Readig Buddy's draft tea leaves

[sadbrad]

This goes for BBMB too.....

"I tell you this every time and you don’t listen, you don’t believe me," Nix started out. "But I’m gonna tell you anyway. Don’t get pinned down, now, by connecting the dots. It’s fun. I enjoy reading it. But it’s fantasy football. It has nothing to do with what we might do. I don’t care how many draftniks think that’s where we’re going and that’s the best pick for us. If that’s not the guy we’ve got rated there, we won’t take him. So don’t get yourself in a spot where it sounds like you know and it don’t work out that way."

[LEBills]

At the end of the 45-minute session, Nix returned to the quesiton of getting a difference-maker as it related to an offensive tackle. Said Nix: "I guess I was thinking a big play maker, which a tackle is not. But a difference maker is a guy that makes youre team better and can do things to make you be able to do more, like throwing down the field more. So I think in that light, certainly a left tackle fits that need."

I think the bolded is the most telling quote of the entire luncheon.

10 will not be an OT. Buddy is looking for a playmaker. That is a position that is either going to catch a TD pass, create another possession for your team through a pick (CB), or swing momentum (pass rusher).

He kind of explains how an OT could be a "playmaker" but it doesn't sound like that is what he meant with the first quote.

Sounds like they really want -
WR: Blackmon, Floyd, Hill (though it didn't sound like they were very high on him)
CB: Kirkpatrick, Gilmore
Pass Rusher: Cox, Ingram, McClellen (dark horses)

I don't see either CB as someone who will get a lot of picks, so hopefully it's one of the other six

and yea I'm connecting the dots

[Sherlock Holmes]

Kuechly is the biggest difference maker we can get

[Shaw66]

LOL!
Article starts with "Don't connect the dots."
Followed by the Article attempts connecting the dots.

That is exactly right. Gaughan concludes that it looks like tackle is a priority. But the Bills have said for a month or more that there are a lot of good tackles in the draft, and they aren't necessarily looking for a starter. They won't burn a 10 just to get a starter, because they have confidence in Hairston.

So just like the draft is deep in receivers and you don't need one the first round, the draft is deep in tackles.

All these folks who believe in smoke screens and all that stuff don't get. Buddy tells you the way it is. He told us when he want' going to be a player in free agency (by going to be before midnight) and he told us when he was. He told us he'd take the best player he could find in round one and then he went out and did exactly that.

He told us today - don't connect the dots - we're going to take the player who will have the most impact on the game. If it's a running back from Alabama, that's whom they'll take. If it's a tackle, it'll be a tackle.

It's BPA folks, plain and simple. He's always told us that and he's always done that. And they didn't give any clues today about who they think are 8, 9 and 10 in the draft, so there simply is no way to figure out whose name will get called. Live with it.

[Shaw66]

I think the bolded is the most telling quote of the entire luncheon.

10 will not be an OT. Buddy is looking for a playmaker. That is a position that is either going to catch a TD pass, create another possession for your team through a pick (CB), or swing momentum (pass rusher).

He kind of explains how an OT could be a "playmaker" but it doesn't sound like that is what he meant with the first quote.

Sounds like they really want -
WR: Blackmon, Floyd, Hill (though it didn't sound like they were very high on him)
CB: Kirkpatrick, Gilmore
Pass Rusher: Cox, Ingram, McClellen (dark horses)

I don't see either CB as someone who will get a lot of picks, so hopefully it's one of the other six

and yea I'm connecting the dots

Probably right. Cordy Glenn is the only tackle with the size and talent to be a game changer. So if it's a tackle, it'll be him.

But I agree with you, it sounded as though he didn't think a game changer at tackle will be on the board at 10. Either they don't rate Glen that high, or they're convinced he'll be gone at 10.

[sadbrad]

That is exactly right. Gaughan concludes that it looks like tackle is a priority. But the Bills have said for a month or more that there are a lot of good tackles in the draft, and they aren't necessarily looking for a starter. They won't burn a 10 just to get a starter, because they have confidence in Hairston.

So just like the draft is deep in receivers and you don't need one the first round, the draft is deep in tackles.

All these folks who believe in smoke screens and all that stuff don't get. Buddy tells you the way it is. He told us when he want' going to be a player in free agency (by going to be before midnight) and he told us when he was. He told us he'd take the best player he could find in round one and then he went out and did exactly that.

He told us today - don't connect the dots - we're going to take the player who will have the most impact on the game. If it's a running back from Alabama, that's whom they'll take. If it's a tackle, it'll be a tackle.

It's BPA folks, plain and simple. He's always told us that and he's always done that. And they didn't give any clues today about who they think are 8, 9 and 10 in the draft, so there simply is no way to figure out whose name will get called. Live with it.

If Richardson fell to 10, I think he is one of the few guys the Bills would be able to use as trade bait.

[UpstateRules]

If they feel Hairston is fine at LT, then he'd be even better with some competition, same with Pears. However, competition guys are not #10 picks,they are starters. So where do we need starters? Well we need a #2 wr, a SAM LB, possibly CB. If they are just blowing smoke about Hairston, then LT is it.

[djb4500]

I don't believe all the talk that they think Hairston is starting left tackle material right now. If they thought that, then why was he splitting time with Bell late in the season? If he was doing so good then why would he have lost his starting job to a injury prone Bell?
Because being injury prone has nothing to do with staring or not.

Plus, Nix has gone back and forth all offseason on what they think about Hairston. In February he said that Hairston struggled and needed to get better,Source? two months later he says he thinks he can be our starting left tackle.

I feel they want a high tackle, Glenn to be specific, but value just isn't there.

[FrostbitMic]

Math class is in session and todays lesson is subtraction based on Buddy speak....

Buddy says that a player picked at #10 should be a starter. He also states that Fitz is our starting QB.
Subtract Tannehill QB Tex A&M

Going back to the should be a starter part ....
Subtract Ingram, Coples and anyone else who is listed as a DE

Buddy says he wants a playmaker at #10 then gets wishy washy on whether a LT would be a playmaker. He also said don't connect the dots and drafting a LT would be an easy dot connector.
Subtract Reiff, Martin, Glenn

Buddy says its a deep class for WRs
Subtract Floyd, Hill and every WR

Buddy mentioned Kuechly and his versatility, If he was the target, why mention him by name ?
Subtract Kuechly

So after all of this subtraction, what hasn't Buddy mentioned ?
RB - Richardson fits the playmaker mode and BPA if he's still there.
SS - Barron is a playmaker that is moving up boards.
LB - Hightower is a playmaker who wasn't mentioned by name.
G - DeCastro ... tho not a position of "playmaker" he could be the BPA and is a guy who'll smack you in the mouth, Buddy loves toughness.

One of these 4 will be the pick ........................ or not

[Soda Popinski]

I think it comes down to Glenn, Keuchly & Gilmore/Kirkpatrick at 10...

For the record, I'm perfectly fine with any of them...

I agree with the first two. But he said he'd like to add guys in he secondary, and they want a difference maker.

I honestly think he's looking at Kuechly Glenn, and Barron.

But of the tackles beyond Kalil I'm pretty confident they like Glenn the most. The interview kind of led me to that

[jrober38]

I just don't see the value of taking a 4-3 non pass rushing outside linebacker with a top 10 pick. Maybe Nix doesn't look at these picks with value in mind but for me it's just hard taking a position like OLB with a top 10 pick.

I'm praying for Floyd either way.

This team's linebackers are really bad. Aside from Nick Barnett who is getting old, there isn't a single other difference maker at that position. Sheppard didn't look overly impressive as a rookie, and Morrison hasn't been an effective player for over two years. Past them are a bunch of guys who are practice squad calibre players at best.

We obviously made some upgrades to our defensive front, but for it to go from good to great we need another play making linebacker who doesn't have to come off the field.

[bring it]

Buddy said very clearly that we want a impact player, especially drafting at #10. Kalil will be gone, so will the best DB and Wr. Who does that leave? Floyd, Kuechly, Decastro and maybe Barron and/or Richardson. No other LT is worth a top ten pick. I don't see us going DT either. Take your pick guys. Mine would be Floyd.


By the way, "an eye for an eye" was established in the Old Testament and is followed to this day by the Jews. "Turn the other cheek" was spoken by Jesus and was part of the New Covenant. Because only God(Jesus) reserves the right for revenge. This justs answers "Shaunta's" statement in the original post that the Bible contradicts itself.

[shaunta53]

By the way, "an eye for an eye" was established in the Old Testament and is followed to this day by the Jews. "Turn the other cheek" was spoken by Jesus and was part of the New Covenant. Because only God(Jesus) reserves the right for revenge. This justs answers "Shaunta's" statement in the original post that the Bible contradicts itself.

You might want to go back to the first post and see who made that statement...

[B-LO BOSS]

Said Nix: "I guess I was thinking a big play maker, which a tackle is not..."

I highly doubt we go LT at 10. I'm guessing Floyd based on their drafts in the past and all the FA we dumped into defense. Although I would be fine with a Kirkpatrick/Gilmore/Kuechly pick. No need to waste a #10 pick on LT. Do we need one? Sure. Is it more essential in our offensive system than a big #2 wideout? Definitely not.

[bring it]

My apologies Shaunta! Totally missed that. My intent was not to slam you or anyone, its just that it bothers me when someone uses a false statement as a reference. Again my apologies!

[ThatsWhatSheSaid]

Said Nix: "I guess I was thinking a big play maker, which a tackle is not..."

I highly doubt we go LT at 10. I'm guessing Floyd based on their drafts in the past and all the FA we dumped into defense. Although I would be fine with a Kirkpatrick/Gilmore/Kuechly pick. No need to waste a #10 pick on LT. Do we need one? Sure. Is it more essential in our offensive system than a big #2 wideout? Definitely not.

I think you should finish the quote...

Said Nix: "I guess I was thinking a big play maker, which a tackle is not. But a difference maker is a guy that makes youre team better and can do things to make you be able to do more, like throwing down the field more. So I think in that light, certainly a left tackle fits that need."

[NCBillman]

Nix has said numerous times they like to pick the best availabe player. I don't read tea leaves but based on that and what I just read, I think the pick is Keuchly.

Not saying thats who I would like to see, just my guess.

[shaunta53]

My apologies Shaunta! Totally missed that. My intent was not to slam you or anyone, its just that it bothers me when someone uses a false statement as a reference. Again my apologies!

No biggies!

[B-LO BOSS]

I think you should finish the quote...

"in that light" shouldn't be read as encouraging for people who want a LT. Plus, there just isn't value at LT outside of Kalil for a top 10 pick IMO.

[UTBILLSFAN22]

Math class is in session and todays lesson is subtraction based on Buddy speak....

Buddy says that a player picked at #10 should be a starter. He also states that Fitz is our starting QB.
Subtract Tannehill QB Tex A&M

Going back to the should be a starter part ....
Subtract Ingram, Coples and anyone else who is listed as a DE

Buddy says he wants a playmaker at #10 then gets wishy washy on whether a LT would be a playmaker. He also said don't connect the dots and drafting a LT would be an easy dot connector.
Subtract Reiff, Martin, Glenn

Buddy says its a deep class for WRs
Subtract Floyd, Hill and every WR

Buddy mentioned Kuechly and his versatility, If he was the target, why mention him by name ?
Subtract Kuechly

So after all of this subtraction, what hasn't Buddy mentioned ?
RB - Richardson fits the playmaker mode and BPA if he's still there.
SS - Barron is a playmaker that is moving up boards.
LB - Hightower is a playmaker who wasn't mentioned by name.
G - DeCastro ... tho not a position of "playmaker" he could be the BPA and is a guy who'll smack you in the mouth, Buddy loves toughness.

One of these 4 will be the pick ........................ or not

Although I'm a Floyd guy, I am just barely and for that reason I'm not that sad if you're right.

I honestly see the top 10 going like this:

1) Indy: Luck
2) Wash: Griffin
3) Min: Kalil
4) Cle: Tannehill
5) TB: Claiborne
6) StL: Blackmon
7) Jax: Floyd
8) Mia: Cox
9) Car: Gilmore
10) Buf: ?????

The 1 pick I'm least confident here is the Miami pick, but they seem like a team that likes the flavor of the day, and Cox seems to be it. My question is, if the draft plays out like this, does Nix have the stones to pick Richardson? We can spend the rest of the draft filling "needs," but in this scenerio, Trent is just too good to pass up. They may have brought him in for a visit just to thorw off the dogs, but I don't think so. I don't wanna hear about trading down. If this scenario happens, you CAN'T pass on Trent.