deep2evans Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Buffalo Bills It will be very interesting to see how Buffalo uses the No. 10 pick. Free agency treated this team very well and the Bills look to be a team on the rise. The Bills also have extra picks in the fourth, fifth and seventh rounds. Having some many picks, and not lacking for overall depth as they often are this time of year, the Bills could be players over the course of this draft. I am just throwing it out there, but I sure bet coach Chan Gailey would love to get his hands on QB Ryan Tannehill. And that situation in Buffalo would be excellent for Tannehill's development, as he could sit behind Ryan Fitzpatrick and learn his craft under Gailey. If I were in charge of the Bills, I would be very interested in moving up to the seventh overall pick to grab Tannehill if he's still available. If that isn't the case, which is probably more likely, the Bills could go in several different directions with that 10th pick. Somewhat surprisingly, Buffalo doesn't have a lot of prominent needs right now, but it could certainly use a starting-caliber left tackle. A wide receiver opposite Steve Johnson would be second on my to-do list. The Bills should have their pick of any offensive tackle on the board besides Matt Kalil. But is Riley Reiff worth that 10th pick? I wouldn't use such a rich draft pick on Reiff, whom I view as a starting-caliber tackle but not special in any particular way. For the Bills, I actually preferred Mike Adams (before the news of his failed drug test at the combine), because of his high upside as a pass protector. But I prefer WR Michael Floyd to either. If the Bills bypass offensive tackle in the first frame, that should override everything else in the subsequent rounds. As the draft goes along, the Bills actually could find themselves in the very favorable position of taking the best player available, while adding a wide receiver somewhat early in what has shaped up to be a deep draft for the position. Buffalo, which also has a very favorable 2012 schedule, could make some noise in the AFC next season. A great draft, which seems possible, would sure help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I would not want to see the Bills trade up for him, but if they stayed at 10 and snagged Tannehill, I would be fine with that. Let him sit for 1-2 years behind Fitz and then take over. Would be the perfect situation for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSBill Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I would not want to see the Bills trade up for him, but if they stayed at 10 and snagged Tannehill, I would be fine with that. Let him sit for 1-2 years behind Fitz and then take over. Would be the perfect situation for him. agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjmac Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I'll disagree with you guys on this. I want the first-rounder to contribute this year, not sit on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I'll disagree with you guys on this. I want the first-rounder to contribute this year, not sit on the bench. you draft players you feel will have the best careers, not just guys who will contribute immediately. with a top 10 pick, you have to try to find a guy who will be a pro bowl caliber players, not a solid workman-type player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Chan Gailey is on year three and in no way wants a 1st round "project" QB who won't even see the field in 2012 and won't be able to help the Bills reach the playoffs which Chan realistically needs to stay on as head coach. Luck or RGIII were the only two guys the Bills would have drafted in the first round. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billshank Redemption Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Still wouldn't mind taking tannehill at 10. I think he has everything he needs to succeed and he just needs time which he will get with us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 you draft players you feel will have the best careers, not just guys who will contribute immediately. with a top 10 pick, you have to try to find a guy who will be a pro bowl caliber players, not a solid workman-type player. False. With the first round pick, you get someone who will contribute over the course of the contract they sign with the team (four years). If a player can't contribute during that time, what's the sense in paying him first round money for four years worth of development? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I would agree that whomever they take at 10 will lead me to believe whether or not they think they can win this year. WR, OT, Kuechly = win now. CB or QB = stockpiling for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billshank Redemption Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Agreed Metz a corner is a clear indication that were losing McGee and McKelvin and we need another starter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) Somebody needs to run this by Buffalo Barbarian before I comment any further. Seriously, if Buddy and Co. think this is that "10-15 year guy" (and they would have to have ample reason to think so) then by all means, it's a no-brainer. Take the perceived franchise QB. GO BILLS!!! Edited April 23, 2012 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 No way, you take a LT and then next year or two years from now take a franchise QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 There is no way Buddy trades up for Tannehill, and if he is there at 10 Buddy will trade down before drafting him. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 False. With the first round pick, you get someone who will contribute over the course of the contract they sign with the team (four years). If a player can't contribute during that time, what's the sense in paying him first round money for four years worth of development? I think we are basically saying the same thing. You look for the player's total contribution. Not just first year. If you had your choice between a Probowl QB who sat for the first two years or a starting quality OL, LB or whatever who was able to start in yr one and play solidly, which would you choose? No way, you take a LT and then next year or two years from now take a franchise QB. theoretically, we won't be drafting this high in the next few years so we won't be in a position to grab a potential Franchise QB. The biggest question is whether Tannehill has that potential. I honestly know nothing about him, so I cannot say. But if the Bills think he does and he is there at 10, we should probably take him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 There is no way Buddy trades up for Tannehill, and if he is there at 10 Buddy will trade down before drafting him. PTR If you believe what Nix says as being pretty close to the truth -- AND he thinks that Tannehill has a very good shot at being a franchise QB, IMO the Bills will take him in a heartbeat. The only questions are whether he will be there (probably not) and what they think of him as a franchise QB (we have no indication whatsoever either way). There is zero question in my mind they would take Tannehill if they love him as a player and Nix has said so, even recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Chan Gailey is on year three and in no way wants a 1st round "project" QB who won't even see the field in 2012 and won't be able to help the Bills reach the playoffs which Chan realistically needs to stay on as head coach. Luck or RGIII were the only two guys the Bills would have drafted in the first round. End of story. Disagree: If the Bills do anything better then 6-10 he stays. 8-8 is likely, IMO, which won't ever make playoffs while N.E. is still in the AFCE. 8-8 is progress. I also think Gailey's offense is going to continue to get exposed, which may be his ultimate downfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 No way, you take a LT and then next year or two years from now take a franchise QB. And you know that franchise QB will be there when it's your turn to pick in two years, how? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shibuya Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Tannenhill will not be the pick Chan and Nix have much more faith in Fitz over what some fans think. When they bring in a QB it will be a latter rd groomer, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmur66 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) If the Bills really think they have a good shot at a run this year then QB has to be one position that makes them very nervous. Who do they really have behind Fitz that could take over for a couple weeks and win? Nobody. It should be a priority to either get a quality FA backup or draft a future starter. Edited April 23, 2012 by bmur66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OklahomaBill Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 My problem is I don't think Tannenhill is one of the 10 best players in the draft. Does a team who is not desperate for a QB need to reach for one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts