Max997 Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 There wasn't a proposal that would have fit for them to move down and have Donte Whitner still there. There was talk that Cleveland would have taken Whitner at #13. thats what happens when you go into the draft eyeing a single player..not to mention it wasnt a definate Cleveland would have taken him
Alaska Darin Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 In fairness to Marv, that's not the wrong way of thinking. If you're sure your guy is going to be a top NFL player and there isn't anyone left on the board who fits that criteria, then you make that pick - unless someone absolutely blows you away with a boatload of picks/players.
Chilly Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 In fairness to Marv, that's not the wrong way of thinking. If you're sure your guy is going to be a top NFL player and there isn't anyone left on the board who fits that criteria, then you make that pick - unless someone absolutely blows you away with a boatload of picks/players. 675870[/snapback] agreed
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 And that's why we didn't get good value...because Marv was afraid. How many people in our front office know how to negotiate? Apparently, not many. Freakin' terrible.
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 In fairness to Marv, that's not the wrong way of thinking. If you're sure your guy is going to be a top NFL player and there isn't anyone left on the board who fits that criteria, then you make that pick - unless someone absolutely blows you away with a boatload of picks/players. 675870[/snapback] Amen brother.
Max997 Posted April 29, 2006 Author Posted April 29, 2006 In fairness to Marv, that's not the wrong way of thinking. If you're sure your guy is going to be a top NFL player and there isn't anyone left on the board who fits that criteria, then you make that pick - unless someone absolutely blows you away with a boatload of picks/players. 675870[/snapback] if the Bills thought that way they could have traded down with the Eagles or Broncos if they offered a second round pick then traded back up ahead og Cleveland offering a third like Denver ended up doing a lot to ask for yes but it happens, Bills would have ended up with 2 seconds instead of 2 thirds
Fezmid Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 In fairness to Marv, that's not the wrong way of thinking. If you're sure your guy is going to be a top NFL player and there isn't anyone left on the board who fits that criteria, then you make that pick - unless someone absolutely blows you away with a boatload of picks/players. 675870[/snapback] But I thought Marv's thinking was always, "Draft the best available player, regardless of position?"
Max997 Posted April 29, 2006 Author Posted April 29, 2006 But I thought Marv's thinking was always, "Draft the best available player, regardless of position?" 675885[/snapback] exactly
Alaska Darin Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 But I thought Marv's thinking was always, "Draft the best available player, regardless of position?" 675885[/snapback] I think he did. What you're asking isn't opposite of what I said.
Fezmid Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 I think he did. What you're asking isn't opposite of what I said. 675906[/snapback] True, but if you're targeting a specific player, you lose sight of the "best available." I don't think anyone would disagree that we need S, DT, and OT. So why wouldn't you trade to be able to address all three positions, instead of losing picks and noly addressing two? Even if they didn't get the S they wanted, trading down could've netted DT and OT (for example). I don't like zeroing in on one player, when we aren't (IMHO) one player away from competing. CW
Alaska Darin Posted April 29, 2006 Posted April 29, 2006 True, but if you're targeting a specific player, you lose sight of the "best available." I don't think anyone would disagree that we need S, DT, and OT. So why wouldn't you trade to be able to address all three positions, instead of losing picks and noly addressing two? Even if they didn't get the S they wanted, trading down could've netted DT and OT (for example). I don't like zeroing in on one player, when we aren't (IMHO) one player away from competing. CW 675939[/snapback] As I said, if you're convinced that the guy on the board is far and away the best player available, you pick him. UNLESS someone absolutely blows you away with an offer. I don't have a problem with zeroing in on a player if that player is someone who becomes a Pro Bowler. Who knows, maybe Whitner is that guy. Gil Brandt sure likes him and I respect his opinion.
Recommended Posts