BillsfaninSixburgh Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d...mp;confirm=true I so hope he is right!!! Bulaga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Except for one of them being athletic part, yeah they're exactly the same. Peters was a tight end in college. Until he became a slob, he was a freak athlete. Bulaga is plenty athletic to paly LT and measures favorably to all the top LTs in the draft except Campbell, who is very questionable on film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Thurman Thomas had a bad knee and was following Barry Sanders. Wasn't Barry Sanders Thurmans backup??? 'just sayin Barry backed up TT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 I was watching the NFL channel yesterday and there is a growing feeling that Bulaga is another Robert Gallery. Another Iowa tackle who was coached up in college better than he will end up being at the NFL level. They said that many GMs feel he will end up as a RT. Picking a RT at #9 would not be a smart move. The Bills need to get an impact "pro bowl" type player at the top ten spot. Hopefully the Bills will get to select Williams, draft another position (Clausen, Kindle, Spiller, Bryant, Morgan?) or attempt to trade back in the first and pick Iupati. Just say no to a RT at #9. I know he was just coming back from injury...But if you watch the Film from that Michigan Game and see Mr Graham just using Bulaga over and over again well...After seeing that My excitement for Bulaga dropped by 90%...I'm sure he can still be a decent NFL LT in time...But I just don't know if he's worth #9 overall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Peters was a tight end in college. Until he became a slob, he was a freak athlete. Bulaga is plenty athletic to paly LT and measures favorably to all the top LTs in the draft except Campbell, who is very questionable on film. Ok, that's not what Lombardi and Casserly were saying last night on the NFL channel's Path to the Draft. They were saying that his stock is falling because he is limited athletically in regards to the LT position. That he projects more as a RT. I think that if they had felt that this was totally hogwash then they would have never mentioned it. While they were talking about him they were showing his combine drills and the guy looks very stiff and non-athletic. In today's NFL, you must be athletic to be a good LT. I'm just going by what these guys are saying and what I saw on the video. After hearing and seeing this, I do not want the Bills to draft Bulaga at #9. I'd much rather have them draft the best player available (Kindle, Morgan, Clausen, Bryant, Spiller). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 I know he was just coming back from injury...But if you watch the Film from that Michigan Game and see Mr Graham just using Bulaga over and over again well...After seeing that My excitement for Bulaga dropped by 90%...I'm sure he can still be a decent NFL LT in time...But I just don't know if he's worth #9 overall... I'd take Graham over Bulaga at #9, in a heartbeat. We need an impact football player in the 1st, not just a road grader "Buffalo kind of guy" who projects as a RT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 I'd take Graham over Bulaga at #9, in a heartbeat. Agree 100%... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mary owen Posted April 7, 2010 Author Share Posted April 7, 2010 Seriously bad. I'm at work and don't want to watch the video. I can only assume that the pick is Bulaga based on the other posts here. His name in the thread title would have been nice, btw. Someone actually working while at work and not surfing the internet would be nice too, but hey.... ..........and why? Do you want gifts wrapped in saran wrap? Seriously, I just figured people don't like spoilers.....as desparate as many are around here for all things NFL Draft, even of the Mock variety, I figured a little suspense would be preferred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson from Gamehendge Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 I was watching the NFL channel yesterday and there is a growing feeling that Bulaga is another Robert Gallery. Another Iowa tackle who was coached up in college better than he will end up being at the NFL level. They said that many GMs feel he will end up as a RT. Picking a RT at #9 would not be a smart move. The Bills need to get an impact "pro bowl" type player at the top ten spot. Hopefully the Bills will get to select Williams, draft another position (Clausen, Kindle, Spiller, Bryant, Morgan?) or attempt to trade back in the first and pick Iupati. Just say no to a RT at #9. We need a LT wayyy more than a RT. You only take Bulaga (or whoever else) at #9, if you believe that he can be a successful NFL LT. Hopefully the days of spending a top 10 pick on a RT are over... Why do we say no to a RT at #9? Why do we need a LT wayyyy more than a RT? If we decide to go with a certain QB named Tim Tebow...or any other left-handed QB...then RT becomes our biggest priority on the offensive line. With a left handed QB, RT now becomes the "blind side" protector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Ok, that's not what Lombardi and Casserly were saying last night on the NFL channel's Path to the Draft. They were saying that his stock is falling because he is limited athletically in regards to the LT position. That he projects more as a RT. I think that if they had felt that this was totally hogwash then they would have never mentioned it. While they were talking about him they were showing his combine drills and the guy looks very stiff and non-athletic. In today's NFL, you must be athletic to be a good LT. I'm just going by what these guys are saying and what I saw on the video. After hearing and seeing this, I do not want the Bills to draft Bulaga at #9. I'd much rather have them draft the best player available (Kindle, Morgan, Clausen, Bryant, Spiller). What teams are Lombardi and Casserly running again? They're on tv for a reason. They were probably the same guys saying Oher was only a RT as well and Bulaga is a better athlete than Oher ever was. Besides, the LT won't be the blindside for Tebow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 I'd take Graham over Bulaga at #9, in a heartbeat. We need an impact football player in the 1st, not just a road grader "Buffalo kind of guy" who projects as a RT. What? You don't like shooting-from-the-hip drafting? "We really want this guy to be an impact player for us, so we're taking him. Besides Mel Kiper told me somebody else scouted him and thought he was good." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsrcursed Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Ok, that's not what Lombardi and Casserly were saying last night on the NFL channel's Path to the Draft. They were saying that his stock is falling because he is limited athletically in regards to the LT position. That he projects more as a RT. I think that if they had felt that this was totally hogwash then they would have never mentioned it. While they were talking about him they were showing his combine drills and the guy looks very stiff and non-athletic. In today's NFL, you must be athletic to be a good LT. I'm just going by what these guys are saying and what I saw on the video. After hearing and seeing this, I do not want the Bills to draft Bulaga at #9. I'd much rather have them draft the best player available (Kindle, Morgan, Clausen, Bryant, Spiller). Jesus Christ. Try watching some College Football, come up with your own opinions about players, then come back to the dinner table and discuss. Until then, you're just relaying to us what some "out of work" ex GM's are babbling about on TV.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 I have several issues with this thread: 1) Talking about Bulaga at 9 is almost useless. He's not going to be there. As many as 4 OTs could go in the top 8 picks, and one of them will certainly be Bulaga. 2) The arm length thing is totally overblown. Bulaga's arm length is 33.25", which is almost identical to guys like Joe Thomas, David Diehl, Chris Samuels, Jason Peters, Matt Light, Jordan Gross, and Chad Clifton, all of whom have been Pro Bowl and All-Pro selections. 3) Anyone that says Bulaga can't play LT hasn't seen him play. Just because a guy has a nasty streak doesn't mean he can't play the left side. He is quite accomplished in pass protection, and will likely start at LT for some team in his rookie year. Lastly, here's a nice article from Nolan Nawrocki of PFW on the subject of arm length. Unfortunately, Nawrocki tries to show that there's a correlation b/w arm length and success as an NFL tackle, but does more to prove himself wrong than right: http://www.profootballweekly.com/2009/04/1...ate-olt-success Nawrocki didn't say there was a direct correlation. Even the headline talks about hand quickness also. He's saying that if you don't have long arms, you'd better have quick hands or above-average athleticism to make up for it. He's right. As for your #3, " Anyone that says Bulaga can't play LT hasn't seen him play." The minute people use that kind of rhetoric about the draft, saying that it is impossible to disagree with you if you have just seen the guy play, you know that they are divorced from reality. There's room for disagreement. There's disagreement among the pundits about this guy. If you really think that there is absolutely no way that you're wrong, it just shows you don't understand the process. All of us can be wrong. There are no perfect guys with zero chances of being a bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Don't forget they also said ad-nauseum that Jake Long was a RT. He's doing pretty well at LT, if you ask me. And they said Mike Williams was an LT. How did that work out? It's not always easy to predict. Far from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 In response to this: "Bulaga will be a beast in the run game and due to his technical ability will be serviceable in the pass game," you say this: Sounds exactly like Peters. Peters was the 6th best pass blocker in the league last year at tackle, even playing through his ankle sprains. Just check the tackles rankings at profootballfocus.com. Bulaga will be a beast in the run game and due to his technical ability will be serviceable in the pass game. If that is "serviceable" in the pass game, give me more serviceable guys. But don't expect Bulaga to be anywhere near as good as Peters at pass protection. Personally, as long as Bulaga is a fairly solid guy and plays his career at LT, he would be a decent pick. But if he ends up getting switched to RT, it would be a failed pick. So it's up to Nix, assuming he falls to us, which still has a chance to happen, though it's far from a sure thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Peters was a tight end in college. Until he became a slob, he was a freak athlete. Bulaga is plenty athletic to paly LT and measures favorably to all the top LTs in the draft except Campbell, who is very questionable on film. I think you misunderstood him. He wasn't questioning Peters' athleticism, he was questioning Bulaga's. He was saying that Peters is a freak athlete, and that Bulaga isn't. And that is indeed the consensus. Bulaga is just a bit heavy-legged, and that's one of the main reasons people suspect that he may not be an LT at the pro level. Okung, Campbell, Davis and Trent Williams are all more athletic than Bulaga, although Bulaga has better technique than all of them except maybe Okung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Someone actually working while at work and not surfing the internet would be nice too, but hey.... ..........and why? Do you want gifts wrapped in saran wrap? Seriously, I just figured people don't like spoilers.....as desparate as many are around here for all things NFL Draft, even of the Mock variety, I figured a little suspense would be preferred. I agree. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Why do we say no to a RT at #9? Why do we need a LT wayyyy more than a RT? If we decide to go with a certain QB named Tim Tebow...or any other left-handed QB...then RT becomes our biggest priority on the offensive line. With a left handed QB, RT now becomes the "blind side" protector. As has been pointed out in many threads over the past two days, having a lefty QB makes the RT a bit more important but reduces the LT's importance not one bit. The LT will still be facing the best pass rushers week in and week out, therefore he's the most important. Do you think the Chris Kelsays of the world that RTs have to block are suddenly going to get tons more sacks than the Dwight Freeneys of the world that LTs face just because the QB is facing the other way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Oh don't start with the sarcasm b.s. Bulaga projects as an LT. He's been in mocks as high as #5 to KC. He's a nasty, hard-nosed football player that plays with a mean streak. He's be a steal at #9. Right now I have 13 players on my big board that are a steal at #9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Jesus Christ. Try watching some College Football, come up with your own opinions about players, then come back to the dinner table and discuss. Until then, you're just relaying to us what some "out of work" ex GM's are babbling about on TV.... Oh please, other than Tim Tebow, I'd say about 90% of the people on this board are basing their opinion of players on what they've read because they've never seen them play. Not a lot of college football gurus here at TSW, that's for sure. If you have the time to follow college football as much as the Buffalo Bills and the NFL than you need to get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts