Luke Kuechly discussion

[Matt in KC]

+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

Kind of like Clay Matthews without the pass rushing skill?

 

I really like Keuchly's pass coverage skills and what that does for our defense. Sure he flies around the field, but is a LB who doesn't rush the passer really worth the #10 pick?

[Green Lightning]

He's a Middle LB true, but so is Sheppard and Channix seems to like him. I think the BPA at 10 could be Floyd or Gilmore.not thinking we're taking "cooch."

[1B4IDie]

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.

 

I'm starting to agree with this line of thinking.

 

As Much as I'd like to see Floyd opposite SJ13 is as much as I'd hate to see the Bills waste the pick on Koochie, (you can get a great 4-3 OLB in the 4th.)

 

Looks like the Highs and Lows for me for draft day may be avoided.

 

A boring RT pick in Reiff or a boring CB pick in Kirkpatrick is starting to solidify with an outside chance an Martin.

 

Unless the Top 6 prospects some how fall.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Why So Serious?

[yungmack]

Spiller?

BPA and it filled what Buddy at the time thought was a key need. I believe he was wrong about that, and also wrong about even considering a running back as "best player available." Those days are gone...for now.

[Rico]

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?

Exactly, the risk is just too great, especially for a high-motor LB. Nix has enough sense not to burn the #10 pick on one, that's why Kuechly never got an invite. Now if Marv was still GM, that could be a high-character pick that he might make.

[Orton's Arm]

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

You've asked a good question, and have obviously put some time into coming up with that list!

 

I don't like the idea of drafting a player for one year, especially not if I'm a GM of an expansion team. A one year draft puts me in a short-term mindset when I should be thinking about the long haul. A better way of taking age out of the equation is to assume that every player on the above list, as well as Ray Lewis, has been given a youth pill to reduce his biological age to 22. Unfortunately, right after this happened, the manufacturer of those youth pills was blown up in a terrorist attack, with their complete inventory, knowledge base, and group of scientists lost in the explosion.

 

As a GM, my goal would be to win the Super Bowl. Nine out of the last ten Super Bowls have been won by teams with franchise QBs. There are about eight teams in the league with franchise QBs. If 10% of Super Bowl wins go to teams without franchise QBs, and if those wins are shared among the 24 teams that don't have franchise QBs, then a team without a franchise QB should expect to win a Super Bowl once every 240 years. I'd like to do better than that, especially with the destruction of the youth pill manufacturer.

 

The problem then becomes: if I take a non-franchise QB on the above list, I'll have to replace him before I can win a Super Bowl. Let's say I take Joe Flacco, for example. He's a step or two above Fitzpatrick, but a step below a franchise QB. A guy like him can take a team pretty far--perhaps to the divisional round of the playoffs, or even to a conference championship. But for him to wrest a Lombardi trophy away from a team with a franchise QB, this guy's supporting cast will have to be significantly better than the franchise QB's supporting cast. If you're going up against a team like the Giants (franchise QB + strong supporting cast), that's going to be a hard goal to achieve!

 

On the other hand, let's say I had a roster like the Bills'. Except that Fitzpatrick and Shepherd have just retired, leaving the Bills with holes at QB and MLB. In a situation like that, adding Flacco to fill the QB spot would generate more additional wins than would adding Ray Lewis to fill the hole at MLB.

 

Another way of looking at the situation is to suppose that I'm going to trade away the QB or MLB I draft after a few years. How good would a QB have to be to have a higher trade value than a young Ray Lewis? Cutler netted two first round picks, plus Kyle Orton. I don't think a team would give up as much as that for Lewis, but I could be wrong. Under this trade scenario, I'd probably still be looking somewhere in the Cutler to Flacco range as my cutoff point.

[stony]

Exactly, the risk is just too great, especially for a high-motor LB. Nix has enough sense not to burn the #10 pick on one, that's why Kuechly never got an invite. Now if Marv was still GM, that could be a high-character pick that he might make.

 

Ha I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

I just don't like the percentages of a LB that high. Plus you can draft James Laurinitis in the 2nd.

[3rdand12]

we could do well to find some gems at linebacker in this draft beyond the first round. one to apprentice to Barnett one to Morrison and one to defend the pass from the mlb. i dont think we need to replace any of the guys we have starting, but we better find some solid backup and or promising projects before the season starts. We still have some fellows from last year that we will need to make decisions on after last years bungled 3-4 attempt using ends and OLB and vice versa.

[faderphreak]

For what it's worth, I was at IMG in Bradenton this past weekend, where Kuechly is doing some training, and had the opportunity to talk to some of the people training him. While my NDA precludes me from naming names and details, what the one guy did say when I told him I hope the Bills draft him, was that Luke would like to go to Buffalo to play behind our revamped D-Line but he said he didn't think Kuechly was going to drop to the Bills. He seemed to have a real high opinion of the kid's work ethic and skill set.

 

So to answer the question originally posed, in addition to some of the other points made about player visits, and the like, it can't be Kuechly if he gets picked before the Bills get a chance to walk to the podium.

[BigBuff423]

No...it doesn't change my mind for one reason: at the 10th spot in this year's Draft, there will be either a LT or a WR of value equal to the 10th overall pick and either position is FAR more needed at this point than LB....I think highly of Kuechly, even more so since reading the information you provided, but we happen to fall into a perfect scenario this year where our "Need" intersects with the "Value" of the pick....IF both of these issues had been addressed via FA or maybe even ONE of them, then I could see Drafting such a great player and person, but as of today, the BILLS have not yet addressed those two remaining needs and since LB seems to be relatively deep this year, I'm okay with waiting until the 3rd round....just IMO

[San Jose Bills Fan]

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.

My recollection is that Spiller and Dez Bryant were the two players who were definitely considered to have the most talent and upside of anyone left when the Bills picked.

 

I'm starting to agree with this line of thinking.

 

As Much as I'd like to see Floyd opposite SJ13 is as much as I'd hate to see the Bills waste the pick on Koochie, (you can get a great 4-3 OLB in the 4th.)

 

Looks like the Highs and Lows for me for draft day may not be avoided.

 

A boring RT pick in Reiff or a boring CB pick in Kirkpatrick is starting to solidify with an outside chance an Martin.

 

Unless the Top 6 prospects some how fall.

Yeah I personally would like the Bills to select Cordy Glenn but I would not be at all surprised if Kirkpatrick is the pick.

 

Also there are numerous other players who I'd be fine with the Bills drafting.

 

 

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Now if Marv was still GM, that could be a high-character pick that he might make.

If Marv was still GM, he might burn a few high picks to move up to ensure the selection of Kuechly.

[offsides#76FredSmerlas]

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.

[offsides#76FredSmerlas]

I will not have a problem if they go with Keuchly but I couldn't disagree more about what you said about Floyd. You stated that "You don't draft a WR at #10 to get 6 potential touches per game. So, I rule out Floyd." Add the numbers up 6 catches a game gets you 96 catches and a trip to the pro-bowl. If he catches 96 balls he probably would have at least 8 touchdowns and several game breaking plays that swing a game. If you told me that Floyd would catch 6 a game I would draft him in a second. When you say 6 potential touches I'm thinking 6 potential catches.

 

Here's my best scenario for draft day: We trade Spiller and another pick "prob a 3rd" and take someones late first round pick. We draft big Trent from Bama with pick #10 and with the late first round pick we take an offensive tackle. How awesome would that be? Spiller will never be maxed out here with Freddy being the better back and we'll get a bruising smash mouth runner to compliment Freddy, especially on short yardage plays and inside the 10 yard line. We also get better value for an offensive tackle instead of reaching for one at #10.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

Clay Matthews is a pass rushing LB in a 3-4. For the Bills, Kuechley would be a LB in the 4-3. Wannestedt doesn't like to blitz his linebackers, so Kuechley wouldn't be blitzing much no matter which linebacker position he played.

 

In a 3-4, linebackers tend to rush the passer a lot more often. If Wannestedt wants four guys to rush the passer, he'll rush four down linemen. If someone running a 3-4 wants to rush four guys, he'll rush his three down linemen plus (usually) one linebacker. In Green Bay's 3-4, that linebacker is often Clay Matthews.

 

If drafted by the Bills, Kuechley will be given few chances to rush the passer. That means that in order to justify his 10th overall selection on pass defense, he'll need to be able to cover pass catching TEs one-on-one. I know that Kuechley is better than most other linebackers at pass coverage, but somehow I don't see that translating into his single-handedly shutting down Gronkowski.

[K-9]

... If drafted by the Bills, Kuechley will be given few chances to rush the passer. That means that in order to justify his 10th overall selection on pass defense, he'll need to be able to cover pass catching TEs one-on-one. I know that Kuechley is better than most other linebackers at pass coverage, but somehow I don't see that translating into his single-handedly shutting down Gronkowski.

 

This is a myopic point of view. For a myriad of reasons. Not the least of which is that it doesn't take into account the full realm of responsibilities of either the MLB or OLB in Wannstedt's 43. You make no mention of an LB's main responsibility; which is to make tackles. Especially the MLB who MUST be able to make plays from sideline to sideline.

 

This idea that our LBs will be asked to cover TEs one on one is also very shortsighted. Wannstedt will rely mostly on zone coverages the vast majority of the time. His LBs must be able to make precise drops into their zones and take away space more than anything else in terms of pass defense responsibilities. When it comes to TEs like Gronkowski, no DC in his right mind would ask an LB to provide single coverage on more than a couple of occasions in a game anyway.

 

I'm not advocating the selection or Keuchly one way of the other. I'm just saying that he provides much more value in a 43 scheme and you can't dismiss that value simply because he's not asked to rush the passer.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited April 17, 2012 by K-9

[NewEra]

1334627741[/url]' post='2438389']

I will not have a problem if they go with Keuchly but I couldn't disagree more about what you said about Floyd. You stated that "You don't draft a WR at #10 to get 6 potential touches per game. So, I rule out Floyd." Add the numbers up 6 catches a game gets you 96 catches and a trip to the pro-bowl. If he catches 96 balls he probably would have at least 8 touchdowns and several game breaking plays that swing a game. If you told me that Floyd would catch 6 a game I would draft him in a second. When you say 6 potential touches I'm thinking 6 potential catches.

 

Here's my best scenario for draft day: We trade Spiller and another pick "prob a 3rd" and take someones late first round pick. We draft big Trent from Bama with pick #10 and with the late first round pick we take an offensive tackle. How awesome would that be? Spiller will never be maxed out here with Freddy being the better back and we'll get a bruising smash mouth runner to compliment Freddy, especially on short yardage plays and inside the 10 yard line. We also get better value for an offensive tackle instead of reaching for one at #10.

 

Looks like your best scenario has zero chance of happening. Zero

[Orton's Arm]

This is a myopic point of view. For a myriad of reasons. Not the least of which is that it doesn't take into account the full realm of responsibilities of either the MLB or OLB in Wannstedt's 43. You make no mention of an LB's main responsibility; which is to make tackles. Especially the MLB who MUST be able to make plays from sideline to sideline.

 

This idea that our LBs will be asked to cover TEs one on one is also very shortsighted. Wannstedt will rely mostly on zone coverages the vast majority of the time. His LBs must be able to make precise drops into their zones and take away space more than anything else in terms of pass defense responsibilities. When it comes to TEs like Gronkowski, no DC in his right mind would ask an LB to provide single coverage on more than a couple of occasions in a game anyway.

 

I'm not advocating the selection or Keuchly one way of the other. I'm just saying that he provides much more value in a 43 scheme and you can't dismiss that value simply because he's not asked to rush the passer.

 

GO BILLS!!!

According to a regression done by the New York Times, pass defense is four times more important than run defense. (That is, a 1 SD improvement in pass defense will result in four times as many additional wins as a 1 SD improvement in run defense. 75% of "pass defense" consists of yards allowed per pass attempt; 25% consists of interception percentage.)

 

For the above reasons, I focused more heavily on Kuechley's potential contribution to pass defense than to run defense. I suspect that the vast majority of the tackling you described will come on run defense. I have no objection to the Bills having a good tackler/run stopper at MLB. I just don't want them taking a guy like that 10th overall.

 

I agree that it would be foolish for a defensive coordinator to put a LB--even a LB known for his pass coverage--one-on-one against someone like Gronkowski. Putting your LBs in zone coverage makes more sense, as you pointed out. I just don't like the idea of taking a LB 10th overall because of his zone coverage. I think the Bills can and should get more use out of such a high draft pick than that!

[Cash]

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.

I'm sorry if I implied I expect to get a value at 9 or 10; I do not. Most drafts have 5ish "elite" prospects, and typically there's not a huge difference between the #10 pick and the #20 pick. The exception is when one of the "elite" prospects doesn't get drafted in the top 5 or whatever. That's when you can get a "value" at #10. Off the top of my head, some "values" that were available at #10 since I've been following the draft: Jevon Kearse, Aaron Rodgers, Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart. All guys thought to be in the elite tier of prospects pre-draft and almost universally mocked in the top 5 or so. Like I said, it usually doesn't happen that one of those guys falls to 9 or 10 or so, and when it does, that doesn't guarantee success. A 2012 example of a "value" for the Bills would be one of the following falling to #10: Luck, RG3, Kalil, Blackmon, Claiborne. Throwing Tannehill and/or Richardson into that top tier is debatable.

 

My original point was not to demand that the Bills get a "value" at #9 in 2010 or #10 in 2012, but to compliment you for having an objective and rational assessment of the value of Spiller in 2010. I've seen many Spillerillos on this board going gonzo with this crazy idea that Spiller was some phenomenal value that the Bills just couldn't pass up at #9. Nope, not true. Arguably BPA (as you said in this thread), but not clearly BPA. And that's fine. (Other debatable BPA candidates at the time: Anthony Davis, Earl Thomas, Jason Pierre-Paul, Derrick Morgan, Mike Iupati, Maurkice Pouncey, Bryan Bulaga, Dez Bryant, TIIIIIIIIM TEBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW. In hindsight, JPP was the BPA. For the record, I wanted Bulaga, who's turned out solid, but nothing special.)

 

Anyway, I'll shut up now, and you can have the last word if you want. This is the most trouble I've ever gone through just from trying to compliment someone, with the exception of every woman ever. But it was fun looking up the teens and twenties of the 2010 draft again.

 

According to a regression done by the New York Times, pass defense is four times more important than run defense. (That is, a 1 SD improvement in pass defense will result in four times as many additional wins as a 1 SD improvement in run defense. 75% of "pass defense" consists of yards allowed per pass attempt; 25% consists of interception percentage.)

 

For the above reasons, I focused more heavily on Kuechley's potential contribution to pass defense than to run defense. I suspect that the vast majority of the tackling you described will come on run defense. I have no objection to the Bills having a good tackler/run stopper at MLB. I just don't want them taking a guy like that 10th overall.

 

I agree that it would be foolish for a defensive coordinator to put a LB--even a LB known for his pass coverage--one-on-one against someone like Gronkowski. Putting your LBs in zone coverage makes more sense, as you pointed out. I just don't like the idea of taking a LB 10th overall because of his zone coverage. I think the Bills can and should get more use out of such a high draft pick than that!

I tend to agree, mostly on principle. If Kuechly becomes the best player he could possibly be, then it's a very good pick. That's probably not going to happen, though, and I view every 1st-round LB as a lot more likely to become Aaron Curry than Patrick Willis. In the abstract, I'd always prefer to go with a more important/harder to find position in the first round. And I'd also like that position to fill an immediate need, unless you're drafting for an already stacked team. Because most non-elite first-rounders are pretty close in terms of value. We fans love to talk about "just take BPA", but that's pretty meaningless in most cases. Is there really a difference in value between a guy with a 97 rating and a 96 rating? If the latter guy plays a position where you have no proven starter and literally no backup on the roster (i.e., LT this year), isn't it better to take him over a guy who won't get on the field this year?

 

I think everyone can agree that if the choice is between a "need" player with a 3rd-round grade and a "luxury" player with a 1st-round grade, you should take the luxury player. But I say that that's rarely the case. I think that most of the time, the top 4-5 guys available on your board will be very close to each other in terms of overall rating, so you should take the one who fills the biggest need. Now, I don't know what the Bills' board looks like, and I don't have a board this year. But I feel confident in saying that if there's an LT prospect available at #10 who has a similar rating to the other available prospects, then the Bills will draft him. To me, if the Bills draft anything other than an LT at #10, that means that they don't have a strong 1st-round grade on whoever's available.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Cash

[1B4IDie]

For what it's worth, I was at IMG in Bradenton this past weekend, where Kuechly is doing some training, and had the opportunity to talk to some of the people training him. While my NDA precludes me from naming names and details, what the one guy did say when I told him I hope the Bills draft him, was that Luke would like to go to Buffalo to play behind our revamped D-Line but he said he didn't think Kuechly was going to drop to the Bills. He seemed to have a real high opinion of the kid's work ethic and skill set.

 

So to answer the question originally posed, in addition to some of the other points made about player visits, and the like, it can't be Kuechly if he gets picked before the Bills get a chance to walk to the podium.

Remember when Buddy Nix fist pumped after the Von Miller pick? If someone took Kuechly before the Bills pick., I'd expect a double fist pump.

 

A good prospect would fall the dominoes would line uo much better for the Bills. It would be awesome!