Mr. WEO Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 No way. Take a point scorer in the first. This o-line did fine the first part of the season with Bell at LT. No doubt we can pick up a better LT than Bell in the 2nd round. Adding a "franchise LT" will not be nearly as effective at increasing our scoring as would a WR--or even a TE.
BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I'd much rather have 15-22 playmakers than be one of those that are always wanting to trade back and have a roster of 53 guys named Joe. We don't need 9-12 rookies on this roster. 3-5 playmakers will do soooooooooooooooooo. I'd do it immediately. No way. Take a point scorer in the first. This o-line did fine the first part of the season with Bell at LT. No doubt we can pick up a better LT than Bell in the 2nd round. Adding a "franchise LT" will not be nearly as effective at increasing our scoring as would a WR--or even a TE. You do know we don't have a left tackle right now don't you ???
BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 we have too many needs to do that. Respectfully, completely, disagree. Giving up a 2nd rounder for an athletic LT is well worth it. We always have too many needs. Instead of building a new house with a solid foundation some would rather keep painting over the old house 'cuz paint is cheaper.
3rdand12 Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) I voted yes. Because i consider Kalil , Luck, Griffin to be players that are worth one two or three. I have said more than once if he gets past five-6 we need to heat up the phones. This imho would be the PERFECT player for us to get this year, and give mucho reward. Immediate impact. solves lotsa issues. and makes the team much better day one till... i am going to keep my fingers crossed on this one and hope Buddy steps away from his perceived persona as he really did with Mario Williams and has an opportunity for Matt Kalil Edited April 11, 2012 by 3rdand12
atlbillsfan1975 Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 we have too many needs to do that. If your Oline is set, and i mean a wall, suddenly the entire offense looks better. Chan can use his entire play book not just the 'shotgun 2.5 second passing game part'. The Dline was solidified already w Williams and Anderson. These two signings will make everyone on D look better. You still could get 3 more good players with your 3rd and 2 4th rounders. A starting Lb can be found here as well as a WR and a CB. A great Oline can control an entire game.If you can run and pass the ball you keep your D on the sideline. A well rested D is an aggresive one. I do not see him making the move, but if he could, it would be awesome. To finally have a great OL and DL, i am sorry but the old "the game is won or lost in the trenches' is true. Just ask NE
PDaDdy Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) I would trade up assuming Kalil is actually the real deal. I'm not sure how he stacks up against other #1 rated tackles in previous drafts but it would take care of a big need for us. I do hate the idea of giving up our second round pick because that could be a starting OLB or WR potentially. I did vote yes but with a good deal or reservation. What I would really like to see us do is trade down in the first to get Glen or Martin and trade back into the first using our second and 3rd to get Stephen Hill. These trade up, trade down scenarios are usually a waste of time as they don't happen not because we wouldn't want to but you have to find partners that are also willing and get the right value. I am not sold on Hairston who will be a 2nd year player that has played a few games but he was our second 4th round pick and hasn't shown me that he is certain to be the LT of the future. If the organization doesn't feel that Hairston is or is assured of eventually becoming that guy then the trade up would be worth it. Edited April 11, 2012 by PDaDdy
thewildrabbit Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Yea man:thumbsup: Kalil is easily good enough to be the #3 overall pick in the draft.
3rdand12 Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Well Pdaddy thats part of the problem. We (you and me ) dont know about Hairston besides what little we saw. and that might've been unfair considering circumstance. Some folks have written him up very well after seeing him play. He is also by some to be a RT. so if we go for Kalil we are secured at LT and have one hell of a swing Tacle in the making and potential starter at right side in a couple years. I am going on the somewhat uneducated that Kalil IS the real deal and that is the tipping point of this whole discussion for me. if i thought there were risks like reiff and martin i would not even consider the trade. Edited April 11, 2012 by 3rdand12
1billsnut Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I voted "no", with hesitation, but after reading some of the previous post's I think that I would change my vote to "yes". Kalil would be an awesome LT to have for years. I think if we trade up for him I will be very happy. If we stay at 10 and get Floyd, I will be very happy. It's nice to have a solid foundation on offense and defense and know that although we have needs to fill, several players could get this team where it needs not be. WOOT!!!
Billshank Redemption Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Kalil is a damn good prospect and would set us for 10 years... do it.
Malazan Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I'd consider it, probably reject it, but I also don't believe #10 and #41 get it done
PDaDdy Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Well Pdaddy thats part of the problem. We (you and me ) dont know about Hairston besides what little we saw. and that might've been unfair considering circumstance. Some folks have written him up very well after seeing him play. He is also by some to be a RT. so if we go for Kalil we are secured at LT and have one hell of a swing Tacle in the making and potential starter at right side in a couple years. I am going on the somewhat uneducated that Kalil IS the real deal and that is the tipping point of this whole discussion for me. if i thought there were risks like reiff and martin i would not even consider the trade. That is a good point. IMO we were exposed for our lack of depth on the line and that was before we just lost Bell. If Peters didn't go down I think Bell would have remained a Bill. Looks like Peters boned us over twice If I'm not mistaken the "HIT" on Fitz that injured his ribs came on the left side in the Redskins game when Levitre moved to LT when Bell went down. If Hairston is going to become something he will find his way into the starting lineup somewhere or at least he would hopefully develop into a valuable backup at the tackle and guard spots. Edited April 12, 2012 by PDaDdy
JAMIEBUF12 Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 i'd trade all the way up to 3, thats how you build a team .you go out and do whatever it takes to get the important pieces....go bills!
JohnC Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 I voted "yes" in the poll, because Kalil seems to be a can't-miss LT prospect, and I'd be willing to sacrifice the #41 to get that. Having said that, I think it's a mortal lock that the Vikings take Kalil. So I'd be fine with your scenario, although I think moving down is even less likely than moving up. The Bills have shown at least a little interest in moving up under Nix (they confirmed that they tried to trade up into the late first round in 2009 for someone who wasn't Tebow), and zero in moving down. They've usually put in their selection within a minute or two of being on the clock, which means they're not even waiting to listen to potential offers. Nix has consistently said he doesn't like trading up because he hates losing a pick, and he doesn't like trading down because he can't stand the idea of missing out on the guy he wants. It seems to me that the more immediate concern would be missing out on an actual player you know you can draft right now vs. giving up a hypothetical pick, where there might not be any great values available anyway. Anyway, I'm with you on Glenn. I have a feeling he might be the pick. He certainly fits the physical profile that Nix likes in lineman, as well as the geographical profile Nix likes in all players (major conference, southeast). And the team has had him in for a pre-draft visit. I'm not confident enough to bet on it, but Glenn at #10 would be my guess right now. Buddy Nix is not a complicated fellow. He has stated that he is more comfortable with making a pick when his turn comes up than with maneuvering around the draft board by trading up or down. I have heard him say that the problem with moving down is that the player you really want could be lost with the gamble of waiting longer for your turn. Buddy has a certain comfort zone and he doesn't like to stray too far from it. That's fine with me. In the long run it all boils down to making individual quality picks. If he does it well on a general basis then the franchise will be on the right path. No way. Take a point scorer in the first. This o-line did fine the first part of the season with Bell at LT. No doubt we can pick up a better LT than Bell in the 2nd round. Adding a "franchise LT" will not be nearly as effective at increasing our scoring as would a WR--or even a TE. You are making a false assumption that if you take an OT with your first pick you won't be able to get a quality receiver with a following pick. This draft has a lot more quality receivers than it does OTs. I'm not advocating reaching for any position in this draft. If they have some OTs ranked relatively high on their draft board then they need to seize the oppportunity to address this currently poorly staffed position. Please don't use your standard weak argument that you can get a qualaity OT in the lower rounds. You can say that for all of the positions.
BuffaloRebound Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Bills could potentially be trade up partners for Kalil at #5, Blackmon at #6, or Claiborne at #7. Key is Dolphins trading up to #3 to take Tannehill.
Estro Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Good question. And my answer is probably not. I think Nix would consider trading the 2nd rounder & 3rd rounder to move into the 20's of the 1st round (like he admitted to trying to do in the 2010 draft), but I don't think he'd pay the price it would take to move up to #5. BTW, the chart shows it'd cost us #10 & #41, but I think the team trading down would want more. Say a 4th-5th rounder this year or maybe a mid rounder next year.
Captain Hindsight Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 I wouldn't and I don't think Nix would either
Recommended Posts