about Kings artical on TBD front page

[OGTEleven]

Like I said, you will paint the picture until Whitner was the only player in the draft worth taking after the 7th pick.  Thanks for not letting me down.

687636[/snapback]

 

 

My original post:

 

Who's to say that a team that could not afford to trade up to #7 or higher, but wanted Whitner, might not have been anxious to trade up to #13 or 14?

 

If he is to put 95% odds on Whitner being there at 15, he would have had to know the desires of 32 teams, not just 6 or 7.

 

Where in that post do I make a value judgement vis a vis Whitner's worth against other players? I simply criticize King's lack of logic.

[Scraps]

And it seems as though no matter how someone answers your post, you'll say we could have taken "magical player x".

 

My original point was simply a criticism of King's (lack of) logic.  It had nothing to do with players whatsoever.  It had nothing to do with the Bills selections whatsoever.  You completely and utterly missed the point and started talking about players.  I should have chosen not to engage that portion of your post since it was on an entirely different topic.

687635[/snapback]

 

I thought he addressed the players and the logic here

 

In this case, my feeling is you have to know the draft and you have to know the teams around you. If you have a strong feeling a team below you is going to take the player you love, then obviously you can't make that trade. If Levy and coach Dick Jauron had solid evidence Whitner might go to Arizona at No. 10 or Baltimore at No. 12, then obviously the Bills had to sit where they were and just take the guy.

 

But my information from two teams drafting in that area was that the only team extremely interested in Whitner before the middle of the round was the Ravens. And the intelligence around the league said Baltimore would certainly take nose tackle Haloti Ngata if he were there.

[dogbyte]

Well how about this. Whitner tears up his knee in training camp and goes on the IR. He returns but is not the same player. Bills have to eat his bonus and salary. Those other 3 picks the Bills could of got, turn out to be probowl players for the next 10 years. How do you feel now?

[Scraps]

My original post:

Where in that post do I make a value judgement vis a vis Whitner's worth against other players?  I simply criticize King's lack of logic.

687644[/snapback]

 

You asked this question

 

Who's to say that a team that could not afford to trade up to #7 or higher, but wanted Whitner, might not have been anxious to trade up to #13 or 14?

 

To which I responded that maybe Bunkley falls to 15. Not a bad assumption given that he was taken at 14. From there on you engaged in a "what if" campaign. What if the Bills didn't like Bunkley. What if the Bills drafted a lame horse and Whitner punished us for a decade. What if ... What if ... What if ... The path you were going down was pretty clear.

[Squibs]

I think it is interesting that King is ignoring the one team other than the Ravens that could have drastically altered the landscape for defensive picks between 8 and 15. If Buffalo had traded down to 15 with Denver, St Louis would not have had a chance to trade with Denver and would still be picking at #11. It seems likely that they would have taken either a DB or DT at #11. Many think they were waiting to see if Huff would fall to #11 before dealing with Denver. They may well have taken Whitner, Bunkley, or Ngata with their pick if not Hill (who they did choose at 15.) It could have then altered Baltimore and Philly's strategies, maybe even led to more trades.

 

King is an idiot btw, I only read his article b/c of all the chat here about it.

[OGTEleven]

You asked this question

To which I responded that maybe Bunkley falls to 15.  Not a bad assumption given that he was taken at 14.  From there on you engaged in a "what if" campaign.  What if the Bills didn't like Bunkley.  What if the Bills drafted a lame horse and Whitner punished us for a decade.  What if ... What if ... What if ...  The path you were going down was pretty clear.

687653[/snapback]

You are correct in your assertion that I should not have engaged in your ridiculous what if campaign. I don't know enough about Bunckley, Whitner or anyone else to do that. I will no longer try to make any point in this regard.

 

You stated:

 

Because it goes without saying the Bills were interested in Whitner since they drafted him. All he was saying was that had the Bills traded down to 15, the only team they had to be concerned with was Baltimore

 

You correctly point out what King said. What he said is plainly and simply wrong.

 

If you choose to not see that, in an effort to be obnoxious, that is your choice.

 

 

When I said:

 

Who's to say that a team that could not afford to trade up to #7 or higher, but wanted Whitner, might not have been anxious to trade up to #13 or 14?

 

 

I did not imply anything about what the Bills could would or should do with the pick in the event Whitner was gone. I simply stated it was possible he would be gone.

[Dawgg]

Yes, he did not mention that particular scenario and perhaps 95% is an exaggeration on his part. But the fact remains: it is a gamble -- and by and large, the gamble was worth the risk, given his experience and knowledge of the teams picking behind Buffalo -- and he does have credibile sources from around the league.

 

I did not imply anything about what the Bills could would or should do with the pick in the event Whitner was gone.  I simply stated it was possible he would be gone.

687664[/snapback]

[Scraps]

You are correct in your assertion that I should not have engaged in your ridiculous what if campaign.  I don't know enough about Bunckley, Whitner or anyone else to do that.  I will no longer try to make any point in this regard.

 

You stated:

You correctly point out what King said.  What he said is plainly and simply wrong.

 

If you choose to not see that, in an effort to be obnoxious, that is your choice.

When I said:

I did not imply anything about what the Bills could would or should do with the pick in the event Whitner was gone.  I simply stated it was possible he would be gone.

687664[/snapback]

 

It is not that I choose not to see your point. I acknowledge your point. Many other people, including Dawgg I believe, have acknowledged that someone could have then moved up ahead of 15 and taken Whitner. Obviously you assume risk in trading down, but if you want to maximize the value you get out of the draft, you have to assume some measure of risk. I'm not convinced the risk was terribly high and even if Whitner was gone, I think the Bills could have found something at 15, as this team has so many holes, or perhaps could have traded down again.

 

As for whether or not it there was an effort on my part to be obnoxious, there was not. At least there wasn't before you went down the "what if" path, a game I find to be quite obnoxious.

[OGTEleven]

It is not that I choose not to see your point.  I acknowledge your point.  Many other people, including Dawgg I believe, have acknowledged that someone could have then moved up ahead of 15 and taken Whitner.  Obviously you assume risk in trading down, but if you want to maximize the value you get out of the draft, you have to assume some measure of risk.  I'm not convinced the risk was terribly high and even if Whitner was gone, I think the Bills could have found something at 15, as this team has so many holes, or perhaps could have traded down again.

 

As for whether or not it there was an effort on my part to be obnoxious, there was not.  At least there wasn't before you went down the "what if" path, a game I find to be quite obnoxious.

687669[/snapback]

My first post (yet again):

 

Who's to say that a team that could not afford to trade up to #7 or higher, but wanted Whitner, might not have been anxious to trade up to #13 or 14?

 

If he is to put 95% odds on Whitner being there at 15, he would have had to know the desires of 32 teams, not just 6 or 7.

 

I mentioned exactly nothing about player vs. player, only Whitner's likliehood of being at 15.

 

Your initial reply:

 

Well you can pretty much discount anyone who is set at SS moving up, so I don't think you have to worry about all 32 teams. But maybe what you say happens, and then maybe Bunkley falls to us at 15 .....

 

Who went down the what if path?

[obie_wan]

You asked this question

To which I responded that maybe Bunkley falls to 15.  Not a bad assumption given that he was taken at 14.  From there on you engaged in a "what if" campaign.  What if the Bills didn't like Bunkley.  What if the Bills drafted a lame horse and Whitner punished us for a decade.  What if ... What if ... What if ...  The path you were going down was pretty clear.

687653[/snapback]

 

No way Bunkley gets past Philly at #14.

[obie_wan]

Yes, he did not mention that particular scenario and perhaps 95% is an exaggeration on his part.  But the fact remains: it is a gamble -- and by and large, the gamble was worth the risk, given his experience and knowledge of the teams picking behind Buffalo -- and he does have credibile sources from around the league.

687668[/snapback]

 

 

all of which were using King to spread dis-information to other teams.

 

Jauron had better sources into what Detroit was going to do from his recent time there that trumps whatever inside info King and these other hacks think they possess.

[Scraps]

My first post (yet again):

I mentioned exactly nothing about player vs. player, only Whitner's likliehood of being at 15.

 

Your initial reply:

Who went down the what if path?

687676[/snapback]

 

I, and many others, thought that the likelihood of Whitner being there at 15 was pretty high.

 

When you ask this question

 

Who's to say that a team that could not afford to trade up to #7 or higher, but wanted Whitner, might not have been anxious to trade up to #13 or 14?

 

don't you open up the door? Isn't logical to look at who was selected at 13 and 14 to see who might be there at 15?

 

If you want to fixate on Whitner, you are absolutely correct. The Bills absolutely had to draft Whitner at 8 because if they moved down so much as one slot, he might have been taken.

 

To me, it comes down to maximizing value, and I don't believe Marv did that.

[Scraps]

No way Bunkley gets past Philly at #14.

687677[/snapback]

 

I responded to a question where someone moved up to 13 or 14. Hence if I am to entertain that question, one assumption is that Philadelphia traded down.

 

Of course for all those who claim that it was a mistake for Buffalo to trade down to 15 because someone might move ahead of the 15 position, nothing says that Buffalo could not have traded back to a higher slot, still have gotten Whitner and an extra pick.

[Dawgg]

Again, for the 100th time, you are fixated on Whitner. It's Whitner or bust.

 

If the only option in this draft is to come out with Donte Whitner, then yes, you stay at 8 and pick him. However, if there are other players of his caliber later in the draft (and yes, there were whether you believe it or not), then it makes prudent sense to trade down and acquire quality picks. 2 starters are better than 1 -- especially for a team coming off a 5-11 season with holes at every position except punter.

 

 

all of which were using King to spread dis-information to other teams.

 

Jauron had better sources into what Detroit was going to do from his recent time there that trumps whatever inside info King and these other hacks think they possess.

687678[/snapback]

[Dan III]

(and yes, there were whether you believe it or not)

687686[/snapback]

Marv & Modrak didn't believe it...

[OGTEleven]

When you ask this question

don't you open up the door?  Isn't logical to look at who was selected at 13 and 14 to see who might be there at 15?

 

If you want to fixate on Whitner, you are absolutely correct.  The Bills absolutely had to draft Whitner at 8 because if they moved down so much as one slot, he might have been taken.

 

To me, it comes down to maximizing value, and I don't believe Marv did that.

687680[/snapback]

My post was about King and his lack of logic. It was not about Scraps, Marv, Whitner or Bunckley.

 

I was not fixated on Whitner; rather I was fixated on logic. It was about King. He stated as fact (or very close to fact) something that was opinion (his opinion). He conveniently left out information which would counter his opinion in order to make it look like fact. That is poor use of logic. He then extrapolated about football based on his illogical foundation. Why should anyone give credence to his extrapolation?

 

My post was intended to point out his lack of logic. It could have been about gum drops or planets or automatic transmissions. It happened to be about football.

 

If you continue to read that as a value judgement of Whitner, Bunckley, Levy, Ralph, or Danny Gare, have at it.

[Scraps]

My post was about King and his lack of logic.  It was not about Scraps, Marv, Whitner or Bunckley. 

 

I was not fixated on Whitner; rather I was fixated on logic.  It was about King.  He stated as fact (or very close to fact) something that was opinion (his opinion).  He conveniently left out information which would counter his opinion in order to make it look like fact.  That is poor use of logic.  He then extrapolated about football based on his illogical foundation.  Why should anyone give credence to his extrapolation? 

 

My post was intended to point out his lack of logic.  It could have been about gum drops or planets or automatic transmissions.  It happened to be about football. 

 

If you continue to read that as a value judgement of Whitner, Bunckley, Levy, Ralph, or Danny Gare, have at it.

687732[/snapback]

 

It has to be viewed as a value judgement. If trades were not viewed as a value judgement, nobody would ever trade down.

 

King suggests that the Bills should have traded down because they could had a high probability of getting the same player, plus a couple of more picks. That is they would have gotten value.

 

If you want to say the King has a flaw in his logic, fine. I think it is flawed to talk about possible trades, or a rational for not engaging in a trade, without discussing value.

[dave mcbride]

I have a problem with this statement:

 

"my information from two teams drafting in that area was that the only team extremely interested in Whitner before the middle of the round was the Ravens. And the intelligence around the league said Baltimore would certainly take nose tackle Haloti Ngata if he were there"

 

If his "information" is so credible, why didn't he or any other hack out there know that the Bills were taking Whitner????

DISCLAIMER:

I am not blindly defending Marv and co., but it humors me that these guys think they are so g-damn smart about the draft. A succesful draft projection should also take into account a teams "reaches" as well as a "sure thing".

No?

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...levy/index.html

687522[/snapback]

cleveland was also very publicly interested in ngata. the bills had every reason to believe they'd take him.

[TC in St. Louis]

We are accepting at face value that Denver would've given a 1st, 2nd and a 4th to move into the 8th position. I don't believe it. I do not believe Denver coveted Cutler enough to give up a 1st, 2nd and 4th.

 

I believe that had Denver offered a 1st, 2nd and 4th for the Bills pick, Marv would've taken it.

 

I also don't know why anybody would tell the truth to Peter King. Nobody in the league seemed to know the Bills were going after Whitner. I was so upset at the time I was yelling at everybody. But hearing what Marv said, I'm okay with it.

 

Once more, I do not believe that Denver offered a 2nd and a 4th. Maybe a 3rd and a 4th. They gave St. Louis a 3rd to move up 4 slots.

[OGTEleven]

1.  It has to be viewed as a value judgement.  If trades were not viewed as a value judgement, nobody would ever trade down.

 

2.  King suggests that the Bills should have traded down because they could had a high probability of getting the same player, plus a couple of more picks.  That is they would have gotten value.

 

If you want to say the King has a flaw in his logic, fine.  3. I think it is flawed to talk about possible trades, or a rational for not engaging in a trade, without discussing value.

687739[/snapback]

1. No. It does not have to be viewed as a value judgement.

 

I did not offer an opinion as to whether the Bills should have traded down or not. I never intended to discuss a trade at all. How many times should I write this before you understand?

 

2. King suggested this and did not back it up with a logical set of facts. He used facts which supported his point and ignored facts which contrasted his point.

 

3. I did not pass judgement on a possible trade or lack thereof. I passed judgement on King's passing off speculation as fact.

 

If you choose to speculate on "value" fine. That has nothing to do with my post. You can claim it does all you want but you are 100% wrong.