Mr. WEO Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Can you imagine if the Bills drafted Gronk after he hasn't even played a down the season before and opts to not to go the NFL and not back to college (I thought at the time that he knows his back is not going to hold out, and he's grabbing the money while he can) and then he gets hurt? (There's a reason he went from being a top 10 pick to being drafted #42) Why do I have a feeling that the same people who say drafting Gronk was the easy call are the same people who blast the front office for getting Merriman (who came without a price tag - except to Ralph - not a draft pick or a player)? Hmmmm...that's easy-Gronkowski wasn't on the declining end of years of steroid abuse. His 2 years of futility with the Bills were completely predictable. Troup is slow, underweight and soft. Even so, an NT in round 2?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Troup has done nothing since the day he was drafted and he was outplayed in preseason by an UDFA. You expect to get something from the 41st selection in the draft. Would it be inciteful enough if I list all of the productive players who were chosen after him? You are calling him a safe pick. I'm calling him a ****ty pick. Sure, give us a list of the better NT's that were picked after Troupe that have been more productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Nice insightful comment and arm-chair analysis!! Troup problems sprung up last year, not before the draft. Ridiculous comparison. Also, I wasn't advocating that we should have picked Gronkowski, but commenting on how effective the Pats strategy has been working for them allowing them to take the risk, where a team like the Bills couldn't do that w/ their 2nd round pick. I'm as disappointed w/ Troup thus far as anyone, but he was picked as a position of need at the time... He wasn't the best NT option so Nix screwed that up when he should have drafted Cody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 He wasn't the best NT option so Nix screwed that up when he should have drafted Cody. As someone who wanted Cody, let's not pretend like everyone here wanted him. He was in awful shape and conditioning was a major issue. You also have to consider the team he went to. As someone said about Gronk, teams like the PAts and Ravens can take those risks. Search the Cody threads and you will see I was pimping for him hard and getting shot down. But there's a ton of hindsight now. There were no injury concerns on Troup and he was part fo a top 5 run defense in college. Dude got hurt and it hasn't worked out yet. It happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Gronk at the time wasn't really on the table. I think its a bit of revisionist history to say the Bills shoulda coulda woulda with Gronk. Hernandez in the 4th over Easley was the real issue. Hernandez was a target in the second possibly over Gronk and definitely in the 3rd. Then when he was there in the 4th, I was getting ready to order my Hernandez Jersey. But we took Marcus "F'In" Easley!!! Talk about an injury risk. A 1 year wonder at UCONN over an All American TE like Hernandez who played at a powerhouse like Florida!!! That was the real botch job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snopple Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 If he failed Indy's physical, the chances are that he failed other physicals too. Just recently the Bills have come under a lot of criticism in this forum for not taking Gronk. Looks like it was a calculated risk that has gone well so far for the Cheating Bastards*** The Bills took a similar risk with Thurman Thomas. And it worked out pretty good. If memory serves, he suffered a serious knee injury his junior year at Oklahoma. Even though he returned with an excellent senior year, rushing for over 1600 yards with a 6.5 yard per carry average, he failed a number of team physicals prior to the 1988 draft. Which was why he was still on the board when the Bills turn came in the second round. Would have been nice if they had taken a similar risk on Gronk. But as others have pointed out, he may not have enjoyed the same success here as did with Brady in New England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Perhaps you aren't aware of the awesomeness of the legendary easley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Sure, give us a list of the better NT's that were picked after Troupe that have been more productive. I said productive players. Do I need to type more slowly for you? Or would you like me to tell you how assinine it was for a talent poor team to make a switch to the 3-4 in the first place? And ferchrissakes, if you're going to defend him at least learn how to spell his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBD Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Gronk at the time wasn't really on the table. I think its a bit of revisionist history to say the Bills shoulda coulda woulda with Gronk. Hernandez in the 4th over Easley was the real issue. Hernandez was a target in the second possibly over Gronk and definitely in the 3rd. Then when he was there in the 4th, I was getting ready to order my Hernandez Jersey. But we took Marcus "F'In" Easley!!! Talk about an injury risk. A 1 year wonder at UCONN over an All American TE like Hernandez who played at a powerhouse like Florida!!! That was the real botch job. Hernandez had positive drug test at the combine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Hernandez had positive drug test at the combine Hush. Playing hindsight is much more fun, because everyone is an infallible GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Hush. Playing hindsight is much more fun, because everyone is an infallible GM. There is a spectrum between "perennially predictably boneheaded" and "infallible", you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I said productive players. Do I need to type more slowly for you? Or would you like me to tell you how assinine it was for a talent poor team to make a switch to the 3-4 in the first place? And ferchrissakes, if you're going to defend him at least learn how to spell his name. And I am asking you to simplify the list and only include NT's, because the bills were obviously looking for one. Its not hard to make a list of players in a draft at any position that may have had more of an impact or produced more then the player picked. But since the Bills were looking at NT with that pick, I simply asked for you to provide us with the list you said you would, but to only include the NT's. If the talent on the team was so poor, why is it assinine to switch to the 3-4? If the talent wasn't good enough to run what they were currently running, I would think it would be the best time to switch to something new. Its not like the talent was great and they decide to scrap it and replace the current talented players. As for the bolded part, what are you getting at? Is this the accepted way to insult fellow posters on this board? I just want to make sure so I don't get warned by the moderators around here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 And I am asking you to simplify the list and only include NT's, because the bills were obviously looking for one. Its not hard to make a list of players in a draft at any position that may have had more of an impact or produced more then the player picked. But since the Bills were looking at NT with that pick, I simply asked for you to provide us with the list you said you would, but to only include the NT's. If the talent on the team was so poor, why is it assinine to switch to the 3-4? If the talent wasn't good enough to run what they were currently running, I would think it would be the best time to switch to something new. Its not like the talent was great and they decide to scrap it and replace the current talented players. As for the bolded part, what are you getting at? Is this the accepted way to insult fellow posters on this board? I just want to make sure so I don't get warned by the moderators around here You understand what works and what doesn't, but if you consider that an insult then you need thicker skin. You twisted what I wrote to your needs and you've done it again here. Whatever gives you your jollies. As far as Troup is concerned...he was the 41st pick in the draft. If it makes you feel better, a NT chosen after Troup who has outperformed him is Kellen Heard. What's next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Perhaps you aren't aware of the awesomeness of the legendary easley Easley is a big big target. I think that pick might end up being better than people think. This year with a heart aliment or whatever it was, is a total fluke but I think he will be a very very good player for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 You understand what works and what doesn't, but if you consider that an insult then you need thicker skin. You twisted what I wrote to your needs and you've done it again here. Whatever gives you your jollies. As far as Troup is concerned...he was the 41st pick in the draft. If it makes you feel better, a NT chosen after Troup who has outperformed him is Kellen Heard. What's next? Well, I took the original comment about troupe not as a sign that he was a reach but that writers were undervaluing him - you know- the you don't find guys that talented and hardworking in the midrounds. But it seems your pretty well on a war path here. Obviously troupe hasn't been great but he was healthy and motivated - two of the hardest things to find in a NT his size, and athletically talented. I personally liked Cody more if going for an anchor NT. The pick has missed so far. He's also a young guy, from a small school with a few injuries and a jacked up lockout during one offseason- I havent totally written him off yet as a rotational guy. A second round guy isn't typically a guy that steps in and dominates from day 1. Hopefully he progresses. As someone who wanted Cody, let's not pretend like everyone here wanted him. He was in awful shape and conditioning was a major issue. You also have to consider the team he went to. As someone said about Gronk, teams like the PAts and Ravens can take those risks. Search the Cody threads and you will see I was pimping for him hard and getting shot down. But there's a ton of hindsight now. There were no injury concerns on Troup and he was part fo a top 5 run defense in college. Dude got hurt and it hasn't worked out yet. It happens. And he missed that crucial first full offseason due to the lockout. The one where he spends the time working with coaches on what he learned, what they learned about his skills, and actually train for NFL play instead of the combine. Hopefully he gets/stays healthy and starts progressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 There is a spectrum between "perennially predictably boneheaded" and "infallible", you know. Because the Bills were "predictably boneheaded" for not drafting a guy who missed most of his senior season after undergoing back surgery? And you're saying Troupe is the worst 2nd round pick ever because he has back problems and the Bills didn't take Gronk? If anyone knew how good Gronk would be, he wouldn't have lasted until the middle of the 2nd round (and Jimmy Graham wouldn't have lasted until the 3rd). The Bills needed a NT more than a TE in the 2nd round. The argument for taking Hernandez is more persuasive, but again, he failed a drug test at the combine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 I think Gronk missed ALL of his senior season due to back surgery. That is the reddest of red flags, if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Hernandez had positive drug test at the combine Hush. Playing hindsight is much more fun, because everyone is an infallible GM. Oh so a college kid smokes some weed and the Bills decide not to draft a pretty much guaranteed stud at TE in the 4th round over a guy that walked on to a nothing football program like UCONN. Genius decision making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Oh so a college kid smokes some weed and the Bills decide not to draft a pretty much guaranteed stud at TE in the 4th round over a guy that walked on to a nothing football program like UCONN. Genius decision making. Oh come on.... So automatic that he'd be a star that he lasted til the 4th. Both were risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 http://www.cbssports...players/1621669 47 games in 4 years is about 12 games a season, which is the norm in college. He sounds like he was pretty healthy. Gronk, by comparison, played 21 games in 3 years in college. Yes, Troupe (and PLEASE, this is not about whether he was a good pick or not) was a durable and dependable performer in college. Assuming this "back problem" issue is true, the main problem with the Bills refusal to draft him is that they instead drafted: (1) Troup, a NT with a LONG history of back problems, and your back is used more at the NT position than perhaps any other position; and (2) reached for the NT when he would have been there in the next round. They are a number of other players they could have drafted. Instead, they royally messed up again. The back-problem could not have been an issue for the Bills FO. Otherwise, why draft a NT with a back problem?!?!? Exactly, particularly one who is recovering from, oh, A BACK PROBLEM!!!!! Ryan, this is the 3rd time I've called you out on this (bolded). When are you gonna actually cite a link which shows that Troupe had back problems in college? You seem quite adamant that this is the case so please show me the documentation that no one else seems to be able to find. Also Carey Bender commented on your continual insistence in perpetuating some rumor that Troup had back problems in college. Please post the links showing his college back problems or stop posting falsehoods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts