Luke Kuechly discussion

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Coochie has plenty of detractors

He ain't a big body Nor does he have elite Atheltic ability.

He is a college tackling machine, big whoop. In the ACC no less, a minor league conference.

You can find very good OLBs in a 4-3 in rounds 3-7 that can play at just as a high level as koochie.

 

If you listen to Nix. You'll see that Coochie isn't likely on the Bills' Big Board.

 

It is highly unlikely Koochie-lue comes to Buffalo.

 

Coochie

Some people are kookie for Kuechly.

 

Some people are not kookie for Kuechly.

 

Some people are kookie for Coochie.

 

 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Is that why you made a thread about next years draft

Yeah pretty much

[BillsVet]

I don't think anyone can discuss their first round pick options without noting how this is a make or break season. RW has spent some serious money and undoubtedly places a lot of faith in Nix, although their organizational chart is not like most teams. They can't afford, with a few big needs, to draft a developmental player who doesn't produce. They need their first rounder and perhaps 2nd to play well out of the gate.

 

There seem to be two schools of thought with high round picks; take calculated risks or go with the sure thing. The former has more potential, but carries more possibility of a bust or under performer. The latter may get you a decent player, but one without upside. Kuechly appears to be somewhere in the middle. He has outstanding college production in a BCS conference, is intelligent, and will not be a problem on or off the field.

 

With defenses playing nickel and dime coverage more frequently, 3 LB's in a 40 front aren't in as much demand. I don't seem them going with LK primarily for this reason, but also because they have Barnett to play the Will while having huge needs at WR and OT. That said, Barnett is past 30 and is signed through 2013 and turns 32 next month. I would not be surprised to see Cordy Glenn be the pick, although I'm not a fan of the move.

[Webster Guy]

I don't agree Keuchly would be able to beat out Barnett. He was very productive last year, our best LB by far. No way a rookie takes his job.

 

Also I don't agree that Floyd would only get thrown to 6 times a game. Fitz slings it 35 times a game, and if Stevie draws doubles all day and Floyd is getting good separation there is no telling how many balls will come his way.

 

OP brings up some good points though. For me the question is can Keuchly transition to OLB from the middle? In a 4-3 it would seem like they could work him in on passing downs to develop his coverage reads without having to worry about run support right away.

 

Where is 'Never Give Up' these days? I'm waiting for the real news on the draft board.

[rstencel]

Why do i get the feeling that noone mentioned will be drafted here. Someone listed as a being in 15-25 range in one of the positions listed, but listed a notch below ones we are talking about.

[Lurker]

Where is 'Never Give Up' these days? I'm waiting for the real news on the draft board.

He'll probably show up on the 25th--when the real draft info starts to flow, rather than smoke and mirrors...

[KOKBILLS]

We can not go into the season with Hairston as our LT.

 

I would not bet on that if I were you...It's at very least a 50/50 chance regardless of what we do in this Draft...It's a stretch to assume any of these Rookies will be able to beat out Hairston early in their career...We'll see though...

[Cash]

2010 final mock draft Mike Mayock. Spiller to Bills.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/22/mayocks-final-mock/

2010 final mock draft ProFootballWeekly Nawrocki. Spiller to Bills.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2010/04/25/nawrocki-has-10-matches-in-mock-draft

ProFootballWeekly Best players regardless of position. Spiller #4 overall.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2010/04/20/pfw-rates-top-prospects-regardless-of-position

Scout.com #15

http://cfn.scout.com/2/856941.html

USA Today #11

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-02-23-top-64-draft-prospects_N.htm

Kiper had him 14

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but we seem to agree that no mocks had Spiller going prior to the Bills pick, and most had him valued somewhere in the early teens. Not a reach at #9, since there was no clear BPA at that point. Also not a value at #9.

 

Getting back to Kuechly, I think I've seen one mock this offseason that had him going to the Panthers, and I think I've seen one or two (excluding Bills fan mocks) with him going to the Bills, but most have him going somewhere in the teens. If he does wind up being the Bills pick, I expect a similar scenario to the Spiller pick, where the best-connected draft gurus move him up to the Bills' pick because they're tipped off by someone close to the Bills. Again, not necessarily a reach, but also not particularly a value. That's fine as long as 1.) your guy pans out, and 2.) you didn't pass up an equal or better value at a more important/needed position who turns out better. #2 was really the crucial problem with the Whitner pick. Whitner pretty much did pan out -- he turned into a solid starter, which is disappointing for a top 10 safety, but all you can really ask of any draft pick. But given that Whitner was taken over Ngata, it's one of the worst picks imaginable. The equivalent scenario this year would probably be something along the lines of drafting Kuechly, who turns into a solid but unspectacular starter, while either Floyd or one of the OTs turns into a dominant All-Pro. (Obviously it would suck if the reverse happened -- Reilly Reiff or whoever turns into a just OK starter, and Kuechly is the next Ray Lewis. But in 2008, most fans considered DT the #1 need entering the draft, with safety as a secondary need. This year, it seems to me like most fans consider OT or WR the primary need, with LB being considered a secondary need.)

 

I don't pretend to have any real idea how any of these guys will turn out, but hopefully whomever we grab will turn into a stud.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but we seem to agree that no mocks had Spiller going prior to the Bills pick, and most had him valued somewhere in the early teens. Not a reach at #9, since there was no clear BPA at that point. Also not a value at #9.

 

Getting back to Kuechly, I think I've seen one mock this offseason that had him going to the Panthers, and I think I've seen one or two (excluding Bills fan mocks) with him going to the Bills, but most have him going somewhere in the teens. If he does wind up being the Bills pick, I expect a similar scenario to the Spiller pick, where the best-connected draft gurus move him up to the Bills' pick because they're tipped off by someone close to the Bills. Again, not necessarily a reach, but also not particularly a value. That's fine as long as 1.) your guy pans out, and 2.) you didn't pass up an equal or better value at a more important/needed position who turns out better. #2 was really the crucial problem with the Whitner pick. Whitner pretty much did pan out -- he turned into a solid starter, which is disappointing for a top 10 safety, but all you can really ask of any draft pick. But given that Whitner was taken over Ngata, it's one of the worst picks imaginable. The equivalent scenario this year would probably be something along the lines of drafting Kuechly, who turns into a solid but unspectacular starter, while either Floyd or one of the OTs turns into a dominant All-Pro. (Obviously it would suck if the reverse happened -- Reilly Reiff or whoever turns into a just OK starter, and Kuechly is the next Ray Lewis. But in 2008, most fans considered DT the #1 need entering the draft, with safety as a secondary need. This year, it seems to me like most fans consider OT or WR the primary need, with LB being considered a secondary need.)

 

I don't pretend to have any real idea how any of these guys will turn out, but hopefully whomever we grab will turn into a stud.

Explain to me how you expect to get "value" at 9 or 10 any year? How is that even possible? There is no exact science. If you asked 100 NFL executives to rate the top 32 players you would get 100 different orders. Are you implying you get "value" at 9 or 10 when some draftnik thinks a player is rated 8 or 7 and you take him? I don't even know what you're getting at.

[BuckeyeBill]

It won't be Keuchly... unless we trade down, and I don't see that happening.

[Búfalo Blanco]

Not feeling comfy at #10. The consensus seems to be that it's Reiff, Floyd, or Keuchly at #10.

 

Based on Buddy's history, He does not reach. At least not with a top ten pick. And, one thing I've said umpteen times. At number 10, you gotta come in and start from day one and play at a high level. So if all three are there when the Bills are on the clock at #10, which one?

 

Of the three, the one with the most qustion marks is clearly Floyd. You see him going anywhere from 10 to 20. He has some baggage, and if you plug him to the Bills and he must start out of the gate and produce... I don't see it happening... especially when Chan has to work Spiller more into the mix... it means less targets for a rookie WR... and especially with Stevie garnering around 10 targets/game, I don't see Floyd with more than 5 to 6 targets/game. You don't draft a WR at #10 to get 6 potential touches per game. So, I rule out Floyd.

 

Reiff seems to have his critics too, but nowhere near the level of Floyd's critics. Some say he's a RT, some say he has short arms. I don't know much about Reiff. And, my read on Buddy is that at #10, any player, especially a LT better be special. Last year, Tyron Smith & Nate Solder were the first OTs off the board at #9 & #17. But both are RTs. And, Carami & Sherrod came off at #29 & #32, but again, both are RTs. Costanza was the only Tackle drafted in the 1st round that ended up playing LT, and he came of the board at #22. So, how does Reiff compare to Costanza? The thing that concerns me about Reiff is, coming out of the Iowa program, two of his predecessors at LT have not panned out at LT... Robert Gallery and Brian Bulaga. Gallery was supposed to be all world but ended up being a guard, and for such a high pick, big waste. Bulaga is still at RT after two years, even though he was drafted at LT and the Packers have a need there. Again... #10 has to be plugged in as the starter from day one. Can Reiff? I think so, but what player can't be put at LT for the Bills and function to some degree? They've functioned with Bell, Scott, Hairston, Levitre over the past few seasons. So, yeah Reiff should be able to come in and out perform them all. But that ain't saying much. And, at #10 is that a good value? Dunno. Hope Buddy does. I also think a LT taken in the second round at #41 could play better than anyone the Bills have had there the past few seasons. Saffold and Veldheer were both second rounders last year and ended up being starting left tackles for the Rams and Raiders and seem to have bright futures. So... round two may be a viable option for LT.

 

Keuchly seems to have no critics. From what I've heard or read, it's all good. And, don't think that OLB aint a position of need, and seriously. There's no question that he can come in and start at OLB from day one and clearly out perform either Morrison or Barnett. He might even be in the Clay Matthews stratosphere.

 

So... I know the Bills sorely need a presence at LT. But, from a value standpoint I don't see how the #10 pick cannot be Keuchly if all three are there at #10. He's a sure thing. He would be the icing on the cake for a Bills defense that has been upgraded significantly and transitioning back the the 4-3. This significant upgrade to the defense will have an immediate impact on the offense... more than anyone realizes. Better field position, more turnovers, less pressure on the offense to score, more offensive possesions.

 

Great analysis, Dr. Trooth... I've said in some other threads that I think it comes down to Kuechly or Floyd... Kuechly seems to be a Bills type of guy and Floyd has some prior arrests that might hurt his stock. I'm not sure if Kuechly is Clay Matthews, but he looks like a highly instinctive, productive LB with great potential... Most tackles in BC and ACC history in only 3 years and had 191 tackles last season (2 behind the all-time record).

[bonecrusherkev]

If a player hasn't visited, he's not being drafted by Nix, Inc.

 

thats not absolutely true..the Bills have surprised many times ( remember Donte' Witner? )

[freester]

I would not bet on that if I were you...It's at very least a 50/50 chance regardless of what we do in this Draft...It's a stretch to assume any of these Rookies will be able to beat out Hairston early in their career...We'll see though...

Unfortunately you may be correct. I predict if our only plan at LT is Hairston, this will be an unmitigated disaster. We also lack depth at OT. Hopefully a qulity veteran OT surfaces on the market (Bryant Mckinnie last year)

[Biscuit97]

Not feeling comfy at #10. The consensus seems to be that it's Reiff, Floyd, or Keuchly at #10.

 

Based on Buddy's history, He does not reach. At least not with a top ten pick. And, one thing I've said umpteen times. At number 10, you gotta come in and start from day one and play at a high level. So if all three are there when the Bills are on the clock at #10, which one?

 

Of the three, the one with the most qustion marks is clearly Floyd. You see him going anywhere from 10 to 20. He has some baggage, and if you plug him to the Bills and he must start out of the gate and produce... I don't see it happening... especially when Chan has to work Spiller more into the mix... it means less targets for a rookie WR... and especially with Stevie garnering around 10 targets/game, I don't see Floyd with more than 5 to 6 targets/game. You don't draft a WR at #10 to get 6 potential touches per game. So, I rule out Floyd.

 

Reiff seems to have his critics too, but nowhere near the level of Floyd's critics. Some say he's a RT, some say he has short arms. I don't know much about Reiff. And, my read on Buddy is that at #10, any player, especially a LT better be special. Last year, Tyron Smith & Nate Solder were the first OTs off the board at #9 & #17. But both are RTs. And, Carami & Sherrod came off at #29 & #32, but again, both are RTs. Costanza was the only Tackle drafted in the 1st round that ended up playing LT, and he came of the board at #22. So, how does Reiff compare to Costanza? The thing that concerns me about Reiff is, coming out of the Iowa program, two of his predecessors at LT have not panned out at LT... Robert Gallery and Brian Bulaga. Gallery was supposed to be all world but ended up being a guard, and for such a high pick, big waste. Bulaga is still at RT after two years, even though he was drafted at LT and the Packers have a need there. Again... #10 has to be plugged in as the starter from day one. Can Reiff? I think so, but what player can't be put at LT for the Bills and function to some degree? They've functioned with Bell, Scott, Hairston, Levitre over the past few seasons. So, yeah Reiff should be able to come in and out perform them all. But that ain't saying much. And, at #10 is that a good value? Dunno. Hope Buddy does. I also think a LT taken in the second round at #41 could play better than anyone the Bills have had there the past few seasons. Saffold and Veldheer were both second rounders last year and ended up being starting left tackles for the Rams and Raiders and seem to have bright futures. So... round two may be a viable option for LT.

 

Keuchly seems to have no critics. From what I've heard or read, it's all good. And, don't think that OLB aint a position of need, and seriously. There's no question that he can come in and start at OLB from day one and clearly out perform either Morrison or Barnett. He might even be in the Clay Matthews stratosphere.

 

So... I know the Bills sorely need a presence at LT. But, from a value standpoint I don't see how the #10 pick cannot be Keuchly if all three are there at #10. He's a sure thing. He would be the icing on the cake for a Bills defense that has been upgraded significantly and transitioning back the the 4-3. This significant upgrade to the defense will have an immediate impact on the offense... more than anyone realizes. Better field position, more turnovers, less pressure on the offense to score, more offensive possesions.

+1

I was thinking Clay Matthews the whole time I was watching his films. We cannot pass on this guy. We could potentially have the best front seven in football for the next five years. Can't put a price tag on that. Hold the opponent under 20 pts 10 out of 16 games, I like our chances

[nucci]

thats not absolutely true..the Bills have surprised many times ( remember Donte' Witner? )

Nix didn't draft Whitner.

[dpberr]

I hope that is not true because I want Reiff. We can not go into the season with Hairston as our LT. I would be OK with Floyd or Kuechly, but picking a CB at 10 would be as bad a pick as Spiller.

 

Every day that goes by without a visit sharpens the pool from which #10 will be selected from. My guess is the #1 on Nix's draft board has already visited.

 

To the best of my knowledge, Keuchly, Floyd and Gilmore haven't been asked nor have visited OBD crushing the hopes and dreams of many around here. Further, Keuchly and Floyd have another strike against them in not playing in a southern conference, making them even bigger long shots.

Edited April 16, 2012 by dpberr

[thebandit27]

A tidbit from Peter King's column this morning that reminded me of this thread:

 

This from the mind of the great Gil Brandt:

 

Amazing the bust factor at linebacker in the last 10 years. Brandt tipped me onto this, and he's absolutely right: Look at the top 10 picks in the draft from 2001 to 2010. Six have been linebackers (if you count Terrell Suggs as a defensive end). The six are A.J. Hawk, Ernie Sims, Keith Rivers, Jerod Mayo, Aaron Curry and Rolando McClain. One of the six has made a Pro Bowl -- Mayo -- and he's made just one. Rivers was traded to the Giants for a pittance of a fifth-round pick on Friday. Curry was dealt from Seattle to the Raiders for a seventh-rounder last year. The Eagles gave up a fifth-round pick for Sims in 2010; he's an unsigned free agent now. Hawk and McClain have been pedestrian at best in Green Bay and Oakland, respectively.

 

One Pro Bowl linebacker picked in a decade in the top 10 of the draft. Contrast that to defensive linemen: Twenty-six were picked in the top 10 of the draft from 2001 to 2010 -- obviously counting Suggs as a defensive end -- and those 26 have made 29 Pro Bowls.

 

Give anyone reservations about a LB in the top 10?

[Billsrhody]

I think there's considerable overlap between your view and mine, but also some points of difference.

 

I'm looking for the Bills to use the 10th overall pick on a guy who can make a significant contribution. The level of a guy's contribution depends in part on the position he plays, and in part on how good he is at the position. If it's a choice between, say, a mediocre LT who shouldn't have been drafted before the third round, and a Pro Bowl OG, then you pick the OG. But quite frankly, I wouldn't be very happy with either player at 10th overall.

 

One way of measuring a player's effectiveness is the extent to which he contributes to the numbers game. Guys like Bruce Smith and Larry Fitzgerald can be effective even while being double-teamed. Any time the opposing team has to use two of its players to deal with one of yours, it adds +1 to your team's numbers game. Another way for a player to help with the numbers game is to cancel out an opposing player who would otherwise have required a double team. Deion Sanders could single cover Jerry Rice, Tony Boselli could block Bruce Smith one-on-one. At 10th overall, the Bills need a player who will contribute to the numbers game, either via the first method or the second.

 

I don't see how an OG is supposed to do that. Nor do I see how Kuechley is supposed to do that, unless someone is going to argue that he can single cover a pass catching TE who would otherwise have required double coverage. I understand Kuechley does have good coverage skills--at least for a linebacker--but that doesn't necessarily mean he's good enough to be put one-on-one against a good pass catching TE.

 

I agree with you that what the Bills should not do is to pick some position of need, and then reach for a player based on that need. That strategy has been tried in the past, and has resulted in Whitner, McCargo, Lynch, and other busts. The other mistake they should avoid is to pick a RB, LB, OG, or some other player not likely to add +1 to the numbers game. Avoiding players like that still gives them considerable flexibility at 10th overall. Enough flexibility that they should be able to avoid significantly reaching for a player. I'd be happy with a LT, WR, CB, or QB at 10th overall, as long as the player was graded highly enough to justify his lofty draft position.

 

The issue is that you have to rank players at their position and then against other positions based on their weighted importance. Lets use a Ray Lewis example so we can see how highly you rate QBs opposed to ILB.

 

If you could draft Ray Lewis where would you draw the line in this list of Quarterbacks? (Slot him in just behind the last guy you draft before him). Assume this draft would be for only 1 season (so age doesnt play a factor):

 

Rodgers

Brady

Manning

Brees

P Manning

E Manning

Roethlisberger

Stafford

Rivers

Romo

Schaub

Vick

Ryan

Cutler

Newton

Flacco

Dalton

Freeman

Fitzpatrick

Smith

Sanchez

Moore

Hasselbeck

Palmer

Skelton

Cassel

Jackson

Mccoy

Ponder

Gabbert

Grossman

[BobChalmers]

Spiller was easily one of the BPA at the time (no one is a unanimously clear BPA at #9) and started opening day. You could argue that it wasn't at a high level but he surely played at a high level during pre-season and the reason they took him out so quick was due to pass blocking more than anything else (not to mention that they wanted to showcase Lynch to trade him.

 

Thank you!

 

Spiller was the polar opposite of a reach - he was a BPA at a position the Bills didn't seem to need at all. ALL the questions about the Spiller pick were about why the Bills were drafting any RB - not that he wasn't worthy of the #9 slot.

 

Some national sources had him as THE top offensive player available in the entire draft. He had 50 TD's for a major program - he was projected as the next Chris Johnson.

[eball]

Thank you!

 

Spiller was the polar opposite of a reach - he was a BPA at a position the Bills didn't seem to need at all. ALL the questions about the Spiller pick were about why the Bills were drafting any RB - not that he wasn't worthy of the #9 slot.

 

Some national sources had him as THE top offensive player available in the entire draft. He had 50 TD's for a major program - he was projected as the next Chris Johnson.

...and anyone who watched the last six games of the season understands why. The CJ/Freddy combo will be everything we hoped for, and more, this season.