Draft 3 Offensive Tackles in a row

[BILLS #1]

We should go WR with the 10th pick ( FLOYD) 41st pick we take a CB OR LB . 71st pick we take a CB or LB whichever we dont take with the 41st. Then we take 3 offensive tackles in a row starting with both of our picks in the 4th round ( 105 124) then we take another OT with our first 5th round pick ( 144) . Buddy nix has said he would like to draft 2 tackles so i think taking 3 tackles in a row will serve us some good luck. we cant miss on all the 3 pick at offensive tackle right?

 

 

then with the rest of our pick we go QB CB LB WR

[uncle flap]

We should go WR with the 10th pick ( FLOYD) 41st pick we take a CB OR LB . 71st pick we take a CB or LB whichever we dont take with the 41st. Then we take 3 offensive tackles in a row starting with both of our picks in the 4th round ( 105 124) then we take another OT with our first 5th round pick ( 144) . Buddy nix has said he would like to draft 2 tackles so i think taking 3 tackles in a row will serve us some good luck. we cant miss on all the 3 pick at offensive tackle right?

 

 

then with the rest of our pick we go QB CB LB WR

 

THIS IS (almost*) EXACTLY WHAT I WANT TO SEE HAPPEN! :thumbsup:

 

Assuming Floyd is there, he will have more of an impact on the Bills, than any other player likely to be available at 10.

 

We need guys to compete at OLB and CB, and the odds of success are better the higher the pick (duh).

 

Chan has shown he can work with a patchwork line. Obviously, there's room for improvement, but I don't think their priorities are in line with many of the fans clamoring for LT at #10.

 

If Floyd is gone - get a CB first, then OLB or WR and vice versa the next round.

 

*Although I'm not high on Thigpen, I don't think they need to pick a QB for the sake of picking a QB. They might be better served targeting a guy in the 1st or 2nd next year (for grooming as the starter, not just as a Thigpen replacement).

[Johnny Hammersticks]

We should go WR with the 10th pick ( FLOYD) 41st pick we take a CB OR LB . 71st pick we take a CB or LB whichever we dont take with the 41st. Then we take 3 offensive tackles in a row starting with both of our picks in the 4th round ( 105 124) then we take another OT with our first 5th round pick ( 144) . Buddy nix has said he would like to draft 2 tackles so i think taking 3 tackles in a row will serve us some good luck. we cant miss on all the 3 pick at offensive tackle right?

 

 

then with the rest of our pick we go QB CB LB WR

 

And which OT's do you predict being available in the 4th and 5th round?

[uncle flap]

And which OT's do you predict being available in the 4th and 5th round?

 

 

There's a list here: http://www.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/06/pfws-exclusive-draft-value-chart-7

[Astrobot]

There's a list here: http://www.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/06/pfws-exclusive-draft-value-chart-7

PFT is one opinion. I find some of the placements humorous. Bobby Wagner lasting until mid-3 or getting Juron Criner in RD5 is laughable.

 

RD4, I think the best LT prospect is Matt McCants. I'd look at Nate Potter in RD3, though.

 

The RD5 LTs, Compton and Reynolds, are IMHO inferior to Hairston in terms of LT upside.

[ieatcrayonz]

I am almost certain we will be trading one of our 4ths for Casey Matthews.

[Astrobot]

I am almost certain we will be trading one of our 4ths for Casey Matthews.

Casey Matthews is awesome!

[Since 1972]

Matthews sure does have the lineage.

[cody]

We should go WR with the 10th pick ( FLOYD) 41st pick we take a CB OR LB . 71st pick we take a CB or LB whichever we dont take with the 41st. Then we take 3 offensive tackles in a row starting with both of our picks in the 4th round ( 105 124) then we take another OT with our first 5th round pick ( 144) . Buddy nix has said he would like to draft 2 tackles so i think taking 3 tackles in a row will serve us some good luck. we cant miss on all the 3 pick at offensive tackle right?

 

 

then with the rest of our pick we go QB CB LB WR

 

Not a bad idea, get as many tackles as you can and bring them into the off- season program. Hope that at least one will work out and cut the rest.

I guess the downside would be, does your position coach have enough time to evaluate all of the players, identify the best one and get that guy ready to start? It is one thing to focus on one guy, but dividing your attention between 3-4 may hurt them all.

[playman]

and grab another 3 off the streets

[atlbillsfan1975]

they just may do that, but i would not be suprised if they tried to move one of them inside. Unless they think Jasper will be a viable back up option this season. Bills are thin on interior guys, especially given Woods injury history. No i do not think Woods is a D Bell, but sometimes a player has bad luck and can not stay healthy.

[OldTimer1960]

Is this the garage-sale approach to filling the important LT spot? If you buy enough stuff that nobody else wants, maybe you hit it big?

 

I would argue that LT is far more important than OLB or WR and maybe CB is close. Now, that doesn't mean that they should force a LT pick in round one if they don't think there is a player there worth taking, but the fill other needs and hope to find a viable player for the most important OL position by sifting through mid-late round picks doesn't sound like a good plan to me, either.

 

If the Bills don't see any LTs worth taking in round 1 or 2, I understand that, but I wouldn't say then that they must throw 2 4ths and a 5th at it just to get players. I'd rather they picked players in those rounds that they think are among the best left at any position with a slight nod toward needs.

[Haplo848]

We should go WR with the 10th pick ( FLOYD) 41st pick we take a CB OR LB . 71st pick we take a CB or LB whichever we dont take with the 41st. Then we take 3 offensive tackles in a row starting with both of our picks in the 4th round ( 105 124) then we take another OT with our first 5th round pick ( 144) . Buddy nix has said he would like to draft 2 tackles so i think taking 3 tackles in a row will serve us some good luck. we cant miss on all the 3 pick at offensive tackle right?

 

 

then with the rest of our pick we go QB CB LB WR

 

This is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while on here. You're locking onto position regardless of the players available. You want three tackles no matter what in rounds 4 and 5, yet the highest rated OT on the board at that point could have 6th round grade or lower before you even start, yet we "have" to take an OT there. What if there isn't any value for CBs or LBs when we pick in rounds 2 and 3? Force that position anyways?

 

This is why I'm so glad fans aren't in charge of drafts.

[Dorkington]

We won't be drafting Floyd.

[NewEra]

I agree. He'll be off the board.

[Herb62]

We should go WR with the 10th pick ( FLOYD) 41st pick we take a CB OR LB . 71st pick we take a CB or LB whichever we dont take with the 41st. Then we take 3 offensive tackles in a row starting with both of our picks in the 4th round ( 105 124) then we take another OT with our first 5th round pick ( 144) . Buddy nix has said he would like to draft 2 tackles so i think taking 3 tackles in a row will serve us some good luck. we cant miss on all the 3 pick at offensive tackle right?

 

 

then with the rest of our pick we go QB CB LB WR

 

That's just how Donahoe used to do it:) Funny how people forget what a bad offensive line can do to an offense. Go OT in round one.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Herb62

[3rdand12]

we have great scouts. if we landed one who would project to be starter in two or three years at either side really and a reasonable swing prospect and one who converts well to play guard in the 4,5th rounds it would almost be as effective as picking tackles in the 1st second and third rounds this year.

Edited April 10, 2012 by 3rdand12

[Johnny Hammersticks]

There's a list here: http://www.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/06/pfws-exclusive-draft-value-chart-7

 

4a. Brandon Mosley (rising up draft boards....might have to look at him in the 3rd)

4b. Nate Potter

5. Zebrie Sanders

[uncle flap]

This is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while on here. You're locking onto position regardless of the players available. You want three tackles no matter what in rounds 4 and 5, yet the highest rated OT on the board at that point could have 6th round grade or lower before you even start, yet we "have" to take an OT there. What if there isn't any value for CBs or LBs when we pick in rounds 2 and 3? Force that position anyways?

 

This is why I'm so glad fans aren't in charge of drafts.

 

Man, when you put it like that it does seem stupid.

 

I agreed with the OP earlier, and my main reason is that WR, OLB, and CB are all much more important to the Bills than OT. That, and I really want Floyd to be the 1st round pick.

 

I guess what I really meant is that I'd be happy if the draft turned out that way, not that I want Nix to follow a script dictating what position to take in each particular round.

 

So while I'd love to see the Bills maximize "value," I'm more interested in filling more important positions with better players. Within reason, I'm totally okay with reaching for a player that might not be the BPA, but is the BPA in a position of need.

[tennesseeboy]

We at the moment do not have an even adequate prospect to start the season at left tackle. Assuming we aren't trading for one, I would think our first pick would be to get the best one available and not count on a round 3,4 or 5 to carry the offense, as that is what the left tackle does at least as far as a legitimate passing game goes. The first round pick should be the best left tackle prospect available, be that Reiff (my choice) Martin or Cordy. I like McCants if he makes it to the fourth or fifth round and think we might want to draft him as well.

[missthe kgun]

why do so many people here feel we need CB help.

 

I would argues that our corners are better than the Giants corners any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. The difference has been, the fact the they didn't have to cover too long because of the pressure from the front 4, which we should be able to get now.

 

We need LB help more than CB and it's not even close!

 

 

Go Bills!!!!!

[Brainiac72]

We at the moment do not have an even adequate prospect to start the season at left tackle. Assuming we aren't trading for one, I would think our first pick would be to get the best one available and not count on a round 3,4 or 5 to carry the offense, as that is what the left tackle does at least as far as a legitimate passing game goes. The first round pick should be the best left tackle prospect available, be that Reiff (my choice) Martin or Cordy. I like McCants if he makes it to the fourth or fifth round and think we might want to draft him as well.

 

i agree... we need a day one starter and Buddy has said as much. this may be possible in round 2, but i don't think you can count on that in round 4 or later. we NEED one. they don't want Hairston there to start the year.

[uncle flap]

We at the moment do not have an even adequate prospect to start the season at left tackle. Assuming we aren't trading for one, I would think our first pick would be to get the best one available and not count on a round 3,4 or 5 to carry the offense, as that is what the left tackle does at least as far as a legitimate passing game goes. The first round pick should be the best left tackle prospect available, be that Reiff (my choice) Martin or Cordy. I like McCants if he makes it to the fourth or fifth round and think we might want to draft him as well.

 

So you're not high on Hairston? Also, I'd say a good receiver is more important to the Bills passing game than an OT.

 

 

why do so many people here feel we need CB help.

 

I would argues that our corners are better than the Giants corners any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. The difference has been, the fact the they didn't have to cover too long because of the pressure from the front 4, which we should be able to get now.

 

We need LB help more than CB and it's not even close!

 

 

Go Bills!!!!!

 

I agree we need LB help more, but McGee is old. McKelvin isn't guaranteed to be resigned after this year. Did Florence lose a step as the season went on or was he just a victim of a lack of pass rush? I def agree pass rush makes the secondary better but you can't just put anybody out there. I think it's a good idea to draft a future (if not immediate) starter this year, so next year they aren't forced to add up to 3 corners.

Edited April 11, 2012 by uncle flap

[Cynical]

THIS IS (almost*) EXACTLY WHAT I WANT TO SEE HAPPEN! :thumbsup:

 

Assuming Floyd is there, he will have more of an impact on the Bills, than any other player likely to be available at 10.

 

We need guys to compete at OLB and CB, and the odds of success are better the higher the pick (duh).

 

Chan has shown he can work with a patchwork line.

 

He has? Me thinks somebody did not pay attention this past season. Here's a sample when Chan has to deal with a patchwork line:

(FYI: These are the first 3 plays of the Bills first possession vs Dallas)

 

Buffalo Bills at 12:12

1-10-BUF 20 (12:12) R.Fitzpatrick sacked at BUF 10 for -10 yards (D.Ware).

2-20-BUF 10 (11:37) (Shotgun) R.Fitzpatrick pass short middle to D.Jones to BUF 16 for 6 yards (A.Elam). Pass complete on a

slant.

3-14-BUF 16 (10:57) (Shotgun) R.Fitzpatrick pass incomplete short right [F.Walker]. Pass was thrown short after heavy pressure

on a corner blitz.

4-14-BUF 16 (10:52) (Punt formation) B.Moorman punts 52 yards to DAL 32, Center-G.Sanborn. A.Owusu-Ansah to DAL 32 for

no gain (R.Martin).

 

Obviously, there's room for improvement, but I don't think their priorities are in line with many of the fans clamoring for LT at #10.

 

There's a candidate for understatement of the off season.

And the second part of sentence is the reason the problems on the Oline never get fully addressed.

As soon as the Oline shows signs of progressing, they automatically think the entire line will automatically get better.

You only spend developmental picks on positions that are set, not on positions of need.

The Bills Oline is not set. Even Nix said we needed tackles.

[uncle flap]

He has? Me thinks somebody did not pay attention this past season. Here's a sample when Chan has to deal with a patchwork line:

(FYI: These are the first 3 plays of the Bills first possession vs Dallas)

 

Buffalo Bills at 12:12

1-10-BUF 20 (12:12) R.Fitzpatrick sacked at BUF 10 for -10 yards (D.Ware).

2-20-BUF 10 (11:37) (Shotgun) R.Fitzpatrick pass short middle to D.Jones to BUF 16 for 6 yards (A.Elam). Pass complete on a

slant.

3-14-BUF 16 (10:57) (Shotgun) R.Fitzpatrick pass incomplete short right [F.Walker]. Pass was thrown short after heavy pressure

on a corner blitz.

4-14-BUF 16 (10:52) (Punt formation) B.Moorman punts 52 yards to DAL 32, Center-G.Sanborn. A.Owusu-Ansah to DAL 32 for

no gain (R.Martin).

 

 

 

There's a candidate for understatement of the off season.

And the second part of sentence is the reason the problems on the Oline never get fully addressed.

As soon as the Oline shows signs of progressing, they automatically think the entire line will automatically get better.

You only spend developmental picks on positions that are set, not on positions of need.

The Bills Oline is not set. Even Nix said we needed tackles.

 

Thanks for the sample. One drive sure tells the story. And even in your example, the first sack was because the Fred didn't pick up Ware on the overloaded side. So blame Fred for not realizing that, or Fitz for not motioning him over and/or alerting him.

 

And I think as the year wore on, the defense (or lack thereof) was more of a problem than the oline.

 

In a perfect world, I'd love for the Bills to have a dominant line and what that does for the offense as a whole. But they can't fix everything at once. THIS YEAR, it seems the way for the Bills to improve the most overall AND maximize "value" on draft day is to get the WR OLB and CB early. If there are better rated tackles in those slots, so be it. However, if the grades are in the same neighborhood, I'd prefer one of those three positions over OT.

 

As far as developmental picks - what tackles are going to be available that are going to start day 1? There's a fair chance even if they draft a tackle at 10, he might not start right away. Floyd or one of the better CBs has/have a better chance at starting day one and making an impact.

[3rdand12]

they are starting Hairston and he will be fine with a solid offseason. and we will draft tackles. i think Nix has some one on his radar that might surprise us as his pick(s). Like cordy glenn who can back up anyone excepting Wood in his first year on the field imo.

[Glory Bound]

We won't be drafting Floyd.

I'm hoping you're right. The draft guru's on the NFL network last night all agreed they would rank Floyd under Green & Julio Jones if all in the same draft. Between that nugget & the off field issues, I'm thinking we should pass on him.

[OldTimer1960]

This whole concept of "developmental" players is way overblown here, in my opinion. Yes, there are players that have starter caliber physical ability that might be found in the mid and late rounds of the draft. Heck, we can all identify starters on most teams that were not even drafted. However, again my opinion, if teams thought "Max Jones college LT" was a down-the-road starter at LT and all it would take was a bit of coaching and weight training - I can assure you that he'd be off the board by the 2nd round for sure. Same is even more true of the proverbial "developmental QB". If teams knew that they had a shot at a guy that would develop into a good starting NFL QB, there is NO WAY that the player would make it out of the second round and would probably be taken in round 1 even if the team thought it would take 3 years to "develop" him.

 

The truth is, these mid and later round picks all are missing something that the NFL sees as an impediment to them being good players at the NFL level. That might be lacking desired height/weight/speed/strength/arm length/arm strength etc. It might be a significant injury history. It might be a history of off-field problems. It could be a lack of track record of conditioning or studying the playbook. There are MANY reasons why a player isn't picked until the mid-late rounds, but be assured it isn't because a team thinks that they have everything to be a surefire good starter but they need "development".

 

The mid-to-late round guys that have become good starters have found ways to overcome the limitations that the NFL saw in them and they have beaten the odds. That does not imply that all mid-late round draftees will overcome their limitations/questions and become starters if given enough "development".

Edited April 11, 2012 by OldTimer1960

[BILLS #1]

This whole concept of "developmental" players is way overblown here, in my opinion. Yes, there are players that have starter caliber physical ability that might be found in the mid and late rounds of the draft. Heck, we can all identify starters on most teams that were not even drafted. However, again my opinion, if teams thought "Max Jones college LT" was a down-the-road starter at LT and all it would take was a bit of coaching and weight training - I can assure you that he'd be off the board by the 2nd round for sure. Same is even more true of the proverbial "developmental QB". If teams knew that they had a shot at a guy that would develop into a good starting NFL QB, there is NO WAY that the player would make it out of the second round and would probably be taken in round 1 even if the team thought it would take 3 years to "develop" him.

 

The truth is, these mid and later round picks all are missing something that the NFL sees as an impediment to them being good players at the NFL level. That might be lacking desired height/weight/speed/strength/arm length/arm strength etc. It might be a significant injury history. It might be a history of off-field problems. It could be a lack of track record of conditioning or studying the playbook. There are MANY reasons why a player isn't picked until the mid-late rounds, but be assured it isn't because a team thinks that they have everything to be a surefire good starter but they need "development".

 

The mid-to-late round guys that have become good starters have found ways to overcome the limitations that the NFL saw in them and they have beaten the odds. That does not imply that all mid-late round draftees will overcome their limitations/questions and become starters if given enough "development".

 

 

great anaylsis old-timer. I am right with you on that one

[Cash]

This whole concept of "developmental" players is way overblown here, in my opinion. Yes, there are players that have starter caliber physical ability that might be found in the mid and late rounds of the draft. Heck, we can all identify starters on most teams that were not even drafted. However, again my opinion, if teams thought "Max Jones college LT" was a down-the-road starter at LT and all it would take was a bit of coaching and weight training - I can assure you that he'd be off the board by the 2nd round for sure. Same is even more true of the proverbial "developmental QB". If teams knew that they had a shot at a guy that would develop into a good starting NFL QB, there is NO WAY that the player would make it out of the second round and would probably be taken in round 1 even if the team thought it would take 3 years to "develop" him.

 

The truth is, these mid and later round picks all are missing something that the NFL sees as an impediment to them being good players at the NFL level. That might be lacking desired height/weight/speed/strength/arm length/arm strength etc. It might be a significant injury history. It might be a history of off-field problems. It could be a lack of track record of conditioning or studying the playbook. There are MANY reasons why a player isn't picked until the mid-late rounds, but be assured it isn't because a team thinks that they have everything to be a surefire good starter but they need "development".

 

The mid-to-late round guys that have become good starters have found ways to overcome the limitations that the NFL saw in them and they have beaten the odds. That does not imply that all mid-late round draftees will overcome their limitations/questions and become starters if given enough "development".

Excellent post! A good example was Jake Locker last year -- definitely unable to play at the NFL level right away, but scouts who liked him thought that he would develop into a really good QB eventually. So he went in the top 10.

 

The one addendum I'd add is that some mid/late round non-QBs do somewhat fit the mold of "developmental" player. I'm thinking specifically of D. Bell, who was labeled as a potential (eventual) starter as soon as we drafted him in the 7th round. The reasoning being that he had only played football for a couple of years, so was super raw, and not nearly strong enough, but had the frame to add muscle. However, for guys like Bell, who are seen as developmental players at the time, it's always a matter of IF not WHEN -- IF the player gets stronger (Bell), or gets in shape (e.g., Jasper), or learns how to play the game (Bell again), or can handle a position switch (Julian Edelman, maybe? This might be pushing it), then he could be a starter. But to Oldtimer's point, if a guy lasts to the 4th round or so, it means that most or all teams think that it's an unlikely prospect.