Scouts Inc. take on the Bills (intriguing)

[QCity]

If you had your choice between a Probowl QB who sat for the first two years or a starting quality OL, LB or whatever who was able to start in yr one and play solidly, which would you choose?

Why is one a Probowler and the other only "starting quality"? If you had your choice between a starting quality QB who sat for the first two years or a Probowl OL, LB or whatever who was able to start in yr one, which would you choose?

 

The 10th pick is going to get a ~ 4yr/$12M dollar deal, that's a lot of money on the bench.

[The Big Cat]

I think we are basically saying the same thing. You look for the player's total contribution. Not just first year.

If you had your choice between a Probowl QB who sat for the first two years or a starting quality OL, LB or whatever who was able to start in yr one and play solidly, which would you choose?

 

 

theoretically, we won't be drafting this high in the next few years so we won't be in a position to grab a potential Franchise QB. The biggest question is whether Tannehill has that potential. I honestly know nothing about him, so I cannot say. But if the Bills think he does and he is there at 10, we should probably take him.

 

I think our respective messages share SHADES of meaning, but the similarities end there. I also think you're coming from a perspective that a shrinking portion of the fanbase has adopted to appease their not-so-misplaced skepticism with regard to Fitz: that the FO has one foot out out the quarterback door, and they're actively pursuing his heir apparent. I DON'T think that's the case, and likewise I don't think that a soon-to-be ProBowl quarterback not named Fitz will be in the works two years down the road. I think Fitz will be the quarterback at least through 2014, and that he's given them no reason to prepare otherwise.

 

Having said all that, I'd vastly prefer a CB, WR, LB or OL who will come in THIS year, start and contribute. I'm also nearly 99% certain that's the direction we'll Nix and Co. venture come Thursday evening.

[K-9]

Why is one a Probowler and the other only "starting quality"? If you had your choice between a starting quality QB who sat for the first two years or a Probowl OL, LB or whatever who was able to start in yr one, which would you choose?

 

The 10th pick is going to get a ~ 4yr/$12M dollar deal, that's a lot of money on the bench.

 

In the short term, yes. The long view says it's an investment well worth the risk if you feel that QB is 'the guy.'

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Maddog69]

Disagree: If the Bills do anything better then 6-10 he stays. 8-8 is likely, IMO, which won't ever make playoffs while N.E. is still in the AFCE.

 

8-8 is progress. I also think Gailey's offense is going to continue to get exposed, which may be his ultimate downfall.

 

I think 8-8 would be a disappointment. Ralph OK'd a bunch of spending and will want results. If Nix and Gailey want to received contact extentions they will need to be 9-7 or better and atleast in the mix for a wildcard spot late in the year.

 

Why is one a Probowler and the other only "starting quality"? If you had your choice between a starting quality QB who sat for the first two years or a Probowl OL, LB or whatever who was able to start in yr one, which would you choose?

 

The 10th pick is going to get a ~ 4yr/$12M dollar deal, that's a lot of money on the bench.

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. The postition really doesn't matter. At 10, I think we should be looking at the player with the potential to be one of the leagues best at his position even if it is someone who will need a year or so of development. I don't care if he starts or contributes much in Yr 1 as long as he a great at some point in Yr2 and beyond. That to me is how great teams are built. If you are using the draft to fill immediate holes with decent players you will always have holes and always be mediocre.

[DrDawkinstein]

My problem is I don't think Tannenhill is one of the 10 best players in the draft. Does a team who is not desperate for a QB need to reach for one?

 

Great post, agreed completely.

[Maddog69]

I think our respective messages share SHADES of meaning, but the similarities end there. I also think you're coming from a perspective that a shrinking portion of the fanbase has adopted to appease their not-so-misplaced skepticism with regard to Fitz: that the FO has one foot out out the quarterback door, and they're actively pursuing his heir apparent. I DON'T think that's the case, and likewise I don't think that a soon-to-be ProBowl quarterback not named Fitz will be in the works two years down the road. I think Fitz will be the quarterback at least through 2014, and that he's given them no reason to prepare otherwise.

 

Having said all that, I'd vastly prefer a CB, WR, LB or OL who will come in THIS year, start and contribute. I'm also nearly 99% certain that's the direction we'll Nix and Co. venture come Thursday evening.

1.) I don't agree that the Bills FO are 100% sold on Fitz and that he is our guaranteed starter in 2014. If plays poortly and we tank this year. Nix, Gailey and Fitz could all be out the door. (I don't expect it but it is possible).

2.) I too prefer to go with a player who can hopefully contribute this year. But that is not a guarantee. Look at Dareus. He was the 3rd pick in the draft and he played a ton, but was he really a big difference maker? Not really. I think he will be, but he wasn't last year. And that is what I would expect from this years #1. he will start and show flashes, but to expect much more is not realistic.

3.) Because Nix and Gailey are getting towards the end of the contracts and will want extensions, they need to win now so a 2-3 year project QB is not going to happen, but it is fun to talk about anyway. If they were in Yr 1 of their contracts, Tannehill would be strongly considered.

[QCity]

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. The position really doesn't matter. At 10, I think we should be looking at the player with the potential to be one of the leagues best at his position even if it is someone who will need a year or so of development. I don't care if he starts or contributes much in Yr 1 as long as he a great at some point in Yr2 and beyond. That to me is how great teams are built. If you are using the draft to fill immediate holes with decent players you will always have holes and always be mediocre.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I think any team picking in the top 10 has to get an impact player that will be starting week 1. (I also don't think Tannehill is anywhere close to being a top 10 talent)

[jjmac]

you draft players you feel will have the best careers, not just guys who will contribute immediately.

with a top 10 pick, you have to try to find a guy who will be a pro bowl caliber players, not a solid workman-type player.

 

No, you try to find somebody who can contribute immediately, if not sooner. Paying a guy 1st-round $$$ to sit on the bench is the last thing we need right now.

[Lv-Bills]

you draft players you feel will have the best careers, not just guys who will contribute immediately.

with a top 10 pick, you have to try to find a guy who will be a pro bowl caliber players, not a solid workman-type player.

I'm pretty sure if you draft a guy in the first, and contributes immediately, that chances are.......he'll have a pretty good career.

 

Get someone that can help and contribute now, rather than taking a chance on a QB that "might" be OK down the road. We have needs on this team that are much more needed than a QB. We are making progress, but there are still a lot of weaknesses.

[JPS]

There is no way Buddy trades up for Tannehill, and if he is there at 10 Buddy will trade down before drafting him.

 

PTR

I agree

[John from Riverside]

I dont think Tannenhill is gonna be the pick.....I could see a guy to develop taken later on in the draft...

 

And corner does not mean "thinking for the future" there are corners in this draft that would start over everything we have.

[FrankReichComeback]

Somebody needs to run this by Buffalo Barbarian before I comment any further.

 

Seriously, if Buddy and Co. think this is that "10-15 year guy" (and they would have to have ample reason to think so) then by all means, it's a no-brainer. Take the perceived franchise QB.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Be careful....Donahoe thought JP was a "10-15" year guy too

[VirginiaMike]

There is no way Buddy trades up for Tannehill, and if he is there at 10 Buddy will trade down before drafting him.

 

PTR

I agree -- if Tannehill is avail, the Bills phones will be ringing and they should answer.

[Joaquin1119]

I hope Miami takes Tannenhill. I think Brock Osweiler be a safer pick then Tannenhill

[Orton's Arm]

Buffalo Bills

 

It will be very interesting to see how Buffalo uses the No. 10 pick. Free agency treated this team very well and the Bills look to be a team on the rise. The Bills also have extra picks in the fourth, fifth and seventh rounds. Having some many picks, and not lacking for overall depth as they often are this time of year, the Bills could be players over the course of this draft.

 

I am just throwing it out there, but I sure bet coach Chan Gailey would love to get his hands on QB Ryan Tannehill. And that situation in Buffalo would be excellent for Tannehill's development, as he could sit behind Ryan Fitzpatrick and learn his craft under Gailey. If I were in charge of the Bills, I would be very interested in moving up to the seventh overall pick to grab Tannehill if he's still available. If that isn't the case, which is probably more likely, the Bills could go in several different directions with that 10th pick. Somewhat surprisingly, Buffalo doesn't have a lot of prominent needs right now, but it could certainly use a starting-caliber left tackle. A wide receiver opposite Steve Johnson would be second on my to-do list. The Bills should have their pick of any offensive tackle on the board besides Matt Kalil. But is Riley Reiff worth that 10th pick? I wouldn't use such a rich draft pick on Reiff, whom I view as a starting-caliber tackle but not special in any particular way. For the Bills, I actually preferred Mike Adams (before the news of his failed drug test at the combine), because of his high upside as a pass protector. But I prefer WR Michael Floyd to either.

 

If the Bills bypass offensive tackle in the first frame, that should override everything else in the subsequent rounds. As the draft goes along, the Bills actually could find themselves in the very favorable position of taking the best player available, while adding a wide receiver somewhat early in what has shaped up to be a deep draft for the position. Buffalo, which also has a very favorable 2012 schedule, could make some noise in the AFC next season. A great draft, which seems possible, would sure help.

I love the idea of the Bills taking a quarterback. I'm a little leery of Tannehill. I've heard mixed reviews about him. Also, he only averaged 7.1 yards per attempt in college. I feel a QB needs to average 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt in the NFL to be considered franchise. On the other hand, I've never actually watched him play. Maybe his yards per attempt stat understates the quality of his accomplishments.

 

If the Bills do pull the trigger on a first round QB, I want them to be reasonably certain he's The Guy. The Guy needs to have a high level of accuracy, he should be able to see multiple reads quickly and process information quickly, and he should be good at pre-snap reads. As a bonus, I'd like him to be able to hit receivers in perfect stride. I'm less concerned about physical attributes, but I certainly wouldn't complain if he added mobility and arm strength to the above list of traits. If Tannehill meets these criteria, then the Bills should be willing to trade up a lot higher than seventh overall to get him. I don't think there's been a single instance in NFL history in which a team said, "even though we got a young franchise QB from this trade, we regret having made it, because the price was too high." If you get a franchise QB, the price you pay will not be too high!

 

But if Tannehill isn't the answer, then the Bills should look at non-QBs in this draft. One possibility is to take a WR or CB at tenth overall, then to trade back into the first round for a LT. Trading away picks from next year's draft should not be an option. This means that trading back into the first will probably require the second and third round pick from this year's draft. (Yes, I understand that trades require a willing trading partner, and that the existence of such a partner is not necessarily a given.)

 

The Bills might use a fourth or fifth round pick on a SS/LB tweener, with the intention of turning that tweener into a full fledged LB. A draft like this would address two of the Bills' three biggest non-QB needs (which are LT, CB, and WR), while also improving the linebacking corps and team depth.

[K-9]

Be careful....Donahoe thought JP was a "10-15" year guy too

 

Such is life when imperfect human beings try to project the career paths of other, younger imperfect human beings.

 

But again, if they have ample reason to suspect he may be the guy, then I can see them pulling the trigger to take a chance on the most important position in sports.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JPS]

I would not want to see the Bills trade up for him, but if they stayed at 10 and snagged Tannehill, I would be fine with that.

Let him sit for 1-2 years behind Fitz and then take over. Would be the perfect situation for him.

After hearing the latest chatter, I think Tannehill is going to slide in the 1st. Polian said he's a late 1st round/early 2nd round prospect and "water seeks its own level". Make sense to me.

[DrDawkinstein]

After hearing the latest chatter, I think Tannehill is going to slide in the 1st. Polian said he's a late 1st round/early 2nd round prospect and "water seeks its own level". Make sense to me.

 

Agreed. I think if the Dolphins dont reach for him, he cann slide all the way to their pick in the 2nd (and maybe further).

[JimBob2232]

I think most of us here can see that the Bills are a boarder-line playoff team this year. 9-7 or 10-6 should be our goal. Next year is Playoffs or Bust for us. We are entering our 3-5 year window to win it all.

 

Now, its a tough decision...are you willing to Ride Fitz for those 5 years? If the answer is Yes, then you DO NOT draft Tannehill. If the answer is No, then you need a QB. But the last thing I want is another QB controversey (which WILL happen if Tannehill is taken).

 

Based on the contract Fitz signed last year, I think they are willing to ride the amish rifle. Lets get another peice who can help us in the next 5 years.

 

My vote is Kuchely, although Kalil, Blackmon or Clairborne would be hard to resist if they fall.

[Bruce]

you draft players you feel will have the best careers, not just guys who will contribute immediately.

with a top 10 pick, you have to try to find a guy who will be a pro bowl caliber players, not a solid workman-type player.

 

Well, that's not what Nix indicated.

 

Nix stated that you draft a player at #10 in the first round and you want a contributor, a difference maker.

 

You look for your development guys in the late rounds.

 

I mean, look at Maybin. You don't take a project with your 1st pick. Or McGahee for that matter. That was a H-U-G-E gamble considering he blew his entire knee out and rehab was guaranteed to take a solid year and there was no guarantee McGahee would ever return to any field as a player.

 

And I would argue that those decisions on those 2 players alone, and the time it took from playing actual players that could produce right away and make a difference (Oher or Orakpo, anyone?), cost the Bills development in several years of time.

I tend to believe the professional "in the trenches" over any fan prognosticator, any day.

 

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I think any team picking in the top 10 has to get an impact player that will be starting week 1. (I also don't think Tannehill is anywhere close to being a top 10 talent)

 

Great point.

 

You can't ignore the financials on these decisions, either.

 

I don't see the Bills reaching- well, this Bills regime that finally has a clue and is getting it done- for an unknown. Granted, all draft picks are to a certain degree more or less an unknown- but some are more unknowns and especially with such an intricate position as that of QB you would like some certainties.

 

I still think that the Bills go LT with #10, just as I don't believe there is much depth at the position this year. D-line is deep, WR is deep, Secondary is deep.

 

QB at #10?

 

You've got to pay that player at that slot, and I don't see these disciplined and intelligent Bills front office reps reaching and then having to pay for a gamble.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Bruce