John from Riverside Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 John -- I just don't think you can blindly look at the team's biggest need and just force yourself to address that position with a high pick. You have to consider who the best player is available, regardless of position. When Whitner was taken at #8, he was not the best player available at that point. It wasn't even close. He's a nice player and looks good in red, white and blue -- but he wasn't the best player available when the Bills' selection came around. Same goes for Lee Evans. With Pat Williams walking in free agency, we chose a wide receiver? With Tommie Harris and Vince Wilfork on the board? Again, Lee is a nice player.... but these guys have 4 Pro Bowls between them and have been dominant. I like the free agency moves... the lines were addressed, but the party's not over yet. This team is not just a few players away and they need to build on that foundation. Another pass rusher or a shut down corner will be a far better use of that pick than a WR. In the 2nd round, the Bills can take the best WR or TE that falls to their lap -- and make no mistake there will be some very good prospects available. Anyway, I'm hopeful that the Bills won't reach for a WR and will address it later, knowing that they can probably do so after the first round. The picks of Whitner and Evans would have never been issues had the bills made the right moves in free agency to fill the other positions..... Pat Williams should never have been allowed to walk.......we have had chances to get other vet DE's in free agency......veteran OL have come and gone off the Free Agent radar.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 John -- I just don't think you can blindly look at the team's biggest need and just force yourself to address that position with a high pick. You have to consider who the best player is available, regardless of position. When Whitner was taken at #8, he was not the best player available at that point. It wasn't even close. He's a nice player and looks good in red, white and blue -- but he wasn't the best player available when the Bills' selection came around. I know that the draftniks and many people on this board won't agree, but I never bought into that choose the best player available stuff. For the most part, it looks like the current Bill's administration doesn't either. You have to fill your needs first IMO because after you get done choosing your value player, the need is still there and why compromise that need by taking a player with less talent? Maybe we can still get a legit #2 receiver in rounds 2 or later, but there's too much risk that the perceived best athlete doesn't pan out and the holes aren't filled with lesser talent. Do your homework, take the guy that best fills your need, and hope that you chose right, then pick that best available player later on when it's not as critical.
Beerball Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 First, where are you getting "10-12 picks before he should be picked" from? An "expert"? Who? Take your pick: Gil Brandt #18, Kiper #20, Scouts Inc. #21, Mayock no first round talent.
Dawgg Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 I know that the draftniks and many people on this board won't agree, but I never bought into that choose the best player available stuff. For the most part, it looks like the current Bill's administration doesn't either. You have to fill your needs first IMO because after you get done choosing your value player, the need is still there and why compromise that need by taking a player with less talent? Maybe we can still get a legit #2 receiver in rounds 2 or later, but there's too much risk that the perceived best athlete doesn't pan out and the holes aren't filled with lesser talent. Do your homework, take the guy that best fills your need, and hope that you chose right, then pick that best available player later on when it's not as critical. When you have a high pick, you take the best player available at a need position. Now the definition of "need" is a loose one. In my view, a "need" is any position that needs to improve -- not just the position with a gaping hole. If a disruptive pass rusher falls to us at #11, do we take him -- even though we have spent a ton of $ on Kelsay and Schobel? YES! Because he will improve our team significantly. If a shut-down corner who can match up with Randy Moss one-on-one falls to us at #11, do we take him -- even though Jabari Greer and Terrance McGee had pretty good years? YES! Because if Greer is moved to the slot, our team improves significantly.
obie_wan Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 The picks of Whitner and Evans would have never been issues had the bills made the right moves in free agency to fill the other positions..... Pat Williams should never have been allowed to walk.......we have had chances to get other vet DE's in free agency......veteran OL have come and gone off the Free Agent radar. you acquire impact playmakers in the draft - because other teams don;t let the real playmakers get to free agency. The Bills have historically wasted top round talent on marginal role players and blown their chance to acquire difference makers. Taking a WR at #11 from this class is more of the same. Harvey, Rivers or Albert should be the pick
Captain Hindsight Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 You need to define what you mean by "reach"??? When our pick comes up at #11, the question will be, given our needs and the talent still on the board, who is the best pick for our team? If we take that guy, whoever he is, will you condemn it as a "reach" if he was rated 3 spots lower by Mel Kiper? To me, a reach is when you know that the same guy would still be there when you next pick comes up or that you have a trading partner allowing you to move down, pick up another pick and still get the same guy. That, especially in the first half of the first round is virtually never the case. For example, if we think the Thomas is our guy, I highly doubt he would still be there when we pick in the second. At the same time, trade downs are the exception, not the rule. I don't see any teams picking after us that are so in love with some other pick that they are going to trade up. Especially not with only 10 minutes on the clock to arrange such a deal. I think its rare to have a player so good that others will trade up for him but not so good that the team with the original pick isn't going to take him themselves. The trade ups are far more likley later in the draft when its clear that a couple guys have slipped beyond where most teams interested in them would have thought. That is when they start thinking that they might actually have a shot at so and so in the second when they thought he'd be long gone by then. It happens that way every year, nothing new. Excellent post
Brandon Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 I know that the draftniks and many people on this board won't agree, but I never bought into that choose the best player available stuff. For the most part, it looks like the current Bill's administration doesn't either. You have to fill your needs first IMO because after you get done choosing your value player, the need is still there and why compromise that need by taking a player with less talent? Maybe we can still get a legit #2 receiver in rounds 2 or later, but there's too much risk that the perceived best athlete doesn't pan out and the holes aren't filled with lesser talent. Do your homework, take the guy that best fills your need, and hope that you chose right, then pick that best available player later on when it's not as critical. That's because a lot of people oversimplify. Its always a balancing act of need vs talent. You have to consider the group of talent that you can get in the first 3-4 rounds and whether drafting a lesser need in R1 prevents you from filling bigger needs with quality talent. As this appears to be a thin draft class, I think it very well might. If the Bills have a WR rated highly enough that they feel comfortable picking him at 11, they should just do it and be done with it, particularly if they aren't high on that second tier at the position. Of course, I still can't understand why the 1st round WRs suck and would be horrid picks, but these 2nd-3rd round guys will magically make this offense so much better.
Huuuge Bills Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 That's because a lot of people oversimplify. Its always a balancing act of need vs talent. You have to consider the group of talent that you can get in the first 3-4 rounds and whether drafting a lesser need in R1 prevents you from filling bigger needs with quality talent. As this appears to be a thin draft class, I think it very well might. If the Bills have a WR rated highly enough that they feel comfortable picking him at 11, they should just do it and be done with it, particularly if they aren't high on that second tier at the position. Of course, I still can't understand why the 1st round WRs suck and would be horrid picks, but these 2nd-3rd round guys will magically make this offense so much better. That's the part I don't get. Soooo..... in order to fix the offense we should draft a bad WR who is worse whan the bad WR's slated to go in the first round? Nice post BTW.
John from Riverside Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 you qcquire impact playmakers in the draft - because other teams don;t let the real playmakers get to free agency. Tje Bills have historically wasted top round talent on marginal role players and blown their chance to acquire differnce makers. Taking a WR at #11 from this class is more of the same. I think Whitner and Evans have both shown to be more then role players...... Let me throw this at a different angle.....lets say....hypothetically here that the bills are not able to trade down......dont want to take a wideout at 11 because it is "too high" and draft say.....Harvey at the 11th pick..... There also a lot of experts who think 11 is to high for him as well......lets say we draft him.....now he is in a rotation with Schrobel, Kelsay, and Denny. And he does not play well next year.....on top of that we did not draft offensive weapons until later rounds....who also turn out to not be the players we need. What then.....this board will be filled with people who will complain that we did not try to upgrade our last place offense....and on top of that Lee Evans doesn't see this team with a future and he bolts as well.....then we will be back to whether we draft wideouts in the 1st round. We used free agency to address defense......it is time to address the offense. PS....I am not one of those "draft shiny new toys" kind of guys....I am a linemen. But we have addressed the line positions in the past 2 offseasons.
stinky finger Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 No one said it must. But the Bills may have WRs rated higher than the "experts" do, and there might not be much to choose from when our 2nd round pick comes around. Picking someone at #11 when the dumbass "experts" say they shouldnt go until 17-18 isnt a "reach" If we are fortunate enough to find a trade-down partner in the late teen range maybe early 20s and draft a WR while obtaining another high pick, I'm on board. Otherwise, I say we wait and see what WRs are still available come round 2 and even 3. I just don't see all these Wrs going that fast. I'm guessing we'll be pleasantly surprised who is there for us in the subsequent rounds.
Brandon Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 That's the part I don't get. Soooo..... in order to fix the offense we should draft a bad WR who is worse whan the bad WR's slated to go in the first round? Nice post BTW. That seems to be the logic, alright. I don't get it, either. If that first group of WRs can't play, neither can the second. IMO, The Bills would be better off waiting until the middle of the draft to pick a WR in that scenario. In fact, if they draft a CB or DE in R1, I'd rather they just draft the best receiving TE on the board in R2 and pick a WR project (or two) in R3-5. Your 2nd-3rd round guy very likely is not going to beat out Josh Reed or Roscoe Parrish this year anyway, so why even bother?
Pete Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 can you explain to me what WR will be there in the second round for us? We need a starting WR and I am not so sure we will find one if we put it of past round one and it is not a reach if you fill a need and draft a player 5 slots before he is projected to go
Dawgg Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 If we are fortunate enough to find a trade-down partner in the late teen range maybe early 20s and draft a WR while obtaining another high pick, I'm on board. Otherwise, I say we wait and see what WRs are still available come round 2 and even 3. I just don't see all these Wrs going that fast. I'm guessing we'll be pleasantly surprised who is there for us in the subsequent rounds. Exactly.
BrooklynBills Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 There are 4 or 5 WRs coming out next year that would be rated higher than the players coming out in this year's draft. Micheal Crabtree (6'3 222), Percy Harvin (5'11 185), Jeremy Maclin (6'1 185), Darius Heyward (6'3 200), and Branden LaFell (6'3 205) would all most likely be rated higher than every reciever coming out this year. Plus there are players like USC's Patrick Turner (6'5 220) and OSU's Brian Robiskie (6'3 200) who are just as talented as devin thomas or limas sweed. The draft is for the future, not the present. I'm not advocating ignoring the WR position in this draft, but WRs like Sweed and Thomas are available every year. The Bills will not be in a position to get as talented a DE as Darick Harvey in some time. This is the year to get a D-Line stud. Who are our impact front seven defensive players? No one. With Miami drafting Jake Long, I think it becomes even more imperative to take an impact DE. Jake Long, Matt Light, D'Brickshaw Ferguson are not going anywhere anytime soon. Schobel, on the other hand, has about 2 seasons left as a Bill. Plus, I think the Bills are going to try to emulate some of the Giants defensive tactics in order to beat the Patriots offense. And why is it a given that WR is our biggest need position? Our DEs had 11 sacks last year. That is pathetic. Stroud will help, but he won't turn Kelsay and Denney into pass rushers, and he won't make schobel any younger. Harvey is a no-brainer if you ask me. This team still lacks elite young defensive talent. WR at 11 is a Donahoe move.
Ramius Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 There are 4 or 5 WRs coming out next year that would be rated higher than the players coming out in this year's draft. Micheal Crabtree (6'3 222), Percy Harvin (5'11 185), Jeremy Maclin (6'1 185), Darius Heyward (6'3 200), and Branden LaFell (6'3 205) would all most likely be rated higher than every reciever coming out this year. Plus there are players like USC's Patrick Turner (6'5 220) and OSU's Brian Robiskie (6'3 200) who are just as talented as devin thomas or limas sweed. The draft is for the future, not the present. I'm not advocating ignoring the WR position in this draft, but WRs like Sweed and Thomas are available every year. The Bills will not be in a position to get as talented a DE as Darick Harvey in some time. This is the year to get a D-Line stud. Who are our impact front seven defensive players? No one. With Miami drafting Jake Long, I think it becomes even more imperative to take an impact DE. Jake Long, Matt Light, D'Brickshaw Ferguson are not going anywhere anytime soon. Schobel, on the other hand, has about 2 seasons left as a Bill. Plus, I think the Bills are going to try to emulate some of the Giants defensive tactics in order to beat the Patriots offense. And why is it a given that WR is our biggest need position? Our DEs had 11 sacks last year. That is pathetic. Stroud will help, but he won't turn Kelsay and Denney into pass rushers, and he won't make schobel any younger. Harvey is a no-brainer if you ask me. This team still lacks elite young defensive talent. WR at 11 is a Donahoe move. If Kelsay and Denney aren't pass rushers, how did they combine for 12 sacks in 2006?
Dawgg Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 If Kelsay and Denney aren't pass rushers, how did they combine for 12 sacks in 2006? There's more to pass rushing than just sacks.
Captain Hindsight Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 There's more to pass rushing than just sacks. They must have been getting come pressure too. Its not like the QB walked into them
John from Riverside Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 There are 4 or 5 WRs coming out next year that would be rated higher than the players coming out in this year's draft. Micheal Crabtree (6'3 222), Percy Harvin (5'11 185), Jeremy Maclin (6'1 185), Darius Heyward (6'3 200), and Branden LaFell (6'3 205) would all most likely be rated higher than every reciever coming out this year. Plus there are players like USC's Patrick Turner (6'5 220) and OSU's Brian Robiskie (6'3 200) who are just as talented as devin thomas or limas sweed. The draft is for the future, not the present. I'm not advocating ignoring the WR position in this draft, but WRs like Sweed and Thomas are available every year. The Bills will not be in a position to get as talented a DE as Darick Harvey in some time. This is the year to get a D-Line stud. Who are our impact front seven defensive players? No one. With Miami drafting Jake Long, I think it becomes even more imperative to take an impact DE. Jake Long, Matt Light, D'Brickshaw Ferguson are not going anywhere anytime soon. Schobel, on the other hand, has about 2 seasons left as a Bill. Plus, I think the Bills are going to try to emulate some of the Giants defensive tactics in order to beat the Patriots offense. And why is it a given that WR is our biggest need position? Our DEs had 11 sacks last year. That is pathetic. Stroud will help, but he won't turn Kelsay and Denney into pass rushers, and he won't make schobel any younger. Harvey is a no-brainer if you ask me. This team still lacks elite young defensive talent. WR at 11 is a Donahoe move. We dont even know that Harvey is the stud you are talking about....there are several mocks that have him in the latter part of the 1st round. and all it would take is some of these receivers having an injury or a down year to change the whole outlook of the WR class......(for instance Limus Sweed was a top prospect before the wrist injury) I dont want a WR at 11.....but I have no problem taking one down the draft board a bit. I am not playing for NEXT year....I want this team to play for THIS year. Hopefully we will do well enough that our pick next year wont be at 11
John from Riverside Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 There's more to pass rushing than just sacks. Like what? pressures? Is there a way to find out how they did in pressures....I bet they were much better at it when Pat Williams and Ted Washington were here......
BrooklynBills Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 If Kelsay and Denney aren't pass rushers, how did they combine for 12 sacks in 2006? In 2006, Denney had 6 sacks and Kelsay had 5.5 (career years for both of them), good for 44th and 56th among defensive players individually. Over his career (6 seasons), Denney averages .22 sacks per game and a little under 3 sacks per season. Over his career (5 seasons), Kelsay averages .19 sacks per game and exactly 3 per season. Good DEs. Definitely not pass-rushers. We have one pass rushing threat. Aaron Schobel. He'll be 31 at the start of training camp. Again, 11 sacks from the DE position last year and 26 total. Pathetic.
Recommended Posts