Great article

[Buckeye Eric]

It takes no journalistic talent to go back over any past drafts and critisize GMs for not choosing players years later.

 

The draft IS a crap shoot and as at the tables in Vegas, some are luckier than others.

 

I would love to see which sports writers thought Ryan Leaf or Tony Mandarich were going to be a superstars. As I recall, both made the covers of leading sports publications at the time. Instead, the GMs get critisized for actually choosing them.

[Kultarr]

Mike Williams was the right pick at the time. Plain and simple. It just didn't work out.

 

That's not the issue here.

 

The issue is that Josh Reed, Mike Williams, Coy Wire and the rest of the 2002 draft didn't work out.

 

That smacks of incompetence.

605481[/snapback]

 

The issue the author is raising is clearly not that the Bills woulda been better off drafting this guy or that guy. Like someone said, that's easy. "We shoulda drafted <insert name of All Pro here>." The point is that given the set of picks they made, if one evaluates the value of those picks, the Bills got really very little in return.

 

Mike Williams is but one example in the case the author is making: precisely that, TD's draft track record in Buffalo was very poor.

 

The conventional wisdom at the time was that Mike Williams was a great pick, sure. But then, nobody said anything otherwise.

 

It is the author's point that someone that is in the football business (someone often afforded the term "genius" no less) needs to do their homework better than the "conventional wisdom". Just because 4 out of 5 draft pubs thought Fat Mike was going to be good does not exonerate the guy who made the decision for real and all the consequences stemming from that decision. Exactly the opposite: if there was any indication, any at all, that Fat Mike was not going to be a great OL, then TD should have sniffed it out and made a harder, but ultimately better decision. (And if you go back, there are some red flags on Williams. He was in questionable shape -- huge guy but not a weight room junky, maybe had a bad knee, some weren't sure he could really play LT -- which turned out to be true, etc.) Because it was TD's job to do exactly that.

 

In other words, it would be better to upset Mel Kiper on draft day and be shown to be right 3 years later (go Bengals!) than to give Mel a woody on draft day and find the team bereft of talent 3 years down the pike. Having a bad mock draft is regrettable. Doing a bad job is incompetence.

[Dr. Fong]

 

* Team needs - This won't help Donahoe much. Coming off a 3-13 season, what didn't they need? There wasn't a player on the board Buffalo shouldn't have explored. The best talent at each pick made perfect sense.

 

 

Second Round (36th overall) -

 

Peerless Price was still a year away from his breakout season, but in 2001 he had 895 yards and seven touchdowns receiving. While Josh Reed came with rave reviews from LSU , a third receiver was hardly what the club needed this high in the second round.

 

 

605287[/snapback]

 

 

So they needed everything and should have considered every player at every position in the first round, but somehow magically this changes in the second round and they were foolish for taking a receiver that they had highly rated. That example of selective reasoning was as far as I needed to read in that article.

[DevilsAlum]

A lot of TD decisions reminded me of someone who had to show everyone how smart he is.

[Kelly the Dog]

I just did a little research on the writer of the article and, remarkably, he was awarded top honors in the publication's 2005 "Predict the Past" contest.

[The Poojer]

mike williams vs bryant mckinney is a very easy criticism now, however at the time the 2 of them were pretty equal if I recall. I cannot fault this miss at the time

 

GW choose Gilbride.  TD's problem was NOT putting more oversite over GW's pick of coaches.

605361[/snapback]

[2003Contenders]

He failed miserably and though he's since departed, we're still paying for it today.

 

TD or Butler- take your poison. I would say the Bulter years towards the end of his reign parallel those of TD's for draft longevity. But for every Dwight Freeney there's an Eric Flowers and I just wish our GM's had that Almanac from "Back to the Future".

605454[/snapback]

 

 

That is exactly right. I think the bad 2002 draft is further magnified by the horrible drafts that Butler had in 1999 and 2000. It's very hard to sustain a winning team when you have 3 bad drafts in four years.

[Orton's Arm]

Let's look at the Josh Reed pick in a little more detail. With Moulds and Peerless, John Reed wasn't going to be more than the #3 WR.

 

But, you say, TD knew Peerless's contract was running short, so why not draft his replacement? Why not, indeed. But Peerless had speed to stretch defenses, while Reed did not.

 

But, you say, not all offenses necessarily have a deep burner WR. The New England offense, for instance, has receivers who aren't the biggest or fastest in the world, but who have great hands and run great routes. However, the QB TD would soon trade for--Drew Bledsoe--put up mediocre numbers in exactly that New England offense. In his last three years in New England, his passer ratings were 76, 77, and 75.

 

With Peerless, Bledsoe's rating was 86. After Peerless left, Bledsoe's rating fell to 73.

 

The point I'm getting at is that even with Peerless gone, there was no way Josh Reed was going to be the type of #2 WR that a QB like Drew Bledsoe needed. 3-13 teams don't get to use 2nd round picks on career #3 WRs. Not when the OL is full of holes.

 

Displeased with only having made this mistake once, TD decided to do so again. In 2005, he used a second round pick on Roscoe Parrish. We don't need Parrish to start opposite to Moulds, because we already have Lee Evans. As for someday taking the place of Moulds, Parrish doesn't have the size.

 

That's two 2nd round picks--in just three years--thrown at the position of #3 WR. There are five OL positions. How many first day picks have these five positions received in the last three years? One; and that's one fewer than the position of #3 WR.

[2003Contenders]

mike williams vs bryant mckinney is a very easy criticism now, however at the time the 2 of them were pretty equal if I recall.  I cannot fault this miss at the time

605591[/snapback]

 

 

Not to mention that MW seemed like a good character guy, while McKinney came across as something of a head case. In fact, MW was a pretty decent rookie, while McKinney held out most of his rookie season. Obviously their fortunes have changed since then -- although Levi Jones, taken 10th overall buy the Bengals -- turned out to be better than either of them. The writer of this article was so busy working up his hatchet job on TD that he failed to add this to his list of grievances.

 

Oh, and I'm not sure where he comes off calling Denney an undersized DE. The draft that year was full of undersized DE -- and Denney was one of the few that was actually big enough to project to be strong in run support. That's why TD traded up to get him -- that, and the fact that he wanted to screw Pittsburgh who was all set on taking him with the next pick.

[Pete]

For the woulda, coulda, shoulda fans, you're browsing at Bryant McKinnie, LeCharles Bentley, Deon Branch and Alex Brown.

 

 

ouch!

[Kelly the Dog]

ouch!

605635[/snapback]

Well now we know of at least one official "coulda, shoulda, woulda" fan. Nice job at a public admission.

[2003Contenders]

Let's look at the Josh Reed pick in a little more detail. With Moulds and Peerless, John Reed wasn't going to be more than the #3 WR.

 

But, you say, TD knew Peerless's contract was running short, so why not draft his replacement? Why not, indeed. But Peerless had speed to stretch defenses, while Reed did not.

 

But, you say, not all offenses necessarily have a deep burner WR. The New England offense, for instance, has receivers who aren't the biggest or fastest in the world, but who have great hands and run great routes. However, the QB TD would soon trade for--Drew Bledsoe--put up mediocre numbers in exactly that New England offense. In his last three years in New England, his passer ratings were 76, 77, and 75.

 

With Peerless, Bledsoe's rating was 86. After Peerless left, Bledsoe's rating fell to 73.

 

The point I'm getting at is that even with Peerless gone, there was no way Josh Reed was going to be the type of #2 WR that a QB like Drew Bledsoe needed. 3-13 teams don't get to use 2nd round picks on career #3 WRs. Not when the OL is full of holes.

 

Displeased with only having made this mistake once, TD decided to do so again. In 2005, he used a second round pick on Roscoe Parrish. We don't need Parrish to start opposite to Moulds, because we already have Lee Evans. As for someday taking the place of Moulds, Parrish doesn't have the size.

 

That's two 2nd round picks--in just three years--thrown at the position of #3 WR. There are five OL positions. How many first day picks have these five positions received in the last three years? One; and that's one fewer than the position of #3 WR.

605610[/snapback]

 

While I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said here, at the time, TD had visions of Reed being a WR in the Hines Ward mold. While he didn't have all of the measurables of some of the other WRs taken in that draft, he was considered by many scouts to be rather polished and NFL-ready. Many insiders felt that he should have been a first round pick. Looking back, he had a nice rookie season -- but was placed in a bad situation the following year after Peerless left. Perhaps in a different setting he may have been a decent #2 WR. However, he was poorly suited for Gilbride's offense, and there was too much pressure placed on him.

 

Personally, I still think that there is a spot for him on this team. Aside from catching the ball, he does a number of things well. And last year he seemed to overcome his case of the dropsies. With the "I love you man!" kind of atmosphere that Marv and Jauron are likely to bring to the team, I really think that this may be the year that Reed finally steps up.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

mike williams vs bryant mckinney is a very easy criticism now, however at the time the 2 of them were pretty equal if I recall.  I cannot fault this miss at the time

605591[/snapback]

 

there were a good number of people here, myself included, who were begging for TD to take McKinnie. why? because he was a LEFT TACKLE!

[CoachChuckDickerson]

Any idiot can use hindsight and find a whole lot of examples of what SHOULD have been done....means nothing to me.

605312[/snapback]

 

Not having one player on the roster from the 2002 draft does mean something though.

[Rico]

No doubt the Bledsoe trade & the 2002 draft were complete disasters.

But to be fair to TD, the London Fletcher signing that year also has to be included,

that was a GREAT move.

[ASCI]

Sorry but I’ll take McGahee over " Lj" any day.

[Dawgg]

Yes.

Willis is the league's best back.

 

Sorry but I’ll take McGahee over " Lj" any day.

605683[/snapback]

[Tortured Soul]

mike williams vs bryant mckinney is a very easy criticism now, however at the time the 2 of them were pretty equal if I recall.  I cannot fault this miss at the time

605591[/snapback]

I think just about everyone had McKinnie tops.

 

The writer says the Rams took a chance on Warner and look how that turned out. The way I remember it, Trent Green went down with an injury and had no other choice.

 

In terms of ranking players, hypothetically, if every team was left to analyze the prospects in a bubble, with no contact with other teams, no media buzz, no mel Kipers, I bet their lists would look radically different from each other. In another thread, people are criticizing Bills Digest for putting Winston ahead of D'Brick. Yes, everyone we read has D'Brick on top, but everyone has been wrong before.

[stuckincincy]

I think just about everyone had McKinnie tops.

 

The writer says the Rams took a chance on Warner and look how that turned out.  The way I remember it, Trent Green went down with an injury and had no other choice.

 

In terms of ranking players, hypothetically, if every team was left to analyze the prospects in a bubble, with no contact with other teams, no media buzz, no mel Kipers, I bet their lists would look radically different from each other.  In another thread, people are criticizing Bills Digest for putting Winston ahead of D'Brick.  Yes, everyone we read has D'Brick on top, but everyone has been wrong before.

605716[/snapback]

 

I'm skeptical about Ferguson. Just a feeling...something about his stance...opens his arms instead of a solid forearm shiver. Not sure.

 

I assume he will participate in the "combines". If he picks and chooses what he participates in, forget 'em.

[Pyrite Gal]

GW choose Gilbride.  TD's problem was NOT putting more oversite over GW's pick of coaches.

605361[/snapback]

Exactly right! If one insists on starting and ending the TD story with assessment of one issue (if one insists on this then you insist on being WRONG because winning is not about a decision(s) in one area of team building, its about how you get decisions in multiple areas (the draft, FAs, contract negotiations, teaching and development, coaching game decisions, etc. to all fit together) then one should foolishly focus on the coaching selection issues rather than the draft.

 

The 2002 draft was by far TD's worst, but even this one contained a number of decisions which were quite reasonable choices at the time (trading down was the best way to handle the #4 as the worthwhile picks like Freeney could have been taken lower and if the Bills had pulled off the same results as they did when TD traded down in 2001 it would have been great- he cllearly was capable of doing it as he did it the year before but it takes two to tango to trade). This draft analysis is detailed but leaves out key facts that you think a detailed analysis would note:

 

1. McKinnie is soild mostly because he is adequate with MN in their troubled set-up and he had mucho problems from the start. MW is a clear bust, but it is by no means a sure thing that McKinnie will not also prove to be a bust in real terms of would have been if the Bills took him and subjected him to development by Vinklarek and Ruel.

 

2. Reed's career can be dismissed to this point as an unproductive player on an unproductive team. However, he did look very good his first year and few to no one really second-guessed credibly his play making it reasonable to allow PP to walk. Again when one takes into account the full story rather than insisting on incorrectly only focusing on the draft, PP's real world non-production with AT that gave the Bills a 1st with which they chose McGahee was probably one of the best pieces of work done by TD.

 

3. A real analysis of the Denney pick needs to take into account the reality of the Bills having a desperate need at DE (as shown by them having to pick Kelsay the next year not simply because Denney was not good enough but because we badly needed another DL player to actually run a rotation). One can argue that Denney was not worthy of being the first DE taken in a draft that needed a DE and one would be right. However, the reality is that since the Bills had such a primary need on OL and no DE was near worth a #4 pick then the question is whether Denny is worth your second pick.

 

He was not but what other DE at the time was and the Bills again did not trade down for him as would have matched his worth, they instead took a WR who many had going in the first who actually produced his rookie year to make this look like a good move.

 

The question whether given reality Denney was worth your third pick or trading up for him. This was not an unreasonable choice to make in my view.

 

All in all, I think TD deserved to be fired, but his drafting, even looking at the sorry results of his 2002 draft do not effectively make this case. What makes the case for firing him is:

 

1. His clear poor decision-making in the real world as he chose the had to be fired GW over the SB reaching Fox and the incredibly productive with Cincy Lewis.

 

2. Further, GW hired under TD, the had to be fired Sheppard, the idiots Vinky and Ruel, and needed LeBeau to be brought in to resurrect the D. Replacing Sheppard with Gilbride was simply a move from bad to momentarily good but eventually worse.

 

3. Finally, he chose MM to replace GW but the entire thing melted down this season costing TD )andMM by resignation) their jobs.

 

This draft analysis is interestng, but in the end full of sound and fury and signifying little.