Mathews or Glenn at LT??

[Kirby Jackson]

So we're not going to agree. How can we when some of you think Glenn is a Pro Bowl player. If he's been to the Pro Bowl it's only because he had a ticket.

 

I just want to point out that I feel vey strongly that Matthews will be Buffalo's pick at #9 overall................................if he makes it that far. Why?? Because he will be the best player on the board at #9 overall, because he's good enough to be selected #2 overall, because Buffalo's HC (a former NFL OL himself) believes strongly that a solid O-line is a very high priority, because Matthews could become a starting LT in the NFL, and because his daddy was a 19 yr NFL veteran OL who is in the HOF.

 

Let me ask you this, who do you project to be a better player in the NFL long term, Glenn or Matthews and why??

 

Who will make it to more Pro Bowls ...................and not because they have a ticket??

I believe Glenn will be the better player. He was one of the top 2 tackles in the NFL 25 and under this year (with Tyron Smith). He gave up 1.5 sacks on a bad OL, blocking for bad QBS in his 2nd year. What is it that you don't like about Glenn?

 

Edit: I also like Glenn more than Joekel, Fluker, Pugh, Fisher and Lane Johnson.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Kirby Jackson

[SJDK]

 

 

Most definitely. He wants to be paid as a LT when his contract is up, and deserves to be. I would suspect that Glenn would stay at LT...Matthews to RT for the time being.

Agreed, at least until Mathews rookie deal expired and that would be our best window to make some good runs

[thebandit27]

 

 

Ej's main injury was that hit as he ran out of bounds. Not related to LG as far as I remember, although he was scrambling which could have been due to a line breakdown. Maybe not.

 

I re-watch all of the plays on DVR, and remember how glaring our lack of LG play was (both brown and legursky) where we simply had no pocket for Thad or EJ despite Glenn and Wood doing their job. Most times it was 2 seconds and they were unable to set their feet so the throws were suffering and the plays were broken and even with Freddy in there chipping it was simply awful.

 

It was strange that so many people on the board were saying it was good we didn't re sign levitre and that our running game was OK so it was better to save the money. It was like they weren't watching the games or something. Go watch either Jets game and see how Richardson and Wilkerson just steamroll us up the middle. Embarrassing.

 

We can't go through that again.

 

Oh I agree that the position needed an upgrade, no question. I was just genuinely curious since you seemed to be connecting LG play to QB injuries.

[Fingon]

I love the mental gymnastics that people in this thread are doing to try and convince themselves that if we draft a tackle at nine Glenn is gone. Why does it have to be like that? The cap is expected to keep growing at a fast pace so we can easily afford both.

[maryland-bills-fan]

Shouldn't we wait until we have 2 top OT's on the roster? Why are you worried about 2018 today? Do you not want the strongest team possible between 2014 & 2018?

I'm afraid that you are isolating on only part of the issue with each of your statements. Let me answer them one at a time and bring in what I think is the whole picture.

 

As to <i>"....top two OT's......"</i> you have assumed that the only route to this is to spend a LEFT offensive tackle draft spot on this to get there. We can get to a top two OT's by drafting the best RIGHT offensive tackle in the draft with a lower draft pick. The positions ARE different and both are important. The RIGHT OT often has a TE and RB as help and most teams run to their right, which means that the ability for a powerful drive block is more important than the LEFT OT, who must be agile to handle speed rushes. There has also been an argument poised above that we can afford TWO LEFT offensive tackles on the team, in case one of them is hurt. I would suggest that we have other holes that are more important to fix with a good new starter then having a spare pro-bowl LOT on the roster.

 

"...are you worried about 2018 or today...." I am worried about both of them and I wish many of our past coaches had had similar concerns. You build a team by spending your resources wisely. If I am upgrading an old used car for commuting, I am not going to spend $5000 on new shocks but nothing to replace an arcing condenser. We only have so many draft picks each year and we have to get best value for each pick. You do not draft a punter in the first round, nor a long snapper. I look at our draft strategy as dictated by three major factors. First a product of the weakness at position TIMES the importance of the position. Secondly, the value of the pick(e.g. which pick in the draft) spent, must be proper. (For example, if we are very weak at guard but have a top 3 pick, I am NOT drafting a guard there!) and Thirdly, the strategy of being able to get a good player with one of our picks must be tuned to what is in this draft and the probable picks of other teams.

 

I rank our needs with regard to the first two factors as (in ascending order) as safety, guard, Linebacker, LOT, and Defensive End. The MUST FILL positions are DE and LOT. We have Mario at one DE and ?? at the other. Hughes is a situational pass rusher but cannot hold the edge of the LOS on running plays. The defensive scheme we are going to requires the front 4 to generate pressure on the passer and stifle running plays for the fast linebackers to clean up. There is no one else proven at this position. I look for this being our low first or second round pick. LEFT OT will be the other one of our first two picks unless Shanzier is available.

 

Actually, due to the collective bargaining agreement, who ever we draft at #9 (if we do) will get about the same salary: something like a $8.3M signing bonus and a $0.5M salary for the first year. There is a bucket of money (decided by the league) for rookie bonuses and this can be distributed as the team pleases. We would be playing our ROT about the same money as a top 10 LOT- that money has to taken from somewhere else. The "rub" is that the options for the 5th year would be based upon the 10 top RIGHT OT and a guy who considers himself as a top LOT would not agree to that option year. Note that sooner or later, the rookie pay scale scheme is going to be challenged. It was established by the VETERANS in the player association, to save money for the teams (not giving out fantastic rookie salaries) and that money could be used to pay the veterans more. With the trend developing for players to fake injuries to but pressure on their teams to redo contracts without affecting their attractiveness to other teams(al.la. Peters and Byrd and others), expect this to break down in the future.

 

 

IF you are really worried only about 2014 and the next 4 years, why don't aren't you beating the drums for trading our first and second round picks for 2015, 2016 and 2017 for low first round picks this year? 4 first round and 4 second round picks this year? WOW. What could we get with those picks and we would have all those players for 4-5 years.

Edited April 20, 2014 by maryland-bills-fan

[maryland-bills-fan]

So it would be stupid to take one of the most talented players in the draft because 5 years from now paying him as though he were playing a different position would be a poor investment?

I suggest that you do some homework. Look at the rookie draft slotting salary agreement between the league and the player's association. Rookies are paid by their slot position, , not their playing positionalthough there is some freedom to arrange the money to give some a lot more. For the #9 position, the money for the first 4 rookie years is a top 5-7 LEFT offensive tackle money. (The 5th option year is sorta set at the top 5 salary/franchise tag value- which would be RIGHT OT- an offer that would be refused). That is what you will be paying for a position that normally is paid about $5M less. Why way overpay for a ROT and not be able to get a quality player at one of our other needs-improvement positions? Have the gonads to use a lower 1st or 2nd round pick for the ROT and use the draft pick for the rarer player at a tougher positions.

 

A sure fire starter day one , well rounded RT who is rating as the #1 or #2 tackle in the draft . And some are saying no. Potential probowler is consensus.

A guy that can move over and probably own the LT position if Glenn goes down ( heaven forbid ) .

And you guys are talking yourself out of this pick ?

We should be so lucky.

Move Glenn? thats not a need right now. worry about Matthews contract ? same.

Maybe in a couple years we can fret over that

We had what record last year? And your main concern is to back up a position that was strong last year, in case that guy went down. Please follow your own logic, your "fail-safe" plan would then guarantee us another 6-10 record. That is the driving consideration in trying to "improve" the team? Please, go back to the bar and buy another round for Dick Juran and his other buddies.

 

How long is the list of RTs in the league you would trade the #9 pick for if they were available?

What an great incite on this issue. I haven't heard any suggestion yet. This is case closed. You do not draft a ROT at #9. Unless you have won the SB for the last 10 years straight, you do not draft a ROT at #9 as a backup for your LOT. Case Closed.

[Fixxxer]

What an great incite on this issue. I haven't heard any suggestion yet. This is case closed. You do not draft a ROT at #9. Unless you have won the SB for the last 10 years straight, you do not draft a ROT at #9 as a backup for your LOT. Case Closed.

 

Maybe there aren't many RTs in the league worthy of a top ten pick but I will answer NoSaint's question with another question.

 

How long is the list of LTs in the league you would trade that #9 to be our RT for the next 5 years?

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

Maybe there aren't many RTs in the league worthy of a top ten pick but I will answer NoSaint's question with another question.

 

How long is the list of LTs in the league you would trade that #9 to be our RT for the next 5 years?

Interesting spin but that's really not a fair question because they would be playing RT. I would not trade the 9th pick for anyone to play RT. If I needed a LT I would trade the 9th pick for Tyron Smith, Joe Thomas, Trent Williams and Russell Okung.

[3rdand12]

I suggest that you do some homework. Look at the rookie draft slotting salary agreement between the league and the player's association. Rookies are paid by their slot position, , not their playing positionalthough there is some freedom to arrange the money to give some a lot more. For the #9 position, the money for the first 4 rookie years is a top 5-7 LEFT offensive tackle money. (The 5th option year is sorta set at the top 5 salary/franchise tag value- which would be RIGHT OT- an offer that would be refused). That is what you will be paying for a position that normally is paid about $5M less. Why way overpay for a ROT and not be able to get a quality player at one of our other needs-improvement positions? Have the gonads to use a lower 1st or 2nd round pick for the ROT and use the draft pick for the rarer player at a tougher positions.

 

 

We had what record last year? And your main concern is to back up a position that was strong last year, in case that guy went down. Please follow your own logic, your "fail-safe" plan would then guarantee us another 6-10 record. That is the driving consideration in trying to "improve" the team? Please, go back to the bar and buy another round for Dick Juran and his other buddies.

 

 

What an great incite on this issue. I haven't heard any suggestion yet. This is case closed. You do not draft a ROT at #9. Unless you have won the SB for the last 10 years straight, you do not draft a ROT at #9 as a backup for your LOT. Case Closed.

I see you have reasoned this out fairly soundly > but your comment in regard to my post is not what i said

My first declaritive sentence..

"A sure fire starter day one , well rounded RT who is rating as the #1 or #2 tackle in the draft ."

and then i said

"And some are saying no.? Potential probowler is consensus. "

 

My point is....... one of these guys is a Bills homerun. Need and value wrapped up in one The other statements are just bonus points.

Carry on ?

[Bronc24]

I suggest that you do some homework. Look at the rookie draft slotting salary agreement between the league and the player's association. Rookies are paid by their slot position, , not their playing positionalthough there is some freedom to arrange the money to give some a lot more. For the #9 position, the money for the first 4 rookie years is a top 5-7 LEFT offensive tackle money. (The 5th option year is sorta set at the top 5 salary/franchise tag value- which would be RIGHT OT- an offer that would be refused). That is what you will be paying for a position that normally is paid about $5M less. Why way overpay for a ROT and not be able to get a quality player at one of our other needs-improvement positions? Have the gonads to use a lower 1st or 2nd round pick for the ROT and use the draft pick for the rarer player at a tougher positions.

 

 

We had what record last year? And your main concern is to back up a position that was strong last year, in case that guy went down. Please follow your own logic, your "fail-safe" plan would then guarantee us another 6-10 record. That is the driving consideration in trying to "improve" the team? Please, go back to the bar and buy another round for Dick Juran and his other buddies.

 

 

What an great incite on this issue. I haven't heard any suggestion yet. This is case closed. You do not draft a ROT at #9. Unless you have won the SB for the last 10 years straight, you do not draft a ROT at #9 as a backup for your LOT. Case Closed.

 

I would submit our ignoring the OL in the draft would be a colossal mistake. The heart and soul is the OL. Ask Brady. History has shown he is nowhere near as effective when he is pressured consistently (See SB loss to the Giants). You win and lose up front.

 

The only way I do not go OT is if Watkins, Evans or Manziel are on the board. Then I have the debate in the war room. It would be tough to take Lewan over any of those three, but I hope we go OL heavy this draft.

[NoSaint]

 

 

I would submit our ignoring the OL in the draft would be a colossal mistake. The heart and soul is the OL. Ask Brady. History has shown he is nowhere near as effective when he is pressured consistently (See SB loss to the Giants). You win and lose up front.

 

The only way I do not go OT is if Watkins, Evans or Manziel are on the board. Then I have the debate in the war room. It would be tough to take Lewan over any of those three, but I hope we go OL heavy this draft.

 

And they've gotten those OL closer to 41 than 9

[CSBill]

I think the Bills have to focus on O-line if they are going to be serious about winning.

 

Consider this—NE and Brady were brought up earlier in this thread: how many top-flight receivers has NE/Brady had over the years? A few, but it certainly has never been a strength of their team. But what has been the consistent during the Brady years? Answer, a very strong (effective) offensive line. The lines—both sides—are the heart and soul, the core, the foundation, etc., of any good team. The Bills have made some decent picks in the o-line over the past few years (Glenn, Wood, etc.), but it is still an area of need that needs more help and needs to get better. And until it is addressed, this will be an area of inconsistency and frustration at best.

 

Anyhow, if one of the big three tackles is there, draft one. And, if a starting quality lineman is available in the 2nd or 3rd, draft them as well.

Edited April 20, 2014 by CSBill

[thebandit27]

I suggest that you do some homework. Look at the rookie draft slotting salary agreement between the league and the player's association. Rookies are paid by their slot position, , not their playing positionalthough there is some freedom to arrange the money to give some a lot more. For the #9 position, the money for the first 4 rookie years is a top 5-7 LEFT offensive tackle money. (The 5th option year is sorta set at the top 5 salary/franchise tag value- which would be RIGHT OT- an offer that would be refused). That is what you will be paying for a position that normally is paid about $5M less. Why way overpay for a ROT and not be able to get a quality player at one of our other needs-improvement positions? Have the gonads to use a lower 1st or 2nd round pick for the ROT and use the draft pick for the rarer player at a tougher positions.

 

 

We had what record last year? And your main concern is to back up a position that was strong last year, in case that guy went down. Please follow your own logic, your "fail-safe" plan would then guarantee us another 6-10 record. That is the driving consideration in trying to "improve" the team? Please, go back to the bar and buy another round for Dick Juran and his other buddies.

 

 

What an great incite on this issue. I haven't heard any suggestion yet. This is case closed. You do not draft a ROT at #9. Unless you have won the SB for the last 10 years straight, you do not draft a ROT at #9 as a backup for your LOT. Case Closed.

 

I would love to see a link supporting the idea that an OT at 9 would make a top 5-7 LT salary, given that those tackles make upwards of $9M per season and last year's 1st overall pick, an OT, made about $4M/year.

[Bronc24]

 

 

I would love to see a link supporting the idea that an OT at 9 would make a top 5-7 LT salary, given that those tackles make upwards of $9M per season and last year's 1st overall pick, an OT, made about $4M/year.

 

+1

[NoSaint]

 

 

I would love to see a link supporting the idea that an OT at 9 would make a top 5-7 LT salary, given that those tackles make upwards of $9M per season and last year's 1st overall pick, an OT, made about $4M/year.

 

I think he got a bit twisted in his words and was referring to the post that put the #10 RT at 3m and our pick at about 3.25m... It's the only way I could make sense of his point.

 

As for fisher - I think your numbers are wrong and it's closer to 5-5.5ish per... His signing bonus was 15m if I recall the recent top picks.

Edited April 21, 2014 by NoSaint

[jumbalaya]

You don't mess with Glenn. Put Matthews at RT and start running the ball.

[thebandit27]

 

 

I think he got a bit twisted in his words and was referring to the post that put the #10 RT at 3m and our pick at about 3.25m... It's the only way I could make sense of his point.

 

As for fisher - I think your numbers are wrong and it's closer to 5-5.5ish per... His signing bonus was 15m if I recall the recent top picks.

 

Yes good call...I couldn't look it up at the time, but found it this morning:

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/eric-fisher/

 

$5.5M/year, so that would be on par with a top 10 RT salary. That would make sense out of the pot I quoted...if the poster hadn't emphasized LEFT tackle money.

 

I'm sure he/she had a point, so I'll wait to see what the response is...thanks for the heads up on Fisher's deal.

[C.Biscuit97]

I love this about the draft. A guy who hasn't played a down in the NFL might somehow be better than a guy who has been a borderline pro bowler. You realize there's a 50% chance Matthews could be a giant bust?

[Beerball]

I love this about the draft. A guy who hasn't played a down in the NFL might somehow be better than a guy who has been a borderline pro bowler. You realize there's a 50% chance Matthews could be a giant bust?

Most are not thinking of moving Glenn. Who do you like at 9?

[Luxy312]

My take on this subject has changed a little bit. Previously, I said I would be fine with Lewan if both Robinson and Matthews are gone. I think there's pretty much zero chance of Robinson being there, so then it comes down to Matthews and Lewan. Buffalo clearly needs a RT. The offensive line couldn't move the football on 3rd and short last year. They already filled in at LG, which should only make Glenn that much better. Matthews represents an interesting problem to have. Here's a versatile guy that can play any position on the line and at a high level to boot. What's not to like? At a minimum, the offensive line is set for 4 years with him at RT AND there's a contingency option if someone suffers serious injury. Now let's talk about other options at #9 overall. I keep hearing Ebron, and that bothers me. Out of the top ten rated TE's in this draft, Ebron has more drops per target than all of the rest. I know he's an athlete, runs good routes, etc. If I'm drafting an offensive player though at #9, I want a guy that can go up and get the ball and NOT a guy that can kind of get near the ball but not catch it. I don't really mind Evans in that spot. He's taller, faster, more athletic and most importantly doesn't drop the ball. Even if you assume that not a single QB is taken before the Bills select, I can still find 9 guys that I would want. They would be (in order) Clowney, Mack, Robinson, Watkins, Evans, Matthews, Barr, Gilbert, Dennard.