If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
All: The new Billszone site with the updated software is scheduled to be turned on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. The company that built it, Dynascale, estimates a FOUR HOUR shut down, from 8pm Pacific, (5pm Eastern) while they get it up and running. Nobody will be able to post in any forum until they are done. Afterwards, you may need to do a web search for the site, as old links will not work, because the site is getting a new IP address. Please be patient. If there are bugs, we will tackle them one at a time. Remember the goal is to be up and running with no glitches by camp. Doing this now assures us of that, because it gives us all summer to get our ducks in a row. Thank you!
There is work to be done and things to be learned. We are going to try to get the old look back - or something close to it. We also know there are bugs. A thread will be started to report bugs and then we can pass those onto the host.
Thank you for all the patience and support with this - hopefully this will greatly reduce the crashes and other site issues we have had lately.
Please use this thread to report any issues you come across
http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/forum/feedback-forums/billszone-q-a/6521455-upgrade-report-bugs-here
Todd McShay's latest Draft Buzz looks at the top five draft-eligible pass-rushers in college football and updates Scouts Inc.'s rankings of the top 32 overall prospects.
OK..... Through Most resonable Mock drafts, we'll Say these Players will be gone.
1. Stafford
2. Sanchez
3. J Smith
4. Monroe
5. A Smith
6. A Currry
7. Orakpo
8. Raji
9. Crabtree
10. [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Debatable, We'll say J Macklin[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']That pretty much leaves a choice between Brown, or A Maybin, a DE out of Penn State. To me, after whatching this video, the choise is clear. He looks like a complete beast and is considered the best pass rusher in the draft. I would be thrilled if we got him and J Cook in the second. [/FONT]
Todd McShay's latest Draft Buzz looks at the top five draft-eligible pass-rushers in college football and updates Scouts Inc.'s rankings of the top 32 overall prospects.
OK..... Through Most resonable Mock drafts, we'll Say these Players will be gone.
1. Stafford
2. Sanchez
3. J Smith
4. Monroe
5. A Smith
6. A Currry
7. Orakpo
8. Raji
9. Crabtree
10. [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Debatable, We'll say J Macklin[/font]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']That pretty much leaves a choice between Brown, or A Maybin, a DE out of Penn State. To me, after whatching this video, the choise is clear. He looks like a complete beast and is considered the best pass rusher in the draft. I would be thrilled if we got him and J Cook in the second. [/font]
I say we have a 99.9% chance to take either Maybin or Brown, and I'd be happy with either.
why not bolster the OL with a stud pickup. Oher and/or Smith could be there @ #11 and both can play G as well as T.
We are more desperate for OL help then we are for DE help even though we are in a big time need for better pass rush. However with a ? at C, no LG and a big ? with the Peters situation, we can ill afford not to put a few high picks on the OL that improves upon our exisitng starters and allows us to prepare for Peters probably holdout.
i agree. if oher can switch to guard, i like that pick. i honestly think at this point we should grab oher and then play hard ball with peters.
drafting oher would give us leverage, because peters will know he can either take the offer on the table, or play 2 more years at his current salary.
the more i think about it, the more i like it. i would love a stud OL with the 11th pick.
that has been my philosophy for the last month, and I've been pimpin it hard on all Bills forums.
The game is won and lost in the trenches, and with our pick up of Owens and the need for the O to put up more points actually trumps the need for an improved pass rush IMHO.
Heck i would even like be ok with 2 of our 1st 3 picks be OL because we are in just a big a need to improve our OL as a whole while maintaing some decent depth. hargartner at C could be an improvement or it could be a parallel move for us, so a C in this draft for depth purposes and a future starter is also a strong need IMO
why not bolster the OL with a stud pickup. Oher and/or Smith could be there @ #11 and both can play G as well as T.
We are more desperate for OL help then we are for DE help even though we are in a big time need for better pass rush. However with a ? at C, no LG and a big ? with the Peters situation, we can ill afford not to put a few high picks on the OL that improves upon our exisitng starters and allows us to prepare for Peters probably holdout.
why not get someone who actually knows how to rush the passer, regardless of their size?
i get where you're coming from, i just dont think its fair to dismiss these guys as simply "tweeners", basically with a negative connotation. We need help rushing the passer, and these guys know how to do it.
why not get someone who actually knows how to rush the passer, regardless of their size?
i get where you're coming from, i just dont think its fair to dismiss these guys as simply "tweeners", basically with a negative connotation. We need help rushing the passer, and these guys know how to do it.
agreed, but what I was really saying is we are much more in need of OL as well as a posisble replacement for Peters.
Our D was ranked 14 last year and held most teams to 20 points give or take. Our O did OK at times, last year but couldn't ever put up enough points most of the time to beat many of the teams in which the D held in check. Therefore IMO OL is a bigger need, and OT might have a much higher value then DE's on the board at #11
agreed, but what I was really saying is we are much more in need of OL as well as a posisble replacement for Peters.
Our D was ranked 14 last year and held most teams to 20 points give or take. Our O did OK at times, last year but couldn't ever put up enough points most of the time to beat many of the teams in which the D held in check. Therefore IMO OL is a bigger need, and OT might have a much higher value then DE's on the board at #11
14th in yards? but we couldnt get off the field on 3rd downs bc of a lack of pass rush, we were ranked 28th in the NFL in sacks.
I will be happy if we get a stud OL, but I'll be just as happy with a pass rusher.
14th in yards? but we couldnt get off the field on 3rd downs bc of a lack of pass rush, we were ranked 28th in the NFL in sacks.
I will be happy if we get a stud OL, but I'll be just as happy with a pass rusher.
Yes but what if we were capable of scoring 14 more points a game. The D would be off the field for longer stretches and better rested. Our D would also be playing a different strategy if we were up by 2 TD's or more more often...
Yes pass rush is huge, but I am still MUCH MUCH MUCH more concerned with our OL now that we've purged 3 players and have a malcontent to deal with
I completely disagree with an O-Linemen at this point. There is a huge dropoff outside of the top three Tackles on the board. Michael Oher is probably next OT on the board, and I have seen him slide into the second round in some miocks behind some other guys I am not familiar with.
I also disagree that Brown is a "tweener." He is a true 4-3 DE... Maybin may actually play OLB. That's why I would give the nod to Brown.
Now I will say that if A Smith from Alabama falls to 11 I think we should take him for sure, but I really don't see that happening.
agreed, but what I was really saying is we are much more in need of OL as well as a posisble replacement for Peters.
Our D was ranked 14 last year and held most teams to 20 points give or take. Our O did OK at times, last year but couldn't ever put up enough points most of the time to beat many of the teams in which the D held in check. Therefore IMO OL is a bigger need, and OT might have a much higher value then DE's on the board at #11
We do need OL but I think that can be addressed in the second, third and fourth where the depth is pretty solid.
Tweet
Comment