DrDawkinstein Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I am saying in the same round. We did draft two safeties, but there are two safety positions, as well as 2 corners on the field. It's safe to say Bush And Irons wouldnt be running out of the same backfield at the same time. Why wouldnt we draft a RB in the same round? Money Issues. The talent level is the same and we would be paying virtually the same amount for both. Why would we pay for another gay at the same position we wont use? Yeah they might split time, but what if this would turn into another RB controversy in Buffalo? Or what if we end up releasing one of them a year or two later? It would be a wasted pick to draft two guys in the same round who play the same positon. If there was a talent dropoff, like if we drafted another RB in the 6th round id be okay with that, if all of our other needs were addressed. the only reason there was ever a RB "controversy" is because the front office dropped the ball. most teams have 2 very good backs. shoot, Thurman would never had been Thurman without Kenny Davis. so you get your regular guy AND your power back and have a talented backfield. they play the same position, but not the same way. and you can use them together or seperately. as far as money issues... we havent had any problem with 2 1st round picks year after year... why would we worry about a couple of 2nd/3rd round RBs? i think youre worrying too much about something that really shouldnt be worried about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I like keeping Willis, and drafting at #12, then again in the 2nd and 3rd. I think that makes us a better football team. LB and CB on day one, with a DT possible, but individual picks decided based on the guys we like the best who are available when we pick, not based on a pre planned wish list. Don't get so caught up with our 2008 running back. 2007 Willis playing for his big contract (one chance only for most RBs) behind our new line is better football value than we can get trading and drafting. Stand pat Marv! Get the best players available Marv! Go Bills! i, personally, think this is our best plan as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistolPeaTear Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 the only reason there was ever a RB "controversy" is because the front office dropped the ball. most teams have 2 very good backs. shoot, Thurman would never had been Thurman without Kenny Davis. so you get your regular guy AND your power back and have a talented backfield. they play the same position, but not the same way. and you can use them together or seperately. as far as money issues... we havent had any problem with 2 1st round picks year after year... why would we worry about a couple of 2nd/3rd round RBs? i think youre worrying too much about something that really shouldnt be worried about I would be worried if we drafted back to back RBs in the draft. Like You said, We only have 3 Corners. We're also in a situation with our linebackers. Now I would rather address the need of a better corner in the 2nd round then wait til the 3rd when the talent pool is a little more shallow and wait on getting another running back. The money issues with the two 1st round picks last year isnt a concern, They played two different positons so the money wouldnt be wasted all on just one position. and 1Billsfan, who are your trading partners? hahaha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 t. shoot, Thurman would never had been Thurman without Kenny Davis. stop the madness. Kenny Davis had no impact on the success of Thurman Thomas Kenny Davis only played in blowouts because the Bills could afford to only run straight ahead. Kenny was the brightest bulb and couldn;t figure out blitz pickups or pass patterns. Thurman was a Hall of Fame talent- do not tarnish that with the above nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The point of the post wasn't focus on who the trading partner would be. The last time I did this it completely got off track. Let's just say that between now and the draft some NFL team is in "L-O-V-E" with a player like Okoye, Branch, Quinn or Peterson who happens to fall that day to where some team in the twenties wants them badly enough. A lot of stuff could happen between now and the draft that could set up this scenario. Now as for Peterson, if he were to fall I think the Bills stay where they are and pick him. I have this sneaking suspicion that Cleveland will take Brady Quinn and Peterson does a free fall from there (Houston already has Green as their RB). Maybe it's the Crennel/Wies connection. I just think that the less we hear Quinn being linked to the Browns pick, the more I think they're playing possum so another team doesn't trade up with Detroit to get him. That's the point- All of the players that you think a team will fall in love with will be gone by #12. You can't trade without a partner and you won't find a partner if there is nothing of substance to trade for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 stop the madness. Kenny Davis had no impact on the success of Thurman Thomas Kenny Davis only played in blowouts because the Bills could afford to only run straight ahead. Kenny was the brightest bulb and couldn;t figure out blitz pickups or pass patterns. Thurman was a Hall of Fame talent- do not tarnish that with the above nonsense. tarnish? im giving respect to a crucial, un-selfish, role-player. im a big thurman fan, but id say going to the Dolphins and the drinking and gambling problems does more to tarnish himself than me bringing up a great player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 That's the point- All of the players that you think a team will fall in love with will be gone by #12. You can't trade without a partner and you won't find a partner if there is nothing of substance to trade for. Two words, Matt Leinart. Face it skippy, you have no idea if any of those players will be there when we pick. Got that Nostradamus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Two words, Matt Leinart. Face it skippy, you have no idea if any of those players will be there when we pick. Got that Nostradamus? skippy? how many teams were willing to move up for Leinart. Oh yeah --ZERO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts