Git'er Done Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I really don't think the Bills are just assuming they will pick Patrick Willis. Like "we can get O-linemen now, and a free agent running back" cause Patrick Willis is gonna start at linebacker" I think they will try to get another linebacker in FA, maybe an average no-name guy. I think they will choose between a running back or a linebacker or possibly a CB, and pick the guy they feel will have the biggest impact. Drafting strictly for need is for losers. We certainly need a running back as much as we need linebacker (assuming McGahee is gone). I have said before, a high pick RB that doesn't live up to his draft status is just about a wasted pick because only one RB is on the field. A linebacker that doesn't live up to his draft status can still start, if he isn't a gamebreaker you still get some value. People keep saying that running backs in the second round are a good value. That might be more true of 2nd round linebackers. Check out how many Super Bowl winners have a #1 draft choice running back, especially the teams that win more than one. Lots of running backs are busts, I prefer the Bills play the odds and use the #1 on a back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Lots of running backs are busts, I prefer the Bills play the odds and use the #1 on a back. General point for the board: taking a running back higher than he deserves to go does not increase his chances of success. The only RB who deserves to go as high as 12 is Peterson, and he will be long gone. It doesn't make sense to take Lynch at 12 just because higher drafted RB's play in the Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Git'er Done Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 General point for the board: taking a running back higher than he deserves to go does not increase his chances of success. The only RB who deserves to go as high as 12 is Peterson, and he will be long gone. It doesn't make sense to take Lynch at 12 just because higher drafted RB's play in the Superbowl. I didn't say they should take a running back if he doesn't merit it just to have a 1st round RB. The point is an "elite" back is the way to go. Willis would be considered by many a "reach"at 12 as well. I don't want them reaching for anyone. We don't know much about Willis or Lynch beyond the field of play. I just don't like the idea that we HAVE to take Willis because of the panic about our defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I didn't say they should take a running back if he doesn't merit it just to have a 1st round RB. The point is an "elite" back is the way to go. Willis would be considered by many a "reach"at 12 as well. I don't want them reaching for anyone. We don't know much about Willis or Lynch beyond the field of play. I just don't like the idea that we HAVE to take Willis because of the panic about our defense. So then you're saying Peterson or bust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Actually, we have a RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Git'er Done Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 So then you're saying Peterson or bust? No. I see Lynch rated as a top 15 guy all over the place, but if the Bills don't feel that way, I don't want them to take him. In fact, I think they are in a quandry because next years crop of backs looks better, but they need someone now. Drafting a subpar back in the 2nd this draft would be a waste. I realize that some 2nd rounders turn out great, but I feel you should play the odds, and get a top ranked guy, or don't bother, for the reason given above. An "average" back probably won't take you to the Promised Land. Hence the Super Bowl winner comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Git'er Done Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 Actually, we have a RB. Clever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 No. I see Lynch rated as a top 15 guy all over the place, but if the Bills don't feel that way, I don't want them to take him. In fact, I think they are in a quandry because next years crop of backs looks better, but they need someone now. Drafting a subpar back in the 2nd this draft would be a waste. I realize that some 2nd rounders turn out great, but I feel you should play the odds, and get a top ranked guy, or don't bother, for the reason given above. An "average" back probably won't take you to the Promised Land. Hence the Super Bowl winner comment. I agree. Marv's Super Bowl teams revolved around the talents of Thurman. He will not settle for an average back. I don't know if the trading McGahee posture is a ploy to light a fire under McGahee, but if he does get a 2nd rounder for him, it would not surprise me to see the Bills package some picks and players to move up and get Peterson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Clever No, not clever. Fact. Unless McGahee gets moved, which doesn't seem to be happening, RB is pretty low on the list this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willis da illest Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 If Kenny was there 2nd round I'd take him in a heart beat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 (assuming McGahee is gone) Why? On a general note, I have this suspicion that our management realizes we're picking football players as opposed to positions...even if some members of this forum do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgun Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Actually, we have a RB. Yes we do!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Here's what we need in order: LB/DT/CB CB RB DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Git'er Done Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 No, not clever. Fact. Unless McGahee gets moved, which doesn't seem to be happening, RB is pretty low on the list this year. I stated that this was under the assumption that McGahee was going! It's right there. Personally, I want the Bills to keep McGahee if that's what you want to bicker about. I don't know what is happening exactly (either do you), but it seems as likely as not that he will be gone. He is adequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike formerly from Florida Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 No, not clever. Fact. Unless McGahee gets moved, which doesn't seem to be happening, RB is pretty low on the list this year. Let me say this..you can disagree. I think the Bills were dangling McGahee to show his agent his worth (not much), motivate him, and see how he can produce behind the new big road-paving line. McGahee is going nowhere unless the bills get a second which they are not. He isn't worth it and it's not worth it to the bills to get a third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts