Johnny DangerFace Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) Yes. Really. Good QB's who make quick reads and move adeptly in the pocket mitigate the need for HOF at every OL position. Granted, you can't have the slobs we had last year playing LG, but it shouldn't be that hard to find a fat guy to stick in there to hold into another fat guy for 3 seconds. I didn't say HOF at every position, but you NEED an average line. Look at Brady or manning when their line is sucking. And someone mentioned pit and gb? Their pass protection and lack of run game due to a bad line was a huge issue on those teams. I'm just saying we need an average line at least, it was apparent last year how bad our line was. A good o line will make a qb look better much easier than a good qb will make a line look good. EDIT: I'm not saying qb isn't important, I think it's the most important position. I'm just saying our o line is bad and I hope they fix it and add 2-3 lineman. Plus we drafted a QB last year, we won't draft one high this year, so let's help develop EJ by fixing the line (we can still get a great TE/WR in rd 1 Edited April 4, 2014 by Numark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 I don't want to take a guard or RT at 9 overall. Get the right QB and your line means nothing. Rodgers and Rapesberger both won SB with below average lines. EJ isn't either of them (yet) so develop him into that or get a guy who is a talent like that. The garbage flying out of Schopp's mouth right now might be his peak of stupidity. So they are interested in Chris Johnson because they are going to package Spiller and the 9th pick to move up in the draft. Is Schopp the wookie? I'm starting to think Schopp posts here. This is the only place I read ideas as stupid as his. ...you read things elsewhere? Well I'll be damned :nana: On a serious note, I'm with you on the idea a great QB doesn't need a great line...but I think you're underestimating the value a quality line can have when trying to develop a less-than-elite QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 The Colts got by with some really bad offensive linemen when Manning was around. They also had a few studs, which Buffalo already has two in Glenn and Wood. Still think they should take a tackle high and then a guard later, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 Football is going to hell quickly. My interest has been waning year after year. Am I the only one? I usually go to my local pub to watch the Bills play on Sunday, might not be the case this year. Sorry if that's off topic, just needed to rant. No, this is where I'm at too. I watch most of the Bills games, and keep tabs on my fantasy players. But, my interest has been thinning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 Caller to WGR was happy about the Mike Williams "signing"...sigh Was this guy one of my dads friends? This was followed by Sal Capaccio calling EJ Manuel the Bills first overall pick last year. There is only one first overall pick each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 Caller to WGR was happy about the Mike Williams "signing"...sigh Was this guy one of my dads friends? This was followed by Sal Capaccio calling EJ Manuel the Bills first overall pick last year. There is only one first overall pick each year. But he was the Bills' first overall pick last year. Was Sal confusing that with the first overall selection of the entire draft? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted April 7, 2014 Report Share Posted April 7, 2014 I think Austin Seferian-Jenkins would be the perfect pick in the second round. Reminds me a lot of Tony Gonzalez. Basketball body, boxes out defenders to get himself in good position. Also catches the ball and IMMEDIATELY pulls it into his body. Not enough guys picked up on that from TG. ASF also wears 88 (well he wouldn't' in Buffalo, though). I'm pretty sure Ebron can't block. I'm also pretty sure I don't care so long as he's a Davis/Graham/Gronk quality receiving threat. ASJ would be much better than Ebron I believe. A lot of scouts have said Ebron is just a pass-catching-1 dimensional TE. frankly, with the Mike Williams trade, I have no idea what unfolds in the draft. I would still love Mike Evans, as he catches just about everything thrown his way, but I don't know how the depth chart would shake out. I don't want to draft a OL at 9 overall, as I think that's too high for a lineman. I think we could still get great value in round 2. we'll see how it pans out. it was interesting to hear the report that the Bills were interested in trading for Chris Johnson. I wonder if they had planned to package Spiller in that deal or what their intentions were. We'll never know now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 7, 2014 Report Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) ASJ would be much better than Ebron I believe. A lot of scouts have said Ebron is just a pass-catching-1 dimensional TE. frankly, with the Mike Williams trade, I have no idea what unfolds in the draft. I would still love Mike Evans, as he catches just about everything thrown his way, but I don't know how the depth chart would shake out. I don't want to draft a OL at 9 overall, as I think that's too high for a lineman. I think we could still get great value in round 2. we'll see how it pans out. it was interesting to hear the report that the Bills were interested in trading for Chris Johnson. I wonder if they had planned to package Spiller in that deal or what their intentions were. We'll never know now. I don't think the Williams trade changes anything; it was a high upside opportunity for zero real risk. I can't imagine they're going to rely on him as a long term, or even short term, answer. Edited April 7, 2014 by TrueBluePhD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 7, 2014 Report Share Posted April 7, 2014 I think there are two HUGE myths that get spouted off as fact every offseason: 1. Free agency/trades don't change draft plans. There's the obvious fact that if a team has zero QBs and then signs Tom Brady they aren't going to draft a QB high in the first round. Then there's just the fact that sometimes you fill holes in free agency that you're not going to want to use a high pick on now. 2. Teams draft best player available more than need. The only time this happens is if you're a team that legitimately has a strong player at every position. That's pretty rare. This happens in the later rounds, but I think most teams take need into account in the first round. Teams DO pick BPA SOMETIMES, but only when it's a world-class talent or somebody drops surprisingly in the first round. Otherwise they at least take the best player available that fits a need. It's not just "we'll take this guy because he's better than everybody else." Teams want to fill holes in the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 it was interesting to hear the report that the Bills were interested in trading for Chris Johnson. I wonder if they had planned to package Spiller in that deal or what their intentions were. We'll never know now. Ah so you're Mike Schopp. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 I think there are two HUGE myths that get spouted off as fact every offseason: 1. Free agency/trades don't change draft plans. There's the obvious fact that if a team has zero QBs and then signs Tom Brady they aren't going to draft a QB high in the first round. Then there's just the fact that sometimes you fill holes in free agency that you're not going to want to use a high pick on now. I think it depends on who gets acquired. Mike Williams isn't exactly Tom Brady, agreed? I think the Williams trade was more along the lines of "let's get some depth so we can get T.J. Graham off this roster." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 I think it depends on who gets acquired. Mike Williams isn't exactly Tom Brady, agreed? I think the Williams trade was more along the lines of "let's get some depth so we can get T.J. Graham off this roster." Didn't we already have enough depth to get him off the roster? Still happy we drafted him instead of, you know, Russell Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 I think it depends on who gets acquired. Mike Williams isn't exactly Tom Brady, agreed? I think the Williams trade was more along the lines of "let's get some depth so we can get T.J. Graham off this roster." Sure, but it certainly changes things for the Bucs. It also might act as a tiebreaker if the Bills see somebody like Evans and Matthews as even while both are at the board at nine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Didn't we already have enough depth to get him off the roster? Still happy we drafted him instead of, you know, Russell Wilson. Yea I don't think Russell Wilson would have turned this team around. He is playing behind a great line, with a great run game, with a great defense See Big Ben in his first few years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Didn't we already have enough depth to get him off the roster? Still happy we drafted him instead of, you know, Russell Wilson. The fact that we traded UP to get a guy that was supposed to be a late-round pick is so frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Didn't we already have enough depth to get him off the roster? Still happy we drafted him instead of, you know, Russell Wilson. Honestly, I don't think so. Everyone at that #5 spot is just as bad as Graham...Easley, Hogan, Elliott, Barden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Ah so you're Mike Schopp. ;) haha no. not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Honestly, I don't think so. Everyone at that #5 spot is just as bad as Graham...Easley, Hogan, Elliott, Barden. The offense we run doesn't require more than three solid receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 I think there are two HUGE myths that get spouted off as fact every offseason: 1. Free agency/trades don't change draft plans. There's the obvious fact that if a team has zero QBs and then signs Tom Brady they aren't going to draft a QB high in the first round. Then there's just the fact that sometimes you fill holes in free agency that you're not going to want to use a high pick on now. 2. Teams draft best player available more than need. The only time this happens is if you're a team that legitimately has a strong player at every position. That's pretty rare. This happens in the later rounds, but I think most teams take need into account in the first round. Teams DO pick BPA SOMETIMES, but only when it's a world-class talent or somebody drops surprisingly in the first round. Otherwise they at least take the best player available that fits a need. It's not just "we'll take this guy because he's better than everybody else." Teams want to fill holes in the first round. I don't think I have ever heard someone say that FA/Trades Don't change draft plans, but I also would never say that a FA signing will mean that a certain position player won't be drafted by a team. Like in the Bills case, just because they traded for Williams, it doesn't mean they don't take Evans or another top WR. There are more then WR positions on a team and having a couple of highly skilled guys isn't going to hurt the offence. As for #2, again its not black and white. BPA isn't always just one player, it can be a couple of players that are all just as good. I would say more often then not a team might draft the BPA that fits their team, even if its not at a position thats a more serious need for them. Where teams get hurt the most in the draft is when they go into it and take guys simply because they need someone for that position, and not try and get the best talent they can. Basically, if the Bills draft spot came up in the 1st and the BPA is a RB, chances are they won't draft that player, and will look at the next BPA that might fit a better position where they don't already have multiple starters to fill one spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 The offense we run doesn't require more than three solid receivers. So they're invulnerable? Our top three spent very little time all healthy and on the field at the same time, and you can also make the argument that when healthy they still don't constitute a solid group of NFL receivers. Also, I think the offense we're running is designed to protect a young QB...if EJ stats to emerge I'd be pretty shocked if they didn't open up the offense, which naturally requires more weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 So they're invulnerable? Our top three spent very little time all healthy and on the field at the same time, and you can also make the argument that when healthy they still don't constitute a solid group of NFL receivers. Also, I think the offense we're running is designed to protect a young QB...if EJ stats to emerge I'd be pretty shocked if they didn't open up the offense, which naturally requires more weapons. I just view Graham as more of a negative than a positive, so my point was just that the fifth guy on the depth chart sucking isn't a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 I just view Graham as more of a negative than a positive, so my point was just that the fifth guy on the depth chart sucking isn't a big deal. tell that to Justin Rogers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) tell that to Justin Rogers... Was talking about wide receiver. And Rogers wasn't fifth. Rogers was one of the top three, which was the issue. Obviously you'd prefer to go five-deep at receiver or any position in today's NFL, but in THIS case I don't think the Bills should be extremely worried about going that deep at WR. Graham can be gone either way. Edited April 8, 2014 by Tankalicious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) As if Thanksgiving couldn't get any better, the Bills will reportedly play vs. the Lions on Thanksgiving day :D http://bleacherrepor...s-detroit-lions Edited April 8, 2014 by WildCard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 There's also a report that the Packers game will be a MNF game in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts