purple haze Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 Does he know he's a right tackle? If Gil Brandt says he's solid, I'll tale his word for it. Is solid what you want in the top 10? You can find solid later on.
Steely Dan Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 no one is arguing this i s a not is a deep draft, it is not a deep tackle draft. Developing a tackle is one thing and that can cleary be done but the teams needs a day one left tackle and that is why people are advocating a first round pick be used for one. I am exciting for what buddy will do in the draft and I thing we will come away with 3,4 maybe 5 starters Lindy's gives the tackle class this year an A TSN Rates it an A This is a deep Tackle draft. My ideal first two rounds would be: 1. Clausen 2. Saffold Saffold is a true player and many people feel he is one of the top 2-3 true LT prospects. I think he would be our starter at LT for the next 10 years. And to be honest, Bulaga and his short arms scare me. An RT isn't a Top 10 need. I agree with you on Saffold and somebody linked an article to an interview with a scout that said Saffold can flat out play. Their arm lengths are nearly identical though. Bulaga 33.25 Saffold 33.62
Lurker Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 It's said as a hypothetical but has undertones, to me, of really believing there are only two tackles worth starting from day 1. I don't think Bulaga is one of them. Huh. Funny, but I see it just the opposite, with Bulaga being one of the two that could start immediately, given his coaching and experience. His problem, IMO, is his upside is more limited than his draft peers--more of a "what you see is what you get" type of player. For a team that needs immediate help, that's a good thing...but for a top-10 pick, not so much, given the contract $$$ he'd command.
bkc Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 Lindy's gives the tackle class this year an ATSN Rates it an A This is a deep Tackle draft. I agree with you on Saffold and somebody linked an article to an interview with a scout that said Saffold can flat out play. Their arm lengths are nearly identical though. Bulaga 33.25 Saffold 33.62 kiper adn kirwan were saying it was weak and when you look at it is top heavy
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 The more I read this guy scares me. He has "short arms" and got beaten badly at the college level several times. I don't see this guy being the LT of the future - maybe RT but not LT. Also I wonder if his flaws were hidden by Kirk Ferntz and possibly some degree of unathleticism will be exposed in the Pros. The way I see it is if it is between him and Clausen I would trade down - LOL. I would trade down no matter who was there. I'd take Clausen over Bulaga at this point though. The short arms is a complete crock and not based on any fact. http://blogs.nfl.com/2010/02/25/iowa-ot-bulaga-measures-up/The Day 1 measurables are in, and for offensive tackles, the number you want to keep your eye on is 33. It’s rare to have a starting tackle in the NFL with an arm length below 33 inches. At or above is considered good because at that length, pass rushers can’t gain as much leverage. The one tackle in this draft that many scouts and analysts eagerly awaited for his official arm length measurement was Iowa’s Bryan Bulaga. “The only question I have on him is his arm length,” said NFL Network draft analyst Mike Mayock earlier this week. “We all remember a few years ago when the kid from Iowa, Robert Gallery, went really early to Oakland. He had 32-inch arms, struggled on the outside, had to kick him on the inside. So Bulaga looks like he’s got short arms. We haven’t measured him yet. This week it will be interesting to see whether or not he’s 33 inches or more.” The waiting is over. Bulaga — Mayock’s No. 2-ranked tackle in the draft behind Oklahoma State’s Russell Okung, came in at 33 1/4. No more questions. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Measur...arm-length.html Bulaga has longer arms then Pro Bowler Jordan Gross and is a 1/2" shorter then Joe Thomas, maybe the best LT in the NFL. His arm length probably puts him in the middle of the pack. And I love that being coached up well is a problem. The same exact argument could be used for Clausen. The major knock against Bulaga is Gallery. Well according to that logic, Clausen will be the next Brady Quinn. Bulaga just turned 21. Gallery was 24 when he was drafted. Clausen is going to be 23. There is plenty of room for growth for Bulaga. All I know is he was a top 10 prospect at the end of the season. He held his own one on one against the best pass rusher in the draft. He had a bad game against Graham but he was just returning back to game action after missing some time with his thyroid. He will be a rock. And for those who think he can't be a LT in the pros (nonsense based on nothing), it doesn't matter. He will be a RT protecting Tebow's blindside.
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 Huh. Funny, but I see it just the opposite, with Bulaga being one of the two that could start immediately, given his coaching and experience. His problem, IMO, is his upside is more limited than his draft peers--more of a "what you see is what you get" type of player. For a team that needs immediate help, that's a good thing...but for a top-10 pick, not so much, given the contract $$$ he'd command. I agree with you but I don't agree with the upside point. He just turned 21. He was battling thyroid problems at the start of last year. He tested better in every combine drill than Anthony Davis, who people think is an amazing athlete. He doesn't have the upside of Bruce Campbell who is a freak, but he does have the chance to be a huge bust like Campbell either. We would be very lucky to get Bulaga and I would love the foundation of our oline.
Lurker Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 I agree with you but I don't agree with the upside point. He just turned 21. He was battling thyroid problems at the start of last year. He tested better in every combine drill than Anthony Davis, who people think is an amazing athlete. He doesn't have the upside of Bruce Campbell who is a freak, but he does have the chance to be a huge bust like Campbell either. We would be very lucky to get Bulaga and I would love the foundation of our oline. I'd be happy with Bulaga as well. Not sexy, just steady. He looks less athletic than some in the game video I've seen, but there are lots of 14-year veterans who that could be said of. He seems to have the mental makeup/intangibles that you look for, and the 'boring' productivity that trumps potential over a long career.
Buffaloed in Pa Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 I'd be happy with Bulaga as well. Not sexy, just steady. He looks less athletic than some in the game video I've seen, but there are lots of 14-year veterans who that could be said of. He seems to have the mental makeup/intangibles that you look for, and the 'boring' productivity that trumps potential over a long career. Too high a pick for the 3rd or 4th best at his position . To me at least.
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 I'd be happy with Bulaga as well. Not sexy, just steady. He looks less athletic than some in the game video I've seen, but there are lots of 14-year veterans who that could be said of. He seems to have the mental makeup/intangibles that you look for, and the 'boring' productivity that trumps potential over a long career. Yeah, Joe Thomas, Jake Long, and Jordan Gross aren't athletic wonders either. They've done ok. But Coy Wire could jump out of the shallow end of a swimming pool!!!
Lurker Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 Too high a pick for the 3rd or 4th best at his position . To me at least. If Nix is convinced he's a 14-year kind of guy, the draft position becomes irrelevent....9 or 19, nobody cares after a few years. The advent of ESPN-type coverage and the Jimmy Johnson-like draft value charts has made draftniks over-analyze these things over the past 5-6 years, IMO.
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 Too high a pick for the 3rd or 4th best at his position . To me at least. He's the 2nd best and the best one is a stud. Tackle is also the deepest position in this draft so that is a compliment. It's not like being the 2nd best QB in the worst class in years.
dave mcbride Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 In the fall of 2007, I saw Vernon Gholston beat up on Jake Long in the OSU-Michigan game. Two years later, Gholston is perhaps the biggest bust of the past 5 years and Long is closing in on being a top notch LOT. Heck, Bryant McKinnie was outstanding in college, but he's never been a Walter Jones or Orlando Pace type LOT. The point is, college production is nice, but this team needs to determine who'll succeed in the pros. McKinnie also dominated Dwight Freeney in college. Freeney is a much better NFL player than McKinnie.
LancasterSteve Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 Too high a pick for the 3rd or 4th best at his position . To me at least. Depends: Ourlads http://www.ourlads.com/nflmockdrafts/?id=56 lists Bulaga as the 6th best player in the whole draft and second behind Okung in LT rankings. Info in their draft guide not online. Nolan Nawrocki from Pro Football Weekly and their draft guide has Bulaga rated as the second best LT in the draft and seventh best player in the draft. Bulaga's arm length is adequate but what makes him stand out is his quick foot work. Plus he has a mean streak which I like. I don't think he'll last until our pick.
BobbyC81 Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 The more I read this guy scares me. He has "short arms" and got beaten badly at the college level several times. I can't find an article I previously read which showed average arm lengths among the NFL LTs and Bulaga's arms were only I believe a 1/4 inch below the average. C'mon, that's not going to make much difference.
JPS Posted April 18, 2010 Posted April 18, 2010 Is solid what you want in the top 10? You can find solid later on. The chances of "solid" increase as you go up. It's not that you can't find a good tackle later, but if it were that easy, NOT ONE TEAM would draft an OT in the 1st round. IF, and that's an IF, you see a guy as Ruben Brown/Ryan Clady quality, you take him. If you think Jered Veldheer is just as good as Trent Williams, then wait. I'm not sure about Bulaga, but he looks like a FOOTBALL player who will battle on every play, NOT take plays off or B word about his contract. He's put up plenty of good tape to justify the selection. I just want a big, nasty gamer. If he's that, we'll all be happy.
rocwocka Posted April 19, 2010 Posted April 19, 2010 I am exciting for what buddy will do in the draft and I thing we will come away with 3,4 maybe 5 starters This may be true, but i ask you this... How many of these 3-5 starters would start for a contending team? That answer is the sad truth
The Senator Posted April 19, 2010 Posted April 19, 2010 If Bulaga's there at #9, the Bills should grab him. Then grab Brandon Carter in round 6. Take Adam Ulatoski with our 2nd round 7 pick (#216). If Wood comes back healthy and Levitre develops like we think he will, the Bills will soon have one of the meanest, nastiest, toughest, and most talented O-lines in the NFL - and our QB's jersey should stay clean for the next 10 years or so.
BobbyC81 Posted April 19, 2010 Posted April 19, 2010 http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Measur...arm-length.html Bulaga has longer arms then Pro Bowler Jordan Gross and is a 1/2" shorter then Joe Thomas, maybe the best LT in the NFL. His arm length probably puts him in the middle of the pack. And I love that being coached up well is a problem. The same exact argument could be used for Clausen. The major knock against Bulaga is Gallery. Well according to that logic, Clausen will be the next Brady Quinn. Bulaga just turned 21. Gallery was 24 when he was drafted. Clausen is going to be 23. There is plenty of room for growth for Bulaga. All I know is he was a top 10 prospect at the end of the season. He held his own one on one against the best pass rusher in the draft. He had a bad game against Graham but he was just returning back to game action after missing some time with his thyroid. He will be a rock. And for those who think he can't be a LT in the pros (nonsense based on nothing), it doesn't matter. He will be a RT protecting Tebow's blindside. And there is WAY too much emphasis put on measurables when the key item is "Can the guy make plays!!!"" I don't think Gallery's problems are due to his arms being one inch shorter than the average LT. Geez. We're not talking boxing here.
Recommended Posts