Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 It is because you're too stubord to to accept simple facts and prefer to use mock drafts in your arguments. 688477[/snapback] No its because I'm replying to this statement which has nothing to do with mock drafts This is all about the "risk" and Marv & co decided to take less risk to draft a player they really like. I've pointed that out a couple of times.
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 No its because I'm replying to this statement which has nothing to do with mock drafts 688482[/snapback] Oh really?
pudweiser Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 FROM THE NY DAILY NEWS: Sterling Sharpe, hired by NBC Sports last week, treats the media like garbage. That wonderful characteristic did not change when Sharpe became a media member. No big deal. Most of us are used to being treated like dirt. At NBC, he will be judged on his performance - and if he can get along with his colleagues on the Peacock's NFL pregame show. That shouldn't be a problem. However, NBC may have one with two of its other NFL hires - Al Michaels, the play-by-play man, and Sports Illustrated/HBO's Peter King, who will serve as a reporter. In 1995, the pair worked together on ABC's "Monday Night Football." During a Dolphins-Chiefs game, Michaels triggered a nasty feud with King by trashing an SI cover on the rise of Pat Riley and the fall of Don Shula in Miami. Off air, Michaels basically told producers that when it came to breaking news, he and some of his colleagues did a better job than King in getting marquee players to talk. The diss got even hotter when Mark Mulvoy, SI's then-managing editor, defended King. Mulvoy ripped Michaels on WFAN's "Mike and the Mad Dog Show." Michaels fired back on WFAN, saying: "In the recent reports, King has done a lot that I've seen earlier in the day on CNN Headline News....I'm waiting to hear something that I haven't heard before. The feedback I get is very ordinary. I've never heard anybody say, 'That was really terrific.'" ”Ouch! Yeah, many moons have passed since this venom was flowing. But if you think King has forgotten, think again. In his Monday Morning Quarterback column on SI.com he often headlines one item: "Who I Like Tonight, and I Don't Mean Al Michaels." It makes you wonder if these two can happily interact.” I just gained even more respect for Al Michals than before! Thank god he’s not afraid to call out King for just what he is: a journalistic lightweight on his best days, and a partisan biased fan hack on most.
Mickey Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 How do you know Whitner would have been gone? What would have prevented the Bills from trading down to 15, then trading back up to 11 or so and still banking an extra pick out of the deal? 688326[/snapback] No one knows for sure, one way or the other. However, Detroit did take a SS in the second as did Chicago with their first pick which was in the second due to the trade with us. Joe Herne does a nice job explaining the scenario the Bills faced in this passage from an article I read recently: "After discussions with many “close to the organization” as well as the interview with Bills director of Operations Tom Modrak, here is what REALLY happened in round 1 of the NFL draft, as it occurred in the Buffalo Bills war room. The Bills were selecting directly behind the Oakland Raiders. The raiders selected Michael Huff. As it turns out the Bills rated Whitner more highly than Huff based more on the need at SS vs. FS. However; Huff going ahead of Buffalo made things interesting. Everyone in the Buffalo war room wanted to trade down and select Whitner at a later pick as the idea was that he would be available, that theory hinged on the belief that the Lions would select Huff at the #9 spot. When Oakland selected Huff at #7 it made that Lions selection much more uncertain. The Buffalo war room was convinced that should they trade back with Philadelphia (they wanted to move up for Broderick Bunkley) that the Lions would then select Donte Whitner at #9. That would mean that Huff would go at 7, then Bunkley at #8, and Whitner at #9…leaving Buffalo sitting at pick #14 with none of their desired prospects left on the board. So the Bills stood steadfastly at #8 and had to make a decision between Broderick Bunkley and Donte Whitner. Knowing that the draft was incredibly thin at Strong Safety and having the starting Safety spot vacated by the release of Lawyer Milloy, the Buffalo war room selected the guy that not only had incredible measurable qualities and on the field play, but also filled the teams biggest hole." As for trading down and then back up, that is staking an awful lot on stacked variables that are out of your control. I wouldn't plan a draft on that kind of thing. Its like counting on getting a date for saturday night with the girl who is your second choice in the event your first choice cancels at the last minute without even calling her ahead of time (as someone who had to plan for every contingency just to get a date, you'll just have to trust me on that one ). Why do all that monkeying around when you can get the guy you want just by staying put? I am not saying that it would have been crazy for Levy to take the risk, trade down and see what happens, far from it. I do think however that what they did was reasonable and not the senile idiocy of a doddering octogenarian as so many others have characterized. When the season starts and we have Whitner starting at SS rather than Coy Wire, McCargo on the line knifing into the backfield rather than Tim Anderson, Youboty instead of King in the nickel and Simpson stepping in if Vincent gets hurt, this draft won't look so bad. Afterall, we ended up with the best SS in the draft, the second best penetrating DT along with a FS and CB in the 3rd and 4th rounds that many had rated as high as late first round material. Add in the signing of that huge FA WR, Nance (what is he, 6 feet 700 inches or something like that?), maybe old Marv didn't do so very bad. And yes, it would have looked better still with some offesive lineman but you can only fill so many holes in one draft. We are, unfortunately, in a pretty major rebuilding effort although I don't think anyone in the front office is going to admit that. Donahoe had a plan, 5 years in the making, and it failed. Marv has to pick up the pieces. If Losman can't hack it, we are looking at a three year rebuild, if he can play, maybe it'll only be two years with some improvement apparent even in year one. Again Scraps, I am not disputing your logic at all, I just think this is a case where reasonable minds can differ. It is this kind of discussion that makes the draft so interesting to talk about. Too bad so many have to make it one of those "you're an idiot" fights.
dave mcbride Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 No one knows for sure, one way or the other. However, Detroit did take a SS in the second as did Chicago with their first pick which was in the second due to the trade with us. Joe Herne does a nice job explaining the scenario the Bills faced in this passage from an article I read recently: "After discussions with many “close to the organization” as well as the interview with Bills director of Operations Tom Modrak, here is what REALLY happened in round 1 of the NFL draft, as it occurred in the Buffalo Bills war room. The Bills were selecting directly behind the Oakland Raiders. The raiders selected Michael Huff. As it turns out the Bills rated Whitner more highly than Huff based more on the need at SS vs. FS. However; Huff going ahead of Buffalo made things interesting. Everyone in the Buffalo war room wanted to trade down and select Whitner at a later pick as the idea was that he would be available, that theory hinged on the belief that the Lions would select Huff at the #9 spot. When Oakland selected Huff at #7 it made that Lions selection much more uncertain. The Buffalo war room was convinced that should they trade back with Philadelphia (they wanted to move up for Broderick Bunkley) that the Lions would then select Donte Whitner at #9. That would mean that Huff would go at 7, then Bunkley at #8, and Whitner at #9…leaving Buffalo sitting at pick #14 with none of their desired prospects left on the board. So the Bills stood steadfastly at #8 and had to make a decision between Broderick Bunkley and Donte Whitner. Knowing that the draft was incredibly thin at Strong Safety and having the starting Safety spot vacated by the release of Lawyer Milloy, the Buffalo war room selected the guy that not only had incredible measurable qualities and on the field play, but also filled the teams biggest hole." As for trading down and then back up, that is staking an awful lot on stacked variables that are out of your control. I wouldn't plan a draft on that kind of thing. Its like counting on getting a date for saturday night with the girl who is your second choice in the event your first choice cancels at the last minute without even calling her ahead of time (as someone who had to plan for every contingency just to get a date, you'll just have to trust me on that one ). Why do all that monkeying around when you can get the guy you want just by staying put? I am not saying that it would have been crazy for Levy to take the risk, trade down and see what happens, far from it. I do think however that what they did was reasonable and not the senile idiocy of a doddering octogenarian as so many others have characterized. When the season starts and we have Whitner starting at SS rather than Coy Wire, McCargo on the line knifing into the backfield rather than Tim Anderson, Youboty instead of King in the nickel and Simpson stepping in if Vincent gets hurt, this draft won't look so bad. Afterall, we ended up with the best SS in the draft, the second best penetrating DT along with a FS and CB in the 3rd and 4th rounds that many had rated as high as late first round material. Add in the signing of that huge FA WR, Nance (what is he, 6 feet 700 inches or something like that?), maybe old Marv didn't do so very bad. And yes, it would have looked better still with some offesive lineman but you can only fill so many holes in one draft. We are, unfortunately, in a pretty major rebuilding effort although I don't think anyone in the front office is going to admit that. Donahoe had a plan, 5 years in the making, and it failed. Marv has to pick up the pieces. If Losman can't hack it, we are looking at a three year rebuild, if he can play, maybe it'll only be two years with some improvement apparent even in year one. Again Scraps, I am not disputing your logic at all, I just think this is a case where reasonable minds can differ. It is this kind of discussion that makes the draft so interesting to talk about. Too bad so many have to make it one of those "you're an idiot" fights. 689064[/snapback] nice post.
Mickey Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 There is one overlying fact that I am not understanding for everyone complaining about not getting extra picks..... We dont KNOW that Whitner would have been there at our trade down spot.....and by listening to the coaching staff they didn't want anyone else in the 1st round. It makes sense because his strengths fit the areas of need perfectly for the defense we are going to run.... THe McCargo pick to me was logical......we needed a D Linemen and the drop off was too significant to take a chance of McCargo not being there at our 2nd round pick. 688472[/snapback] I agree John. Once you accept that our top needs going in to the draft were at SS and DT, then what they did on draft day pretty much makes sense. A reasonable argument could be made that OG or OT was a bigger need than one of those two or maybe that Leinart was just too special to pass up. Basically though, if you accept their judgment on how badly we needed a SS and a DT, how much can you object to their having obtained the best SS in the draft and the 2nd best penetrating DT in the draft? At the end of the day, that is what we ended up with regardless of whether they could have been taken with slightly lower round picks. I don't think it would have been insanity to trade down and hope Whitner lasted although, if they had and he was gone before pick 15 as would Bunkley have been, I don't know who the heck they would have drafted that would have made any sense there. I have asked people in favor of the trade down with Denver several times to tell me who they would have selected at 15 assuming Bunkely and Whitner were gone by then. The answer has been silence or I think one person suggested Davin Joseph, the guard from Oaklahoma. If McCargo and Whitner were reaches at 26 and 8, how bad a reach would Joseph have been at 15? Again, that move, even if you like Joseph at 15, doesn't make sense if you accept their judgment that SS and DT were the biggest needs. I have watched and complained about Donahoe's penchant for using repeated high draft picks on the same position while letting other positions languish. We have spent 2 first and one second round pick to get a QB and it still doesn't look like we have one. We spent a first rounder on Willis who I like and all but Travis Henry was perfectly serviceable if not exactly spectacular. That was a first and a second round pick to get one running back. We let Price go in FA and use a second and a first to get Josh Reed and Lee Evans. That is two high picks to fill one position that didn't need to be filled if we just signed Price. I don't dispute that some of those guys ended up being upgrades over the ones they replaced. I just question whether it was worth it given the other unmet personnel needs of the team. If we had stuck with Drew, Price and Henry, we would have had three first round picks (the ones used on Evans, Willis and JP) and a second (the one used on Reed) which we could have used on the offensive line that ended up being the worst in football or to get some real depth on defense. That is a lot of top drawer talent we missed out on. At least in this first draft, Marv filled very definite needs. Without Whitner, our SS would have been Wire or mediocre FA Bowen, yikes. We have lost our top 4 DT's in the last two years so, no question about it, we needed a DT, baaaadly. Given the situation with Clements and, in my opinion, the fact that King is not a good coverman, getting Youboty was fine. Simpson, given Vincent's age, was probably a good investment and too good to pass up in the 4th. I don't think they really took anyone just to upgrade a position over an already on the roster adequate starter. This was an "anti-Donahoe" draft in that sense. No big splashes, no too-clever for your own good trades. Totally basic. There is a guy you like who fills a top need, take him, no 'effin around.
Bill from NYC Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 I agree John. Once you accept that our top needs going in to the draft were at SS and DT, then what they did on draft day pretty much makes sense. A reasonable argument could be made that OG or OT was a bigger need than one of those two or maybe that Leinart was just too special to pass up. Basically though, if you accept their judgment on how badly we needed a SS and a DT, how much can you object to their having obtained the best SS in the draft and the 2nd best penetrating DT in the draft? At the end of the day, that is what we ended up with regardless of whether they could have been taken with slightly lower round picks. I don't think it would have been insanity to trade down and hope Whitner lasted although, if they had and he was gone before pick 15 as would Bunkley have been, I don't know who the heck they would have drafted that would have made any sense there. I have asked people in favor of the trade down with Denver several times to tell me who they would have selected at 15 assuming Bunkely and Whitner were gone by then. The answer has been silence or I think one person suggested Davin Joseph, the guard from Oaklahoma. If McCargo and Whitner were reaches at 26 and 8, how bad a reach would Joseph have been at 15? Again, that move, even if you like Joseph at 15, doesn't make sense if you accept their judgment that SS and DT were the biggest needs. I have watched and complained about Donahoe's penchant for using repeated high draft picks on the same position while letting other positions languish. We have spent 2 first and one second round pick to get a QB and it still doesn't look like we have one. We spent a first rounder on Willis who I like and all but Travis Henry was perfectly serviceable if not exactly spectacular. That was a first and a second round pick to get one running back. We let Price go in FA and use a second and a first to get Josh Reed and Lee Evans. That is two high picks to fill one position that didn't need to be filled if we just signed Price. I don't dispute that some of those guys ended up being upgrades over the ones they replaced. I just question whether it was worth it given the other unmet personnel needs of the team. If we had stuck with Drew, Price and Henry, we would have had three first round picks (the ones used on Evans, Willis and JP) and a second (the one used on Reed) which we could have used on the offensive line that ended up being the worst in football or to get some real depth on defense. That is a lot of top drawer talent we missed out on. At least in this first draft, Marv filled very definite needs. Without Whitner, our SS would have been Wire or mediocre FA Bowen, yikes. We have lost our top 4 DT's in the last two years so, no question about it, we needed a DT, baaaadly. Given the situation with Clements and, in my opinion, the fact that King is not a good coverman, getting Youboty was fine. Simpson, given Vincent's age, was probably a good investment and too good to pass up in the 4th. I don't think they really took anyone just to upgrade a position over an already on the roster adequate starter. This was an "anti-Donahoe" draft in that sense. No big splashes, no too-clever for your own good trades. Totally basic. There is a guy you like who fills a top need, take him, no 'effin around. 689090[/snapback] I am one of those that you asked who to select and I am sorry for my delayed response. I cannot speak for anyone else, but what bothers me is what I consider to be a continuation of a bleak picture, even with a "new" GM. Mick, I am asking you to look back at and focus upon our most recent asinine drafts. Thanks to this idiocy (yes, idiocy) we have a boatload of small wideouts. Collectively, our tight ends have suffered every injury ever known in the history of mankind. We waited 20 games for our running back to develop. Then, we selected a shaky qb, and handed him the job for either no reason or one of stupidity (the loss to the prior team of the GM and HC). Oh, and we gave away precious picks to do so. How can you as a true Bills Fan look back upon the signing of Roscoe Parrish and not quiver with horror? The friggin guy is said to have ran back into his residence when he saw a few snowflakes! Sure, Whitner, as an OSU will certainly be tougher, but he is yet another little person in terms of the NFL. He is even a tad small for his position. To get back to your question, what about Joseph (after a trade down) ? Check this out if you will. Look at the 1st round OGs. Cheat just a little and look at Steinbach, who TD gleefully passed up. These guys are the foundation of good football teams. I am certain that you know this. Otoh, we continue to give away picks and draft small persons to play in the NFL on both sides of the ball. When will it end? Can you tell me this? We are losing Mick. This absurdity isn't working. Even Whitner was said to be shocked when he was selected. I guess the "good news" is that Ralph will save a bundle. He can dump a very talented Clements, and replace him with a 3rd round pick. How does this sound to you?
Dawgg Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 I have made suggesteions as well, yet people continue to ignore them. The point is this: Is a mid-round pick + a high second round pick > Donte Whitner? Some people (such as myself) say yes. Others (Marv included) say no. I have asked people in favor of the trade down with Denver several times to tell me who they would have selected at 15 assuming Bunkely and Whitner were gone by then. The answer has been silence or I think one person suggested Davin Joseph, the guard from Oaklahoma.689090[/snapback]
John from Riverside Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 I am one of those that you asked who to select and I am sorry for my delayed response. I cannot speak for anyone else, but what bothers me is what I consider to be a continuation of a bleak picture, even with a "new" GM. Mick, I am asking you to look back at and focus upon our most recent asinine drafts. Thanks to this idiocy (yes, idiocy) we have a boatload of small wideouts. Collectively, our tight ends have suffered every injury ever known in the history of mankind. We waited 20 games for our running back to develop. Then, we selected a shaky qb, and handed him the job for either no reason or one of stupidity (the loss to the prior team of the GM and HC). Oh, and we gave away precious picks to do so. How can you as a true Bills Fan look back upon the signing of Roscoe Parrish and not quiver with horror? The friggin guy is said to have ran back into his residence when he saw a few snowflakes! Sure, Whitner, as an OSU will certainly be tougher, but he is yet another little person in terms of the NFL. He is even a tad small for his position. To get back to your question, what about Joseph (after a trade down) ? Check this out if you will. Look at the 1st round OGs. Cheat just a little and look at Steinbach, who TD gleefully passed up. These guys are the foundation of good football teams. I am certain that you know this. Otoh, we continue to give away picks and draft small persons to play in the NFL on both sides of the ball. When will it end? Can you tell me this? We are losing Mick. This absurdity isn't working. Even Whitner was said to be shocked when he was selected. I guess the "good news" is that Ralph will save a bundle. He can dump a very talented Clements, and replace him with a 3rd round pick. How does this sound to you? 689139[/snapback] Bill, While I am totally on board with you that we should have been making a more concerted effort in past drafts to get O linemen....I really dont consider Roscoe Parrish to be a bad pick..... It is a little unfair to judge him until we can actually look at him for a year....he got hurt early which is unfortunate....but he did start contributing almost immediately after he got back..... I actually think he is going to be a good player for us.....not a Lee Evans type player but a guy who can abuse a defender in the slot and make big plays on special teams.... But I def agree on the Linemen picks......TD should have done better here.
John from Riverside Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 I have made suggesteions as well, yet people continue to ignore them. The point is this: Is a mid-round pick + a high second round pick > Donte Whitner? Some people (such as myself) say yes. Others (Marv included) say no. 689202[/snapback] Dawg, I will answer that.... If Dante Whitner comes in solidifies the SS position...makes the pro bowl....and ends up being a staple of our defense (which we need a safety to do because of the cover 2) then yes....it would be better then having the extra pick..... Speaking just for myself...I dont care HOW we get there....I just want to get this team back on track....watching receivers get lit up for trying to catch a pass over the middle would be a good start
dave mcbride Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 Sure, Whitner, as an OSU will certainly be tougher, but he is yet another little person in terms of the NFL. He is even a tad small for his position. 689139[/snapback] Bill: Polamalu: Height: 5-10 Weight: 212 ed reed: Height: 5-11 Weight: 200 mike brown: Height: 5-10 Weight: 207 whitner: Height: 5-10 weight: 203
BuffOrange Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 Just curious: Did all you guys think King was the worst person/reporter ever when he was picking the Bills to go to the Super Bowl in 2003, or the playoffs last year?
Rico Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 If Dante Whitner comes in solidifies the SS position...makes the pro bowl....and ends up being a staple of our defense (which we need a safety to do because of the cover 2) then yes....it would be better then having the extra pick..... 689227[/snapback] Works for me... now get out there and make some plays, Donte! Plenty of INT's, fumble creating, fumble returns, and even some TDs if you please!
Dawgg Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 Anyone who questions what the Bills did is a misinformed, pathetic excuse for a journalist. Just curious: Did all you guys think King was the worst person/reporter ever when he was picking the Bills to go to the Super Bowl in 2003, or the playoffs last year? 689250[/snapback]
obie_wan Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 Ruben Brown may have sucked near the end of his run here in Buffalo, and the last contract Butler gave him was truly heinous, but I'd say he ended up being a good value pick right around #15. Ruben was drafted as a LT which he played his entire career at Pitt.
Bob in STL Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 No one knows for sure, one way or the other. However, Detroit did take a SS in the second as did Chicago with their first pick which was in the second due to the trade with us. Joe Herne does a nice job explaining the scenario the Bills faced in this passage from an article I read recently: "After discussions with many “close to the organization” as well as the interview with Bills director of Operations Tom Modrak, here is what REALLY happened in round 1 of the NFL draft, as it occurred in the Buffalo Bills war room. The Bills were selecting directly behind the Oakland Raiders. The raiders selected Michael Huff. As it turns out the Bills rated Whitner more highly than Huff based more on the need at SS vs. FS. However; Huff going ahead of Buffalo made things interesting. Everyone in the Buffalo war room wanted to trade down and select Whitner at a later pick as the idea was that he would be available, that theory hinged on the belief that the Lions would select Huff at the #9 spot. When Oakland selected Huff at #7 it made that Lions selection much more uncertain. The Buffalo war room was convinced that should they trade back with Philadelphia (they wanted to move up for Broderick Bunkley) that the Lions would then select Donte Whitner at #9. That would mean that Huff would go at 7, then Bunkley at #8, and Whitner at #9…leaving Buffalo sitting at pick #14 with none of their desired prospects left on the board. So the Bills stood steadfastly at #8 and had to make a decision between Broderick Bunkley and Donte Whitner. Knowing that the draft was incredibly thin at Strong Safety and having the starting Safety spot vacated by the release of Lawyer Milloy, the Buffalo war room selected the guy that not only had incredible measurable qualities and on the field play, but also filled the teams biggest hole." As for trading down and then back up, that is staking an awful lot on stacked variables that are out of your control. I wouldn't plan a draft on that kind of thing. Its like counting on getting a date for saturday night with the girl who is your second choice in the event your first choice cancels at the last minute without even calling her ahead of time (as someone who had to plan for every contingency just to get a date, you'll just have to trust me on that one ). Why do all that monkeying around when you can get the guy you want just by staying put? I am not saying that it would have been crazy for Levy to take the risk, trade down and see what happens, far from it. I do think however that what they did was reasonable and not the senile idiocy of a doddering octogenarian as so many others have characterized. When the season starts and we have Whitner starting at SS rather than Coy Wire, McCargo on the line knifing into the backfield rather than Tim Anderson, Youboty instead of King in the nickel and Simpson stepping in if Vincent gets hurt, this draft won't look so bad. Afterall, we ended up with the best SS in the draft, the second best penetrating DT along with a FS and CB in the 3rd and 4th rounds that many had rated as high as late first round material. Add in the signing of that huge FA WR, Nance (what is he, 6 feet 700 inches or something like that?), maybe old Marv didn't do so very bad. And yes, it would have looked better still with some offesive lineman but you can only fill so many holes in one draft. We are, unfortunately, in a pretty major rebuilding effort although I don't think anyone in the front office is going to admit that. Donahoe had a plan, 5 years in the making, and it failed. Marv has to pick up the pieces. If Losman can't hack it, we are looking at a three year rebuild, if he can play, maybe it'll only be two years with some improvement apparent even in year one. Again Scraps, I am not disputing your logic at all, I just think this is a case where reasonable minds can differ. It is this kind of discussion that makes the draft so interesting to talk about. Too bad so many have to make it one of those "you're an idiot" fights. 689064[/snapback] I have heard some stories from people "close to the organization" as well and it is identical to yours. The Raiders picking Huff, and Leinart still on the board changed the dynamic. The Bills had a plan and the plan covered the many options that could have occurred, even the one that did occur. Some here suggest our GM is "too old" and "not fast enough". This is utter nonsense. Just because they used all of the alloted time prioir to the does not mean they were confused. Bottom line is Whitner was very, very, highly rated by the staff (not just Marv -- BY THE STAFF). SS was considered a higher need than other positions of need, especially given the talent in this draft. Our staff knowingly left some draft picks on the table because their risk analysis showed that it was worth taking Whitner, they see him as a future star in this league and they see defenses changing and requiring a dominant safety. Case closed, no use talking about the guys we might have drafted with the extra picks. We don't who they would have been anyway.
Rico Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 Ruben Brown may have sucked near the end of his run here in Buffalo, and the last contract Butler gave him was truly heinous, but I'd say he ended up being a good value pick right around #15. Ruben was drafted as a LT which he played his entire career at Pitt. 689292[/snapback] How many snaps at LT did he see with the Bills?
dave mcbride Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 How many snaps at LT did he see with the Bills? 689329[/snapback] i remember the day they drafted him that they envisioned him as a guard because of the fact that he's 6'3".
Recommended Posts