Kevin Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Just watching the NFL channel, and on the ticker at the bottom it had Casserlys mock draft. He had the tackle from Stanford going to Buffalo at 10, not Tannehill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheddar's Dad Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yiddish expression...and not definition #6!! Regarding definition 6; what sort of strap-on would an interested someone use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D521646 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Just finished watching path to the draft and Casserly said he great information that if Ryan Tannehill is available at 10 the Bills will take him. Also Said Fitz contract is club friendly and that there is not a lot of guaranteed money going forward and that we have to of the best coaches in the League to coach QBs and that T-hill could sit for a year to develop and that he wont be surprised if we take him. All I can say to that is please Lord Jesus. I say no, no no. I say we wait and see if Brock Owsweiler is available in the third round. Out of the class of QB's in this draft, I think this kids with the right coaching can be great, but not good enough to spend your first two picks on. Tim- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I'm beginning to think this is all a smokescreen to get someone to trade up for our 10th pick, which will have great value to another team if Barron, or Tannehill is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Just watching the NFL channel, and on the ticker at the bottom it had Casserlys mock draft. He had the tackle from Stanford going to Buffalo at 10, not Tannehill. Kalil is the tackle from Stanford, and a wonderful choice for Buffalo, but I don't see that happening. We can always hope though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 If Charlie said it, you know it's never going to happen. I dont think he has ever got our pick straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 I really don't think Tebow is going to have any say in who the Bills select. Back to the point, though...I doubt the Bills select a player at #10 who won't see the field for a minimum of two seasons. But keep beating that drum... He Got Marrio Here, even made it warm for him Why keep your board in a locked room, then go out and say or leak or chat anything resembling the truth? Sounds like the latest gossip is designed to drive up the cost of another team moving into the 10 spot. Why did they tell us they would pick Spiller and no one believed it and then we picked him. And Barbarian would die on the spot Almost but I'll be throwing a party though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRivRoc Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Kalil is the tackle from Stanford, and a wonderful choice for Buffalo, but I don't see that happening. We can always hope though. Martin is the tackle from Stanford and I would hate to see him here, ik everyone likes kalil from USC but both seem alittle to soft for me an what I want our o line to be, I'd rather go Gilmore, kuechly, Floyd, Kirkpatrick in that order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 If the BILLS taken Tannehill, I will be very disappointed. I won't throw the remote and walk away, but disappointed. Not so much because of Fitz but because the team needs and talent available in deeper rounds tells me we should add that talent FIRST and see how the BILLS play next year with Fitz in a full year and hopefully with a healthy set of Offensive players. Fitz was doing well enough with the players he had around him, the Defense was atrocious, and we do need depth BEFORE we need to consider changing QBs for next year. And if you're looking at a developmental QB, Round 1 is NOT the place to get him. Aaron Rodgers was taken later in the 1st round and yes he sat for a couple years, but who was in front of him???......oh yeah, BRET FREAKIN FAVRE!!! That's why he sat and they drafted Rodgers with the understanding he would sit and be the heir apparent, we dont' have a known quantity ready to retire, we have a QB whose ceiling has not yet been fully realized....and wouldn't it make more sense to either draft a WR or LT to help that "Franchise" QB of the future?? Just IMO it would be a mistake to draft Tannehill at 10....but, only a couple days left will tell us what's the truth and what is speculation. This is one of the more average first round drafts in awhile so getting a better QB early is better than picking a Say a LB (Kuechly) who is as good a Second rounder (Lavonte David ,Bobby Waggner) latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickelCity Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Kalil - USC Martin - Stanford (woot!) I'd be fine with both (obviously kalil would be ahuge get), to be honest. I have no idea how tomorrow will shake out. This is wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Martin is the tackle from Stanford and I would hate to see him here, ik everyone likes kalil from USC but both seem alittle to soft for me an what I want our o line to be, I'd rather go Gilmore, kuechly, Floyd, Kirkpatrick in that order ahoops...my bad. I think I'd go with Reiff over Martin and I suspect Reiff will be there at 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 At the end of the day Fitzpatrick is not that good. To draft a QB would not be the end of the world (god forbid the Bills get a competent QB after Kelly). Super Mario, Anderson etc have met most of our Draft needs. If Buddy thinks we need a QB then we should trust him. I like Kuechly and Floyd as much as the next guy. Ultimately IMO Fitz will need to be upgraded to make this team a serious contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OklahomaBill Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I would be pretty upset. I've watched Tannenhill play for the past two seasons and not once did I think there is a guy someone will pick in the top 10. I know that is not real scientific but go ask fans from schools in the Big 12 about Tannenhill and most are shocked he is going to go this high. He might have been the 5th or 6th best QB in the Big 12 last year. He was for sure behind RGII, Weeden, Jones and Klein. You could make the case the Tech QB was better than he was. I know college production is not the end all be all but it seems strange to me to take a QB in the top 10 that was a middle of the road QB in his conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#34fan Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) Just finished watching path to the draft and Casserly said he great information that if Ryan Tannehill is available at 10 the Bills will take him. Also Said Fitz contract is club friendly and that there is not a lot of guaranteed money going forward and that we have to of the best coaches in the League to coach QBs and that T-hill could sit for a year to develop and that he wont be surprised if we take him. All I can say to that is please Lord Jesus. Barbie, if we take the Tan-man while Keuchly, Floyd, or Decastro still on the board, I will toss my new TV out of the window. Ryan Tannehill's presence in any first round conversation is the result of a few team's desperation. Simply put, Tanneyhill isn't first round talent. I know you like the kid, but at #10??? Edited April 26, 2012 by #34fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) Another factor not discussed and which I think factored into the run on drafting QBs last year, is the rookie salary cap. Because QB is the position of greatest value to a team, it makes more economic sense to draft them higher at the reduced rates. Another reason if he's there at 10 I have every expectation bills take him. From eveything I'm hearing though sounds like he's gone with miami at 8 Edited April 26, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 I would be pretty upset. I've watched Tannenhill play for the past two seasons and not once did I think there is a guy someone will pick in the top 10. I know that is not real scientific but go ask fans from schools in the Big 12 about Tannenhill and most are shocked he is going to go this high. He might have been the 5th or 6th best QB in the Big 12 last year. He was for sure behind RGII, Weeden, Jones and Klein. You could make the case the Tech QB was better than he was. I know college production is not the end all be all but it seems strange to me to take a QB in the top 10 that was a middle of the road QB in his conference. Your delusional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 How do you know we could trade up for "at most, a 3rd round pick"? Oh wait, you don't. Buddys philosophy is about acquiring draft picks, not trading them away. It doesn't mean they don't want him if he falls to us. If we like Kuechly or Gilmore, why don't we trade up to secure them? There's a good chance one of them is taken before us, if not both. Answer is simple, nix values his draft picks as much as anyone and trading multiple picks for 1 pick isn't his style. I have no idea of they like Tannehill, but I know they like their draft picks. If he's there at 8 and we select him, I'm all for it. Wait, I'm so confused. First you say (rightly IMO) Nix doesn't like trading up and losing picks. Then you say if Tannehill is there at 8 and we select him, you're for it. How did we get to pick 8 without trading up? I would be pretty upset. I've watched Tannenhill play for the past two seasons and not once did I think there is a guy someone will pick in the top 10. I know that is not real scientific but go ask fans from schools in the Big 12 about Tannenhill and most are shocked he is going to go this high. He might have been the 5th or 6th best QB in the Big 12 last year. He was for sure behind RGII, Weeden, Jones and Klein. You could make the case the Tech QB was better than he was. I know college production is not the end all be all but it seems strange to me to take a QB in the top 10 that was a middle of the road QB in his conference. Every year there is a decent college QB who gets puffed up and presented as a high 1st round draft pick, just as good as the top guy but costs less with extra whiteners and brighteners, when really he should stay in school, develop, and be drafted in the 2nd or 3rd. Last year that QB was Blaine Gabbert who strangely got drafted at #10. The year before it was Claussen, who was drafted in the 2nd with the result that Car took Newton #1 overall the following year. This year, Tannehill is that QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OklahomaBill Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 How am I delusional? Tannenhill was not a very good QB last year. I've watched a ton of his games and have seen him live twice. He has some skills and he is a heck of an athlete. I'm not saying he cannot be an NFL QB down the line just that I think a team would be extremely dumb to pick him in the top 10. It just seems odd to me to invest a top 10 pick in a kid who ranked in the bottom half of his conference's QBs. I forgot about Mizzou's QB earlier. You could make a real case Tannenhill was the 7th best Big 12 QB last year (out of 10). His last season he didn't win and he didn't put up good numbers. That doesn't scream top 10 pick to me. Also, he was surrounded with a lot of good offensive talent. A lot of the losses were the defense's fault but he should have had better numbers. I think if you are a top 10 QB you should at least be productive or win. Tannehill did neither. Doesn't mean I don't think he would be a good development pick, I'm just against picking those guys in the top 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts