Ghost of BiB Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Not until the end of round 7 tommorrow ! And even then, NO ! 677250[/snapback] You should probably rest up though, really. Four rounds is a long way to go.
BobbyC81 Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 In addition, many are disappointed that the offensive line was once again ignored on the first day of the draft. I know it's a new GM and he's off to a fresh start, but the neglect of the offensive line is a ten or fifteen year pattern that needs to be broken. I guess breaking that pattern will have to wait at least another year. 677237[/snapback] Why do people keep saying this?? Remember they took Mike Williams with the 4th pick 4 years ago!! He may have turned out to be a bust so far but he was rated that high by all the mock drafts back then!!! The O-lin e was addressed but the p[latyer didn't pan out. How longhas it been since Jonas Jennings and Marcus Sullivan were taken. Jennings was good and they let him get away. He was injured again for SF this past year so maybe that was a good move?? I can keep going with more times "the offensive line was addressed" in the past 15 years. Remember the 1st round selection of John Fina??
Guest BackInDaDay Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 We will have to establish the running game as the primary tool for the offense. I think that is the only way to win games especially with the young QB's we have. 677189[/snapback] Consider an O-line of Gandy/Reyes/Fowler/Preston/Peters with Royal. I know that this isn't the published depth chart, but if I'm correct in what Fairchild's after, this is a group that could shift the LOS quickly. None of these guys are road-graders, but if the reports I've seen are accurate appraisals, all of them are capable of moving quickly to the point of attack. This is the antithesis of what we saw the last couple seasons. Opposing Ds were forcing everything in on us last season. Rarely did we take the corner due to our slowness. Quicker linemen will force the D to react quickly to get to their assignments. Sound zone-blocking schemes should be able to take advantage of any mistakes and over-pursuit. McNally has to get his blockers to feel where the D over-extends and square-up to seal off a lane. Studesville has to get McGahee to cut it up into that seam. McGahee has great vision and wants to run away from pursuit. Rather than sending him into the teeth of the D, and whipping him when his instincts tell him to go elsewhere, this scheme can free him up to be an elite RB. Our O-line, moving laterally, rather than slugging it out straight ahead, can get this done. Many of us were critical of what McNally could accomplish with the lumbering leaners he's had the last couple years. Now that he's got better athletes to work with, we'll see what he can accomplish.
Tortured Soul Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 I think the accuracy of the draft "gurus" this year goes a long way to singling out Levy and Co. as problems. If Kiper and the bunch picked drafts that were far off, that would be one thing. But generally speaking, the mock drafts were close to what happened - with a few notable exceptions, such as Whitner and McCargo. And that is what gives us the right to be pissed off.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 I think the accuracy of the draft "gurus" this year goes a long way to singling out Levy and Co. as problems. If Kiper and the bunch picked drafts that were far off, that would be one thing. But generally speaking, the mock drafts were close to what happened - with a few notable exceptions, such as Whitner and McCargo. And that is what gives us the right to be pissed off. 677319[/snapback] At the end of the day it's still about the game of football and who can play it well. You don't need the gurus, their mock drafts and that ridiculous point system to validate a team's success or failure. Wait for the new kids to strap 'em on and show you what they've got, then make your mind up on how good a job your GM did.
syhuang Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 I think the accuracy of the draft "gurus" this year goes a long way to singling out Levy and Co. as problems. If Kiper and the bunch picked drafts that were far off, that would be one thing. But generally speaking, the mock drafts were close to what happened - with a few notable exceptions, such as Whitner and McCargo. And that is what gives us the right to be pissed off. 677319[/snapback] Really!? Show a mock draft which only has few notable exceptions. How many mock drafts have Mario Williams at #1 overall? How about Leinart in #10? How about Chad Jackson in second round? How about Winston Justice in second round? How about Ashton Youboty in third round? How about D.Bing and G.Watson not drafted after round three? These are the picks which are way off. The Whitner and McCargo picks are not that "off" compared to above examples. (The only person said McCargo was projected to 3rd round was Kiper and he said that was "some time ago") Also, don't forget that there're mock drafts which have Whitner goes to Bills at #8 and McCargo goes to late 1st round.
Mickey Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Wwe don't know for sure ! But Bunkley was there at 8th and we all saw the tape that he is a stud ! Soo Marv ? What tape did you see ? The Ring III ? Around my !@#$ ? 677048[/snapback] Maybe they decided that in the Tampa 2, it was more important to upgrade SS where we were facing a choice between Wire and a mediocre FA than it was to upgrade at DT over Anderson and Tripplet especially since they liked McCargo and figured they could get him. If they went with Bunkley, then they would have had to go SS in the second. Certainly, Whitner would have been gone by then and Detroit, who picked ahead of us in the second, took SS Bullock from Nebraska. The next SS taken in the draft was Daniel Manning by Chicago with the pick they go from us and after him, Bernard Pollard from Nebraska who was taken at 22 in the second. If the Bills were targeting SS and DT as the biggest needs, then, as it turned out, their choices were Whitner followed by McCargo or Bunkley followed by Manning/Pollard. I think if we had gone with the second choice, plenty here would be grousing that we reached on Manning. As for McCargo, the next DT taken in the draft after him was Claude Wroten in the third. If he were gone before our pick in the second, there was a huge drop in talent before the next DT. You might not agree that SS and DT should have been the priorities but since they were, what they did was certainly understandable. Given how critical the SS is in the Tampa 2, I see no problem in ranking the need we had at that position higher than DT so that explains why we went for Whitner over Bunkley. McCargo was the best DT still on the board when we took him by light years. At that point it was either trade up to get him or ditch drafting a DT at all and instead trading up for Justice. I am upset that the OL is going to be cobbled together with chewing gum and duct tape once again but we can only fix so much so fast. If they had targeted guard or an OT as our top need, then they would have drafted differently. That is really where the argument is, should they have assessed our needs differently? Update: The SS prospects after Whitner (Pollard and Manning) are pretty slow. Pollard runs a 4.59 and Manning a 4.55 while Whitner runs a 4.38. Pretty big drop off in speed if you ask me.
gobillsinytown Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 To all those of you who are complaining about the Bill's draft, please try to follow this: You are complaining that the Bills drafted badly today, not because the players they drafted won't turn out well (afterall, as you admit, no one knows how these players will turn out), but because the players did not represent "good value." In other words, the Bills could have had the same players by trading down. Now I want you all to ask yourself one simple question: What is the objective "value" standard that you are using to judge the worth of the players that we drafted? Is it Kiper's mock draft? Kirwan's? Brandt's? Scouting Inc's? Some other organization that sells its rankings to the media? On what grounds can you claim that these sources have a notion of a given player's value that is objectively better than the collective opinion of the football men in the Bills organization? More to the point, on what grounds can you claim that any other NFL team uses these same sources to derive their notion of a given player's value? Other teams rely on their own scouts for player rankings. If the Bills think a player is awfully good, don't you think it is possible that other teams feel the same way? Of course, with all the secrecy going on, the Bills don't know how other teams have players ranked. So from the Bills' perspective, it is entirely likely that other teams have also seen the same tape and combine workouts, and have arrived at the same opinion. In other words, isn't it entirely possible that one or more teams other than the Bills had their eyes on the same players that we drafted? PUT SIMPLY, WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT EVERY OTHER NFL TEAM IS FOLLOWING KIPER'S MOCK DRAFT? 677035[/snapback] THANK YOU.
Tortured Soul Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 At the end of the day it's still about the game of football and who can play it well. You don't need the gurus, their mock drafts and that ridiculous point system to validate a team's success or failure. Wait for the new kids to strap 'em on and show you what they've got, then make your mind up on how good a job your GM did. 677332[/snapback] Yes, every so often someone comes to this board and bestows his wisdom on the minions and tells us that since our knowledge pales in comparison to those in the ivory tower at OBD, we have no right to question them. Of course, that's the whole point of this board. Or better yet, lets wait till opening day, see how these kids do, and then I'll decide whether or not to spend $800 on season tickets. Really!? Show a mock draft which only has few notable exceptions. How many mock drafts have Mario Williams at #1 overall? How about Leinart in #10? How about Chad Jackson in second round? How about Winston Justice in second round? How about Ashton Youboty in third round? How about D.Bing and G.Watson not drafted after round three? These are the picks which are way off. The Whitner and McCargo picks are not that "off" compared to above examples. (The only person said McCargo was projected to 3rd round was Kiper and he said that was "some time ago") Also, don't forget that there're mock drafts which have Whitner goes to Bills at #8 and McCargo goes to late 1st round. 677337[/snapback] All of your picks slipped for one reason or another. The only ones to rise much higher than expected were our picks. And I don't think being off with Mario by one spot is a huge difference.
Shamrock Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Really!? Show a mock draft which only has few notable exceptions. How many mock drafts have Mario Williams at #1 overall? How about Leinart in #10? How about Chad Jackson in second round? How about Winston Justice in second round? How about Ashton Youboty in third round? How about D.Bing and G.Watson not drafted after round three? These are the picks which are way off. The Whitner and McCargo picks are not that "off" compared to above examples. (The only person said McCargo was projected to 3rd round was Kiper and he said that was "some time ago") Also, don't forget that there're mock drafts which have Whitner goes to Bills at #8 and McCargo goes to late 1st round. Don't forget Youboty and Jimmy Williams both slid as well. The draft is a crap shoot. How the heck did that hack (sarcasm) Terrel Davis rush for 2000 yards when he was picked after Ryan Christopherson? I just hope our favourite 80 yr olds have gambled well.
obie_wan Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Maybe they decided that in the Tampa 2, it was more important to upgrade SS where we were facing a choice between Wire and a mediocre FA than it was to upgrade at DT over Anderson and Tripplet especially since they liked McCargo and figured they could get him. If they went with Bunkley, then they would have had to go SS in the second. Certainly, Whitner would have been gone by then and Detroit, who picked ahead of us in the second, took SS Bullock from Nebraska. The next SS taken in the draft was Daniel Manning by Chicago with the pick they go from us and after him, Bernard Pollard from Nebraska who was taken at 22 in the second. If the Bills were targeting SS and DT as the biggest needs, then, as it turned out, their choices were Whitner followed by McCargo or Bunkley followed by Manning/Pollard. I think if we had gone with the second choice, plenty here would be grousing that we reached on Manning. As for McCargo, the next DT taken in the draft after him was Claude Wroten in the third. If he were gone before our pick in the second, there was a huge drop in talent before the next DT. You might not agree that SS and DT should have been the priorities but since they were, what they did was certainly understandable. Given how critical the SS is in the Tampa 2, I see no problem in ranking the need we had at that position higher than DT so that explains why we went for Whitner over Bunkley. McCargo was the best DT still on the board when we took him by light years. At that point it was either trade up to get him or ditch drafting a DT at all and instead trading up for Justice. I am upset that the OL is going to be cobbled together with chewing gum and duct tape once again but we can only fix so much so fast. If they had targeted guard or an OT as our top need, then they would have drafted differently. That is really where the argument is, should they have assessed our needs differently? Update: The SS prospects after Whitner (Pollard and Manning) are pretty slow. Pollard runs a 4.59 and Manning a 4.55 while Whitner runs a 4.38. Pretty big drop off in speed if you ask me. 677400[/snapback] As you note, the other safety prospects were not viable candidates at all, since they are too slow to cover WRs or TE. The defense needs a cover safety who can hit in order to implement the blitz packages and not be forced to take LBs off the field when an offense goes to a 3 WR set.
syhuang Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 All of your picks slipped for one reason or another. The only ones to rise much higher than expected were our picks. And I don't think being off with Mario by one spot is a huge difference. 677424[/snapback] Just show a mock draft which has FEW picks which was actually notable drafted higher. And you haven't responded the mock drafts which have Whinter at #8 and McCargo at late 1st round. Don't these mock drafts count?
Mickey Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Just show a mock draft which has FEW picks which was actually notable drafted higher. And you haven't responded the mock drafts which have Whinter at #8 and McCargo at late 1st round. Don't these mock drafts count? 677632[/snapback] Bottom line is that we needed a SS and a DT and at the time we took him, Whitner was the best SS on the board and at the time we took McCargo, he was the best DT still on the board and likely wouldn't have been there had we sat and waited. Really, is the combo of Bunkley + Manning so clearly superior to the combo of Whitner + McCargo that it justifes excoriating Marv and Modrak? I don't care if we took them "too high" whatever that means. Can they play? That is the question and that is what we will grade this draft on.
syhuang Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Bottom line is that we needed a SS and a DT and at the time we took him, Whitner was the best SS on the board and at the time we took McCargo, he was the best DT still on the board and likely wouldn't have been there had we sat and waited. Really, is the combo of Bunkley + Manning so clearly superior to the combo of Whitner + McCargo that it justifes excoriating Marv and Modrak? I don't care if we took them "too high" whatever that means. Can they play? That is the question and that is what we will grade this draft on. 677811[/snapback] Exactly, these board experts should stop using mock drafts to criticise Marv's picks.
Orton's Arm Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Why do people keep saying this?? Remember they took Mike Williams with the 4th pick 4 years ago!! He may have turned out to be a bust so far but he was rated that high by all the mock drafts back then!!! 677264[/snapback] I'd be happy to answer your question. Of your 22 starters, 5 are offensive linemen. If you felt the offensive line was of equal importance with the rest of your team, you'd want 5/22 (or 23%) of your first-day picks to be offensive linemen. TD had 18 first-day picks during his tenure here. Of those, only two (11%) were used on offensive linemen. This, despite the fact that: - Moulds was a long-term answer at WR; reducing the need to address that position. - Antowain Smith was good enough to get you by, meaning TD could have ignored the RB position for a few years while he fixed the line. So TD used only 11% of his first-day picks on offensive linemen, despite the fact that linemen are 23% of your starters, and despite the line's sorry state when he got here. This neglect was exacerbated by the fact that one of his two selections was a bust, while the other one's contract was allowed to expire after just four years. While it wouldn't have made sense to match San Francisco's offer, why let things get to that point in the first place? Why not lock Jennings up after year 2 or year 3? Well, you say, what about the second day of the draft? TD had 25 second-day selections, of which 6 (or 24%) were used on offensive linemen. That's a little bit better than the 23% rate that's par for the course. But most second-day picks don't work out, which is why a fifth or sixth round pick has only a fraction of the trade value of a first day pick. Picking offensive linemen at a normal rate on day two doesn't compensate for choosing them at a half of normal rate on day one. Well, some might ask, what about free agency? Typically, the Bills didn't break the bank when shopping for free agent offensive linemen. Nor did we receive much quality play from our bargain purchases. The low price/low performance combination for free agent offensive linemen under TD supports the contention the line was being neglected. Edit: I also looked at the period from 1992 (the year Fina was drafted) to 2000. The Bills had 29 first day selections from 1992 - 2000. Of those, the Bills used just 4 (or 14%) on offensive linemen. Of their 54 second-day selections, just 6 (or 11%) were used on offensive linemen. Both numbers would have to be at 23% for the line to be getting its fair share of players. As a consequence of this neglect, the Bills' line declined after the Super Bowl glory years. By the late '90s, it was mediocre at best.
Formerly Allan in MD Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 It's very simple. Ralph could save zillions of bucks by getting rid of his GM, other personnel types, and scouts, and sit at the table draft day with nothing but his draft guide. With a little encouragement, Dan Snyder would undoubtedly do the same at the Redskin's table (he may already be doing it since the number of picks he has to make is miniscule and he certainly thinks he knows more than anyone he would have to pay). Here's a novel thought: if Ralph isn't up to it, he could let one of the experts on this board fill in for him.
Tolstoy Posted May 1, 2006 Author Posted May 1, 2006 It's very simple. Ralph could save zillions of bucks by getting rid of his GM, other personnel types, and scouts, and sit at the table draft day with nothing but his draft guide. With a little encouragement, Dan Snyder would undoubtedly do the same at the Redskin's table (he may already be doing it since the number of picks he has to make is miniscule and he certainly thinks he knows more than anyone he would have to pay). Here's a novel thought: if Ralph isn't up to it, he could let one of the experts on this board fill in for him. 679152[/snapback] Better yet: Ralph should just do a poll to see who the fans think is best. That would ensure a higher approval rating!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 To all those of you who are complaining about the Bill's draft, please try to follow this: You are complaining that the Bills drafted badly today, not because the players they drafted won't turn out well (afterall, as you admit, no one knows how these players will turn out), but because the players did not represent "good value." In other words, the Bills could have had the same players by trading down. Now I want you all to ask yourself one simple question: What is the objective "value" standard that you are using to judge the worth of the players that we drafted? Is it Kiper's mock draft? Kirwan's? Brandt's? Scouting Inc's? Some other organization that sells its rankings to the media? On what grounds can you claim that these sources have a notion of a given player's value that is objectively better than the collective opinion of the football men in the Bills organization? More to the point, on what grounds can you claim that any other NFL team uses these same sources to derive their notion of a given player's value? Other teams rely on their own scouts for player rankings. If the Bills think a player is awfully good, don't you think it is possible that other teams feel the same way? Of course, with all the secrecy going on, the Bills don't know how other teams have players ranked. So from the Bills' perspective, it is entirely likely that other teams have also seen the same tape and combine workouts, and have arrived at the same opinion. In other words, isn't it entirely possible that one or more teams other than the Bills had their eyes on the same players that we drafted? PUT SIMPLY, WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT EVERY OTHER NFL TEAM IS FOLLOWING KIPER'S MOCK DRAFT? 677035[/snapback] Actually, you're wrong. No one needs to read that.
Recommended Posts