Bills Draft Hisotry in first 3 rounds

[ans4e64]

I received a lot of posts on my last topic that the drafting in the first 3 rounds was bad, i dont think it was that bad, maybe we missed a few good players that other teams got, sure, everyone does, but i dont think the players overall were bad, except for the disgusting draft of 2002. Here they are:

 

2005:

2 - WR Roscoe Parrish

3 - TE Kevin Everett

 

i think it's too early to tell, although i will say that parrish can only succeed in the slot as a number 3, which is fine, but to draft that in the 2nd round is too high.

 

2004:

1 - WR Lee Evans

1 - QB JP Losman

3 - DT Tim Anderson

 

Might be the best one, we all know what evans can do, too early for to decide on losman, and if we didnt have anderson this season we would have had to put shane matthews at DT

 

2003:

1 - RB Willis McGahee

2 - DE Chris Kelsay

3 - LB Angelo Crowell

 

Another great draft here, well as long as willis can get back on track, i cant blame them for taking kelsay, many were upset we didnt take him with our 1st rounder instead of mcgahee, and crowell looks like he could be a star

 

2002:

1 - OT Mike Williams

2 - WR Josh Reed

2 - DE Ryan Denney

3 - SS Coy Wire

 

Ok this draft is disgusting like i said, if i ever could puke out a draft this is what it would look like

 

2001:

1 - CB Nate Clements

2 - DE Aaron Schobel

2 - RB Travis Henry

3 - DT Ron Edwards

3 - OT Jonas Jennings

 

All of these players are quality, and even if you think they're not you cant argue they gave the Bills quality time, except for edwards' injuries.

 

 

 

I dont think these are that bad, we could have had better, but what do you guys think

[Nostradamus]

Just because a lot of these guys play, remember what it is they play for. A team that went 5-11 last year, and a team that went 31-49 over the last five years. I don't know how you can call many of those players perfomances "quality time" when quality football has been few and far between over the past five years.

Secondly, the 02 draft was the most important, as that is when we were picking earliest and most often. That was a draft, that had Donahoe even been decent in, we'd be looking at a different team today. To not even have a good player out of that whole class, picking so early and often, is almost unfathomable.

Everyone looks at the McGahee pick as an example of Donahoe's shrewd, riverboat gambler style. I see it as more stupidity. Larry Johnson was just like McGahee, minus three torn ligaments. The discrepancy in explosiveness is evident in Johnson's numerous runs over 20 yards, and McGahee never getting past the secondary. Losman looks like a bad pick, especially considering how much we gave up for it. And Anderson sure played a lot last year–on the worst rush defense in the NFL. He's a bum. Yes, noone faulted Donahoe for picking Kelsay, or Mike Williams for that matter–that does not make it a good pick. Picks can only be judged by one criteria, and that is their performance in the NFL. Crowell, Clements, Henry, Schobel and maybe Evans are probably the only value picks in that 5 year period from rounds 1-3. That is bad.

[Bill from NYC]

Crowell, Clements, Henry, Schobel and maybe Evans are probably the only value picks in that 5 year period from rounds 1-3. That is bad.

589088[/snapback]

 

Considering where Jennings was selected, he was a very good pick as well.

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

Everyone looks at the McGahee pick as an example of Donahoe's shrewd, riverboat gambler style. I see it as more stupidity. Larry Johnson was just like McGahee, minus three torn ligaments. The discrepancy in explosiveness is evident in Johnson's numerous runs over 20 yards, and McGahee never getting past the secondary.

589088[/snapback]

 

 

In order to achieve making it to the 2nd level one must first have the blocking necessary to make it past the 1st level. Larry johnson has that, mcgahee doesn't unless you consider That the chiefs line isn't infanantly better then ours, but for your arguments sake

 

 

Larry Johnson runs of 20+ yards- 19. Runs of 40+ yards- 2

 

Willis Mcgahee runs of 20+ yards- 14. Runs of 40+ yards- 1

 

 

Not really much of a difference. This myth seems pretty much exposed. The Main difference between the 2 imo is the first wave of defenders. While the chiefs oline routinly blows people off the ball allowing johnson to run 4-6 yards before contact Mcgahee doesn't have that luxury.

 

 

I stand by the same assumption I made during that draft I would've been happy with either rb, but Mcgahee has more upside. Larry Johnson just has the benefit of one of the nfl's best olines. If the situation was reversed Mcgahee would have Priest Holmes Johnson esque stats in Kc While LJ would be struggling here with maybe a slightly higher ypc average do his straight ahead power style vs Mcgahees edgerin james/priest holmes type cut and slash running style. The whole argument of Larry johnson being faster is balloney.

[Bill from NYC]

In order to achieve making it to the 2nd level one must first have the blocking necessary to make it past the 1st level. Larry johnson has that, mcgahee doesn't unless you consider  That the chiefs line isn't infanantly better then ours, but for your arguments sake

Larry Johnson runs of 20+ yards- 19. Runs of 40+ yards- 2

 

Willis Mcgahee runs of 20+ yards- 14. Runs of 40+ yards- 1

Not really  much of a difference.  This myth seems pretty much exposed.  The Main difference between the 2 imo is the first wave of defenders.  While the chiefs oline routinly blows people off the ball allowing johnson to run 4-6 yards before contact  Mcgahee doesn't have that luxury. 

I stand by the same assumption I made during that draft  I would've been happy with either rb, but Mcgahee has more upside. Larry Johnson just has the benefit of one of the nfl's best olines.  If the situation was reversed Mcgahee would have Priest Holmes Johnson esque stats in Kc While LJ would be struggling here with maybe a slightly higher ypc average do  his straight ahead power style vs  Mcgahees edgerin james/priest holmes type cut and slash running style.  The whole argument of  Larry johnson being faster is balloney.

589262[/snapback]

 

I agree wrt the issue of speed at the rb position. While speed IS a great asset, there is simply more to the equation. Thurman wasn't the fastest back, but he could SEE a hole as it was forming. Believe it or not, Willis seems to be very good at this on the rare occasions in which there is running room.

 

As for judging whether or not Willis was a good pick, waiting more than a year for him to play should be taken into account. That said, the Bills turned things around in 04 as soon as Travis was benched and Willis took the field. A case could be made that Willis was a "need" pick, because we don't really know whether or not the Bills were aware that Travis had a drug problem, in addition to his many others.

 

In all, Willis was a fine selection imo. Sure, we had to pass on Steinbach to get him, but the man can play football. This was a solid choice, unlike the Parrish pick which was worth of ridicule.

[smokinandjokin]

Just because a lot of these guys play, remember what it is they play for. A team that went 5-11 last year, and a team that went 31-49 over the last five years. I don't know how you can call many of those players perfomances "quality time" when quality football has been few and far between over the past five years.

 

Secondly, the 02 draft was the most important, as that is when we were picking earliest and most often. That was a draft, that had Donahoe even been decent in, we'd be looking at a different team today. To not even have a good player out of that whole class, picking so early and often, is almost unfathomable.

589088[/snapback]

 

Both good points. I agree.

 

Everyone looks at the McGahee pick as an example of Donahoe's shrewd, riverboat gambler style. I see it as more stupidity. Larry Johnson was just like McGahee, minus three torn ligaments. The discrepancy in explosiveness is evident in Johnson's numerous runs over 20 yards, and McGahee never getting past the secondary.

589088[/snapback]

 

This thinking is flawed. You could look back and say this now, but even with McGahee having a demolished knee, there were just as many questions about Larry Johnson's talent and attitude coming out of school. He was hyped because he had several 200+ yard rushing games, and even a 300+ yard rushing game. But those were in blowout wins against Indiana, Virginia, Northwestern, Michigan State, and Illinois. In big games, here's what he did: 68 yds rushing in loss to Iowa, 78 yds rushing in a loss to Michigan, 66 yds rushing in a loss to Ohio State, and 72 yds rushing in a bowl game loss to Auburn.

 

And here's what the scouts said about him coming out of school:

"Negatives: Gets off the ball quickly, but does not explode through the holes, as he needs time to accelerate in order to go the distance … Does not have much lateral bounce, but is an effective downhill runner who can turn the corner … Body catches, but still has reliable hands … Needs blocking-technique refinement and must show more aggression in this area … Rounds his cuts in his pass routes."

 

Losman looks like a bad pick, especially considering how much we gave up for it.

589088[/snapback]

 

If Losman ends up succeeding, which I grant you is very much up in the air right now, then we really didn't give up that much. A 2nd and a 5th round pick is not that much to give up if you find a franchise QB. (You can't say they gave up a 1st because they gained a 1st in the process.)

[Bill from NYC]

  A 2nd and a 5th round pick is not that much to give up if you find a franchise QB.  (You can't say they gave up a 1st because they gained a 1st in the process.)

589358[/snapback]

 

They didn't give up a 1st, they USED a 1st, and lost a few spots by doing so, in addition to the 2nd and 5th.

[smokinandjokin]

They didn't give up a 1st, they USED a 1st, and lost a few spots by doing so, in addition to the 2nd and 5th.

589364[/snapback]

 

Yes, exactly. That's all I'm saying. It is not accurate when people say Losman cost us three picks. Losman himself was a 1st rounder, so it only cost the Bills two picks.

 

By the way, with the 0-4 start in '04, I thought it was going to be a very costly trade, as we looked well on our way to giving up a Top-10 pick. Thankfully we won enough games to get it back into the area of the pick we got from Dallas.

[ans4e64]

I don't know how you can call many of those players perfomances "quality time"

589088[/snapback]

 

 

im not saying we were winning, im saying that maybe with better coaching and some better players at other positions these players' performances would stand out to you. I dont know how you can argue that individually they failed.

 

1 - CB Nate Clements, has lead our team in interceptions for years and is the only bills DB that actually takes the ball away on a consistant basis, a pro bowl player, a franchise tag player or worthy of, and will draw high competition in the free agent market if we cant sign him.

 

2 - DE Aaron Schobel, like clements, has lead our team in sacks the last few years, if we didnt have freaks like freeney and jason taylor in our conference he would have been in the pro bowl, we signed him long term for big bucks, and for a second round pick thats outstanding.

 

2 - RB Travis Henry, say what you want, with us he gave 1300 and 1400 yard seasons and was snubbed of the pro bowl. First back with that many yards since thurman. I know where he is now but that didnt happen for with the bills, we dumped him before anything got out.

 

3 - DT Ron Edwards, spent quality time as a back up and when needed to start did a decent job, good enough for us to not re-sign pat williams, he was injured this year which hurt his stock.

 

3 - OT Jonas Jennings, was our only good lineman on a terrible line, he got crap his whole tenure in buffalo and then when he hit free agency everybody screamed we needed to re-sign him. lets not forget that he was drafted as a guard possible RT and then excelled to the left side.

 

 

i dont know how you can say these guys didnt give us quality time, granted we didnt win much, but this is only 5 players on a 53 man roster and dumb coaches.

[nick in* england]

Since I was one of the ones that called you out on this I'll pass comment on your good work to collate the first three rounds...

 

I for one place more value on the early rounds than the latter ones, hence, there is a greater expectation that the players you draft 1-3 need to do a lot more than play a role. You expect them to make an impact and be starters who contribute consistently and at a high level.

 

To me, the results you show don't demonstrate the kind of return on investment I'd be looking for from my early round pickups. We've got one good draft there out of 5, and even then we have lost a couple of those to FA or misdemeanor...

 

2001 was an unqualified success. 2002 stunk. 2003 gave us Willis and two backup level players IMO. The 2004/2005 are too early to grade out, but don't look FULL of promise. I think when you look at this and add in the mix of players from the lower rounds it is actually pretty balanced and says a lot about where the focus of attention goes (latter rounds and Unsigned rookie FAs) than the sure fire hits of rs 1-3...

 

In sum - the whole staff needs to do better at finding talent at the college AND pro level and then they need to work on how to get them signed.

[ans4e64]

In sum - the whole staff needs to do better at finding talent at the college AND pro level and then they need to work on how to get them signed.

589440[/snapback]

 

thats what i was shooting for

[Fezmid]

Just because a lot of these guys play, remember what it is they play for. A team that went 5-11 last year, and a team that went 31-49 over the last five years.

And a team that went 9-7 the year before. And a team that's missed the playoffs by one game in two of the last 4 seasons.

 

I can spin too.

CW

[Nostradamus]

And a team that went 9-7 the year before.  And a team that's missed the playoffs by one game in two of the last 4 seasons.

 

I can spin too.

CW

589463[/snapback]

 

31-49 is spin? That wasn't their record? And missing the playoffs, albeit by one game, in two of the last four years is supposed to be a positive? I didn't realize Donahoe deserves praise for those outstanding 8-8 and 9-7 campaigns, thank you for making me see the light. Why we are reviewing Donahoe's past failures is beyond me, but since we are, here are a couple points.

Just because a guy is playing or starting, does not make him a good pick. In fact, under Donahoe's regime, the only reason a lot of those guys played was because they were high picks. If guys like Anderson were undrafted free agents, he'd be pumping gas somewhere. But, because Donahoe was so concerned with his reputation and couldn't admit his failures, we hung onto failures such as Anderson, Reed, Denney, Wire, and most importantly Bledsoe for too long.

[Fezmid]

31-49 is spin? That wasn't their record? And missing the playoffs, albeit by one game, in two of the last four years is supposed to be a positive? I didn't realize Donahoe deserves praise for those outstanding 8-8 and 9-7 campaigns, thank you for making me see the light. Why we are reviewing Donahoe's past failures is beyond me, but since we are, here are a couple points.

Just because a guy is playing or starting, does not make him a good pick. In fact, under Donahoe's regime, the only reason a lot of those guys played was because they were high picks. If guys like Anderson were undrafted free agents, he'd be pumping gas somewhere. But, because Donahoe was so concerned with his reputation and couldn't admit his failures, we hung onto failures such as Anderson, Reed, Denney, Wire, and most importantly Bledsoe for too long.

589891[/snapback]

 

Yes, 31-49 is a spin and if you can't realize that then you have issues. You say that the only reason most of the players were starting was because they're on a 5-11 team (and 31-49 over 5 years). You fail to recognize that they managed to win 9 games last year with the same players. That's spin.

 

CW

[ganesh]

But, because Donahoe was so concerned with his reputation and couldn't admit his failures, we hung onto failures such as Anderson, Reed, Denney, Wire, and most importantly Bledsoe for too long.

589891[/snapback]

 

Anderson has played in about 10 games....I think it is too early to call him a bust....

 

Reed, Denney and Wire have got their oppurtunities over the 4 years they

have been here and can rightly be called busts......

[Lurker]

Reed, Denney and Wire have got their oppurtunities over the 4 years they

have been here and can rightly be called busts......

590122[/snapback]

 

Busts? That's way too strong. All three guys are average NFL players, IMO. You can do a lot worse than that, and those guys are not why this team regressed last year.

[Zac]

In order to achieve making it to the 2nd level one must first have the blocking necessary to make it past the 1st level. Larry johnson has that, mcgahee doesn't unless you consider  That the chiefs line isn't infanantly better then ours, but for your arguments sake

Larry Johnson runs of 20+ yards- 19. Runs of 40+ yards- 2

 

Willis Mcgahee runs of 20+ yards- 14. Runs of 40+ yards- 1

Not really  much of a difference.  This myth seems pretty much exposed.  The Main difference between the 2 imo is the first wave of defenders.  While the chiefs oline routinly blows people off the ball allowing johnson to run 4-6 yards before contact  Mcgahee doesn't have that luxury. 

I stand by the same assumption I made during that draft  I would've been happy with either rb, but Mcgahee has more upside. Larry Johnson just has the benefit of one of the nfl's best olines.  If the situation was reversed Mcgahee would have Priest Holmes Johnson esque stats in Kc While LJ would be struggling here with maybe a slightly higher ypc average do  his straight ahead power style vs  Mcgahees edgerin james/priest holmes type cut and slash running style.  The whole argument of  Larry johnson being faster is balloney.

589262[/snapback]

 

You also need a good FB.