Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
transplantbillsfan

If you had Metcalf/Fant/Hockenson/Jacobs vs the field as our 1st pick, which would you pick?

Fant/Hockenson/Jacobs or the field?  

191 members have voted

  1. 1. If you had to put money on it, would you think our 1st selection will be Metcalf/Fant/Hockenson/Jacobs or the field?

    • The field
    • MetcalfFant/Hockenson/Jacobs


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

EDIT: I added DK Metcalf to the poll in part because of another poster in this thread, but largely because I don't watch college football and have been catching up on him and didn't realize how much of an absolute FREAK he is, and if he's there at 9 I don't know if McBeane would pass on a Julio Jones / AJ Green / Megatron type WR simply because they feel we have 4 good WRs on the roster already.

 

More weapons on offense, the better... primary point here...

 

note: It was 13.22% without Metcalf in there.

 

This draft just seems to be setting things up so that it's obvious we'll be picking a tight end in the first or, at the latest, second round. Maybe less talked about is our pretty obvious need at running back weather aging backfield, probably in need of wheelchairs.

 

Teams carry 3 running backs. We have 2 capable RBs (but for how long?) and then a buncha JAGs.

 

I get the BPA thing, but there are also different measures out there that have Jacobs, Hockenson and even Fant as top 10 talents in this draft. And for the "you don't take RBs in the top 10 or TEs in the 1st crowd", maybe Beane wants to trade back and get one of those guys, though I think they're still in play at 9.

 

I don't really care what position we draft. I trust Beane. But we've pretty close to covered our OL in FA. No more desperate need. With the 2 Phillips monsters and Star our DL has at least 3 guys who Beane personally chose. Edge rusher is obviously a need, but I don't think it's a desperate one with Hughes and Lorax in there... and I think there's some faith in Lawson, too.

 

We are devoid of clearly starting talent at TE. Maybe the guys we have can be successful, but it's certainly not clear they can be. That's why I really think we're drafting a TE in the 1st, through whatever means that happens.

 

But our backfield, to me, is the elephant in the room that Beane really hasn't addressed, yet. We're clearly going to draft one. I just won't be shocked if it's in the 1st.

Edited by transplantbillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EASY choice.  The field.  

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like it is one vs the field as TJ is the only one with a shot at 9.

 

If all the DL studs are off the board, would not be disappointed with the best TE.

  • Like (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I like Hock and Jacobs. I’m still taking the field. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, NewEra said:

EASY choice.  The field.  

What kind of line can I get? I think it's highly unlikely any of these players are the target. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Josh needs Hockenson…  The kid is surrounded by ball-droppers... Get him some help.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want Hock but I would bet the field. 

 

Hock/Fant/Jacobs/Metcalf would be a little tougher bet but I would still take the field. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just Joshin' said:

It seems like it is one vs the field as TJ is the only one with a shot at 9.

 

If all the DL studs are off the board, would not be disappointed with the best TE.

 

Remember it's just our 1st pick...

 

could be trade down...

 

could be trade UP...

 

and I think some are really underestimating our need at RB and the increasing value of the RB over the last few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrags said:

As much as I like Hock and Jacobs. I’m still taking the field. 

 

Despite the glaring need and the fact that both guys often fall into our "sweet spot" in terms of prospect rankings?

39 minutes ago, BillsfaninSB said:

I want Hock but I would bet the field. 

 

Hock/Fant/Jacobs/Metcalf would be a little tougher bet but I would still take the field. 

 

I think WR is another position McBeane are going to view as largely filled, though Metcalf wouldn't upset me, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A RB elephant in the form of a HOFer walked into the room already. The team is better at RB today than when they left the field after the 2nd Dolphin game. Bills have virtually never given a ratsazz about TE. Heck, they played Kyle Williams there last season (ba dum bum). The DEs OP mentions are on their last contract year. That’s where we go. aka The Field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

Josh needs Hockenson…  The kid is surrounded by ball-droppers... Get him some help.

Should have addressed it in FA.😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacobs?????

 

*Thread disqualified*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Field, certainly, unless the odds got up to 3:1 or 4:1 or so.

 

EDIT: umm, make that 6:1.

 

My guesses:

 

DT 2.5 :1

Edge: 3:1

OL: 4:1

WR: 5:1

TE: 6:1

LB: 15:1

CB: 20:1

RB:  40:1

S: 75:1

QB: 100:1

 

And those are reliable, because I took about 4 minutes to think my opinion through.

Edited by Thurman#1
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the parameters presented I'm shocked it isn't 100% field.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trade down for Hock or Fant,  then trade back up for Jacobs. Problem solved!

 

Yes I'm aware it takes 2, or in this case 4 to Tango. That's what's so much fun this time of year. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Field. Don’t want Fant before Day 2,  don’t want a RB before day 3, don’t want Hock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I get the sense TE have one of the highest bust rates. 

 

I just hate the idea of using a first round pick on a guy that would be the worst blocker on the line and one of the worst WRs on the team.  I mean, a good year for a tight end is 600+ yards.  That is like a bad WR2, average WR3.  

 

Why use a first round pick for that production? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

I could be wrong, but I get the sense TE have one of the highest bust rates. 

 

I just hate the idea of using a first round pick on a guy that would be the worst blocker on the line and one of the worst WRs on the team.  I mean, a good year for a tight end is 600+ yards.  That is like a bad WR2, average WR3.  

 

Why use a first round pick for that production? 

He could turn into a great whipping boy if he sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rico said:

He could turn into a great whipping boy if he sucks.

With Peterman gone we have no one to hate.  I mean, I guess there is Trent and Zay, but its just not the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...