Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cr-a...=yhoo&type=lgns High marks – Buffalo planted some defensive seeds for the future. Safety Donte Whitner should be able to step in immediately and start next to Troy Vincent. [...] Low marks – The Bills reached with both of their first-round picks. [...] So he gives the Bills high and low marks for taking Whitner? I can't decide if he's a retard for contradicting himself in the same write-up, or a genius for covering all his bases.
syhuang Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cr-a...=yhoo&type=lgnsSo he gives the Bills high and low marks for taking Whitner? I can't decide if he's a retard for contradicting himself in the same write-up, or a genius for covering all his bases. 680119[/snapback] Isn't he the writer who spread the rumor of Bills shopping JP? He has lost all his credibility since then.
Cornerville Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cr-a...=yhoo&type=lgnsSo he gives the Bills high and low marks for taking Whitner? I can't decide if he's a retard for contradicting himself in the same write-up, or a genius for covering all his bases. 680119[/snapback] This guy reminds me of those clowns in Vegas who say "Call for $50 and I will give you the Monday Night Bet Of The Year"...and I bet 50 percent of the recordings pick one team and 50 percent pick the other
SDS Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cr-a...=yhoo&type=lgnsSo he gives the Bills high and low marks for taking Whitner? I can't decide if he's a retard for contradicting himself in the same write-up, or a genius for covering all his bases. 680119[/snapback] again, it isn't the player or the position filled (for the most part) - it is the timing that is giving many people trouble.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 1, 2006 Author Posted May 1, 2006 again, it isn't the player or the position filled (for the most part) - it is the timing that is giving many people trouble. 680139[/snapback] I'm aware of that...the timing gives me trouble as well (here's a hint, Marv: the lines suck). Still...it's a good pick, or it's not. This bozo can't have it both ways.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 again, it isn't the player or the position filled (for the most part) - it is the timing that is giving many people trouble. 680139[/snapback] And it shouldn't. We're all looking in hindsight. And in hindsight, they are still good picks.
Pyrite Gal Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 again, it isn't the player or the position filled (for the most part) - it is the timing that is giving many people trouble. 680139[/snapback] The timing appears (who knows for sure unless you are in a lot of dfferent heads but this seems to be the case IMHO based on looking at the events) to have been caused by the OAK decosoion in position #7 to take Micheal Huff. OAK has needs all over the place so the move is not a surprise though some thought they would go QB so their lack of interest after Vince Young was gone in either the plummeting Linart or Cutler sealed th Bills fate. Once OAK took one of the two safeties that most (and apparently the Bills) felt could start immediately at SS, they were put into a situation where they either reached for Whitner at 8 or do what you or others are suggesting and trade down and get more first day resources but risk losing Whitner. I think not only would this be a gamble, but actually would have been foolish for the Bills to do if they wanted Whitner or a relatively good chance at replacing Milloy through the draft. Detroit was thought to be the one to take Huff at #9 so they had a safety need. There was also talk of Cleveland looking safety at 12, Whitner was ranked on many pundit charts as the 21st best player, yet Miami drafting 15 took the third safety taken the recovering from serious injury Allen. It is quite unlikely that Whitner would have lasted to where his value was judged as being by the experts and possible he might have gone on the very next pick depending on how Detroit ranked Whitner versus Sims. If the Bills wanted a safety from the draft to replace Milloy and specifically if they wanted Whitner, the Bills needed to pick him and #8 and not trade down. Even I, one ofthe bigger advocates of trading down can see this. 2. Again regarding McCargo, my first superficial reaction was to feel they over-reached tremendously trading up to get McCargo. Actually the argument that convinced me to take a more reasoned look at this pick was on TSW where someone argued that the fact that no DT was chosen until the 3rd round was "proof" the Bills foolishly overreached. Maybe they did draft him too high, but actually this person;s argument actually argues that the Bills did the right thing by making sure they got McCargo. If you believe in the wisdom of every team in the NFL making the same football judgement then actually this fact indicates that there was no DT out there who was of high enough quality to merit a 2nd round pick given the fact that the 3 DTs (Ngata, Bunkley and McCargo) were off the board. The Bills had a clear need for a DT after they cut Adams and Edwards. If they had mcCargo on their board as even the 3rd best DT and only as one of three with a legitimate chance to contribute on the field immediately or at least quickly as a rookie then they did not reach to get him (this immediate contribution is a reasonable expectation for any 1st round draftee). In fact, as there was no other DT on any of the boards in the entire NFL whom folks judged to be worthy of even a second round pick, if the Bills assessed McCargo to be a 1st year contributor and in fact the only one at DT left on the board, then they had a clear duty to go get him. We will find out pretty quickly whether these picks were in fact bad choices by th Bills. If Whitner fails to make or deserves to be in the opening day line-up (unless by the vagaries of injury he is held back) then this was a reach. If McCargo is not a contributor to the Bills immediately (whether he starts is another question as we do not have a Bills 06 D scheme yet) and at least heavily in the rotation then he was a bad reach. However, I disagree totally with those folks whose tea leaves indicate to them that this draft was clear proof of senile Marv being out of control. On the contrary, it makes farmore sense to interpret Sunday's actions as a sign the Bills have a clear delineation of purpose (get one of the two safeties capable of starting immediately and get one of the 3 (at most) DTs capabled of contributing in a large way immediately. The Lions pick created a situation where in order to do this, we had to trade away one of ourthird round choices. However, given the bad (though forseeable but not predictable) bad break of OAK taking Huff I'm impressed that the braintrust was disciplined enough to get the two players they wanted
Ghost of BiB Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Oh, for God's sake please just try to say something without Shakespeare. I know you have it in you, I've seen less than 9 sentences out of you before. Come on, you can do it...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 This guy reminds me of those clowns in Vegas who say "Call for $50 and I will give you the Monday Night Bet Of The Year"...and I bet 50 percent of the recordings pick one team and 50 percent pick the other 680137[/snapback] Actually, you're right. That is precisely how they do it. They're willing to lose the 50% that got the wrong team for the percentage of the other 50% that think they're geniuses. It's rather smart, actually.
eball Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 This is the same guy who, last season, called for the Bills to upset Tampa Bay in Week 2 because they had "one of the best defenses in history."
Rubes Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Oh, for God's sake please just try to say something without Shakespeare. I know you have it in you, I've seen less than 9 sentences out of you before. Come on, you can do it... 680299[/snapback]
Ghost of BiB Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 680379[/snapback] At least cut and paste, and run it through spellcheck. If you are going to be the fuggin self appointed oracle, at least get the title of your friggen poll right.
UConn James Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 Paul, I finally had to put Barry Brady/Fake-Fat Sunny/Pyrite Gal on ignore. Not b/c he's a prick, but rather b/c my brain hurts after reading his posts. Talk about someone seriously needing an editor. Brevity is a virtue.
MDH Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 This is the same guy who, last season, called for the Bills to upset Tampa Bay in Week 2 because they had "one of the best defenses in history." 680349[/snapback] And I'm sure there were people on the board calling him a genius and pounding their chests about finally getting some positive national media attention.
1billsfan Posted May 1, 2006 Posted May 1, 2006 again, it isn't the player or the position filled (for the most part) - it is the timing that is giving many people trouble. 680139[/snapback] Ernie Sims was taken one pick after Whitner. Are you telling me there's that much of a difference in their player ratings? In fact, Sims seems like a bigger gamble since the guy's a midget for a linebacker. I don't get why Buffalo is the one getting the beat down. At least Witner has the size to project as a bonifide stong safety.
Recommended Posts