Orton's Arm

We need to come to an agreement about what's meant by best player available. Suppose that a punter will be one of the two or three best punters in NFL history. And suppose he's available at tenth overall. Does this make him the best player available? If the answer to that question is yes, then does that mean a team pursuing a best player available strategy must take the punter if it is to remain true to its strategy? The counterargument which can be made is that a Hall of Fame punter has significantly less value than (for example) a Hall of Fame LT; or even just an above-average starter at LT. You have to ask not just "how good will this player be?" but also, "how valuable is his position?" Only by combining these two concepts can you determine who is truly the best player available. This means that, when evaluating whether Trent Richardson is the best player available, we have to ask not just "how good is he?" but also "how valuable is the running back position?" My response: the RB position is significantly overrated, and has traditionally been insanely overrated by the Bills! Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on the running back position. They've used precisely 0% of their first overall picks of the draft on the QB position. (Or 1.5, if you want to count the Rob Johnson trade and half of Kelly.) Even if you give the Bills that 1.5, that's less than 4% of their first picks of the draft on QBs--as opposed to 25% on RBs. This strategic ineptitude is one of the major reasons why the Bills have a losing record over the last 40 years, and haven't made the playoffs in over a decade. After factoring in the relatively low value of the running back position, and the short duration of RBs' careers, Trent Richardson becomes much less tempting for the Bills. Then when you think about the fact that the absolute, literal last thing this team needs is yet another running back, the pick becomes even less tempting.

I disagree with most of what you've written. There is a significant difference between the draft records of the best and worst GMs. Compare the Bills' first round picks during the TD/Levy/Brandon era against the first round picks from well-run teams. Then remember that the well-run teams generally picked later in the first round than the Bills. Yet they did much better than the Bills despite that handicap! One or two first round busts might be the result of bad luck. But an ongoing pattern of poor first round picks, when other teams are having first round successes, points to something deeper. You are correct to assert that the Bills could have traded down with Denver; and could probably have taken Whitner even after trading down. But that doesn't mean that trading down or taking Whitner were good ideas. Whitner should not have been taken until the second round at the very earliest. If some other team had gotten stuck with that overrated, over-hyped player, then boo hoo for the Bills! (It's not Whitner's personal fault that an incompetent GM had convinced himself Whitner was an eighth overall talent that just had to be taken. Had Whitner been taken in the fourth round, he would have been considered a reasonably good success story. Not an embarrassment to the GM who blew the eighth overall pick on him.) The Bills should have stayed put and drafted Cutler. One reason they didn't is because they already had Losman on the roster, and wanted to give him a chance. The QB drafting foolishness of one regime (TD's) splashed over into the successor regime. Losman was an avoidable error. Wannestedt said he wouldn't have drafted him with the last pick of the seventh round. Wannestedt saw reality when both TD and Marv allowed themselves to be guided by wishful thinking. The ability to see players for what they really are--as Wannestedt did with Losman--is is what separates the real GMs from the loser GMs the Bills have endured over the last 15 or so years. (That remark is not directed against Nix, but is directed against all the post-Polian GMs leading up to Nix.) It's also worth noting that a first round pick is much more likely to succeed than a second round pick; which in turn is more likely to succeed than a third round pick, and so on. This is why trading down for more picks does not necessarily increase your chances of success.

Taking Donte Whitner 8th overall is like paying $200,000 for a Honda Civic. Maybe the Civic is "just fine" for getting you to and from work. But it's foolish to pay $200,000 for it! Edit: the analogy breaks down a little, because Whitner was very, very far from "just fine" at pass coverage. Which is something the Bills needed their SS to be able to do.

Some of the waiting you've described is because the players in question did, in fact, need time to develop. But some was the result of poor player evaluation. As an example, take Fred Jackson. During his first few years in the league, he was given zero playing time during the regular season. The coaching staff saw him do very well in preseason, so why not give him a chance to prove himself in the regular season? But they didn't. Then Marshawn Lynch went down with an injury. You'd think that would be the time to put Fred Jackson in, to see if his preseason accomplishments were the sign of something more. But no. Instead the coaches gave all the carries to Anthony Thomas. Eventually Fred Jackson started getting regular season playing time; and looked good from the very first snap. Just because Fred Jackson was kept on the bench for four years by a boneheaded coaching staff doesn't mean he "needed" all four of those years to become a better player than Anthony Thomas or Marshawn Lynch. Just as Fred Jackson was kept on the bench by one of Marv's first round busts, George Wilson was kept on the bench by another. When Wilson took the field, it became clear he was better than Whitner at pass coverage.

Thanks for the compliments! To address your point about Upshaw: if you take a guy at 10th overall, and if he becomes a highly effective pass rusher for your defense, then it's a good pick. If you're implying that Upshaw's effectiveness as a pass rusher will be impacted by his team's defensive scheme, I'd agree with that. As an example: Bryce Paup was a solid OLB for the Packers--a team which at the time had been running a 4-3 defense. But when he became a pass rushing OLB for the Bills (3-4 defense), he went from "solid" to "frighteningly devastating." Then he got injured. I agree with what you wrote about draft day steals. Over the last decade, the Bills have been decent at finding draft day steals in later rounds. That has partially offset the absolute mess they've generally made of their first, second, and third round picks. As you hinted at, Nix seems he could turn that pattern around. I'd love for the Bills to trade up and take Kalil!

I think that words like "reach" and "value" have meaning beyond just Kiper and McShay's opinions. If--for example--30 teams had a player rated as a third round talent, and if he gets taken in the first round, I'd call that pick a reach. Odds are he hadn't done enough to justify his draft position. I'll grant that we don't know what NFL teams' draft boards say. But we can look at the next-best thing, which is draft analysts whom we've learned to trust based on their track records. As an example, Vic Carucci said he didn't have Donte Whitner rated as a first round talent. But he also said that Whitner would be more valuable in a Cover 2 scheme than in most other schemes. He was careful not to criticize the Whitner pick, either because he believed there was a chance Whitner would somehow justify his eighth overall draft position, or because he didn't want to alienate his contacts at One Bills Drive. Another example of a reach was Trung Canidate, a running back the Rams drafted in the first round. I remember that name because a sports reporter wrote, "Canidate is a Candidate for Criticism." The reporter was right. Marshall Faulk was nearing the end of his career, the Rams wanted a replacement, and they convinced themselves Canidate was that guy. He wasn't. Had the Rams not taken him, he might have lasted until the third round. The argument can be made that there are times when a player highly rated by NFL analysts isn't highly thought of by NFL GMs, or vice versa. But I think it's safe to say that most NFL teams didn't have Canidate rated as a first round pick. I also think many or most NFL teams likely agreed with Carucci's (correct) belief that Whitner was not a first round talent. Obviously I can't know where Canidate or Whitner were on NFL teams' draft boards. To call these players reaches involves an element of educated speculation, or else reliance on the better/more credible draft analysts. "Reaching" for a player is synonymous with "taking a player at a much higher position in the draft than the consensus would indicate." There are two reasons a team might do this: 1) need, and 2) the belief that its own talent evaluation yields better results than the consensus. The second implies a high degree of institutional confidence. There are teams whose talent evaluation methods are good enough to justify that confidence. Over the last fifteen years, the Bills have not been among those teams. The Bills' reaches over the last decade--and there have been many--have generally been the product of shortsightedness, focus on instant gratification, wishful thinking, blinkered focus on immediately filling needs at one or two positions, and unjustifiable overconfidence in player evaluation.

I remember that draft! I wanted the Bills to either stay put and take Cutler, or trade down and take Mangold! It turns out they could have drafted both players! (Cutler with the Whitner pick, Mangold with the McCargo pick.) Mangold has become perhaps the best center in the league, while Cutler was traded away for two first round picks, plus change. (Slightly better than the fourth and sixth rounder we got for Marshawn, or the zilch we got for Whitner!) Marv said that once you start listening to the fans, you'll soon be in the stands with them. Implying that a coach or GM has to be smarter than the fans to keep his job. In this case, Marv's strategy was far, far worse than what reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent fans would have done in his place. I agree that the 2006 draft was exactly the kind of draft which will set your franchise back years. You could also say the same thing about the 2007 draft; in which the Bills squandered the 12th overall pick on yet another RB! For that matter, you could make the same comment about the 2008 draft (McKelvin).

A lot of the interview sounded like he was giving prepackaged responses and standard-issue football cliches. Not that that makes his interview substantially different than 90+ % of the player or coach interviews which occur! That said, I agree he sounded more intelligent than a 4 on the Wonderlic would imply.

I would not even consider this option. There are several reasons for this: 1. There are some premium positions--such as CB, RDE, LT, and QB--at which it's very hard to get first-rate players. The Bills have holes at three out of those four premium positions. If you don't fill holes at premium positions with your top-10 draft picks, then when do you fill those holes? 2. Not only is running back not a premium position, it's not even a step down from a premium position. Positions that are a step down from premium are RT, DT, possibly C, WR, and maybe S. Maybe. A running back is a third tier position, just like OG, non-pass rushing LB, non-pass catching TE, etc. You don't use a top 10 pick on that, unless you're getting a Thurman Thomas-like receiver. 3. Running backs have short careers. Suppose, for example, that a successful first round QB will last you twelve years, and a successful first round RB will last you six. This means that every year of having a first round QB uses up one twelfth of a first round pick; whereas every year of using a first round RB will use up one sixth of a first round pick. If the thought is to have two first round RBs on the roster at the same time (Spiller and Richardson), then you're looking at using up one third of a first round pick on the RB position each year. A price that high is out of all proportion to the importance of the running back position. 4. The Bills already have the talent-equivalent of two first round RBs on the roster in the form of Spiller and Jackson. Trading away Jackson (for a third round pick at the absolute best) would further increase the draft pick cost described in 3. More generally, any time you get rid of a veteran player, with a number of perfectly good years left in him, only to immediately replace him with a first round pick, you significantly increase your draft pick cost at that position. Suppose a car is expected to last 200,000 miles. You sell your car after 100,000 miles, for less than 20% of the cost of a new car. Then you go out and buy a new car to replace it. This strategy will cause you to spend considerably more on cars than would have been the case, had you held onto your car for the full 200,000 miles. (Ignoring repair costs, of course.)

McKelvin has great physical gifts too, and no one expected him to fall to the Bills at #11. The reason he's not part of the Bills' long-term plans at starting CB is because he lacks good instincts. Getting a four on the Wonderlic does not necessarily mean Claiborne will fail for the same reason McKelvin failed. But it's a very significant cause for concern.

Thus far, Dareus (third overall) appears to be significantly more valuable than Spiller (9th overall). If trading away a second round pick (Troupe) moves you out of Spiller territory and into Dareus territory, it could well be an acceptable price to pay. I could easily see Kalil becoming a Pro Bowl-level LT; which would make him at least as valuable to the offense as Dareus is to the defense. It's hard to say who the Bills would take at 10th overall if they stayed put. Some have suggested they take a linebacker or an OG or even a running back! I think it's safe to say that none of those three players would make the contribution a Pro Bowl LT could make. Others have suggested the Bills take Floyd. The question there is whether his alcohol-related issues will return to haunt us. Then there are those who believe the Bills should take Gillmore. However, there are concerns that he might be better in zone coverage than in man-to-man. The bottom line is that if the Bills stay put at 10th overall, there's a strong chance the player they pick will have a Spiller-like level of contribution to the team, not a Dareus-like level.

It's not a two way street. You can weed a guy out for not having all the physical tools he needs to succeed. But just because a guy has those tools doesn't mean he will succeed. I wouldn't take an offensive lineman 10th overall if he can't do more than 19 reps. A red flag like that can, and should, lower the position at which he gets taken.

I think words like reach and value have legitimate meaning. Donte Whitner was a reach, because his body of work did not justify eighth overall. (Or anywhere close.) If we're not supposed to use words like "reach" to describe Donte Whitner and John McCargo style picks, what other word would you have us use instead? Or are you trying to argue that, with the knowledge available at the time, Donte Whitner was as legitimate a pick at eighth overall as any other player would have been? And that, more generally, if a player was picked at X position in the draft, then by definition his body of work must justify being picked at or near position X. To me an argument like that seems nonsensical.

Good post! As for the Dolphins trading up to #3 to take Tannehill--that move will look inept only if Tannehill doesn't turn out to be a franchise QB. If he does, the Dolphins look like geniuses. (Assuming they make that move in the first place, of course.) The write-ups I've read suggest the odds are against him becoming a franchise QB, but you never know. To return to the main substance of your post: if the Dolphins trade up to third overall, then I'd agree that Kalil could easily fall a few spots in the way you've described. That would make it a lot less expensive to trade up for him. A second round pick would be a perfectly reasonable price to pay for a trade up.

"Half of you say we have too much talent at RB already...the other half say our Backfield is too crowded???? Its called depth." Rather than use the 10th overall pick on depth at RB, why not use it on a punter? I think the latter idea is at least as good as the former. " I would take at 10 in a heartbeat, we took marshawn at 9 . . ." Yeah, and look how that worked out. We traded him for a fourth round pick after a few years of reasonably solid play. You call that a success story? "We are an injury away from being very thin at RB...RB's get injured." We are actually two injuries away, considering that we have both Jackson and Spiller. As opposed to zero injuries away from being very thin at LT, zero injuries away from being thin at #1 CB, etc. "Richardson looks Calvin Johnson good, a onece in a decade talent." If he's truly once in a decade talent, he'll be off the board before 10th overall. Unless he has some hidden quality that the first nine teams to draft just can't see. The Bills have made that kind of gamble numerous times before, and have been burned every time. "We could always trade spiller for a fourth! (jk but maybe a second or a Tackle)" And a few years from now the Bills will be trading away Trent Richardson for a second, once the next shiny RB comes along! "In 2-3 years will we really be strong at the RB with Fred ex being 33?" The reason it's necessary to have two first round talents at RB is . . . ? "Rule number 1,Draft BPA not for need." When taken to an extreme, BPA could result in drafting a punter at 10th overall. When taken to an even more absurd extreme, BPA could result in taking a running back 10th overall, despite the fact that the Bills have more talent and depth at RB than any other position, despite the fact that RBs' careers are short, and despite the fact that the RB position is probably the most overrated in football.

McNabb didn't take the high road with Rush. In fact he was pretty passive aggressive about the whole situation, if I recall. It's also worth looking at the context. Rush Limbaugh and some other football commentators were discussing McNabb. The comment was made that, while McNabb was talked about as though he was an elite quarterback, his stats were mediocre. The commentators discussing him formed a consensus that he was significantly overrated. The question was then raised as to why the media often described him as elite despite his mediocre stats. At that point, Rush opined that the media built him up because it liked the idea of elite black QBs. Because Rush's remark involved race, people reacted emotionally rather than rationally. They also ignored the fact that Rush was criticizing media bias, not McNabb. Not only did McNabb not take the high road in that situation, he didn't take the high road with respect to TO. McNabb was winded toward the end of the Super Bowl. Terrell Owens did have an absolutely spectacular game that day, and almost singlehandedly kept his team in the game until the very end. None of which stopped McNabb from quietly working behind the scenes to get rid of TO after that game. McNabb never made it to a Super Bowl again. Nor did he deserve to.

Good post! Just to add to what you've written: The New York Times did a regression analysis on the NFL. [begin statistics speak] In statistics speak, their dependent variable was a given team's number of wins, and the independent variables were (offense) yards per pass attempt, yards per rushing attempt, interception percentage, and the defensive analogues of those stats. The independent variables explained 80% of the observed variation in the dependent variable (R^2 of 0.8). Yards per pass attempt was three times as important as yards per rush attempt, and interception percentage was of equal importance to yards per rush attempt. It was concluded that pass offense was four times as important as rushing offense, and pass defense four times as important as rushing defense. (That is, a one standard deviation improvement in passing offense would result in four times as much improvement in your expected number of wins as would a one standard deviation improvement in your rushing offense.) [end statistics speak] The argument against a running back comes down to several factors: Passing offense is four times as important as rushing offense Unless your running back's name is Barry Sanders, the quality of your rushing offense will have more to do with your blocking than with your RB. RBs have short careers. The first few years of Trent's short career would be useless--or nearly so--because he does not represent a significant upgrade over Spiller or Jackson. Barring injury, Spiller and Jackson can handle all the touches for the next few years. Earlier, I mentioned that, of the Bills' first picks of the draft, fully half had been used on RBs or DBs. With RBs, it was because RBs tend to have short careers, and because the Bills' front office was in a perpetual search for an upgrade at the RB position while ignoring other, far more important positions. With DBs, it was generally to fill self-created needs. The fact that the Bills let their DBs with the best combination of youth + proven accomplishment go first-contract-and-out has a lot to do with those self-created needs. In large part as a result of the above paragraph, the Bills have traditionally failed to use their first round picks to build a core of very good players. TD did not inherit much of a core of good, young players from Butler. Marv didn't inherit much of a core from TD. Bradon certainly didn't inherit much of a core from Marv! In order to get off that ridiculous hamster wheel, the Bills need to do two things: 1. Use first round picks only players expected to be here a long time. This means no more first round RBs (careers are too short) and no more first-contract-and-out DBs! 2. Focus their top-15 picks on positions of critical importance. This means no interior offensive linemen, no 4-3 linebackers, and especially no RBs! Had they been doing those two things over the last decade, this team would be a lot further along than it is now! While nothing can be done to change the past, that's no excuse for future lapses in discipline. Reaching for players--as they did with Whitner, McCargo, and Lynch--represents another example of short-term thinking, and another lapse in discipline. That kind of lapse must also be avoided. Short-term, quick fix thinking was responsible for creating the Bills' ineptitude over the last decade, and long term, disciplined thought and action can eliminate that ineptitude.

1. Aaron Rodgers is a quarterback. Quarterback is one of (many) positions the Bills have traditionally neglected, in order to squander picks on the running back position. I take your point that a player can sometimes outperform the expectations associated with his draft position. But if the Bills are looking for players like that, let it be at any position other than running back! 2. I'll grant that RBs can sometimes have longer than usual careers. But it's worth noting that Edgerrin James was drafted a few years after Peyton Manning. But do you know who the Colt's starting RB was the last time they won the Super Bowl? Hint: it wasn't Edgerrin James. His useful career had ended, and he'd moved onto another team, before Manning hoisted that Lombardi Trophy. The point here being that even a guy who has a long career by RB standards won't necessarily have a long career by any kind of absolute standard. 3. I hear "game changing athlete" and "helps move the chains" every time the Bills decide to squander a first round pick on yet another RB. Yet somehow those RBs keep getting traded away for fourth round picks, or (if we're lucky) third round picks. Meanwhile, Jay Cutler was traded away for two first round picks. The Bills' RBs over the years haven't been great, but they've been reasonably good. While Jay Cutler may be better at QB than McGahee, Lynch, or Henry were at RB, most of the reason for that disparity in trade value is because a RB is a lot less valuable than a QB. And because RBs' careers are shorter, so a few years of mileage on a RB matters a lot more than a few years of mileage on a QB. 4. The fact that the Bills wouldn't be squandering their whole draft on a RB is no excuse to avoid seeking a real long-term answer at LT or CB or some other critical position with their first round pick. If the teams that pick 4 - 9 in the draft decide not to pick this guy, it likely means they've made a strategic decision that a RB just isn't valuable enough to justify a top-10 pick. They're 100% right. That logic applies even more strongly to the Bills, because Fred Jackson eliminates any short term need at RB, and Spiller greatly lessens the long term need for one.

You can absolutely have too much talent at RB--at least if you used first round picks to acquire that talent! Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used 10 of their first picks of the draft on RBs, and another 10 on DBs. That's 50% of their first picks of the draft on RBs + DBs! None were used on QBs, and only two on OTs. The absolute last thing this team should consider is yet another first round RB! There are any number of reasons why this is the case: 1. If Trent Richardson truly is a top-3 talent--as some here are claiming--then let someone else take him in the top 3. If he falls to 10, then that means that teams 4 - 9 saw something in him they didn't like. If that's the case, why not make it teams 4 - 10? It's not as though the Bills have this gaping hole at RB that teams 4 - 9 don't have. 2. Fred Jackson may be nearing the end of his useful career. Part of the reason for that is because RBs' careers tend to be very short. So why use the 10th overall pick to take a RB, now, when it'll be a few years before any hole appears at the position? Why waste a few years of what's already going to be a short career? 3. The Bills already have a first round talent at RB in the form of Spiller. Is it really, truly necessary to have two first round talents at RB? 4. Is it necessary for the Bills to eschew a long term answer at some critical position--such as CB or LT--in order to have a still more crowded backfield? 5. Why on earth would the Bills even be thinking about the running back position when they have actual holes at far more important positions? I would rather the Bills take a punter at 10th overall than a running back! At least with a punter you know he's not going to live up to his draft position. Better that than a few years of false hope, followed by the sad realization that the front office had squandered yet another first round pick.

First, I dispute that we have the worst LB corps in football. Barnett is a very solid player, and presumably Shepherd will come into his own this year. Bryan Scott fits the mold of what Wannestedt is looking for in his LBs (fast, good coverage, good tackler), and could be moved to LB. But even if the Bills had literally nothing at linebacker, it would not justify reaching for a player at 10th overall. As I mentioned a few posts ago, reaching is what got us Donte Whitner and John McCargo. Levy and Jauron felt they had to have a SS and a DT right away, and that was the best SS/DT combination they could come up with. Adopting the same mentality Levy and Jauron had is a sure way to obtain the same results they did. If you're picking a guy at 10th overall, there had better be a realistic chance for him to justify his draft position! If there isn't, then the GM just wasted his single most valuable asset for the year. According to a regression analysis done by the New York Times, pass defense is four times as important as run defense. This means that, when thinking about any given defender's potential contribution, you have to start by asking what he might contribute to pass defense. A linebacker can contribute to pass defense either by rushing the passer or by dropping back into coverage. Wannestadt doesn't blitz his LBs very often, so any contribution a LB might make there will be minimal. If you have a TE who's good at catching passes, then putting him up against just about any linebacker in the league is going to be a mismatch. Pass catching TEs should be covered by safeties, not linebackers! But not even safeties will always be able to cover TEs, as Donte Whitner has shown us. If a LB isn't going to be blitzing, and isn't going to be in one-on-one coverage against pass catching TEs, then what will he be doing on pass defense to justify tenth overall?

I appreciate the well thought-out nature of your posts. As you said, we both want the same things for this team. Perhaps I should have begun by stating my underlying premises. 1) The goal is to win the Super Bowl. 2) That goal is extremely unlikely to occur unless the Bills get a franchise QB. 3) As much as I'd love for the Bills to get a franchise QB in the 2012 draft, there isn't a good opportunity for them to do so. 4) Therefore, the purpose of the 2012 draft should be to prepare for 2013 and later. 5) The best way to prepare for the long run is to acquire difference-makers at premium positions like LT. I agree that the price to trade up to third overall is a little steep; and that the Bills may want to wait to see if Kalil drops below third overall before making a move for him. On the other hand, even trading away a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th to move up to get him could still be worth it. Other than Marcell Dareus, not one of the players the Bills drafted in the first round is currently a difference-maker. If this team is going to do anything, that fact needs to change! If the Bills are reasonably sure that Kalil will become a difference-maker at LT, and are considerably less sure about whether the BPA at 10th overall will become a difference-maker, then it might well make sense to trade up.

Elsewhere, I have argued that the Bills should strongly consider trading up for Kalil. I'd rather trade away a second to move up for him than stay put to take a WR or CB. You and I are in agreement about the importance of acquiring a long term answer at LT. If the Bills stay put at #10, I'd be strongly opposed to reaching for any player at any position. Reaching is what got the Bills Donte Whitner, Marshawn Lynch, John McCargo, and many of their other disappointments. Assuming Kalil is off the board before #10, my sense is that any LT taken there would be a reach. If the Bills take an interior lineman at 10, then that presumably means they'd be kicking an existing interior OL, like Levitre, out to LT. I don't like any aspect of that plan! Levitre is better-suited for OG than for LT, and 10th overall is way too early for an interior OL! A plan like that wouldn't really solve the Bills' problem at LT, even though we'd be using up the 10th overall pick. I'd also be strongly opposed to taking a LB at 10th overall. A LB isn't going to blitz much in Wannestedt's defense; and no LB in the NFL can successfully cover Gronkowski one-on-one. If our LB isn't blitzing, and isn't covering TEs one-on-one, what will he do on pass defense to justify 10th overall? All of this means that if the Bills stay put at 10th overall, it may come down to a choice between a WR and a CB. In the past, the Bills have let their CBs with the best combination of youth + proven accomplishment go first-contract-and-out. If that would be the plan for this CB, then for me that would make CB a non-option. A team should never use its first round pick on a guy expected to go first-contract-and-out! On the other hand, if the CB could become the next Antoine Winfield, and if he could spend his whole career with the Bills, he could be a very solid addition to the Bills' defense. A defensive line which can consistently get to the QB in 3.5 seconds is great. It becomes even better when paired with a secondary that can consistently force QBs to hold the ball for 4.5 seconds!

I 100% agree with the bolded statement. 10th overall is waaaay too early for an interior offensive lineman. No sense in squandering an early pick like that on a non-premium position. It's also way too early for a linebacker, unless that linebacker has a significant pass rushing role. Which he won't, at least not in Wannestedt's defense. Wannestedt doesn't like to blitz. 10th overall is also a little early for a RT. Besides which, the Bills have a perfectly good RT already in the form of Hairston. I'd be fine with the Bills trading up for Kalil, staying put and taking a WR or CB worthy of 10th overall, or trading down. I'd be even happier with them trading down in order to acquire another first round pick in next year's draft!

Great read! This player is the very definition of what I don't want at 10th overall! 10th overall is way too early for a linebacker, unless he's a pass rushing OLB in a 3-4. Wannestedt rarely blitzes his LBs, so it's not like anyone we take here is going to spend a lot of time rushing the passer. If he's "not an elite athlete" in pass defense--even by linebacker standards--then there's no way he's covering Gronkowski one-on-one. If Brady sees that matchup, this guy is toast. If this guy won't be rushing the passer, and can't cover good TEs one-on-one, then precisely what would he be doing on pass defense to justify 10th overall? That means it's a choice between Floyd and that CB. Floyd's alcohol-related troubles worry me. It's not as big a red flag as James Hardy's gun incident, but it's a bigger red flag than Eric Moulds' pizzas were. At this point I'd feel more comfortable taking the CB, especially since a shutdown CB is the most important missing piece of the Bills' defense. My main worry with a CB is first-contract-and-out. Hopefully this Bills' front office is smart enough not to let that happen.