BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Thanks for phrasing it this way -- ie. as a player and as a Bill. I really don't see any way of him becoming a Bill, as he's almost assured to be drafted by a team that utilizes a 3-4. As a Trojan -- My nickname for Perry was "If Only." As in, "If only he would have gotten there a split-second sooner..." Some of the talking heads say he's got a great first step, which makes me wonder if they watched all the games. Some plays, yes -- many plays, no. He had a very good year in 2011, but it could have been a MONSTER year -- If only. Positives (IMHO) 1). COULD play 3-4 or 4-3 at the NFL level, but he won't be "the guy" at DE if in a 4-3 system. 2). Durable. I don't recall him having missed a game despite a high ankle sprain. 3). Very strong once he gets past the initial blocker. Negatives (IMHO) 1). Can be handled quite easily by bigger linemen. No double team necessary. When he's taken out of a play, he's really taken out of a play. 2). Tends to get "lost" in a play and could have better instincts as to where the football is. 3). While I wrote (above) that he could play in either scheme, I really think the only way he excels is in a 3-4. 4-3 for Perry is square peg/round hole in the NFL. 4). Smallish -- but this really is covered in Point 3. I don't think any team will "reach" for him unless that team believes he's a "perfect fit" or "missing link." I can see him slipping into Round 2. Personally -- Helluva guy. I'll root for him regardless. BA Spot on with that view of +/- of him. Way too many plays where he is just gliding around unlike a guy like Melvin Ingram who is fired up and making plays all around the field. I couldn't believe all the Perry love on this board several weeks ago on this board. Good prospect but now a top ten or even top 20 IMO. NICE POST !! Different strokes for different folks i guess. I see your 65, maybe you just can't understand the younger generations lingo My point was every year its if we don't trade up for x player we will suck for the next 14 years. Its ridiculous to think we can't find a player at spot ten that is worth something. And there are only so many good players why would the other teams want to trade back? So they can get a few good players? Well why can't we use our ten picks to get a few good players? JMO What.... 52. but who's counting No hard feelings bro Go Bills !! Edited March 28, 2012 by MOVALLEYRANDY
Captain Hindsight Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Spot on with that view of +/- of him. Way too many plays where he is just gliding around unlike a guy like Melvin Ingram who is fired up and making plays all around the field. I couldn't believe all the Perry love on this board several weeks ago on this board. Good prospect but now a top ten or even top 20 IMO. NICE POST !! What.... 52. but who's counting No hard feelings bro Go Bills !! I saw Bills fan since 65' lol sorry Didnt mean to age ya
Orton's Arm Posted March 28, 2012 Author Posted March 28, 2012 I know many posters flounce at this, but I don't think Kalil is worth mortgaging this year's, or next year's, top-echelon picks. I'm certainly an advocate of drafting offensive lineman (I think one could argue question marks at both tackle positions, as well as depth in the interior), but I think beyond a few positions (OT, WR, LB, etc) the Bills' greatest "need" is depth. We've seen our team-- in each of the last several years-- undone by injuries and a shallow depth chart. Drafting players to fill holes in the starting roster is always ideal, but not at the expense of the remaining players who will work in rotational roles or round out the depth chart. The OT class this year is fairly deep-- four potential first rounders, and several interesting candidates at the 2-4th round level (at the latter edge of that range, a guy like Brandon Mosely looks interesting)-- so there's little need to bundle picks to move to the head of the class. The well-developed teams can afford to draft players one at a time, packaging entire day's of picks for single prospects, but despite a promising offseason, we're still a developing team. Beyond strong draft picks, we need strong draft CLASSES to really turn the corner. Just my two cents. I would argue that this team's biggest need is for difference makers. I'd break these players down into three categories. 1. Players who can be productive despite being double teamed. Bruce Smith could get sacks despite double teams. Jerry Rice could catch passes despite double teams. 2. Players who can single-handedly take care of category 1 difference makers. Tony Boselli could block Bruce Smith one-on-one. Deion Sanders could single cover Rice, and keep him under control. 3. Players who play at the level as the first two types, but at positions which don't lend themselves to being category 1 or 2 difference makers. Barry Sanders and Joe Montana fall into this category. Other than at defensive line, how many difference makers can you think of on this team? Only one player comes to my mind: Fred Jackson. It's very difficult to acquire more than one difference maker a year. So it's not like the goal of acquiring this kind of player can be put off for now with a reasonable expectation that lost ground can be made up for later. If the team is to become a legitimate threat to win the Super Bowl within the next three to four years, the time to start adding difference makers is now. Adding a difference maker at LT would be an excellent start! As for depth, I have not suggested the Bills trade away their picks in rounds 4 - 7. Even if trading away some of those picks did become necessary to secure Kalil, it would be worth it. The remainder of those picks can be used to increase depth. Also, the Bills can obtain depth via UDFAs as well as free agents. Adding large numbers of backup-quality players to a roster is relatively easy, as Parcells showed by replacing most of the Dolphins' roster during his first year as GM. In addition, if you don't draft a player at a specific position, it becomes easier to attract the best available UDFAs at that position to sign with you. They know they'll be more likely to win a roster spot if they don't have to compete against draft picks to get it. The Bills have essentially two options. 1) Acquire a difference maker this year, along with an increase in depth. The plan would be to acquire another difference maker and more depth next year. 2) Acquire all the depth they'll need this year, but with no difference-makers. Of the two plans, I feel the first will yield significantly better long term results.
ndirish1978 Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 I agree with this - IF Kalil slips a little, I would love the idea of the Bills giving up a little to move up and get him. The latest from the (generally brainless) NFLN crew is that they think the Vikings will take Blackmon which could well cause Kalil to slip as the next few teams are set at OLT. If I remember correctly, Mayock was part of this "Kalil may slip" discussion, therefore I don't dimiss it entirely. What would it take to move up from 10 to say 6? A different GM
habes1280 Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 I would argue that this team's biggest need is for difference makers. I'd break these players down into three categories. 1. Players who can be productive despite being double teamed. Bruce Smith could get sacks despite double teams. Jerry Rice could catch passes despite double teams. 2. Players who can single-handedly take care of category 1 difference makers. Tony Boselli could block Bruce Smith one-on-one. Deion Sanders could single cover Rice, and keep him under control. 3. Players who play at the level as the first two types, but at positions which don't lend themselves to being category 1 or 2 difference makers. Barry Sanders and Joe Montana fall into this category. Other than at defensive line, how many difference makers can you think of on this team? Only one player comes to my mind: Fred Jackson. It's very difficult to acquire more than one difference maker a year. So it's not like the goal of acquiring this kind of player can be put off for now with a reasonable expectation that lost ground can be made up for later. If the team is to become a legitimate threat to win the Super Bowl within the next three to four years, the time to start adding difference makers is now. Adding a difference maker at LT would be an excellent start! I take your point, and agree that, beyond Fred Jackson, there weren't consistent game-changers on last year's roster. I also agree that Kalil is the consensus choice to be the "difference making" LT of this year's class. If, by your logic, we could engineer a trade to secure one game-changing player at any position, I agree it should be at LT, and I agree it should be Kalil. I don't, however, think that staying at 10 precludes the Bills from drafting a difference making player, it just wouldn't be Kalil (and if a game-changer was what they were after, it wouldn't be a LT, either). That doesn't mean they couldn't fill that need at #10 with a high-production player, or in rounds 2-4, with a high-promise one. It just wouldn't be the consensus #1 LT in this year's crop. Your example of Fred Jackson is a telling one (Kyle Williams and Stevie Johnson are two others): marquee players can be had outside the first round. As for depth, I have not suggested the Bills trade away their picks in rounds 4 - 7. Even if trading away some of those picks did become necessary to secure Kalil, it would be worth it. This is where you start to lose me. I'm not sure I understand the logic. Moving from 10 to 3 is a steep jump at a steep price. According to the trade value chart, it would cost at least a 2nd, a 3rd, a 4th, and a 5th (assuming we didn't mortgage next year's picks). And losing nearly half of your draft picks would come at a cost of drafting players that can and should improve our talent and depth. I understand that you're excited about Kalil. I'd love to see him here, too. But not at this price, especially when the predictive measures for left tackles is about as reliable as the one for marquee quarterbacks. We might get the #3 LT at pick 10, or the #5 LT in Round 2, who becomes a better, more difference-making player for the Bills than the pundits' darling; and we'd still be able to draft a full class of promising young talent. The remainder of those picks can be used to increase depth. Also, the Bills can obtain depth via UDFAs as well as free agents. Adding large numbers of backup-quality players to a roster is relatively easy, as Parcells showed by replacing most of the Dolphins' roster during his first year as GM. I'd love to share your optimism, but fleshing out the depth chart with quality free agent signings hasn't been that easy. By the way, while I disagree with you, I love the conversation and appreciate your enthusiasm. Ultimately, we both want the same thing, we just have different ideas of how best to get there.
Orton's Arm Posted March 29, 2012 Author Posted March 29, 2012 I take your point, and agree that, beyond Fred Jackson, there weren't consistent game-changers on last year's roster. I also agree that Kalil is the consensus choice to be the "difference making" LT of this year's class. If, by your logic, we could engineer a trade to secure one game-changing player at any position, I agree it should be at LT, and I agree it should be Kalil. I don't, however, think that staying at 10 precludes the Bills from drafting a difference making player, it just wouldn't be Kalil (and if a game-changer was what they were after, it wouldn't be a LT, either). That doesn't mean they couldn't fill that need at #10 with a high-production player, or in rounds 2-4, with a high-promise one. It just wouldn't be the consensus #1 LT in this year's crop. Your example of Fred Jackson is a telling one (Kyle Williams and Stevie Johnson are two others): marquee players can be had outside the first round. This is where you start to lose me. I'm not sure I understand the logic. Moving from 10 to 3 is a steep jump at a steep price. According to the trade value chart, it would cost at least a 2nd, a 3rd, a 4th, and a 5th (assuming we didn't mortgage next year's picks). And losing nearly half of your draft picks would come at a cost of drafting players that can and should improve our talent and depth. I understand that you're excited about Kalil. I'd love to see him here, too. But not at this price, especially when the predictive measures for left tackles is about as reliable as the one for marquee quarterbacks. We might get the #3 LT at pick 10, or the #5 LT in Round 2, who becomes a better, more difference-making player for the Bills than the pundits' darling; and we'd still be able to draft a full class of promising young talent. I'd love to share your optimism, but fleshing out the depth chart with quality free agent signings hasn't been that easy. By the way, while I disagree with you, I love the conversation and appreciate your enthusiasm. Ultimately, we both want the same thing, we just have different ideas of how best to get there. I appreciate the well thought-out nature of your posts. As you said, we both want the same things for this team. Perhaps I should have begun by stating my underlying premises. 1) The goal is to win the Super Bowl. 2) That goal is extremely unlikely to occur unless the Bills get a franchise QB. 3) As much as I'd love for the Bills to get a franchise QB in the 2012 draft, there isn't a good opportunity for them to do so. 4) Therefore, the purpose of the 2012 draft should be to prepare for 2013 and later. 5) The best way to prepare for the long run is to acquire difference-makers at premium positions like LT. I agree that the price to trade up to third overall is a little steep; and that the Bills may want to wait to see if Kalil drops below third overall before making a move for him. On the other hand, even trading away a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th to move up to get him could still be worth it. Other than Marcell Dareus, not one of the players the Bills drafted in the first round is currently a difference-maker. If this team is going to do anything, that fact needs to change! If the Bills are reasonably sure that Kalil will become a difference-maker at LT, and are considerably less sure about whether the BPA at 10th overall will become a difference-maker, then it might well make sense to trade up.
Dragonborn10 Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 1. Always trade down whe you can 2. Floyd 3. Reiff 4. CB 5. Martin Honestly when options 2-5 are unworthy of the tenth pick have to hope there is a willing trade partner even if the trade only nets a 3rd this year or a second next year. Pick 6-25 will all be the same value this year. Draft is very deep but after Kalil, Luck, RG3, Claiborne, and Blackmon they are all the same grade.
Bud Adams Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 5) The best way to prepare for the long run is to acquire difference-makers at premium positions like LT. I agree that the price to trade up to third overall is a little steep; and that the Bills may want to wait to see if Kalil drops below third overall before making a move for him. This. Arguably the three toughest positions to fill in FA: Franchise QB Franchise LT Franchise DE (check!) With Kalil, we have a chance of filling the second of those three positions. This doesn't just help improve one position. Maybe it helps Ftizpatrick buy more time so that he doesn't have to release the ball right away. That could help him improve his accuracy. True, Fitz would have to adjust -- and that's where coaching comes in. But he's smart enough to grasp the concept, methinks. Here is how Kalil could fall to #6 -- and, as mentioned in another thread, the Rams are likely to shop the pick: 1. Colts: Andrew Luck 2. Redskins: RG III 3. Dolphins: Ryan Tannehill (Trade up by Miami with Minnesota -- Yes, I think they're desperate enough to make this move, fearing Cleveland will take him. Also, I think this makes sense for Minnesota, as they have so many needs. True, so does Miami -- but their GM and owner are utterly inept). 4. Browns: Trent Richardson / Justin Blackmon 5. Bucs: Trent Richardson / Morris Claiborne I think swapping 1st-rounders and a second gets it done with the Rams. And I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm sick of OLs who "convert" to tackle. We could have a chance of drafting potentially one of the best pure LTs in many years without breaking the bank or mortgaging the future. AND, this guy plays with a mean streak. We need that, too. BA
Orton's Arm Posted March 31, 2012 Author Posted March 31, 2012 This. Arguably the three toughest positions to fill in FA: Franchise QB Franchise LT Franchise DE (check!) With Kalil, we have a chance of filling the second of those three positions. This doesn't just help improve one position. Maybe it helps Ftizpatrick buy more time so that he doesn't have to release the ball right away. That could help him improve his accuracy. True, Fitz would have to adjust -- and that's where coaching comes in. But he's smart enough to grasp the concept, methinks. Here is how Kalil could fall to #6 -- and, as mentioned in another thread, the Rams are likely to shop the pick: 1. Colts: Andrew Luck 2. Redskins: RG III 3. Dolphins: Ryan Tannehill (Trade up by Miami with Minnesota -- Yes, I think they're desperate enough to make this move, fearing Cleveland will take him. Also, I think this makes sense for Minnesota, as they have so many needs. True, so does Miami -- but their GM and owner are utterly inept). 4. Browns: Trent Richardson / Justin Blackmon 5. Bucs: Trent Richardson / Morris Claiborne I think swapping 1st-rounders and a second gets it done with the Rams. And I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm sick of OLs who "convert" to tackle. We could have a chance of drafting potentially one of the best pure LTs in many years without breaking the bank or mortgaging the future. AND, this guy plays with a mean streak. We need that, too. BA Good post! As for the Dolphins trading up to #3 to take Tannehill--that move will look inept only if Tannehill doesn't turn out to be a franchise QB. If he does, the Dolphins look like geniuses. (Assuming they make that move in the first place, of course.) The write-ups I've read suggest the odds are against him becoming a franchise QB, but you never know. To return to the main substance of your post: if the Dolphins trade up to third overall, then I'd agree that Kalil could easily fall a few spots in the way you've described. That would make it a lot less expensive to trade up for him. A second round pick would be a perfectly reasonable price to pay for a trade up.
Recommended Posts