Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

[OpIv37]

2007: People are discussing Lynch or Poz with our pick. We end up getting both.

2008: People are discussing Hardy or McKelvin (amongst others) with our pick. We end up getting both.

Neither Poz nor Hardy have been particularly effective so far (however, they're both young and still may turn it around). The point is that we need immediate help, and when guys slip, there's a reason for it. If Pettigrew lasts til 28, it means a lot of teams saw some pretty big flaws.

[The Juice Is Loose]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

I love Poz. Last year was pretty much his first year. You can't judge a guy who broke his arm. And in 09 I felt like he was an inch away so many times. That inch gets made up with some experience. And he had a pick or two towards the end of the year that convinces me that.

Hardy is exactly who we thought he was. We just refused to use him for what we planned to use him for. Which is goal line. He got 2 goal line throws last year, and caught both for touchdowns.

I have this feeling about Pettigrew that I don't usually get. I just have this hunch, with no explaination, that he's going to be the next Tony Gonzalez. I honestly do.

If he's there at 28, without a doubt, he's the pick.

[Dr. Lecter]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

2007: People are discussing Lynch or Poz with our pick. We end up getting both.

2008: People are discussing Hardy or McKelvin (amongst others) with our pick. We end up getting both.

Neither Poz nor Hardy have been particularly effective so far (however, they're both young and still may turn it around). The point is that we need immediate help, and when guys slip, there's a reason for it. If Pettigrew lasts til 28, it means a lot of teams saw some pretty big flaws.

Your last assertion is a bit odd and is not a completely logical statement. Getting drafted at 28 is not indicative of "pretty big flaws". Aren't "pretty big flaws" more for later round picks? Furthermore, wouldn't then ANY pick at 28 have flaws as well? If Ayers or Britton or Lauritias or any of the other names that have been discussed fall to 28, would you blame that only on a player's flaws? Why would Pettigrew be different than them? Why do you, every year, think a pick is only good if he is an immediate stud? Some, in fact most, rookies are not immediate impact guys.

Players slip for a number of reasons, including being at a position that teams might not be looking for. Or other players being available that are better fits.

[raphael120]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

Who were the big touter TE's from last season? I know Jets got the one guy...he scored a little bit...and then the Redskins got some other guy, who couldn't even wake up on time to get to camp.

I honestly think if we draft a TE, he's not going to help us much this season at all, and we all know how overprotective Jauron likes to be with our rookies. He only plays them unless he absolutely HAS to, and even then, it's shaky. (Rememeber the game where McGee was hobbled and Ted Ginn had a career day on him, yet we don't put in McKelvin...)

[yordad]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

Yes. 28 would be a bit of alright.

[psubills62]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

It depends on who is there. Teams may pass on Pettigrew simply because there's a better player at a position of greater need that they can take.

I personally don't think Pettigrew will last until 28, but there's always a chance.

And yes, I believe that if Pettigrew is at 28, then we should take him.

[OpIv37]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

Your last assertion is a bit odd and is not a completely logical statement. Getting drafted at 28 is not indicative of "pretty big flaws". Aren't "pretty big flaws" more for later round picks? Furthermore, wouldn't then ANY pick at 28 have flaws as well? If Ayers or Britton or Lauritias or any of the other names that have been discussed fall to 28, would you blame that only on a player's flaws? Why would Pettigrew be different than them? Why do you, every year, think a pick is only good if he is an immediate stud? Some, in fact most, rookies are not immediate impact guys.

Players slip for a number of reasons, including being at a position that teams might not be looking for. Or other players being available that are better fits.

Let's put it this way- when a guy is slated to go around 11 and he goes at 28, there's a reason. Maybe "pretty big flaws" was a bad way of describing it, but it means a lot of teams saw something that made him not worthy of a higher pick.

I never said that players have to be immediately good to be considered studs. The problem is that we always go into the draft with several major holes and if we don't get IMMEDIATE help, then we lose. See the past 3 years as examples. So, while most teams don't get immediate help from their draft picks, they don't have the same need for the help that we do.

Hell, even when we properly develop prospects, it's useless because this team just opens up new holes. See Peters, Jason. We're constantly chasing our tails and the only way to break that cycle is to find immediate help in the draft. I know it's a long shot and I know it's not typically how it works in football, but right now that's our only option for winning in 09.

[yordad]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

Let's put it this way- when a guy is slated to go around 11 and he goes at 28, there's a reason. Maybe "pretty big flaws" was a bad way of describing it, but it means a lot of teams saw something that made him not worthy of a higher pick.

Or maybe that player just happens to play tight end, which isn't the most coveted position.

[psubills62]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

Let's put it this way- when a guy is slated to go around 11 and he goes at 28, there's a reason. Maybe "pretty big flaws" was a bad way of describing it, but it means a lot of teams saw something that made him not worthy of a higher pick.

I never said that players have to be immediately good to be considered studs. The problem is that we always go into the draft with several major holes and if we don't get IMMEDIATE help, then we lose. See the past 3 years as examples. So, while most teams don't get immediate help from their draft picks, they don't have the same need for the help that we do.

Hell, even when we properly develop prospects, it's useless because this team just opens up new holes. See Peters, Jason. We're constantly chasing our tails and the only way to break that cycle is to find immediate help in the draft. I know it's a long shot and I know it's not typically how it works in football, but right now that's our only option for winning in 09.

I guess I would reply by saying that just because several mocks have him going at 11 doesn't mean those mock draft writers think he's an appropriate pick there. I can say that the Bills will pick Darry Beckwith at 11, but that doesn't mean I think he's the 11th best player.

So just because a guy is slated to go at 11 but falls to 28 doesn't always mean something. Sometimes it just means that other teams preferred other players.

I'd bet that the Browns valued Brady Quinn higher than #24...just not enough to take him at #3. But other teams didn't feel the need to draft him.

[Mitchell55]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

Holy ****, Op actually said something nice.

[kernowboy]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

I agree with both trains of thought.

Another idea on why someone might slide is that after assessment, teams might not think that the player is in fact, not that much better than someone who can be picked somewhere lower down in the draft.

Some are suggesting that Pettigrew is head and shoulders above others in the draft, but if teams feel the gap is in fact narrower between him and guys who are projected to go on Day2, then he could slide until someone bites the bullet.

It is not necessarily a measure of Pettigrew but also an assessment of other players at his position.

[Buddo]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

There are a plethora of reasons why certain guys 'slide' and many of them are entirely disconnected to their individual talent.
Firstly, although a number of 'experts' have Pettigrew ranked in their 'top 10' talents of this draft, they also know full well, that the teams picking in the top 10, will have a greater need than a TE. The reason some have had him taken as high as #11, is that the Bills are a team that does want a TE. i.e. the first available spot for Pettigrew to be picked. Many of those predictions came before the Peters trade.
It's also fair to observe, that many of the other positions that will be taken, have more than one player of the type on the field at a time. e.g. Tackles, Ends etc. More teams will have a 'need' for one of those player types.
You also have the fact that there are teams starting to position themselves to either make trades, or to get themselves in a position where they can move up or down in the draft to get a player they like. Many of the early 'mocks' are far more about 'value' than what teams will actually do.
There are two QBs who probably aren't 'worth' a top 10 pick, who are going to go there, or very 'thereabouts' this year, in Sanchez and Freeman. That is far less about 'value' than about supply and demand. By all accounts, there are only 3 QBs worth much at all in this draft, and there are enough teams with a need at QB, that there 'price' in terms of where they are picked, will be driven up. Invariably that leads to other players 'slipping'. And so it goes.

[elltrain22]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

If Pettigrew is there @28 we had better draft that kid, but I really doubt he'll be there.

[OpIv37]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

I guess I would reply by saying that just because several mocks have him going at 11 doesn't mean those mock draft writers think he's an appropriate pick there. I can say that the Bills will pick Darry Beckwith at 11, but that doesn't mean I think he's the 11th best player.

So just because a guy is slated to go at 11 but falls to 28 doesn't always mean something. Sometimes it just means that other teams preferred other players.

I'd bet that the Browns valued Brady Quinn higher than #24...just not enough to take him at #3. But other teams didn't feel the need to draft him.

The last two times a guy was slated to go high and we ended up picking him up later, it didn't pay off (at least not in the short term). When you look at Quinn, he's done nothing in the NFL either. The point is that when guys slip from where they're projected, there's a reason.

[Jan Reimers]

Re: Do we even want Pettrigrew at 28?

We need OT and DE with our first 2 picks, and OLB and G/C after that. I wouldn't take a TE until the 3rd round, at the earliest.