DE may not be our first pick despite what a lot of us might think

[jpdex12]

If indeed Peters gets traded, LT could now become our #1 position of importance. At the end of the year I would say that DE was #1 but it's a toss up now.

We have too many holes! We sucked at pass rush last year. Our DE's are ageing with no standout replacement, we could have a LT vacancy, our OLB position is weak, we don't have a legitimate starting guard or center, star RB out for the first three games, no fourth DT in the rotation, our incompetent coach was retained...

I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but talk about being the one legged man in the a$$ kicking contest...

[ServoBillieves]

Re: DE may not be our first pick despite what a lot of us might think

If indeed Peters gets traded, LT could now become our #1 position of importance. At the end of the year I would say that DE was #1 but it's a toss up now.

We have too many holes! We sucked at pass rush last year. Our DE's are ageing with no standout replacement, we could have a LT vacancy, our OLB position is weak, we don't have a legitimate starting guard or center, star RB out for the first three games, no fourth DT in the rotation, our incompetent coach was retained...

I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but talk about being the one legged man in the a$$ kicking contest...

It immediately becomes top priority, that's a given.

DE is not that big of a deal IMO. PASS RUSH is. A healthy Schobel and a healthy Denney take care of that, along with Perry sending Kawika and Poz through the middle.

It also immediately becomes LT/OG/OLB as draft priorities.

Where's the TE? Derek Schouman. The man can catch, and Fine is just fine (ugh, no pun intended but it happened) at both catching and blocking. Save a year til we go balls deep in to a recieving tight end when we have TO, Lee, Josh, Stevie and James at WR. All that means is you line up a blocking TE with the new LT and give Trent some time.

If we keep Jason Mc*****athon Peters, then it immediately goes to OLB pass rusher first round since, and be honest with yourself, we already have a great pass coverage LB on third and long situations with Keith Ellison. Full time starter, no, but pass coverage, undersized heavy hitter? yes.

Fourth DT? With what Spencer showed me last year, I see no issue in a 4th person being McCargo. He took very few snaps as it was, so why waste?

You can't fix coaching, but you can fix talent. We have talent, we just need a bit of young talent through the draft.

Go pass rusher first round, OG second round, and TE third if we keep Peters.

If he's gone, go LT, OLB, OG, then TE.

Let's also not forget two things: Alvin Bowen was VERY promising in OTA's last year before the leg injury, and we saw very little of Derek Fine last year due to injury, and he also did well in OTA's.

[Buddo]

Re: DE may not be our first pick despite what a lot of us might think

I think that things are at a point where the Bills need to go tackle @ #11.
While there are still conflicting reports around, it would seem as though they have reached the end of the line, as far as making offers to Peters goes.
Peters may still be traded, but I am thinking that the Bills are refusing to budge on what they consider value, and teams who may have been interested at the Bills valuation, aren't interested with Peters contract demands alongside. The whole package becomes too expensive, in effect. Peters either has to settle for less money, and a team would be prepared to give up the picks the Bills want, or the Bills would have to take less in terms of picks.
As Peters still has two years on his contract, the Bills simply do not have to trade him, and as such, are probably calling Peters 'bluff'.
Peters can either show up under his current deal, or hold out - it makes no difference.
The difference is, that the Bills now need to plan their strategy to not include Peters - even if he does show up. I think that means that they need to take Oher or Andre Smith @ #11, if either of them is there. Both guys could also play guard, so if Peters does sign a new deal, they can be plugged in there. If he doesn't sign, then you still have a tackle you can use.

[Canadian'eh!]

Re: DE may not be our first pick despite what a lot of us might think

Kind fo redundant. WE assume we are looking for a DE or OLB that can rush the passer with our #1 pick, but if Peters gets dealt obviously that changes things.

[HHURRICANE]

Re: DE may not be our first pick despite what a lot of us might think

DE is our number one need. Period. End of story. If we trade Peters for draft picks than we are screwed.

[TacklingDummy]

Re: DE may not be our first pick despite what a lot of us might think

Malcolm Jenkins

[jamze132]

Re: DE may not be our first pick despite what a lot of us might think

We need a DE, but it doesn't mean it has to be our #1 pick. If Raji is there, we are taking a DT.

[DMBcrew36]

Re: DE may not be our first pick despite what a lot of us might think

If indeed Peters gets traded, LT could now become our #1 position of importance. At the end of the year I would say that DE was #1 but it's a toss up now.

We have too many holes! We sucked at pass rush last year. Our DE's are ageing with no standout replacement, we could have a LT vacancy, our OLB position is weak, we don't have a legitimate starting guard or center, star RB out for the first three games, no fourth DT in the rotation, our incompetent coach was retained...

I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but talk about being the one legged man in the a$$ kicking contest...

Maybe they move Walker to LT if we trade Peters. And DE will stay our #1 concern no matter what as far as I'm concerned. Our current DE's are that much of a JOKE. Only Schobel is border line starter quality.

[Mitchell55]

Re: DE may not be our first pick despite what a lot of us might think

Id say let Butler be the LT, get Mack in the 2nd and have Butler, McKinney, Mack, Han, and Walker.

[life of faith]

Re: DE may not be our first pick despite what a lot of us might think

or we could just draft Andre Smith who will likely fall to us..........