Reed83HOF Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I disagree: his line of thinking is the opposite of what had gotten the Bills into trouble during the TD and Levy eras! Some positions are more important than others. Tier 1: QB Tier 2: LT, RDE, CB Tier 3: RT, C, WR, DT Tier 3.5: S, pass catching TE Tier 4: RB, non-pass rushing LB, OG A RB can bump his way up to tier 3 if he becomes a good receiver out of the backfield, like Thurman Thomas or Marshall Faulk. But a guy like Travis Henry or Marshawn Lynch is definitely tier 4! Good GMs tend to be biased in favor of higher tier positions, especially early in the draft. They realize that a franchise QB is far more valuable than a non-pass-rushing LB, and that a franchise LT is worth a lot more than a franchise OG. You pretty much hit it spot on. I would say that at times WR could jump to Tier 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaattMaann Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 From the clips of him that are out there, he looks to be a very hard working and disciplined player , but his athletic ability (including coverage) doesn't flash out at my like a top 10-15 pick should. I'd be scared to end up with him at 10. I think Glenn, in comparison shows flashes of un-coachable talent. his athleticism was on display at the combine (as well as every play on tape), he compared to and beat the stats put up by Patrick Willis - so he does have athleticism, as well as all the tape in the world that he could be a dominant MLB for the next 10 years...id take that and be happy with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBills Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I disagree: his line of thinking is the opposite of what had gotten the Bills into trouble during the TD and Levy eras! Some positions are more important than others. Tier 1: QB Tier 2: LT, RDE, CB Tier 3: RT, C, WR, DT Tier 3.5: S, pass catching TE Tier 4: RB, non-pass rushing LB, OG A RB can bump his way up to tier 3 if he becomes a good receiver out of the backfield, like Thurman Thomas or Marshall Faulk. But a guy like Travis Henry or Marshawn Lynch is definitely tier 4! Good GMs tend to be biased in favor of higher tier positions, especially early in the draft. They realize that a franchise QB is far more valuable than a non-pass-rushing LB, and that a franchise LT is worth a lot more than a franchise OG. The above-described tier system is largely about long term value. Long term value was not necessarily the primary focus of Marv and TD. Their willingness to spend a king's ransom on upgrading the running back position--and to thereby obtain a "quick impact"--is an excellent example of their short term thinking. But over the long run, a successful tier 1 or tier 2 player will still be a lot more valuable than a successful tier 4 player. Someone who takes the long view will tend to give more weight to the tier system than someone who does not. With Marv, and also with TD, the emphasis on draft day was generally on the quick fix. Marv's 2006 draft was an excellent example of this. He went into the draft determined to come away with a DT and an SS with his first two picks; on the theory that those two players could improve the defense right away. He ignored better players at more valuable positions in order to be able to achieve that. The 8th overall pick could have been used on Cutler; a QB who was later traded away for two first round picks + Kyle Orton. That's two more first round picks, and one more Kyle Orton, than the Bills received for Whitner's departure. The McCargo pick could, and should, have been used on Mangold; who many now feel is the best center in the league. You might argue that a LB who can cover good pass catching TEs is at least a tier 3.5, if not a tier 3. However, putting just about any LB one-on-one against a good pass catching TE is generally considered a mismatch. If you're Tom Brady, and if before the snap you see Kuechley one-on-one against Gronkowski, do you think, Ooh wow. No way that guy is getting open! I'd better throw to someone else instead! In general, TEs like Gronkowski should be covered by safeties! It was Whitner's inability to effectively cover safeties which made him unworthy of a first or second round pick. If we're talking 10th overall for Kuechley, I need to be convinced he'll be significantly better at covering TEs than Whitner had been. This is exactly what many on this board are suggesting in taking a any of OTs not named Kalil, who are all widely regarded as late 1st to 2nd round talents, with not a single prospect regarded as a having the clear ability to play LT. Its not the fact that Cutler was a QB that makes this scenario an example of poor front office decision making. Its the fact he is a Pro Bowl QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Mayock thinks he's one of the best LBs in pass coverage he's seen in a while. FWIW. my friend told me that too (what mayock said). he is worth it if thats true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 This is exactly what many on this board are suggesting in taking a any of OTs not named Kalil, who are all widely regarded as late 1st to 2nd round talents, with not a single prospect regarded as a having the clear ability to play LT. Its not the fact that Cutler was a QB that makes this scenario an example of poor front office decision making. Its the fact he is a Pro Bowl QB. You've made a good point, and have expressed it well. I agree that if a LT doesn't have a grade which would justify 10th overall--or at least a grade which comes reasonably close--then the Bills shouldn't take a LT 10th overall. That doesn't mean they should take a LB at 10th overall instead, unless they're convinced the LB will be significantly better at pass coverage than Whitner. In a scenario like this, the Bills should start looking at the available WRs and CBs, to see if any of them are worthy of going 10th overall. I'd also like to thank Reed83 for his compliment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 again as pointed to; This is a brutal draft and i am not happy for it one bit. unless one of the top 4 drops to #10. I have been thinking lately that some Teams will employ alot more phones and laptops for potential trade arounds after the blue chippers are gone and certainly by our pick at ten. Kuechly will be a better fit somewhere else preferably in the NFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBills Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 You've made a good point, and have expressed it well. I agree that if a LT doesn't have a grade which would justify 10th overall--or at least a grade which comes reasonably close--then the Bills shouldn't take a LT 10th overall. That doesn't mean they should take a LB at 10th overall instead, unless they're convinced the LB will be significantly better at pass coverage than Whitner. In a scenario like this, the Bills should start looking at the available WRs and CBs, to see if any of them are worthy of going 10th overall. I'd also like to thank Reed83 for his compliment. I'm not opposed to Micheal Floyd or Stephen Gilmore or David DeCastro. Or Melvin Ingram but I think he won't make it to our pick. I would like to see us consider Mark Barron here as well. I'm really not going to be pissed if we select Reiff here either even though he isn't likely going to be a top tier LT. I just want the Bills to come away with a star player at any position, a difference maker. Someone who will be consider top 5 at his position in a few years. Because this team still lacks those types of players. Judging by who will be there at 10 it looks like Kuechly is this player. I would rank them: Ingram Kuechly Barron Gilmore Floyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I'm not opposed to Micheal Floyd or Stephen Gilmore or David DeCastro. Or Melvin Ingram but I think he won't make it to our pick. I would like to see us consider Mark Barron here as well. I'm really not going to be pissed if we select Reiff here either even though he isn't likely going to be a top tier LT. I just want the Bills to come away with a star player at any position, a difference maker. Someone who will be consider top 5 at his position in a few years. Because this team still lacks those types of players. Judging by who will be there at 10 it looks like Kuechly is this player. I would rank them: Ingram Kuechly Barron Gilmore Floyd If I'm picking a guy 10th overall, I want one of the following. a) a franchise QB. b) a guy who directly contributes to the numbers game. By "the numbers game" I mean "a case when one player uses up two opposing players." A WR who consistently draws double coverage is a good example of this. So too is a DT who is productive despite being double teamed. If there's a DE who normally requires a double team, and if you have a LT who can block him one on one, then your LT contributes to the numbers game. Similarly, an elite CB can contribute to the numbers game by single covering WRs who normally require double coverage. It's not clear to me how an OG is supposed to contribute to the numbers game, which is why I don't want one with the 10th overall pick. Similarly, unless Kuechley is supposed to single cover TEs who would otherwise have required double coverage, I don't see how he's going to contribute to the numbers game either. At 10th overall, I'd tend to focus my attention on players reasonably likely to contribute to the numbers game, while steering away from those who probably won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno Smith's Arm Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) If I'm picking a guy 10th overall, I want one of the following. a) a franchise QB. b) a guy who directly contributes to the numbers game. By "the numbers game" I mean "a case when one player uses up two opposing players." A WR who consistently draws double coverage is a good example of this. So too is a DT who is productive despite being double teamed. If there's a DE who normally requires a double team, and if you have a LT who can block him one on one, then your LT contributes to the numbers game. Similarly, an elite CB can contribute to the numbers game by single covering WRs who normally require double coverage. It's not clear to me how an OG is supposed to contribute to the numbers game, which is why I don't want one with the 10th overall pick. Similarly, unless Kuechley is supposed to single cover TEs who would otherwise have required double coverage, I don't see how he's going to contribute to the numbers game either. At 10th overall, I'd tend to focus my attention on players reasonably likely to contribute to the numbers game, while steering away from those who probably won't. Well, if he is a 3-down player, he won't be a liability if an offense tries to pass on early downs, or run on 3rd and short. That's pretty important, with teams passing so much now. All this bickering about the position of the player seems silly, when there are so many first round busts/mediocre players selected in the first. I just want them to find value. Edited April 14, 2012 by Matthews' Bag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FleaMoulds80 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 So many reasons to take Luke Kuechly over Floyd. I still think our LB is our weakest position in terms of talent and depth. Not sure how Merriman, Moats, Batten all fit into the 43 system anymore and outside of Shepp and Barnett, I don't see any other LBs that can really hack it. Not to mention we were PISS POOR against the run. Not bad, but ABYSMAL. Also we play against some of the best TE's in the league, in Hernandez, Gronk, and Keller, we need someone that is capable of covering the TEs. With Kuechly, we can solve 2 of our BIGGEST problems by drafting one player. Can you say that about Floyd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsrhody Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 If I'm picking a guy 10th overall, I want one of the following. a) a franchise QB. b) a guy who directly contributes to the numbers game. By "the numbers game" I mean "a case when one player uses up two opposing players." A WR who consistently draws double coverage is a good example of this. So too is a DT who is productive despite being double teamed. If there's a DE who normally requires a double team, and if you have a LT who can block him one on one, then your LT contributes to the numbers game. Similarly, an elite CB can contribute to the numbers game by single covering WRs who normally require double coverage. It's not clear to me how an OG is supposed to contribute to the numbers game, which is why I don't want one with the 10th overall pick. Similarly, unless Kuechley is supposed to single cover TEs who would otherwise have required double coverage, I don't see how he's going to contribute to the numbers game either. At 10th overall, I'd tend to focus my attention on players reasonably likely to contribute to the numbers game, while steering away from those who probably won't. I'm interested to hear where Ray Lewis would fall on your tier system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 his athleticism was on display at the combine (as well as every play on tape), he compared to and beat the stats put up by Patrick Willis - so he does have athleticism, as well as all the tape in the world that he could be a dominant MLB for the next 10 years...id take that and be happy with it I watched a bunch of his highlights is all I have seen, and he didn't compare athletically to many I have seen in the past in regards to coverage (as 1st half of first round picks go). However, his intelligence and reflex ability to quickly break down where the play is going allowed him to be in position in coverage most of the time. Those abilities will continue to help him in the pros, but not to the same degree. I hope he's the next Speilman, but it's hard to see that for me right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) One perk is that when NE trots out two tightend sets and forces teams go nickel (they power run) or base (spread passing) ideally 3 strong versatile linebackers could help neutralize those packages along with a big set of stout guys that can also pass rush (Mario, Kyle and Marcell) - suddenly our defense has the versatility to play behind the line or in coverage. Similarly when Miami puts bush out and he splits wide, or runs the ball based on the defense. Not as intimidating but.... The idea is there. there's no saying our LBs would be those guys. Having scheme and package diverse players is a nice advantage. Edited April 14, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FleaMoulds80 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I watched a bunch of his highlights is all I have seen, and he didn't compare athletically to many I have seen in the past in regards to coverage (as 1st half of first round picks go). However, his intelligence and reflex ability to quickly break down where the play is going allowed him to be in position in coverage most of the time. Those abilities will continue to help him in the pros, but not to the same degree. I hope he's the next Speilman, but it's hard to see that for me right now. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I'm interested to hear where Ray Lewis would fall on your tier system. Good question. Generally speaking, even if a player is very, very good at his position, I don't like to upgrade that position's tier. The one exception I'll make to that is running back, because a pass catching running back like Marshall Faulk is almost like a hybrid RB/WR. He escapes the running back tier by taking on more and different roles than are traditionally associated with a RB. Ray Lewis wasn't used to do a ton of pass rushing, as for example Lawrence Taylor had been. So his tier can't be upgraded on the basis of him being a hybrid LB/DE. I don't recall him doing a ton of one-on-one coverage against pass catching TEs, so his tier can't be upgraded on the basis of him being a hybrid LB/SS. I think, when all is said and done, that he's an example of a Hall of Fame player who played a tier 4 position. There's no reason why tier 4 positions shouldn't produce their fair share of Hall of Fame players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno Smith's Arm Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) Good question. Generally speaking, even if a player is very, very good at his position, I don't like to upgrade that position's tier. The one exception I'll make to that is running back, because a pass catching running back like Marshall Faulk is almost like a hybrid RB/WR. He escapes the running back tier by taking on more and different roles than are traditionally associated with a RB. Ray Lewis wasn't used to do a ton of pass rushing, as for example Lawrence Taylor had been. So his tier can't be upgraded on the basis of him being a hybrid LB/DE. I don't recall him doing a ton of one-on-one coverage against pass catching TEs, so his tier can't be upgraded on the basis of him being a hybrid LB/SS. I think, when all is said and done, that he's an example of a Hall of Fame player who played a tier 4 position. There's no reason why tier 4 positions shouldn't produce their fair share of Hall of Fame players. 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? Edited April 14, 2012 by Matthews' Bag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Blizzard Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 If we end up drafting him, and he lives up to expectations, I will be happy with the pick. Our D still needs help, and adding a quality LB would go a long way towards making the Bills "D" one of the premier units in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 again as pointed to; This is a brutal draft and i am not happy for it one bit. unless one of the top 4 drops to #10. A lot of people here are saying this but it's the wrong way to look at things. The Bills have the 10th pick in the draft. They seem to have a roster that's solidifying. They seem to have decision makers who are competent at their jobs. The Bills have the opportunity to get one of the great players out of this draft. Jason Pierre-Paul was drafted 15th overall, Maurkice Pouncey was 18th. Orakpo, Cushing and Clay Matthews all went after the 13th spot. Hakeem Nicks was drafted 29th overall. The point I'm trying to make is that there are gonna be some great players out there when the Bills pick at 10. Well, if he is a 3-down player, he won't be a liability if an offense tries to pass on early downs, or run on 3rd and short. That's pretty important, with teams passing so much now. All this bickering about the position of the player seems silly, when there are so many first round busts/mediocre players selected in the first. I just want them to find value. I'm not in favor of drafting Kuechly right now but as many of us have already said, there's enough trust in Buddy that I'd naturally give him the benefit of the doubt… if he drafted Kuechly I'd be totally on board. 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? Ask nicely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 You've made a good point, and have expressed it well. I agree that if a LT doesn't have a grade which would justify 10th overall--or at least a grade which comes reasonably close--then the Bills shouldn't take a LT 10th overall. That doesn't mean they should take a LB at 10th overall instead, unless they're convinced the LB will be significantly better at pass coverage than Whitner. In a scenario like this, the Bills should start looking at the available WRs and CBs, to see if any of them are worthy of going 10th overall. I'd also like to thank Reed83 for his compliment. 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Chris White Version 2.0. White is a good player more instinctive than sheppard just not as athletic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts