B-Man Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) If Matthews is there it's a no-brainer. He can play every single position on the line, even center. In fact, some scouts say that might be his best position. The amount of versatility he offers is well worth the pick. He probably won't be there at 9 though. I agree. You aren't just "getting a right tackle" You are getting an extremely talented offensive lineman who could solidify the line for years and years. Who wouldn't want that. . Edited April 20, 2014 by B-Man
Nanker Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 And here I thought sarcasm was dead! +1 It's elevated to an art form here. You make good points on the OL there BFoM.
Doc Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 How's Hairston doing these days? Anybody ever think about what might happen if Glenn pops a ganube like Hairston did? Who do we swing over there then? Pears? Yeah, OT isn't a need at all. Neither is Guard. Or a swing man either. Come to think of it, the OLine is set. Time to pick a CB at 9. Better yet - trade up and get Ha-Ha at 5. You could make that argument for any position. What if Mario goes down? Should that make DE the priority?
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 You could make that argument for any position. What if Mario goes down? Should that make DE the priority? Absolutely! It is called depth. Not planning for injuries at key spots is crazy.
Kirby Jackson Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) Anthony Davis RT 49ers That was my initial thought (if anyone) so I did a little research. If in 4 years my 9th pick at RT never went to a Pro Bowl and graded out as the 6th best RT (according to Bleacher Report) in the league I don't think that I would love the pick. I realize that it is Bleacher Report but there is not a ton of analysis on RT. I would think that he is an above average RT that I used a top 10 pick on. Everyone seems to love the idea of RT at 9 but there is not a RT in the league that I would trade the 9th pick for. Edited April 20, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
Johnny Hammersticks Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 You could make that argument for any position. What if Mario goes down? Should that make DE the priority? I anticipate that we will see the Bills take a DE earlier in the draft than people expect.
Kellyto83TD Posted April 20, 2014 Author Posted April 20, 2014 I agree. You aren't just "getting a right tackle" You are getting an extremely talented offensive lineman who could solidify the line for years and years. Who wouldn't want that. . There is zero argument with the talent factor, the issue comes in 4 years when Glenn's contract comes up then a year or two later when Mathews does. Both with will want LT money and odds are one will be gone. Sure we are solid for say 5 years, but then what? I would like to finally have a line together for say 7-10 years esp. at Center and both tackles.
B-Man Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) There is zero argument with the talent factor, the issue comes in 4 years when Glenn's contract comes up then a year or two later when Mathews does. Both with will want LT money and odds are one will be gone. Sure we are solid for say 5 years, but then what? I would like to finally have a line together for say 7-10 years esp. at Center and both tackles. You are correct sir, probably both would not be retained long term. (over 4 years), but having too much talent is a good problem and maybe because I'm older (lol) but I am more immediate in my desire to succeed. I would LOVE to be solid for the next five years and then have to worry. I'm all for long range thinking, but its foolish for any of us to plan further ahead than that. . Edited April 20, 2014 by B-Man
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 You are correct sir, probably both would not be retained long term. (over 4 years), but having too much talent is a good problem and maybe because I'm older (lol) but I am more immediate in my desire to succeed. I would LOVE to be solid for the next five years and then have to worry. I'm all for long range thinking, but its foolish for any of us to plan further ahead than that. . There is so much uncertainty with regard to injury, contracts, coaching changes etc. that long range planning in the NFL is much less than 5 years. You have to put together a playoff squad as a coach quickly, like 2 or 3 years. And, then start to win some playoff games. If not, we all know what happens, we start over again.
RK_BillsFan Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 At the start of the Off Season I was really high on drafting a RT with our Number 9 pick. That was because most mock drafts at the time and team info had some amazing prospects falling to us. Another thing to remember is, this is indeed football and a hard sport. If glenn goes down, and we were to have save, Matthews that could easily slide over to the LT spot, it would be amazing. However I still felt, as with most, that #9 for a RT is high and our best bet would be to trade down. It's been almost 2 months now and I still feel that trading down would be our best option from the #9 spot. It doesn't have to be far, hell we could run some smoke screens and flat out lie to raise the interest in our pick. The lions really want a safety, but could you imagine them with Mike Evans? A little birdie told me that the Steelers could use a big receiver and might trade up if the price was right. The Giants could also be interested in trading up. They have a large amount of needs/wants and at the #9 spot there will be some great picks for them. Hell. Someone call Jerry and tell him god wants the cowboys to have a BIG WR or TE, or that if they want a safety to stop all those ridiculous long plays from ruining their season, to jump ahead of the Lions. But now i'm off on a tangent so back to the main point. At the #9 spot, I think the player that would be most ideal for our team, if we could get him, would be Mack. While we DO have a new for WR and TE, have you looked at our roster? 5 TEs, and a TON of big and fast WR that aren't entirely proven, ie the same as any rookie. This coaching staff doesn't care how amazing your stats are on paper, go look at DaRick Rodgers. I can't see us taking Mike Evans or Ebron at 9. TL:DR we really should trade down from #9 unless Mack is there and even then it should be considered.
chris heff Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 There is zero argument with the talent factor, the issue comes in 4 years when Glenn's contract comes up then a year or two later when Mathews does. Both with will want LT money and odds are one will be gone. Sure we are solid for say 5 years, but then what? I would like to finally have a line together for say 7-10 years esp. at Center and both tackles. Two years is what is left on Glenn's contract. So if you move him he is gone in two years. If you draft Mathews and keep him at RT, he is gone in four years, maybe five.
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 Mike Williams was a RT at Texas taken at #4 overall. His childhood ballet classes and Chris Simms' left-handedness were projected by Modrak and company to make it a cinch for the coaches to flip him to LT, but the reality was he was a poor RT and couldn't hack it being flipped to G.
Doc Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 Absolutely! It is called depth. Not planning for injuries at key spots is crazy. Good point. Good ting the Bills have unlimited 1st round picks. I anticipate that we will see the Bills take a DE earlier in the draft than people expect. Yeah, but if they do, it will be for the spot opposite Mario.
billykaykay Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 That is what I would love to see in Buffalo. Never liked the CJ pick esp at #9. I wouldnt' gripe if we took a really good RB that could maybe carry the rock 20+ x per game. Get a road grader at RT along with LB and TE in this draft and we might be on track. I will never gripe at a pound the ball approach. Many want 'exciting offense'. I find making the playoffs exciting and would really find winning a superbowl very exciting Nope I meant down. We have seen guys drop before and we have at least 3 teams ahead of us or so that need QB's. If we trade down and miss him then we do I can live with that. Id love to have 2 2nd rounders this year as deep as the draft is There is a good chance that Matthews will be the 2nd player off the board.. Quit dreaming of trade downs & picking up a top 5 player. I agree with the trade down, but please be realistic in who will be available.
thewildrabbit Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 RT, LT it doesn't matter as most of the fans here don't want the team to waste a #9 on the O line. No worries either, as this team just doesn't put as much value on O linemen as other teams, or like they do for the D line. Which makes no sense to me because the O line protects the most important player on the field. This team has had so many chances to build a top O line the last fifteen years, and they just can't stop drafting for the defense or RB's. Anyway, I'm hoping new ownership changes this moronic philosophy that you can get by with one or two good players, and the rest waiver wire scrubs.
Doc Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 RT, LT it doesn't matter as most of the fans here don't want the team to waste a #9 on the O line. No worries either, as this team just doesn't put as much value on O linemen as other teams, or like they do for the D line. Which makes no sense to me because the O line protects the most important player on the field. This team has had so many chances to build a top O line the last fifteen years, and they just can't stop drafting for the defense or RB's. Anyway, I'm hoping new ownership changes this moronic philosophy that you can get by with one or two good players, and the rest waiver wire scrubs. How many teams have a LT and a RT who were both drafted in the 1st round?
Fixxxer Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 A good GM always need to think ahead, but a good GM doesn't pass on great talent at a position that could face some uncertainty going into the season (Pears age and Hairston health) not to mention bad case scenarios. If Matthews or Robinson are there at #9 you take them and you watch and enjoy great OL play for at least 4 years.
maryland-bills-fan Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 You are correct sir, probably both would not be retained long term. (over 4 years), but having too much talent is a good problem and maybe because I'm older (lol) but I am more immediate in my desire to succeed. I would LOVE to be solid for the next five years and then have to worry. I'm all for long range thinking, but its foolish for any of us to plan further ahead than that. . Geesh, get a grip. "having too much talent" is not a problem, I will agree- but you are only talking about one position. Having the two best LEFT offensive tackles in the universe, would be nice IF ALL ELSE WERE EQUAL. Having the two best LOT, but holes at guard and defensive end and linebacker and safety IS A FRIGGIN PROBLEM. If I were to follow your line a reasoning to a silly extreme (this is a way to test ideas for universal sensibility), we should draft a long snapper in the first round and then have "too much talent" at that position. A top 10 ROT and a top 3 LOT and a top 30 (defensive end, linebacker, safety or guard) DOES NOT beat having a top 10 ROT a top 14 ROT and a top 15 (defensive end, linebacker, safety or guard. Get a grip. Teams are defined as much by their WEAKEST positions as their strongest positions. A good GM always need to think ahead, but a good GM doesn't pass on great talent at a position that could face some uncertainty going into the season (Pears age and Hairston health) not to mention bad case scenarios. If Matthews or Robinson are there at #9 you take them and you watch and enjoy great OL play for at least 4 years. ....and suk at DE, LB, OG and safety, rather than having very good play at TWO positions for at least 4 years. I agree. You aren't just "getting a right tackle" You are getting an extremely talented offensive lineman who could solidify the line for years and years. Who wouldn't want that. . The DE coach, the linebacker coach, the interior offensive line coach, the backfield coach and the TE coach. That was my initial thought (if anyone) so I did a little research. If in 4 years my 9th pick at RT never went to a Pro Bowl and graded out as the 6th best RT (according to Bleacher Report) in the league I don't think that I would love the pick. I realize that it is Bleacher Report but there is not a ton of analysis on RT. I would think that he is an above average RT that I used a top 10 pick on. Everyone seems to love the idea of RT at 9 but there is not a RT in the league that I would trade the 9th pick for. Thank you for actually taking the effort to check out some facts.
Kellyto83TD Posted April 20, 2014 Author Posted April 20, 2014 You are correct sir, probably both would not be retained long term. (over 4 years), but having too much talent is a good problem and maybe because I'm older (lol) but I am more immediate in my desire to succeed. I would LOVE to be solid for the next five years and then have to worry. I'm all for long range thinking, but its foolish for any of us to plan further ahead than that. . I gotta admit you are right BMan. I have been more worried about the future than the present. We need to win NOW and let the rest of it happen as it happens.
maryland-bills-fan Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 Good point. Good thing the Bills have unlimited 1st round picks. Yeah, but if they do, it will be for the spot opposite Mario. Aha, I totally missed that the Bills had unlimited first round picks. My bad.
Recommended Posts