Cheddar's Dad Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 There is a new video at Buffalo Bills.com wherein Buddy talks about our left tackle position and makes me think Buddy will not pick a LT at #10. He talks about Chris Hairston saying that Hairston can play the position and win. By that I think he meant that Buffalo can win with Hairston at LT. Buddy said that Hairston does not have "pretty feet" but his arm lenght is so long that he can protect the blind side. It's an interesting statement. I've been an advocate of selecting Reiff because he is such a good athlete. He is tough and determined and has played a lot of LT at Iowa. Buddy seems to be saying that Buffalo does not need that supeerior athlete. Very long arms can significantly compensate for lack of athleticism. Regarding Reiff, Doug Wiley did say the Bills think he can step in at LT and start immediately. But, on balance, I now think Buddy will look for a tackle later in the draft and #10 now looks to me as it might be Floyd or possibly Kuechly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 There is a new video at Buffalo Bills.com wherein Buddy talks about our left tackle position and makes me think Buddy will not pick a LT at #10. He talks about Chris Hairston saying that Hairston can play the position and win. By that I think he meant that Buffalo can win with Hairston at LT. Buddy said that Hairston does not have "pretty feet" but his arm lenght is so long that he can protect the blind side. It's an interesting statement. I've been an advocate of selecting Reiff because he is such a good athlete. He is tough and determined and has played a lot of LT at Iowa. Buddy seems to be saying that Buffalo does not need that supeerior athlete. Very long arms can significantly compensate for lack of athleticism. Regarding Reiff, Doug Wiley did say the Bills think he can step in at LT and start immediately. But, on balance, I now think Buddy will look for a tackle later in the draft and #10 now looks to me as it might be Floyd or possibly Kuechly. I agree. Interesting how he said most Pro Bowl LT's are drafted in the 1st 8-9 picks. Nix must be a pretty bad poker player. In my un-informed opinion, I think the Bills take Kuechly or one of the CB's if they stay at #10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 There is a new video at Buffalo Bills.com wherein Buddy talks about our left tackle position and makes me think Buddy will not pick a LT at #10. He talks about Chris Hairston saying that Hairston can play the position and win. By that I think he meant that Buffalo can win with Hairston at LT. Buddy said that Hairston does not have "pretty feet" but his arm lenght is so long that he can protect the blind side. It's an interesting statement. I've been an advocate of selecting Reiff because he is such a good athlete. He is tough and determined and has played a lot of LT at Iowa. Buddy seems to be saying that Buffalo does not need that supeerior athlete. Very long arms can significantly compensate for lack of athleticism. Regarding Reiff, Doug Wiley did say the Bills think he can step in at LT and start immediately. But, on balance, I now think Buddy will look for a tackle later in the draft and #10 now looks to me as it might be Floyd or possibly Kuechly. I tend to agree with you, but don't forget the part where he says that the Bills have only 2 healthy tackles and 1 more coming off an injury, and he wants 2 additional tackles. I got a vibe that they're hoping a solid prospect falls to the 2nd round, and they'll probably grab one in rounds 4-7 whether they get one high or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cincinnati Kid Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I tend to agree with you, but don't forget the part where he says that the Bills have only 2 healthy tackles and 1 more coming off an injury, and he wants 2 additional tackles. I got a vibe that they're hoping a solid prospect falls to the 2nd round, and they'll probably grab one in rounds 4-7 whether they get one high or not. Those were my thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheddar's Dad Posted April 18, 2012 Author Share Posted April 18, 2012 Nix must be a pretty bad poker player. I don't agree with that. Just read Buscaglia's article on WGR55 on "deciphering" Buddy Nix. Buscaglia thinks #10 could be a corner or Glenn, the college guard, for Buffalo's new LT. I think Buddy is getting to be very crafty with his remarks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Allan in MD Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I don't agree with that. Just read Buscaglia's article on WGR55 on "deciphering" Buddy Nix. Buscaglia thinks #10 could be a corner or Glenn, the college guard, for Buffalo's new LT. I think Buddy is getting to be very crafty with his remarks Glenn is certainly big enough to play tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I don't agree with that. Just read Buscaglia's article on WGR55 on "deciphering" Buddy Nix. Buscaglia thinks #10 could be a corner or Glenn, the college guard, for Buffalo's new LT. I think Buddy is getting to be very crafty with his remarks Glenn played OT his senior season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Grid Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Glenn is certainly big enough to play tackle. If they want Glenn they'd be wise to trade down a good bit, because he is a big reach at 10. They could likely trade down ten spots and still be guaranteed to get Glenn, and a move like that would get them at least an extra third. Then I could see making that move. Otherwise Glenn at 10 is a bitter pill to swallow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 If they want Glenn they'd be wise to trade down a good bit, because he is a big reach at 10. They could likely trade down ten spots and still be guaranteed to get Glenn, and a move like that would get them at least an extra third. Then I could see making that move. Otherwise Glenn at 10 is a bitter pill to swallow. But I think Buddy's point is if they trade down and then miss out on Glenn, then that is a more bitter pill to swallow. As has been discussed before, "value" is a made-up term on on draft day because no one knows the players actual value until they play. A good player is a good player, almost regardless of where selected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Byrd Man Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 There is a new video at Buffalo Bills.com wherein Buddy talks about our left tackle position and makes me think Buddy will not pick a LT at #10. He talks about Chris Hairston saying that Hairston can play the position and win. By that I think he meant that Buffalo can win with Hairston at LT. Buddy said that Hairston does not have "pretty feet" but his arm lenght is so long that he can protect the blind side. It's an interesting statement. I've been an advocate of selecting Reiff because he is such a good athlete. He is tough and determined and has played a lot of LT at Iowa. Buddy seems to be saying that Buffalo does not need that supeerior athlete. Very long arms can significantly compensate for lack of athleticism. Regarding Reiff, Doug Wiley did say the Bills think he can step in at LT and start immediately. But, on balance, I now think Buddy will look for a tackle later in the draft and #10 now looks to me as it might be Floyd or possibly Kuechly. It's really hard to get a read on what they will do by design but Buddy did say they were looking for a difference maker or a play maker which leads me to believe they will wait for the tackles. I think corner since there are so many wide out prospects that you can get value in the 2nd, , but it could be a LB also. I would love Michael Floyd at 10, Not thrilled with Reif and his short arms(Brian Bulaga anyone?). I would rather see them roll the dice with Glenn if they go tackle at 10 or later. But they haven't asked me for my opinion yet even though I've been waiting by the phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobChalmers Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) If they want Glenn they'd be wise to trade down a good bit, because he is a big reach at 10. They could likely trade down ten spots and still be guaranteed to get Glenn, and a move like that would get them at least an extra third. Then I could see making that move. Otherwise Glenn at 10 is a bitter pill to swallow. Is it conceivable Glenn makes it to the 2nd round - given that Adams, Reiff, Martin are all kind of ho-hum OLTs? Interesting commentary on NFLN last night - some of the brighter minds were admitting they aren't even all that hot on Kalil - he's just the best of a mediocre bunch. That's a change from what I'd heard earlier - I assume they're getting feedback from various GM's and scouts who are really digging into the tape now and coming away a little disappointed. As has been discussed before, "value" is a made-up term on on draft day because no one knows the players actual value until they play. A good player is a good player, almost regardless of where selected. That may have been discussed, but it's poorly framed logic. You get more than 1 pick per year. You need to maximize the value of all your picks - it make no difference if the guy you take is a Hall of Famer - if you took him a round before you had to, it's still a reach because you screwed up an opportunity to ALSO take someone else with the earlier pick. Edited April 18, 2012 by BobChalmers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 That may have been discussed, but it's poorly framed logic. You get more than 1 pick per year. You need to maximize the value of all your picks - it make no difference if the guy you take is a Hall of Famer - if you took him a round before you had to, it's still a reach because you screwed up an opportunity to ALSO take someone else with the earlier pick. Right, but that's also conjecture. You're assuming "value." You never know where he would have been picked. That argument is only valid if all NFL teams release their draft boards afterwards and you can see exactly where each team had players ranked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBuff423 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 What I really liked about one of the statements Buddy made, to paraphrase, was that he said just because they Draft a guy at 10, doesn't mean he's necessarily going to start...he and Chan agree that the guy needs to come in to camp and compete for the job, they're not just going to hand it to him...Buddy said they don't feel the pressure to start the guy just because the BILLS draft him 10th, or anywhere else in the 1st round for that matter....interesting, and I love it!! Glad to see coaches and GM getting on the same page that basically says, "Hey, if you can play....you WILL play. To hell with where we drafted you, the BEST player actually plays!"....we can look at the roster and KNOW Buddy and Chan are telling the truth, but I think it's great to hear BEFORE the draft rather than looking for a reason AFTER the Draft for why their roster is aligned the way it is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 If they want Glenn they'd be wise to trade down a good bit, because he is a big reach at 10. They could likely trade down ten spots and still be guaranteed to get Glenn, and a move like that would get them at least an extra third. Then I could see making that move. Otherwise Glenn at 10 is a bitter pill to swallow. I have to ask, how do you know that there aren't 5+ teams in the top 15 that think much more highly of Glenn than the "draft experts". To be clear, I LOVE reading all of the "experts" - indeed I've done it for the past 25+ years - BUT, I recognize that the highly paid NFL scouts/GMs evaluate players based on their own criteria. I can assure you, that if you were to be able to survey all 32 NFL teams as to their player ratings that their would be 32 different ratings of 1st round caliber players. This is no where near as black-and-white as the pundits wish it to sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 There is a new video at Buffalo Bills.com wherein Buddy talks about our left tackle position and makes me think Buddy will not pick a LT at #10. He talks about Chris Hairston saying that Hairston can play the position and win. By that I think he meant that Buffalo can win with Hairston at LT. Buddy said that Hairston does not have "pretty feet" but his arm lenght is so long that he can protect the blind side. It's an interesting statement. I've been an advocate of selecting Reiff because he is such a good athlete. He is tough and determined and has played a lot of LT at Iowa. Buddy seems to be saying that Buffalo does not need that supeerior athlete. Very long arms can significantly compensate for lack of athleticism. Regarding Reiff, Doug Wiley did say the Bills think he can step in at LT and start immediately. But, on balance, I now think Buddy will look for a tackle later in the draft and #10 now looks to me as it might be Floyd or possibly Kuechly. Sir , you and other fans have been advocates for drafting one of the second tier left tackles as a need. and reasonably so. It's one of those subjects that only Chan and company know what they have in Hairston, We just saw him deal with a difficult situation and make the best of it till injury. I have been an advocate that Chris is a player they still have very high hopes for. Now consider this folks... how about if Rieff lands at ten and is BPA we take him. Two or three of the top LT prospects are almost immediate starters at RT and could be Pro bowlers too at that position. The question has actually been can they start long term at LT. Maybe. So we draft one at ten and we try him out for LT and we still have a great spot for him at RT in a year or two of development and he can still backup both sides. I can see that being good value and impact. the first injury to either side, Reiff goes in and starts to earn his way. something the Bills might be thinking if it lands that a way and no trades look promising up or down. i'm ok with that actually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Is it conceivable Glenn makes it to the 2nd round - given that Adams, Reiff, Martin are all kind of ho-hum OLTs? Interesting commentary on NFLN last night - some of the brighter minds were admitting they aren't even all that hot on Kalil - he's just the best of a mediocre bunch. That's a change from what I'd heard earlier - I assume they're getting feedback from various GM's and scouts who are really digging into the tape now and coming away a little disappointed. That may have been discussed, but it's poorly framed logic. You get more than 1 pick per year. You need to maximize the value of all your picks - it make no difference if the guy you take is a Hall of Famer - if you took him a round before you had to, it's still a reach because you screwed up an opportunity to ALSO take someone else with the earlier pick. You are assuming that 31 other NFL teams - with highly paid scouting staffs, spending MILLIONS, all fell in line with the "pundits". Let's look at a specific example. Tom Brady was a 6th round pick. If he was picked in the 4th, by a team that had an INKLING that he'd be awesome, would he have been a "reach"? Nobody knows how other teams have a given player rated. Just because Nolan Nawrocki (my favorite) and Russ Lande (former NFL scout) say a guy "should" be available in round 3, does not mean that the player will not be picked in round 1 or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I can appreciate Buddy and Co. projecting Glenn to tackle. But why didn't Glenn play tackle in college? My understanding was that he was always a guard. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I can appreciate Buddy and Co. projecting Glenn to tackle. But why didn't Glenn play tackle in college? My understanding was that he was always a guard. GO BILLS!!! He started 4 games at OT as a sophomore I think, and 14 games as a LT as a senior, his entire senior year. So 18 games at tackle, and 28 starts at OG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 He started 4 games at OT as a sophomore I think, and 14 games as a LT as a senior, his entire senior year. So 18 games at tackle, and 28 starts at OG. and doesn't he have pro size at LT too i think. Smart hardworkin durable and size, his knock is experience at LT. wouldn't surprise me. Especially with my Nix's verasatilty theory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 and doesn't he have pro size at LT too i think. Smart hardworkin durable and size, his knock is experience at LT. wouldn't surprise me. Especially with my Nix's verasatilty theory! Actually, he is BIGGER than most LTs, which can be a pro (if he is as nimble as others) or con (if his size detracts from his movement skills). I think that the knock on Glenn is more than experience, I think the big questions are: 1. Is he athletic/quick/nimble enough for LT against the top pass rushers in the NFL (also, does his size/long-arms mitigate any quickness limitations) 2. Why didn't he play LT for longer at Georgia, where he presumably was the better athlete than the guy that did play LT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts