Rumblings Authors Mock, V2.0: Round Three Picks

by Brian Galliford on Apr 22, 2008 7:24 AM EDT in NFL Draft Comment 27 comments

After unveiling our first and second round picks over the last two days, the authors of Buffalo Rumblings are now ready to unveil the ultra-important third round of our Authors Mock Draft. Through two rounds (eight selections total), the four of us have predicted a whopping seven players will be the newest Buffalo Bills come this weekend (Oklahoma WR Malcolm Kelly is the only repeat pick). Here's how we chose in round three:

Brian Galliford's Pick

3-72: Tyvon Branch, CB, Connecticut
- I have Branch rated as the #8 corner on my board, which leaves out players who would struggle in Buffalo's preferred style of defense. Branch has outstanding straight-line speed (4.31), is tough and competitive, has excellent leadership qualities and works his tail off. He's talented enough to start in a Cover 2 defense in this league, plus he can return kicks. He'd be a great fit as a dime back to start (while upgrading the team's special teams units), and has enough talent and potential to start in Year Two. That will give Jabari Greer and William James a chance to earn their keep beyond the next year or two.

Sireric's Pick

3-72: Andre Caldwell, WR, Florida
- I think that at pick #72 Andre Caldwell will be the best receiver left on the board. After taking the two highest rated players on their board in the first 2 rounds, the Bills now have to fill the need at WR, or risk serious problems in the passing game. Is Caldwell going to be a better pro than Kelly, Sweed, Hardy, or Thomas? Who knows? Not me, that's for sure. I would love to see either Earl Bennett or Jordy Nelson here, but I think they will both be gone, so I'll go with Caldwell.

Jri111's Pick

3-72: Jordy Nelson, WR, Kansas State
- I know what you're thinking: "Two WRs in back-to-back rounds? What is he thinking?!" I have to admit, I think they will go TE here (see the names I mentioned in round two); however, I think a WR such as Nelson would fill two important roles: 1) much needed insurance if Kelly bombs, and 2) a young guy with talent and a lot of potential to take over if Lee walks in two years (many believe that it is not until the third season many young WRs break out. Nelson would be entering his third when/if Lee leaves).

Kurupt's Pick

3-72: Terrell Thomas, CB, USC
- It was a toss up between Thomas and Reggie Smith here, but I have a feeling Smith will go at the end of the second or earlier in the third. Either way, Thomas seems to be a player that has gotten lost in the shuffle as I, for one, have heard very little about him in recent weeks. I really like what he could provide our defense. He has very good size (6', 202), a ton of experience, versatility (has played some safety), adequate speed (4.49 40), great leadership and work ethic, some return ability and is a good fit for the Cover 2 scheme. I think CB can wait until at least the third round because I'm not sure a rookie would come in and start right away.

So there you have it - four more names to add to the incredibly diverse set of mock drafts we've concocted (diversity was not an aim, mind you - it just sort of happened, and lends credence to the idea that nobody has a clue what the Bills will be doing this weekend). Here's how the four mock drafts have shaken out thus far:

Brian Galliford
1-11. Devin Thomas, WR, Michigan State
2-41. John Carlson, TE, Notre Dame
3-72. Tyvon Branch, CB, Connecticut

sireric
1-11. Mike Jenkins, CB, South Florida
2-41. Fred Davis, TE, USC
3-72. Andre Caldwell, WR, Florida

jri111
1-11. Antoine Cason, CB, Arizona
2-41. Malcolm Kelly, WR, Oklahoma
3-72. Jordy Nelson, WR, Kansas State

Kurupt
1-11. Derrick Harvey, DE, Florida
2-41. Malcolm Kelly, WR, Oklahoma
3-72. Terrell Thomas, CB, USC

As always, your comments and critiques of the players and strategies in these mock drafts are welcome and encouraged. Let's hear it, folks!

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I want Hardy

I noticed none of you have James Hardy and I understand why based on his projections. I hope the Bills figure out a way to get him because I think he could do the most for this offense. You can not defend his size advantage. Look at his productivity ... 36 TOUCHDOWNS!! He was the only weapon Big 10 opponents had to stop and he was still incredibly productive. This guy cold be a first down and touchdown machine which will open up the feild for our other weapons. Don't worry about the speed. When guys try to cheat on him, he'll burn them.

by MrFurious on Apr 22, 2008 9:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Got my picks

I like jri111's back to back WRs thinking. We definitely need to pick up an insurance WR in this draft in case Evans walk. Picking another WR next year will be too late.

I have mentioned in previous post that Andre Caldwell is my sleeper WR. But I cannot agree that the Bills will make Caldwell their first WR taken. To make a sleeper pick at the position of greatest needs doesn't make sense to me. If the Bills make Caldwell the 2nd WR taken by them in the draft, then I'm ok with it.

Tyvon Branch is my favorite too! Brian, you always got my pick :) However, I've placed him in my 4th round instead of 3rd round, because I got the Bills picking a TE in the 3rd. Do you think Branch will be still be there in the 4th?

Bills fan half way around the world

by moncheri on Apr 22, 2008 10:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I have been all about Hardy ever since I watched the PSU/Indiana game back in October. He tourched Justin King a late first to mid second round player. I would not be upset at all if he was taken at pick 11. While I would prefer for them to trade down and still take him I think he will be a stud, and the best compliment to Lee Evans. If they go Harvey, McKelvin or even Albert then I hope we move back into Round 1 to grab him which should cost us our 2nd and 3rd. To me this is worth it even if it means we dont get one of the solid TE's.

If they use Lynch more as a WR out of the backfield the TE position becomes slightly less important.

by Berg79 on Apr 22, 2008 10:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Brian's draft

These are my favorite draft selections. I even love the Tyvon Branch pick because of his decent size and speed.

The thing about us selecting a WR in this draft is that we are DESPERATE for a #2 wideout. Once Thomas, Jackson, Sweed, Hardy and Kelly are gone, I would not consider any of the rest, a much bigger upgrade then what we have or what could be left on the free agent market. The upside of those after the best five I had mentioned, could be greater, but not for a couple years.

Someone made a great point in an article I read previously. They said that possibly reaching for a WR in round one, will help eleiminate us having to reach all throughout the draft... I AGREE. Think about our needs combining our philosiphy of taking the best available player.

We can't rely on trading up to grab a WR after round one.

by hilliarddavid on Apr 22, 2008 11:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

WR in the 1st

is fine by me. I just don't like them at 11. I really think we'll have a shot at Hardy or Kelly in round 2. I wouldn't say reaching for a WR at 11 is something that needs to be done. The FO may view it that way, but I'm not convinced of it...

by Kurupt on Apr 22, 2008 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WR in the 1st

I agree with that K. There is no need to reach at #11. The ability to jump back in the 1st to grab a Sweed or Kelly is going to be there.

I would like to see Thomas/Sweed/Kelly/ or Hardy on the Bills roster though in 2008. Just don't take one at #11.

I wonder if this whole Jake Long thing is for real. You gotta wonder if Parcells is trying to pull a fast one.

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Apr 22, 2008 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

jri111 great picks.....

I would love for the bills to get those 2 WR's in this draft. I would think the bills need to trade down from #11 to gain extra picks in order to trade back into rd 2 for J. Nelson. I think it would be extremely lucky if M. Kelly fell to us at #41 then to pick J. Nelson via some trade back into rd 2.

Just pick up best available TE and O. Schmitt in rd 4 and this would be my dream draft!!!!

Would you rather win one superbowl or Lose four in a row? Which defines your teams place in history more ... 1yr wonder or Perennially 2nd best?

by Rudy916 on Apr 22, 2008 12:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

May be a pipe dream

I think Jri111 is reaching a bit thinking Nelson will be available at #72. I expect a team like Tampa or Denver to add him in the second round (Denver would consider it especially if Earl Bennett was off the board). So any hopes of getting both Kelly and Nelson in this draft should be laid to rest now, because the chances are highly remote that it would happen.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Apr 22, 2008 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pipe dreaming

If I knew for sure that Kelly would be available in the second and that Nelson would be there in the third, I would have put their names down. It is possible so I won't kill either John or K, but I didn't feel confident enough to write those names down, that is why I went with guys who I feel strongly about their availability.

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

by sireric on Apr 22, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm

This mock has been quiet in terms of responses. Is everyone sick of all the mocks? Is everyone mentally preparing themselves for a weird weekend (I am)? Did my Terrell Thomas pick results in even fewer people wanting to talk about him? Without going back to check, I seem to recall the number of responses approaching 100 for each round of our previous mock. Maybe we've truly discussed every possible scenario anyone wants to talk about....

by Kurupt on Apr 22, 2008 4:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You're right

A few weeks ago, up until recently, there seemed to be a huge list of Christmas wishes. Players, trades, and everything else.

The options have been quite numerous and there's only one way it will go down. The time for speculation is almost up, and the time for decisions is near. Let's hope we make the right decisions.

by jj24 on Apr 22, 2008 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless something drastic

happens in the football world prior to draft day, I likely won't have much more to say about the draft until then. My comments have already been posted; it would just be a matter of repeating them, again. Personally, I've never really been that interested in mock drafts, particularly after the first round. However, I am interested in the new Buffalo Rumblings platform.

I'm just waiting for the draft. I hope I'm ready. If the Bills select Erik Ainge or Mike Hart at #11 overall, I won't blink an eye. Let's get this draft started already!

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Apr 22, 2008 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

If the Bills select Erik Ainge or Mike Hart at #11 overall, I won't blink an eye.

I probably wouldn't either. But it's because I'd probably have died or gone into a momentary coma. I just hope we end up with one of the guys we've all talked about or trade down.

And I hope we wouldn't even consider drafting Mike Hart until the 7th round, which is about where his talent projects.

by Kurupt on Apr 22, 2008 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're right...

Collectively, I don't think a stone has been left unturned...

by krytime on Apr 22, 2008 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As of round 3

jri111- You have lost your mind!!! "if Kelly bombs" tells me how much confidence you have in him. Plus, you want to take two WR in a year in which WR has been labled the weakest position. Using a 2nd and 3rd on WR ignores many of our other pressing needs. To me your picks read - Reach - Value - Will not be there. Go to the back of the line.

K - I believe TE is a greater need that CB. Not bad picks, but you have some ground to make up.

Brian and sireric - Tie for first place. You both have addressed pressing needs with solid picks that should be available. K is not far behind, so don't get cocky!!! Who is going to man up and draft us a center?

by Joe P. on Apr 22, 2008 4:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

WR as the weakest position

Really? You think so? Sure, it's pretty weak in terms of a can't miss, future All-Pro, but it is a VERY deep position this year. I think players that can have an impact right away can be found all the way into the 4th-5th rounds.

I considered TE here, but I'm not sure there's much value in the 3rd round, at least in my opinion. Bennett, Davis and Keller are all certain 2nd rounders, at worst. I don't like Carlson, but he's looking like a late 2nd/early 3rd as it is. I really don't like Cottam and his inability to stay healthy or produce much in the passing game. After that it's Finley, Rucker and Kellen Davis, all of whom I think are 4th rounders, especially the last 2.

by Kurupt on Apr 22, 2008 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that there is depth at #2 WR,

which is why I took WR in rounds 4 & 7 in my mock draft. I would define weak as lacking in clear cut #1 WR talent.

by Joe P. on Apr 22, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

McKelvin will fall to 11, the Ravens will pass on him.

Rd. 1 - Leodis McKelvin CB, will not be in top 10
Rd. 2 - Malcolm Kelly WR, great value in 2nd
Rd. 3 - Fred Davis TE, falling stock helps get him
Rd. 4 - Owen Schmitt FB, gives us a power run game
Rd. 4 - Jason Jones DE, love em he will be here in 4
Rd. 5 - Johnny Dingle DE, 1 of these 2 will pan out
Rd. 6 - Adarius Bowman WR, value! WRs are now big!
Rd. 7 - add whoever you want im already happy.

It's not delivery, It's DiGiorgio!

by poz on Apr 22, 2008 4:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why McKelvin?

I understand that McKelvin has become the "big name" at cornerback this year, but I don't really understand why. I honestly don't believe he'll be anything more than a slightly better Terrence McGee at this level, yet people are hyping him as a top ten pick.

Give me Cason or DRC before this guy. He's good, and he'd be a nice consideration at #11, but I wouldn't say he's Buffalo's top target by any means.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Apr 22, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

return ability indicative

I think he rose to the top of the corner list because of the number of touchdowns he returned on kicks. A lot of people tend to associate explosiveness in the return game into playmaking ability in the secondary. I understand that McGee is a great returner but also think of guys like Chris McAlister, Deion Sanders, Devin Hester (now a receiver), etc. I also think McKelvin plays physical like Flowers but has better size, speed, and coverage. Just because his pick totals were low doesn't mean he's not blanketing receivers. He had plenty of pass deflections, forced I think around 7 fumbles in two years and makes tackles in the backfield. Fact is, he's just as athletic as DRC, has as much experience as Cason, and is physical like Flowers. I think he may not be excellent at anything but he's very good at everything.

It's not delivery, It's DiGiorgio!

by poz on Apr 22, 2008 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Physical?

McKelvin caused 5 fumbles in his four years at Troy. He made 2.5 tackles for a loss last year.

"Is a finesse cover corner. Does not like to support the run and will avoid contact if at all possible"
"Bigger WR's usually can dictate their routes"
- Scouts INC.

"Lacks the overall strength to be a physical tackler"
"More of a drag-down type of tackler, but he needs to face up and wrap better (will take a side, letting receivers break his arm tackles)"
"Until he can prove that he can add strength, his immediate value will be on special teams."
- NFL.com

"sometimes he shys away from contact."
- FFtoolbox.com

"due to a lack of natural power, he is never going to be a physical tackler"
- NFLDraftScout.com

saying he is physical like Flowers is an insult to Flowers.

by kaisertown on Apr 22, 2008 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

You really can find scouting reports that say what you want to hear:

"Very athletic...Has good size...Excellent timed speed with a burst to close...A solid tackler - Draft Countdown

"Good tackling skills for the position. Has made more than 60 tackles in each of his two seasons as a starter. Does a good job holding his position in the open field to bring down a ball carrier. Aggressive tackler that will square up to the ball carrier" - New Era Scouting

AND LET ME ADD TO YOUR FFTOOLBOX QUOTE WHICH WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT:
"He has good hands for interceptions and comes up quickly for run support although sometimes he shys away from contact" - You left out the first part of that.

"Plants his foot in the ground and pops out of his pedal with explosion. Supports the run hard and will deliver a hit." - Pro Football Weekly

So no it isn't an insult to anyone to suggest that McKelvin is physical he is. He had over 60 tackles and over 50 solo tackles in the two seasons that he started. That speaks plenty. If you add to all that the fact that he has blazing speed and high intelligence how can you think that he has below McGee or only at McGee potential any less than Cason, Flowers, or DRC?

It's not delivery, It's DiGiorgio!

by poz on Apr 22, 2008 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

McKelvin

It is true that scouting reports are often contradictory and you can read whatever you want to read sometimes. My favorite is NFLdraftcountdown. I love Scott Wright, his rankings are solid and he has a good forum, but his scouting reports constantly contradict themselves.

When I said “McKelvin isn’t anything like McGee.” I didn’t mean potential or overall ability. I just think they are very different players. McGee is a KR, McKelvin is a PR. McGee’s build is better and he IS better in run support. McKelvin is more of a cover corner in my eyes. He still has to develop his ball skills too.

I think my scouting blurbs are more condeming than yours are positive.

The FFToolbox quote wasn’t out of context. It still says the same thing. So what if he comes up quickly in run support, it still says he sometimes shys away from contact.

Saying “Fact is, he’s just as athletic as DRC, has as much experience as Cason, and is physical like Flowers.” is ridiculous.

He isn’t as athletic as DRC:
their best workout numbers were:
____DRC – McKelvin
10y – 1.41 – 1.43
20y – 2.51 – 2.52
40y – 4.29 – 4.38

DRC had a 6.63 in the 3-cone drill. McKelvin’s time was 7.06.
DRC went 6 inches farther in the broad jump and matched McKelvin’s 17 reps of 225 pounds.

McKelvin DOESN’T have the experience that Cason has. Cason was a 4 year starter in the Pac-10. McKelvin was a two year starter in the Sun Belt conference.

Pound for pound, Flowers might be the most aggressive physical player in the entire draft, at any position. He had 86 tackles last season against better competition. NFL.com’s scouting report says Flowers:
“shows explosive hitting ability”
“is a forceful tackler”
“is fearless tackling”
“his hits stand out on tape”
“Aggressive in run support and has a knack for penetrating the line to get to the ballcarrier, recording more stops behind the line of scrimmage than any other Tech defensive back in memory”
“has the strength to impact playing off the edge”

That’s all from just one scouting report. Saying McKelvin “is physical like Flowers” really is an insult to Flowers.

by kaisertown on Apr 23, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

granted

I got a little over-excited with my comparisons but I also did say:

Fact is, he’s just as athletic as DRC, has as much experience as Cason, and is physical like Flowers. I think he may not be excellent at anything but he’s very good at everything.”

With last sentence I meant to imply, although I admit my wording was bad, that he’s not excellent at one thing like the others (DRC-athleticism, Flowers-physical, Cason-experience) but that he is very good at all of them, which is more than can be said for the rest, at least in my opinion. I think its insulting to McKelvin not to give him credit for being perhaps the best all around corner in the draft. Fact is, he’s crazy fast and he is a solid tackler. Will he be the best corner out of the draft, maybe. Do I like Cason and Flowers, of course (i’ve been a big proponent for Flowers in the 2nd if hes there and I like Cason’s play). But I think if McKelvin is there at 11 it would an injustice not to acknowledge that he has the potential to be lockdown and that he should be seriously considered as our pick there. A guy who is all around solid like McKelvin shouldn’t be judged as a likely bust just because he doesn’t get rave reviews in certain areas because if you read the scouting reports he does get good reviews in every area.

So let me re-phrase, is he as physical as Flowers, no. Is he as experienced as Cason, no. Is he as athletic as DRC, no (barely). But is skilled in all those areas, yes. Maybe enough to be second on all those lists. That’s pretty well-rounded.

CB, DLine in FA WR, WLB in Draft

by poz on Apr 23, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I don't think McKelvin is anything like McGee. McGee has a much better build (8 pounds heavier despite being over an inch shorter). McGee is an aggressive tackler and returns kicks. McKelvin is passive in run support and returns punts. McGee had as many INTs last season as McKelvin did in 4 years at Troy.

by kaisertown on Apr 22, 2008 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

McKelvin passive?

His senior year he had 60 tackles, 50 solo, in 12 games, as well as 3 for losses and 3 fumbles totaling 178 tackles in his college career. I don't think its fair to call him passive.

It's not delivery, It's DiGiorgio!

by poz on Apr 22, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs