Mike F Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 The draft is history, but the discussion is only just starting. I am on the record as being a touch surprised with the method, but happy with the overall results. BUT.......consider this scenario for the first three rounds on Saturday. What if.......................we had traded down in the first round on Saturday (say around 11 or 15) and still drafted Whitner (debateable that he is still there, but for conversations sake, let's say he was), we probably get another 3rd round pick. Then, let's say we used that third (along with our existing second rounder) to trade back up to the 26th slot and draft Youboty (who was supposed to go in the 1st round). Then we package our other 3rd rounders (the existing one and the one we got for moving down for Whitner) to move up in the second and take McCargo (who carried a high second or low first round grade, depending on the source). We would have ended up with the same number of Day One picks and the same package of players, oddly enough. BUT........would the analysts and half of our fan base feel the same way? Unlikely.........instead, Marv and Co would be lauded for their ability to "work the system" to get the players they wanted ("value", my friends). It seems that HOW things get accomplished can overshadow the end result, which in this case ends up being the same thing! Mike
Tortured Soul Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Good point. I think our 2003 draft would've been much better received if we took Kelsay in the first and McGahee in the second.
Mike F Posted May 1, 2006 Author Posted May 1, 2006 Small clarification..................with the Whitner deal, we would have three third rounders. I used the same third rounder twice, when I meant to say the third rounder we got from Tennessee (for TH). Mike The draft is history, but the discussion is only just starting. I am on the record as being a touch surprised with the method, but happy with the overall results. BUT.......consider this scenario for the first three rounds on Saturday. What if.......................we had traded down in the first round on Saturday (say around 11 or 15) and still drafted Whitner (debateable that he is still there, but for conversations sake, let's say he was), we probably get another 3rd round pick. Then, let's say we used that third (along with our existing second rounder) to trade back up to the 26th slot and draft Youboty (who was supposed to go in the 1st round). Then we package our other 3rd rounders (the existing one and the one we got for moving down for Whitner) to move up in the second and take McCargo (who carried a high second or low first round grade, depending on the source). We would have ended up with the same number of Day One picks and the same package of players, oddly enough. BUT........would the analysts and half of our fan base feel the same way? Unlikely.........instead, Marv and Co would be lauded for their ability to "work the system" to get the players they wanted ("value", my friends). It seems that HOW things get accomplished can overshadow the end result, which in this case ends up being the same thing! Mike 679535[/snapback]
Dan Gross Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Again, you can say we "reached" with McCargo and Whitner, but then you also have to give us credit for the "steals" (Youboty, Simpson, and Williams...all ranked much higher than we took them)....
MDH Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Then, let's say we used that third (along with our existing second rounder) to trade back up to the 26th slot and draft Youboty (who was supposed to go in the 1st round). 679535[/snapback] I"d be pissed if the Bills traded a 3rd to move back into the first round to draft a CB. Taking Youboty in the 3rd round because he falls to you and trading up to take the guy are two different things for a team with so many holes to fill. Nice try though.
SDS Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Again, you can say we "reached" with McCargo and Whitner, but then you also have to give us credit for the "steals" (Youboty, Simpson, and Williams...all ranked much higher than we took them).... 679548[/snapback] technically yes, but I think most people give a little more lattitude in later round players than early round players. I have no idea what makes a guy a 5th rd talent rather than a 6th round talent, but earlier in the draft it seems to be more apparent.
drnykterstein Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Good point. I think our 2003 draft would've been much better received if we took Kelsay in the first and McGahee in the second. 679538[/snapback] Uhg.. I can't believe there were people who wanted us to take kelsay in the first.. with the 23rd overall pick. What a waste. Right now I'd say he's barely worth a 3rd rounder. .. goes to show what draft experts know.
Dan Gross Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 technically yes, but I think most people give a little more lattitude in later round players than early round players. I have no idea what makes a guy a 5th rd talent rather than a 6th round talent, but earlier in the draft it seems to be more apparent. 679553[/snapback] Yeah, but there seems to be a large perceived "gap" when it comes to "day 1" versus "day 2" players. Williams and Simpson were both rated "Day 1" players.
Recommended Posts