JDG Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 The Bills' pick of Donte Whitner leads me to believe that Michael Huff was definitely our guy. Clearly, the Bills were not happy with Vincent, Bowen, Wire, and Baker as our safeties - and who could be? Moreover, its hard to believe that the Bills had Whitner rated ahead of Huff. So, Oakland takes our guy Huff - that hurts. What's even worse is that Oakland leaves both QB's on the board - but we're not interested in either of them, and moreover, with two QB's on the board, there's little incentive for someone to trade up with us to get one. Moreover, both DT's (Ngata and Bunkley) are still on the board - we're clearly not interested in either of those (it sounds like we had McCargo as our top-rated DT), and again with both DT's on the board, there's no incentive for Philadelphia or Baltimore or anyone else to trade up and get one of them. Unfortunately, the Bills seem to have gotten stuck with the #8 pick in a draft with a consensus Top 8 players. (Bush, Williams, Young, Leinart, Ferguson, Davis, and Hawk), and unfortunately we just didn't want the one of those players who fell to us. JDG
d_wag Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 The Bills' pick of Donte Whitner leads me to believe that Michael Huff was definitely our guy. Clearly, the Bills were not happy with Vincent, Bowen, Wire, and Baker as our safeties - and who could be? Moreover, its hard to believe that the Bills had Whitner rated ahead of Huff. So, Oakland takes our guy Huff - that hurts. What's even worse is that Oakland leaves both QB's on the board - but we're not interested in either of them, and moreover, with two QB's on the board, there's little incentive for someone to trade up with us to get one. Moreover, both DT's (Ngata and Bunkley) are still on the board - we're clearly not interested in either of those (it sounds like we had McCargo as our top-rated DT), and again with both DT's on the board, there's no incentive for Philadelphia or Baltimore or anyone else to trade up and get one of them. Unfortunately, the Bills seem to have gotten stuck with the #8 pick in a draft with a consensus Top 8 players. (Bush, Williams, Young, Leinart, Ferguson, Davis, and Hawk), and unfortunately we just didn't want the one of those players who fell to us. JDG 677648[/snapback] we had plenty of teams calling for our pick - bills just didn't want to deal........ i'm not convinced the bills had huff rated higher then whitner.......obviously the bills board varied a great deal from the vast majority......would have been very interesting if the bills took whitner over huff though......
PromoTheRobot Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=677639 I concur, but for slightly different reasons. PTR
ACor58 Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Actually, if Tennessee would have taken Leinart (like they should have) I think that Al Davis would have jumped on Young, leaving Huff for us.
gobillsinytown Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Also, everybody keeps forgetting there's a time limit. 15 minutes isn't a lot of time to do an acceptable deal when they were talking with 3 or 4 other teams.
d_wag Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Also, everybody keeps forgetting there's a time limit. 15 minutes isn't a lot of time to do an acceptable deal when they were talking with 3 or 4 other teams. 677682[/snapback] they've got months leading up to the draft to work on this........things can be worked out well in advance based on how the draft falls.......
obie_wan Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=677639 I concur, but for slightly different reasons. PTR 677653[/snapback] no way Arizona trades up with both QBs on teh board and Detroit unlikely to take one. Whitner would have gone to Detroit or Rams. If Bills moved to #14 or #15, who should they have taken at that spot? Ngata, Bunkley, Whitner would have been gone and Justice was vastly overrated. Nothing of need really fit at that point.
willis4life Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Actually, if Tennessee would have taken Leinart (like they should have) I think that Al Davis would have jumped on Young, leaving Huff for us. 677658[/snapback] I totally agree. Basically Tennessee screwed us with another 'Music City Miracle.' They take Leinart, Raiders take Young, and we get Huff.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Marv said earlier this week that the guy they really like would probably be available at #12. Huff was projected to go top 10. Using logic, that means that Whitner was their guy all along.
finknottle Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Marv said earlier this week that the guy they really like would probably be available at #12. Huff was projected to go top 10. Using logic, that means that Whitner was their guy all along. 677824[/snapback] The smartest explanation I've read here this weekend.
Pyrite Gal Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 we had plenty of teams calling for our pick - bills just didn't want to deal........ i'm not convinced the bills had huff rated higher then whitner.......obviously the bills board varied a great deal from the vast majority......would have been very interesting if the bills took whitner over huff though...... 677651[/snapback] For considering what the Bills did with their selection at #8 it actuallty does not matter whether we had Huff or Whitmer higher because the deal was one (Huff) was gone and the team right behind us Detroit was apparently in the safety market. If you risked losing the last of the two draft candidates we judged capable of filling our SS holeto detroit but survived, there was talk of Whitner being looked at by the #12 ur #13 choice (or some unknown trades up) so the Bills had no real choice but to take the guy they wanted at SS at 8 unless they were comfortable with the guy they had 3rd at SS on their board being someone they could get with a later pick who could start (Bullocks or Manning were most likely next on their board but neither is judged an immediate starter). At any rate, it would have been tight anyway with only two candidates likely judged worthy of our 1st round pick at SS and actually maybe only 1 judged as reasonable by us at DT. However, OAKs pick really determined what we would do.
Coach Tuesday Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Marv said earlier this week that the guy they really like would probably be available at #12. Huff was projected to go top 10. Using logic, that means that Whitner was their guy all along. 677824[/snapback] Yup. Better tackler, leader, and cover-2 fit.
Recommended Posts