ieatcrayonz Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Parcells was on Mike and Mike this morning discussing the draft. One of the Mike's asked if there was a position that would never merit a #1 overall pick. While he clearly stated QB was the top priority if the guy is there, the order of the rest of his response was: CB OLB/DE LT WR/RB S DT He said no to: ILB OG Clearly he sees the NFL for what it is, not what it used to be. If the Bills pick Peterson as they should, please keep Parcells sediments in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Clearly he sees the NFL for what it is, not what it used to be. If the Bills pick Peterson as they should, please keep Parcells sediments in mind. Parcells' residue is always at the forefront of my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Clearly he sees the NFL for what it is, not what it used to be. If the Bills pick Peterson as they should, please keep Parcells sediments in mind. Was almost going to freak out over this but I counted to 10. In many cases drafting the CB would be a pretty good idea. Unfortunately for the Bills specific situation it is a terrible idea. Problems with the Bills selecting a CB that early: 1) 32nd rush defense in the league 2) 27th in sacks in the league 3) BUFFALO NEVER PAYS GOOD CBs AFTER THEIR ROOKIE CONTRACT IT UP! (If you are ok with Peterson leaving in 5 years or being traded because he wants a new contract after 2 years if he is awesome then go for it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkside305 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I have always thought of the Bills picking Peterson, Chan likes to draft by the best athlete motto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drifter Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I have a feeling Denver may take Peterson. John Fox likes to draft back 7 players early over d line. Though Champ Bailey is still there he is getting old so it wouldn't shock me to see this happen. This would give the Bills the opportunity to take Von Miller, since I think Carolina will go with Darius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Was almost going to freak out over this but I counted to 10. In many cases drafting the CB would be a pretty good idea. Unfortunately for the Bills specific situation it is a terrible idea. Problems with the Bills selecting a CB that early: 1) 32nd rush defense in the league 2) 27th in sacks in the league 3) BUFFALO NEVER PAYS GOOD CBs AFTER THEIR ROOKIE CONTRACT IT UP! (If you are ok with Peterson leaving in 5 years or being traded because he wants a new contract after 2 years if he is awesome then go for it) Ditto. Not us, not now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 Was almost going to freak out over this but I counted to 10. In many cases drafting the CB would be a pretty good idea. Unfortunately for the Bills specific situation it is a terrible idea. Problems with the Bills selecting a CB that early: 1) 32nd rush defense in the league 2) 27th in sacks in the league 3) BUFFALO NEVER PAYS GOOD CBs AFTER THEIR ROOKIE CONTRACT IT UP! (If you are ok with Peterson leaving in 5 years or being traded because he wants a new contract after 2 years if he is awesome then go for it) So you don't want to take the clearly most talented player in the draft at a position that Parcells sees as the 2nd most important on the field? You like to take a less talented player at a less important position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) Ditto. Not us, not now. Exactly... It's not about Peterson, who is a good Player and worthy of the #1 overall Pick to the right Team...But The Bills have been doing this dance for too long...They have serviceable CB's...But what they need more than anything is 1st a Franchise QB...If they can't get one of those they need someone who can stop the Run and Rush the Passer...After that they need another OT...If they filled all those holes maybe we could talk CB... Edited April 26, 2011 by KOKBILLS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 Exactly... It's not about Peterson who is a good Player and worthy of the #1 overall Pick tot he right Team...But The Bills have been doing this dance for too long...They have serviceable CB's...But what they need more than anything is 1st a Franchise QB...If they can't get one of those they need someone who can stop the Run and Rush the Passer...After that they need another OT...If they filled all those holes maybe we could talk CB... According to Parcells if the Bills don't like one of the QBs, probably Gabbert because Newton will be gone, then they should go Peterson or Miller. So I'd guess you'd prefer Miller? That seems fine. Marcel Dareus is at a position too low for the #3 and he is French. Two strikes.....he's out. Fairley? Maybe but he seems to be lower on people's boards. I would say Peterson or Miller or trade down if they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) So you don't want to take the clearly most talented player in the draft at a position that Parcells sees as the 2nd most important on the field? You like to take a less talented player at a less important position? How you inferred that from what I wrote I have no clue. You might want to read what I wrote again you could be misunderstanding it. That being said Peterson is supposed to be great but "clearly most talented"? I'm not sure about that either. I forgot Parcells was known for drafting DBs early in the draft....oh....wait....ya. Edited April 26, 2011 by PDaDdy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 According to Parcells if the Bills don't like one of the QBs, probably Gabbert because Newton will be gone, then they should go Peterson or Miller. So I'd guess you'd prefer Miller? That seems fine. Marcel Dareus is at a position too low for the #3 and he is French. Two strikes.....he's out. Fairley? Maybe but he seems to be lower on people's boards. I would say Peterson or Miller or trade down if they can. I wish Buddy had the balls to play the Trade Down Game...But he does not have it in him I guess... OLB/DE and DT were both on Parcells list, so if you have either of these two rated higher than Patrick Peterson who do you take? Dareus, French or not, projects to any position along a 3-4 Front...It's not cut and dry with this bunch...And all this based on Parcells who admits he should have taken Matt Ryan over Jake Long...I respect Parcells a lot, but he is not the be-all/end all either...Unfortunately, his protege is... And I think Belichick would take Miller 1st, Fairley 2nd, Dareus 3rd...But that's just a guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 How you inferred that from what I wrote I have no clue. You might want to read what I wrote again you could be misunderstanding it. That being said Peterson is supposed to be great but "clearly most talented"? I'm not sure about that either. I forgot Parcells was known for drafting DBs early in the draft....oh....wait....ya. I didn't get inferred. I'm not even mad at all. I was just saying that I disagree and that when a player like Peterson is available at a position like CB you have to take him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I wish Buddy had the balls to play the Trade Down Game...But he does not have it in him I guess... The trade down game is all about finding a partner that wants to move up and give proper compensation. Don't listen to all of the hype. Not saying you are guilty of this but some people think that it's just a matter of agreeing to one of a boat load of trade down offers they must think a front office gets everyday. Trade downs in the first round almost require a perfect storm. There has to be a player there that a team wants to move up for. The team that has the pick has to feel that the guy that they want is not there or it is way to high to get them. The team that wants to move up has to have the picks to do it. Those are just the obvious issues which don't even consider all of the other things that could go into it like not wanting to trade with division rivals, interpersonal issues between GMs, consensus in the front office between owners, GMs, coaches, etc. Buddy may not be in love with trading down but no GM rules it out. Trading down give you more options but less certainty. It might be a zero sum transaction ultimately or even worse the guy you moved down from and didn't select could go on to become the superstar that your whiny fan base will B word about for the next 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EldaBillsFan Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 our corners are solid, and they'll be some solid corners in the 4th round... Patrick Willis and Von Miller are the LB types he's talking about that you dont pass on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) I didn't get inferred. I'm not even mad at all. I was just saying that I disagree and that when a player like Peterson is available at a position like CB you have to take him. If you like the "draft experts" some say Peterson could be the best player in the draft. That being said it is a bad idea for the Bills due to the 3 issues that I stated. And no, we don't HAVE to take anyone. We can get a GREAT player AND they could actually be at one of several positions of need. Take a look at espn.com and the "scout inc's top 32". Peterson has a grade of 97 as do 3 other players. This is not even to mention the good size group of players with a ranking of 96 and 95. Far and away the best? I don't think so. He's good but there are many other good players at positions of need. Don't draft Peterson because Kiper says he is the best player. http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft Edited April 26, 2011 by PDaDdy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 The trade down game is all about finding a partner that wants to move up and give proper compensation. Don't listen to all of the hype. Not saying you are guilty of this but some people think that it's just a matter of agreeing to one of a boat load of trade down offers they must think a front office gets everyday. Trade downs in the first round almost require a perfect storm. There has to be a player there that a team wants to move up for. The team that has the pick has to feel that the guy that they want is not there or it is way to high to get them. The team that wants to move up has to have the picks to do it. Those are just the obvious issues which don't even consider all of the other things that could go into it like not wanting to trade with division rivals, interpersonal issues between GMs, consensus in the front office between owners, GMs, coaches, etc. Buddy may not be in love with trading down but no GM rules it out. Trading down give you more options but less certainty. It might be a zero sum transaction ultimately or even worse the guy you moved down from and didn't select could go on to become the superstar that your whiny fan base will B word about for the next 10 years. I hear what you're saying...It just seems to me that Buddy wants nothing to do with it...It's just a feeling I get when I hear him talk, and admittedly I could be wrong...But it seems kind of like he'll do it if someone offers him the farm, but they've already fallen in love so it's going to take a lot...He really seems disinterested from what I can tell...Where other GM's are always open for business...I would want to be the guy who gives off that impression that he could do a deal at any minute...You can always say no...But maybe that's just me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Marcel Dareus is at a position too low for the #3 and he is French. Two strikes.....he's out. You are really too funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I wish Buddy had the balls to play the Trade Down Game...But he does not have it in him I guess... OLB/DE and DT were both on Parcells list, so if you have either of these two rated higher than Patrick Peterson who do you take? Dareus, French or not, projects to any position along a 3-4 Front...It's not cut and dry with this bunch...And all this based on Parcells who admits he should have taken Matt Ryan over Jake Long...I respect Parcells a lot, but he is not the be-all/end all either...Unfortunately, his protege is... And I think Belichick would take Miller 1st, Fairley 2nd, Dareus 3rd...But that's just a guess... I gotta disagree here. Given Bellyache's history, it's reasonable that he'd take a guy like Dareus first. He loves big, versatile DLmen that can move. Dareus' 10 yard split was scary for a man that size. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny4sum Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 If you like the "draft experts" some say Peterson could be the best player in the draft. That being said it is a bad idea for the Bills due to the 3 issues that I stated. And no, we don't HAVE to take anyone. We can get a GREAT player AND they could actually be at one of several positions of need. Take a look at espn.com and the "scout inc's top 32". Peterson has a grade of 97 as do 3 other players. This is not even to mention the good size group of players with a ranking of 96 and 95. Far and away the best? I don't think so. He's good but there are many other good players at positions of need. Don't draft Peterson because Kiper says he is the best player. http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft Completely unrelated to this topic, but look at the rankings and please explain why Newton over Gabbert? It's not only Scout's, but the majority of rankings are like this, but everyone says Newton to Carolina..I don't get it, I know there "may" be a greater upside with Newton, but that is a gamble at #1 or #3..don't these ramkings mean that Gabbert is less of a reach at he top of the draft? I mean at CB Peterson is clear #1, but there is less gap between him and Prince the #2 rated CB than at QB, but you don't hear Prince taken before Peterson.. Am I just trying to make sense of something that doesn't make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I hear what you're saying...It just seems to me that Buddy wants nothing to do with it...It's just a feeling I get when I hear him talk, and admittedly I could be wrong...But it seems kind of like he'll do it if someone offers him the farm, but they've already fallen in love so it's going to take a lot...He really seems disinterested from what I can tell...Where other GM's are always open for business...I would want to be the guy who gives off that impression that he could do a deal at any minute...You can always say no...But maybe that's just me... I hear ya. I do seem to get the impression that he is less likely to trade up or down than some others. Completely unrelated to this topic, but look at the rankings and please explain why Newton over Gabbert? It's not only Scout's, but the majority of rankings are like this, but everyone says Newton to Carolina..I don't get it, I know there "may" be a greater upside with Newton, but that is a gamble at #1 or #3..don't these ramkings mean that Gabbert is less of a reach at he top of the draft? I mean at CB Peterson is clear #1, but there is less gap between him and Prince the #2 rated CB than at QB, but you don't hear Prince taken before Peterson.. Am I just trying to make sense of something that doesn't make sense? It's all potential in my opinion on Cam. If he learns how to play QB at the NFL level or at least learns how to become some degree of a "running QB" like Micheal Vick at one end or Steve "Batman" Young at the other he could be freakin' awesome. They are obviously in love with the things you can't teach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts