OldTimer1960

Russ Lande has been my favorite "draft guru" for the past several years. I respect that he has been a scout in the NFL and is now director of college scouting for the CFL's Montreal Allouettes. However, to me Ebron is all potential and little production. 8 TDS in 3 years for a top 10 receiving threat just isn't very impressive. Yes, as a very young player coming into the league, he looks to have upside, but for a top 10 pick, that upside better be huge and seems too big of a gambler to me. I'd rather take any of the top 3 OTs or WR Lee or Beckham. By contrast, Kelvin Benjamin is about the same size and scored 19 TDs in TWO years, 15 (nearly twice as many as Ebron's career total) just THIS year. BTW, Benjamin did this in the SAME conference that Ebron played in.

I strongly believe that Manziel will be available at the 9th pick - and I don't think the Bills should take him. Now, if Dallas wants to trade their 1st & 2nd for him, I'd be all for that.

Eric Ebron: 3 seasons 112 receptions 1805 yards 8 TDs Marquise Lee: 3 seasons 248 receptions 3655 yards 29 TDs They played comparable competition PAC 10 vs ACC. I don't see how Ebron is some great weapon who will change an offense. I think WR Lee is a better option for as a receiving weapon.

I don't disagree that they could use another DE, but (based on what I've read) is one of the weakest positions in this draft. If any of the draft ratings I've seen are reasonably accurate, then there almost certainly will be better players available at other positions in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. I would not want them to pass on a better player just to get someone that played DE in college.

Ok, that does matter some, how much is hard to say. Gives him a bit of benefit of the doubt at least.

Good to see. I am not sold on Ebron, but I want to like him. My perception, admittedly based on little, is that he won't be the game changer in the NFL that he was in college. Honestly, as someone else pointed out, not sure 3 TDs his last collegiate season qualifies him as a great receiving threat at TE.

You could be right, but I don't see it. I think teams have similar concerns over Murray's size as they do with Bridgewater. Just my opinion, but I think Bridgewater will go before Murray.

It sounds like teams don't really like Teddy Bridgewater enough to take him in round 1. While he was an excellent college QB and he has the intangibles that you want in a QB, I was always concerned about his lack of size. He just doesn't look like a top NFL QB to me. However, I do think he is worthy of a 2nd round pick because he certainly overcame his size limitations in college, so given his intangibles he has a chance to succeed in the NFL in spite of his relatively slight (for the NFL) frame. While I still think that EJ Manuel has a good opportunity to become a good NFL starter, I wouldn't be opposed to considering Bridgewater in round 2. To be clear, I don't think there is a high probability that the Bills will pick him, but he might be in the conversation.

I'd be surprised if he gets past Miami's pick.

I would not be against taking Donald and I don't necessarily subscribe to the need for every player to fit a ht, wt, speed criteria. However, I don't see how Donald fits the current regime's "big wins in the NFL view".

But that difference isn't so big between top LT and top WR, is that right so far? So could you not have two LT caliber players (one plying the right side)? Isn't that very similar to having two top level WRs or two top CBs? Nobody thought the Jets were stupid when they had Cromartie and Revis. Who is saying Detroit would be stupid to draft another WR in round 1 to pair with Calvin Johnson? Now, to be clear, I am not so much int the camp arguing that the Bills should pick a RT at 9. I wouldn't draft a pure RT at 9, nor would I want a "number 2" WR or CB at that same spot. But, if getting another LT caliber OT or another "number 1" WR or CB, then by all means consider that strongly. Taking the no RT logic to the extreme, let's say a team gets their QB IN round 1 and lucks out and gets their LT in round two in year one of a rebuild. The next year they get their #1 WR and in year 3 they hit on a top DE and #1 CB. If those are the "premium" positions, it sounds like the argument is that they should trade out of round 1 in year 4 since they have their 1st round worthy positions filled.

True about Ward, but if the argument is true that S really isn't very important, I could argue "so what?" - someone has to be the Pro Bowl S. Looking back at the arguments about no RT is worth the 9th pick, this argument is not making sense (though I could be missing your point)....

I hope that you are right (or that I am wrong and Fuller really is a top 10 talent). To be clear, I am not opposed to further bolstering the defense, even as early as round 1. It is just that (from what I've read/ heard), none of the CBs except maybe Dennard are very top prospects. Even if Mike Evans is gone, I'd rather have Marquise Lee, Odell Bekham or Brandon Cooks than Fuller. Likewise, any of the 3 top OTs and maybe Zach Martin, too. I am not a big Ebron fan, but I'd gamble on him before Fuller. On D, Mack, Mosley, (possibly Barr), and Aaron Donald would be higher on my list. Even if they were to trade down 10 spots, I think that there would be better players than Fuller available (purely based on what I've read - I am not really qualified to do my own scouting).

I would be somewhat disappointed if the Bills selected Fuller at pick 9, though the highly respected Mike Mayock has him as the 2nd best CB in this draft. I have not seen anything that would suggest that Fuller would be one of the top 15-20 players in this year's draft and I don't see CB as an urgent need, so I am not seeing any way this would line up, unless he were available in round 2. Even still, I don't understand how you would project him to beat out Gilmore or mckelvin for playing time. While I freely acknowledge that the pros deserve the benefit of the doubt - esp after what looks like a very good draft last year, I would still be confused and under-whelmed with Fuller in round 1 (even in round 2)

Other than Byrd, I think your use of elite is a big stretch.

Yes, of course. That is, if you always want to be behind the curve. Once the trend is established, it is harder to compete as then many teams are looking for the same thing (in this case it would be athletic RTs, as if finding good LTs wasn't hard enough!). A current trend that might be worth getting out ahead of is: While teams are all trying to find big WRs and big CBs to cover those WRs, maybe bucking that trend and finding faster, quicker (likely smaller) WRs that the big CBs would have trouble covering would be a good idea. Likewise, with teams now looking for smaller faster LBs to cover the fast pass-catching TEs, maybe it would be a good idea to develop a power running game to take advantage of those smaller LBs.

The 49ers, I believe. I understand the "value of the position" argument, but the value of positions can change. Look at FB and RB - those positions, especially RB, are not valued as highly as they used to be. On the flip side, S, TE, and nickel CB are valued much more highly than they used to be. Who is to say that RT isn't increasing in value? Certainly, defenses try to take advantage of weak pass blockers at RT by moving thir best pass rushers there on occasion. If you follow the argument that they should not take a top OT because they would likely lose Glenn or the rookie eventually to FA to its logical conclusion, then wherever they draft that RT, they should hope that he doesn't turn out to be too good, or they could lose Glenn or him. That doesn't make too much sense to me.

If this part is true, then I would expect RT pay to eventually catch up with LT pay.

25 years of negativism...

I still would not hold strictly to the need to start immediately. Some of these guys need some time at the pro level before they go on to good careers. Eric Moulds caught 20 and 29 passes his first 2 years in the league and he turned out to have a very good career.

I think you are looking for a long term very good player. I disagree that he has to be an immediate starter. By the "immediate starter" rule, Green Bay should not have drafted Aaron Rodgers.

Who exactly are these great RT prospects that will be around at pick 41? I've seen similar posts countless times, yet NONE of them lists these great OT prospects that will be available. OT (both LT AND RT) are very important in the now pass-dominated NFL. Do people really think that defenses won't put a good pass rusher on the left side of their defense to take advantage of a RT who is weak at pass blocking? If we were talking about drafting another pass rushing DE to play on the other side from Mario Williams, would people be saying "we don't need a LDE - plenty can be found in the 2nd round - NEVER draft a good pass rusher in the top 10 if you will play him at LDE, those players just need to stuff the run"?

I REALLY don't understand there being SO MUCH negativity towards EJ Manuel after 1 partial season with mainly very inexperienced receivers. I am NOT here to say that Manuel will for sure be a star or even a competent starting QB, BUT I can't see how many here seem to KNOW that he will be terrible. First, without any excuses, his rookie season was encouraging (at least to me). He had two horrible games against the Steelers and Tampa (nearly 40% of his season total of INTs came against Tampa in one terrible game). He had some good games, especially the second game against the Jets in a wind storm. Mostly he was OK, not great. He WAS a rookie QB playing with very inexperienced WRs and a marginal OL while being in and out of the lineup with injuries. For those that say he is bad because he was injured, I argue that he doesn't have a history of missing time with injuries in college. For those that are down on him because he didn't take the league by storm, I argue to have some patience. There are only a small handful of truly exceptional QBs: P. Manning, Brady and Brees. There are a few more very good ones: Roethlisberger, Rivers, Ryan and maybe a couple more. There are some promising young guys whose hype exceeds their actual play: Kaepernick in particular and even Russell Wilson. Kaepernick had some games that were very comparable to some of Manuel's "poor" games and Kaepernick had much better and more experienced receivers, not to mention 3 1st round picks on his OL... Once again, I don't know if EJ Manuel will become a good starting QB or not, but I, for one, think I saw enough positives combined with his physical talent and reported work-ethic to think that it would be wise to give him AT LEAST one more season, likely two in order to see if he can be an answer. Let him grow with his young receiving crew. BTW, Drew Brees basically didn't play as a rookie. In year two, Brees threw 17 TDs and 16 INTs and averaged 205 yards/game. In year three: Brees threw 11 TDs and 15 INTs while averaging 191 yards/game. I suppose all those who KNOW that Manuel will never be any good could also have predicted that Brees would go on to have an almost certain Hall of Fame career - because they knew that he had "it".

Was with you up to "Gragg has more potential". I'd love for Gragg to become a strong contributor - some late round picks do, but the odds are strongly against that happening.

We'll, I am pretty sure that you can get the top rated center, guard, Punter or kicker at 9, but I'd rather have the 3rd best OT or WR than them. The "Nth best at a given position" isn't the ideal way to make comparisons, IMHO.