I have to question the Edwards pick....

[OpIv37]

As I stated yesterday, I'm happy with the first two picks- they were solid players in positions of need and good value for where they picked them.

But the Edwards pick is out of nowhere. Don't get me wrong- I'm no huge Nall supporter. And I don't know enough about Edwards to comment on his personal abilitiy. But this team still has needs at LB depth, CB depth, WR, TE and arguably some other positions. Why take a QB who likely won't even see the field unless it's garbage time or there is an injury to Losman?

After round 2 I gave Marv an A-. I think I'm going to have to downgrade that to a B- after this pick. We definitely got better with the first two picks, but Edwards is not going to help us at all in 2007.

[patmoran2006]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

I dont mind the pick as much as others.

In ways it doesnt make sense, but in ways it does.. QB's go down a lot in the league and if you have a great backup your team's season isnt over should the starter go down.

Personally, I would've gone somewhere else but I can think of plenty of picks that coulda been worse.

[OpIv37]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

I dont mind the pick as much as others.

In ways it doesnt make sense, but in ways it does.. QB's go down a lot in the league and if you have a great backup your team's season isnt over should the starter go down.

Personally, I would've gone somewhere else but I can think of plenty of picks that coulda been worse.

well QB's take time to develop. If JP goes down early this year, he's not going to be much of an asset- it will be just like grooming a rookie QB all over again. Meanwhile, a pick at another position would have a much better chance of contributing this season.

I understand the need for a decent backup- I just think that it's a luxury pick for a team with this many needs.

[DMBcrew36]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

As of right now, Losman is progressing and what not, but should he fail or go down, Edwards could step in and be QB of the future. I'd rather we have used the pick for a LB or WR but I trust Marv. Edwards seems like a class act who is very bright. He could end up being a great QB. Seems like he was just stuck with a bad team at Stanford.

[kgun12]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

well QB's take time to develop. If JP goes down early this year, he's not going to be much of an asset- it will be just like grooming a rookie QB all over again. Meanwhile, a pick at another position would have a much better chance of contributing this season.

I understand the need for a decent backup- I just think that it's a luxury pick for a team with this many needs.

Your point about it being a luxury pick is what makes me mad. We have a lot of holes and this pick was worse than the 8-8 team that took Willis knowing he could play for at least a year!

[DMBcrew36]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

I guess the Bills figured that there was no way they could pass up on him. I guess they were surprised he fell all the way to their late 3rd round pick.

[Saratoga Slim]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

As I stated yesterday, I'm happy with the first two picks- they were solid players in positions of need and good value for where they picked them.

But the Edwards pick is out of nowhere. Don't get me wrong- I'm no huge Nall supporter. And I don't know enough about Edwards to comment on his personal abilitiy. But this team still has needs at LB depth, CB depth, WR, TE and arguably some other positions. Why take a QB who likely won't even see the field unless it's garbage time or there is an injury to Losman?

After round 2 I gave Marv an A-. I think I'm going to have to downgrade that to a B- after this pick. We definitely got better with the first two picks, but Edwards is not going to help us at all in 2007.

Op, I think the key to your point above is "this team still has needs at LB depth, CB depth, WR and arguably some other positions." if we were drafting for depth at 92 anyway, is it really that big a deal that we went for depth at QB as opposed to one of those other positions? Dick said they took Edwards cause there was a very large gap on their value board between him and the remaining players.

I would have preferred to see us grab Daymeon Hughes or perhaps a WR myself, and I can't get actively excited about this pick, but I don't think it was a terrible move.

[gil]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

Your point about it being a luxury pick is what makes me mad. We have a lot of holes and this pick was worse than the 8-8 team that took Willis knowing he could play for at least a year!

I'm sorry, but spending a 3rd rounder on an at least an arguably "need" position - after already addressing two big needs is not worse than spending a first rounder on a RB with a blown knee when you already have Travis Henry.

That being said, I still would have preferred that they go after another position, but oh well.

[RedEyE]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

Let's look at it this way: The Bills needed another QB. Now, in the draft you weigh value versus necessity. Mayock ranked Edwards as the 3rd talented QB in the draft behind Russel and Quinn, yet he dropped all the way to the 3rd round.

If you look at DLine, there was already way too many picks off the board lowering the overall value for what was left. Considering the Bills needs, the available CBs, LBs, and OL were also of lower value or within the 3rd round expectation.

Edwards was a 2nd round projected QB, and some experts even valued his abilities as a 1st round talent if he hadn't been injured early his senior year.

IMO, the Bills got the best value for their pick and still filled a roster slot. A job well done IMO.

With that being said, I think this is the best Bills draft (day one) that I've seen in a loooong time.

[OpIv37]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

Op, I think the key to your point above is "this team still has needs at LB depth, CB depth, WR and arguably some other positions." if we were drafting for depth at 92 anyway, is it really that big a deal that we went for depth at QB as opposed to one of those other positions? Dick said they took Edwards cause there was a very large gap on their value board between him and the remaining players.

I would have preferred to see us grab Daymeon Hughes or perhaps a WR myself, and I can't get actively excited about this pick, but I don't think it was a terrible move.

Let's put it to you this way- you play 3 LB's at a time and 2 CB's at a time (3 in nickel coverage) and 2-3 WR's (depending on the offensive set), but only one QB at a time. So, the chances of an injury are increased by the simple matter of numbers- it's not uncommon for a team to go a whole season without a QB injury, but it is uncommon for a team to go a whole season without having a single injury at CB or LB or WR.

Combine that with the fact that QB has the highest learning curve of any position in the NFL, and the chances of getting production out of a 3rd round QB in 2007 are FAR LESS than the chances of getting production out of a CB, LB, WR, etc. That's why I think this pick is questionable.

[raphael120]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

Well all I can say is if JP blows a goat this season, we have our Marv guy.

[ddaryl]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

We had a bigtime need for a #2 or #3 QB... SO I really fail to see how this was abad pick.

Injuries happen, contracts happen, and there is still the fact that JP hasn't been a pro-bowl QB or put up many flashy games. Having a guy that can be groomed, get time in camps and doing clip board work and be there when we need someone to step in seems to be a smart move.

I still think JP is going to continue to improve and remain our starter, but I have no problem with bringing in a QB who can be apart of our system and develope in case the unthinkables happen.

We could've taken a QB on day 2, but why pass up on a guy that rates higher then the rest of the players on your board at other positions of need.

2nd string/3rd string QB was a huge need, and we got a player who has a possible upside to boot.

I give the pick another A along with Lynch = A and Pos = A

straight A's IMO

[OpIv37]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

We had a bigtime need for a #2 or #3 QB... SO I really fail to see how this was abad pick.

Injuried happen, contracts happen, and there is still the fact that JP hasn't been a pro-bowl QB or put up many flashy games. Having a guy that can be groomed, get time in camps and doing clip board work and be there when we need someone to step in seems to be a smart move.

We could've taken a QB on day 2, but why pass up on a guy that rates higher then the rest of the players on your board at other positions of need.

2nd string/3rd string QB was a huge need, and we got a player who has a possible upside to boot.

I give the pick another A along with Lynch = A and Pos = A

straight A's IMO

It's a bad pick because he's highly unlikely to contribute this year, whereas an LB or CB or especially WR would stand a much higher chance of contributing this year. Backup QB's are a luxury for teams that don't lack depth at almost every position. We certainly don't fit that description.

[ddaryl]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

It's a bad pick because he's highly unlikely to contribute this year, whereas an LB or CB or especially WR would stand a much higher chance of contributing this year. Backup QB's are a luxury for teams that don't lack depth at almost every position. We certainly don't fit that description.

That is a bit short sighted IMO. and rebulding teams, or teams building for the future don't have the luxury of waiting until they have every single position in place before finding their backup, or having a legitimate insurance policy at QB for those unexpected down the road situations..

What happens if JP gets seriously injured ? Nall might be the short term answer, but what happens if he struggles. Would you rather pick up some of the FA crap that is out there, or would you rathter have a player who can learn in an enviroment conducive for getting up to speed without the pressure of become a franchise savior, with the added possibility of actually developing into a #1 QB if need be or situation dictates.

The FACT still remains we are a team that is rebuilding, retooling, and reshaping, therefore you grab players that fill the needs that the organization feels have the best chance of being here long term and having an impact long term. We could've drafted a CB or WR at #3, but many of the players we would have taken at #3 will be there at our #4 pick. Where as Edwards was more then likely gone.

I like the idea of having Edwards developing in the backgrund because a year from now or 2 years from now JP could be regressing or he could be injured or he could all of sudden become a ***** who thinks he deserves a bigger than earned payday in which case we would have no one waiting to step in.

We'll fill some more holes today, and we'll still have a few bucks to play with in FA for those June 1st cuts that may be used to address a position.

[SoCalBillsFan]

Re: I have to question the Edwards pick....

Even if he doesn't play this year, I still like the pick. No position is as important as the QB position, and JP is no sure thing. What if he stinks this year? We wont have to draft a QB in rd 1 next year, because Edwards has the ability to be a franchise QB.

Yeah, we could have gotten a third round CB, LB, etc. But there's no guarantee that would have helped us either. Those are high risk picks too.