OldTimer1960

I'd like for them to find a very good starting LT, however I am not sold on any of the OTs anywhere in round 1. Reiff seems to be a better fit at RT or maybe even better G which isn't a fit. Martin would be a STRETCH (based on what I've read) anywhere before late round 1 and may not be a starter anywhere. In my history following the draft, he seems like John Fina to me - smart and we WANT him to be good (but he just isn't that good). Glenn is a very risky pick, IMHO. He IS HUGE with ideal arm length and height - BUT he is over-weight and, while nimble for his size, probably would struggle blocking elite pass rushers. Maybe he can help the running game, but (from what I've read), but equate his size with power. At CB, I don't know if I like anyone after Claiborne. I might prefer Barron at S over the CBs, even though they already have WIlson and Byrd. I would strongly consider Ingram as a pass-rushing threat wherever they play him. I would consider Cox as a potential difference-maker at DT, even with Dareus and Williams for starters. I would consider Kuechly as a versatile very good starter with a high "floor", especially given how weak our starters are at all 3 LB positions. I would consider DeCastro, despite him playing positions where Levitre and Urbick seem to have a lock on the starting jobs. I would consider Tannehill, as Fitz is a stop-gap and Tannehill (while very raw) has a lot of things to like about him in terms of physical skills, smarts, leadership and work-ethic. Now, I concede he is no sure thing - however, if none of the above are sure-things, either, would it make sense to try to find the answer at a much-higher value position?

I could see why the Bills might take Fletcher Cox in round 1. I don't think they'll take Floyd because of his off-field issues (and I'll concede that he cleaned up his act as a senior) and because of the "depth" at WR. I don't think that any of the possible LTs are "worry-free" and the consensus of those "in the know" is that none of them are sure-fire LTs in the NFL - a lot of risk for the 10th pick, IMHO. I think that there are enough questions about Gilmore and Kirkpatrick to persuade the Bills to go after a player at a lesser position of need, if they rate them much higher than Floyd, OT and CBs.

Why do you think you won't have a job that cares about marijuana? FWIW, I don't care one way or the other if someone smokes pot once in a while and I'll agree that it isn't any worse than alcohol. However, I am in a reasonably highly paid profession (not a doctor or lawyer, though) and I can assure you that if I change jobs, I will have to submit to a drug test.

I would be very leery of either Floyd or Jenkins. That being said, Floyd did reportedly clean up his act for his final year and reportedly has stayed out of trouble, which is encouraging. Jenkins, on the other hand, reportedly kept smoking pot at Northern Alabama after being kicked out of U of Florida ( a major feat in an of itself - how much of a problem would a top athlete like Jenkins need to be to get kicked out of U of Florida?) Note that I am not making a distinction between problems with alcohol or pot, just that one guy seemed to be making good decisions in his last year (after poor decisions earlier) and the other kept on making poor decisions as if they couldn't affect his future.

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?

I think the question is: "what is the probability that Jenkins will melt-down and not be available to my team because of suspensions, jail-time, or not "tending to business" as an NFL player? If you are SURE that he'll be a great NFL player, if he can stay out of trouble and be available to your team AND if you think his probability of staying out of trouble is about 50%, then it is an interesting question regarding drafting him in round 2.

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.

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.

I respectfully disagree with your premise that #1 draft choices have to start as rookies. I think that you have to take the long-term view for these guys. While we all would like to see them pick a player who has tons of college experience and is "NFL ready", I think that there is room for discussion about a player who has a high "ceiling" and "hasn't reached his potential yet". Some guys, particularly DL, take a year or two to acclimate to the NFL/get big/strong-enough to play major roles. If I recall correctly, I don't think that Eric Moulds had a big impact/started as a rookie (nor even as a 2nd year player), but I think we would all agree that he was a very good draft pick. Tom Brady started 0 games and appeared in just 3 as a rookie. Now, I admit that you could argue that he wasn't a 1st round pick, but he has had a "pretty good" career in spite of not starting and making an impact as a rookie - any NFL team would happily retroactively use their #1 pick on him, even knowing that he wouldn't start as a rookie.

He could be if he had a full deck to play with on offense. He had to cover for a giant hole at LT and several OL injuries, as well as lacking a top level WR and TE (beyond Stevie Johnson).

I like your reasoning on everyone, except Glenn. It is not a good enough (IMHO) if he "fills a need, even if he doesn't start" I very strongly disagree that the #1 pick has to start as a rookie, BUT it isn't good enough to find a good backup for the entire OL with the 10th pick of the draft. If they can't project any OL as a sure-starter, then they need to go in another direction.

He also never started consistently, even in college. I am not saying he couldn't be a useful NFL player, but it is a BIG concern to me that he wasn't able to crack their starting lineup.

In my opinion, the Bills' clear number one need is to find a good starting OLT. I disagree with those that say that Chris Hairston showed enough to warrant starting this year. I am not suggesting that the team does not also have a crying need for another NFL starting-caliber WR and for 1-2 starting-caliber OLBs. It looks to be a particularly bad year to need to find an OLT. We've been through the suspects ad-nauseum: Reiff looks more like a RT or even a G to many. Glenn looks like a RT on a good day and a G to many others. NFL Network's Mike Mayock recently said that he didn't think Glenn should go until round 2. Jonathan Martin is not well-regarded by many and may be a stretch to eventually start at either OT position. Mike Adams is a very talented under-achiever. While I strongly believe that the offense will be grounded without a starting-caliber OLT, I don't particularly want to take my chances on any of the iffy players available who MIGHT be able to play that position. However, I am not much higher on any of the prospects at the Bills' other positions of need. I am leery of Michael Floyd's off-field problems, however I am heartened by his year of trouble free behavior. I am not totally sold on Luke Kuechly at OLB, but he seems a safe pick with a high floor. The best-bets, in my opinion (based on my reading of Pro Football Weekly and Russ Lande - former NFL scout, as well as NFL Network's Mayock) are mostly defensive players: DT Fletcher Cox is pretty highly regarded by many, but the Bills' seem pretty set at DT with Dareus and Kyle Williams. DE Melvin Ingram looks like he could be a highly productive pass rusher, but I don't think he can play 4-3 OLB. Where does he play with Mario Williams on-board? Pick-your-favorite CB among Kirkpatrick and Gilmore - Gilmore has less baggage, but Kirkpatrick has a bit better ability (again, based on what I've read). S Mark Barron is highly regarded, but I think the Bills are pretty OK there with Byrd and Wilson. This guy is a dark-horse candidate for the 10th pick IMHO To me, this is a very shaky year in terms of talent in the draft. I've been following the draft very closely for 25+ years and I don't ever remember being so under-whelmed with the possible Bills' selections in round 1. Now, I know that there might be some depth in the mid-rounds 2-4, but it's hard to make up for it, if the first round pick doesn't pan out. I've flip-flopped all over the place on this, but at the moment my view is that I'd strongly consider Kuechley and Floyd at 10, with some consideration for Gilmore/Kirkpatrick and Barron. I think the OTs are all way too questionable to invest that high of a pick on, unless the Bills think that Erik Pears also needs to be replaced at RT. If that is the case, then Reiff/Glenn look a little more attractive as their fall-back position would also be considered a position of need. Lastly, I am not in favor of this, BUT with the questions surrounding the top candidates at the Bills' main positions of need, it might make sense to take a chance on Ryan Tannehill. Finally, I talked myself off the LT ledge by looking at the starting LT on last year's playoff teams. DO NOT read this to say that I don't believe that a good-very good LT is not an important part of a good offense. However, many teams last year were successful without pro-bowl caliber OLTs: Hou: Duane Brown - drafted late first/early 2nd can't remember, but he wasn't ultra-highly regarded Pitt: Max Starks - not a highly drafted guy Balt: Bryant McKinnie - high draft pick who didn't live up to his status and wasn't in particularly good shape (reportedly) last year. NE: Matt Light - 2nd round pick, who has done a good, not great job for the Pats Jets: D'Brickashaw Ferguson - high number 1 pick who is good. Den Ryan Clady - high number 1 pick who is good. GB M. Newhouse - Don't know ANYTHING about this guy Det Jeff Backus - career over-achiever whom they would like to replace Atl Sam Baker/Will Svitek - Baker has disappointed and Svitek is a journeyman NO Jermane Bushrod - nothing special Giants: William Beatty - lightly regarded mid-round pick who wasn't considered tough enough 49ers: Joe Staley - wasn't highly regarded in the draft - OT/G tweener. With all that in mind, maybe it is OK to take a chance on one of the OTs at 10 and hope that they are adequate at LT. Constructive opinions welcomed.

How did the point production compare between the first 8 and second 8 games? In the first 8 games they averages 27.75 points/game. In the last 8, the Bills averaged 18.75 points/game. Additionally, 230ish yards/game passing isn't much to write home about, especially with lots of that rolled up in garbage time at the end of games they trailed by 2 TDs or more. I am not necessarily arguing that the Bills must draft offense over defense, particularly in round one. I am arguing that the offense was not very good.

While I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of further bolstering the defense - and I like Kuechly, too, I can't agree that the Bills' offense wasn't that bad last year. They had a pretty hot start, but if I remember correctly, that was fueled by a lot of turnovers provided by the defense in the first several games. Once those turnovers dried up and Eric Wood and Demetrius Bell got hurt, the offense was awful. There was no time at all for Fitzpatrick to throw anything but a very short pass. In my opinion, by far the number one need on this team is to find a viable starting LT (I don't believe that Hairston was"not that bad and will be so much better this year". That being said, I don't know that any of the available OTs are really good enough to play LT at a good level in the NFL. If not, then I support the idea of continuing to build the defense.

I don't see where two 4ths would net a 2nd, even a late 2nd. Two 4th round picks might get you into the latter third of round 3, but hey if you can get it - great!

Depends on who's ratings you look at. ProFootBallWeekly thinks he'll be available in round 2 and, while they don't do a ton of their own scouting, they are very well connected with "league sources" and seem to know about where guys will be picked.

If it cost a 3rd or less, I think he is FAR better than any other player that the Bills are likely to get at 10. I *might* be willing to consider even trading our 1st and 2nd to move up to get Kalil. I am in the camp that thinks that LT is a critical position on the OL (and offense overall). I think after Kalil, that there is only a 50-50 chance that any of the remaining OTs can become starting NFL LTs. Some are much higher bets at RT, but still, that isn't what you are looking for in the top 10 of the draft. I know that the Bills have other needs including WR, OLB and CB with no position beyond any question of being fortified (except maybe RB and DT), but I am of the opinion that LT is more important than any of those positions except maybe CB.

This whole concept of "developmental" players is way overblown here, in my opinion. Yes, there are players that have starter caliber physical ability that might be found in the mid and late rounds of the draft. Heck, we can all identify starters on most teams that were not even drafted. However, again my opinion, if teams thought "Max Jones college LT" was a down-the-road starter at LT and all it would take was a bit of coaching and weight training - I can assure you that he'd be off the board by the 2nd round for sure. Same is even more true of the proverbial "developmental QB". If teams knew that they had a shot at a guy that would develop into a good starting NFL QB, there is NO WAY that the player would make it out of the second round and would probably be taken in round 1 even if the team thought it would take 3 years to "develop" him. The truth is, these mid and later round picks all are missing something that the NFL sees as an impediment to them being good players at the NFL level. That might be lacking desired height/weight/speed/strength/arm length/arm strength etc. It might be a significant injury history. It might be a history of off-field problems. It could be a lack of track record of conditioning or studying the playbook. There are MANY reasons why a player isn't picked until the mid-late rounds, but be assured it isn't because a team thinks that they have everything to be a surefire good starter but they need "development". The mid-to-late round guys that have become good starters have found ways to overcome the limitations that the NFL saw in them and they have beaten the odds. That does not imply that all mid-late round draftees will overcome their limitations/questions and become starters if given enough "development".

Is this the garage-sale approach to filling the important LT spot? If you buy enough stuff that nobody else wants, maybe you hit it big? I would argue that LT is far more important than OLB or WR and maybe CB is close. Now, that doesn't mean that they should force a LT pick in round one if they don't think there is a player there worth taking, but the fill other needs and hope to find a viable player for the most important OL position by sifting through mid-late round picks doesn't sound like a good plan to me, either. If the Bills don't see any LTs worth taking in round 1 or 2, I understand that, but I wouldn't say then that they must throw 2 4ths and a 5th at it just to get players. I'd rather they picked players in those rounds that they think are among the best left at any position with a slight nod toward needs.

Johnson is getting up in years, though and probably is making considerably more than Troup or Heard. I am not saying that he will or won't make the team, but I think his age will work against him in comparison to the younger guys.

To me, the key phrase in your response is "as long as it does not affect his performance". I am in general agreement with you, but I do believe that having an alcohol or drug problem (if it is serious) can affect a player's performance and definitely these problems can lead to suspensions which bring the player's performance to nil.

Congratulations on your sobriety. I don't understand how your experiences translate to giving potential draftees the benefit of the doubt. By your own story, you have washed out of several jobs and it hasn't been until you are 31 that you've got things together. Given that a NFL player's time ends about when they are 31ish (yes, I know that some play longer - others play a shorter duration). If I were GM of a NFL team, I would be very wary of guys who have had drug and alcohol problems. Note that I am not saying to discount any player who was once caught for under-age drinking or possession of a small amount of marijuana. I am saying that if a guy is a multiple offender, I'd steer clear of him until at least the 4th round.

Well, I agree that the teams that are better have generally drafted better - guess that stands to reason. But I don't think that even the best drafting teams are immune from mistakes, even in the first round. For instance, Green Bay drafted Justin Harrell at #16 (they've cut him) and they drafted AJ Hawk at #5 (they cut him and re-signed him recently to a lower contract). Hawk has been OK, not great and Harrell hardly played at all. Baltimore does have a pretty impressive record, but they did draft Kyle Boller in the middle of the first round, so they aren't perfect either. Still, I agree with your general premise that better teams draft better, but I still argue that the draft is not an exact science.

I can tell you that I have over 25 years of following the draft very closely including purchasing at one time or another (most several times) the following draft publications: Kiper (many years), ProFootballWeekly(one of my favorites), Ourlad's, GM Jr (by former NFL scout - extremely detailed), Draft Scrapbook and I am sure there are others I am forgetting. The "experts" almost universally have similar ratings to where (round) players end up being picked at. They are all duped just as much or more often as the actual NFL teams. This is a great thread because it addresses the unrealistic expectations that some have of "every first round pick must be an "impact" player or the team has failed" or "you shouldn't just target solid starting caliber players in the top 10". The reality is that even in the top 10, a team has done a pretty good job if they manage to get a good solid long-term starter.