I am the first to admit when I may be wrong (RT 1st Round)

[B-Man]

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.

 

....and suk at DE, LB, OG and safety, rather than having very good play at TWO positions for at least 4 years.

 

The DE coach, the linebacker coach, the interior offensive line coach, the backfield coach and the TE coach.

 

 

 

 

What a hoot.

 

NOBODY falls for these "all or nothing" over-reaction posts anymore.

 

You make little sense.

 

If the OT is the best player available that's what you take.

 

.

[DOGNESS]

I have stated several times that Pro football dictates no first round RT's and for most all of NFL History it has been that way. But it seems things are changing somewhat. My brother who is a Vikings season ticket holder speaks with one of their scouts from time to time at events etc. He gets tidbits and insights etc. from the guy. He doesn't 'know him' as in he has his cell phone number type deal. They have just kind of gotten to know each other and he doesn't mind talking with my brother some.

 

That said they ran into each other at the Kansas Jayhawks Spring game last weekend. ( I think the guy is an alum like my brother) and they talked football. I had told my brother about the discussions here and he decided to ask the guy what the deal was with RT's not going in the first.

 

Well the guy pointed out the obvious BUT he said its changing somewhat. Teams are now wanting speed on both sides of the DL And OLB's to pressure the passer from both sides to further take away their comfort zones even further. So they are looking harder at RT's esp high in round 2 if they are athletic enough. The caveat is they normally plan to move them to LT in a year or so if they are that athletic.

 

So bottom line it is possible we could take a RT in the first, but it isn't likely. Our #9 in the 2nd is a real definite possibility to solidify the OL although 3rd round is more likely. With the Mathews situation the kid is so damn athletic he is most likely going to be a LT for someone in the NFL.

 

The other issue is top athletic guys want to be LT's because LT pay will always be much higher than RT. So if we were to trade down and take Mathews in the 1st we are going to have a big problem in about 4 years. Who do you pay? Glenn is a LT And has proven himself as a damn good LT And he is going to want to stay there and get paid LT pay, who can blame him. At some point one will leave the team as you cant pay a LT And RT Left Tackle money, it hurts the cap too much.

 

Personally I want to see a trade down a few spots and take Ebron if still there or the top LB. If its LB take say Austin S Jenkins even with a slight move up and if we have another 2nd by trading down, take say JaWan James from Tenn to play RT for us.

The RT issue is such an interesting debate. Ten years ago center was the ugly step child and all I head was how you could get a center anywhere. Five years ago it was guard. You can get a guard anywhere(right, Colin Brown fans?), they said. Now RT is allegedly the unimportant position on the o-line. My Question is this? Your in the Superbowl.The guy across from your RT is a five time pro bowler who had fifteen sack season. Don't you want the best athlete possible at RT? I dont mean that from the standpoint of wanting your best o-lineman to be RT. I think LT is still the glamour position on the o-line. BUT. In a perfect world don't you want five pro bowlers on your o-line? And, if at 9, the best player avail by far is RT, and you are looking to draft an RT, why then wouldn't you draft one? All I heard last year before the season started was how the Bills didn't put a lot of weight in the guard position. Then came the disaster known as Colin Brown. I guess they should have put more weight into that position after all. If Matthews, Lewan, or Robinson is there i think you take one of them.

[Kirby Jackson]

The RT issue is such an interesting debate. Ten years ago center was the ugly step child and all I head was how you could get a center anywhere. Five years ago it was guard. You can get a guard anywhere(right, Colin Brown fans?), they said. Now RT is allegedly the unimportant position on the o-line. My Question is this? Your in the Superbowl.The guy across from your RT is a five time pro bowler who had fifteen sack season. Don't you want the best athlete possible at RT? I dont mean that from the standpoint of wanting your best o-lineman to be RT. I think LT is still the glamour position on the o-line. BUT. In a perfect world don't you want five pro bowlers on your o-line? And, if at 9, the best player avail by far is RT, and you are looking to draft an RT, why then wouldn't you draft one? All I heard last year before the season started was how the Bills didn't put a lot of weight in the guard position. Then came the disaster known as Colin Brown. I guess they should have put more weight into that position after all. If Matthews, Lewan, or Robinson is there i think you take one of them.

I actually think that RT is the 2nd most important position on the line but that doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't take one at 9. To go back to NoSaint's question what RT would you trade the 9th pick for?

[OldTimer1960]

 

How many teams have a LT and a RT who were both drafted in the 1st round?

 

The 49ers, I believe.

 

I understand the "value of the position" argument, but the value of positions can change. Look at FB and RB - those positions, especially RB, are not valued as highly as they used to be. On the flip side, S, TE, and nickel CB are valued much more highly than they used to be. Who is to say that RT isn't increasing in value? Certainly, defenses try to take advantage of weak pass blockers at RT by moving thir best pass rushers there on occasion.

 

If you follow the argument that they should not take a top OT because they would likely lose Glenn or the rookie eventually to FA to its logical conclusion, then wherever they draft that RT, they should hope that he doesn't turn out to be too good, or they could lose Glenn or him. That doesn't make too much sense to me.

[Beerball]

There's also talk of the NFL pendulum swinging back toward more balanced offense with a greater reliance on the run game as a result of the Seahawks SB win. Teams want to pound edge rushers who mostly rely on speed/quickness that makes them susceptible to the power running game at the POA.

Don't we know it?! (Mario held up well on his side for the most part, his opposite # not quite as well. Having Spikes will solidify the middle and moving Alonso outside will take advantage of his speed/vision. Do we have the DE to hold down the side opposite Mario?)

 

The Bills as everyone knows ran the ball more than anyone last year. It makes sense to me that they need one more solid starter on the line and more RB depth. I think we'll see both within rounds 1-3.

[maryland-bills-fan]

What a hoot.

 

NOBODY falls for these "all or nothing" over-reaction posts anymore.

 

You make little sense.

 

If the OT is the best player available that's what you take.

 

.

Are you really on this planet? We have a very good LOT (the harder position to fill- even if you spend a highest draft pick, you are not assured of getting "the" guy) and can get a top 3 RIGHT offensive tackle even in the second round. Why in the 'ell would the Bills spend a #9 draft pick for a position that could be filled with a high second round pick or even a third round pick? Again let me use the argument that destroys your argument. If we have all pro's at both tackle positions, and only street free agents at guard, linebacker and even quarterback, your argument is that we HAVE TO take that best player available OT. Boy, I would like to be in business with you as a competitor. What do you expect to do with this #9 offensive tackle if you had two pro bowl tackles playing. Would the NLF give you a 20 point head start, because you had him selling hotdogs and beers but on the roster? If a LOT stud falls to us and he is bar-none the best player available, maybe for the next 5 picks, I say that we should trade the pick (and him) and get two or more stud players in exchange. Think beyond the first thought and you will see that this is the right direction.

[John from Riverside]

That is why I have been saying dont be suprised if its Lewan at 9 or in a trade down......Mathews might not be there

[section122]

Are you really on this planet? We have a very good LOT (the harder position to fill- even if you spend a highest draft pick, you are not assured of getting "the" guy) and can get a top 3 RIGHT offensive tackle even in the second round. Why in the 'ell would the Bills spend a #9 draft pick for a position that could be filled with a high second round pick or even a third round pick? Again let me use the argument that destroys your argument. If we have all pro's at both tackle positions, and only street free agents at guard, linebacker and even quarterback, your argument is that we HAVE TO take that best player available OT. Boy, I would like to be in business with you as a competitor. What do you expect to do with this #9 offensive tackle if you had two pro bowl tackles playing. Would the NLF give you a 20 point head start, because you had him selling hotdogs and beers but on the roster? If a LOT stud falls to us and he is bar-none the best player available, maybe for the next 5 picks, I say that we should trade the pick (and him) and get two or more stud players in exchange. Think beyond the first thought and you will see that this is the right direction.

Except in this case bpa would match a need for the team. So needing a rt and having the best player available be a rt makes it a natural fit. The bills don't have 2 pro bowl tackles playing. Your constructing an argument without using the pertinent facts and information.

 

As for the "can be filled with a second or third round pick" yes it can. However doesn't it stand to reason that the player EVERYONE is saying is a top 10 talent should be better than whoever you could get in 2nd or 3rd?

 

To no saints question of which rt would I trade the 9 pick for I can't really name one. Then again I would say the same about many positions save for qb. If you were to make a list of all nfl players you would trade for the #9 pick I would imagine you would have a hard time finding 25 players that aren't a qb worth that trade.

 

Matthews might not be the exciting pick that Evans or Ebron would be but he definitely fills a need and does so without reaching.

 

Fluker at 11 last year wasn't as highly rated as Matthews is this year so for the 2 extra spots I don't see it as a reach. If Matthews is gone I would view lewan as a reach because he isn't as talented as Matthews. If Matthews is gone I will be rooting hard for a trade down.

[Kellyto83TD]

That is why I have been saying dont be suprised if its Lewan at 9 or in a trade down......Mathews might not be there

John do you feel Lewan has too many off the field questions? Just asking. I can't see lewan being the pick at #9. I see Ebron or a trade down. I would prefer a Trade down, we want more picks in this draft

[3rdand12]

Absolutely! It is called depth. Not planning for injuries at key spots is crazy.

I would really like to get this bookend stud pro bowl all pro RT sorted before we talk about planning in case if injury .

 

Good point. Good ting the Bills have unlimited 1st round picks.

 

Yeah, but if they do, it will be for the spot opposite Mario.

Or opposite Glenn

 

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.

 

 

.

This is where abouts i land on the subject.

Be progressive in your thinking Folks. Not what has been done , but what is trending next.

We need a DE and a T because you need two very good ones

 

I actually think that RT is the 2nd most important position on the line but that doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't take one at 9. To go back to NoSaint's question what RT would you trade the 9th pick for?

It has been quoted that Robinson and Matthews are much better than any tackle in the draft last year. Thats not something i really want to miss on.

Elite is elite. I dont know that these guys are per se , but they project to be .

 

John do you feel Lewan has too many off the field questions? Just asking. I can't see lewan being the pick at #9. I see Ebron or a trade down. I would prefer a Trade down, we want more picks in this draft

for lewan i sure hope a trade down. he is a step behind the level of the other two at this point imho .

[thewildrabbit]

How many teams have a LT and a RT who were both drafted in the 1st round?

Well, the Seahawks did draft a OT with the 6th pick in 2010, a player who ended up starting at LT that year. Then the very next year they drafted two more O linemen in an OT with their first two picks in the 2011 draft. The first rounder was an OT, and the next pick was an OG. So, I'd have to say that Pete Carroll with the Seahawks tried to build that O line first thing with two OT's taken in the first round in consecutive years 2010, 2011.

 

Then Andy Reid is another HC who wants to build a top O line, as they had two #1's at both RT & LT. The Eagles with Chip Kelly have all pro Jason Peters at LT, and then drafted the #4 pick on a LT in the draft last year in Lane Johnson, and he played RT all 16 games. '

 

I think the trend is changing to two top OT's if you don't have a Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers, Big Ben.

[Sisyphean Bills]

The 49ers, I believe.

 

I understand the "value of the position" argument, but the value of positions can change. Look at FB and RB - those positions, especially RB, are not valued as highly as they used to be. On the flip side, S, TE, and nickel CB are valued much more highly than they used to be. Who is to say that RT isn't increasing in value? Certainly, defenses try to take advantage of weak pass blockers at RT by moving thir best pass rushers there on occasion.

 

If you follow the argument that they should not take a top OT because they would likely lose Glenn or the rookie eventually to FA to its logical conclusion, then wherever they draft that RT, they should hope that he doesn't turn out to be too good, or they could lose Glenn or him. That doesn't make too much sense to me.

 

Isn't it smarter to let other GMs establish the trend first and then follow the herd?

[Doc]

Well, the Seahawks did draft a OT with the 6th pick in 2010, a player who ended up starting at LT that year. Then the very next year they drafted two more O linemen in an OT with their first two picks in the 2011 draft. The first rounder was an OT, and the next pick was an OG. So, I'd have to say that Pete Carroll with the Seahawks tried to build that O line first thing with two OT's taken in the first round in consecutive years 2010, 2011.

 

Then Andy Reid is another HC who wants to build a top O line, as they had two #1's at both RT & LT. The Eagles with Chip Kelly have all pro Jason Peters at LT, and then drafted the #4 pick on a LT in the draft last year in Lane Johnson, and he played RT all 16 games. '

 

I think the trend is changing to two top OT's if you don't have a Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers, Big Ben.

The Eagles I'll give you, and the Seahawks to a degree because while James Carpenter was taken in the 1st, he didn't pan-out even at RT (he was a college LT) and is now an OG. Reid drafted Fisher to replace Albert.

[Mr. WEO]

NoSaint raised an interesting question in another thread that still hasn't been answered. What RT would you trade the 9th overall pick for?

 

NoSaint asked the subject-defining (and one hoped, ending) question. There answer: there is no RT anyone would take over the #9 pick.

 

Posters are simply trying a little early to get comfortable with and trying to convince themselves of the wisdom of blowing a #9 on a RT.

[Sisyphean Bills]

NoSaint asked the subject-defining (and one hoped, ending) question. There answer: there is no RT anyone would take over the #9 pick.

 

Posters are simply trying a little early to get comfortable with and trying to convince themselves of the wisdom of blowing a #9 on a RT.

 

I'm bracing myself for a RB.

[OldTimer1960]

Isn't it smarter to let other GMs establish the trend first and then follow the herd?

 

Yes, of course. That is, if you always want to be behind the curve. Once the trend is established, it is harder to compete as then many teams are looking for the same thing (in this case it would be athletic RTs, as if finding good LTs wasn't hard enough!).

 

A current trend that might be worth getting out ahead of is: While teams are all trying to find big WRs and big CBs to cover those WRs, maybe bucking that trend and finding faster, quicker (likely smaller) WRs that the big CBs would have trouble covering would be a good idea. Likewise, with teams now looking for smaller faster LBs to cover the fast pass-catching TEs, maybe it would be a good idea to develop a power running game to take advantage of those smaller LBs.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

NoSaint asked the subject-defining (and one hoped, ending) question. There answer: there is no RT anyone would take over the #9 pick.

 

Posters are simply trying a little early to get comfortable with and trying to convince themselves of the wisdom of blowing a #9 on a RT.

I totally agree with you Weo. If you watch there aren't specific RT's that anyone is advocating trading the 9th pick for. Someone brought up Anthony Davis who is pretty good. He has never been to a Pro Bowl and was graded as the 6th best RT last year. He is probably my favorite of the bunch. Strief graded out as the top RT last year and if the Bills dealt a 3rd for him this place would have exploded (yes, I realize that he was a FA).

 

I think that a 2nd round RT is sufficient.

[NoSaint]

I totally agree with you Weo. If you watch there aren't specific RT's that anyone is advocating trading the 9th pick for. Someone brought up Anthony Davis who is pretty good. He has never been to a Pro Bowl and was graded as the 6th best RT last year. He is probably my favorite of the bunch. Strief graded out as the top RT last year and if the Bills dealt a 3rd for him this place would have exploded (yes, I realize that he was a FA).

 

I think that a 2nd round RT is sufficient.

 

The other half that twists the knife a little - last years 9 signed a 4 year 12.66m contract - figure we will be looking at 4 years 13m and for a tackle the 5th year would be a 10m option (napkin math).... That'd be 5 years 23m.

 

 

Streif was a 5 year 20m deal with just 8.5m guaranteed (first two years). He would've been cheaper, a more team friendly structure, AND not cost a top ten pick.

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

The other half that twists the knife a little - last years 9 signed a 4 year 12.66m contract - figure we will be looking at 4 years 13m and for a tackle the 5th year would be a 10m option (napkin math).... That'd be 5 years 23m.

 

 

Streif was a 5 year 20m deal with just 8.5m guaranteed (first two years). He would've been cheaper, a more team friendly structure, AND not cost a top ten pick.

Thank you for bringing sanity and thought to this topic. I was actually getting to the point where I was trying to convince myself that RT at 9 would not be that bad. The reality is there isn't a RT in the world that I would give up the 9th pick for.

 

I think that RT, OG and S may be the only positions that there are no players that I would deal the 9th pick for. Earl Thomas may be the one exception but I take a similar approach to S. I can find someone to play next to Aaron Williams without burning a top 10 pick.

 

Thanks for putting out that litmus test that has snapped some of us back into reality. I am by no means downplaying the importance of the OL. I am all for a 2nd and even a 3rd this year going there. Glenn and Levitre were both 2nds and Peters was undrafted. I would argue that those are the 3 best OL that the Bills have had in the last decade.

[Big C]

A great QB can overcome poor line play (Rodgers, Wilson). A great line can help elevate the play of a good one (Foles, Dalton). A great QB and a great line is truly devastating (Manning, Brady). But at the end of the day, on offense it all comes down to the QB (as we all know). The Vikings and Redskins have pretty good lines, but neither of them had good QB play last year.

 

If we truly believe Manuel can be the guy, we owe it to him to get that protection. It will also help our most explosive playmaker. If a blue chip OT talent is there at #9, we take him. I think we all know Watkins and Evans are gone by then and I think the addition of Mike Williams means we aren't looking at WR in the first round anyway. And let's not forget that Stevie is a really good receiver, Woods and Manuel had great chemistry last year and we have two deep threats in Goodwin and Graham (say what you will about Graham, but he is fast and he will pull coverage away from the middle of the field at the very least). I really don't think receiver is as big a need as some have made it out to be. A good TE can be had in round 2 or 3. I don't think the drop off from Ebron to Amaro, Niklas or Seferian-Jenkins is large enough to warrant drafting him at #9.

 

On the defensive side, we need to bolster our LB depth and it can't hurt to add another DE / pass rusher, but we all know Clowney and Mack will be gone by #9 and Barr may be gone too. Opinions are split on him, but he is at the very least someone we will consider. Mosley is NOT at top 10 player and the need isn't great enough to take him that high anyway. I like our DTs and DBs right now. I'm not seeing a defensive pick here.

 

Trading down may happen if we find a partner, but as it stands I'm not going to be surprised if we land an OT at pick #9.