BeastMode54 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm just wondering if we trade Peters, if we will draft Pettigrew because of his blocking prowess. He could help the new tackle, whether is be a rookie or a NFL vet of a lower caliber than Peters. I'm just wondering if we still go DE or if Peters leaves do we take Pettigrew because we will need help in the run game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm just wondering if we trade Peters, if we will draft Pettigrew because of his blocking prowess. He could help the new tackle, whether is be a rookie or a NFL vet of a lower caliber than Peters. I'm just wondering if we still go DE or if Peters leaves do we take Pettigrew because we will need help in the run game What are you talking about? "IF" Peters leaves "THIS SEASON", we will be likely compensated well from another team (1st round draft pick this season, + whatever else [maybe a less expensive LT, maybe a 2nd rounder next year, or a third this year]). The point I'm trying to make, is if we make that Peters trade, it happens for precisely the reason you've posted about: To get more value (players via draft) and fill our vacant spots. Well, that and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofton80 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 We might need him in the pass blocking game as well as the TE will be staying in to block a lot. I'm just wondering if we trade Peters, if we will draft Pettigrew because of his blocking prowess. He could help the new tackle, whether is be a rookie or a NFL vet of a lower caliber than Peters. I'm just wondering if we still go DE or if Peters leaves do we take Pettigrew because we will need help in the run game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I just realized that you meant, do we get Pettigrew for blocking BECAUSE we might lose Peters. I think that is an interesting argument. One that I'll ignore, however, on the basis that we need a Tight End regardless of Peters' status for the upcoming season. If you think about it, Derek Fine looked like a solid #2 TE. What bothers me, is that over the past years we've brought in TE's that were starters on other teams (ie Gaines and Courtney Anderson) and someone made the call that Robert Royal was better. Anderson didn't make the team, which might mean it was a lack of effort, or he's just not that good...to which I respond, ANYONE is better than Robert Royal (but that's an argument for another day) Without totally sidestepping your question, there is no way you could explain to me how the Bills can start this next season without addressing the position in the draft or FA. With Peters gone, you can't act as thought you need TE support to supplement his loss, otherwise you got to keep him if you think he's so pivotal that you're entire protection packages change without him there. I don't think that's the case, which is why the Bills MUST address the TE position regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastMode54 Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 I just realized that you meant, do we get Pettigrew for blocking BECAUSE we might lose Peters. I think that is an interesting argument. One that I'll ignore, however, on the basis that we need a Tight End regardless of Peters' status for the upcoming season. If you think about it, Derek Fine looked like a solid #2 TE. What bothers me, is that over the past years we've brought in TE's that were starters on other teams (ie Gaines and Courtney Anderson) and someone made the call that Robert Royal was better. Anderson didn't make the team, which might mean it was a lack of effort, or he's just not that good...to which I respond, ANYONE is better than Robert Royal (but that's an argument for another day) Without totally sidestepping your question, there is no way you could explain to me how the Bills can start this next season without addressing the position in the draft or FA. With Peters gone, you can't act as thought you need TE support to supplement his loss, otherwise you got to keep him if you think he's so pivotal that you're entire protection packages change without him there. I don't think that's the case, which is why the Bills MUST address the TE position regardless. I agree, I'm just not sure any of the top tackles will be left, therefore getting the best TE, and best blocking TE in the draft at 11, might help a weaker replacement tackle at LT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Ray Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I agree, I'm just not sure any of the top tackles will be left, therefore getting the best TE, and best blocking TE in the draft at 11, might help a weaker replacement tackle at LT Problem is, while Pettigrew may be good at blocking, he is still a rookie, and to rely on a rookie for help with another potential rookie LT or at best weaker vet LT, may not be an ideal situation. I think the FO must make every reasonable effort to keep (and extend) Peters. Why remove a strength to create a weakness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I'm just wondering if we trade Peters, if we will draft Pettigrew because of his blocking prowess. He could help the new tackle, whether is be a rookie or a NFL vet of a lower caliber than Peters. I'm just wondering if we still go DE or if Peters leaves do we take Pettigrew because we will need help in the run game no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I'm just wondering if we trade Peters, if we will draft Pettigrew because of his blocking prowess. He could help the new tackle, whether is be a rookie or a NFL vet of a lower caliber than Peters. I'm just wondering if we still go DE or if Peters leaves do we take Pettigrew because we will need help in the run game I think that this is a very logical option. Assuming if Peters goes and brings us another first, we could grab Pettigrew with our second pick. Pettigrew is said to be the best blockking TE to come out in 5 years. Even if Peters stays, I don't see how this couldn't help our offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If we were to trade Peters, which I ideally wouldn't want, then I would have to imagine we have to replace him with our first 1st round pick and assuming we pick up another one from Philly, then picking Pettigrew with our second 1st rounder would be logical. Then with our second round pick, we could pick up a player like a Duke Robinson at Gaurd. With our first three picks we could address our line and blocking in a big way for many years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts