obie_wan Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I disagree with the notion of a "top 13 impact players." First, even IF Whitner had been chosen before 15, I would still have looked at my extra second and fourth round picks in a deep draft and been happy. I would have tried to trade down again from 15, but failing that, I would have gone ahead and taken Davin Joseph there. Joseph would be an immediate starter and immediately the best runblocker in our starting lineup. I'm sure that's impactful enough for a team that will really struggle to runblock as things stand right now. But like I said before, I think Whitner would have been there for our taking at 15 anyway. Regardless, I don't think there was an elite 13 or so players. I think it was more like an elite 6 or 7. That's why the pre-draft talk for the Bills was all about trading down for more picks since we picked at 8. I would like to see a link to any pre-draft article or post that talked about an elite 13 players AND that included Donte Whitner in that group. I doubt you'll be able to find one because I think this elite 13 talk is after-the-fact rewriting of history. I think the true cutoff for elite players was after 6 or 7, not 13, and I think that "impact players" that could help us immensely like Joseph were still available at 15. I like Donte Whitner a lot. I'm probably one of the very few posters that is on record pre-draft as liking the idea of the Bills trading down and drafting him in the mid first round. But I don't like him enough to pass up an extra second and fourth rounder and to take him at #8 overall just because there was a chance he wouldn't be available at 15. I don't consider him to be a once in a generation safety prospect that NEEDED to be taken in the top 10. He wasn't even the first safety off the board. I'm also nervous about how the health of a 205-lb strong safety in a physical division is going to hold up over the long haul. I would have taken the chance that he would be available at 15, and if he wasn't, then life goes on. I'll just have to "settle" for seeing Davin Joseph knocking division d-linemen on their ass. 687135[/snapback] You are right - the consensus was there were 7 blue chip talents- including Leinart in that list. (So the experts were wrong again). The Bills had no shot at this group. There was also a 2nd tier of about 6-7 players which could be impact players, but were not elite. Obviously, the Bills felt Whitner fit this group and they also felt strongly that other teams did as well. After that the draft flattened out with the next 30 or so players in a similar tier with grades dependant on a teams needs and schemes. Being able to trade down from this spot would be highly unlikely. By trading to #15, the Bills would be clearly moving to the top of the 3rd tier of players - which is the worst place to be for all you value shoppers. Not to mention, that the consensus of players at the top of this tier did not fit the Bills needs or schemes. So- what do they do. Only Oz has proposed they reach for a G- which is probably as financially smart as taking a RT at #4. But- at least it's an alternative. None of you other bashers have offered anything other than whining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 He is totally right. Getting an additional 2nd rounder would have allowed the Bills more flexibility in the draft. They could have turned around and used that second rounder to move in the first and grab McCargo and still have a second round pick to nab a quality player. Trading down IS a risk, it always is... but that you are rewarded for that risk with additional picks. 686315[/snapback] Sometimes you have to weigh in the "risk" and the chance to get your player. If in your mind the risk is not worth it, then you go and get your player...There is nothing wrong with it....It is all speculation that Denver was offering the 2nd and 4th.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 There was also a 2nd tier of about 6-7 players which could be impact players, but were not elite. Obviously, the Bills felt Whitner fit this group and they also felt strongly that other teams did as well. After that the draft flattened out with the next 30 or so players in a similar tier with grades dependant on a teams needs and schemes. Being able to trade down from this spot would be highly unlikely. By trading to #15, the Bills would be clearly moving to the top of the 3rd tier of players - which is the worst place to be for all you value shoppers. Not to mention, that the consensus of players at the top of this tier did not fit the Bills needs or schemes. 687906[/snapback] This is all your idle speculation. Who are these 6-7 "second tier" players that are so much better than those "third tier" players that they get their own tier? And I'd like to see you point out any pre-draft articles/posts mentioning this second tier of players and Donte Whitner's place in it. Again, I think this is just after the fact re-writing of history to conveniently fit and rationalize what the Bills did. I think I would rather people just say, "hey we picked Whitner at #8, live with it, and shut up about it" instead of making stuff up. FWIW, I think Davin Joseph would kick your second tier players' asses despite being "third tier". Only Oz has proposed they reach for a G- which is probably as financially smart as taking a RT at #4. But- at least it's an alternative. 687906[/snapback] Let's see how big a reach Davin Joseph would be when the interior of our line collapses in the face of our QB again and again this year. Certainly no more of a reach than taking a safety in the top 10. Why would you call Joseph a reach at 15? Because the draft experts didn't have him ranked there, right? So looks like Whitner is a major reach, right? Besides, it's not just Davin Joseph. It's Joseph + Darryl Tapp or Claude Wroten (second rounder) + Ryan O'Callaghan or Anthony Montgomery (fourth rounder). And that's just assuming Whitner wouldn't be there at 15, which he probably would have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Which has nothing to do with being a GM and is why most coaches don't make good GM's. It's a different mind set. The Bills had a chance to have a really good draft. But the speed and action of draft day was too much for the Bills GM. You can't go into a draft narrow minded or with tunnel vision. You have to be prepared for things as they come at you. When things started flying and players started falling the Bills GM wasn't prepared and in the end it will cost the Bills. With that extra second and fourth I bet we could have gotten some more line help. If we had a GM. 687886[/snapback] If we moved down to 15, we lose Whitner and Bunkley. If McCargo was a reach at 26, doesn't that mean he would have been an even bigger reach at 15? Who would you have taken at 15? Cutler and Leinart were gone at that point. There were some CB's and a LB or two in that range which are nowhere near the positions we needed the most help on so as to use our top pick. Theoretically, we would still have had to use a second and a third to move up to get McCargo anyway. We end up with a few extra picks but lose out on Whitner and end up taking a guy we don't really need at 15 because the safety and DT and OT and QB's we might have been interested in are gone. I don't mean to say that there weren't other options worth considering that were reasonable but at the same time, I don't think it is fair to characterize what they did as stupid or that they couldn't handle the pressure and so on. What they did was reasonable and even preferable when you look at some of the alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 If we moved down to 15, we lose Whitner and Bunkley. If McCargo was a reach at 26, doesn't that mean he would have been an even bigger reach at 15? Who would you have taken at 15? Cutler and Leinart were gone at that point. There were some CB's and a LB or two in that range which are nowhere near the positions we needed the most help on so as to use our top pick. Theoretically, we would still have had to use a second and a third to move up to get McCargo anyway. We end up with a few extra picks but lose out on Whitner and end up taking a guy we don't really need at 15 because the safety and DT and OT and QB's we might have been interested in are gone. I don't mean to say that there weren't other options worth considering that were reasonable but at the same time, I don't think it is fair to characterize what they did as stupid or that they couldn't handle the pressure and so on. What they did was reasonable and even preferable when you look at some of the alternatives. 688319[/snapback] 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 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] How do you know Whitner would still be available at either 11 or 15? None of the TSW members were at the war rooms and had no idea what'd happen. This is all about the "risk" and Marv & co decided to take less risk to draft a player they really like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 How do you know Whitner would still be available at either 11 or 15? None of the TSW members were at the war rooms and had no idea what'd happen. This is all about the "risk" and Marv & co decided to take less risk to draft a player they really like. 688331[/snapback] Gee, thanks. Like that hasn't already been explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Gee, thanks. Like that hasn't already been explained. 688347[/snapback] It seems like you still don't understand it after several explanations. It's not that hard, you'll understand it eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Only Oz has proposed they reach for a G- which is probably as financially smart as taking a RT at #4. But- at least it's an alternative.. 687906[/snapback] 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. Let's see how big a reach Davin Joseph would be when the interior of our line collapses in the face of our QB again and again this year. Certainly no more of a reach than taking a safety in the top 10. Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 It seems like you still don't understand it after several explanations. It's not that hard, you'll understand it eventually. 688354[/snapback] I understand it just fine. I simply disagree with it. I also think restating it, 4 pages into the discussion is rather redundant. If we were all sheople and simply accepted everything the Bills said without any dissention, this board would be pretty boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I understand it just fine. I simply disagree with it. I also think restating it, 4 pages into the discussion is rather redundant. See, you still don't understand it by using mock drafts in your arguments. If we were all sheople and simply accepted everything the Bills said without any dissention, this board would be pretty boring. 688431[/snapback] No, no one just simply accepted what other said. People have their own judgement. Some people are smart enought not to base on mock drafts to justify real draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 See, you still don't understand it by using mock drafts in your arguments. 688441[/snapback] Because I looked at some mock drafts I don't understand what Marv Levy said? Nice lahjik there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Because I looked at some mock drafts I don't understand what Marv Levy said? Nice lahjik there. 688448[/snapback] No, not because you looked at some mock drafts, it's that you based on mock drafts to justify draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 No, not because you looked at some mock drafts, it's that you based on mock drafts to justify draft picks. 688453[/snapback] You said I don't understand it. The it was This is all about the "risk" and Marv & co decided to take less risk to draft a player they really like. What do mock drafts have to do with understanding that comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 You said I don't understand it. The it wasWhat do mock drafts have to do with understanding that comment? 688458[/snapback] On which pick Whitner would be available as well as the risk of trading down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 On which pick Whitner would be available as well as the risk of trading down. 688461[/snapback] Um yeah, sure, okay, whatever, you just keep telling yourself that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Um yeah, sure, okay, whatever, you just keep telling yourself that. 688465[/snapback] You finally understand the risk of trading down and realize using mock draft is stupid to justify draft picks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 You finally understand the risk of trading down and realize using mock draft is stupid to justify draft picks 688468[/snapback] No, I just realized that you can't follow a conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 No, I just realized that you can't follow a conversation. 688471[/snapback] It is because you're too stubord to to accept simple facts and prefer to use mock drafts in your arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts