Kelly the Dog Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 He's also fast, has great hands, and runs good routes. While some may think that 10 is too high for a TE, I ask if they would take Gronk 10th overall? IIRC, the Patriots passed three separate times on Gronk before they chose him. One player and two trade downs. So they wouldn't have taken Gronk at #10, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 IIRC, the Patriots passed three separate times on Gronk before they chose him. One player and two trade downs. So they wouldn't have taken Gronk at #10, no. They would now. So would everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Come on. I need better than that. I need some reasons not to choose him, and no one is helping! How about we have no left tackle, the right isn't all that magnificent and we have a chance to get the second or third best tackle in the draft at 10, Rief if he lasts that long? That pretty much takes Gilmore out of the picture for me in round one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I love the Fleener idea but Chris Brown downplayed the idea yesterday, which makes me believe the Bills are not looking that way. I think he's going to be a great pro. Au contraire mon frere. I think that CB not talking about him means he's very much in play. hell, i'd take gronk at 2nd overall. if nix thinks fleener is a stud, trade down and take him in the teens. not at #10. If you think a guy is a stud and have a chance to take him, you do it. Unless they can move back just a couple spots. IIRC, the Patriots passed three separate times on Gronk before they chose him. One player and two trade downs. So they wouldn't have taken Gronk at #10, no. In hindsight they would have. And had he not missed his senior season, he'd easily have been taken in the top-10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 If you think a guy is a stud and have a chance to take him, you do it. Unless they can move back just a couple spots. This is why Buddy doesn't like to trade down, he feels that if you try to get too cute and trade down, you might end up losing the player you wanted. If you like a guy at 10, but think you can get him at 13, you trade back to 13 to get the extra pick and all of a sudden another team who covets that same player swoops up to 12 and takes him. Now who is the dumb a$$? This is where value goes out of the window in Buddy's eyes and he is right. The only way we trade down is if Buddy doesn't like any of those players available. Do you think all of a sudden Buddy will fall in love with a player at 15 that he hated at 10? There will be somebody there they like at 10 and they will take him.They already know who they will take at 10, who we take will come down to is who is taken by the 9 teams ahead of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I'm going all in with doc on this one. Fleener at 10. He's the top TE in the draft and he won't make it out of the 1st round. I've said it before, I'll say it again. A star TE is more valuable than a "franchise LT"--and never has this been more true and obvious than in today's game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 That's dumb. I can name pretty much every team's WR and TE, it doesnt mean they don't suck. That's an announcer, TV cameraman and director issue, not an indicator of importance. Sure the Giants had a great pass rush and it lessened the need for star DBs, but the Giants were also one game from missing the playoffs altogether. Eli was the game MVP and the play of the game was arguably made by a WR not a DL. I want the Bills to get a LT and WR, and not all that enamored with drafting a CB in round one myself, although Gilmore looks like a stud. But I think the thesis of the post was misguided. And haven't the giants taken several first round DBs including prince just last year and signing big FA antrell rolle? Common thread in superbowl winners? Few, if any, weak units or position groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM57 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Yet you're the first person to name them. Poor point? I think not. I could name the skill players on all 32 teams if I really gave it a shot. On the other hand, I would have a really hard time doing the same for defensive backfields. You just hear the names of the offensive guys way, way more frequently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufcomments Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 After Martin's Pro Day and questions about Floyd's character, I'm starting to think Gilmore fits a need, and has the best chance of being the safest pick for the future, and for this year. I'm not seeing a whole lot of convincing downsides to Gilmore this year and in the future. Seems there will be a lot of possibilities in round 2 for an OT and lots of possibilities all the way through McNutt at WR. Somebody talk me out of it! No I think your on to something here. Trading back into the first round and getting him would be a wise move. I would not pick him at 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 hell, i'd take gronk at 2nd overall. if nix thinks fleener is a stud, trade down and take him in the teens. not at #10. Yeah, I was thinking of Fleener as a 2nd rounder or target if we go down. But if they see him as Gronkowski , who cares where they draft him. I'm going all in with doc on this one. Fleener at 10. He's the top TE in the draft and he won't make it out of the 1st round. I've said it before, I'll say it again. A star TE is more valuable than a "franchise LT"--and never has this been more true and obvious than in today's game. Interesting thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggerdaddynj Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Actually, Martin has "experts" questioning whether he'll be a good OT period in the NFL, while with Reiff it's whether he can be a LT. Hardly ringing endorsements for either player. I agree that neither guy is a Kalil, both have deficiencies and neither is truly worth a top 10 pick. However, I think you're really overstating things in regard to Martin. I've been reading and watching as much as possible and I've never heard anyone question whether or not Martin will be a good OT. That's just plain silly. Everyone agrees he's a first round talent it's just that he, like most rookies, needs some work. Here's how poorly Mayock sees Martin: "Jonathan Martin, to me, is the prototypical left tackle," Mayock said last month. "Gifted athletically, needs to get a little bit stronger. A lot of things I said about Kalil, you could say about him. Needs to get a little bit stronger but will protect the quarterback." McShay (who many here dislike) "merely" indicates that Martin is "not elite" but is rather "good in every area". His main complaint appears to be Martin's lack of strength (one area that can be improved). As for Reiff at LT, here's Mayock again “I still like Riley Reiff a lot,” Mayock said. “I still think he’s a starting left tackle in the NFL. I just don’t think his upside is as high as Matt Kalil, who’s also an underclassman." Reiff and Martin are really seen as plus or minus twenty guys (Casserly and Lombardi included) it's just that they'll go higher based on market forces (supply and demand). In the end, I trust Buddy and will be happy with Martin/Reiff, Floyd, Ingram or Gilmore/Kirkpatrick thanks to our resignings and FA moves. It just blows to be at 10 this year. Gaughan's article today hit the nail on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billnutinphoenix Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I generally wouldn't pick a Guard, but my choice is DeCastro... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 What does IIRC mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM57 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 If I recall correctly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 If I recall correctly Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I am hoping for a trade down, but if we stay pat at 10 I would like us to draft Gilmore. Immediate upgrade at a position of need, he would make this defense better from game 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I'm going all in with doc on this one. Fleener at 10. He's the top TE in the draft and he won't make it out of the 1st round. I've said it before, I'll say it again. A star TE is more valuable than a "franchise LT"--and never has this been more true and obvious than in today's game. IMHO, Fleener is the safest pick. No character concerns, great work ethic, great hands and route-running, size, speed, and willing blocker who can improve as he fills-out his frame. He'll be a mismatch for any team and will transform the offense more than a WR, who can be had in later rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornellBillsFan Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 This "character issue" crap with Floyd is way overblown. Even before the DUI Brian Kelly said he had never had a harder worker than Michael Floyd. Some of you portraying him as some thug punk are waaay off base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts