Da'Quan Bowers-Marcell Dareus-Nick Fairley

[HopefulBillsFan]

I did a earlier poll for the BPA.. now for BPA that suits our needs..

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/54/541276.jpg

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/74/745026m.jpg

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/aub/sports/m-footbl/auto_action/5720710.jpeg

personally I say Bowers

[Buffalo Thriller]

Lets just hope Carolina keeps winning and we keep losing. Out of those 3, I say Dareus.

[Slim]

Can Bowers play OLB?

[Buffalo Thriller]

Can Bowers play OLB?

Quinn is a better prospect for that pos.

[Mahdi]

I think it would be hard to pass up on Bowers. The guy is very versatile. Can play in any scheme at any position on the DL.

His pass rushing ability is exactly what we need and I like how Moats is developing at OLB.

[k-oneputt]

Just wait we will get the stupid reply that the "value" isn't there and we need to take a wr because he has higher "value" for where we are drafting.
QB or any of those three guys will work for me.

[EDS]

Which one of these guys will upgrade the run defense?

[k-oneputt]

Dareus

[EDS]

Dareus

As a 4-3 DT or 3-4 DE?

[tampabay25690]

Can Bowers play OLB?

depends if we go 3-4 or 4-3.
I think this team is more app for the 4-3...
Bowers would look great with Williams, Troup, and Edwards

[WeAreArthurMoates]

If Bowers is there we take him and ditch the 3-4. A line of Kelsay, Troup, Williams and Bowers is pretty darn good one for a 4-3. I also think Moats could play OLBer in this scheme as well so that leaves a one more linebacker.

[Mahdi]

If Bowers is there we take him and ditch the 3-4. A line of Kelsay, Troup, Williams and Bowers is pretty darn good one for a 4-3. I also think Moats could play OLBer in this scheme as well so that leaves a one more linebacker.
Bowers would be perfect as a 3-4 DE. Why ditch the 3-4? It's coming along, slowly, but still coming along and we are not far from being a good defense.

[EDS]

Bowers would be perfect as a 3-4 DE. Why ditch the 3-4? It's coming along, slowly, but still coming along and we are not far from being a good defense.

Please explain how they are not far from becoming a good defense. The Bills remain far and away the easiest team to run on. On top of that, they lack a consistent pass rusher. Most of the linebackers are veteran retreads.

The Bills best defensive player, Kyle Williams, is better suited for a 4-3.

[psubills62]

I will always be leery of drafting a 5-tech in the top 5 picks, especially after Tyson Jackson.

[Mahdi]

I will always be leery of drafting a 5-tech in the top 5 picks, especially after Tyson Jackson.
Tyson Jackson is not 1 bit the prospect Bowers is or even Fairley.

[Mahdi]

Please explain how they are not far from becoming a good defense. The Bills remain far and away the easiest team to run on. On top of that, they lack a consistent pass rusher. Most of the linebackers are veteran retreads.

The Bills best defensive player, Kyle Williams, is better suited for a 4-3.
We are not far because our defense is improving. It's not showing in the stats but our run D is improving. Yesterday it was tough without D. Edwards and also losing Torbor who was playing well over the last few weeks was big. Stroud was even missing for a stretch yesterday. And we also didn't have Troup who has been playing a big role.

This defense is going to be very good next year and as for KW, hey I didn't think he could be as good as he has been but he proved me wrong. He is playing lights out as a NT.

Moats is also improving and if we can add another OLB through the draft or FA we can really get over that hump.

I actually really like our defense.

[psubills62]

Tyson Jackson is not 1 bit the prospect Bowers is or even Fairley.

I don't doubt it. I'm still leery of drafting 5-techs that early, even if Tyson Jackson had never happened. I think they're important to a defense, as Pittsburgh's model has shown, but not important enough to use a top-five pick. I still think I'd rather have Peterson or Green and build the lines a little later on.

As for the question of the OP, I'd say either Bowers or Dareus - yes, it's a cop-out saying either one, but I don't know enough about either one to say one way or another at this point.

Honestly, I do think value and lack of risk is important when drafting in the first round. That's one reason I'd like to win this year - get into the 8-12 range where linemen have much better value in the coming draft.

[Mahdi]

I don't doubt it. I'm still leery of drafting 5-techs that early, even if Tyson Jackson had never happened. I think they're important to a defense, as Pittsburgh's model has shown, but not important enough to use a top-five pick. I still think I'd rather have Peterson or Green and build the lines a little later on.

As for the question of the OP, I'd say either Bowers or Dareus - yes, it's a cop-out saying either one, but I don't know enough about either one to say one way or another at this point.

Honestly, I do think value and lack of risk is important when drafting in the first round. That's one reason I'd like to win this year - get into the 8-12 range where linemen have much better value in the coming draft.
Normally I might agree with the 5-tech too early. But for Bowers, he fits what we do on defense very well.

Edwards likes to use a hybrid defense and Bowers is a guy you can move outside in that situation and still generate a pass rush. I think he is a great fit and can pass rush from any spot on the DL.

I think with him you are talking about a Richard Seymour type player.

[psubills62]

Normally I might agree with the 5-tech too early. But for Bowers, he fits what we do on defense very well.

Edwards likes to use a hybrid defense and Bowers is a guy you can move outside in that situation and still generate a pass rush. I think he is a great fit and can pass rush from any spot on the DL.

I think with him you are talking about a Richard Seymour type player.

If so, that sounds nice... I think I'd still rather have Peterson or Green, though. At this point, I think our best bet is to go with Peterson or Green early in the first (if it's even possible), then build defense and the lines for the rest of the draft.

[better days]

If so, that sounds nice... I think I'd still rather have Peterson or Green, though. At this point, I think our best bet is to go with Peterson or Green early in the first (if it's even possible), then build defense and the lines for the rest of the draft.

I am leery of drafting a WR that early. Even the best ones only get so many passes thrown to them a game. Look at the Pats*, they do not have a great WR on that team, just a number of role players.

[psubills62]

I am leery of drafting a WR that early. Even the best ones only get so many passes thrown to them a game. Look at the Pats*, they do not have a great WR on that team, just a number of role players.

They also have a great QB (no matter how much of a whiny girl he is). There's no guarantee we're ever going to have a QB that's at the level of Manning or Brady, who can make stars out of anyone. And even Manning has had Reggie Wayne/Marvin Harrison his entire career.

If we get a guy who needs to be developed (pretty much always true), then a star WR will help.

At this point, we need help everywhere. I have no problem taking a WR if we then concentrate on the lines and defense in other rounds.

[k-oneputt]

You have four stud d-linemen sitting there and you want to take a wr ???

You must like watching the Bills lose every year.

[better days]

They also have a great QB (no matter how much of a whiny girl he is). There's no guarantee we're ever going to have a QB that's at the level of Manning or Brady, who can make stars out of anyone. And even Manning has had Reggie Wayne/Marvin Harrison his entire career.

If we get a guy who needs to be developed (pretty much always true), then a star WR will help.

At this point, we need help everywhere. I have no problem taking a WR if we then concentrate on the lines and defense in other rounds.

While Fitz is no Brady or Manning, the Bills WR's are making plays when they get the ball thrown where they can catch it.

They have other more pressing needs than WR & as I said a WR only touches the ball a limited # of times. WR in top 10= wasted draft pick IMO.

[DraftBoy]

You take Fairley you are playing a 4-3, he does not need to play DE in a 3-4 poor build and not enough strength at POA.

He's a 1 gap DT in a 4-3 scheme.

[psubills62]

You have four stud d-linemen sitting there and you want to take a wr ???

You must like watching the Bills lose every year.

Neither one is a guarantee to win. I still think they should build the lines, I just don't know if it's worth risking a top five pick on a 5-tech DE. Despite WR being a risky proposition, Bowers/Dareus certainly seem riskier than Green. Fairley just doesn't fit our defense, especially if we're going to try to continue to transition to a 3-4.

[psubills62]

While Fitz is no Brady or Manning, the Bills WR's are making plays when they get the ball thrown where they can catch it.

They have other more pressing needs than WR & as I said a WR only touches the ball a limited # of times. WR in top 10= wasted draft pick IMO.

Not always. There have been many, many drops the last couple games. IMO, Green would be the piece to our WR corps. The guys we have are, at this point, complementary guys. Johnson is certainly better than we thought, but we'd have a devastating group of WR's with Green.

This team needs a lot of help, both on the lines and off. One first-round pick on the line is not going to be the end-all, be-all. We need to build the lines, yes, but that can be done in the second and subsequent rounds as well.

[Mahdi]

If so, that sounds nice... I think I'd still rather have Peterson or Green, though. At this point, I think our best bet is to go with Peterson or Green early in the first (if it's even possible), then build defense and the lines for the rest of the draft.
You really think another WR would help this team. We have Evans and Johnson as well as Nelson who is clutch, Parrish who has been great this year and Easley who looked pretty good in TC.

Taking a WR would not help this team as much as a DE like Bowers would and the value is there to justify it.

Peterson is another story. He is a special CB that can give our D a lot of flexibility so the argument for him is definitely valid.

[BertSquirtgum]

Bowers would be perfect as a 3-4 DE. Why ditch the 3-4? It's coming along, slowly, but still coming along and we are not far from being a good defense.

are you even watching the games? you can't be.

[psubills62]

You really think another WR would help this team. We have Evans and Johnson as well as Nelson who is clutch, Parrish who has been great this year and Easley who looked pretty good in TC.

Taking a WR would not help this team as much as a DE like Bowers would and the value is there to justify it.

Peterson is another story. He is a special CB that can give our D a lot of flexibility so the argument for him is definitely valid.

At this point, I'd actually prefer Peterson to Green, as I mentioned in that thread. It's obvious that 1) our D needs as much help as possible, and 2) Jauron could develop DB's, but only develop them to play his system (though that's better than he could do with any other position).

I really think we need a DB overhaul, though that's something we can do down the road, especially if we grab Peterson first.

Those all sound like good WR's, but I don't see them being great. I like what I've seen from each of them (except Evans this year, somewhat). I could see Easley taking over Evans' role down the road. Wouldn't even be surprised to see Evans get traded at some point (his contract is not an obstacle, as, IIRC, he's owed ~5 million per year the next two years).

Detroit has been working for a while to get Calvin Johnson the weapons around him to open him up. We've got the weapons that would complement a guy like Green perfectly, imo - we just need the stud to go with them.

[better days]

Not always. There have been many, many drops the last couple games. IMO, Green would be the piece to our WR corps. The guys we have are, at this point, complementary guys. Johnson is certainly better than we thought, but we'd have a devastating group of WR's with Green.

This team needs a lot of help, both on the lines and off. One first-round pick on the line is not going to be the end-all, be-all. We need to build the lines, yes, but that can be done in the second and subsequent rounds as well.

Even Jerry Rice has dropped the ball. Every WR drops the ball on occasion & every player has had a bad game or two in their career.

Name me one WR picked in the top 10 that has turned a team around.

[Mahdi]

are you even watching the games? you can't be.
Yeah I saw the Bills improve since the bye week. They allowed points to Baltimore but pressured Flacco a ton and made some plays. They limited KC to 10 points over 4 quarters, did a good job against the Bears, shut down the Lions, came up with a big second half against the Bengals, limited the Steelers to 16 points over 4 quarters and yesterday was the first time they got destroyed since the bye and the D was put in bad situations all day with the 5 turnovers.

[psubills62]

Even Jerry Rice has dropped the ball. Every WR drops the ball on occasion & every player has had a bad game or two in their career.

Name me one WR picked in the top 10 that has turned a team around.

It's not "on occasion," it's been pretty regular at this point. The WR's on this team have shown well, better than I expected, but there's still no stud.

That's a pretty silly question. Besides QB, I don't think there's any one position you can pick that can turn a team around on its own. I also don't think I ever said anything about that one position turning the team around. There are 6 other rounds in the draft. It's not impossible to build the lines in those rounds. Take the guy who is the best player for your team. If Bowers or Dareus are the best, so be it. If Green or Peterson are the best, there's nothing wrong with that either.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

p peterson is a possibilty as he is in the charles woodson, deion sanders stratosphere of talent... he would be a solid pick, but every other pick after that would need to be front 7 players with lots of strength

so like this kinda....

1 patrick peterson cb
2 cameron heyward 34de
3 donta hightower 34ilb
4 dontay moch or another pass rushing 34olb
4 34olb
5 34de
6 oline
7 oline or bpa

[Mahdi]

It's not "on occasion," it's been pretty regular at this point. The WR's on this team have shown well, better than I expected, but there's still no stud.

That's a pretty silly question. Besides QB, I don't think there's any one position you can pick that can turn a team around on its own. I also don't think I ever said anything about that one position turning the team around. There are 6 other rounds in the draft. It's not impossible to build the lines in those rounds. Take the guy who is the best player for your team. If Bowers or Dareus are the best, so be it. If Green or Peterson are the best, there's nothing wrong with that either.
You don't think Johnson can be a #1? His improvement in such a short time suggests otherwise.

I think our WR corps is good enough to take you to the playoffs and beyond, that obviously assumes everything else is solid as well.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

either way ,even if we take a qb in rd 1, we are still going to draft mostly defense, (front 7)

[psubills62]

You don't think Johnson can be a #1? His improvement in such a short time suggests otherwise.

I think our WR corps is good enough to take you to the playoffs and beyond, that obviously assumes everything else is solid as well.

He's certainly improved and exceeded expectations, but most people's expectations were pretty low to begin with. I think Johnson is a very good #2 and would be a great complement to Green.

Like I said before, I think our WR's fill very good roles: Johnson as possession, Easley/Evans as deep threats, Parrish as the quick WR in space, Nelson as the second dependable possession receiver, then Green as the stud to open all of them up.

[patmoran2006]

Although its way too early to talk draft since its 100% speculation.

You still can't disqualify QB.. Mallet, Locker or even Newton could be in the picture.

Quinn or Bowers at DE is something to take a look at for sure.

Isn't a OT or amazing ILB in top five draft unfortunately, at least not as of now.

CB is a need for sure, but I cant see using a top five pick on a corner until after you do something drastic with the front seven.

To Answer your question, I am not expert, but everytime I watch Fairley he seems to dominate.

[DraftBoy]

Although its way too early to talk draft since its 100% speculation.

You still can't disqualify QB.. Mallet, Locker or even Newton could be in the picture.

Quinn or Bowers at DE is something to take a look at for sure.

Isn't a OT or amazing ILB in top five draft unfortunately, at least not as of now.

CB is a need for sure, but I cant see using a top five pick on a corner until after you do something drastic with the front seven.

To Answer your question, I am not expert, but everytime I watch Fairley he seems to dominate.

Quinn at DE and Fairley at DT are only going to happen if we switch back to a 4-3. Quinn goes to OLB in a 3-4 and Fairley would struggle in that scheme.

[Mahdi]

Quinn at DE and Fairley at DT are only going to happen if we switch back to a 4-3. Quinn goes to OLB in a 3-4 and Fairley would struggle in that scheme.
Quinn is definitely not a DE in a 3-4 as you say but I think Fairley could be a very good 3-4 DE. He's got the height, weight, speed and strength to make it work. In fact I think he can be a PB DE in a 3-4 with his pass rush ability and strength.

[patmoran2006]

I've talked to several draft-niks in recent weeks about Fairley, asking the exact same thing (can he work as a 3-4 DE), based on how impressed I was as I've watched him play of late.. To a man, I've been pretty much told the same thing; yes, he can be a 3-4 end and the example used a lot to fit Buffalo would be a much more athletic, younger, playmaking kind of DE than Marcus Stroud.

[Mahdi]

I've talked to several draft-niks in recent weeks about Fairley, asking the exact same thing (can he work as a 3-4 DE), based on how impressed I was as I've watched him play of late.. To a man, I've been pretty much told the same thing; yes, he can be a 3-4 end and the example used a lot to fit Buffalo would be a much more athletic, younger, playmaking kind of DE than Marcus Stroud.
Yeah that's pretty much my view on it. The guy is 6'5 298. So he has length and is lean. Pretty much the size of a prototypical 3-4 DE.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

if fairley is there and i dont think he will be, if luck doesnt come out, he will be the number 1 pick, jmo... but if hes there, you take him, he has been completely dominant in the sec... he has 10 sacks from a dt position. plus even though he would play 34de in our scheme, he would play regular 43dt on 3rd and long or 2nd and long...he would just pass rush, and thats what we need...

assume we have the number 1 pick for hypothetical here is how i would rate the top 5 according to our need/situation...

1 andrew luck
2 nick fairley
3 patrick peterson
4 marcell dareus
5 dquan bowers

[DraftBoy]

Quinn is definitely not a DE in a 3-4 as you say but I think Fairley could be a very good 3-4 DE. He's got the height, weight, speed and strength to make it work. In fact I think he can be a PB DE in a 3-4 with his pass rush ability and strength.

Have you seen his build? Horrific for a 3-4 DE, he has poor lower body strength and most of his upper body strength is based on his ability to slap down hands, not over power blockers.

[DraftBoy]

I've talked to several draft-niks in recent weeks about Fairley, asking the exact same thing (can he work as a 3-4 DE), based on how impressed I was as I've watched him play of late.. To a man, I've been pretty much told the same thing; yes, he can be a 3-4 end and the example used a lot to fit Buffalo would be a much more athletic, younger, playmaking kind of DE than Marcus Stroud.

Just because Im curious, but who have you spoken to?

I know a few who think Fairley can transition well, we disagree on the merits of that debate.

[better days]

It's not "on occasion," it's been pretty regular at this point. The WR's on this team have shown well, better than I expected, but there's still no stud.

That's a pretty silly question. Besides QB, I don't think there's any one position you can pick that can turn a team around on its own. I also don't think I ever said anything about that one position turning the team around. There are 6 other rounds in the draft. It's not impossible to build the lines in those rounds. Take the guy who is the best player for your team. If Bowers or Dareus are the best, so be it. If Green or Peterson are the best, there's nothing wrong with that either.

Maybe not on their own, but Warren Sapp played a big part in turning Tampa around as did Ray Lewis with the Ravens. If the Lions get it turned around you can give Suh much of the credit, their WR's not so much. You can not name any WR picked in the top 10 that played a big part in turning a franchise around. I could name many other DL & LB's that have done so.

[psubills62]

Maybe not on their own, but Warren Sapp played a big part in turning Tampa around as did Ray Lewis with the Ravens. If the Lions get it turned around you can give Suh much of the credit, their WR's not so much. You can not name any WR picked in the top 10 that played a big part in turning a franchise around. I could name many other DL & LB's that have done so.

If the Lions do turn things around, I don't think you can put the credit at Suh's feet any more than Stafford or Calvin Johnson.

First of all, let me repeat that I never said one WR will turn this team around. You seem to be ignoring the entire rest of my argument. I'm not saying Green will be the guy to turn this around. There's plenty of positions that need to be addressed before this team can get turned around. WR is one of them. DL is another. At this point, Green and Peterson both, imo, are better prospects than any of the DL.

By the way, it's odd that you want to limit the WR's to simply top 10, while you feel free to mention Lewis, who wasn't even in the top 25 picks in his draft. And I would say Larry Fitzgerald played a big part in getting his team to the Super Bowl, but maybe that's just me. By the way, who was the MVP in that SB? Wasn't it a wide receiver? I guess Jerry Rice had no effect on the 49ers.

The argument is not about historical positional relevancy. This is about what prospect is better, period. Right now, it seems to me that Green and Peterson are better prospects. If they can contribute to this team, then they deserve to be picked.

[better days]

If the Lions do turn things around, I don't think you can put the credit at Suh's feet any more than Stafford or Calvin Johnson.

First of all, let me repeat that I never said one WR will turn this team around. You seem to be ignoring the entire rest of my argument. I'm not saying Green will be the guy to turn this around. There's plenty of positions that need to be addressed before this team can get turned around. WR is one of them. DL is another. At this point, Green and Peterson both, imo, are better prospects than any of the DL.

By the way, it's odd that you want to limit the WR's to simply top 10, while you feel free to mention Lewis, who wasn't even in the top 25 picks in his draft. And I would say Larry Fitzgerald played a big part in getting his team to the Super Bowl, but maybe that's just me. By the way, who was the MVP in that SB? Wasn't it a wide receiver? I guess Jerry Rice had no effect on the 49ers.

The argument is not about historical positional relevancy. This is about what prospect is better, period. Right now, it seems to me that Green and Peterson are better prospects. If they can contribute to this team, then they deserve to be picked.

Well, I used Sapp & Lewis for a reason. Neither had a good QB or star WR on the team. If the Lions get turned around the Lions share of the credit belongs to Suh. The Lions have had many WR's with no results thus far.

Again you can't name one WR picked in the top 10 that played a big role in turning their team around, so just give it up.

[psubills62]

Well, I used Sapp & Lewis for a reason. Neither had a good QB or star WR on the team. If the Lions get turned around the Lions share of the credit belongs to Suh. The Lions have had many WR's with no results thus far.

Again you can't name one WR picked in the top 10 that played a big role in turning their team around, so just give it up.

Sorry, but you can't just give the "lion's share" to Suh without good reason. They haven't even turned around yet and you're giving out credit without even knowing who the key players are. IF they do turn around, some credit will go to Suh, but some will also be given to Johnson and Stafford. I don't see any sort of turnaround for the Lions without those latter two playing a significant role.

I already named one - Fitzgerald. And yet again, funny how you're limiting me with "top ten" but not yourself.

This is pretty pointless, as you continue to ignore the actual argument. Sorry, but I have better things to do than go chasing irrelevant debate points. Right now Green is the best prospect, period. Picking a WR in the first round is not going to be the make or break decision for the future of this team.

[better days]

Sorry, but you can't just give the "lion's share" to Suh without good reason. They haven't even turned around yet and you're giving out credit without even knowing who the key players are. IF they do turn around, some credit will go to Suh, but some will also be given to Johnson and Stafford. I don't see any sort of turnaround for the Lions without those latter two playing a significant role.

I already named one - Fitzgerald. And yet again, funny how you're limiting me with "top ten" but not yourself.

This is pretty pointless, as you continue to ignore the actual argument. Sorry, but I have better things to do than go chasing irrelevant debate points. Right now Green is the best prospect, period. Picking a WR in the first round is not going to be the make or break decision for the future of this team.

It won't be make or break, just a postponment. Fine, take Lewis out of the equation. As I said before the point is the WR has limited touches of the football & as such is not as involved as players at many other positions. Because of that, WR can not improve a team as much as a player at another position. Hence a WR picked in the top 10 is a wasted pick. That is the actual argument.

[k-oneputt]

Warner leaves, Arizona stinks, Fitzgerald is still there.
It's about the qb. brady proved that again last night. Pretty simple.

[better days]

Warner leaves, Arizona stinks, Fitzgerald is still there.
It's about the qb. brady proved that again last night. Pretty simple.

I agree, the QB is the most important player on a team. It does not matter how good the rest of the team is, if the QB sucks, so does the team.