ax4782 Posted April 26, 2008 Posted April 26, 2008 He has size, speed, and good hands. I think that his character issues must be a non-starter or the Bills would not have taken him. We're doing pretty good so far.
Big Turk Posted April 26, 2008 Posted April 26, 2008 He has size, speed, and good hands. I think that his character issues must be a non-starter or the Bills would not have taken him. We're doing pretty good so far. 6' 7" WR that can run and catch and was productive in a big college conference... I'll take it...
Dawgg Posted April 26, 2008 Posted April 26, 2008 He has size, speed, and good hands. I think that his character issues must be a non-starter or the Bills would not have taken him. We're doing pretty good so far. And you were pushing to reach for a WR at #11! Now 2 needs have been filled in a major way.
ax4782 Posted April 26, 2008 Author Posted April 26, 2008 And you were pushing to reach for a WR at #11! Now 2 needs have been filled in a major way. Your definition of reach and mine are clearly different. I think Thomas is better than many people suggest. I had a chance to watch every game the kid played this year and he was top 15 talent. He wasn't picked there but it wasn't much of a reach. That being said, I did think that we should have taken a WR, but I don't think anyone could have said with a straight face that so many of the top WRs would still be left on the board at #41. Kelly and Manningham could fall to the third round. Still, we have done very well so far. I do like the McKelvin pick, just thought there was a deep CB class and could get a good value in the second. They, however, went much faster. It's all about how things play out.
Dawgg Posted April 26, 2008 Posted April 26, 2008 Your definition of reach and mine are clearly different. I think Thomas is better than many people suggest. I had a chance to watch every game the kid played this year and he was top 15 talent. He wasn't picked there but it wasn't much of a reach. That being said, I did think that we should have taken a WR, but I don't think anyone could have said with a straight face that so many of the top WRs would still be left on the board at #41. Kelly and Manningham could fall to the third round. Still, we have done very well so far. I do like the McKelvin pick, just thought there was a deep CB class and could get a good value in the second. They, however, went much faster. It's all about how things play out. I see it as the other way around. I think the talent dropoff among the top 6-8 cornerbacks is far greater than the talent dropoff among the top 6-8 WRs. That's why the prudent choice was to address cornerback first and keep your fingers crossed that one of the receivers would fall to our laps. As it turned out, it worked out better than any of us imagined.
ax4782 Posted April 26, 2008 Author Posted April 26, 2008 I see it as the other way around. I think the talent dropoff among the top 6-8 cornerbacks is far greater than the talent dropoff among the top 6-8 WRs. That's why the prudent choice was to address cornerback first and keep your fingers crossed that one of the receivers would fall to our laps. As it turned out, it worked out better than any of us imagined. I think we can all agree with that last sentence in your post. Buffalo is having another great draft. Maybe we can finally get back to the Playoffs.
Pete Posted April 26, 2008 Posted April 26, 2008 6' 7" WR that can run and catch and was productive in a big college conference... I'll take it... 6'7"? Did Hardy grow two inches today? Wow!
Fan in Chicago Posted April 26, 2008 Posted April 26, 2008 6'7"? Did Hardy grow two inches today? Wow! Maybe an inch. http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/james-hardy?id=1024
Recommended Posts