Peter King weighs in about our draft

[smokinandjokin]

Peter King weighs in...

686301[/snapback]

 

...at about 335

[MichFan]

Interesting -- Kiper was okay with Whitner at #8 but hated the McCargo pick. King is cool with the McCargo pick but hates the decision to go ahead and draft Whitner at #8.

 

I guess whichever side of the issue you are on, you can build a case based on what the "experts" are saying. Me -- I'll wait to see how they perform over the next couple of years.

[Rico]

I don't feel too bad about the Whitner non-move... hard to mess up with DBs from THE Ohio State, if nothing else, he should be a solid starter for a long time.

 

I don't know if I would've made the McCargo deal though. I love the idea of adding DT depth and increasing interior pressure on passing downs, but with as many holes as this team has, I would rather have kept the extra Day 1 pick, taken another lesser DT later (in addition to Kyle Williams), and just given Tripplett more snaps if necessary. Great idea, but too early in the rebuilding process IMO. If McCargo was ready to start over Tim Anderson at 1-tech, it would make more sense. If he ends up being light years better than Tripplett (and sooner than later), then I'm cool with this move.

[Pyrite Gal]

Had to be the former.  Tough deal to pass up, but what's done is done.  The Bills had a couple guys targeted and did what they had to do to get them.  We'll see how well it works out.  I'm willing to give Marv the benefit of the doubt - I think he's earned that much at least.

686522[/snapback]

 

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. King might be correctly reporting its one person' view there is a 95% chance Whitner lasts til the Bills move down to 15 that is merely one person's view and good reporting mandate he at least explore and should flar out say there is a 95% chance this indivual was wrong,

 

Many mocls had Det at 9 taking Huff and clearly Whitner is at least a consideration for him there.

 

Actually i did not think it was a tough deal to pass on at all since there was no way the Bills would be able to build the team they want (as seen in their sche,e choice of the Cover-2 and the acqusition of certain types of FAs -Triplett for eample and draft choice trading up for a Mccargo type after passing on Ngota/Bunkley. Getting Denvers choices would also make it tough to meet the timeline they espoused (Ralph ain't gettin any younger and we have missed the playoffs too many years in a row).

 

There were at least two other teams on the board before 15 with an interest in SS who went elsewhere in real life but Whitner was gone, Eveb tougher, the Fins took a safety at 15 and given that the Rams ick above 15 was said to be tradeable who to say that the Fins might not have made the right offer and moved ahead of us.

 

The risk comes not from your guesstimate of whether there is a 95% chance he will be there but from there being a 100% chance you do not control people reading above you and killing you

 

The whole though process seems incorrect to me in that given what it appears the Bills plan was (fill the SS and DT slots with one of the two SS with a good chance of doing this immediately and 1 of the 3 DTs with a good chance of doing this quickly and their timeline for accomplishing their goals (get more Ws and even a spitting chance at the playoffs this year cause Ralph ain't gonna last forever) there is no way they could have accomplished these goals with the 15th pick, an extra 2nd and a 4th.

 

In order to do much better and get Ws right now they needed to fill the hole left with the cut of Milloy with either Huff or apparently their preference Whitner. The 3rd safety chosen or 4th or 5th (Allen, Bullocks, Manning) were simply not good prospects to start immediately for the Bills Once #7 took Hiff and possibly #9 might take Whitner or #16 pick could be traded up you take Whitner.

 

Likewise, once you take the remaining safety, and 2 of the three DTs who may contribute quickly are picked then you trade up and get the last DT )no DTS were even drafted in the second round after the Bills took McCargo.

 

Kings thinking is poorly reported.

[Olaf Fub]

I don't buy the "the Ravens were the only team that might pick him" line. Teams leak to Peter King only what they want to leak. I don't think he has any idea which team was interested in what player.

[Ozymandius]

I agree that Whitner very likely would have been available at 15. Where we picked him is probably the highest the second safety off the board has ever gone, and even if there were some teams in the 9 to 16 area that really liked him, they all probably figured they could trade down a little bit and still get him. Still, what's done is done, and if Whitner becomes an All-Pro, then he will have validated his selection in the top 10, and if Marv hits on McCargo, Youboty, Simpson, and Williams, then this becomes a great draft regardless of his mistake of not acquiring more picks. It's still fun to think about the extra players we could have gotten, though. By not making the trade with Denver, we probably cost ourselves a guard like Charles Spencer, a better tackle prospect than Brad Butler like Ryan O'Callaghan, a passrush prospect like Mark Anderson, and the ability to experiment a bit in the 7th round like with Charlton Keith.

 

1. Donte Whitner

1. John McCargo

2. Charles Spencer (or Darryl Tapp or Claude Wroten)

3. Ashton Youboty

4. Ko Simpson

4. Kyle Williams (would've taken Anthony Montgomery myself)

5. Ryan O'Callaghan

5. Mark Anderson

6. Keith Ellison

7. Terrance Pennington

7. Charlton Keith

[Dawgg]

Wow, someone who understands...

 

Thanks, couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I agree that Whitner very likely would have been available at 15.  Where we picked him is probably the highest the second safety off the board has ever gone, and even if there were some teams in the 9 to 16 area that really liked him, they all probably figured they could trade down a little bit and still get him.  Still, what's done is done, and if Whitner becomes an All-Pro, then he will have validated his selection in the top 10, and if Marv hits on McCargo, Youboty, Simpson, and Williams, then this becomes a great draft regardless of his mistake of not acquiring more picks.  It's still fun to think about the extra players we could have gotten, though.  By not making the trade with Denver, we probably cost ourselves a guard like Charles Spencer, a better tackle prospect than Brad Butler like Ryan O'Callaghan, a passrush prospect like Mark Anderson, and the ability to experiment a bit in the 7th round like with Charlton Keith.

 

1. Donte Whitner

1. John McCargo

2. Charles Spencer (or Darryl Tapp or Claude Wroten)

3. Ashton Youboty

4. Ko Simpson

4. Kyle Williams (would've taken Anthony Montgomery myself)

5. Ryan O'Callaghan

5. Mark Anderson

6. Keith Ellison

7. Terrance Pennington

7. Charlton Keith

686660[/snapback]

[BuffaloBob]

He also doesn't talk about Detroit possibly taking Whitner.

686347[/snapback]

Nor does he mention that the dolphins had interviewed the guy twice. They could have easily moved up a few spots to leapfrog the Bills to get him.

 

Yes there is a risk/reward dynamic going on here, but if the risk is not worth the reward, you don't do it. Sure it would have been nice to have had Whitner and an additional 2 and 4. BUT, the plan gets blown up if someone else takes him after you trade back.

 

And yes, you shouldn't fall in love with one guy blah blah, BUT in some cases, when the guy is exactly who you want at the position you really need filled, and there isn't anyone else you grade nearly that high, it is not a bad move to play it safe and get your guy.

 

So what if an unamed personnel guy puts some probability on him still being there. Is this guy a personnel guy for every team between 8 and 15? Does he know that someone like the Felons in the 16-25 range wan't going to make a deal to move up ahead of the Bills? That 95% probability prediction is just someone pissing in the wind.

[Ozymandius]

This is a minor point but Miami wouldn't have known to leapfrog the Bills for Whitner. He was our big pre-draft secret that we kept very well... I've just seen it repeated several times now that the Dolphins would've tried to jump ahead of the Bills... they may very well have tried to move up a few spots just to ensure they had a better chance at him, but they wouldn't have known to do so because Buffalo was the major threat to take Whitner.

[DCM]

This is a minor point but Miami wouldn't have known to leapfrog the Bills for Whitner.  He was our big pre-draft secret that we kept very well... I've just seen it repeated several times now that the Dolphins would've tried to jump ahead of the Bills... they may very well have tried to move up a few spots just to ensure they had a better chance at him, but they wouldn't have known to do so because Buffalo was the major threat to take Whitner.

686840[/snapback]

 

 

I don't believe Miami was doing anything but move down in the draft. Already missing their 2nd rounder which was spent on Culpepper.....they didn't have the ammo to move ahead of the Bills just to get Whitner. It's true they would have selected him at 16 if he were there, IMO.....

 

But what's the worse case if the Denver trade went thru? Bills pick Jason Allen instead at 15.....Fins don't get either Whitner or Allen.....and Bills have 2 seconds and 2 4ths.....

[Tortured Soul]

This is a minor point but Miami wouldn't have known to leapfrog the Bills for Whitner.  He was our big pre-draft secret that we kept very well... I've just seen it repeated several times now that the Dolphins would've tried to jump ahead of the Bills... they may very well have tried to move up a few spots just to ensure they had a better chance at him, but they wouldn't have known to do so because Buffalo was the major threat to take Whitner.

686840[/snapback]

Gosselin at the Dallas Morning News, who bases his mocks on sources and not rankings, had Whitner as our dark horse. Michael Smith at ESPN claims a source told him the Bills were targeting Whitner. I don't know how big a secret it would've been.

[Rico]

But what's the worse case if the Denver trade went thru?  Bills pick Jason Allen instead at 15.....Fins don't get either Whitner or Allen.....and Bills have 2 seconds and 2 4ths.....

686903[/snapback]

Taking a gimp DB at 15 would've been far worse.

[Orton's Arm]

The Bills have been looking for Kelly's replacement for the last decade. Suppose that ten years from now they're still looking. Also suppose Leinart lives up to his billing as the next Tom Brady. If both those things happen, the Whitner pick was a mistake, even if he does turn into the next Ronnie Lott.

[obie_wan]

I don't believe Miami was doing anything but move down in the draft.  Already missing their 2nd rounder which was spent on Culpepper.....they didn't have the ammo to move ahead of the Bills just to get Whitner.  It's true they would have selected him at 16 if he were there, IMO.....

 

But what's the worse case if the Denver trade went thru?  Bills pick Jason Allen instead at 15.....Fins don't get either Whitner or Allen.....and Bills have 2 seconds and 2 4ths.....

686903[/snapback]

 

 

I like your plan -

 

take a safety with a broken hip who is questionable if he ever comes back to form.

 

how is this not a reach of monumental proportions?

[obie_wan]

The Bills have been looking for Kelly's replacement for the last decade.  Suppose that ten years from now they're still looking.  Also suppose Leinart lives up to his billing as the next Tom Brady.  If both those things happen, the Whitner pick was a mistake, even if he does turn into the next Ronnie Lott.

686964[/snapback]

 

good thing there is very little chance of Leinart ever being able to produce at a big time level in any outdoor stadium in the NE.

 

He is soft and weak -

 

8 other teams passed on him for a reason.

[obie_wan]

Wow, someone who understands...

 

Thanks, couldn't have said it better myself.

686680[/snapback]

 

 

OK Dawg-

 

You still haven't answered.

 

If the Bills traded with Denver and Ngata, Bunkley and Whitner were gone, who do they take?

 

By trading to #15, the Bills have moved into the twilight zone where the top 13 impact players are gone. Trade down from #15 is highly unlikey.

 

No one rated in this area can be counted on to provide immediate help.

 

If the Bills are right and Whitner is gone, who do they take?

[Steven in MD]

What I liked most about Levy in this draft is he did not trade away future picks. TD had a tendency to trade away picks in next years draft, and I think it is just silly.

[Dawgg]

First of all, I wouldn't necessarily say that there were 13 top-impact players int he draft, after which there was a significant drop-off. To me, there were really 8 players in this draft who are considered to carry "blue-chip" value:

 

Mario Williams

Reggie Bush

D'Brick

Vernon Davis

AJ Hawk

Leinart

Cutler

Young

 

If D'Brick, Hawk or Vernon Davis miraculously fall to the Bills at #8, close your eyes and take him. If not, look for suiters, trade with Denver, and move to #15. In moving down to #15, you grab an additional 2nd round pick and 4th round pick.

 

At 15, there are plenty of starting-caliber, impact players available:

 

Tamba Hali - would provide a nice pass rush boost opposite Schobel

Chad Greenway - instant replacement for Posey and eventually perhaps Fletcher (who is not young). Let's not forget Spikes may not be the same (no matter what his PR campaign spits out, the great majority of athletes coming from this injury aren't)

 

With the second rounder, you can grab a solid OL prospect (Latui, Spencer, or Tapp). Or better yet, use it to move back into the first and make that McCargo trade... and bingo, we still have our original second rounder left to nab another quality player.

 

With the added fourth rounder, who knows... but considering Ko Simpson was available there were probabably many options.

 

This draft was very deep and Whitner, while a very good player was NOT the only good player in the first round. People are fixated on the fact that someone behind us could/would have taken him. Of course trading down is a risk. The question boils down to this: Do the additional picks we would get in a trade down represent adequate compensation fo incurring such a risk?

 

An extra 2nd and 4th rounder absolutely does.

 

By trading to #15, the Bills have moved into the twilight zone where the top 13 impact players are gone. Trade down from #15 is highly unlikey.

687029[/snapback]

[Nanker]

I like your plan -

 

take a safety with a broken hip who is questionable if he ever comes back to form.

 

how is this not a reach of monumental proportions?

687025[/snapback]

 

Because it's MIAMI, man... they're legendary and awesome! And because it's SABAN, man... he's a shoo-in HOFer and awesome too!

We're just The Bills and old foolish Ralph/Marv. It's stoopid to even begin to compare.

[Mickey]

Bingo! Marv could have obtained a boatload of draft picks, and acquired players such as Joseph, Trueblood, and dbs galore since this seems to be what he covets above all else. Instead, he gave up a first day pick, and used 3 of his first 4 on the secondary.

 

I am trying, but I just cannot find a way to view this as anything but stupid.

686535[/snapback]

 

I understand your frustration on a certain level but I don't think that what they did was outright stupid. Hold on for a FFS ride to perdition:

 

They decided, for better or worse, that our top needs were at safety and DT. Given that we are going to the Tampa 2, I accept that we needed a stud SS and a penetrating DT. Those are two essentials for that defense. At SS going into the draft, we have Coy Wire and a mediocre free agent so we were embarassingly thin at a crucial position. We have, over the last two years, lost Adams, Williams, Banaan and Edwards at DT so we were certainly in dire straits there as well. Add in how awful the defense was last year and then balance that with most of the FA signings benefitting the offense (Fowler, Reyes, Price, A-Train to name a few) and I can't really come out and say that their choice to target SS and DT as our top needs was out and out stupid.

 

The next question then is how best should they have handled the draft accepting the choice of SS and DT being the top needs? Lets say they passed on Whitner and instead took Bunkley. I don't think anyone would be complaining about a reach with Bunkley in the first. Detroit took a safety, Bullocks, in the second round. I have no problem with the ideat that Detroit would have taken Whitner had we not and even if they hadn't, no way he was going to last very long into the first round. Three safeties were taken in the second so there were at least that many teams looking for a SS as a top need. The comparison that has to be made then is whether we are better off with Whitner and McCargo than we would have been with Bunkley and Manning, Bullock or Pollard (the three 2nd rd. SS's).

 

Manning played at a small school, runs a 4.55 and is undersized. Supposedly lacks the ability to get to the sideline in time to break up passes. Pollard runs a 4.59 and is a poor tackler. Bullocks runs a 4.49 and is also a suspect tackler. Whitner runs a 4.38 and though he is a little undersized, has always been a playmaker. I won't argue with anyone who thinks that we would have been better off with Bunkley and one of those 2nd rd. SS's but at the same time, I think there was a drop off after Whitner and that taking him first instead of Bunkley wasn't exactly stupid even if I would have preferred Bunkley.

 

In a sense, they were in a bad situation with McCargo. There was a very good chance he wasn't going to be around for us in the second round. The next two DT's were not taken until the third round, none went in the second at all. I think there was a big drop off after McCargo so if we didn't get him, we were going to be stuck with a project kind of player at a critical and hopelessly undermanned position on our defense.

 

As it is, we took the best SS and the best DT on the board when we took them. Both positions were critical needs for us.

 

As for the trade down possibilities, that always entails risk. I think there was certainly a chance that Whitner would have been taken by Detroit since they took a SS in the second. Not only that, but if we trade down to Denver's spot, we lose Bunkley to Philly who was picking one slot ahead of Denver. A trade down might have cost us both Bunkley and Whitner. Then there would be no one left even close to being worth a first round pick at either SS or DT. Look at the people taken from 15-32 in the first round. No SS's, no DT's, no OT's, no one at a position of need for us other than maybe Davin Joseph, the G from Oaklahoma. Can you imagine the carping hereabouts if we took Joseph in the first round at 15?

Same thing if we had taken McCargo there.

 

All told, we got the second best SS in the draft and had not real shot at the #1 SS. We also got the third rated DT in the draft and since Ngata isn't suited to our knew defense, we probably got the second best DT in the draft for our purposes. The alternative was to get the #1 DT in Bunkley and a distant #3 or 4 SS. We could have traded down and ended up with neither Bunkley nor Whitner but, at best, McCargo and Bullock/Mannning/Pollard along with an extra pick.

 

I may disagree with their selection of the top needs for this team. I might disagree with the choice of Whitner & McCargo over Bunkely & Bullock or, in a trade down, McCargo & Bullock/Manning/Pollard + extra pick. Nevertheless, I don't think what they did was "stupid". It was rational, reasonable and, I am willing to admit, maybe even the best choice despite my qualms over it.