Luke Kuechly discussion

[NoSaint]

Then what are you talking about? Ray Lewis, no matter what "tier" you want to place his position, has had "top tier" effectiveness and influence on football games. Really, WTF are you trying to get at?

 

It's really not that hard. A good/above average qb sways a game more than ray could as a HoF LB is the premise. If you get a HoF qb it's exponentially more impactful. Ray neutralizes a running back as a standard where other positions do more to neutralize a qb.

 

Look at where positions are drafted, and who gets big money in free agency and it really tends to follow this model roughly. Obviously with thousands of players cycling through hundreds of schemes over the years, not everyone will be a perfect fit but as a bar napkin guide on how to be a gm- it's essentially what you need to know about priorities.

[NoSaint]

You're welcome...

 

LB is an interesting position in today's game. Aside from a pass-rushing LB, the only LB position that you could place a higher value on would be the MLB run-stuffer. In the way the game has changed with being pass-happy and teams using more spread offenses, teams are at least 50% of the time in Nickle or Dime coverage, meaning one or more of the LBs aren't on the field. Make no bones about it, Shep is our MLB. He was considered a hidden gem in last years draft and stuffing the run is his specialty. Grabbing an LB who won't rush the passer (in our current Defensive system) or stuff the run, is a wasted pick this high in the draft. These LBs are a dime a dozen in FA and littered throughout every round of the draft. Hybrid LB/DB layers Like Bryan Scott and Da'Norris Searcy are more important...

 

I'm not a huge fan of his and haven't seen many games, just highlights. But if he can cover like Scott but play forward like Morrison for instance, then suddenly we just got rid of the need for some subpackages, and maybe we can spend less time in nickel or with a safety playing LB. suddenly the same defense can play the run/pass matchup nightmare that nE has going without tipping its hand via personnel and specialized players.

 

There are two ways two stop that gronk/Hernandez packagage: rush the passer without blitzing and force them to stay in and block the front 4 - and have a LB that can both run with them in coverage and through them in the run game.

 

If you change the skillset of our lbs, than those percentages should change some too. In our division we will be playing the jets that don't go spread, a dolphins team with an explosive receiver at rb and NE with the 2 TE sets. If we can stay 43 base but hang when gronk and bush split wide still it would be a nice wrinkle to have in our gameplans. Heck even when tebow comes in and is blurring the lines between traditional run and pass options. Our division will be heavy on packages that can go run or pass based on if there's a 3rd lb or a 3rd corner. Finding a lb that can play both roles would be worth a 10 (if that guy exists)

Edited April 14, 2012 by NoSaint

[sharebear]

http://www.buddynixon.com/opinion/buddy-nixons-mock-draft-2-0 I would like this draft with kuechly.. alot actually, IF we would add someone like potter in the 4th instead of mosley and pick datko with one our 6th or 7th and id be a happy man with that draft

[Orton's Arm]

Then what are you talking about? Ray Lewis, no matter what "tier" you want to place his position, has had "top tier" effectiveness and influence on football games. Really, WTF are you trying to get at?

The fact that there are Hall of Fame players at tier 4 positions doesn't (and shouldn't) prove that those positions aren't really tier 4. If one wants to argue that Ray Lewis has shown LB isn't really tier 4, then you have to compare him against Hall of Fame players at higher tier positions.

 

If you were a GM building a football team, and if you had a choice between acquiring a young Ray Lewis on the one hand, or a young Joe Montana on the other, I'd assume you'd take Montana. And I'd assume you'd see a significant difference in the two players' value. (If you think the two players would have the same value to your team, you're wrong.) This shows that LB isn't a tier 1 position, because a Hall of Fame QB has more value than a Hall of Fame LB.

 

Then let's look at tier 2. There you have a choice between Ray Lewis on the one hand or Bruce Smith on the other. If your goal is a better defensive pass rush, you have to think about the guy who can get double digit sacks for the year despite being constantly double-teamed. If your goal is better pass coverage, you might want to start with a Hall of Fame CB like Deion Sanders, rather than with a LB. Either way, Ray Lewis doesn't bring the same value to your team that a Hall of Fame tier 2 player would bring.

 

Comparing Ray Lewis to a Hall of Fame tier 3 player--like Larry Fitzgerald--is going to be a little more controversial than the first two comparisons should be. But even here, I'd point out that Larry Fitzgerald can and will have monster games even while using up two opposing players. The defense has to stop this guy, because he'll keep ripping out gouges of yards until they do. I'd argue that a Larry Fitzgerald is more valuable to a team than a Ray Lewis; though I'll admit that the difference is less pronounced than the difference between Ray Lewis and Bruuuuuuuce.

 

All of which is a rather roundabout way of saying that linebacker is a tier 4 position. A standard-issue LB doesn't rush the passer all that often, and won't be as good at covering TEs as a standard-issue SS would be.

[34-78-83]

I'm sure Mayock has seen a lot more tape than you. ACTUAL TAPE and not Youtube clips. I'll take Mayocks word over yours any day of the week.

 

Whatever. Why even waste a reply with this nonsense you spew. Opinions such as mine are what we do here. Or maybe we should all just listen to Mayock and talk about other stuff like our summer plans?

 

Why do I see a trend of folks getting really defensive when talking about this Kuechly kid?

[DefenseWinzChampionshipz]

Why couldn't we have four 1st round picks?

[Geno Smith's Arm]

The fact that there are Hall of Fame players at tier 4 positions doesn't (and shouldn't) prove that those positions aren't really tier 4. If one wants to argue that Ray Lewis has shown LB isn't really tier 4, then you have to compare him against Hall of Fame players at higher tier positions.

 

If you were a GM building a football team, and if you had a choice between acquiring a young Ray Lewis on the one hand, or a young Joe Montana on the other, I'd assume you'd take Montana. And I'd assume you'd see a significant difference in the two players' value. (If you think the two players would have the same value to your team, you're wrong.) This shows that LB isn't a tier 1 position, because a Hall of Fame QB has more value than a Hall of Fame LB.

 

Then let's look at tier 2. There you have a choice between Ray Lewis on the one hand or Bruce Smith on the other. If your goal is a better defensive pass rush, you have to think about the guy who can get double digit sacks for the year despite being constantly double-teamed. If your goal is better pass coverage, you might want to start with a Hall of Fame CB like Deion Sanders, rather than with a LB. Either way, Ray Lewis doesn't bring the same value to your team that a Hall of Fame tier 2 player would bring.

 

Comparing Ray Lewis to a Hall of Fame tier 3 player--like Larry Fitzgerald--is going to be a little more controversial than the first two comparisons should be. But even here, I'd point out that Larry Fitzgerald can and will have monster games even while using up two opposing players. The defense has to stop this guy, because he'll keep ripping out gouges of yards until they do. I'd argue that a Larry Fitzgerald is more valuable to a team than a Ray Lewis; though I'll admit that the difference is less pronounced than the difference between Ray Lewis and Bruuuuuuuce.

 

All of which is a rather roundabout way of saying that linebacker is a tier 4 position. A standard-issue LB doesn't rush the passer all that often, and won't be as good at covering TEs as a standard-issue SS would be.

 

 

Ugh...

 

I think you are over intellectualizing this (yes, I know that a QB can have more impact on a game). The chance of the Bills 10th pick becoming a HoF player is slim. The chance of them reaching for a player that turns out to be mediocre is high. Essentially, I think they should select the player that they feel has the best chance to excel (here comes, "what about a punter?" or "how about DeCastro"... You can figure those out for yourself).

 

I think that any defensive player can have a big impact. Yes, every team has it's own needs, but a highly talented linebacker on this defense will have plenty of opportunity to contribute. On offense, the difference is more pronounced, obviously a Guard isn't going to be as important as a QB (somehow, I anticipate someone on this board wanting to dispute that).

 

And for the record, I'm not clamoring for them to select Kuechly! I just keep seeing posts about how he is slow (he isn't), selecting him will make Sheppard a wasted pick (it won't), and that we need an OLB not an ILB (he has the skill set for both).

Edited April 14, 2012 by Matthews' Bag

[Kelly the Dog]

The reason that LB is not such a coveted position anymore is because SO few of them can play the run game and the pass game these days due to the speed and athleticism of the offensive skill players at all positions, WR, TE and RB that the LBs are forced to cover when more than 50% of the plays are pass plays. If a LB can play the pass as well as the run, he is extremely valuable, and Keuchly appears to be just that. For me, he is definitely worth a #10 pick and is probably a very realistic choice for Nix, depending on what Nix thinks of the LTs and which WR is available at #10.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

It's really not that hard. A good/above average qb sways a game more than ray could as a HoF LB is the premise. If you get a HoF qb it's exponentially more impactful. Ray neutralizes a running back as a standard where other positions do more to neutralize a qb.

 

Look at where positions are drafted, and who gets big money in free agency and it really tends to follow this model roughly. Obviously with thousands of players cycling through hundreds of schemes over the years, not everyone will be a perfect fit but as a bar napkin guide on how to be a gm- it's essentially what you need to know about priorities.

 

So you are trying to tell me a QB is more important than a Guard?

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Whatever. Why even waste a reply with this nonsense you spew. Opinions such as mine are what we do here. Or maybe we should all just listen to Mayock and talk about other stuff like our summer plans?

 

Why do I see a trend of folks getting really defensive when talking about this Kuechly kid?

 

Speaking for myself, it's because every thread has someone posting "we don't need a ILB, we need an OLB", when if they bothered to read about the guy beyond the subtitle under his name, they would know that he is only listed as an inside linebacker because he played there in college, but that he has the skill set to play any LB position. Of course, that triggers "well, I don't want them to draft a guy at 10 that they have to teach a new position", and it just gets ugly from there...

 

I'm not even that excited about the guy, I guess I just expect people to have done minimal research before posting an opinion about a player.

[Kelly the Dog]

Speaking for myself, it's because every thread has someone posting "we don't need a ILB, we need an OLB", when if they bothered to read about the guy beyond the subtitle under his name, they would know that he is only listed as an inside linebacker because he played there in college, but that he has the skill set to play any LB position. Of course, that triggers "well, I don't want them to draft a guy at 10 that they have to teach a new position", and it just gets ugly from there...

 

I'm not even that excited about the guy, I guess I just expect people to have done minimal research before posting an opinion about a player.

Thank you. Much agreed. The Bills would have him play the strongside OLB position currently occupied by Kirk Morrison, but although smallish for a MLB, he is probably versatile enough to play all three LB positions, which makes him even more valuable.

[Orton's Arm]

Ugh...

 

I think you are over intellectualizing this (yes, I know that a QB can have more impact on a game). The chance of the Bills 10th pick becoming a HoF player is slim. The chance of them reaching for a player that turns out to be mediocre is high. Essentially, I think they should select the player that they feel has the best chance to excel (here comes, "what about a punter?" or "how about DeCastro"... You can figure those out for yourself).

 

I think that any defensive player can have a big impact. Yes, every team has it's own needs, but a highly talented linebacker on this defense will have plenty of opportunity to contribute. On offense, the difference is more pronounced, obviously a Guard isn't going to be as important as a QB (somehow, I anticipate someone on this board wanting to dispute that).

 

And for the record, I'm not clamoring for them to select Kuechly! I just keep seeing posts about how he is slow (he isn't), selecting him will make Sheppard a wasted pick (it won't), and that we need an OLB not an ILB (he has the skill set for both).

I think there's considerable overlap between your view and mine, but also some points of difference.

 

I'm looking for the Bills to use the 10th overall pick on a guy who can make a significant contribution. The level of a guy's contribution depends in part on the position he plays, and in part on how good he is at the position. If it's a choice between, say, a mediocre LT who shouldn't have been drafted before the third round, and a Pro Bowl OG, then you pick the OG. But quite frankly, I wouldn't be very happy with either player at 10th overall.

 

One way of measuring a player's effectiveness is the extent to which he contributes to the numbers game. Guys like Bruce Smith and Larry Fitzgerald can be effective even while being double-teamed. Any time the opposing team has to use two of its players to deal with one of yours, it adds +1 to your team's numbers game. Another way for a player to help with the numbers game is to cancel out an opposing player who would otherwise have required a double team. Deion Sanders could single cover Jerry Rice, Tony Boselli could block Bruce Smith one-on-one. At 10th overall, the Bills need a player who will contribute to the numbers game, either via the first method or the second.

 

I don't see how an OG is supposed to do that. Nor do I see how Kuechley is supposed to do that, unless someone is going to argue that he can single cover a pass catching TE who would otherwise have required double coverage. I understand Kuechley does have good coverage skills--at least for a linebacker--but that doesn't necessarily mean he's good enough to be put one-on-one against a good pass catching TE.

 

I agree with you that what the Bills should not do is to pick some position of need, and then reach for a player based on that need. That strategy has been tried in the past, and has resulted in Whitner, McCargo, Lynch, and other busts. The other mistake they should avoid is to pick a RB, LB, OG, or some other player not likely to add +1 to the numbers game. Avoiding players like that still gives them considerable flexibility at 10th overall. Enough flexibility that they should be able to avoid significantly reaching for a player. I'd be happy with a LT, WR, CB, or QB at 10th overall, as long as the player was graded highly enough to justify his lofty draft position.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

I think there's considerable overlap between your view and mine, but also some points of difference.

 

I'm looking for the Bills to use the 10th overall pick on a guy who can make a significant contribution. The level of a guy's contribution depends in part on the position he plays, and in part on how good he is at the position. If it's a choice between, say, a mediocre LT who shouldn't have been drafted before the third round, and a Pro Bowl OG, then you pick the OG. But quite frankly, I wouldn't be very happy with either player at 10th overall.

 

One way of measuring a player's effectiveness is the extent to which he contributes to the numbers game. Guys like Bruce Smith and Larry Fitzgerald can be effective even while being double-teamed. Any time the opposing team has to use two of its players to deal with one of yours, it adds +1 to your team's numbers game. Another way for a player to help with the numbers game is to cancel out an opposing player who would otherwise have required a double team. Deion Sanders could single cover Jerry Rice, Tony Boselli could block Bruce Smith one-on-one. At 10th overall, the Bills need a player who will contribute to the numbers game, either via the first method or the second.

 

I don't see how an OG is supposed to do that. Nor do I see how Kuechley is supposed to do that, unless someone is going to argue that he can single cover a pass catching TE who would otherwise have required double coverage. I understand Kuechley does have good coverage skills--at least for a linebacker--but that doesn't necessarily mean he's good enough to be put one-on-one against a good pass catching TE.

 

I agree with you that what the Bills should not do is to pick some position of need, and then reach for a player based on that need. That strategy has been tried in the past, and has resulted in Whitner, McCargo, Lynch, and other busts. The other mistake they should avoid is to pick a RB, LB, OG, or some other player not likely to add +1 to the numbers game. Avoiding players like that still gives them considerable flexibility at 10th overall. Enough flexibility that they should be able to avoid significantly reaching for a player. I'd be happy with a LT, WR, CB, or QB at 10th overall, as long as the player was graded highly enough to justify his lofty draft position.

 

I agree with you about the numbers game, but a great player can make the others around him much better. I only see about 7 elite prospects in this draft, and I don't expect the Bills to get one of them. I don't think any of the players after that are projected to be players that would add +1 to the numbers game.

[Rico]

Whatever. Why even waste a reply with this nonsense you spew. Opinions such as mine are what we do here. Or maybe we should all just listen to Mayock and talk about other stuff like our summer plans?

 

Why do I see a trend of folks getting really defensive when talking about this Kuechly kid?

It's the disgruntled Pos fans looking for a new hero. "LUUUUUUUKKE"

 

Now obviously that's not true for all of his supporters, but for some, it is spot on., I know the Western New York fanbase very well, it is what it is.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

It's the disgruntled Pos fans looking for a new hero. "LUUUUUUUKKE"

 

Now obviously that's not true for all of his supporters, but for some, it is spot on., I know the Western New York fanbase very well, it is what it is.

 

There is definitely some of that going on.

[Dr. Trooth]

Not feeling comfy at #10. The consensus seems to be that it's Reiff, Floyd, or Keuchly at #10.

 

Based on Buddy's history, He does not reach. At least not with a top ten pick. And, one thing I've said umpteen times. At number 10, you gotta come in and start from day one and play at a high level. So if all three are there when the Bills are on the clock at #10, which one?

 

Of the three, the one with the most qustion marks is clearly Floyd. You see him going anywhere from 10 to 20. He has some baggage, and if you plug him to the Bills and he must start out of the gate and produce... I don't see it happening... especially when Chan has to work Spiller more into the mix... it means less targets for a rookie WR... and especially with Stevie garnering around 10 targets/game, I don't see Floyd with more than 5 to 6 targets/game. You don't draft a WR at #10 to get 6 potential touches per game. So, I rule out Floyd.

 

Reiff seems to have his critics too, but nowhere near the level of Floyd's critics. Some say he's a RT, some say he has short arms. I don't know much about Reiff. And, my read on Buddy is that at #10, any player, especially a LT better be special. Last year, Tyron Smith & Nate Solder were the first OTs off the board at #9 & #17. But both are RTs. And, Carami & Sherrod came off at #29 & #32, but again, both are RTs. Costanza was the only Tackle drafted in the 1st round that ended up playing LT, and he came of the board at #22. So, how does Reiff compare to Costanza? The thing that concerns me about Reiff is, coming out of the Iowa program, two of his predecessors at LT have not panned out at LT... Robert Gallery and Brian Bulaga. Gallery was supposed to be all world but ended up being a guard, and for such a high pick, big waste. Bulaga is still at RT after two years, even though he was drafted at LT and the Packers have a need there. Again... #10 has to be plugged in as the starter from day one. Can Reiff? I think so, but what player can't be put at LT for the Bills and function to some degree? They've functioned with Bell, Scott, Hairston, Levitre over the past few seasons. So, yeah Reiff should be able to come in and out perform them all. But that ain't saying much. And, at #10 is that a good value? Dunno. Hope Buddy does. I also think a LT taken in the second round at #41 could play better than anyone the Bills have had there the past few seasons. Saffold and Veldheer were both second rounders last year and ended up being starting left tackles for the Rams and Raiders and seem to have bright futures. So... round two may be a viable option for LT.

 

Keuchly seems to have no critics. From what I've heard or read, it's all good. And, don't think that OLB aint a position of need, and seriously. There's no question that he can come in and start at OLB from day one and clearly out perform either Morrison or Barnett. He might even be in the Clay Matthews stratosphere.

 

So... I know the Bills sorely need a presence at LT. But, from a value standpoint I don't see how the #10 pick cannot be Keuchly if all three are there at #10. He's a sure thing. He would be the icing on the cake for a Bills defense that has been upgraded significantly and transitioning back the the 4-3. This significant upgrade to the defense will have an immediate impact on the offense... more than anyone realizes. Better field position, more turnovers, less pressure on the offense to score, more offensive possesions.

[FleaMoulds80]

At the end of the day, I think it'll be down to Kuechly or Gilmore.

[Mr. WEO]

Not feeling comfy at #10. The consensus seems to be that it's Reiff, Floyd, or Keuchly at #10.

 

Based on Buddy's history, He does not reach. At least not with a top ten pick. And, one thing I've said umpteen times. At number 10, you gotta come in and start from day one and play at a high level. So if all three are there when the Bills are on the clock at #10, which one?

 

 

 

Spiller?

[KOKBILLS]

Not feeling comfy at #10. The consensus seems to be that it's Reiff, Floyd, or Keuchly at #10.

 

Based on Buddy's history, He does not reach. At least not with a top ten pick. And, one thing I've said umpteen times. At number 10, you gotta come in and start from day one and play at a high level. So if all three are there when the Bills are on the clock at #10, which one?

 

Of the three, the one with the most qustion marks is clearly Floyd. You see him going anywhere from 10 to 20. He has some baggage, and if you plug him to the Bills and he must start out of the gate and produce... I don't see it happening... especially when Chan has to work Spiller more into the mix... it means less targets for a rookie WR... and especially with Stevie garnering around 10 targets/game, I don't see Floyd with more than 5 to 6 targets/game. You don't draft a WR at #10 to get 6 potential touches per game. So, I rule out Floyd.

 

Reiff seems to have his critics too, but nowhere near the level of Floyd's critics. Some say he's a RT, some say he has short arms. I don't know much about Reiff. And, my read on Buddy is that at #10, any player, especially a LT better be special. Last year, Tyron Smith & Nate Solder were the first OTs off the board at #9 & #17. But both are RTs. And, Carami & Sherrod came off at #29 & #32, but again, both are RTs. Costanza was the only Tackle drafted in the 1st round that ended up playing LT, and he came of the board at #22. So, how does Reiff compare to Costanza? The thing that concerns me about Reiff is, coming out of the Iowa program, two of his predecessors at LT have not panned out at LT... Robert Gallery and Brian Bulaga. Gallery was supposed to be all world but ended up being a guard, and for such a high pick, big waste. Bulaga is still at RT after two years, even though he was drafted at LT and the Packers have a need there. Again... #10 has to be plugged in as the starter from day one. Can Reiff? I think so, but what player can't be put at LT for the Bills and function to some degree? They've functioned with Bell, Scott, Hairston, Levitre over the past few seasons. So, yeah Reiff should be able to come in and out perform them all. But that ain't saying much. And, at #10 is that a good value? Dunno. Hope Buddy does. I also think a LT taken in the second round at #41 could play better than anyone the Bills have had there the past few seasons. Saffold and Veldheer were both second rounders last year and ended up being starting left tackles for the Rams and Raiders and seem to have bright futures. So... round two may be a viable option for LT.

 

Keuchly seems to have no critics. From what I've heard or read, it's all good. And, don't think that OLB aint a position of need, and seriously. There's no question that he can come in and start at OLB from day one and clearly out perform either Morrison or Barnett. He might even be in the Clay Matthews stratosphere.

 

So... I know the Bills sorely need a presence at LT. But, from a value standpoint I don't see how the #10 pick cannot be Keuchly if all three are there at #10. He's a sure thing. He would be the icing on the cake for a Bills defense that has been upgraded significantly and transitioning back the the 4-3. This significant upgrade to the defense will have an immediate impact on the offense... more than anyone realizes. Better field position, more turnovers, less pressure on the offense to score, more offensive possesions.

 

 

I don't disagree...

 

When I look at these OT Prospects...well...I've pretty much said all along I'm not sure any of them is worthy of #10 overall...I do however feel Kuechly is worthy...I feel Floyd, baggage and all, is worthy as well...But Kuechly may very well be the safest pick at #10...And I think he would have a BIG impact on this Defense no matter where he plays in it...

 

I think it will be Floyd if he's there...If The Bills go OT at #10 I'm hoping it's Glenn due to his upside...But if not I would have no problem hearing Kuechly's name called...None at all...

[dpberr]

If a player hasn't visited, he's not being drafted by Nix, Inc.