Mike in Syracuse Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 If you look at the philosophy of the new Bills coaching staff and the players they chose yesterday's draft makes perfect sense. If Jauron plans on implementing a defense with a lot of single high schemes then having Coy Wire in the secondary is a death sentence. I think Triplett and Anderson are going to excel under this new defense and we need depth on the DL so that explains McCargo. As for the CB Youboty, no one knows what's happening with Clements so it's right in line with the needs. I'd wager that if you switch Youboty with McCargo half of the complaints would go away. I guess if you don't get the endorsement of the talking heads you can't play football?
SDS Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 I guess if you don't get the endorsement of the talking heads you can't play football? 678190[/snapback] Ummmm.... have you read anything here? I'm pretty sure no one is actually complaining about the specific players that were chosen (at least Day 1 players), but where they were taken. Who is making the claim that these guys can't play football?
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Ummmm.... have you read anything here? I'm pretty sure no one is actually complaining about the specific players that were chosen (at least Day 1 players), but where they were taken. Who is making the claim that these guys can't play football? 678212[/snapback] Scott, I understand the point you are making, but don't you think it is a bit disingenuous? I mean, those who want to complain about when players are chosen, if they are not criticizing the ability of the players, are getting caught up in a highly abstract debate over values that themselves have no concrete meaning. If I did not want to avoid getting all Lacanian on the discussion, I would say that the "draft value" discussion is a textbook example of reification--treating an abstract thing as a concrete thing. Thus, if the people who are complaining are only upset because of when players were chosen, rather than because of the ability of the players chosen, they are actually upset about something that is nothing at all... IF that is so, then those people should not have anything to complain about, unless they have doubts about the actual ability of the players chosen. Well, I guess I did get a little Lacanian there... or was it Foucauldian? Go Bills!
SDS Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 Scott, I understand the point you are making, but don't you think it is a bit disingenuous? I mean, those who want to complain about when players are chosen, if they are not criticizing the ability of the players, are getting caught up in a highly abstract debate over values that themselves have no concrete meaning. If I did not want to avoid getting all Lacanian on the discussion, I would say that the "draft value" discussion is a textbook example of reification--treating an abstract thing as a concrete thing. Thus, if the people who are complaining are only upset because of when players were chosen, rather than because of the ability of the players chosen, they are actually upset about something that is nothing at all... IF that is so, then those people should not have anything to complain about, unless they have doubts about the actual ability of the players chosen. Well, I guess I did get a little Lacanian there... or was it Foucauldian? Go Bills! 678359[/snapback] the circle jerk is two doors down on the right.... The draft is about value - real or perceived. Drafting Tom Brady #1 overall is not smart when he can be had in the 6th round. It is all about opportunity cost.
Mickey Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 We can only guess as to whether either of these guys would have still been on the board had we moved down or pursued some other strategy. There was a huge drop off after Whitner at SS and after McCargo at DT. If we had taken Bunkley, Whitner would have been gone and we would have ended up with Manning or Pollard in the second, both of whom run closer to 4.6 than 4.5 compared to Whitner at 4.38. Neither was probably doable given the Tampa 2 we are going to play. That means they had to take Whitner or 8 unless a trade down was available and we don't know if one was let alone one that would have let us still get Whitner. As it is, we took the best SS on the board at the time and in doing so, filled a critical need. Did we pick a guy at 8 we might have got at 13? Maybe but if we didn't have that option, I think the right decision was made. Not flashy mind you but the right decision. Our next priority was DT and the best DT on the board when we took him was McCArgo. The next DT after him was taken in the 3rd round so if we didn't trade up, good chance he was gone before our 2nd rd. pick and that alternative we would have been left with was a mediocre nobody. There was a huge drop in talent after McCargo. Again, if there was a way to move up just a litttle in the second and gamble that he would have lasted, fine, but was there? The DT taken in the third was Wroten with the 4th pick in the round. If McCargo had been there at the 4th pick in the second, I think its reasonable he would have been taken there and we would have been stuck with Wroten. I think that we just didn't have a good enough trade down situation so we stuck to our plan to fill two huge needs, DT and SS and we did just that. Both were the best available at those positions when we took them so I don't think we reallyoverreached that much.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 the circle jerk is two doors down on the right.... The draft is about value - real or perceived. Drafting Tom Brady #1 overall is not smart when he can be had in the 6th round. It is all about opportunity cost. 678423[/snapback] Again, this is based on the idea that the "draft value" difference between, say, 8 and 14 is so incredibly large and measureable that it makes any sense to call it a mistake. I am not convinced that such an "opportunity cost" even exists in this case.
JAMIEBUF12 Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 If you look at the philosophy of the new Bills coaching staff and the players they chose yesterday's draft makes perfect sense. If Jauron plans on implementing a defense with a lot of single high schemes then having Coy Wire in the secondary is a death sentence. I think Triplett and Anderson are going to excel under this new defense and we need depth on the DL so that explains McCargo. As for the CB Youboty, no one knows what's happening with Clements so it's right in line with the needs. I'd wager that if you switch Youboty with McCargo half of the complaints would go away. I guess if you don't get the endorsement of the talking heads you can't play football? 678190[/snapback] exactly! plus when marv was the coach the bills basically drafted for depth and broke the new players in little by little....they only really started when it was absolutely neccesary..i love what marv and company are doing....and since everybody dissed the bills for their 1st two picks....i wonder do they get any media kudos for picking ashton in the 3rd and ko simpson in the 4th??????go bills in"06
obie_wan Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 the circle jerk is two doors down on the right.... The draft is about value - real or perceived. Drafting Tom Brady #1 overall is not smart when he can be had in the 6th round. It is all about opportunity cost. 678423[/snapback] unless someone takes him 1 pick before you do- then you have zero value for a player you had regarded highly
Max997 Posted April 30, 2006 Posted April 30, 2006 If you look at the philosophy of the new Bills coaching staff and the players they chose yesterday's draft makes perfect sense. If Jauron plans on implementing a defense with a lot of single high schemes then having Coy Wire in the secondary is a death sentence. I think Triplett and Anderson are going to excel under this new defense and we need depth on the DL so that explains McCargo. As for the CB Youboty, no one knows what's happening with Clements so it's right in line with the needs. I'd wager that if you switch Youboty with McCargo half of the complaints would go away. I guess if you don't get the endorsement of the talking heads you can't play football? 678190[/snapback] the problem I believe most people have is taking Whitner at 8 overall and still neglecting the offensive line later on
Recommended Posts