RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 You are of course aware that Denver traded up to get Cutler? The picks they gave to St. Louis to move to #11, they would have been willing to give to us to move to #8. Plus there had to have been teams eager to move ahead of Arizona to take Leinart. 678428[/snapback] I am aware of that... I am also aware that there is a difference between moving to 11 and moving to 8, and it could very well be that the Broncos were not willing to pay that difference, precisely because they knew that one of the two would be there at 11. But don't let that get in the way of the unwarranted assumption that the Bills somehow passed up on a clear offer.
Orton's Arm Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 But don't let that get in the way of the unwarranted assumption that the Bills somehow passed up on a clear offer. 678434[/snapback] Unwarranted? Assumption? Somehow? Um, yeah. Maybe there wasn't an offer on the table as generous as the value chart says it should have been. But there's no reasonable doubt in anyone's minds that other teams were offering the Bills something. If you know Whitner's going to be there at #15 anyway, what does it matter if you only got a portion of what the value chart says you should have gotten? You'd have had Whitner plus other picks, instead of just Whitner.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Unwarranted? Assumption? Somehow? Um, yeah. Maybe there wasn't an offer on the table as generous as the value chart says it should have been. But there's no reasonable doubt in anyone's minds that other teams were offering the Bills something. if you know Whitner's going to be there at #15 anyway, what does it matter if you only got a portion of what the value chart says you should have gotten? You'd have had Whitner plus other picks, instead of just Whitner. 678469[/snapback] Back to the Ifs. Yes, according to your scenario, they would have had Whitner and picks, but how do we know he would have been there at 15? I'm not saying Marv and company are automatically right, but I have little patience for people who simply assume that some other scenario was obviously better.
KOKBILLS Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Unwarranted? Assumption? Somehow? Um, yeah. Maybe there wasn't an offer on the table as generous as the value chart says it should have been. But there's no reasonable doubt in anyone's minds that other teams were offering the Bills something. if you know Whitner's going to be there at #15 anyway, what does it matter if you only got a portion of what the value chart says you should have gotten? You'd have had Whitner plus other picks, instead of just Whitner. 678469[/snapback] Right or wrong, The Bills were convinced Whitner would be gone in a Trade down scenerio...They were pretty much sold on the possibility that Detriot would take Whitner after Huff went at #7... They fell in love with DW and refused to take the chance of losing him...It's really that simple... I'm not saying The Bills were right, I am saying they would totally disagree with the assumption that Whitner would be there at #15 anyway...That's why they did what they did...Regardless of what anyone says would have happened, The Bills thought diferently...Obviously, if The Bills thought there was even a 1% chance that Detroit would take Whitner they were not going to gamble because they wanted Whitner...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Right or wrong, The Bills were convinced Whitner would be gone in a Trade down scenerio...They were pretty much sold on the possibility that Detriot would take Whitner after Huff went at #7... They fell in love with DW and refused to take the chance of losing him...It's really that simple... I'm not saying The Bills were right, I am saying they would totally disagree with the assumption that Whitner would be there at #15 anyway...That's why they did what they did...Regardless of what anyone says would have happened, The Bills thought diferently...Obviously, if The Bills thought there was even a 1% chance that Detroit would take Whitner they were not going to gamble because they wanted Whitner... 678662[/snapback] There is a chance of being hit in the left temple by a meteorite too.
NYGPopgun10 Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 I know some of you are down regarding who the Bills selected. But how does anyone know how Whitner will pan out? That includes all the so-called experts. You just don't know. Maybe he'll be good.
BeantownRob Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Like someone wrote earlier........Marv was on is jello break.
FTW_BillsFan Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 I was shocked and surprised by this pick. With Leinart / Cutler / Bunkley / Ngata still on the board you decide to go with the 2nd Safety in the draft? I'm just perplexed by this pick. Trade down to 15 and get the extra picks... Even if Whit wouldn't have been there, this draft was DEEP in safeties. So why 'waste' the 8th pick on him? Personally, weak arm or not, 1) I can't believe that Leinart dropped and 2) I can't believe we didn't pick him. Oh, well I guess. At least we didn't waste any more picks trading up into the 1st round and taking a player that was graded middle second.
stinky finger Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 First, I'd like to discuss who was available at the time. I dont feel comfortable with Bunkley or Ngata. I feel that Justice is a huge gamble and i would not want to grab him with #8 money. What i wanted the Bills to do was trade down. I felt that one of the DT's being taken by us was the wrong pick. The only problem with trading down was the players available. The Eagles and Broncos were said to be the 2 teams interested in trading with us. I also did not feel comfortable with any of the players that were supposed to be available around those picks either even though we would be picking up another pick. Maybe Whitner would be there, maybe he wouldnt, but as I've said before, if you like a player draft him, dont take a chance on him being there when you trade down. If you think the Bills didnt want to trade down and pick up Whitner your nuts. They were clearly on the phone but something wasnt right. Who knows what it was, BUT, if the Bills could have moved down they would have. As many of you know, i was an advocate of taking Michael Huff with our pick. I think that Matt Bowen and Coy Wire suck, Troy Vincent is like 100 years old, and we have no depth behind these players. Now the player. Coming straight from thehuddlereport.com the writeup on Whitner says, "Donte is one of the better tacklers in this draft. He is a head up, wrap up, squeeze and drive tackler. He has really good speed, size and shows an excellent burst to the ball. He has good hands to go for the interception and shows impressive overall instincts for his position." The even more impressive thing i found in there was, "If you want a safety set to go for a two-deep zone coverage defense, don’t think twice about drafting Donte. That is the system that he can handle right away and impact for you." Bottom line: we needed a player like this on our defense, we should have traded down and we tried but it obviously wasnt a good situation. I dont care that we took him with the number 8 pick because the only difference between taking him then or later is money, and obviously the Bills feel comfortable enough paying him. One of the other choices at this spot would not have been good. Thank God matt bowen or coy wire doesnt have to start. 674750[/snapback] Great post. I, too, was stunned to learn of our selection. Granted, I'm posting 2 days after the fact, but I like the draft on the whole. We're not winning next year and perhaps the year after. No matter who we picked at #8 was not going to come in and make that big an impact. Instead, we focused on one area of the field. The secondary. I like the collection of talent we drafted. I expect it to be a strength sooner than later. We have many pieces to move around and tinker with. I feel they zeroed in and capitalized on an area of the field where we can soon dictate the play. Yes, of course, holes still exist but you can cross off the secondary. This could be special. Another draft and FA period should fortify other areas of deficiency. OL and DL. A very "unsexy" draft for sure. I applaud the warroom for having a plan and sticking to it. Give it time. It was going to take at least 2 years to get it together. I think this is a good start. IMO.
John from Riverside Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 I will be laughing my @ss off and bringing this thread out of the archives in a 2 years when this guy is in the Pro Bowl..... Looking at what we did with Daunty, Yabooty, and Simpson....we are going to have a shutdown corner group VERY soon..... 1
MDH Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 I will be laughing my @ss off and bringing this thread out of the archives in a 2 years when this guy is in the Pro Bowl..... Looking at what we did with Daunty, Yabooty, and Simpson....we are going to have a shutdown corner group VERY soon..... 680539[/snapback] Most people aren't complaining about Whitner they're complaining that he wasn't a value pick at the 8th spot. If the Bills had moved down to the 14th spot what would they have picked up? Most likely a 3rd round pick (perhaps a second). So, you like the Youboty pick and the Simpson pick and think they're capable of being part of a shut down secondary? Well, they were picked up in the 3rd and 4th rounds. So the Bills could have moved down a few spots (and possibly missed out on Whiner) and picked up another player of Youboty and Simpson's calibur. So, do you think Whitner is worth more than whoever we could have gotten at the 14th spot (if the Ravens selected Whitner that would have left Ngata for the Bills) PLUS whoever they would have gotten in the 3rd (Leonard Pope was available at Phillies spot in the 3rd, so were DE Chris Gocong and OG Max Jean Gilles to name just a few guys). Given this scenerio (where the Bills grab Ngata with the 14th) the Bills wouldn't have had to make the trade to move back into the first round and would have gotten to keep their other 3rd round pick as well. If they did want to make the trade they could have picked up Justice, Mangold or Kiwanuka. Time will tell but with the unpredictable nature of judging the talent in the draft I'm a big believer in getting as many first day picks as possible as there are lots of guys in the 2nd and 3rd rounds that turn out to be great players and many guys in the first that end up being busts.
jdellapelle Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 whitner is winfield at safety....end of story. i was very pleased with the pick. fewell and jaroun have so many options with this kid, in the box, blitzing, nickel back ability. range as a safety, great smarts, the best pure tackler in the draft. with his measurables and teprament i see him as a ronnie lott type. like i said whitner is winfield at safety!!
stinky finger Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 Most people aren't complaining about Whitner they're complaining that he wasn't a value pick at the 8th spot. If the Bills had moved down to the 14th spot what would they have picked up? Most likely a 3rd round pick (perhaps a second). So, you like the Youboty pick and the Simpson pick and think they're capable of being part of a shut down secondary? Well, they were picked up in the 3rd and 4th rounds. So the Bills could have moved down a few spots (and possibly missed out on Whiner) and picked up another player of Youboty and Simpson's calibur. So, do you think Whitner is worth more than whoever we could have gotten at the 14th spot (if the Ravens selected Whitner that would have left Ngata for the Bills) PLUS whoever they would have gotten in the 3rd (Leonard Pope was available at Phillies spot in the 3rd, so were DE Chris Gocong and OG Max Jean Gilles to name just a few guys). Given this scenerio (where the Bills grab Ngata with the 14th) the Bills wouldn't have had to make the trade to move back into the first round and would have gotten to keep their other 3rd round pick as well. If they did want to make the trade they could have picked up Justice, Mangold or Kiwanuka. Time will tell but with the unpredictable nature of judging the talent in the draft I'm a big believer in getting as many first day picks as possible as there are lots of guys in the 2nd and 3rd rounds that turn out to be great players and many guys in the first that end up being busts. 680573[/snapback] Plain and simple, Marv had a plan and executed it. They targeted specific players at specific positions and selected them. The Popes and Max Jean Gilles' of the world were probably not a part of their draft strategy. They targeted (early) secondary and (late) OL. I think they did quite well. Oh yea, McCargo mixed as well. Selected early? Perhaps. It's what they think fits. They got him. I'm cool with this.
MDH Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 They targeted specific players at specific positions and selected them. 680848[/snapback] And that is the problem I had with their draft. You list is as a strength while I think it's the absolute worst way to go into a draft.
Recommended Posts