1billsfan Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 taken other than Willis McGahee. I just looked at the picks after the Bills pick in the first round in the 2003 draft and I can not find any probowlers that TD missed on. Get over it and enjoy the 1-2 runningback punch we'll have this season. Bills fans care more about winning the Superbowl than a players feelings, ok? http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gbase/Gy...?oid=oid%3A2905 Mike Doser - "In retrospect, that pick (McGahee) would have been better used on anything else --- anything"
Guest Guest Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 how about gard eric steinbach. cincinatti picked him with the first pick in the 2nd round. must had him rated as a top 15 prospect, although i did like the mcgahee pick.
jahnyc Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 I think it is a little early to talk about pro-bowl caliber players from the 2003 draft. I also think, to be fair, you also need to consider second round picks. From the selections in the first and second rounds that came after McGahee, I would have loved for the Bills to have selected D. Clark (TE-Indy), E. Steinbach (G-Cinci), E. Wilson (CB-NE) or A. Boldin (WR-Arizona).
San-O Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 A thought: How much better would this team look on paper right now if TD had used that pick on an offensive lineman. Better yet, traded down to get a 2nd and 3rd round pick o-linemen. We would have had two linemen with their rookie years behind them.
LabattBlue Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Eric Steinbach instead of WM?? You say, he is a STARTING OFFENSIVE GUARD for Cincinnati. We didn't need him. We're in good shape as far as that position goes.
Fezmid Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 A thought: How much better would this team look on paper right now ifTD had used that pick on an offensive lineman. Better yet, traded down to get a 2nd and 3rd round pick o-linemen. We would have had two linemen with their rookie years behind them. 15721[/snapback] I seem to recall that, because the draft was so weak, nobody was interested in trading for the pick. The simple fact of the matter is we needed DL help - Kelsay was the targetted pick there -- but we grabbed WM instead and STILL got Kelsay in the 2nd round. Nothing wrong with that. CW
San-O Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 I seem to recall that, because the draft was so weak, nobody was interested in trading for the pick. The simple fact of the matter is we needed DL help - Kelsay was the targetted pick there -- but we grabbed WM instead and STILL got Kelsay in the 2nd round. Nothing wrong with that. CW 15749[/snapback] Great, a 1st AND 2nd round pick that don't start. Again, this team was 8-8 that season. Not in the playoffs then, and not close last year.
1billsfan Posted September 2, 2004 Author Posted September 2, 2004 A thought: How much better would this team look on paper right now ifTD had used that pick on an offensive lineman. Better yet, traded down to get a 2nd and 3rd round pick o-linemen. We would have had two linemen with their rookie years behind them. 15721[/snapback] You're kidding, right? Give us names please. What offensive lineman from that draft do you want instead of having Willis McGahee on this team?
San-O Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 You're kidding, right? Give us names please. What offensive lineman from that draft do you want instead of having Willis McGahee on this team? 15853[/snapback] How many yards did Willis McGahee gain on this 6 - 10 team last year?
1billsfan Posted September 2, 2004 Author Posted September 2, 2004 How many yards did Willis McGahee gain on this 6 - 10 team last year? 15902[/snapback] Names please...still waiting.
1billsfan Posted September 2, 2004 Author Posted September 2, 2004 Eric Steinbach OG 15916[/snapback] Over Willis McGahee? Really? You would trade McGahee for Steinbach?
San-O Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Names please...still waiting. 15912[/snapback] ANY player that was able to walk on the field would have been better than nothing, which is what we got from WM. It's about making the team better. WM did not do that.
1billsfan Posted September 2, 2004 Author Posted September 2, 2004 ANY player that was able to walk on the field would have been better thannothing, which is what we got from WM. It's about making the team better. WM did not do that. 15929[/snapback] any player, huh? I think this team is better with Willis, thank you.
jahnyc Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 I would have taken any of the players on my earlier list over McGahee. At best, McGahee will be a part time player this year. The other guys could have been productive starters for the first two years. With no way to know how well McGahee will recover and play, and considering he did not play last year, give me the guy who would have contributed immediately.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 The problem with the offensive line theory is in the spring of 2003, we had a number of young who appeared to be up and coming lineman. Sullivan looked good the year before and improving. Brown wasn't expected to be gone in a year. And you had two apparent bookend tackles. So if you used that pick on a guy like Steinbach, it might have been used on a guy was going to sit the bench. (Or another talented player was going to sit) At the time the Bills line had guys who could all be all pros in a couple years or out of football. You just didn't know. At the time, the only position that you definelty had a need to plug a new guy in at starter was def end. And they basically got the same guy with a second rounder. I looked at the WM pick as "found money" since they got the pick from Atlanta on a guy who they were likely going to lose anyway. So it was worth taking a bit of a risk on it . IF and I realize it's still a big IF, WM can go back to his pre-injury talent, that pick will be come the best steal for the Bills since another injured running back was taken by the name of Thurman Thomas.
bills_fan Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Over Willis McGahee? Really? You would trade McGahee for Steinbach? Steinbach would have helped last year and this year. McGahee may help this year, a little bit. We'll see the real benefits of McGahee next year....maybe. Call me conservative, but I would rather have had 2 years xtra of Steinbach.
Kaz Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 You folks act like it was a down-right shock that WM didn't play last year. That was part of the deal from day one. And I think the argument that "well, anyone who had a pulse and put on a uniform last year was a better pick that Willis" is atrocious at best, since a lot of strategy in drafting certain high-profile positions has NOTHING to do with the upcoming season. By your logic, the drafting of Ben Rothelsberger(sp?) or Eli Manning were both awful, since both won't start and, worse, may not take a meaningful snap under center this year. Ever heard of "drafting for the future?" Oh, and I guess JP Losman was a wasted pick, too. Now that I think about it, anyone with a pulse and a helmet would have been a better pick that JP Losman...
MikeInRoch Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 Here's a clue: Players that you draft are not only good for the year you draft them. If Willis pans out, he would be a stud RB for MANY YEARS to come. The fact that he was unable to play last season is completely irrelevant.
Realist Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 The problem with the offensive line theory is in the spring of 2003, we had a number of young who appeared to be up and coming lineman. Sullivan looked good the year before and improving. Brown wasn't expected to be gone in a year. And you had two apparent bookend tackles. So if you used that pick on a guy like Steinbach, it might have been used on a guy was going to sit the bench. (Or another talented player was going to sit) At the time the Bills line had guys who could all be all pros in a couple years or out of football. You just didn't know. At the time, the only position that you definelty had a need to plug a new guy in at starter was def end. And they basically got the same guy with a second rounder. I looked at the WM pick as "found money" since they got the pick from Atlanta on a guy who they were likely going to lose anyway. So it was worth taking a bit of a risk on it . IF and I realize it's still a big IF, WM can go back to his pre-injury talent, that pick will be come the best steal for the Bills since another injured running back was taken by the name of Thurman Thomas. 15975[/snapback] Um...guys this is all you need to know! If we would have picked an OL in that spot, this board would have flipped. Ed has it exactly right. We went into the draft last year needing a Dlineman and came away with the guy that was targeted in that timeframe with our next pick. McGahee was a bonus, in my mind an excellent move. You can all say, well this player was better last year, that player started 16 games, etc. As they say, 'Hindsight is 20-20'. Lets look at this years draft: Lee Evans if he doesn't start "that pick sucks!", Losman broken leg and won't start this year "what a waste." Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, half of the other 1st rounders - they all suck! because they probably won't contribute a whole lot this year. Lighten up people, you draft for the future. One year does not a future make.
Recommended Posts