ndirish1978 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I get a little antsy that we haven't picked up a WR, TE or CB. Then I realize there really weren't any signable players at our needs positions, we landed some good ones and we passed on overspending. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huuuge Bills Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I get a little antsy that we haven't picked up a WR, TE or CB. Then I realize there really weren't any signable players at our needs positions, we landed some good ones and we passed on overspending. What do you guys think? Exactly, why overpay for a mediocre player? You'll just end up cutting them when they are due a bonus and have to get another player. We still have the draft and would rather get a WR and TE with the first 2 picks. Grab a CB in the third to be the nickle and we're set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBilliever Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Look at picks 1, 2, and 3 to answer your questions Also... I STILL only see Tight End as a marginal need. Robert Royal has done mediocre at his position, great at blocking, decent with the hands, so above that I only see WR and CB as the GLARING needs. So... WR/CB in rounds one and two (unless we go Kelly/Sweed and Davis) then TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berndogg Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 When I joined this site I was informed that all remarks about the team and front office had to be pessimistic and/or critical. Just thought I'd pass that along, I didn't know if you guys got the memo. On that note...I can't believe we let Bryant Johnson get away, Ralph is such a cheap bastard, we should've given him javon walker type money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Yeah, good teams build through the draft and draft successfully anyway. This FA market was thin and I think most people recognized that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 The only thing I don't like is that by not signing Johnson (not necessarily a bad thing even though I liked him), it "forces" us to take a WR in the first round...and I don't think there are any WR's worthy of the #11 pick in this year's draft. Hopefully we trade down, but who knows if we'll find a partner. If we had Bryant Johnson, we could have taken the best player available (CB, DE, DT) and possibly gotten a WR in round 2. Everything I am sure will be fine, but BJ as our #2 going into the season would have given us more options on draft day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Look at picks 1, 2, and 3 to answer your questions Also... I STILL only see Tight End as a marginal need. Robert Royal has done mediocre at his position, great at blocking, decent with the hands, so above that I only see WR and CB as the GLARING needs. So... WR/CB in rounds one and two (unless we go Kelly/Sweed and Davis) then TE. Sadly, I'm sure many have come to believe this because the team has done virtually nothing to secure a top notch Tight End this century. Yes, we all hoped 3rd rounder Kevin Everett would be that big time TE we've never had but he couldn't stay healthy and there's been no real effort before or since. Personally, I think there's a true correlation between a TE that has to be accounted for/reckoned with and team success. At least we know for certain that no TE threat and losing go hand in hand. It's all in the Kool-Aid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berndogg Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Sadly, I'm sure many have come to believe this because the team has done virtually nothing to secure a top notch Tight End this century. Yes, we all hoped 3rd rounder Kevin Everett would be that big time TE we've never had but he couldn't stay healthy and there's been no real effort before or since. Personally, I think there's a true correlation between a TE that has to be accounted for/reckoned with and team success. At least we know for certain that no TE threat and losing go hand in hand. It's all in the Kool-Aid... Agreed, Giants, Pats, Colts, Cowboys, Packers, Chargers, Steelers, Redskins. All playoff teams, all teams with good tight ends that are a big part of their offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 When I joined this site I was informed that all remarks about the team and front office had to be pessimistic and/or critical. Just thought I'd pass that along, I didn't know if you guys got the memo. On that note...I can't believe we let Bryant Johnson get away, Ralph is such a cheap bastard, we should've given him javon walker type money That was LAST YEAR. This year 30% of posts can be positive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 I do agree with the post about forcing us to take a WR...to a point. I don't really think the FO will hesitate to take a CB in the 1st and grab our 2WR in the 2nd or 3rd if it really came down to it. What I DID like about the Bryant Johnson move is they obviously didn't cave and give tons of money to an untested player. As far as reaches go in the draft, I think the term is stupid. No players go in to the draft with a guaranteed pro effectiveness rating, we basically valuate them like art, they are worth what people are willing to pay them. Mandarich and Leaf were not "reaches" when they were taken, but because they were overvalued and didn't produce we feel the need to justify the pre-draft ranking system and call them "busts." Using the criteria everyone espouses as far as how far down you could move and still get a player, Tom Brady would have been a HUGE reach even as a 4th rd pick, when obviously his value turned out to be greater than any other players. Bottom line, take who you want on your team when it's your turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 The only thing I don't like is that by not signing Johnson (not necessarily a bad thing even though I liked him), it "forces" us to take a WR in the first round...and I don't think there are any WR's worthy of the #11 pick in this year's draft. Hopefully we trade down, but who knows if we'll find a partner. If we had Bryant Johnson, we could have taken the best player available (CB, DE, DT) and possibly gotten a WR in round 2. Everything I am sure will be fine, but BJ as our #2 going into the season would have given us more options on draft day. Exactly my feelings as well. I'm not a big Bryant Johnson fan. I dont think he was the savoir, a lot of people thought he'd be. He would've allowed us though to take BPA early in the draft, a derrick harvey or DRC, or such. I just dont see any of these wideouts as some cant miss prospect. Like I saw in a post earlier today. We took Evans in 04 at what the 11th-12th pick. None of these wr's are the prospect Lee Evans was considered to be. Yes we need a wr and a te. Now you're essentially going to the draft, to ask not 1 but 2 rookies to be immediate starters, and big time contributers to improve a very poor offense. Yes it might pay off down the line, but the bills have too many needs still defensively. Especially on the dline and secondary, to overdraft skill players on offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Look at picks 1, 2, and 3 to answer your questions Also... I STILL only see Tight End as a marginal need. Robert Royal has done mediocre at his position, great at blocking, decent with the hands, so above that I only see WR and CB as the GLARING needs. So... WR/CB in rounds one and two (unless we go Kelly/Sweed and Davis) then TE. Marginal? My god. Royal is the worst player on the team, I'd rather put Hamden in there at TE. I can't wait until that dumb bastard is finally off the team so I can sleep! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 19 and 0 baby!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Marginal? My god. Royal is the worst player on the team, I'd rather put Hamden in there at TE. I can't wait until that dumb bastard is finally off the team so I can sleep! Royals only problem is he should be a #2 te. As far as being the worst player on the team hardly. Royal is compareable on the offensive side of the ball to that of Chris Kelsay on defense. Neither should be starters, but both make decent 2nd string players. He's not as much of a waste at te as Josh Reed/Parrish are at receiving significant time at wr. As far as the worst player on the team. His contract is up but the worst player on the team last year, was far and away Jim Leonhard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJPearl2 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 No. Royal is the worst player. He has hands like a digital clock. I don't see the Bills going TE. I see a trade down in Round 1 for a CB then WR in Round 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 No. Royal is the worst player. He has hands like a digital clock. Yet he has 4 more tds then Josh Reed the last 2 years. Royal>>Reed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsD#1in2008 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Yet he has 4 more tds then Josh Reed the last 2 years. Royal>>Reed lets trade down to philly and trade them our 1st and 4th get their first rounder and lito sheppard that would be sweet haha only in my dreams i guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts