NeverOutNick Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 I like the idea of Kuechly because I believe he can play any LB position in a 4-3 and the only Alabama defender I would want in the first round is Hightower (who also can play any LB position) but that's only if we trade down...
Rico Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Lots of disgruntled Pos fans in this thread, huh. Once again: It's 2012, you do NOT take a white LB with the #10 overall pick, the risk is just too great.
bobobonators Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Lots of disgruntled Pos fans in this thread, huh. Once again: It's 2012, you do NOT take a white LB with the #10 overall pick, the risk is just too great. lolol. or maybe he's the next urlacher...
SoCal RN Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I liked Martin from Stanford at first, but after watching more Kuechly videos, I'm sold. Kuechly is going to beast behind that front 4.
bills1960 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I say if he is what some say he is, you do it. We don't want to look back in 5 years and regret choosing Sheppard over an Urlacher type player.
SoCal RN Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) I say if he is what some say he is, you do it. We don't want to look back in 5 years and regret choosing Sheppard over an Urlacher type player. Agreed. If Buddy and Chan feel like he is an Urlacher type impact player, you must select him at #10. Edited March 22, 2012 by SoCal RN
1billsfan Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 http://www.nesn.com/2012/03/luke-kuechly-dazzles-dozens-of-nfl-scouts-at-boston-colleges-pro-day.html "But now the pre-draft process could get a whole lot more chaotic, as he'll visit the Panthers on Thursday and then begin a run of meetings with teams that are interested in his services." Hmm, first time I've seen him on the Panthers radar. I still think they pick a DT.
dpberr Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 If we resign Bell and that's the big IF, I'd be happy with a defense pick at #10, otherwise you probably have to draft an LT there. I'd prefer a linebacker but I'm coming around to being alright with a CB.
robertpaul49 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I think the Bills should draft Mark Barron then trade back into the first round to select Zebrie Sanders. I think it would be a good pick depending on who is available. Martin would definitely fill a long standing need even if he isn't an all pro. The Bills have had a whole on the left side for a long, long time. However, a bust would really set the Bills back. Can Sanders in the second be serviceable? After the senior bowl, I really like Adams. I also like Stephen Hill. I'm not sold on Floyd, since I worry about drafting another Marshawn Lynch. In some ways, I would be happy if the Bills trade down, but I also know that it would be good that they draft a difference maker even if it isn't an area of need.
tennesseeboy Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 There are three LT prospects worthy of a #10 pick or better, and it is where we have been weak, and where, assuming Bell doesn't come back, we will be in a condition of arterial bleeding. Not having addressed the need in free agency to date, it is an obvious choice. The next need is for WR and this draft is pretty deep with them and I see us getting one in the second or third. A linebacker should be in the mix, but not until we get the best OT available at 10
1billsfan Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 There are three LT prospects worthy of a #10 pick or better, and it is where we have been weak, and where, assuming Bell doesn't come back, we will be in a condition of arterial bleeding. Not having addressed the need in free agency to date, it is an obvious choice. The next need is for WR and this draft is pretty deep with them and I see us getting one in the second or third. A linebacker should be in the mix, but not until we get the best OT available at 10 Drafting for need is the sure-fire way to get yourself in trouble. Would I take Kalil over Kuechly, of course. Would I take Jonathan Martin or Riley Reiff of Kuechly? Not a chance. While Martin and Reiff may end up being decent players, I think Kuechly's going to be an NFL star. If the Bills pass on him over either of these two then they'll be kicking themselves for a long time. Player rating's wise, he's a much better prospect than either of those two LTs. He may even be the one player who can cover NE's Gronk. How valuable would a player like THAT be?
Ramius Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) LBs are largely becoming obsolete in today's NFL, as on the majority of snaps, you're going to only have 1-2 LBs on the field. (with 4 DLs and 5-6 DBs) Given that we have Barnett and Sheppard, and that Scott is the Nickel LB, there's no point in wasting the #10 pick on an LB. Think about it: Most of the time we're going with Barnett himself (4-1-6), or Barnett and Scott (4-2-5). Do you really want to piss away the #10 pick on a LB that only plays 40% of the downs, and one that wasn't very imp[ressive at the collegiate level? The guy racks up big tackle numbers, and thats about it. If we are going to waste the #10 on an LB, i'd rather it be Upshaw/Hightower. Edited March 22, 2012 by Ramius
K-9 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 LBs are largely becoming obsolete in today's NFL, as on the majority of snaps, you're going to only have 1-2 LBs on the field. (with 4 DLs and 5-6 DBs) Given that we have Barnett and Sheppard, and that Scott is the Nickel LB, there's no point in wasting the #10 pick on an LB. Think about it: Most of the time we're going with Barnett himself (4-1-6), or Barnett and Scott (4-2-5). Do you really want to piss away the #10 pick on a LB that only plays 40% of the downs, and one that wasn't very imp[ressive at the collegiate level? The guy racks up big tackle numbers, and thats about it. If we are going to waste the #10 on an LB, i'd rather it be Upshaw/Hightower. I agree with your general premise but if you can get an ILB with superior pass defense skills as Kuechly is reputed to have, then he might be a fit in today's league. Essentially, he's a bigger, faster, more athletic version of Scott. I doubt we'd take him as I don't think the Bills will have him rated as their BPA but I can see reasons for teams to take him. GO BILLS!!!
Billsrhody Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 LBs are largely becoming obsolete in today's NFL, as on the majority of snaps, you're going to only have 1-2 LBs on the field. (with 4 DLs and 5-6 DBs) Given that we have Barnett and Sheppard, and that Scott is the Nickel LB, there's no point in wasting the #10 pick on an LB. Think about it: Most of the time we're going with Barnett himself (4-1-6), or Barnett and Scott (4-2-5). Do you really want to piss away the #10 pick on a LB that only plays 40% of the downs, and one that wasn't very imp[ressive at the collegiate level? The guy racks up big tackle numbers, and thats about it. If we are going to waste the #10 on an LB, i'd rather it be Upshaw/Hightower. Barnett is aging and injury prone, Sheppard is an unproven 2nd round pick from a year ago. If the front office thinks Kuechly is going to be a great player for 10 years, why wouldn't you draft him? Just because we have 2 starters penciled in to the starting lineup right now does not mean we cant improve on them. What has Sheppard shown you to make you think he's going to be a better NFL player than Luke Kuechly?
C.Biscuit97 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Reminds me of Ray Lewis....he stays around the ball and isn't afraid to be vocal Wow. I'm impressed you didn't go with the white LB has to be compared to the white LB like all black QB have to be compare to black QBs. Kudos, but is he really that type of prospect? Because that's definitely a pick I could get behind if Floyd is gone. Can anyone name the Giants' starting LB's? The substitute teacher guy. But I do generally agree. LBs are the rbs of the defense. The better the line is in front of them, the better they are. If a line is good enough, they are almost interchangable.
DrDawkinstein Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Floyd or Offensive Weapon should be our first pick. If no one is there that can fill that, I dont have a problem if they go with Kuechly. I dont know enough to say he'll definitely be a star, or definitely be a bust. I like what Ive seen on film, and if Nix/Whaley like him to, then good choice. Floyd, Kuechly/OT... would be my choices.
C.Biscuit97 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Floyd or Offensive Weapon should be our first pick. If no one is there that can fill that, I dont have a problem if they go with Kuechly. I dont know enough to say he'll definitely be a star, or definitely be a bust. I like what Ive seen on film, and if Nix/Whaley like him to, then good choice. Floyd, Kuechly/OT... would be my choices. I'm definitely on board with you but if they picked another pass rusher (Ingram maybe?), I won't complain either. I want to absolutely be housing QBs this year. I've seen too many games of Brady and Sanchez getting mani and pedis behind their olines.
Reed83HOF Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I agree with your general premise but if you can get an ILB with superior pass defense skills as Kuechly is reputed to have, then he might be a fit in today's league. Essentially, he's a bigger, faster, more athletic version of Scott. I doubt we'd take him as I don't think the Bills will have him rated as their BPA but I can see reasons for teams to take him. GO BILLS!!! Our LBs DO NOT rush the passer, just the DL. Ramius is right and I agree 1000%. At least half of the snaps will be in nickle or dime. OUr DL is set, if you want to continue to rebuild the D more and make it even stronger, then CB is the pick. McKelvin is a weaker link that Barnett, Morrision and Sheppard. McGee doesn't last an entire year (hence him restructuring his contract). You will see 4-1-6, 4-2-6 and maybe even 5-1-5. Yes 4-3-4 is our base D, but in half the plays at least 1 of our LBs heads to the bench. Oh yeah, just one more time. Our LBs DO NOT rush the passer :wallbash:
Recommended Posts