Stiffler Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Ridiculous. Not the selection of Donte in the first. Ridiculous is the fact that the Bills didn't trade down. Speculation now has it that they didn't trade down because a) they didn't get a fair deal according to the Draft Value Chart, and b) because they were afraid Detroit was going to select Donte. This is horrible logic and decision-making for four reasons: 1) Draft Value Chart is a general tool. Not exact. In this year's draft... the players ranked from in the mid-first round were of similar value, making a trade extremely difficult, and therefore you can just throw the Chart out the window. The Bills should have traded with the Broncos, who gave up a 3rd to the Rams. They also would have given the Bills a 3rd-- obviously-- and probably more (maybe an extra 4th, or a 2007 2nd). 2) The Lions weren't going to draft Donte. Reports have have them taking Sims the whole way. 3) Donte likely could have been selected much, much later. (Even if this is not the case... and, say by some miracle, the Lions did take him, the Bills still end up with a comparable player for much less money. which leads to #4...) 4) $$$$$$$$. Now instead of paying Donte much less, we're going to make him richer than he should be. 15th pick's salary is significantly less than the 8th. I am not criticizing the scouting nor the selection of the players (I am most of you reading this have about 1% of the knowledge of these guys that the Bills' scouting department has). I am criticizing the decision not to trade down: in essence the Bills lost a 3rd round pick, and are going to pay millions extra. Just a terrible, inexcusable business decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 After Matt Millen called you yesterday afternoon talking about Sims, your really should have passed that on to Marv. It'd've helped us out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Apparently no one between #9-#11 wanted to trade up with the Bills, and the Browns and Ravens at #12 and #13 were ready to take Whitner. Can't dance without a willing partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Mort, aren't you supposed to be on the air?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 the Browns and Ravens at #12 and #13 were ready to take Whitner. 678023[/snapback] I've yet to see any concrete proof of this conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 Apparently no one between #9-#11 wanted to trade up with the Bills, and the Browns and Ravens at #12 and #13 were ready to take Whitner. Can't dance without a willing partner. 678023[/snapback] The problem with that is getting caught up on one player-- thinking that it is essential to get "your guy." Would you rather have a) Whitner OR b) Greenway/Carpenter/Hill + 3rd rounder + (likely) 4th rounder*. Me, I'd take the latter. But again, most likely, we still would have ended up with Whitner at 15! *I assume if the Broncos gave up a 3rd to get to the 11th pick, they would have given up a bit more to get the 8th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 I'm trying to make cogent points here in my criticism. Let's keep the sarcasm out, please. Apparently no one between #9-#11 wanted to trade up with the Bills, and the Browns and Ravens at #12 and #13 were ready to take Whitner. Can't dance without a willing partner. 678023[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 It wasn't sarcasm, bud. Whitner (and this is for you, JSP) stated that the Ravens TOLD HIM that they'd be taking him at #13. Now if it were Marv revealing this, I'd say he got played. But there's no reason for the Ravens to lie TO Whitner, and no reason for Whitner to lie (to the Bills) after being picked. So the danger was in losing him, after Huff went, and seeing as how NO safety went until a full round later, it was a reasonable move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 Sorry, I meant to quote the guy that called me "Mort." Interesting comment by Whitner about the Ravens. Could very well be true. But Whitner may have some motivation to lie, as he doesn't want to be perceived as a "reach" as the entire media portray him. As for the Ravens, why they may have said that... who knows... teams disseminate all kinds of misleading information during the draft. The point remains however, that we could have gotten Whitner, or a comparable player, and picked up a 3rd rounder and more. It wasn't sarcasm, bud. Whitner (and this is for you, JSP) stated that the Ravens TOLD HIM that they'd be taking him at #13. Now if it were Marv revealing this, I'd say he got played. But there's no reason for the Ravens to lie TO Whitner, and no reason for Whitner to lie (to the Bills) after being picked. So the danger was in losing him, after Huff went, and seeing as how NO safety went until a full round later, it was a reasonable move. 678069[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Go cry and whine somewhere else. Be happy we addressed our defensive needs man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Sorry, I meant to quote the guy that called me "Mort." Interesting comment by Whitner about the Ravens. Could very well be true. But Whitner may have some motivation to lie, as he doesn't want to be perceived as a "reach" as the entire media portray him. As for the Ravens, why they may have said that... who knows... teams disseminate all kinds of misleading information during the draft. The point remains however, that we could have gotten Whitner, or a comparable player, and picked up a 3rd rounder and more. 678136[/snapback] well - no - we couldn't have gotten a starting safety if Whitner would have been taken by Detroit, Rams, Browns or Ravens before our pick at #14 or 15 after a trade down. And we sure wouldn't have gotten a player immediately capable of starting with that extra 3rd rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 Hey now, that wasn't very polite. I am not crying, nor whining. I am simply saying the Bills erred, and could have gotten an extra 3rd round pick and more. If you want to debate the points I made in the original post, I welcome it. Have a pleasant Sunday. God bless you. Go cry and whine somewhere else. Be happy we addressed our defensive needs man. 678216[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lothar Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Whitner selection discussed Look, I too think we ought to have traded down a few picks but I feel a bit better about both moves. 8. Buffalo — S Donte Whitner, Ohio State Some outsiders might consider this pick a bit of a reach. The reality is that a lot of teams were lining up to secure Whitner, and he was graded as a consensus first-round talent around the league and would not have lasted much longer. He is very, very smart and instinctive and should replace Coy Wire in the starting lineup immediately. With intelligence and character being highly valued by new head coach Dick Jauron, a former NFL safety himself, Whitner was a natural fit. 26. Buffalo (from Chicago) — DT John McCargo, North Carolina State The Bills had a pressing need to fill at defensive tackle and were able to land a very underrated talent at this spot. McCargo is a great fit for new defensive coordinator Perry Fewell's defense and has drawn comparisons to Warren Sapp. With Justin Bannan, Ron Edwards and Sam Adams all having departed, the Bills desperately needed to move up to make sure they could land the three-technique so pivotal to improving their 31st-ranked run defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 Sure, the Bills need a starting safety. You are correct. They also need starting OT, LB, DT, OG. This team is not in a position right now to reach in a draft for one of many positions that the team needs. The team is not in a position to turn down extra draft picks on a team that isn't making waves in 2006. The third-rounder would probably not have started. Again, you are right. But so what? We are not the Patriots who have a couple starting position needs to fill so that they can compete for the Super Bowl. We are rebuilding. You do that with first, second, and third round picks. As many of them as you can get. And you hope they help you get to the Super Bowl in the future. Asking for immediate starting help in the 2006 draft for the 2006 season is to be a bit dillusional for our 2006 chances. well - no - we couldn't have gotten a starting safety if Whitner would have been taken by Detroit, Rams, Browns or Ravens before our pick at #14 or 15 after a trade down. And we sure wouldn't have gotten a player immediately capable of starting with that extra 3rd rounder. 678235[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 It wasn't sarcasm, bud. Whitner (and this is for you, JSP) stated that the Ravens TOLD HIM that they'd be taking him at #13. Now if it were Marv revealing this, I'd say he got played. But there's no reason for the Ravens to lie TO Whitner, and no reason for Whitner to lie (to the Bills) after being picked. So the danger was in losing him, after Huff went, and seeing as how NO safety went until a full round later, it was a reasonable move. 678069[/snapback] Baltimore was also said to be targetting Ngata, and actually traded up to get him. They also did not take a safety the first three rounds of the draft. Perhaps Baltimore was prediciting that the Bills were going to take Ngata, so they were planning to go with Whitner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Miami was the most likely team targeting a safety in the 1st round. And they took a CB/S rather than a pure S. It was a very high slot for a pure S, and a small one at that. The Bills probably could've moved down as far as Denver's pick sent to St. Louis and still got Whitner. And if not, they get Hill or Allen or Bunkley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Miami was the most likely team targeting a safety in the 1st round. And they took a CB/S rather than a pure S. It was a very high slot for a pure S, and a small one at that. The Bills probably could've moved down as far as Denver's pick sent to St. Louis and still got Whitner. And if not, they get Hill or Allen or Bunkley. 678358[/snapback] you conveniently don't mention Detroit or Rams as likely spots for Whitner- both teams known to be looking for secondary help. Bunkley would have been Philly's selection at #8 or at #14 if we traded with Denver. Not available to Bills in either case. Allen is projected 3rd rounder with severe hip injury - not a top cover guy and not sure fire starter Hill is a corner- not immediate starter for Bills. None of your options accomplish the bills objective of getting a starter. keep trying. The next guy that probably would have started is the one we took at #26. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted May 1, 2006 Author Share Posted May 1, 2006 Again... obie, why are you so concerned with 2006 starters. . . do you think 2006 is the year for the Bills. . . please you conveniently don't mention Detroit or Rams as likely spots for Whitner- both teams known to be looking for secondary help. Bunkley would have been Philly's selection at #8 or at #14 if we traded with Denver. Not available to Bills in either case. Allen is projected 3rd rounder with severe hip injury - not a top cover guy and not sure fire starter Hill is a corner- not immediate starter for Bills. None of your options accomplish the bills objective of getting a starter. keep trying. The next guy that probably would have started is the one we took at #26. 678458[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Excellent post and I couldn't agree more. This team is far removed from the luxury of being able to target one player and claim that he is THE guy. With numerous holes on both sides of the ball, they reached on a safety at #8, missing a golden opportunity for extra picks in a draft that was considered to be quite deep compared to years past. Ridiculous. Not the selection of Donte in the first. Ridiculous is the fact that the Bills didn't trade down. Speculation now has it that they didn't trade down because a) they didn't get a fair deal according to the Draft Value Chart, and b) because they were afraid Detroit was going to select Donte. This is horrible logic and decision-making for four reasons: 1) Draft Value Chart is a general tool. Not exact. In this year's draft... the players ranked from in the mid-first round were of similar value, making a trade extremely difficult, and therefore you can just throw the Chart out the window. The Bills should have traded with the Broncos, who gave up a 3rd to the Rams. They also would have given the Bills a 3rd-- obviously-- and probably more (maybe an extra 4th, or a 2007 2nd). 2) The Lions weren't going to draft Donte. Reports have have them taking Sims the whole way. 3) Donte likely could have been selected much, much later. (Even if this is not the case... and, say by some miracle, the Lions did take him, the Bills still end up with a comparable player for much less money. which leads to #4...) 4) $$$$$$$$. Now instead of paying Donte much less, we're going to make him richer than he should be. 15th pick's salary is significantly less than the 8th. I am not criticizing the scouting nor the selection of the players (I am most of you reading this have about 1% of the knowledge of these guys that the Bills' scouting department has). I am criticizing the decision not to trade down: in essence the Bills lost a 3rd round pick, and are going to pay millions extra. Just a terrible, inexcusable business decision. 678013[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdellapelle Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 stiffler how do u know that the lions were not going to take whitner, the best pure safety prospect, huff is a tweener and plus he's not from ohio st B the next 5-8 selections all had a need or possibility of drafting him. the kid is antoine winfield at safety and if he stayed in school another year, clearly a top 5 pick easy. he can play corner also so that adds another demension to our defense and takes alot of pressure off are lb's i see this kid as another donovin darius with nickel corner back skills!! that also sounds like a ronnie lott description to me, he played corner too. i watched alot of big ten games and this guy was one of the most important players for that buckeye defense if not the most important! trust me this year he will be the most surreal player and fan favorite by mid season.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts