Would you trade up to 5 for Kalil?

[NeverOutNick]

I wouldn't and I don't think Nix would either

 

Would you give up Marshawn Lynch and Paul Posluszny for Joe Thomas? I know I would...2007 draft (Thomas went #3 but if he slipped to 5 this scenario compares to the question)

[aristocrat]

if minn stays put and doesn't take him he falls to the 10 spot imo.

[Dragonborn10]

Yea obviously given our need and he is the best non-qb in this draft. The more I think about it, Minnesota could very well draft Blackmon.

Or they could draft Claiborne

[NeverOutNick]

if minn stays put and doesn't take him he falls to the 10 spot imo.

 

Why wouldn't STL take him? Jason Smith is a bust...i'm sure they would think about taking him at 6 (i'm assuming thats why hes saying trade up to 5)...Also i'm sure other teams would try and trade up to get Kalil if Minny didn't take him seeing how he's the only LT without questions

Edited April 12, 2012 by NeverOutNick

[Bud Adams]

Below is my take on this from March 31 in another post. It remains unchanged.

 

This.

 

Arguably the three toughest positions to fill in FA:

 

• Franchise QB
  
• Franchise LT
  
• Franchise DE (check!)
   
  

With Kalil, we have a chance of filling the second of those three positions. This doesn't just help improve one position. Maybe it helps Ftizpatrick buy more time so that he doesn't have to release the ball right away. That could help him improve his accuracy. True, Fitz would have to adjust -- and that's where coaching comes in. But he's smart enough to grasp the concept, methinks.

 

Here is how Kalil could fall to #6 -- and, as mentioned in another thread, the Rams are likely to shop the pick:

 

• 1. Colts: Andrew Luck
  
• 2. Redskins: RG III
  
• 3. Dolphins: Ryan Tannehill (Trade up by Miami with Minnesota -- Yes, I think they're desperate enough to make this move, fearing Cleveland will take him. Also, I think this makes sense for Minnesota, as they have so many needs. True, so does Miami -- but their GM and owner are utterly inept).
  
• 4. Browns: Trent Richardson / Justin Blackmon
  
• 5. Bucs: Trent Richardson / Morris Claiborne
  

I think swapping 1st-rounders and a second gets it done with the Rams. And I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm sick of OLs who "convert" to tackle. We could have a chance of drafting potentially one of the best pure LTs in many years without breaking the bank or mortgaging the future. AND, this guy plays with a mean streak. We need that, too.

 

BA

[thewildrabbit]

Well Pdaddy thats part of the problem.

We (you and me ) dont know about Hairston besides what little we saw. and that might've been unfair considering circumstance. Some folks have written him up very well after seeing him play. He is also by some to be a RT. so if we go for Kalil we are secured at LT and have one hell of a swing Tacle in the making and potential starter at right side in a couple years. I am going on the somewhat uneducated that Kalil IS the real deal and that is the tipping point of this whole discussion for me. if i thought there were risks like reiff and martin i would not even consider the trade.

 

To give some insight on this LT, here is what scout.com thinks:

 

Based on family history, Matt Kalil was destined to be an outstanding physical specimen. His father was a pro football player, his brother is a starter in the NFL and his mother was Miss California.

Now pro scouts say he soon may be regarded as the best in the family, not counting mom of course, although Matt was recognized by Playboy Magazine himself - as a 2011 Preseason All American.

"Genetics are obviously a huge part," acknowledged Pittsburgh Steelers General Manager Kevin Colbert, who considered Kalil's situation similar to that of the NFL's famous Mathews family, which begat current Green Bay Packers linebacker, Clay, and tracks back three generations to grandfather Clay (49ers in 1950s) and includes uncle Bruce (Houston Oilers/Tennessee Titans 1983-2001; Pro Football Hall of Fame).

Matt's father, Frank, was drafted by the Buffalo Bills and played for the USFL's Arizona Wranglers and Houston Gamblers. Matt's older brother Ryan was a star center at USC (2003-2006) and after being drafted in the second round by the Carolina Panthers has become one of the best centers in the NFL.

Vikings General Manager Rick Spielman says Kalil is not only the best tackle the draft, but he has a nasty temperament to go with his physical abilities that could make him one of the best in the NFL and, oh yes, possible best in the family.

Matt credits his father for instilling him with work ethic and technique to enhance his bloodlines.

"Hours on end of going to the park and working on technique," Kalil said when asked what he remembered about getting help from his father. "Watching film in high school and coming home on weekends during college and going over film with my dad. That's what he taught us, there's always something you can improve. You strive for perfection, but you never get there."

 

NFL scouts believe he is as close to perfect as they can expect and one of the most complete offensive tackles to come out of college since USC's Tony Boselli, who was the second player selected in the 1995 draft by the Jacksonville Jaguars. Not a relative, but a highly-regarded alumn.

http://www.cbssports...players/1631888

 

 

From everything I've read, if teams weren't so desperate for QB's, Kalil would be the #1 overall. So yea, I'd say he is worth moving up for!

 

 

 

The problem is, since the Vikings saw the Redskins give up 3 #1's for that #2 spot to get RG3, they might want the farm for that #3 spot. Now, should the Dolphins trade up with the Vikes to get Tannehill and the Browns already having a top LT , things could come down to a trade with Tampa Bay for the #5 spot, which might actually work with a #1 at 10 and #2 at 41. Then the problem arises that every other team in the NFL already knows how good Kalil is and if they need a LT they will also be trying to trade up. Like the Vikings who covet him

Edited April 12, 2012 by Fear the Beard

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Why wouldn't STL take him? Jason Smith is a bust...i'm sure they would think about taking him at 6 (i'm assuming thats why hes saying trade up to 5)...Also i'm sure other teams would try and trade up to get Kalil if Minny didn't take him seeing how he's the only LT without questions

We actually have several prominent posters who live in the St. Louis area.

 

I'd love to hear what they have to say.

 

What I've read is that the Rams feel that they need to get Sam Bradford more weapons. I would not equate an offensive tackle with a weapon.

 

As far as their offensive tackle situation goes, Rodger Saffold played LT as a rookie and played quite well. I believe they viewed him as the answer at LOT.

 

Then last year he seemingly regressed.

 

Obviously we don't know what the new coaching staff feels about Saffold but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the Rams draft Kalil if he drops to them.

 

JMO.

 

 

[BuffaloBillsSD]

To give some insight on this LT, here is what scout.com thinks:

 

Based on family history, Matt Kalil was destined to be an outstanding physical specimen. His father was a pro football player, his brother is a starter in the NFL and his mother was Miss California.

Now pro scouts say he soon may be regarded as the best in the family, not counting mom of course, although Matt was recognized by Playboy Magazine himself - as a 2011 Preseason All American.

"Genetics are obviously a huge part," acknowledged Pittsburgh Steelers General Manager Kevin Colbert, who considered Kalil's situation similar to that of the NFL's famous Mathews family, which begat current Green Bay Packers linebacker, Clay, and tracks back three generations to grandfather Clay (49ers in 1950s) and includes uncle Bruce (Houston Oilers/Tennessee Titans 1983-2001; Pro Football Hall of Fame).

Matt's father, Frank, was drafted by the Buffalo Bills and played for the USFL's Arizona Wranglers and Houston Gamblers. Matt's older brother Ryan was a star center at USC (2003-2006) and after being drafted in the second round by the Carolina Panthers has become one of the best centers in the NFL.

Vikings General Manager Rick Spielman says Kalil is not only the best tackle the draft, but he has a nasty temperament to go with his physical abilities that could make him one of the best in the NFL and, oh yes, possible best in the family.

Matt credits his father for instilling him with work ethic and technique to enhance his bloodlines.

"Hours on end of going to the park and working on technique," Kalil said when asked what he remembered about getting help from his father. "Watching film in high school and coming home on weekends during college and going over film with my dad. That's what he taught us, there's always something you can improve. You strive for perfection, but you never get there."

 

NFL scouts believe he is as close to perfect as they can expect and one of the most complete offensive tackles to come out of college since USC's Tony Boselli, who was the second player selected in the 1995 draft by the Jacksonville Jaguars. Not a relative, but a highly-regarded alumn.

http://www.cbssports...players/1631888

 

 

From everything I've read, if teams weren't so desperate for QB's, Kalil would be the #1 overall. So yea, I'd say he is worth moving up for!

 

 

 

The problem is, since the Vikings saw the Redskins give up 3 #1's for that #2 spot to get RG3, they might want the farm for that #3 spot. Now, should the Dolphins trade up with the Vikes to get Tannehill and the Browns already having a top LT , things could come down to a trade with Tampa Bay for the #5 spot, which might actually work with a #1 at 10 and #2 at 42. Then the problem arises that every other team in the NFL already knows how good Kalil is and if they need a LT they will also be trying to trade up. Like the Vikings who covet him

 

Thanks for the info, I was all in on Floyd at 10 but if the Bills can swing a move up for Kalil with only the 10 and 41 I would not mind. I think he has to fall to 5 or 6 for that to work though. I am hesitant to give up next years one or this years 3 along with the 1 and 2.

[thewildrabbit]

Thanks for the info, I was all in on Floyd at 10 but if the Bills can swing a move up for Kalil with only the 10 and 41 I would not mind. I think he has to fall to 5 or 6 for that to work though. I am hesitant to give up next years one or this years 3 along with the 1 and 2.

You are welcome

 

Kalil has the bloodlines to be not only a great LT, but a future HoFer.

 

 

To all the Floyd lovers out there, has he made a visit to the Buffalo Bills? If not I kinda doubt the Bills have interest.

[Mr. WEO]

I'd much rather have 15-22 playmakers than be one of those that are always wanting to trade back and have a roster of 53 guys named Joe. We don't need 9-12 rookies on this roster. 3-5 playmakers will do soooooooooooooooooo. I'd do it immediately.

 

 

You do know we don't have a left tackle right now don't you ???

LT is not a playmaker position. Hairston is LT right now.

 

 

 

 

You are making a false assumption that if you take an OT with your first pick you won't be able to get a quality receiver with a following pick. This draft has a lot more quality receivers than it does OTs. I'm not advocating reaching for any position in this draft. If they have some OTs ranked relatively high on their draft board then they need to seize the oppportunity to address this currently poorly staffed position.

 

Please don't use your standard weak argument that you can get a qualaity OT in the lower rounds. You can say that for all of the positions.

 

I'm making the assumption that it is a better value to draft a playmaker/scorer such as WR in the 1st than an LT. You can only fill your WR corps with so many 7th rounders and guys like Easley (one year wonders from dubious programs) and keep hoping for the best.

 

Sure, you can say that any position can be filled with quality from rounds after the first--but as there are only 32 players chosen in the first round that's not a very persuasive argument given what we are talking about. You are just restating the obvious--most players (good or bad) are drafted outside the 1st round. Look at the teams that have used a top 10 pick for LT ("the blind side QB protector") the past few years have faired. Cleveland's passing offense has sucked despite perenial Pro Bowler Joe Thomas at LT. Since drating him, they have remained amongst the worst offenses in football. Maybe they should have considered Adrian Peterson. And how about Miami after spending a number 1 pick on Long? They passed over Matt Ryan for an LT. How has that worked out? Parcells should be barred from the HOF for that decision alone.

 

I don't see LT, even Khalil, leading to an obvious difference in the scoring output from day one. It's an ensemble position like any lineman. The impact of the position by nature is severly limited.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Adam Schefter was just on ESPN saying that talking to sources around the league he dosent believe that Kalil is a lock for the number 3 pick by the vikings. Since Cleveland has an All-Pro caliber tackle in Joe Thomas and Tampa has a bunch of money invested in Donald Penn, would you be willing to trade up to 5 and edge out St. Louis if this situation occurs? If we give our first and second pick (1780 pts) it should equal the 5 overall pick (1700 pts) according to the trade value chart.

 

Personally I would love to since it means if we can get Levitre locked up we have our offensive and defensive lines set for the next five years. Your thoughts?

 

If I recall correctly, Bradford in St Louis was sacked an ungodly number of times last year and his completion percentage sucked (it's hard to throw completions when you're about to be thrown on your a**).

In addition to needing a WR, St Louis badly needs a left tackle - so if this situation occurs, what would keep St Louis from moving up?

[JohnC]

LT is not a playmaker position. Hairston is LT right now.

 

 

 

I'm making the assumption that it is a better value to draft a playmaker/scorer such as WR in the 1st than an LT. You can only fill your WR corps with so many 7th rounders and guys like Easley (one year wonders from dubious programs) and keep hoping for the best.

 

Sure, you can say that any position can be filled with quality from rounds after the first--but as there are only 32 players chosen in the first round that's not a very persuasive argument given what we are talking about. You are just restating the obvious--most players (good or bad) are drafted outside the 1st round. Look at the teams that have used a top 10 pick for LT ("the blind side QB protector") the past few years have faired. Cleveland's passing offense has sucked despite perenial Pro Bowler Joe Thomas at LT. Since drating him, they have remained amongst the worst offenses in football. Maybe they should have considered Adrian Peterson. And how about Miami after spending a number 1 pick on Long? They passed over Matt Ryan for an LT. How has that worked out? Parcells should be barred from the HOF for that decision alone.

 

I don't see LT, even Khalil, leading to an obvious difference in the scoring output from day one. It's an ensemble position like any lineman. The impact of the position by nature is severly limited.

 

Both Thomas and Long were marvelous picks. Each player is a perennial all-pro caliber player. Of course they haven't had a dramatic affect on the offense for their respective teams but that isn't their fault. The problem lies with the caliber of the qbs directing their offenses.

 

I agree with you that adding playmakers is going to help the offense. How is it going to hurt? Do you always have to draft a playmaker in the first round? Of course not.

 

Take a look at our roster. As of now there is only one potential starting LT prospect, Hairston, on the roster. If he doesn't work out or gets hurt then who is going to fill that gaping hole on the line. Where I stongly disagree with you is your claim that the LT position can be filled with any pedestrian lineman. That doesn't make sense. The LT usually squares off with the DE or OLB who are the best pass rushers for the defense. Why are premier LTs in the draft taken at the very top of the draft? Why do you think that premier LTs are some of the highest played players in the league?

 

Just to remind you I am not advocating reaching in the draft to fill a need. If Blackmon should happen to fall I would definitely take him over any LT prospect (other than Kalil). One way or another this franchise needs to get a starting LT out of this draft. The best way to accomplish that is to use a high pick to fill that critical need.

Edited April 12, 2012 by JohnC

[CBD]

Would you give up Marshawn Lynch and Paul Posluszny for Joe Thomas? I know I would...2007 draft (Thomas went #3 but if he slipped to 5 this scenario compares to the question)

Would you give up Darrelle Revis and Lamarr Woodley for Levi Brown (OT)? I know I wouldn't.

[tennesseeboy]

Like most I am not all THAT impressed with Cordy Glenn. He can play numerous positions...fine. I'd love him if he could play gaurd and tackle at the same time. Unfortunately that isn't the case.... He is one of four or five good prospects.

 

Weaknesses? From draftek

 

Weaknesses

- Struggles with speed rushers, may be relegated to ROT or OG at next level - Can get lazy with technique, as he overpowers college competition - Needs to improve hand placement after initial punch - Inconsistent on initial drive off the ball (quickness)

 

After Williams I'm a little tired of lazy tackles.

 

The move down to Kalil at 5 sounds like a gift from heaven and we should definitely go for it. If not...go with Reiff or possibly Martin.

[Deadstroke]

Adam Schefter was just on ESPN saying that talking to sources around the league he dosent believe that Kalil is a lock for the number 3 pick by the vikings. Since Cleveland has an All-Pro caliber tackle in Joe Thomas and Tampa has a bunch of money invested in Donald Penn, would you be willing to trade up to 5 and edge out St. Louis if this situation occurs? If we give our first and second pick (1780 pts) it should equal the 5 overall pick (1700 pts) according to the trade value chart.

 

Personally I would love to since it means if we can get Levitre locked up we have our offensive and defensive lines set for the next five years. Your thoughts?

 

No way Jose!

 

There are other fish in the pond just a hair under him. Go for one of them!!

[Captain Hindsight]

Would you give up Marshawn Lynch and Paul Posluszny for Joe Thomas? I know I would...2007 draft (Thomas went #3 but if he slipped to 5 this scenario compares to the question)

Those two players, yes. Hell Ill even give up the coach and GM team that drafted those guys. This regime, id rather have those picks because they wont waste them

[Mr. WEO]

Both Thomas and Long were marvelous picks. Each player is a perennial all-pro caliber player. Of course they haven't had a dramatic affect on the offense for their respective teams but that isn't their fault. The problem lies with the caliber of the qbs directing their offenses.

 

I agree with you that adding playmakers is going to help the offense. How is it going to hurt? Do you always have to draft a playmaker in the first round? Of course not.

 

Take a look at our roster. As of now there is only one potential starting LT prospect, Hairston, on the roster. If he doesn't work out or gets hurt then who is going to fill that gaping hole on the line. Where I stongly disagree with you is your claim that the LT position can be filled with any pedestrian lineman. That doesn't make sense. The LT usually squares off with the DE or OLB who are the best pass rushers for the defense. Why are premier LTs in the draft taken at the very top of the draft? Why do you think that premier LTs are some of the highest played players in the league?

 

Just to remind you I am not advocating reaching in the draft to fill a need. If Blackmon should happen to fall I would definitely take him over any LT prospect (other than Kalil). One way or another this franchise needs to get a starting LT out of this draft. The best way to accomplish that is to use a high pick to fill that critical need.

 

How were they "marvelous picks"? Because they went to the PRo Bowl? They are All-Pros? If that's the case then you've made the argument about the limited impact LT alone has on a struggling offense. Despite having the best LTs in the league, there has been no sigificant improvement for either offense. And an easy argument could be made that both teams would have been better off taking Peterson and Ryan.

 

Pedestian lineman? Maybe. Look, I would bet most here would have been pleased or at least satisfied if Bell (a "pedestrian lineman", I would say) was re-signed to a long term contract. Why? Because he did an adequate job (some viewed him as a PB candidate last year!). When we were 5-2, no one was clamoring for a future HOF LT. Now that Bell is going to Philly to spell Peters for a year, we not only have to draft an LT in the first round, we should sacrifice extra picks to get Khalil. It makes no sense.

 

Why do GMs pay LTs so much? Why not ask why they spend insane amounts on FA CBs while you're at it? Or why they move up the draft to pick guys like JPL and Brady Quinn? (I could go on with poor GM habits, but you know them already). It can't all be based on results (value). The reality is that most teams don't break the bank for LT.

 

Hairston is our LT now. Who will replace or beat him out? Why not an LT taken in round 2 or 3?

 

I have looked at our roster. It's a little thin on playmakers on offense. Fitz, Freddy, Stevie are the significant standouts.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Mr. WEO

[Bud Adams]

No way Jose!

 

There are other fish in the pond just a hair under him. Go for one of them!!

Just curious... Did you watch Kalil play every game at USC like I did? If you did, you wouldn't say there are others "just a hair under him." The guy is a BEAST, and anyone else is a DISTANT second.

 

BA

[JohnC]

How were they "marvelous picks"? Because they went to the PRo Bowl? They are All-Pros?

 

Absolutely!!! If a GM knew that their first round selection was going to be a perennial all-pro, no matter the position, they would be ecstatic. Only you would find fault with that type of return.

 

If that's the case then you've made the argument about the limited impact LT alone has on a struggling offense. Despite having the best LTs in the league, there has been no sigificant improvement for either offense. And an easy argument could be made that both teams would have been better off taking Peterson and Ryan.

 

The fault with the respective offenses has little to do with the LT position. It is with the mediocre caliber of the qbs for the respective teams. With respect to Matt Ryan I agree with you that Parcells should have taken Ryan over Long. Not drafting the franchise qb when he had an opportunity to do so set that franchise back. There is no doubt that the qb position is the most influential position on the offense and team. If you have the opportunity to acquire an upper tier caliber qb should should do so.

 

 

 

Pedestian lineman? Maybe. Look, I would bet most here would have been pleased or at least satisfied if Bell (a "pedestrian lineman", I would say) was re-signed to a long term contract. Why? Because he did an adequate job (some viewed him as a PB candidate last year!). When we were 5-2, no one was clamoring for a future HOF LT. Now that Bell is going to Philly to spell Peters for a year, we not only have to draft an LT in the first round, we should sacrifice extra picks to get Khalil. It makes no sense.

 

What makes no sense is your fatuation with Bell. He was an often injured and inconsistent LT who demonstrated that he was not a LT who could be counted on. Why you continue to use him to argue for your proposition that drafting lower round tackles is a workable policy makes no sense. Bell, the LT, refutes not supports your claim that quality LTs could easily be had in the lower rounds.

 

Why do GMs pay LTs so much? Why not ask why they spend insane amounts on FA CBs while you're at it? Or why they move up the draft to pick guys like JPL and Brady Quinn? (I could go on with poor GM habits, but you know them already). It can't all be based on results (value). The reality is that most teams don't break the bank for LT.

 

The reality is that upper tier LTs are paid at a very high rate. The obvious reason is that they are valuable commodities. Mediocre players, no matter the position, are not paid so generously.

 

Your bringing up why GMs move up the draft to ultimately take unproductive players is a distraction that has little to do with our discourse on this topic.

 

Hairston is our LT now. Who will replace or beat him out? Why not an LT taken in round 2 or 3?

 

If Nix takes a LT with his first round selection then he is making the judgment that there won't be a starting caliber available with the later selections.

 

I have looked at our roster. It's a little thin on playmakers on offense. Fitz, Freddy, Stevie are the significant standouts.

 

The Bills were 6-10 last year. They have been out of the playoffs for an embarrassingly dozen years. Needless to say the Bills are thin at a lot of positions. You don't need to point out the obvious.

Edited April 12, 2012 by JohnC

[PDaDdy]

Would you give up Marshawn Lynch and Paul Posluszny for Joe Thomas? I know I would...2007 draft (Thomas went #3 but if he slipped to 5 this scenario compares to the question)

 

Sort of. We actually moved up to get Poz in the second and he was OK. Lynch has been a workhorse NFL RB. Despite neither being on the team anymore those were two decent picks. I'm not saying best ever but good. Lynch had off field issues which eventually got him run out of Buffalo and Poz couldn't cover a TE to save his life but they were good starters.

[Mr. WEO]

Absolutely!!! If a GM knew that their first round selection was going to be a perennial all-pro, no matter the position, they would be ecstatic. Only you would find fault with that type of return.

 

The fault with the respective offenses has little to do with the LT position. It is with the mediocre caliber of the qbs for the respective teams. With respect to Matt Ryan I agree with you that Parcells should have taken Ryan over Long. Not drafting the franchise qb when he had an opportunity to do so set that franchise back. There is no doubt that the qb position is the most influential position on the offense and team. If you have the opportunity to acquire an upper tier caliber qb should should do so.

 

We are talking about teams with offensive needs picking LT in the top 5 (or 10). There have been 2 examples recently. Clearly both have resulted in no improvement years later. Clearly both would have been better off picking other players at higher impact positions who were available. I find fault with that.

 

 

 

 

What makes no sense is your fatuation with Bell. He was an often injured and inconsistent LT who demonstrated that he was not a LT who could be counted on. Why you continue to use him to argue for your proposition that drafting lower round tackles is a workable policy makes no sense. Bell, the LT, refutes not supports your claim that quality LTs could easily be had in the lower rounds.

 

If you have been paying attention, you would know I have no "fatuation" with Bell. But linking poor quality with injury is not a strong position to take. By that logic, we wasted a first round pick on Eric Wood.

 

 

 

 

The reality is that upper tier LTs are paid at a very high rate. The obvious reason is that they are valuable commodities. Mediocre players, no matter the position, are not paid so generously.

 

Your bringing up why GMs move up the draft to ultimately take unproductive players is a distraction that has little to do with our discourse on this topic.

 

Many here felt that Peter was mediocre and not worth the money he was seeking. The Bills FO agreed. The Eagles FO disagreed and payed him a lot of money. GMs repeat foolish mistakes of others, which was my point. Smart ones don't. The Browns and the Fins made the same mistake.

 

 

 

If Nix takes a LT with his first round selection then he is making the judgment that there won't be a starting caliber available with the later selections.

 

Obviously.

 

 

 

The Bills were 6-10 last year. They have been out of the playoffs for an embarrassingly dozen years. Needless to say the Bills are thin at a lot of positions. You don't need to point out the obvious.

 

True, but picking an LT who will fill his man cave with Pro Bowl jerseys and All Pro citations won't have as a significant impact on our winning a playoff game in the near future as a player who can come in and score points.

[tennesseeboy]

I'm not sure that the likely cost is a first and second, but it would be well worth it for a lineman of Kalil's caliber (calibre?) He sounds like a first rate BPA and probably the best non-quarterback player in the draft.

[eme123]

No. We don't need a starter at LT. We need depth at the position. If we give up a 1st and 2nd we are giving up two starters for the price of one.

 

I think we have our LT of the future in Hairston. His 1 year in the league was filled with lots of experience. The Bills drafted him last year knowing that he would be likely moving into a starting role in his second season.

 

The problem the Bills have is someone who can back Hairston up in this draft. There is not much available in the later rounds. Thats the only reason I think they would consider taking a LT in the first. They surely would never move up. Buddy has said he doesn't like to give up picks and I don't see one player after Luck that is worth giving up draft picks.

[JohnC]

We are talking about teams with offensive needs picking LT in the top 5 (or 10). There have been 2 examples recently. Clearly both have resulted in no improvement years later. Clearly both would have been better off picking other players at higher impact positions who were available. I find fault with that.

 

 

 

 

 

If you have been paying attention, you would know I have no "fatuation" with Bell. But linking poor quality with injury is not a strong position to take. By that logic, we wasted a first round pick on Eric Wood.

 

 

 

 

 

Many here felt that Peter was mediocre and not worth the money he was seeking. The Bills FO agreed. The Eagles FO disagreed and payed him a lot of money. GMs repeat foolish mistakes of others, which was my point. Smart ones don't. The Browns and the Fins made the same mistake.

 

 

 

 

Obviously.

 

 

 

 

True, but picking an LT who will fill his man cave with Pro Bowl jerseys and All Pro citations won't have as a significant impact on our winning a playoff game in the near future as a player who can come in and score points.

[JohnC]

We are talking about teams with offensive needs picking LT in the top 5 (or 10). There have been 2 examples recently. Clearly both have resulted in no improvement years later. Clearly both would have been better off picking other players at higher impact positions who were available. I find fault with that.

 

Have you considered that teams selecting at the top of a draft usually are very bad teams? One particular pick is not going to dramatically change the losing dynamic. Bad teams take years to become good teams, and bad organizations with incompetent owners such as Buffalo can take longer than a generation to become relevant.

 

If you have been paying attention, you would know I have no "fatuation" with Bell. But linking poor quality with injury is not a strong position to take. By that logic, we wasted a first round pick on Eric Wood.

 

I'm warning you that "fatuation" can turn to "infatuation" if you too long linger on your darling player. LOL

 

Many here felt that Peter was mediocre and not worth the money he was seeking. The Bills FO agreed. The Eagles FO disagreed and payed him a lot of money. GMs repeat foolish mistakes of others, which was my point. Smart ones don't. The Browns and the Fins made the same mistake.

 

Letting Peters go was a mistake that as of yet hasn't been rectified. When you use the argument that "many felt here" then I know you are struggling to support your argument.

 

True, but picking an LT who will fill his man cave with Pro Bowl jerseys and All Pro citations won't have as a significant impact on our winning a playoff game in the near future as a player who can come in and score points.

 

Let's be reasonable here. No one player is going to elevate a deflated team. The roster in general has to be upgraded. Adding a good LT in itself is not going to result in a magical SB run. The addition of a good LT will be a positive step in a process that requires many positive steps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

]

Edited April 12, 2012 by JohnC

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

We are talking about teams with offensive needs picking LT in the top 5 (or 10). There have been 2 examples recently. Clearly both have resulted in no improvement years later. Clearly both would have been better off picking other players at higher impact positions who were available. I find fault with that.

 

All i can say is readin several of your posts that you must not have ever played or coached. Your lack of understanding is above board. Ohh and an LT is a playmaker when he knocks the LB on his a$$ to allow a TD pass or a hole for a RD to scoot for a TD. Hairston is not adequete nor are any OT's in this draft that will be available after the middle of round 1 . If anybody watched the combine many of the tackles (or so called LT's couldn't even tie their shoes without falling over. To not make a trade for a second round pick, in this scenario, would be ridiculous. The difference between Kalil and Reiff, Martin and those other guys who fall over themselves during games is monumentous.

 

 

 

If you have been paying attention, you would know I have no "fatuation" with Bell. But linking poor quality with injury is not a strong position to take. By that logic, we wasted a first round pick on Eric Wood.

 

 

 

 

 

Many here felt that Peter was mediocre and not worth the money he was seeking. The Bills FO agreed. The Eagles FO disagreed and payed him a lot of money. GMs repeat foolish mistakes of others, which was my point. Smart ones don't. The Browns and the Fins made the same mistake.

 

 

 

 

Obviously.

 

 

 

 

True, but picking an LT who will fill his man cave with Pro Bowl jerseys and All Pro citations won't have as a significant impact on our winning a playoff game in the near future as a player who can come in and score points.

[Orton's Arm]

Respectfully, completely, disagree. Giving up a 2nd rounder for an athletic LT is well worth it. We always have too many needs. Instead of building a new house with a solid foundation some would rather keep painting over the old house 'cuz paint is cheaper.

Excellent metaphor. Like you said, the Bills always seem to have too many needs. But most years, they have about 7 - 10 draft picks. You'd think that between all those draft picks, a few UDFAs, and some free agent signings, that it wouldn't take them very many years at all to address their need for large numbers of players.

 

The reason the Bills need large numbers of players today is because the effort to acquire large numbers of players from a few years ago didn't work. I certainly don't object to the Bills having large numbers of draft picks, with each pick representing a roll of the dice that could, if successful, go your way. But the reality is that most of those picks will turn out to be paint for the crumbling old house. That's why it's good strategy to trade away one or two of those die rolls for a player you know will be an integral part of an excellent foundation for many years to come! Franchise LTs don't exactly grow on trees.

[tennesseeboy]

Let's be reasonable here. No one player is going to elevate a deflated team. The roster in general has to be upgraded. Adding a good LT in itself is not going to result in a magical SB run. The addition of a good LT will be a positive step in a process that requires many positive steps.

 

 

 

 

 

whoah...I'm as debbie downer about the present administration as anyone, but I hardly think we have a deflated team. Fitz is steady and played well until he was injured in toronto and the injury bug decimated the offensive line. Johnson is a stud receiver and Jackson and Spiller came of age. We were very deflated without a defensive line last year, but Kyle and Mario are there now along with Anderson and Kelsay, and we can really pick up our defensive with the addition of a great linebacker. We can pick up the offense with a left tackle (biggest need) and another wide receiver.

 

I'm kind of optimistic, assuming we make wise decisions in the draft.

[BuffaloRebound]

Pretty sure anyone would trade a 1st and 2nd rounder to get a franchise LT, especially now that rookie contracts are so team-friendly. Our other major need is WR, where there happens to be a ton a depth in this draft and you can probably get a good one in the 3rd round.

[Orton's Arm]

Let's be reasonable here. No one player is going to elevate a deflated team. The roster in general has to be upgraded. Adding a good LT in itself is not going to result in a magical SB run. The addition of a good LT will be a positive step in a process that requires many positive steps.

I agree that drafting a LT, alone, won't turn the Bills into a serious Super Bowl contender. I also agree that acquiring a franchise LT would be a major step toward becoming the kind of team the Bills need to be.

 

Pass protection is a weapon. If you give Brady five seconds of protection, he will do a lot more damage to the defense than if you give that same five seconds to, say, Tyler Thigpen. Often, teams that draft franchise LTs early in the draft lack good QBs. It's the combination of a good QB + good pass protection which does damage to the defense. Not just the good pass protection alone.

 

If a team has a franchise QB, there are only two things a defense can do to stop him. 1. Take away his time to throw. 2. Take away his targets. With a franchise LT, the first of those two things becomes a lot tougher. On the other hand, adding an elite receiver makes the second a lot more difficult, which is why I'd be happy either with an elite LT or an elite WR with the Bills' first round pick.

 

You could point out that the Bills do not, in fact, have a franchise QB. And you'd be right. Unfortunately, I don't think this draft represents a good opportunity for them to rectify that problem. If they can't get a franchise QB, then they need to do the next-best thing; which is to put the other pieces in place. That way when they finally do get that franchise QB, they'll be ready!

[JohnC]

Let's be reasonable here. No one player is going to elevate a deflated team. The roster in general has to be upgraded. Adding a good LT in itself is not going to result in a magical SB run. The addition of a good LT will be a positive step in a process that requires many positive steps.

 

 

 

 

 

whoah...I'm as debbie downer about the present administration as anyone, but I hardly think we have a deflated team. Fitz is steady and played well until he was injured in toronto and the injury bug decimated the offensive line. Johnson is a stud receiver and Jackson and Spiller came of age. We were very deflated without a defensive line last year, but Kyle and Mario are there now along with Anderson and Kelsay, and we can really pick up our defensive with the addition of a great linebacker. We can pick up the offense with a left tackle (biggest need) and another wide receiver.

 

I'm kind of optimistic, assuming we make wise decisions in the draft.

 

You weren't totally following (understandably) the numerous postings between WEO and myself regarding teams that have taken a LT with a high first round pick. It related to the point that teams drafting at the top of the draft usually are in that position because they had a bad team. One of my points was that drafting a quality player in itself is not singularly going to alter the status of the struggling team

 

I hope the above explanation gives you a better context relating to the issue.

[JohnC]

I agree that drafting a LT, alone, won't turn the Bills into a serious Super Bowl contender. I also agree that acquiring a franchise LT would be a major step toward becoming the kind of team the Bills need to be.

 

That is exactly the point I was making in my response to WEO. WEO is a recalcitrant. The best way to deal with him is to relentlessly chip away. He still won't alter his view because he is not inclined to altering his view. That's his prerogative. I'm sure he will say I'm being stubborn while I'm thinking that he is one obstinate dude.

 

note: The previous post I made to Tennesseeboy should give you the context from which I was responding.

[rstencel]

No. We don't need a starter at LT. We need depth at the position. If we give up a 1st and 2nd we are giving up two starters for the price of one.

 

I think we have our LT of the future in Hairston. His 1 year in the league was filled with lots of experience. The Bills drafted him last year knowing that he would be likely moving into a starting role in his second season.

 

The problem the Bills have is someone who can back Hairston up in this draft. There is not much available in the later rounds. Thats the only reason I think they would consider taking a LT in the first. They surely would never move up. Buddy has said he doesn't like to give up picks and I don't see one player after Luck that is worth giving up draft picks.

 

 

LOL depth at the position, Well if dont mind going through a few qb's, or having them playing injuried, sure just get depth.

 

Most games are still won lost at the line of scrimmage, while yes if dont have any skill players winning line doesnt mean as much, but we have great backs, and above average passing game if line can hold thier own. Get line atleast as good as it was before Bell and other linemen went down last year, and expect that we will have a respectable offense again. However leave Hairston as starting LT and will have to keep TE and or RB in to block every down again, and will significantly hamper the offence, unless he makes a huge jump from last year IMO.

Edited April 12, 2012 by rstencel

[Mr_Blizzard]

Based on what I have read recently about Kalil, there is no way he is going to be available. If by some miracle the Vikes decide to trade down, the asking price will be too steep. He's going to the Vikes plain and simple.

[BuffaloFan68]

How about Reiff in the first then Mike Adams in the second and then osweiler or Cousins in the third? It would give some depth.

Edited April 13, 2012 by BuffaloFan68

[Bud Adams]

If I recall correctly, Bradford in St Louis was sacked an ungodly number of times last year and his completion percentage sucked (it's hard to throw completions when you're about to be thrown on your a**).

In addition to needing a WR, St Louis badly needs a left tackle - so if this situation occurs, what would keep St Louis from moving up?

You are correct about Bradford being a doormat last year.

 

That said, St. Louis has so many holes to fill aside from LT and WR. I can see Fischer trading down a few times to gain more picks. Let's remember that this year, all the Rams gained was a #2 from their trade with Washington.

 

As a first-year head coach of the Rams, I can see him trying to fill as many holes as possible -- like the Browns will be able to do with their whopping 13 draft picks. I think he'll be able to pick up a serviceable LT later in the draft in lieu of taking Kalil.

 

Just my two cents.

 

BA

[Chandler#81]

1334173239[/url]' post='2434837']

in a heartbeat.

 

In a New York heartbeat,

[Mr. WEO]

That is exactly the point I was making in my response to WEO. WEO is a recalcitrant. The best way to deal with him is to relentlessly chip away. He still won't alter his view because he is not inclined to altering his view. That's his prerogative. I'm sure he will say I'm being stubborn while I'm thinking that he is one obstinate dude.

 

note: The previous post I made to Tennesseeboy should give you the context from which I was responding.

Well, if that means you haven't convinced me to trade up to get an LT--then that's me.

 

My view is that there is no such thing as a "franchise LT". And of course no single drafted player will get us to the SB. But a top skill player in a position to score points will bring us closer to that goal than a single O-lineman. There is no evidence that a team with many needs taking an LT in the top 5 will have any improvement as a result. Recent history shows the opposite is true. You're argument otherwise is unconvincing, so don't blame my obstinance for your lack of a powerful argument.

[rstencel]

Well, if that means you haven't convinced me to trade up to get an LT--then that's me.

 

My view is that there is no such thing as a "franchise LT". And of course no single drafted player will get us to the SB. But a top skill player in a position to score points will bring us closer to that goal than a single O-lineman. There is no evidence that a team with many needs taking an LT in the top 5 will have any improvement as a result. Recent history shows the opposite is true. You're argument otherwise is unconvincing, so don't blame my obstinance for your lack of a powerful argument.

 

Lines take 5 good players working together well. While LT is the position that requires the most one on one blocking against oppenents best player, takes 5 players working together to be good. If want to be using TE and RB's in passing game, better have good Tackles though.

 

Without good line play great QB's only look good and good ones look bad, running game is inconsistant and have trouble converting third downs. Unless have a Payton quaility at QB, your skill players dont get put into position to make very many plays. Most football games are still won and lost at line of scrimmage IMO.

 

While one star Lineman wont turn a bad offense into great one, one bad one can turn a good one into a bad one pretty easily. With what we have currently on our roster, either our LG will have to slide out to play tackle, weaking two positions, or someone more suited to play RT will have to play LT again. Either case means either RB or TE will have to help line on most passing plays, limiting the options on offense, and making it that much easier for defense.

 

Think its too high a price to pay to move up for LT, but think getting a capable one is extremely important if want to have a consistant offense in the NFL.

Edited April 14, 2012 by rstencel

[Lurker]

The Bills drafted him last year knowing that he would be likely moving into a starting role in his second season.

At ROT. He was never projected as a LOT and it was serendipty that he was forced into the lineup due to the lack of Tackle depth.

 

I don't get the Hairston enamorment. Nice player, didn't suck, didn't excel. That's not enough to hang your hat on as a long-term fix, IMO, any more than Sheppard at ILB or Nelson at slot receiver couldn't be upgraded...