the talent to cover a WR all over the field. However, since we do not use the CB primarily in this way in our version of the Cover 2, we would simply be spending the #11 resource necessary to pick such a CB, but then we would not use him that way in our D. Perhaps if DRC was an elite talent it might be worth the pick, but he does not appear to be so we would not alter our entire D scheme merely to use him to his maximum potential. Even worse, the main argument for going CB is that our opponents are loading up on vets like Welker and Moss. DRC and in fact any CB which can be had in this draft are not good enough that one should expect them to shutdown a proven vet like a Welker or Moss (even if you were willing to vastly change our scheme merely to get more out of DRC. By far unless a true need to improve our pass protection like an elite pass rusher were to slip to us, the better football move would seem to be to trade down and increase our resources and pick a non-elite DL guy (or even an LB) with a non-elite lower pick. Folks would be disappointed if we took CB or DRC because not only is there a reasonable case to be made that they are a bit of a reach at #11, but then even if you think it is not a reach we would not use these players very well ibn our D. The way we generally employ the CB our pass protection is likely more improved with a second tier rusher than it is by a #11 CB. DRC is not a top talent? What are you on, man? And when are you going to stop saying that our corners don't cover? Jeez.
RVJ Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 Everybody has different opinions. I don't know why everybody's against a corner at 11. I would be way more upset if we reached for this years crop of WRs that high.
ans4e64 Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 There are a lot of ways we could go with our first pick; WR, CB, OL, DE... any of the positions I think we get good players and I'll be happy with. But the one thing that will really make me mad is if we took DE Merling. That guy is not a pass rusher, and it would be such a waste to add another DT to the roster who is solid all around. If you draft a DE, it needs to be a sack artist. A guy that gets to the QB. We certainly aren't lacking solid, all around DE's.
obie_wan Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 There is a big diference in "reaching" 6 spots for the best WR who you believe can contribute right away (Which would help out Evans, our 2nd year QB and our rushing attack), and "reaching" by about 100 picks for a center who will sit on the bench. (no great centers this year, top ones have the same strength problem as Fowler) And I say getting Merling would be the biggest mistake they could make. IMO Merling is Kelsay minus the experience. Unfortunately there is very little chance that any of the WRs reached for at #11 will provide any immediate "impact". Bills would be better served by taking the more talented player (Rivers, Harvery, Albert, etc) who will be a long term playmaker- rather than reach for an inferior player just because he is tall and at the top of the WR list
Orton's Arm Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 Can I ask why you feel this way? There are no other slam dunk obvious picks here other than CB, and DRC seems to be the one with the most potential to be an all-pro. Rivers seems like a luxury pick considering Crowell/Poz/Mitchell are an above average group. Harvey wouldn't be bad, but a part of me wants to see what Schobel and Kelsey/Denney can do with much improved DTs. There are no WRs or TEs worthy of the pick. CB seems like an almost obvious move here. Yes, DRC has all the physical tools to be an all-pro, but the production just hasn't been there during his college career. I don't like the idea of using the 11th overall pick on a guy who (other than the Senior Bowl) doesn't have the production to go along with his physical skills. If the Bills want a talented CB who doesn't like to tackle, they can always play Ashton Youboty. Also, this team doesn't have a track record of extending its first round CBs. TD drafted Nate Clements to replace Antoine Winfield, a first round CB whom TD didn't extend. Should this management team use a first round pick to replace Nate Clements--the guy they let walk in free agency? I'd rather see the first round pick used on guys who will be here their entire careers. Another factor to consider is that the Tampa-2 is heavily dependent on getting good pressure with the front 4. If the Bills decide to go defense with their first pick, they could either stay put and take Harvey, or else trade up and take Ellis. Spencer Johnson can play either DE or DT. If the Bills took Ellis, they'd likely move Johnson to DE full time. By adding either Harvey or Ellis, the Bills would get a potential game-changer in their front four. Think about the (rare) times you've seen Brady successfully defended. At least from what I remember, most of those times have come when the other team didn't give him time to throw. Bill Walsh once said that the key to winning football games is a good pass rush in the fourth quarter. If the Bills go defense in the first, they should focus on building a front four that can quickly put Brady on his back. I agree that LB isn't a position of need, and that taking Rivers would be a luxury pick. I also agree that no TEs or WRs are truly worthy of the 11th pick, though I could (sort of) see taking Sweed at #11. If the Bills decide to go offense in the first, their best best would probably be to trade down and hope Sweed is still available. Consider this scenario: 1 (17th overall) Limas Sweed 2a. TE 2b. CB 3. C 4. FB This plan would allow the Bills to seriously address all their major needs on offense, while adding a 2nd round player to the defense. The Bills would have to wait until next year to add that first round, game-changing DL. There are a number of ways in which the Bills' first round pick could be used to bolster the offense or defense, over the long haul. None of those ways involve using the pick on some "first contract and out" CB.
ndirish1978 Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 screw value. If we pick a guy at 11 and he contributes to the team in a big way there is no such thing as having "reached" for him
Trader Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 Malcolm Kelly, his temper tantrums and shaky knees, at #11
Astrobot Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 There is a big diference in "reaching" 6 spots for the best WR who you believe can contribute right away (Which would help out Evans, our 2nd year QB and our rushing attack), and "reaching" by about 100 picks for a center who will sit on the bench. (no great centers this year, top ones have the same strength problem as Fowler) And I say getting Merling would be the biggest mistake they could make. IMO Merling is Kelsay minus the experience. In our DraftTek Correspondents' Draft, the best Center, Mike Pollack, was just picked by PGH in Round 1 at #23. That would be a "Reach" for them; I thought he'd last until #42-44. But if the Steelers' Correspondent thought that was the best player at the pick, then so be it.
deep2evans Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 Perhaps if DRC was an elite talent it might be worth the pick, but he does not appear to be so we would not alter our entire D scheme merely to use him to his maximum potential. From everything I've read and seen of the kid, it sure seems like he can be elite. He might be a little raw, but his physical tools are the best on a CB we've seen in years.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 19, 2008 Author Posted April 19, 2008 with that logic, they should use the #11 on the best true Center in the draft since that is also a need. i would love it if the Bills thought there was a Center they wanted so badly they picked him at 11. ive been waiting for the return of a real center ever since Kent Hull left.
Geno Smith's Arm Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 There isn't an area on this team, from defensive backfield to D-line, from wide-out to O-line, that doesn't need big improvement. I will be happy if they get a guy who excels, and makes a difference. Take the best guy. I can't believe people have a philosophy like "we need WR most, and DB 2nd priority, then TE, so first pick should be WR and 2nd pick DB, etc". That's really simplistic (code word for stupid). This team sucked, and has big weaknesses EVERYWHERE. RB and QB are in the development stages, but everywhere else there are problems.
Lofton80 Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 Worst they could do is pick someone who cannot contribute in 2008. Use the first three picks for contributors and then go for depth.
Pete Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 The worst thing would to be draft DRC! I hope we learned from mike Williams - no pussys on the Bills!
ans4e64 Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 screw value. If we pick a guy at 11 and he contributes to the team in a big way there is no such thing as having "reached" for him Thank you.
Recommended Posts