Magox Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 The more I look at this, the more it looks like taking pettigrew @ 11 would be a colossal mistake. if we take pettigrew, i hope it's after we trade down in the first round. oh ya? What is it about Pettigrew, that the more you look at him, makes you believe it will be a colossal mistake? dramatic are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 oh ya? What is it about Pettigrew, that the more you look at him, makes you believe it will be a colossal mistake? dramatic are we? it's not looking at pettigrew specifically, it's the thought of drafting a TE @ the 11th spot that scares me. For one thing, looking at the draft history of TEs: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft...p;type=position We'd have a guy that imo would basically be the next Kyle Brady.. I think that we'd be better off getting another position of need @ 11 rather than TE. (since this year's TE class is so deep, we'd more than likely be able to get our TE later on in the draft) also, he's gonna come off the field with three wides.. which we run quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourbonboy Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 it's not looking at pettigrew specifically, it's the thought of drafting a TE @ the 11th spot that scares me. For one thing, looking at the draft history of TEs: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft...p;type=position We'd have a guy that imo would basically be the next Kyle Brady.. I think that we'd be better off getting another position of need @ 11 rather than TE. (since this year's TE class is so deep, we'd more than likely be able to get our TE later on in the draft) also, he's gonna come off the field with three wides.. which we run quite a bit. Interesting....checking out this link, and compared to other positions, 1st and 2nd round picks have a pretty high percentage of panning out; 3rd round picks are hit or miss; and anyone taken in 4th or lower has almost no chance of having any real impact (so much for Derek Fine!). Although I agree that we should not use #11 on Pettigrew, we realistically will not be able to improve at TE with anything but a relatively high pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted April 18, 2009 Author Share Posted April 18, 2009 [cough, cough]Bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordByrd Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 I think Stafford, Raji, Orakpo, Brown, Monroe, Jason Smith, Crabtree, Maybin, Sanchez, Andre Smith, Curry, Jenkins, Cushing, and Matthews (not necessarily in that order) are all ahead of Pettigrew IMO. Pettigrew is the best at his position, but I don't see him as being better than the other guys I named. I'm a Notre Dame homer if there ever was one so I can spot another homer in a heartbeat You, Magox, are a serious Pettigrew homer. What's with the overuse of IMO on TSW? We get it, you're writing it, it's probably your opinion. Not to mention you started the sentence with "I think". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsaikotic Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 I think they stay on the D side at #11 and either take BJ Raji, if he falls that far, or the best DE available...there's a good LT Bills can take in the 2nd..so useing my sig, I say they go 2 D in the 1st and then LT in the 2nd...another reason I think they go DE is the rumor that Kelsay is on the trade block Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts