Luke Kuechly discussion

[loserlovers]

I will not have a problem if they go with Keuchly but I couldn't disagree more about what you said about Floyd. You stated that "You don't draft a WR at #10 to get 6 potential touches per game. So, I rule out Floyd." Add the numbers up 6 catches a game gets you 96 catches and a trip to the pro-bowl. If he catches 96 balls he probably would have at least 8 touchdowns and several game breaking plays that swing a game. If you told me that Floyd would catch 6 a game I would draft him in a second. When you say 6 potential touches I'm thinking 6 potential catches.

 

Here's my best scenario for draft day: We trade Spiller and another pick "prob a 3rd" and take someones late first round pick. We draft big Trent from Bama with pick #10 and with the late first round pick we take an offensive tackle. How awesome would that be? Spiller will never be maxed out here with Freddy being the better back and we'll get a bruising smash mouth runner to compliment Freddy, especially on short yardage plays and inside the 10 yard line. We also get better value for an offensive tackle instead of reaching for one at #10.

+1

[Bill from NYC]

BPA and it filled what Buddy at the time thought was a key need. I believe he was wrong about that, and also wrong about even considering a running back as "best player available." Those days are gone...for now.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/shutdown-corner-podcast-greg-cosell-2012-rb-wr-063953621.html

 

Above, Greg Cosell calls Trent Richardson the best player in this draft. And he might well be. Richardson is an every down back as compared to Spiller, who appears to be more situational. He is fast enough, hits like a truck, and is a great blocker and receiver.

 

And if Buddy truly did think that Spiller was the bpa, I fully share your belief that he was wrong about that.

[offsides#76FredSmerlas]

Looks like your best scenario has zero chance of happening. Zero

I didn't say it would happen but in my opinion it would be the best situation for the Bills. I'm interested in what you think may happen on draft day.

[1B4IDie]

I didn't say it would happen but in my opinion it would be the best situation for the Bills. I'm interested in what you think may happen on draft day.

I think the best case scenario is Luck has a press release that says his arm was amputated in a freak accident but secretly tells Buddy Nix and Chan Gailey that he is actually fine.

 

Then the Bills Draft Andrew Luck at #10 to the surprise of the Draft world, as there has never been a one armed QB in the NFL.

 

Then Luck comes out with both arms raised and says "Psych! I just wanted to play for the Buffalo Bills and this was the only way I can see this happening. Lets go Buffalo!"

 

That would be the best case scenario, there is a chance of that happening.

[eball]

Answering the OP's question, here's the most likely scenario under which it can not be Keuchly:

 

The Bills turn in their draft card, fully expecting to draft Keuchly, but Goodell misreads it and says "Coby Fleener."

[Mr. WEO]

Answering the OP's question, here's the most likely scenario under which it can not be Keuchly:

 

The Bills turn in their draft card, fully expecting to draft Keuchly, but Goodell misreads it and says "Coby Fleener."

 

Sounds good to me.

[K-9]

According to a regression done by the New York Times, pass defense is four times more important than run defense. (That is, a 1 SD improvement in pass defense will result in four times as many additional wins as a 1 SD improvement in run defense. 75% of "pass defense" consists of yards allowed per pass attempt; 25% consists of interception percentage.)

 

For the above reasons, I focused more heavily on Kuechley's potential contribution to pass defense than to run defense. I suspect that the vast majority of the tackling you described will come on run defense. I have no objection to the Bills having a good tackler/run stopper at MLB. I just don't want them taking a guy like that 10th overall.

 

I agree that it would be foolish for a defensive coordinator to put a LB--even a LB known for his pass coverage--one-on-one against someone like Gronkowski. Putting your LBs in zone coverage makes more sense, as you pointed out. I just don't like the idea of taking a LB 10th overall because of his zone coverage. I think the Bills can and should get more use out of such a high draft pick than that!

 

I won't quibble and make this any more complicated than it really is. I'll just say that 100% of pass defense is how many yards allowed per pass attempt. Period.

 

Improvements in our pass defense will be a result of generating pressure out of the front four more than anything else, anyway.

 

Nobody will draft Keuchly, or any other LB for that matter, solely based on his ability to play zone coverages in pass defense. He'll be drafted because of his perceived potential to make football plays within the designed defensive scheme(s) of the team that drafts him.

 

Anyway, since LBs, especially those in a 43 front are antiquated in the sport, I'm sure he'll go undrafted while Wanny and all other DCs roll out their 4 DL, 7 DB schemes.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

I won't quibble and make this any more complicated than it really is. I'll just say that 100% of pass defense is how many yards allowed per pass attempt. Period.

 

Improvements in our pass defense will be a result of generating pressure out of the front four more than anything else, anyway.

 

Nobody will draft Keuchly, or any other LB for that matter, solely based on his ability to play zone coverages in pass defense. He'll be drafted because of his perceived potential to make football plays within the designed defensive scheme(s) of the team that drafts him.

 

Anyway, since LBs, especially those in a 43 front are antiquated in the sport, I'm sure he'll go undrafted while Wanny and all other DCs roll out their 4 DL, 7 DB schemes.

 

GO BILLS!!!

The aforementioned regression analysis stated that an improvement in yards allowed per pass was three times as important as an equal improvement in yards allowed per running play. An improvement in the percentage of passes intercepted was as important as an equal improvement in yards allowed per rush. This is what the article meant when it stated that pass defense was four times as important as run defense. (And pass offense four times as important as rushing offense; with yards per pass attempt being three times as important as yards per rush attempt, and interception percentage of equal importance to yards per rush.)

 

"[Kuechley will] be drafted because of his perceived potential to make football plays within the designed defensive scheme(s) of the team that drafts him." The same could be said of every defensive player who will be drafted. The real question is where each player deserves to be drafted, based on the value he brings. In answering a question like that, it is absolutely essential that a high value pick not be squandered on anything other than a player who will bring significant value to the team.

 

Wannestedt typically favors smaller, faster linebackers who are also good hitters. Bryan Scott is sort of like the kind of linebacker Wannestedt likes. In fact, Bryan Scott is a lot like Wannestedt's preferred kind of linebacker! You can get linebackers like that in rounds 3 - 7--which is also something Wannestedt typically favors.

 

Will Kuechley be a better linebacker than Bryan Scott? Assuming he's not a bust, then yes, he will be. Taking Kuechley 10th overall would mean moderately better run defense, and somewhat better zone coverage from the Bills' linebacker corps, than we would have had with Bryan Scott in his place. But those things will not be enough better to justify burning the 10th overall pick of the draft! It's impossible to field a roster of 22 top-10 picks. Whenever you have a high pick, it should be used where it will do the most good! That means the Bills should choose the BPA from among the following positions: QB, LT, CB, WR. A successful player at any of those positions will have a much greater effect on pass offense or pass defense than Kuechley will have on pass defense. In the unlikely event no QB, LT, CB, or WR is worthy of 10th overall, the Bills should look at DEs and even DTs. What they should not do at 10th overall is take an OG, LB, S, RT, or RB!

[tennesseeboy]

How can it not be Keuchly? Well...not having any left tackle to begin the season we might do the right thing and go ahead and fill a big gaping hole in our offense. That's one way. We might go for Floyd if available...that's another. We might go for a strong cornerback...that's yet another.

 

Me...go with Reif and be done with it.

[K-9]

The aforementioned regression analysis stated that an improvement in yards allowed per pass was three times as important as an equal improvement in yards allowed per running play. An improvement in the percentage of passes intercepted was as important as an equal improvement in yards allowed per rush. This is what the article meant when it stated that pass defense was four times as important as run defense. (And pass offense four times as important as rushing offense; with yards per pass attempt being three times as important as yards per rush attempt, and interception percentage of equal importance to yards per rush.)

 

"[Kuechley will] be drafted because of his perceived potential to make football plays within the designed defensive scheme(s) of the team that drafts him." The same could be said of every defensive player who will be drafted. The real question is where each player deserves to be drafted, based on the value he brings. In answering a question like that, it is absolutely essential that a high value pick not be squandered on anything other than a player who will bring significant value to the team.

 

Wannestedt typically favors smaller, faster linebackers who are also good hitters. Bryan Scott is sort of like the kind of linebacker Wannestedt likes. In fact, Bryan Scott is a lot like Wannestedt's preferred kind of linebacker! You can get linebackers like that in rounds 3 - 7--which is also something Wannestedt typically favors.

 

Will Kuechley be a better linebacker than Bryan Scott? Assuming he's not a bust, then yes, he will be. Taking Kuechley 10th overall would mean moderately better run defense, and somewhat better zone coverage from the Bills' linebacker corps, than we would have had with Bryan Scott in his place. But those things will not be enough better to justify burning the 10th overall pick of the draft! It's impossible to field a roster of 22 top-10 picks. Whenever you have a high pick, it should be used where it will do the most good! That means the Bills should choose the BPA from among the following positions: QB, LT, CB, WR. A successful player at any of those positions will have a much greater effect on pass offense or pass defense than Kuechley will have on pass defense. In the unlikely event no QB, LT, CB, or WR is worthy of 10th overall, the Bills should look at DEs and even DTs. What they should not do at 10th overall is take an OG, LB, S, RT, or RB!

 

You're making mountains out of molehills here.

 

Of course every player is drafted based on his perceived potential to make plays. That will never change. Regardless of round selected. Regardless of position.

 

Keuchley is ALREADY a better linebacker than Scott. I would hope Scott is a better safety though.

 

But please, explain this totally made up metric of "value" before a player has been drafted and played one down in the NFL. "Value" is determined much later on. "Value" is a word made up by draftniks to feed the pre-draft frenzy of fans who eat that crap up. I count four or five blue-chip can't miss players in this year's draft and even they are a crap shoot until proven otherwise.

 

Personally, I don't care who the Bills select as long as it's a guy who can make plays. Regardless of position.

 

As for the regression analysis, all I've got to say to the NY Times is, "Duh." More big plays are made via pass than runs? WTF knew? Limiting your opponents' big plays (that's plays longer than 20 yards) is critical to winning? I can't believe nobody ever stumbled on this before. As I implied earlier, I don't need a regression analysis to tell me that pass defense is measured by how many passing yards are given up per attempt. Period. That's as old as the forward pass has been legal.

 

Anyway, let's see how important pass defense is when DCs line up with 4 DL and 7 DBs as a base package.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited April 17, 2012 by K-9

[Orton's Arm]

You're making mountains out of molehills here.

 

Of course every player is drafted based on his perceived potential to make plays. That will never change. Regardless of round selected. Regardless of position.

 

Keuchley is ALREADY a better linebacker than Scott. I would hope Scott is a better safety though.

 

But please, explain this totally made up metric of "value" before a player has been drafted and played one down in the NFL. "Value" is determined much later on. "Value" is a word made up by draftniks to feed the pre-draft frenzy of fans who eat that crap up. I count four or five blue-chip can't miss players in this year's draft and even they are a crap shoot until proven otherwise.

 

Personally, I don't care who the Bills select as long as it's a guy who can make plays. Regardless of position.

 

As for the regression analysis, all I've got to say to the NY Times is, "Duh." More big plays are made via pass than runs? WTF knew? Limiting your opponents' big plays (that's plays longer than 20 yards) is critical to winning? I can't believe nobody ever stumbled on this before. As I implied earlier, I don't need a regression analysis to tell me that pass defense is measured by how many passing yards are given up per attempt. Period. That's as old as the forward pass has been legal.

 

Anyway, let's see how important pass defense is when DCs line up with 4 DL and 7 DBs as a base package.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I disagree with pretty much everything in your post. I am not "making mountains out of molehills." "Value" is not synthetic metric designed to feed anyone's pre-draft frenzy. You should care about the position a player plays, because it matters. A quarterback who plays at a Pro Bowl level is worth more than a Pro Bowl level LT, who in turn is worth more than a Pro Bowl OG.

 

The appropriate response to the New York Times' regression analysis is not "duh." Without that analysis, we would intuitively grasp that passing is more important than running, but we wouldn't know that a 1 SD improvement in passing offense is four times better than a 1 SD improvement in rushing offense.

 

Your suggestion of the defense lining up with 4 DLs and 7 DBs is a straw man argument, and contributes nothing to this discussion.

[K-9]

I disagree with pretty much everything in your post. I am not "making mountains out of molehills." "Value" is not synthetic metric designed to feed anyone's pre-draft frenzy. You should care about the position a player plays, because it matters. A quarterback who plays at a Pro Bowl level is worth more than a Pro Bowl level LT, who in turn is worth more than a Pro Bowl OG.

 

The appropriate response to the New York Times' regression analysis is not "duh." Without that analysis, we would intuitively grasp that passing is more important than running, but we wouldn't know that a 1 SD improvement in passing offense is four times better than a 1 SD improvement in rushing offense.

 

Your suggestion of the defense lining up with 4 DLs and 7 DBs is a straw man argument, and contributes nothing to this discussion.

 

My suggestion of lining up 4 DLs and 7 DBs is meant to draw attention to the absurd idea put forth here and elsewhere that LBs are not a position of "value" anymore. See how ridiculous that is?

 

Thanks for letting me know that QB is the most important position on the team. Never would have grasped that. Tell me which is more valuable, a QB picked at 10 who busts or a free agent G who becomes a perennial ALL Pro? Don't know about you, but I want the playmaker on my team first and foremost. Again, regardless of position. But NOBODY can predict future results and I'm sorry, but anyone who seeks to lecture about value through a crystal ball BEFORE the fact is just making things up.

 

"Duh" is the perfect response to an article that insults the intelligence of longtime football fans that actually know a thing or two about the game to begin with. Perhaps if the NY Times' analysis did something to inform me of anything I didn't already know, I'd be more gracious in my response their study.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[RyanC883]

I want Ingram, Keuchly or Floyd. Everyone else seems to be a positional reach at #10.

[Orton's Arm]

My suggestion of lining up 4 DLs and 7 DBs is meant to draw attention to the absurd idea put forth here and elsewhere that LBs are not a position of "value" anymore. See how ridiculous that is?

 

Thanks for letting me know that QB is the most important position on the team. Never would have grasped that. Tell me which is more valuable, a QB picked at 10 who busts or a free agent G who becomes a perennial ALL Pro? Don't know about you, but I want the playmaker on my team first and foremost. Again, regardless of position. But NOBODY can predict future results and I'm sorry, but anyone who seeks to lecture about value through a crystal ball BEFORE the fact is just making things up.

 

"Duh" is the perfect response to an article that insults the intelligence of longtime football fans that actually know a thing or two about the game to begin with. Perhaps if the NY Times' analysis did something to inform me of anything I didn't already know, I'd be more gracious in my response their study.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Faulty logic, in combination with the tacit assumption that others' opinions need not be taken seriously, generally results in highly irritating posts. Your recent posts in this thread have fallen into exactly this trap. Below are some examples of that faulty logic.

 

"My suggestion of lining up 4 DLs and 7 DBs is meant to draw attention to the absurd idea put forth here and elsewhere that LBs are not a position of "value" anymore. See how ridiculous that is?"

 

You are offering us a false choice. Choice 1: a non-pass rushing LB could easily be worthy of 10th overall. Choice 2: the LB position should be eliminated completely. The obvious absurdity of choice 2 does not (as you suppose) demonstrate the validity of choice 1.

 

"Tell me which is more valuable, a QB picked at 10 who busts or a free agent G who becomes a perennial ALL Pro? Don't know about you, but I want the playmaker on my team first and foremost. Again, regardless of position."

 

A Pro Bowl punter is more valuable than Ryan Leaf. That fact does not (as you seem to suppose) demonstrate that the position a player plays should be ignored on draft day.

 

"But NOBODY can predict future results and I'm sorry, but anyone who seeks to lecture about value through a crystal ball BEFORE the fact is just making things up."

 

In order to decide which players to draft, you have to predict future results. If you're choosing between Player A and Player B, and if you pick Player A, then, like it or not, you just made a prediction. These predictions are sometimes wrong. Making educated (and sometimes inaccurate) predictions is not analogous to "just making things up."

 

> "Duh" is the perfect response to an article that insults the intelligence of longtime football

> fans that actually know a thing or two about the game to begin with. Perhaps if the NY Times'

> analysis did something to inform me of anything I didn't already know, I'd be more gracious

> in my response their study.

 

Again, the New York Times' regression analysis quantified the difference between the importance of the passing game and the running game. You could not possibly have quantified that difference on your own, unless you'd gathered a ton of data in order to perform a multiple linear regression analysis of your own. Had you done this kind of analysis before the New York Times had, then their analysis would have shown you nothing new. If you did do this kind of analysis, then show me the post (from a few years ago) in which you shared your results with the rest of us. If you didn't do this kind of analysis--which you didn't--then stop saying that their regression analysis didn't tell you anything you didn't already know. Because it did.

 

Besides, you're certainly not acting like someone who knew all along that the passing game is four times as important as the running game. How many times have you heard a football commentator say, "to win in football, you need to run and stop the run"? The New York Times' regression analysis disproved that. If you'd already known that the passing game was more important than the running game, you should be happy that someone at the New York Times did the work to prove you right and others wrong. Instead you're acting like a spoiled child.

 

Not only that, but the lesson from their regression analysis doesn't seem to have sunk in. You're advocating potentially taking a LB at 10th overall, even though his contribution to the team would be mostly in the form of improved run defense. Improved zone coverage from a member of your linebacker corps isn't going to help you that much on passing downs. Certainly not enough to justify the use of a first or second round pick.

[K-9]

... You're advocating potentially taking a LB at 10th overall, even though his contribution to the team would be mostly in the form of improved run defense. Improved zone coverage from a member of your linebacker corps isn't going to help you that much on passing downs. Certainly not enough to justify the use of a first or second round pick.

 

As to the bolded, I don't advocate taking an LB at 10 at all. I've posted that previously. I want BPA. I want playmakers. I just object to being told that there is no reason to draft one at 10 when there might be a myriad of reasons for many teams.

 

You are trying to sell the idea that LBs are not valued. I don't buy that for a second. And as much as you keep throwing up the NY Times regression analysis to support that claim, it doesn't. Not one bit. Nor does it break any new ground in understanding the game and/or the importance of placing a premium on pass defense. That's ALWAYS been the case. Pass rushing DE has been a premium position, second only in importance to QB, for quite a while now. I'd say the NY Times is about 25 -30 years late with their input. At least since the advent of the west coast offenses in the 80s.

 

You seem to be confused about the responsibilities of LBs, especially in the 43 front. You totally dismiss an LB's value to pass defense (unless they can rush the passer) and assume that all they are needed for is stopping the run. Well, unless you are going to start your defense in sub packages, you better damn well have an LB, especially in the middle, who can make sideline to sideline plays in early down situations AND who can play pass defense. I should think the reasons for that are obvious to even the most casual fan.

 

So, since I don't agree with your premise, I don't take other opinions seriously? I'm confident that in my 16 years in this community that I've well-respected other opinions. It's not that I don't take your OPINION seriously, it's that I think you are being short-sighted in completely dismissing the idea of taking an LB at 10. That's all there is to it. No disrespect intended.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

As to the bolded, I don't advocate taking an LB at 10 at all. I've posted that previously. I want BPA. I want playmakers. I just object to being told that there is no reason to draft one at 10 when there might be a myriad of reasons for many teams.

 

You are trying to sell the idea that LBs are not valued. I don't buy that for a second. And as much as you keep throwing up the NY Times regression analysis to support that claim, it doesn't. Not one bit. Nor does it break any new ground in understanding the game and/or the importance of placing a premium on pass defense. That's ALWAYS been the case. Pass rushing DE has been a premium position, second only in importance to QB, for quite a while now. I'd say the NY Times is about 25 -30 years late with their input. At least since the advent of the west coast offenses in the 80s.

 

You seem to be confused about the responsibilities of LBs, especially in the 43 front. You totally dismiss an LB's value to pass defense (unless they can rush the passer) and assume that all they are needed for is stopping the run. Well, unless you are going to start your defense in sub packages, you better damn well have an LB, especially in the middle, who can make sideline to sideline plays in early down situations AND who can play pass defense. I should think the reasons for that are obvious to even the most casual fan.

 

So, since I don't agree with your premise, I don't take other opinions seriously? I'm confident that in my 16 years in this community that I've well-respected other opinions. It's not that I don't take your OPINION seriously, it's that I think you are being short-sighted in completely dismissing the idea of taking an LB at 10. That's all there is to it. No disrespect intended.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I appreciate the tone of your response. Now we just have to get the other stuff sorted out.

 

I think that we're in agreement that the New York Times' regression analysis does support the concept that pass offense and pass defense are several times as important than run offense and run defense. Given that disparity in importance, I think the next obvious question is, if you pick a player 10th overall, what is he going to do to help your pass offense or pass defense? Hopefully we're on the same page at least as far as this.

 

As an aside: I don't object to a player helping the run offense or run defense. But I'm averse to the idea of using that help as the primary basis for taking a player at 10th overall. If your rushing offense or defense need help, that's what later round picks are for.

 

You are correct to say that LBs have responsibilities in pass defense. If there's at least one LB on the field, and if the QB drops back to pass, then obviously that LB isn't supposed to just stand there with his hands in his (nonexistent) pockets! I'm confused by why you seem to think I'm unaware of this.

 

Just as it wouldn't make sense to draft a CB at 10th overall if you were only ever going to use him in zone coverage, the same logic also applies to a non-pass rushing linebacker. For a player to make a 10th overall-type contribution to pass defense, he either needs to be a good pass rusher, or he needs to be able to cover a good WR or pass catching TE one-on-one. One or the other. If all you need him for is zone coverage, you can get good zone coverage guys later in the draft.

 

This is typically what Wannestedt likes to do. He's the sort of guy who will take a hard hitting college safety in the fourth or fifth round and convert him into a linebacker. That gets him a guy who can cover, and who's also good at tackling. Bryan Scott is like this, and the Bills have already made plans to move him to a sort of safety/linebacker hybrid position. It wouldn't shock me if they asked him to add a few pounds, and moved him completely to linebacker after he did so.

 

Option 1 is to use lower round picks to obtain good, solid linebackers to fill in any holes which may exist in the Bills' linebacking corps. Option 2 is to use the 10th overall pick to upgrade one of the LB positions from that envisioned by option 1. The question is: does option 2 represent the highest value use for the Bills' first round pick? I don't see how it possibly could. The lower round linebackers Wannestedt is likely to covet will provide pretty good zone coverage already. It's hard to see how Kuechley's zone coverage will be enough better than that for him to represent a bigger upgrade to the team than, say, a solid LT, #1 WR, #1 CB, or some other players whose contribution to pass offense or defense is both obvious and substantial.

[dave mcbride]

From Peter King's column this week:

 

Stat of the Week

This from the mind of the great Gil Brandt:

Amazing the bust factor at linebacker in the last 10 years. Brandt tipped me onto this, and he's absolutely right: Look at the top 10 picks in the draft from 2001 to 2010. Six have been linebackers (if you count Terrell Suggs as a defensive end). The six are A.J. Hawk, Ernie Sims, Keith Rivers, Jerod Mayo, Aaron Curry and Rolando McClain. One of the six has made a Pro Bowl -- Mayo -- and he's made just one. Rivers was traded to the Giants for a pittance of a fifth-round pick on Friday. Curry was dealt from Seattle to the Raiders for a seventh-rounder last year. The Eagles gave up a fifth-round pick for Sims in 2010; he's an unsigned free agent now. Hawk and McClain have been pedestrian at best in Green Bay and Oakland, respectively.

One Pro Bowl linebacker picked in a decade in the top 10 of the draft. Contrast that to defensive linemen: Twenty-six were picked in the top 10 of the draft from 2001 to 2010 -- obviously counting Suggs as a defensive end -- and those 26 have made 29 Pro Bowls.

[K-9]

From Peter King's column this week:

 

Stat of the Week

This from the mind of the great Gil Brandt:

Amazing the bust factor at linebacker in the last 10 years. Brandt tipped me onto this, and he's absolutely right: Look at the top 10 picks in the draft from 2001 to 2010. Six have been linebackers (if you count Terrell Suggs as a defensive end). The six are A.J. Hawk, Ernie Sims, Keith Rivers, Jerod Mayo, Aaron Curry and Rolando McClain. One of the six has made a Pro Bowl -- Mayo -- and he's made just one. Rivers was traded to the Giants for a pittance of a fifth-round pick on Friday. Curry was dealt from Seattle to the Raiders for a seventh-rounder last year. The Eagles gave up a fifth-round pick for Sims in 2010; he's an unsigned free agent now. Hawk and McClain have been pedestrian at best in Green Bay and Oakland, respectively.

One Pro Bowl linebacker picked in a decade in the top 10 of the draft. Contrast that to defensive linemen: Twenty-six were picked in the top 10 of the draft from 2001 to 2010 -- obviously counting Suggs as a defensive end -- and those 26 have made 29 Pro Bowls.

 

Thank God that guys like Willis, Matthews, Cushing, and Beason weren't taken in the top 10. They would have ended up sucking. Conversely, if only Hawk, Curry, Sims, et al were taken after 10, they would have ended up in the Pro Bowl. Somebody oughta warn Von Miller, too. He's gonna be a bust.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited April 18, 2012 by K-9

[JPS]

From Peter King's column this week:

 

Stat of the Week

This from the mind of the great Gil Brandt:

Amazing the bust factor at linebacker in the last 10 years. Brandt tipped me onto this, and he's absolutely right: Look at the top 10 picks in the draft from 2001 to 2010. Six have been linebackers (if you count Terrell Suggs as a defensive end). The six are A.J. Hawk, Ernie Sims, Keith Rivers, Jerod Mayo, Aaron Curry and Rolando McClain. One of the six has made a Pro Bowl -- Mayo -- and he's made just one. Rivers was traded to the Giants for a pittance of a fifth-round pick on Friday. Curry was dealt from Seattle to the Raiders for a seventh-rounder last year. The Eagles gave up a fifth-round pick for Sims in 2010; he's an unsigned free agent now. Hawk and McClain have been pedestrian at best in Green Bay and Oakland, respectively.

One Pro Bowl linebacker picked in a decade in the top 10 of the draft. Contrast that to defensive linemen: Twenty-six were picked in the top 10 of the draft from 2001 to 2010 -- obviously counting Suggs as a defensive end -- and those 26 have made 29 Pro Bowls.

Excellent response. Love it. It'll make me feel better if we pass on Kuechly and go with Reiff or Cox.

[Rico]

Thank God that guys like Willis, Matthews, Cushing, and Beason weren't taken in the top 10. They would have ended up sucking. Conversely, if only Hawk, Curry, Sims, et al were taken after 10, they would have ended up in the Pro Bowl. Somebody oughta warn Von Miller, too. He's gonna be a bust.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Anymore, the 1st round LB success stories play in a 3-4, not in a 4-3, and many play outside (pass rush specialists),... high motor 4-3 LBs are a dime-a-dozen, burning the #10 pick on one just doesn't make sense. Now maybe Kuechly ends up being an exception to the rule like Urlacher, but I don't think it is worth the risk, let some other team go for it & congrats to them if he makes it big.