Beerball Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 A. This was a great draft. I know some of you were critical of our second day but we got some serious depth now AND we basically rebuilt our special teams. Not only that we addressed our key issues and we have some seriously talented players now. I can care less if ESPN (not including Chris Berman) give us a low grade, this was a great draft and I can't wait for the season! LSI, I vote you the #1 Bills cheerleader from this past weekend. And for once I'm not being sarcastic or derogatory.
Sherman Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 I gave it a B but what do I know for the second year in a row the Bills have selected the person in the 2nd round that I wanted them to get in the 1st. I was upset that they didn't get a center but they said this draft didn't have many strong prospects for that position. Maybe they felt like the centers available will not be as good as Duke Preston or Christain Gaddes(our backup centers). McGlovin, Hardy and Ellis will contribute right away. The rest will be ST players and only time will tell.
Pyrite Gal Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Horus.... I am just curious on why you think the DB's were not needed......I dont know if I agree with all of the RIGHT CORNERS to pick except for the 1st one......but a lot of those guys project to be special teams guys that we need I think that the RB we took was taken with the intention of making him a fullback.....in my Pro Football Weekly draft mag he is actually listed AS a fullback IMHO DBS were needed but I think the were a lower priority for making this team better immediately than CBs. I am in a different camp than many on this board so quite likely I am wrong, but I liked the second day better than the first day. My sense was Pick 1- McKelvin was a good value pick as he was on the Bills board as one of the top 10 players and once he dropped to 11 at a position we had some need for the Bills picked him. It was disappointing to me because I do not think we will run a D that is best for McKelvin's strengths. However, maybe he will surprise us all by forcing his way in as a kick returner (and if he does then look out because both McGee and Parrish are among the best in the game at this). I think those who think this rookie will shut down vets Welker and Moss are deluding themselves. Pick 2- Hardy feels a definite need and literally does this in a big way. However, one of the reasons I am bummed we could not trade pick 11 to get another early choice is that particularly given some character questions for Hardy i would feel better and we have room for 2 WRs with the loss of Aiken. Still good pick. Pick 3- Ellis is intriguing and in our rotation may be just what we need to rotate and create pressure. The key to stopping the Pats is not going to come from some rookie shutting down vets like Moss/Welkerbut from the pass rush putting him on his butt. 4- Fine is likely a bit of a reach at TE who I think attracted the Bills because of his ST value. Despite the adoration of man I will continue this later, my machine seems to have partially seized up and I can send this but cannot move easily between files so i will reboot (when in doubt kick the tires).
K-9 Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 IMHO DBS were needed but I think the were a lower priority for making this team better immediately than CBs. I am in a different camp than many on this board so quite likely I am wrong, but I liked the second day better than the first day. My sense was Pick 1- McKelvin was a good value pick as he was on the Bills board as one of the top 10 players and once he dropped to 11 at a position we had some need for the Bills picked him. It was disappointing to me because I do not think we will run a D that is best for McKelvin's strengths. However, maybe he will surprise us all by forcing his way in as a kick returner (and if he does then look out because both McGee and Parrish are among the best in the game at this). I think those who think this rookie will shut down vets Welker and Moss are deluding themselves... Not run a D that is best for his strengths? Ah yes, the old Cover 2/Tampa 2 media created myth about CBs and their suitability to play it. OK, I'll play. Assuming we play another D 75% of the time as our DC has said and I along with others have personally witnessed then we run a scheme to fit his strengths AT LEAST 3/4 of the time. But in reality we run a D that fits his strengths 100% of the time. Force his way in as a kick returner? We drafted our #1 CB on Saturday. He won't have to 'force' himself onto the field at all. Indeed, somebody not named McGee will have to force him 'off' the field. But that ain't gonna happen because we don't have a CB on the team as good as McKelvin is at the moment. GO BILLS!!!
In space no one can hear Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 LSI, I vote you the #1 Bills cheerleader from this past weekend. And for once I'm not being sarcastic or derogatory. If the Jills ever accept male chearleaders, LSI I hope you make the squad!! In honor of you a 5 thumbs up salute! P.S. by the way, what kind of fabric softener do you use?
Joe Miner Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Lets see... 2006 Troy football schedule... FSU, Ga Tech, Nebraska 2007 Troy football schedule... Arkansas, Florida, Okla. St., Georgia yup, so much for your asinine "weaker competition" theory. I didn't say they didn't play anyone that is any good. I said the played weaker competition. And looking at overall schedules, they did. 4 games a year against above average to good competition isn't what I would call a strong schedule. I wouldn't consider any of those teams in 06 all that amazing. Being in OK, I would also chuckle a little at OSU being called good/strong competition. But at least their coach "is a Man", and he's "40". A conference such as the SEC, Big 10, Big 12(especially South), consistently play other good teams week in and week out for about 8 weeks of the season. Troy is only playing half as many "good" teams a year as these other schools. So I'm not sure my comment is quite so asinine.
generaLee83 Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Setting up a poll and then putting opinionated remarks in quotations next to some of the choices is about as unfair as you can get. Very stupid as usual.
The Senator Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 If the Jills ever accept male chearleaders, LSI I hope you make the squad!! In honor of you a 5 thumbs up salute! LSI is good! LETS GO BUFFALO!!!!
Beerball Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Setting up a poll and then putting opinionated remarks in quotations next to some of the choices is about as unfair as you can get. They aren't quotations, they are parentheticals. If I were to say "Your post is very stupid as usual." that would be a quotation. On the other hand if I were to say "sure generalLee" (stupid as usual). that would be a parenthetical. K?
Recommended Posts