Would you trade up to 5 for Kalil?

[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...