D521646 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Ok, so I've been reading a lot about who we take as our first pick, and I got to thinking. BPA seems to be the wisdom here, but more than anything I think that intangibles are going to be more important to the Bills than any other metric. Take Andrew Luck and RGIII as comparisons for a moment. If I were picking first I'd pick RGIII over Luck, why you ask. Well, I've watched all the interview's, and as a sales guy my whole life you pick up a few things along the way. I read people very well, and I have to say that RGIII's body language speaks volumes over Luck. Luck seems to be caught in his own hype. Sure he tries to say all the right things, and be as modest as he can, but it seems to me to be forced on his part. Whereas, with RGIII there is that playfulness about him; he doesn't seem to be outside of his skin when talking to the press. I like this more in a person than the vibe I get from Luck. There's no "Diva" in RGIII, and he's very humble, IMO. This is the guy I want on my team if I'm Indy. So, taking all that into consideration, when I look at our needs, LT, WR, LB, CB, I see Kalil is out, and no other in the field that jumps out at me. WR, I like Hill if we took anyone. Hard worker, and hungry. LB, I like a few guys here. I like Hightower first, Ingram, and then Upshaw, and CB, I like only Claiborne, but I don't like taking a CB at our first pick in this years draft. Now with all that, I think it's very important that we define our identity as the Buffalo Bills, and we draft guys that fit that definition. So what is it going to be? Who are the 2012 Bills? Team-first, Hard working, humble, hungry, and fun to be around. So, we grab our draft picks based on this. We grab guys that will fit into the locker room more than any athletic metric. Not that athleticism isn't important, but let's face it, most of these guys are separated by very small measures, and if it were me, I'd be looking past a guy that can jump 2 inches higher, or run the 40 by 2 - 10th's of second faster if the other intangibles are very present. Coachability means a lot, fun loving and love of the game, team first attitude is what I'm looking for. What say you? Tim- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Get me the best fit talent wise to complete what has been a successful offseason. Intangibles? I hope that comes along with the package as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D521646 Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 Get me the best fit talent wise to complete what has been a successful offseason. Intangibles? I hope that comes along with the package as well. Well that's just it. How do you measure talent other than jumping, running and catching and throwing at a combine or pro day? How do you know how these guys are going to be when put into the NFL in a system that is for the most part completely foreign to them? They're all the same at this point. Sure you can try your best to form metrics that YOU as the GM and HC might think will work well in the scheme's you want to run, but let's be honest. Of all the athletes at the combine were they reallty separated by that much? The answer is no, not really, and for any separation that matters can all be made up with the right coaching. So, what else is there? Does Luck have a better shot playing for Indy or Washington? I say that on paper he's got a better chance of producing with the Skins next year than Indy, so what will that one terrible year do to the kid? How many promising careers have been wasted by young kids going to very bad teams? Can you really say Blackmon is a better receiver than Hill? What makes you think so? Is it because Hill only caught 28 passes in 2011? What else do you go one when these guys all measure out the same athletically? Tim- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Well that's just it. How do you measure talent other than jumping, running and catching and throwing at a combine or pro day? How do you know how these guys are going to be when put into the NFL in a system that is for the most part completely foreign to them? They're all the same at this point. Sure you can try your best to form metrics that YOU as the GM and HC might think will work well in the scheme's you want to run, but let's be honest. Of all the athletes at the combine were they reallty separated by that much? The answer is no, not really, and for any separation that matters can all be made up with the right coaching. So, what else is there? Does Luck have a better shot playing for Indy or Washington? I say that on paper he's got a better chance of producing with the Skins next year than Indy, so what will that one terrible year do to the kid? How many promising careers have been wasted by young kids going to very bad teams? Can you really say Blackmon is a better receiver than Hill? What makes you think so? Is it because Hill only caught 28 passes in 2011? What else do you go one when these guys all measure out the same athletically? Tim- So you don't think that seeing a player play the game or going through the process of establishing metrics on a player says much definitively but you are confident that you can make a prognosis based on interviews. That type of mindset is why I don't trust salesmen. Ever. There is more to evaluate then packaging and presentation, although that line of thinking would probably make your line of work more complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Well that's just it. How do you measure talent other than jumping, running and catching and throwing at a combine or pro day? How do you know how these guys are going to be when put into the NFL in a system that is for the most part completely foreign to them? They're all the same at this point. Sure you can try your best to form metrics that YOU as the GM and HC might think will work well in the scheme's you want to run, but let's be honest. Of all the athletes at the combine were they reallty separated by that much? The answer is no, not really, and for any separation that matters can all be made up with the right coaching. So, what else is there? Does Luck have a better shot playing for Indy or Washington? I say that on paper he's got a better chance of producing with the Skins next year than Indy, so what will that one terrible year do to the kid? How many promising careers have been wasted by young kids going to very bad teams? Can you really say Blackmon is a better receiver than Hill? What makes you think so? Is it because Hill only caught 28 passes in 2011? What else do you go one when these guys all measure out the same athletically? Tim- Yes, Blackmon is better than Hill.....there.....I said it. Are his "intangibles" better? Dunno......give me the talent and his body of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Fleener. I'll keep saying it anytime someone mentions a WR. He's 6'6" 247#, runs in the mid-4.4's to low 4.5's, has great hands, runs good routes, is a decent blocker, has intelligence, a great work ethic, and no character concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Well that's just it. How do you measure talent other than jumping, running and catching and throwing at a combine or pro day? How do you know how these guys are going to be when put into the NFL in a system that is for the most part completely foreign to them? They're all the same at this point. Sure you can try your best to form metrics that YOU as the GM and HC might think will work well in the scheme's you want to run, but let's be honest. Of all the athletes at the combine were they reallty separated by that much? The answer is no, not really, and for any separation that matters can all be made up with the right coaching. So, what else is there? Does Luck have a better shot playing for Indy or Washington? I say that on paper he's got a better chance of producing with the Skins next year than Indy, so what will that one terrible year do to the kid? How many promising careers have been wasted by young kids going to very bad teams? Can you really say Blackmon is a better receiver than Hill? What makes you think so? Is it because Hill only caught 28 passes in 2011? What else do you go one when these guys all measure out the same athletically? Tim- I dont't think the Colts are a "very bad team".. they just chose to play (or tank, more obviously) with the worst QB in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I dont't think the Colts are a "very bad team".. they just chose to play (or tank, more obviously) with the worst QB in the NFL. What were their other options? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 What were their other options? Well, Dan Orlovsky for one. But if they put him in they would have been out of the running for Luck. Polian knew this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlbillsfan1975 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Back to the OP, i think scouts and GM have been in the business for so long they see things you or i may miss. They can see the way a guy plants his foot or the fluidness in his hips etc... They also can look at a guy and compare him to others they have scouted in the past, some that have worked and some that have not. At the end of the day they stil are making a gamble. Who knows how a guy is going to develope and mature. Think back to how you were at 21 0r 22. I think this is why Buddy and Chan want guys that have displayed high character so far, it translates into them being a performer at the NFL level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsrhody Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 After reading this thread I can't help but think that Kuechly should be the pick. He's as solid as it gets as a linebacker prospect and he'll instantly start and improve our linebacking corps. In Kuechly we'll get a linebacker for the next 10-12 years who will shore up our run defense and play solid pass coverage. We have a veteran (Barnett) who can show him the ropes and help him gain valuable experience before he moves on or retires. If we're thinking about the future then I think this would be a great pick. People seem to think that all our defensive problems are solved with the addition of Mario and Anderson, but it is still the weakness on our team. Time to plug some holes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 After reading this thread I can't help but think that Kuechly should be the pick. He's as solid as it gets as a linebacker prospect and he'll instantly start and improve our linebacking corps. In Kuechly we'll get a linebacker for the next 10-12 years who will shore up our run defense and play solid pass coverage. We have a veteran (Barnett) who can show him the ropes and help him gain valuable experience before he moves on or retires. If we're thinking about the future then I think this would be a great pick. People seem to think that all our defensive problems are solved with the addition of Mario and Anderson, but it is still the weakness on our team. Time to plug some holes! Kuechly smells to much like Poz. A week ago nobody even knew his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsrhody Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Kuechly smells to much like Poz. A week ago nobody even knew his name. I dont know why people keep comparing him to Poz.. College stats: Kuechly Stats Poz Stats Combine Results: Kuechly Combine Poz Combine Kuechly is bigger and is a better athlete in every combine category. He has monster college statistics and produced at an extremely high level for 3 years. He has practically as many solo tackles as Poz does total tackles and he has much better numbers in defending the pass. If you watch tape on Kuechly he is fluid and moves very well. Kuechly is not Poz and to say that no one knew him before a week ago is foolish: 2009 ACC defensive rookie of the year 2010 All-American, butkis and nagurski awards finalist 2011 All-American, butkis award winner He's done nothing but produce. Edited March 30, 2012 by Billsrhody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Kuechly smells to much like Poz. A week ago nobody even knew his name. While i don't advocate taking him at #10, there were plenty of people who knew all about luke kuechly prior to last week. He's been a strong force in college football for a couple fo years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 While i don't advocate taking him at #10, there were plenty of people who knew all about luke kuechly prior to last week. He's been a strong force in college football for a couple fo years now. I understand. It was about a week ago when some talking head draft guru, spouted that he's flying up the boards. Like you I don't see him at 10 at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts