Luke Kuechly discussion

[stony]

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.

 

I agree with a lot you say, but...

 

Floyd might be one of the bigger risers of late. A lot of "experts" have him rated equal to Blackmon. And I really disagree with your thought that he might not see enough targets if he were to be drafted. David Nelson had no problem finding a niche, and I would expect a supreme talent like Floyd to have a large impact from day 1.

 

As for Keuchly, he's really nothing like Matthews. Totally diff. positional types and athletes.

 

Anyhow, both are good players. I just see Floyd as a pro-bowl type talent. I've said all along he reminds me a lot of Moulds. He put up numbers with some pretty lousy QB play at ND. He seems to do everything well. I wouldn't be surprised if he had 60+ rec his rookie year.

[rayray808]

the reason why we won't get him is because he will already be gone

[Thirty Year Fan]

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.

I'm sold:worthy:

[Kelly the Dog]

Spiller?

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.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Kelly the Dog

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Who knows, if I read anymore draft stuff my brain will explode so they could pick anybody and pba is ... Trent Richardson

[Cap'nCrunch]

In game planning against the Bills' 2012 defense, I'd expect less time to drop back to pass. The tendency would be to call more short passes to WRs, screens, draws and passes to running backs, or the things Brady and Co. have been doing for years. This would put more pressure on the OLBs to chase, cover and make plays. From the reports, Kuechly may be the best at doing that from the LB position in this draft.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

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.

Not really, Spiller didn't run well at all until last year when Freddy was out.

[roccitybillsfan]

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.

 

I appreciate your post Trooth, but I have to disagree. When watching film(youtube) on Keuchly, he did not really stand out to me as anything exceptional. He seemed like a solid college LB at best. I can't see him being a difference maker in the NFL and definitely not Matthews. NFL Starter....surely. I don't expect to hear his name on any Pro-Bowl roster unless he is the beneficiary of playing in a dominant defense. But as far as him being someone O. Coordinators have to game plan for, I just don't see it. I could be wrong. Who knows?

 

As far as Rieff and Floyd, I can see Rieff starting on either side. I think he can go an acceptable job at LT, but does not seem to be a top 10 guy. I don't think it's fair to rate him based on his predecessors though. I do see Floyd being something special and I think he will be ready to start year 1. He has been in a Pro-Style AND a spread offense. Isn't that kinda what Gailey's system is, kinda hybrid? From what I have seen of his game tape, he can do it all in regards to a WR. Screens, Flies, Slants, Fades, Jump Balls, YAC and from what I hear he is a pretty good blocker. That to me says complete receiver. The only concern I have for him at #10 is that he does so well in the NFL that it becomes an issue that he is a #2 WR instead of a #1. I do trust S. Johnson as my #1 WR, so it may turn into a situation where there are not enough balls to go around. That is a problem that I can live with though with my #10 pick.

 

Another question I would put out there is which of these positions is it easier to hit on in later rounds(3-7)? I guess a good way to examine this is to look at all three positions and see of all 32 teams, what percentage of their starting LT, WR and LB are manned by people drafted outside of the 2nd Round. If I have time to research that, I will post. If any of you find it, please do the same.

[1B4IDie]

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.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Why So Serious?

[Buffalo Barbarian]

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 3-4 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 on the Bills' Big Board.

 

It is highly unlikely Koochie-lue comes to Buffalo.

Coochie

[DreamOnDan]

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 post! i agree, i think it should prolly be keuchly

[Captain Hindsight]

Who knows, if I read anymore draft stuff my brain will explode so they could pick anybody and pba is ... Trent Richardson

Is that why you made a thread about next years draft

[Cash]

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.

I want to thank you for injecting some reason into the pro-Spiller argument. I continue to disagree with you, but that's as may be. More importantly, you are lucid enough to not throw around nonsense phrases like "Spiller was by far the BPA". I don't think I ever saw a mock draft with Spiller going prior to the Bills' pick. That doesn't mean he has to be a bad pick or a reach, but it also means he's not some great value that miraculously fell to the Bills. I don't want to re-open the Spiller debate, because what's the point, but again, thanks for having some perspective.

 

With that said, Kuechly seems somewhat similar in a couple of ways. #1, no one has Kuechly coming off the board before the Bills pick, but some of his fans vehemently think that drafting him at #10 represents great value/BPA. #2, non-pass-rush OLB is fairly equivalent to RB in terms of positional value; new-school football nerds and semi-nerds (I'm the latter) preach that you don't draft them high and don't give them big contracts. Now, I wouldn't be nearly as upset with a Kuechly pick as I was with the Spiller pick, because it does seem like he'd be a 3-down LB, which is more valuable than a run-down guy like Sheppard. I'd be really surprised if the Bills took him, though. With Spiller, there were enough leading comments from Nix/Gailey that it wasn't a total shock when the rumors started flying around. But this offseason, we haven't heard a lot about needing a linebacker. Nix did say he wanted to add another one, but in the same breath said, "Kirk Morrison's up and we don't know what's happening with him," which says to me that when Morrison was re-signed, that was the LB addition. Meanwhile, there've been plenty of comments from the coaches/GM about how much they love Sheppard and Barnett. Sheppard is penciled in as the run-down MLB, and Barnett is the every-down WLB/NLB. With Bryan Scott re-signed, there's your other NLB, and Morrison is the run-down SLB. I realize that many fans think that unit needs a major upgrade, but I don't think the coaches feel that way. In fact, I'll be surprised if the Bills draft a LB before they draft a CB. But we shall see.

[Wagon Circler]

Um... He's a middle LB, which is his greatest strength. We need one.

[FleaMoulds80]

Um... He's a middle LB, which is his greatest strength. We need one.

 

He can easily play OLB as well. We can move him around depending on the situation which is valuable.

[freester]

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

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.

[Kelly the Dog]

I want to thank you for injecting some reason into the pro-Spiller argument. I continue to disagree with you, but that's as may be. More importantly, you are lucid enough to not throw around nonsense phrases like "Spiller was by far the BPA". I don't think I ever saw a mock draft with Spiller going prior to the Bills' pick. That doesn't mean he has to be a bad pick or a reach, but it also means he's not some great value that miraculously fell to the Bills.

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

[Cap'nCrunch]

Who knows, if I read anymore draft stuff my brain will explode so they could pick anybody and pba is ... Trent Richardson

KABOOM!!! KABOOM!!! Reading this draft stuff is like eating candy - too much and you have to put it down, but you keep thinking about it and have some more as soon as you can.

[Captain Hindsight]

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

Don't use facts! This is TBD Kelly!!!! what were you thinking!

[Buffalo Barbarian]

KABOOM!!! KABOOM!!! Reading this draft stuff is like eating candy - too much and you have to put it down, but you keep thinking about it and have some more as soon as you can.

so true