San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 You beat me to it! I will have to now go with: Morris Titanic. How many games did he play in the bigs? If we're nominating Morris Titanic we also have to nominate Joe Kowal. Actually I take that back. Apparently Kowal was a second rounder.
Orton's Arm Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Sorry, EA, but this is just factually wrong. https://www.profootb...pro-bowl-squad/ SAFETIES SS – Adrian Wilson (ARZ), FS – Kenny Phillips (NYG), and Kam Chancellor (SEA) A lot of people think PFF are just a contrary bunch. When everyone else is waxing lyrical about Wilson's sack stats, we are telling you how many were unblocked and how many tackles he misses. Now that he's not flavor of the month anymore, we are saying that no safety in football played better. So no sacks, but his short area coverage is second to none and he is far more disciplined as a run defender. Which would you prefer? Phillips is a slight default selection but name a better single high "free" safety in the NFC. It's a poor bunch and he's the best of them. He really doesn't make that many errors and can find the ball in the air which is a step beyond many. Chancellor has had his ups and downs including a mid-season slump directly following us saying many very nice things about him. He's recovered in the last two weeks and just done enough to keep his space on the back of some fine coverage for a big man. Just missed: Donte Whitner (SF) was the unluckiest player not to make our roster. He actually outscored Phillips, but our need for a free safety (as opposed to another strong) meant he lost out. Apologies to Donte, his family and friends for the omission. Also, as for the Super Bowl play everyone talks about, check this out. It was great play design by the Ravens: https://www.profootb...prettiest-play/ Whenever someone posts a player ranking like the one above, it's useful to look at the methodology used. They described their methodology in the following words: *************** Our Process We balloted our team–guys that spend a vast proportion of their life watching football–and asked them, at each position in the AFC and the NFC, to rank the players in order of preference. We then weighted and tallied the 18 sets of votes and let our four main analysts arbitrate on any ties. ************** Unfortunately, they did not describe what methodology those football-watching guys used to evaluate players. Maybe it's subjective impressions, maybe there are a few football-watching guys who have developed some kind of quantitative way of evaluating players. We don't really know--at least not based on anything they wrote in the description of their methodology. There is the additional problem that if a person is watching a football game, it's hard to evaluate all 11 players at once. Under those circumstances, an individual player can sort of blend into the background on most plays; only standing out when he messes up majorly, or else when he does something impressive. One way of solving that is to have their football-watching guys watch each game multiple times; each time focusing on a specific player. But here again, we don't necessarily have enough information to know if that's what they're actually doing. It's also worth noting that PFF has a vested interest in exaggerating the amount of time their football-watching guys actually spend watching football. If their football watching guys are watching each game only once, Whitner would tend to stand out on plays when he makes a bit hit; while often blending into the background on other plays. During the regular season he didn't get beaten in pass coverage that often, because the 49ers' pass rush was just that good. Someone watching each 49ers game only once would probably give Whitner a high ranking. The PFF article you cited is certainly something to bear in mind when discussing Whitner's strengths and weaknesses. But the article is only an opinion, without much of a description about the methodology used to arrive at that opinion. Nothing in that article should be confused with an established fact; or used to assert that someone is "factually wrong." My own impression of Whitner's play is that he struggled in pass coverage in Buffalo; and continued to struggle in San Francisco whenever the 49ers lacked a ridiculously good pass rush. Others here--people who may well be equal to or better than the PFF guys at forming accurate subjective impressions of players' play--have reached similar conclusions. The fact that Whitner signed the kind of contract associated with a below-average starter or quality backup reinforces the notion that he struggled in pass coverage--at least while in Buffalo. Had he played at an above-average level while in Buffalo, and had even one NFL GM recognized that supposed above-average play, he would not now have the small contract he has. You and others seem to want to argue that he significantly elevated his level of play after joining the 49ers. It is very rare that a player signed as a free agent dramatically increases his quality of play with a new team. A much more likely explanation is that Whitner's weaknesses are currently being masked. As for the reasons the 49ers haven't cut Whitner--those reasons have already been hinted at in a thread entitled "building a sustainable defense." In a nutshell, the 49ers cannot afford to pay all their players like superstars. In order to keep as many of their star players as possible, they have to pay relatively low salaries at positions at which they lack star players. That's where Whitner comes in. Edited March 25, 2013 by Edwards' Arm
Cotton Fitzsimmons Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Basketball: Elmore Smith, "The Big E", Number 3 overall pick of the Buffalo Braves in 1971. An excellent rebounder but that was his whole game. YE OLE would take issue with putting the Big E on this list. After he left the Braves his scoring tailed off, but his 2 seasons with Buffalo he averaged right around 18 points a game, along with all those boards.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 YE OLE would take issue with putting the Big E on this list. After he left the Braves his scoring tailed off, but his 2 seasons with Buffalo he averaged right around 18 points a game, along with all those boards. And blocked shots.
benderbender Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Unquestionably it's OJ Simpson. He singlehandedly brought a level of shame on his fans and supporters that is without redemption - not to mention he savagely murdered two people. Instead of a sports legend, now his name is a hiss and a byword. But you have to admit, he was WAY funnier than JP Losman and Aaron Maybin in the Naked Gun movies.
Rob's House Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Does the first we wasted on Rob f'n Johnson count? Jim Kelly and Bruce Smith. Because winning only hurts the franchise.
ganesh Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 There are many worse....but I just have to say McCargo to get it on the record...we traded up to grab the bum! And by a eerie coincidence we now has two of his college linemates playing for us (Williams and Manny)....
Homey D. Clown Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Maybin... QB Cravin' He must be famished!! Biggest bust in Buffalo Bills history, way beyond Walt Patulski and Mike Williams combined. No 1st round pick will ever amount to less than him, ever.
dave mcbride Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Whenever someone posts a player ranking like the one above, it's useful to look at the methodology used. They described their methodology in the following words: *************** Our Process We balloted our team–guys that spend a vast proportion of their life watching football–and asked them, at each position in the AFC and the NFC, to rank the players in order of preference. We then weighted and tallied the 18 sets of votes and let our four main analysts arbitrate on any ties. ************** Unfortunately, they did not describe what methodology those football-watching guys used to evaluate players. Maybe it's subjective impressions, maybe there are a few football-watching guys who have developed some kind of quantitative way of evaluating players. We don't really know--at least not based on anything they wrote in the description of their methodology. There is the additional problem that if a person is watching a football game, it's hard to evaluate all 11 players at once. Under those circumstances, an individual player can sort of blend into the background on most plays; only standing out when he messes up majorly, or else when he does something impressive. One way of solving that is to have their football-watching guys watch each game multiple times; each time focusing on a specific player. But here again, we don't necessarily have enough information to know if that's what they're actually doing. It's also worth noting that PFF has a vested interest in exaggerating the amount of time their football-watching guys actually spend watching football. If their football watching guys are watching each game only once, Whitner would tend to stand out on plays when he makes a bit hit; while often blending into the background on other plays. During the regular season he didn't get beaten in pass coverage that often, because the 49ers' pass rush was just that good. Someone watching each 49ers game only once would probably give Whitner a high ranking. The PFF article you cited is certainly something to bear in mind when discussing Whitner's strengths and weaknesses. But the article is only an opinion, without much of a description about the methodology used to arrive at that opinion. Nothing in that article should be confused with an established fact; or used to assert that someone is "factually wrong." My own impression of Whitner's play is that he struggled in pass coverage in Buffalo; and continued to struggle in San Francisco whenever the 49ers lacked a ridiculously good pass rush. Others here--people who may well be equal to or better than the PFF guys at forming accurate subjective impressions of players' play--have reached similar conclusions. The fact that Whitner signed the kind of contract associated with a below-average starter or quality backup reinforces the notion that he struggled in pass coverage--at least while in Buffalo. Had he played at an above-average level while in Buffalo, and had even one NFL GM recognized that supposed above-average play, he would not now have the small contract he has. You and others seem to want to argue that he significantly elevated his level of play after joining the 49ers. It is very rare that a player signed as a free agent dramatically increases his quality of play with a new team. A much more likely explanation is that Whitner's weaknesses are currently being masked. As for the reasons the 49ers haven't cut Whitner--those reasons have already been hinted at in a thread entitled "building a sustainable defense." In a nutshell, the 49ers cannot afford to pay all their players like superstars. In order to keep as many of their star players as possible, they have to pay relatively low salaries at positions at which they lack star players. That's where Whitner comes in. I do not mean to suggest that I think that Whitner is a great player. He's what I'd call a solid player, a guy who will probably have a 12 year career as an NFL starter barring injury. That's hardly a disastrous pick. He can struggle in coverage, but I watched a few Niners games last year, and the one thing he really doesn't do is blow assignments. He's generally in the right place, and that's the sort of thing that prevents huge breakdowns. And of course he's good in run defense. As for his salary, he's not being paid at a below average rate: http://www.ninersnation.com/2013/2/11/3974730/49ers-salary-cap-casualties-donte-whitner-cut-candidate . In sum, he's a solid upper middle class NFL player -- someone who is in the $4 million salary range going into is eighth season. The larger point is that there are far, far worse draft picks than Whitner.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 A lot of people mention Morris Titanic. Talk about GOOD drafting though, bracketed around him: Perreault, Martin, Schoenfeld & Gare. Punch Imlach COULD DRAFT Yeah... I see what you mean... I was scrambling for another Sabres. One of the few duds during the Imlach years... He did play a little in the minors and then when on to coach the BFLO Jr. Sabres... I suppose that ain't all bad! Tom Cousineau... Oh wait, what pick did that get the Bills? ;-) ;-) :-P Turning lemons into lemonade! :-)
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Jim Kelly and Bruce Smith. Because winning only hurts the franchise. Haha. Awesome. Those glory years killed some people's trade down mock drafts.
Buftex Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Recent history, hands down, Aaron Maybin and John McCargo. Every time this topic comes up, McCargo gets almost no consideration (I realize he was mentioned early in the thread)...and I will contend, that makes him all the worse. He was so bad, people actually forget about him. The guy barely played in his 4 years (or was it 5?), rarely suited up, and I recall him making only one play that had even a minimal positive impact on a game (IIRC, he recovered a blocked punt, or maybe he blocked it, and somebody else recovered it?). And, somehow, he mananged to swindle the Bucs into signing him to a contract after the Bills, finally, let him go. I suppose, the OP asked "most disappointing" pick, rather than "worst" pick. Mike Williams is far from the worst, but might fit the "most disappointing" category.
dave mcbride Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Whenever someone posts a player ranking like the one above, it's useful to look at the methodology used. They described their methodology in the following words: *************** Our Process We balloted our team–guys that spend a vast proportion of their life watching football–and asked them, at each position in the AFC and the NFC, to rank the players in order of preference. We then weighted and tallied the 18 sets of votes and let our four main analysts arbitrate on any ties. ************** Unfortunately, they did not describe what methodology those football-watching guys used to evaluate players. Maybe it's subjective impressions, maybe there are a few football-watching guys who have developed some kind of quantitative way of evaluating players. We don't really know--at least not based on anything they wrote in the description of their methodology. There is the additional problem that if a person is watching a football game, it's hard to evaluate all 11 players at once. Under those circumstances, an individual player can sort of blend into the background on most plays; only standing out when he messes up majorly, or else when he does something impressive. One way of solving that is to have their football-watching guys watch each game multiple times; each time focusing on a specific player. But here again, we don't necessarily have enough information to know if that's what they're actually doing. It's also worth noting that PFF has a vested interest in exaggerating the amount of time their football-watching guys actually spend watching football. If their football watching guys are watching each game only once, Whitner would tend to stand out on plays when he makes a bit hit; while often blending into the background on other plays. During the regular season he didn't get beaten in pass coverage that often, because the 49ers' pass rush was just that good. Someone watching each 49ers game only once would probably give Whitner a high ranking. The PFF article you cited is certainly something to bear in mind when discussing Whitner's strengths and weaknesses. But the article is only an opinion, without much of a description about the methodology used to arrive at that opinion. Nothing in that article should be confused with an established fact; or used to assert that someone is "factually wrong." My own impression of Whitner's play is that he struggled in pass coverage in Buffalo; and continued to struggle in San Francisco whenever the 49ers lacked a ridiculously good pass rush. Others here--people who may well be equal to or better than the PFF guys at forming accurate subjective impressions of players' play--have reached similar conclusions. The fact that Whitner signed the kind of contract associated with a below-average starter or quality backup reinforces the notion that he struggled in pass coverage--at least while in Buffalo. Had he played at an above-average level while in Buffalo, and had even one NFL GM recognized that supposed above-average play, he would not now have the small contract he has. You and others seem to want to argue that he significantly elevated his level of play after joining the 49ers. It is very rare that a player signed as a free agent dramatically increases his quality of play with a new team. A much more likely explanation is that Whitner's weaknesses are currently being masked. As for the reasons the 49ers haven't cut Whitner--those reasons have already been hinted at in a thread entitled "building a sustainable defense." In a nutshell, the 49ers cannot afford to pay all their players like superstars. In order to keep as many of their star players as possible, they have to pay relatively low salaries at positions at which they lack star players. That's where Whitner comes in. In the interest of fairness, I did come across this negative assessment of Whitner in 2012: https://www.profootb...rancisco-49ers/ . The previous PFF link above in which they say he played at a pro bowl level was for the 2011 season, not 2012. Edited March 25, 2013 by dave mcbride
BRH Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Lot of hate for McCargo here, much of it justified. But it's hard to consider any guy taken in the very late first round (26th) a contender for this list, even if we did trade up for him. Mike Williams is the biggest waste of a high draft pick the Bills have ever made. A tackle picked that high ought to be a LEFT tackle, and it turned out that although MW protected Chris Simms' blind side at UT, he just wasn't good enough to play LT in the NFL. The Bills admitted as much right after they drafted him, although they tried to camouflage it as "we'll start him out at RT and move him when he gets experience." Worse, we took him ahead of a REAL left tackle, Bryant McKinnie. It wasn't like MW was the only tackle prospect out there. Even Levi Jones turned out to be a better LT in the NFL and most people made fun of the Bengals for drafting him that high. Plus, dude was lazy. He had no fire and no work ethic and ended up eating himself into a ditch and then out of the league. Mike Williams may not be the biggest reason for our ineptitude this past decade, but he is the most emblematic.
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Anyone who denies CJ Spiller being eligible for this nomination is full of it. At that time we did not need him at all. We had two good backs, had more glaring needs and he showed us next to nothing the first year. Yeah, I must be full of it or you're just purposefully trolling. Was he off to a great start? No, but last year we were here saying, "Hey, seeing Spiller in the second half of the season shows we weren't wrong to draft him" and now, surprise surprise, we're lamenting that Chan didn't play him more. I still think the most disappointing is from Losman, since that was the year of Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Ben Roethlesburger and he showed just enough of a big arm to give me hope.
C.Biscuit97 Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Whitner. They passed on very good players to take him at #8. Ok, this is just getting insane now. It has to be personal. I bet you were ready to list Spiller until he showed how great he could be.
BuffBill Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Gotta think Tom Cousineau takes the cake here, although I wasn't around for it The only reason I wouldn't list Cousineau, it was him that got us the pick to take Jim Kelly in the draft. I would list Erik Flowers, Maybin, Mike Williams, Patulski, Losman, and if you ask me in a year or two Aaron Williams.
gonzo1105 Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 I'm going to go kind of off the board and say Todd Collins. The question wasn't who was the biggest bust in buffalo history, it was the most disappointing pick. Collins was picked to be the heir apparent to Jim Kelly, and for all intents and purposes had all of the tools to be a success in the NFL. He was supposed to be the guy to keep the dynasty going or at least to keep us a float. Instead he bombed, and we have been mired in mediocre QB play since(excluding one year of Doug Flutie).
K-9 Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 Gotta think Tom Cousineau takes the cake here, although I wasn't around for it Drafting Tom Cousineau was the greatest pick the Bills ever made. GO BILLS!!!
Orton's Arm Posted March 25, 2013 Posted March 25, 2013 In the interest of fairness, I did come across this negative assessment of Whitner in 2012: https://www.profootb...rancisco-49ers/ . Good posts. As you pointed out, my earlier impression was mistaken. Whitner is a more highly paid safety than I'd previously realized. But at least according to the link you just provided, in 2012 his performance justified only about 30% of the salary he actually received. The other 70% was him getting overpaid for what he was actually producing. As I'd pointed out earlier, PFF is not definitive; and opinions will vary about the extent to which Whitner had been overpaid back in 2012. Nevertheless, that article is worth quoting: ********** For all the impressive displays on the 49ers’ defense, one guy who didn’t stand out for the right reasons was the former Bill, Whitner. He gave up more touchdowns than any other safety in the league (eight) and missed more tackles than you’d like (12). An area for this team to improve. ********* Given that the 49ers had a better pass rush than almost any other team, the fact that Whitner still led safeties in TDs surrendered says a lot. You'd think that the safety who surrenders the most TDs would play for a team with a lousy pass rush. Also, Whitner has the reputation of being a good tackler, because of the highlight reel hits he occasionally delivers. But all those missed tackles suggest his reputation might be over-inflated.
Recommended Posts