apuszczalowski Posted April 25, 2008 Posted April 25, 2008 I am not disagreeing, in theory. The question/problem seems to be though, how long, and how much is your team committed to their "system". Remember when Jauron came, and we were committed to the Tampa 2 defense? All of the sudden, they said, we didn't need size in the middle of the d-line, just speed and athleticism...that lasted about two years, and, quietly, the philosophy changed. The Bills pick up Stroud (because maybe, now, all of the sudden, having a big DT is good?), and seem to be wanting to add size again. We didn't need to have top flight corners, so it was said, because the system didn't call for it. Now, we have some decent nickle backs playing corner, and we are looking at the possibility of drafing a corner with the #11 pick in this years draft. I don't know if the moves this offseason have really strayed from what the original plan was. It wasn't that the Bills wanted just smaller DT's, it was that the system didn't call for huge DT's who basically just created a wall jamming up the middle, the system calls for quicker guys who can penetrate, something not many big DT's can do effectively. And I think IIRC, Stroud might be bigger then what they currently have, but he is a player who is quick and can penetrate, with size As for CB, the system doesn't require top CB's, but it doesn't mean you should have one, just that to run it effectively, a top CB is not required. Remember that they did try to keep Nate around, but they knew that he was looking at a huge payday and did not think that tying up that kind of money under the cap on a CB was a smart move. They did draft Youbouty who was supposed to be a good CB, and really hasn't developed much.
ans4e64 Posted April 25, 2008 Posted April 25, 2008 What does that tell me? It tells me that the Bills won seven games last year. But it doesn't tell me that they had a nearly historic rash of injuires, that they had a very tough schedule, that they had a rookie RB, that they switched to a rookie QB during the season, that they played the Pats* very tough, and that they nearly beat the Cowboys and the Super Bowl Champion Giants. What did the fact that the Browns picked 3rd overall last year tell you? Or that Chicago picked 31st last year? You may also want to note the Packers only picked four spots higher last year than the Bills do tomorrow. The Browns had an excellent draft, excellent. The Bears... not so much. You are making your prediction for us being a playoff team before the draft, we haven't even picked anyone yet. At this time last year, the Browns had no LT Joe Thomas, no CB Eric Wright, no QB and had to draft Quinn (Anderson came out of nowhere), no WR (Braylon Edwards hadn't done so much as poop in the NFL yet), and all Kellen Winslow had done up to that point was get injured. All that happened for them after this point in the offseason. Can the same things happen to the Bills? Sure. But are we even close enough to predict anything like that? No. To say the Bills are a playoff team before we draft, go through cuts, and see what we've got in the preseason at this point is pure homerism.
CaliforniaCheez Posted April 25, 2008 Posted April 25, 2008 Exactly. And a reach isn't taking a guy a couple of picks ahead of where they say he should be drafted. A reach would be taking a guy who is projected in the 2nd-3rd round early in the first. Taking a guy who is the top player at their position 5-10 picks before the "experts" say he should go, is not a reach. At #11 good O linemen are there. Wise pick. WR's can be picked up later and aren't as valuable. In the first round you should never ever draft for need but get the best player on the board regardless of position. Especially a high pick like 11. Draft for need later.
Mike formerly from Florida Posted April 25, 2008 Posted April 25, 2008 Seriously though.........You draft according to your teams needs. If the guy fits the system he fits no matter where you select. Disagree...in the first round you draft the best player available on the board. Drafting to need is dangerous because you are paying too much money and systems change down the line. You draft to need in the second. This is why I'd grab Rivers or Harvey if they are still available. If the Bills trade down then that is a different story. If Gholsten somehow slips, then my God you have to take him.
Brandon Posted April 25, 2008 Posted April 25, 2008 Disagree...in the first round you draft the best player available on the board. Drafting to need is dangerous because you are paying too much money and systems change down the line. You draft to need in the second. This is why I'd grab Rivers or Harvey if they are still available. If the Bills trade down then that is a different story. If Gholsten somehow slips, then my God you have to take him. And I'm gonna have to disagree with you. You don't draft strictly for need OR BPA. Its always a balancing act between the two, taking into consideration the likely remaining players in later rounds, as well as impending free agents the next offseason, age and injuries, as well as a variety of other factors. The only time you really should draft on a strict BPA basis is if that player is rated significantly higher on your board and even then its sometimes not an easy decision. In the end, the draft is about the best collection of players you can draft in R1-7, not the best player you draft in R1, as well as the biggest impact that group of players taken as a whole can have on the team both this year and in the future.
Pete Posted April 25, 2008 Posted April 25, 2008 At pick 11 I would be happy with Devin Thomas, Jared Mayo, Quentin Groves, Brandon Albert, Philip Merling
Recommended Posts