D2K Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 my statement was you cherry picked teams with great qbs and you did it again. Again, what I did was compared the BEST offenses in the league and the WR corp that each team fielded. The QB of the team is immaterial in this argument and I have no idea what point you can possibly make to deter what I have said. Which HIGH POWERED team should I break down for you? What is it that you are reaching for and what point are you trying to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Again, what I did was compared the BEST offenses in the league and the WR corp that each team fielded. The QB of the team is immaterial in this argument and I have no idea what point you can possibly make to deter what I have said. Which HIGH POWERED team should I break down for you? What is it that you are reaching for and what point are you trying to make? My point was in my original response. I said that a great qb can make lesser talent look better than it is. To say that a qb is immaterial to a discussion about receiver productivity is ludicrous. I think we agree that Fitz I'd not a great qb so getting him help is not a bad thing if the player is right. Again the best receivers in the game are Larry Fitzgerald Andre Johnson and Calvin Johnson are top 5 picks. Are you saying those are wasted picks? I'll ask it this way does Calvin Johnson make stafford better or does stafford make Johnson better? Or how about this way if we put Fitz on new England new Orleans or green bay do those receivers still look as good And is the offense as high powered? Or how bout if we put Andre Johnson in new England does it make their offense worse because he was a high draft pick? All I'm saying is wide receiver should not be out of the question IF there is one worth taking because our skill level is not at a point where bpa can ignore the position entirely. Edit: I am not saying it should be the pick either just that it shouldn't be ruled out due to your offense rankings which are clearly qb predicated and driven by qbs much better than fitz Edited February 16, 2012 by section122 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D2K Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) My point was in my original response. I said that a great qb can make lesser talent look better than it is. To say that a qb is immaterial to a discussion about receiver productivity is ludicrous. I think we agree that Fitz I'd not a great qb so getting him help is not a bad thing if the player is right. Again the best receivers in the game are Larry Fitzgerald Andre Johnson and Calvin Johnson are top 5 picks. Are you saying those are wasted picks? I'll ask it this way does Calvin Johnson make stafford better or does stafford make Johnson better? Or how about this way if we put Fitz on new England new Orleans or green bay do those receivers still look as good And is the offense as high powered? Or how bout if we put Andre Johnson in new England does it make their offense worse because he was a high draft pick? All I'm saying is wide receiver should not be out of the question IF there is one worth taking because our skill level is not at a point where bpa can ignore the position entirely. Edit: I am not saying it should be the pick either just that it shouldn't be ruled out due to your offense rankings which are clearly qb predicated and driven by qbs much better than fitz A best receiver in the league debate is not what this thread was about, and to pin-point one or two or three players as the best at their position is Ok if you are talking about a QB. With receivers, you just cant do it. There are a plethora of players that can be argued for as the BEST reciever in the league, but its a debate that will NEVER have a clear cut winner. I agree that Fitzgerald/C. Johnson/A. Johnson are in the discussion, but from a pure productivity stand point Welker is far and away the more productive reciever. Now does that mean he is the best? Certainly not, but again he has to be in the discussion. I could name 10-15 other receivers that could be in this conversation as well. Which is why I say that they are a dime a dozen. They can be found from the 2nd round all the way through UDFA status (same with RB's) and hold better value than a reciever that was drafted as a 1st rounder. The Lions had to miss and miss hard on Charles Rogers (2nd overall/2003), Roy Williams (7th overall/2004) and Mike Williams (10th overall/2005) before they finally struck gold and were handed Calvin Johnson. Even though he was the consensus best player in the 2007 draft the Raiders completely CHOKED and drafted Jamarcus Russell. That is 3 times that the Lions completely whiffed on WR. It is entirely to easy to do, so why take the chance in the 1st round (which is what my posts are referring to). IMO, it would be a horrible decision to EVER draft a WR in the first round, especially by a team that is so devoid of talent in the defensive front 7. Edited February 16, 2012 by D2K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 A lot of questionable choices. Osweiler and Burfict will not go in the 1st and we are definitely going pass rusher, not WR, unless Blackmon is there by some miracle. Mercilus will go top 15, hopefully to us. God I hope not. Reiff is no Bulaga and isn't even as good as Martin. That would be the one pick that would make my stomach turn. Luke Kuechly would make my stomach turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'nCrunch Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Saw Mayock's comments on NFL Network regarding the DEs. He is usually complimentary even when he doesn't like someone. This was the 1st time in years I've heard him dismiss a whole class of positional players. If he is right we need to steer clear of DE altogether in the draft. Can't wait until Path to the Draft begins. It really is tough to seriously consider taking a wide receiver in the 1st. The NFL is run by the QB and the receiver is dependant on the ball being delivered to him. A good WR will become a star with a good QB while a stud WR will not be a star with a poor QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Saw Mayock's comments on NFL Network regarding the DEs. He is usually complimentary even when he doesn't like someone. This was the 1st time in years I've heard him dismiss a whole class of positional players. If he is right we need to steer clear of DE altogether in the draft. Can't wait until Path to the Draft begins. It really is tough to seriously consider taking a wide receiver in the 1st. The NFL is run by the QB and the receiver is dependant on the ball being delivered to him. A good WR will become a star with a good QB while a stud WR will not be a star with a poor QB. wouldn't say altogether but maybe not first round although I wouldn't be upset with Ingram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Luke Kuechly would make my stomach turn. Yeah, that pick would make my stomach turn as well. I just see that one much less likely to happen. Edited February 17, 2012 by H2o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Pure stupidity !! With Melvin Ingram & Courtney Upshaw sitting there & Buddy Nix him self saying that the Bills pass rush is TOP PRIORITY these jakes take a WR in the first round over the 2 highest raking DE & LB in the draft ????????? COME ON that just plain stupidity !!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
808 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 maybe the WRs are better wrs then the pass rushers are at pass rushing. and they feel that its not good value Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreReed83 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 We should be taking an OT, DE, or OLB with our first pick. Meaning Riley Reiff, Courtney Upshaw, Quinton Coples, or Melvin Ingram. If we don't come out with any of those guys in the 1st, I'll be pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mob16151 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 We should be taking an OT, DE, or OLB with our first pick. Meaning Riley Reiff, Courtney Upshaw, Quinton Coples, or Melvin Ingram. If we don't come out with any of those guys in the 1st, I'll be pissed. So overrated OT, 2 DE/OLB tweeners, and 1 legitimate NFL DE. Tracking lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'nCrunch Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 The Bills have stated their need to upgrade their pass rush. That's how the Giants beat NE and we need follow suit if we are to start beating NE twice a year. If, however, in this draft class, the difference between the top pass rushers and the lower rated pass rushers is small, especially if the top level players are considered questionable, we shouldn't take on this extra risk just because we want a 1st round answer to this need. We may help ourselves more by strengthening other positions of need such as CB or LT if the players available have higher margins of value. Then we can spend a 3rd round pick on a DE or OLB and still get value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts