For those wanting Pettigrew ....

[kernowboy]

I think we can draft someone lower down in this years draft to hold the fort until next year.

Because next year, we have a Buffalo boy coming out at TE from Arizona who one coach has described as the best prospect at his position in the last 20 years.

Ok, that comes from his college TE coach, but even opposing coaches are high on him.

He could well overtake Gresham as the top 2010 TE and in my opinions is a light year ahead of Pettigrew.

His name: Rob Gronkowski (Dan's younger brother)

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/sports/103253.php

I know it is 12months too early, but for those of you gutted if we don't draft Pettigrew, console yourself that we may have a bite of an even better cherry.

[Nighthawk]

I just don't want Pettigrew at #11...that would suck!

[kernowboy]

Gronkowski runs a 4.6 at 6ft6 and 265lbs.

I'm fairly certain that's unfair.

[The Spaz]

Gronkowski runs a 4.6 at 6ft6 and 265lbs.

I'm fairly certain that's unfair.

You have some fetish for that guy...lol

[Michael82]

I want to trade our 3rd or 4th rounder for Scheffler or Heap.

[Devin]

Ideally id like to see us obtain a vet like Mikey said, but I wouldnt be dissapointed with Pettigrew. That kid will be a very solid pro imo.

[Nighthawk]

Ideally id like to see us obtain a vet like Mikey said, but I wouldnt be dissapointed with Pettigrew. That kid will be a very solid pro imo.

Too high at #11...won't make an impact right away and is not a playmaker who'll stretch the field. The guy is highly overrated.

[psubills62]

Too high at #11...won't make an impact right away and is not a playmaker who'll stretch the field. The guy is highly overrated.

Won't make an impact right away? Are you kidding? The guy can easily step in immediately and help the run game.

Just because he won't stretch the field doesn't mean he's overrated. In fact, it appears that most teams have him rated higher than any of the fans do. There was a thread where anonymous scouts ranked their top 20 prospects...he came out to be #6 on average.

The guy is going to be an excellent tight end and can help right away mainly because he's so fundamentally sound and has a pro body. He's got soft hands and catches almost anything thrown his way. Even without the speed, his height and long arms make him a mismatch for any LB.

There's so many things to like about this guy.

[X-Era]

Look, I understand the conventional wisdom.

But many factors come into this.

If you draft a OT at 11, hes likely to not start day one anyways with Walker the viable LT option and either Bell or Chambers having the edge in experience at RT. We know a OG at 11 is out the question.

WE also think that most, if not all, the top 2 DE's in Brown and Orakpo are gone but more importantly, as some will tell you, none of the top 3 are clearly 4-3 DE's. At that point, why not grab a better 4-3 DE like Sidbury or Johnson at 28?

Also at OLB, many dont think any outside of Curry are worthy of the 11 pick. Now, the reach argument fits for both OLB and TE so thats a wash. But I guess my gut says that Pettigrew could mean more to us than Cushing would. Ive never been a huge fan of Cushing anyways.

So, in each case, you can make an argument for what fits best for what you need as a starter and where.

Look, Pettigrew is far and away the best TE, we know we arent likely to get the best OT, or DE, why not take what the draft gives us here.

I can see the argument.

[SeatownBillsFan21]

I want to trade our 3rd or 4th rounder for Scheffler or Heap.
Agreed that would be very smart and make me very happy.

[X-Era]

One more thing... and please dont throw stuff at me for saying it...

But a TE at 11 would be cheaper than DE, OT, maybe even OLB.

Just saying

[SeatownBillsFan21]

Yeah it would and we all know the Bills are pretty cheap so i wouldn't be surprised if they went TE at 11 to save money.

[Michael82]

I don't believe the TE nonsense. I still think they like Derek Fine a lot and I like him too. If they go TE, I don't think it will be until the 2nd or 3rd round. But I honestly see them making a trade for one of the vet TEs instead.

[jamze132]

Here's my take on Pettigrew. Don't draft him at #11 and don't trade back into the first to take him. If he's there at #28, then I will consider.

If all he is going to do is help in the run game, we can just get another fat bastard to line up at TE and have him pancake mofos, no.?

[kernowboy]

You have some fetish for that guy...lol

Nope. But maybe I consider the draft the wrong way.

I look at a draft and ask myself, "Will one draft turn the team around from say 4-12 to taking us to 12-4 and the playoffs?". This has occasionally happened to teams like the Miami and Atlanta but is the exception rather than the rule especially if the teamis 7-9, 8-8 etc which might blind the coaches/front office into thinking only minor surgery on the roster is required rather than a radical overall.

I then consider the value likely to come out in each class. If I have a decent QB getting old, this years QB class is great but next year's is empty, then I would draft a QB because I know I am getting a better player even if its not an immediate need.

The Pats always seem to stockpile pics for future drafts and I am sure Belichick/Pioli were in fact considering two drafts in their minds when making these moves.

If I have an ok player at WR, can draft a good WR, but have the choice of a much better choice of WRs next year then I wait a year, filling the other gaps on the roster.

With only so many gaps I know I cannot fix everything so I prioritise.

Now I know a load of people rate Pettigrew. This class at TE is deep in quantity rather than in quality, but I know we can draft someone in the middle rounds 3-5 who with Derek Fine can get bye - after all Edwards will be looking for Evans, Owens and Reed especially if the TE is having to help out the line.

However with a roster of Fine, Schouman and 'Draft pick 2009', I will be aware that this is still an area that needs upgrading. If I am happy with the other units then I can really focus on TE as a top priority in 2010.

Now I know there will be injuries and players might not develop, but I cannot see it happening to all of them which means we can look at potentially a game breaking TE in Round1 in 2010 rather than a solid TE in Round 1 in 2009.

[Commissioner]

I think Pettigrew will have a bigger impact than a DE or OT at #11.

I really think any DE left at #11 is a big gamble and will be a project.

Pettigrew seems like an every down TE who will play immediately. I think he's worth the pick and will have no problem with it.

[DMBcrew36]

Anyone who lives in Williamsville and knows people who went to Williamsville North knows that Gronkowski is a huge douchbag. Not saying he isn't a good player - just that he's a *****.

[Buddo]

I understand arguments about taking a TE later. I don't understand the 'wait for next year' idea. All too often, something happens, and all of a sudden, the guy being talked about isn't available, you aren't picking anywhere near where you can get him etc. etc.
Adding the best talent you can, should be what drives how you draft. Sure, you will factor in 'needs' to skew grades in favour of positions where you have a lack, but simply drafting for 'need', isn't going to be a long term strategy that will succeed.
Last year we were lucky, and the best player at his position fell to us,i..e. McKelvin. I think that will work out pretty well.
This year, we are actually in position, to be able to take players who may be the best at their position (of this draft class), with our first 3 picks. Pettigrew, Mack, Levitre. Now, while there can be arguments about Mack and Levitre, I think you can see where I'm coming from.
3 Picks, TE, C, G. 3 'best of class' picks. All of whom actually will fill 'holes'. You could go further on down the draft and grab the best FB as well.
You aren't always going to be able to do this, but I don't see that you shouldn't, as and when you can.
Taking a tackle @ #11, will pretty much mean settling for 4th 'best' of class. ( I would however, be sorely tempted if it was Andre Smith, and might pull the trigger there, as talent wise, he possibly is the 'best of class') Unless it's Raji, in which case you probably should. ;)
I'm not so sure there is a clear 'best of class' at DE. We should certainly be able to get a LB in the 3rd who is an 'upgrade' over Ellison. I actually think that our best hope for better play from our DEs, comes not from the draft, but from Ellis, who Modrak thinks will make a big step forward this year.
I'm not going to be bothered by taking Pettigrew @ #11 at all. I think it will be a good pick, and it's about time we tried to get quality straight from the box at the position. I would question the pick if Raji or Andre Smith, or even Curry, are still on the board, but there could be any DE you like available, and it still wouldn't bother me.

[kernowboy]

The bottom line about Pettigrew is he cannot be that best player at the position.

His 40time is very pedestrian. His strength and vertical leap leaves a lot to be desired - Beckum lifted 28 times compared to 22 and lept 38.5 compared to 33. Pettigrew's figures were lousy. He's a bit older than other seniors and in his senior year he really struggled to find the red zone.

He won't be there at #28 as the Falcons desperately want to upgrade at TE, but as a need for the Bills I see it as being behind that of DE, OT and WLB and I would be content with Travis Beckum in the 3rd who has a look of Owen Daniels about him.

As for Gronkowski being a douchebag, I cannot say, but I recall a number of douchebags at my HS who lost the tag having being at Uni.

[kernowboy]

I understand arguments about taking a TE later. I don't understand the 'wait for next year' idea. All too often, something happens, and all of a sudden, the guy being talked about isn't available, you aren't picking anywhere near where you can get him etc. etc.
Adding the best talent you can, should be what drives how you draft. Sure, you will factor in 'needs' to skew grades in favour of positions where you have a lack, but simply drafting for 'need', isn't going to be a long term strategy that will succeed.
Last year we were lucky, and the best player at his position fell to us,i..e. McKelvin. I think that will work out pretty well.
This year, we are actually in position, to be able to take players who may be the best at their position (of this draft class), with our first 3 picks. Pettigrew, Mack, Levitre. Now, while there can be arguments about Mack and Levitre, I think you can see where I'm coming from.
3 Picks, TE, C, G. 3 'best of class' picks. All of whom actually will fill 'holes'. You could go further on down the draft and grab the best FB as well.
You aren't always going to be able to do this, but I don't see that you shouldn't, as and when you can.
Taking a tackle @ #11, will pretty much mean settling for 4th 'best' of class. ( I would however, be sorely tempted if it was Andre Smith, and might pull the trigger there, as talent wise, he possibly is the 'best of class') Unless it's Raji, in which case you probably should. ;)
I'm not so sure there is a clear 'best of class' at DE. We should certainly be able to get a LB in the 3rd who is an 'upgrade' over Ellison. I actually think that our best hope for better play from our DEs, comes not from the draft, but from Ellis, who Modrak thinks will make a big step forward this year.
I'm not going to be bothered by taking Pettigrew @ #11 at all. I think it will be a good pick, and it's about time we tried to get quality straight from the box at the position. I would question the pick if Raji or Andre Smith, or even Curry, are still on the board, but there could be any DE you like available, and it still wouldn't bother me.

But if the class is a poor class, being best at the position means squat.

Donnie Avery was the first WR last year but you wouldn't pick him at 11 just because he was the best available at his position? We couldn've taken Hardy at #11 last year but got him lower instead.

Brandon Alberts was taken at #15 last year but is better than the OTs in this class. Everette Brown is better than Vernon Gholston but no-one expects him to go at #6

Taken Pettigrew at #11 would be a reach. If he was coming out in 2010 he wouldn't be a first rounder, but if he'd come at in 2009 he might have made the Top10.

Waiting to take a LB in the 3rd is very risky as the fall off in quality could be dangerous if there is a run on Linebackers.

The strategy must be a mix of need and best player available. For me at #11 Pettigrew is not an urgent need and is not the best player available either. He will not be there at #28

If we drafted Brown, Laurinaitis, Cadogan and Beckum, we fill four needs, get four starters and haven't overpaid for any.

Looking at the 2010 class and Brown would be a legit Top15 pick, Laurinaitis a legit Top30 pick, Cadogan a legit R2 pick and Beckum a solid early Day2 selection as there is a fall off in talent after the big 3 go next year.

[Commissioner]

The bottom line about Pettigrew is he cannot be that best player at the position.

His 40time is very pedestrian. His strength and vertical leap leaves a lot to be desired - Beckum lifted 28 times compared to 22 and lept 38.5 compared to 33. Pettigrew's figures were lousy. He's a bit older than other seniors and in his senior year he really struggled to find the red zone.

He won't be there at #28 as the Falcons desperately want to upgrade at TE, but as a need for the Bills I see it as being behind that of DE, OT and WLB and I would be content with Travis Beckum in the 3rd who has a look of Owen Daniels about him.

As for Gronkowski being a douchebag, I cannot say, but I recall a number of douchebags at my HS who lost the tag having being at Uni.
Why play the game.... lets just have these guys work out for 4 years and then show up at the combine.

[kernowboy]

If we are not going to use the results of the combine, why have one at all?

If players come to the combine and underperform, that says a lot about their preparation, which also says a lot about their mental attitude.

How much do they really want it?

[Jan Reimers]

I think you just need to ask yourself:

Is a TE at 11 really more important to us than the best available OT, DE, or OLB?

[Buddo]

But if the class is a poor class, being best at the position means squat.

Donnie Avery was the first WR last year but you wouldn't pick him at 11 just because he was the best available at his position? We couldn've taken Hardy at #11 last year but got him lower instead. But we did take McKelvin, who was also best in his class, and a better prospect to boot.

Brandon Alberts was taken at #15 last year but is better than the OTs in this class. Would that be why Monroe played there instead of him?
Everette Brown is better than Vernon Gholston but no-one expects him to go at #6 Possibly better, but Gholston wasn't the best DE last year anyway - see Chris Long.

Taken Pettigrew at #11 would be a reach. Maybe so.
If he was coming out in 2010 he wouldn't be a first rounder, but if he'd come at in 2009 he might have made the Top10. Irrelevant fluff.

Waiting to take a LB in the 3rd is very risky as the fall off in quality could be dangerous if there is a run on Linebackers. We won't have to worry about that with an additional 4th rounder to use as trade bait. Seriously, how difficult will it be to make an 'upgrade' to Ellison?

The strategy must be a mix of need and best player available. For me at #11 Pettigrew is not an urgent need and is not the best player available either. He will not be there at #28

If we drafted Brown, Laurinaitis, Cadogan and Beckum, we fill four needs, get four starters and haven't overpaid for any. The assumption that these guys would be starters is fraught with danger. Brown will either be a Freeney/Mathis clone, and successful, or he will be swamped by the big uglies around the league. Laurinitis could start, but that would still likely involve moving Poz about. Cadogen may not get in ahead of Chambers and Bell, certainly initially - although I'm not against the pick per se. Beckum could probably beat out Schouman tbh, but I'm not sure he'd get ahead of Fine.

Looking at the 2010 class and Brown would be a legit Top15 pick, Laurinaitis a legit Top30 pick, Cadogan a legit R2 pick and Beckum a solid early Day2 selection as there is a fall off in talent after the big 3 go next year.

WTF has the 2010 class have to do with now.
A 'weak' TE class? It's far better than last years.
Why draft another MLB?

[Commissioner]

If we are not going to use the results of the combine, why have one at all?

If players come to the combine and underperform, that says a lot about their preparation, which also says a lot about their mental attitude.

How much do they really want it?

One of the best TE's in Bills history was the slowest.... Pete Metzelaars. I'm not even sure you can call what he did running.... but he did manage to get open all the time because he understood coverages.

[kernowboy]

WTF has the 2010 class have to do with now.
A 'weak' TE class? It's far better than last years.
Why draft another MLB?

Why over pay this year when we can fill other needs and get starters there, get a mid round prospect, and if that doesn't pan out get a better TE prospect next year. We have more needs than just TE.

Just because it was better than last years means we should panic buy. A concern about Pettigrew is that he has trouble seperating and escaping the fastest Linebackers

A number of scouts, and fans who follow the Buckeyes, feel that Laurinaitis best position at Pro will be WLB due to his coverage skills and the fact he plays better in a little space.

As for Pete Metzelaars, was he also one of the weakest in his position, or had a poor leap? Did he have trouble finding the end zone and assault police officers in his spare time?

We may well draft Pettigrew at #11 but it will be a move symptomatic of this team and the next time we played in a Championship game, Buffalo wouldn't be in the team name because of such poor decisions.

[Commissioner]

We may well draft Pettigrew at #11 but it will be a move symptomatic of this team and the next time we played in a Championship game, Buffalo wouldn't be in the team name because of such poor decisions.

In your opinion....

[streetkings01]

You dont draft this season based off what you think you can do next season.

[kernowboy]

You dont draft this season based off what you think you can do next season.

oh I am

Pettigrew will not be of much use if our defence cannot get the opposition off the field = more urgent need for DE, WLB and maybe FS

Pettigrew will not be effective receiving if Edwards is flat on his arse or in A+E = need for LT and OG.

If we want to have someone to block draft someone who's only job it is to block. We can wonder who to get the ball to, once we know we can even get them the ball.

[Jan Reimers]

Additional reasons for not taking a TE high in the draft include the addition of TO giving us another big receiving weapon, and the very real possibility that Fine will develop.

[Devin]

Too high at #11...won't make an impact right away and is not a playmaker who'll stretch the field. The guy is highly overrated.

Not really, I think he will be a very well rounded pro.

[psubills62]

But if the class is a poor class, being best at the position means squat.

Donnie Avery was the first WR last year but you wouldn't pick him at 11 just because he was the best available at his position? We couldn've taken Hardy at #11 last year but got him lower instead.

Brandon Alberts was taken at #15 last year but is better than the OTs in this class. Everette Brown is better than Vernon Gholston but no-one expects him to go at #6

Taken Pettigrew at #11 would be a reach. If he was coming out in 2010 he wouldn't be a first rounder, but if he'd come at in 2009 he might have made the Top10.

Waiting to take a LB in the 3rd is very risky as the fall off in quality could be dangerous if there is a run on Linebackers.

The strategy must be a mix of need and best player available. For me at #11 Pettigrew is not an urgent need and is not the best player available either. He will not be there at #28

If we drafted Brown, Laurinaitis, Cadogan and Beckum, we fill four needs, get four starters and haven't overpaid for any.

Looking at the 2010 class and Brown would be a legit Top15 pick, Laurinaitis a legit Top30 pick, Cadogan a legit R2 pick and Beckum a solid early Day2 selection as there is a fall off in talent after the big 3 go next year.

I agree with Buddo for the most part. You don't know what will happen between now and a year from now. Look at Beckum - he was a surefire 1st-2nd rounder. Now? He'll be lucky if he's drafted in the 3rd round.

Injuries, poor performance may hurt their stock. They may not even declare for the draft. When a prospect isn't being overanalyzed, they look really good. I'll bet that a year from now, all three of those guys will be analyzed up and down and people will find plenty of negatives.

As far as the comparison between Pettigrew and Beckum go, I think that you and a lot of fans underestimate the power of blocking from a TE position. Beckum doesn't do it, while Pettigrew excels at it.

Why do you think that the media AND the pro teams consider Pettigrew to be the best TE out there? Because TE's aren't just taller WR's, like Beckum is. TE's are supposed to help the running game. Pettigrew does that. But when you ask him to be a receiver, as long as you use him in the right way (short passes, across the middle, let him get YAC), then he can be dominant, because he excels in parts of the passing game too. Does he excel at stretching the field? No. But that's not what NFL teams will ask him to do.

If a team's WR's are good, they shouldn't need a guy like Beckum, who is essentially another WR.

[kernowboy]

If we want someone who blocks with power from the TE position, and has nice hands if used correctly, we might as well draft Dan Gronkowski in the 4th or 5th.

As big, quicker, as athletic and stronger.

Actually improved as his college career went along.

And as a fifth rounder who started as a rookie, Kevin Boss didn't do too badly.

[psubills62]

If we want someone who blocks with power from the TE position, and has nice hands if used correctly, we might as well draft Dan Gronkowski in the 4th or 5th.

As big, quicker, as athletic and stronger.

Actually improved as his college career went along.

And as a fifth rounder who started as a rookie, Kevin Boss didn't do too badly.

I certainly wouldn't mind Gronkowski. But there's a reason he's graded out as a late-round/UDFA versus Pettigrew, who is a guaranteed first-rounder. Gronkowski is mostly potential, while Pettigrew has some upside while already being a finished product in most aspects of the game.