Offside Number 76 Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 An Academic All-American, and an avid but late-blooming student of the game who is now trying to make up for lost time, McCargo understands that Williams and Lawson, flashier players who merit attention by putting the quarterback on the ground, are going to garner most of the headlines. But he understands, too, that there is a place in the NFL for a guy like himself, a hard-working tackle who has made himself into a player and who will soon reap the rewards. 677054[/snapback] The words in that paragraph are the reasons why Marv wanted this guy: (1) Academic All-American. (2) Avid student of the game. (3) Trying to make up for lost time (=will work hard; see no. 5). (4) Understands that flashier players get more attention, but doesn't care. (5) A "hard working tackle who has made himself into a player." If Levy saw the same qualities that the author saw, those are the reasons for the pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 The thing is I don't think the Bills have misunderstood the player values (it's not a tough concept after all). I think they've made the mistake of having very specific players they want and they're throwing value out the window to get them because they don't feel comfortable with the other players that they have rated similarly. A team absolutely cannot go into the draft saying, "We HAVE to have THIS player!" 675878[/snapback] You've done a stellar job on this thread, and the post I've quoted is a good example. If your team is a player away, you can maybe give up a little value to make sure you get that player. But the Bills are riddled with so many holes that players from many different positions could come in and help the team. Say they took a chance on McCargo being there in the second, and that someone else took him before you picked. Fine. There would have been many other players available in the second--especially on the offensive line--that could have come in and helped this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 You've done a stellar job on this thread, and the post I've quoted is a good example. If your team is a player away, you can maybe give up a little value to make sure you get that player. But the Bills are riddled with so many holes that players from many different positions could come in and help the team. Say they took a chance on McCargo being there in the second, and that someone else took him before you picked. Fine. There would have been many other players available in the second--especially on the offensive line--that could have come in and helped this team. 677149[/snapback] Once again I say.... Why are we to say how a draft should be run....we have just gone through a several year stint with a GM that was supposed to be a draft genius....and you know where that had gotten us? We have not made the playoffs since 1999.....do you realize that? Maybe it is time for a new way of thinking. We are not getting every piece we need....I freely admit that and I think everyone can see it.....but was are getting CHARACTOR players..... Do you know what that means to me? A player that wont fold when things are going badly....a player who will fight to the end....a player that will not slack off and will always try to improve their game.... There was a time on this board when fans openly discussed how the Bills team was sour from the inside out.....how the core of our team was weak minded and had accepted losing...how losing becomes a accepted thing when you have those types of players....in other words.....NON CHARACTOR players...... The bills are taking advantage of getting young (junior players as a matter of fact) talented charactor players that they can biuld this team up and around....not high profile name players off of Mel Kipers board..... I say...do it Marv...in you I trust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 You've done a stellar job on this thread, and the post I've quoted is a good example. If your team is a player away, you can maybe give up a little value to make sure you get that player. But the Bills are riddled with so many holes that players from many different positions could come in and help the team. Say they took a chance on McCargo being there in the second, and that someone else took him before you picked. Fine. There would have been many other players available in the second--especially on the offensive line--that could have come in and helped this team. 677149[/snapback] Once again I say.... Why are we to say how a draft should be run....we have just gone through a several year stint with a GM that was supposed to be a draft genius....and you know where that had gotten us? We have not made the playoffs since 1999.....do you realize that? Maybe it is time for a new way of thinking. We are not getting every piece we need....I freely admit that and I think everyone can see it.....but was are getting CHARACTOR players..... Do you know what that means to me? A player that wont fold when things are going badly....a player who will fight to the end....a player that will not slack off and will always try to improve their game.... There was a time on this board when fans openly discussed how the Bills team was sour from the inside out.....how the core of our team was weak minded and had accepted losing...how losing becomes a accepted thing when you have those types of players....in other words.....NON CHARACTOR players...... The bills are taking advantage of getting young (junior players as a matter of fact) talented charactor players that they can biuld this team up and around....not high profile name players off of Mel Kipers board..... I say...do it Marv...in you I trust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I think you'll see them both on the field more often than you think. Probably not on short yardage or obvious running plays but on 2nd and 3rd and long I'd imagine they'll be lined up together. 677112[/snapback] Double post from below, but looks like you nailed it. Jauron's Quote "We see him playing the three (technique)," said Jauron. "Obviously we'll be playing in waves so we need guys that can play fast at that position as Tom (Modrak) said. We see him playing primarily the three technique. When we get him here and start working with him and he can hold up in camp at the one, then we'll start playing him at some of the one (technique) too. In pass rush situations we like to think that Tripplett and McCargo will both be out there." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Name the price. I will bet you on this. Listen to the press conference; straight from Jauron's mouth, they're projecting him as a 3-tech, not a 1-tech. According to Jauron, Anderson/Jefferson/Brown is our depth chart for 1-tech right now. 677125[/snapback] 100$ i will bet right now. That goes to Hunter's Hope or another good cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Name the price. I will bet you on this. Listen to the press conference; straight from Jauron's mouth, they're projecting him as a 3-tech, not a 1-tech. According to Jauron, Anderson/Jefferson/Brown is our depth chart for 1-tech right now. 677125[/snapback] If he has a great camp and Tripplett does not, he could conceivably be the starter. The safer bet for you would be that Tripplett and McCargo will not both be starting as a tandem at DT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloaggie Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 McCargo it is 675439[/snapback] We're the f'ing laughing stock of the league. Thanks, Marv! Moron! Stick to coaching and history, because you should be history after this draft. Idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasker Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I think these two players are good fits, and will help our team. I don't doubt their talent. If Detroit had a chance of taking Dante at #9, trading down would have meant losing him, but I don't know how likely that would have been. We used our first two picks on these guys, and gave up a third rounder for the right to do it. I would have prefered to have traded down and picked Dante, and stayed where I was to take McCargo, so instead of giving up a third, we would have gotten a second or third. But we will never know if that was possible, if McCargo would have fallen all the way to our second, or if Detroit would have taken Dante. I'm a but puzzled overall, but I can live with these picks. I'm not sure if Marv played the chess game the best he could have, but I will trust his ability to pick out great players well above any of ours, and in three years we can look back and see how good these moves were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I think these two players are good fits, and will help our team. I don't doubt their talent. If Detroit had a chance of taking Dante at #9, trading down would have meant losing him, but I don't know how likely that would have been. We used our first two picks on these guys, and gave up a third rounder for the right to do it. I would have prefered to have traded down and picked Dante, and stayed where I was to take McCargo, so instead of giving up a third, we would have gotten a second or third. But we will never know if that was possible, if McCargo would have fallen all the way to our second, or if Detroit would have taken Dante. I'm a but puzzled overall, but I can live with these picks. I'm not sure if Marv played the chess game the best he could have, but I will trust his ability to pick out great players well above any of ours, and in three years we can look back and see how good these moves were. 677372[/snapback] This is my thinking this AM. They made a decision to make sure they got the guys they wanted - even if it meant being more conservative and sacrificing 'value'. I also agree with JfH re: the character/leadership issues. They want to build the team in a new direction, and make sure they get players with specific skills and attitudes - even if the picks are not 'sexy' or 'high value'. One thing is for sure - speed and athleticism will be paramount in our defense. One write-up of Dante actually said he had a "fast motor" - we are chaning out the motor on our defense from a high one to a fast one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 No question the Bills Cover Story on the reasons behind Trading Up for McCargo are looking legit...Through #66 now and still not another DT taken...Does not mean McCagrgo would have gone higher than some thought. But no question there was a HUGE dropoff after him at DT... 676410[/snapback] That's one way to spin it. On the other hand, the guy the Bears took with the pick we traded to them, Dvoracek got basically the same scouting grades as McCargo, whom the Bills traded up to get and took 2 rounds earlier. McCargo is not wart-less. In fact, he seems to share some of the same raps people have been blasting Ngata and Bunkley on here for months about. Injuries, inconsistent play, great potential but hasn't put it all together yet, still learning how to play, an early entry junior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ax4782 Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I went to NC State and watched McCargo play against top competition in the ACC. In three games against Florida State, his numbers were better in terms of tackles and overall play. buffaloaggie is just plain wrong. He seems upset that we didn't draft Lienart or some other glitz and glamour pick, when we had needs to fill. McCargo would not have been there at our pick in the second round, and giving up a third round pick to move up is nothing. The second rounder is what we would have spent anyway, so we really only gave up a third. There were other teams that needed a DT on the first day between 26 and 42 and he was clearly the best remaining guy. McCargo did not take plays off in college and he played at three different positions and did so very well. We need to see how they perform on the field before we start the blame and whine game again. Go Sabres!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 its illogical 676131[/snapback] Dr. Dankenstein?......or Dr. Spock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 I like the pick a lot. Can't wait to see him in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Once again I say.... 677169[/snapback] In this case, it's literally true because of your double post! That said, I like the emphasis on character guys. I just don't see why Marv couldn't have traded down and still gotten guys with good character--perhaps even the same guys he ended up taking. Be that as it may, I hope the picks work out well, and that this draft proves to be a stepping stone to the kind of team the Bills should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts