mary owen Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 It's a very long read, but boy did he steal the thoughts out of my head as to what may have occured on draft day. I think (but who am I anyway?) that this guy has a pretty good grasp on Marv and Co's strategy. Here are a couple snips from it. Enjoy. (linky below) It never occurred to them that there might have been a reason why Levy and the Bills decided not to trade down, but to use the # 8 pick to secure Whitner. It never occurred to them that there was a reason why many of the very same “draft gurus” who were criticizing the Bills' pick of Whitner had projected that Michael Huff would be drafted by Detroit with the # 9 pick—the team that would select Bullocks with its pick in the second round. It never occurred to them that Cleveland, a team that had traded safety Chris Crocker, might be interested in selecting the top pure safety in the draft or that Miami might be willing to swap a low round pick to move a couple of spots ahead of Buffalo to take the guy that they reportedly wanted, Whitner, over Jason Allen, a less experienced cornerback/safety. No, the guys at ESPN had told them that the Bills had been offered a nice draft pick to trade down and there were no teams that were going to take Whitner before the Bills did at that lower spot, so it had to be the Gospel Truth! Well, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. According to Mike Holbrook of Pro Football Weekly, it wasn't. Holbrook reported that, contrary to Clayton's reports, the Bills were trying to make a trade that would have allowed them to draft Whitner and acquire additional picks, but that they received word that there were other teams interested in Whitner that might take him before they could if they traded down." Now that may not matter much to the “draft gurus” and “draftniks” who see the NFL draft primarily in terms of “value”—so long as a team gets “value” out of a deal or a pick, it doesn't matter if they don't get the right players for their team at that point or later in the draft, it's all about the value of the picks and the value that the “draft gurus” have assigned to them! If a team takes a player a few spots before he has been projected to be selected, the team that has drafted him is a “loser”. But an NFL GM can't be concerned with whether he is a “loser” in the eyes of the fans, let alone the draft “experts". Mel Kiper couldn't possibly be wrong about the value of a player to a particular team or where some of the teams in the NFL might be prepared to draft a player because he rates players based on what he sees as their overall value at the position and not what system they are best suited to play or the value of that position and player in relation to a particular team's need. But, that's not how the GMs of NFL teams necessarily rate the value of a player to their own team or their team's draft. As it turns out, Kiper was wrong about when McCargo was likely to be selected in this draft. When Bobby Carpenter was drafted by the Cowboys with the # 18 pick in the first round, the N.Y. Giants, who reportedly had still been interested in drafting Carpenter, almost immediately traded down out of the # 25 spot in the draft. That had to signal that, with Carpenter gone, the Giants were now possibly looking to address other positions of need in the draft than linebacker. And, at the top of that list was finding a replacement for the departed Kenderick Clancy at defensive tackle. There had been word in the media in New York that McCargo was a player that they were definitely interested in and there are reports coming out of New York that, indeed, the Giants were going to take McCargo with the pick that they traded to Pittsburgh, but had concluded that they could still get him with the pick that they acquired from the Steelers. What they didn't count on was what was happening at the same time in Buffalo. the rest: http://bills.scout.com/2/526808.html
BillnutinHouston Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 [/i] the rest: http://bills.scout.com/2/526808.html 690593[/snapback] It is an EXCELLENT article. OK, I feel better now.
Nanker Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 It is an EXCELLENT article. OK, I feel better now. 690598[/snapback] I feel great that we stiffed Ernie Accorsi, Tom Coughlin and about ten billion Jints fans! McCargo - from a Jints Fan Post-Draft Perspective
obie_wan Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 I feel great that we stiffed Ernie Accorsi, Tom Coughlin and about ten billion Jints fans! McCargo - from a Jints Fan Post-Draft Perspective 690612[/snapback] I would bet that all of teh negative media hype dumped on the Bills for not trading down for Whitner probably influenced the Giants,at least subconsciously, to trade down for McCargo. The Bills had been trying to move back into the 1st round and probably even contacted the Giants. They probably concluded, that if the Bills were moving up, it would not be to take McCargo and take some more media flack for reaching for another player. The Giants got screwed by not going with their conviction and ended up "value" from a fantasy football perspective, but 2 players who won't fill thier need at DT.
Nanker Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 I would bet that all of teh negative media hype dumped on the Bills for not trading down for Whitner probably influenced the Giants,at least subconsciously, to trade down for McCargo. The Bills had been trying to move back into the 1st round and probably even contacted the Giants. They probably concluded, that if the Bills were moving up, it would not be to take McCargo and take some more media flack for reaching for another player. The Giants got screwed by not going with their conviction and ended up "value" from a fantasy football perspective, but 2 players who won't fill thier need at DT. 690645[/snapback] EXCELLENT point! As a matter of fact, that's Marv's position entirely. "Value" on a Draft Day chart is as useful as S&H Green Stamps or coupons worth $10 off on a $39 item. They're only WORTH something IF you want the item that's for sale. It's like my wife trying to convince me that she "saved so much money" by buying all the sale items at Tops when I had my mind set on the Wegmans pork roast and Heineken. She spent the same amount of money on hot dogs, cans of creamed corn and Genny. But they don't make the same sweet music on a sunny summer Saturday night like that good old pork roast and Heineken does. Sure, I could have even chosen a sirloin steak, but GAWD-DAMNIT I wanted PORK ROAST - and certainly not cans of creamed corn.
Rubes Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 It's like my wife trying to convince me that she "saved so much money" by buying all the sale items at Tops when I had my mind set on the Wegmans pork roast and Heineken. She spent the same amount of money on hot dogs, cans of creamed corn and Genny. 690667[/snapback] Creamed corn and Genny. Nice. Sounds like a long night for the toilet bowl.
syhuang Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 I would bet that all of teh negative media hype dumped on the Bills for not trading down for Whitner probably influenced the Giants,at least subconsciously, to trade down for McCargo. The Bills had been trying to move back into the 1st round and probably even contacted the Giants. They probably concluded, that if the Bills were moving up, it would not be to take McCargo and take some more media flack for reaching for another player. The Giants got screwed by not going with their conviction and ended up "value" from a fantasy football perspective, but 2 players who won't fill thier need at DT. 690645[/snapback] Exactly, Giants really got screwed by following the media "draft gurus" to assume McCargo would be availabe at #32 overall. They end up with Kiwanuka at #32 when they need a DT and already have Strahan and Umenyiora at DE. This also shows how McCargo was ranked much higher than the remaining DTs on the draft board. If any remaing DT had been ranked close to McCargo, Gaints would have drafted him at either 1st round (#32 overal) or second round. But Giants didn't do this, they didn't draft a DT until their 4th round pick.
Dawgg Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 Let me get this straight... one of the best GMs and talent evaluators in the league, Ernie Acorsi, followed the media's advice to trade down to #32. Hardly true. In actuality, McCargo was one of 5 players they were targeting (all graded at around the same level) and they took the opportunity to move down in the draft and grab an extra 3rd and 4th round pick. Perhaps they weren't able to fill their need -- but as Acorsi puts it in the article, pass rushers are like starting pitchers and power hitters -- you can never have enough of them. That aside, I think taking McCargo was a solid move for the Bills. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/413461p-349591c.html Exactly, Giants really got screwed by following the media "draft gurus" to assume McCargo would be availabe at #32 overall. They end up with Kiwanuka at #32 when they need a DT and already have Strahan and Umenyiora at DE. 690698[/snapback]
Nanker Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 Let me get this straight... one of the best GMs and talent evaluators in the league, Ernie Acorsi, followed the media's advice to trade down to #32. Hardly true. In actuality, McCargo was one of 5 players they were targeting (all graded at around the same level) and they took the opportunity to move down in the draft and grab an extra 3rd and 4th round pick. Perhaps they weren't able to fill their need -- but as Acorsi puts it in the article, pass rushers are like starting pitchers and power hitters -- you can never have enough of them. That aside, I think taking McCargo was a solid move for the Bills. 690714[/snapback] No one suggested EA followed their advice, but that he was following along the same logic that the media guroo-roo-roos use. Well, it bit Ernie on the ass when he didn't anticipate The Bills' move and I did "hear it on WFAN" (two days later) that the Jints WarRoom WAS in a panic when The Bills took McCargo. They "didn't know what to do" because no one would trade down with them at that point. So they took another DE. Perhaps the BAA in their ranking, but definitely not a need. Sorta like getting another small body wideout when you've got 6 already.
Nanker Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 Creamed corn and Genny. Nice. Sounds like a long night for the toilet bowl. 690681[/snapback] Not as good as pork roast and Heineken, is it?
Dawgg Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 Too bad we didn't draft Sinorice. Sorta like getting another small body wideout when you've got 6 already. 690730[/snapback]
Nanker Posted May 13, 2006 Posted May 13, 2006 Too bad we didn't draft Sinorice. 690734[/snapback] That would have set off the fireworks!
mary owen Posted May 13, 2006 Author Posted May 13, 2006 Let me get this straight... one of the best GMs and talent evaluators in the league, Ernie Acorsi, followed the media's advice to trade down to #32. Hardly true. In actuality, McCargo was one of 5 players they were targeting (all graded at around the same level) and they took the opportunity to move down in the draft and grab an extra 3rd and 4th round pick. Perhaps they weren't able to fill their need -- but as Acorsi puts it in the article, pass rushers are like starting pitchers and power hitters -- you can never have enough of them. That aside, I think taking McCargo was a solid move for the Bills. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/413461p-349591c.html 690714[/snapback] the way I read it, they settled instead after making their move, or in making that move, had no choice but to settle for plan B. If they took McCargo, you would be looking at a DT that could START (given the depth at DT). Now what they are looking at is Coughlin saying scheme-wise he could "get him on the field". Sounds like McCargo was more valuable to them than a DE. McCargo's agent even was quoted as saying they were all but sure that the Giants were moving into the position so they could take McCargo. Also, notice there were no DT's taken after McCargo until the third round. that tells me there was a huge drop-off according to teams "value chart" for DT's.
Dibs Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 That is an excellent article. I think every Bills fan who went "Huh?!?" during the 1st round (which is pretty much all of us) should take the time to read it, minimally for some peace of mind. Even if you disagree with the 'plan', you will clearly see a plan was evident. Another point.... I distinctly recall pre-draft how the depth at the DT position was great & "even if we don't get Ngata or Bunkley we can get a good one in the 2nd or 3rd." The reality of the draft showed that this was not the case. When will we learn to take the pre-draft media analysis with a grain of salt?
Rico Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 the way I read it, they settled instead after making their move, or in making that move, had no choice but to settle for plan B. If they took McCargo, you would be looking at a DT that could START (given the depth at DT). Now what they are looking at is Coughlin saying scheme-wise he could "get him on the field". Sounds like McCargo was more valuable to them than a DE. 690765[/snapback] But Jauron's comments indicate that the Bills view McCargo the same way as the Giants Plan B... he will be in the 2nd wave/rotation backing up Tripplett at 3-tech and also see action paired with Tripplett on pass rush situations... Jauron will "get him on the field". They don't project him as a starter any time soon. McCargo needs to be a home run and rise above being merely a depth player (and sooner than later) to justify burning 2 Day 1 Picks in a solid draft IMO.
Billsguy Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 It's a very long read, but boy did he steal the thoughts out of my head as to what may have occured on draft day. I think (but who am I anyway?) that this guy has a pretty good grasp on Marv and Co's strategy. Here are a couple snips from it. Enjoy. (linky below) It never occurred to them that there might have been a reason why Levy and the Bills decided not to trade down, but to use the # 8 pick to secure Whitner. It never occurred to them that there was a reason why many of the very same “draft gurus” who were criticizing the Bills' pick of Whitner had projected that Michael Huff would be drafted by Detroit with the # 9 pick—the team that would select Bullocks with its pick in the second round. It never occurred to them that Cleveland, a team that had traded safety chhris Crocker, might be interested in selecting the top pure safety in the draft or that Miami might be willing to swap a low round pick to move a couple of spots ahead of Buffalo to take the guy that they reportedly wanted, Whitner, over Jason Allen, a less experienced cornerback/safety. No, the guys at ESPN had told them that the Bills had been offered a nice draft pick to trade down and there were no teams that were going to take Whitner before the Bills did at that lower spot, so it had to be the Gospel Truth! Well, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. According to Mike Holbrook of Pro Football Weekly, it wasn't. Holbrook reported that, contrary to Clayton's reports, the Bills were trying to make a trade that would have allowed them to draft Whitner and acquire additional picks, but that they received word that there were other teams interested in Whitner that might take him before they could if they traded down." Now that may not matter much to the “draft gurus” and “draftniks” who see the NFL draft primarily in terms of “value”—so long as a team gets “value” out of a deal or a pick, it doesn't matter if they don't get the right players for their team at that point or later in the draft, it's all about the value of the picks and the value that the “draft gurus” have assigned to them! If a team takes a player a few spots before he has been projected to be selected, the team that has drafted him is a “loser”. But an NFL GM can't be concerned with whether he is a “loser” in the eyes of the fans, let alone the draft “experts". Mel Kiper couldn't possibly be wrong about the value of a player to a particular team or where some of the teams in the NFL might be prepared to draft a player because he rates players based on what he sees as their overall value at the position and not what system they are best suited to play or the value of that position and player in relation to a particular team's need. But, that's not how the GMs of NFL teams necessarily rate the value of a player to their own team or their team's draft. As it turns out, Kiper was wrong about when McCargo was likely to be selected in this draft. When Bobby Carpenter was drafted by the Cowboys with the # 18 pick in the first round, the N.Y. Giants, who reportedly had still been interested in drafting Carpenter, almost immediately traded down out of the # 25 spot in the draft. That had to signal that, with Carpenter gone, the Giants were now possibly looking to address other positions of need in the draft than linebacker. And, at the top of that list was finding a replacement for the departed Kenderick Clancy at defensive tackle. There had been word in the media in New York that McCargo was a player that they were definitely interested in and there are reports coming out of New York that, indeed, the Giants were going to take McCargo with the pick that they traded to Pittsburgh, but had concluded that they could still get him with the pick that they acquired from the Steelers. What they didn't count on was what was happening at the same time in Buffalo. the rest: http://bills.scout.com/2/526808.html 690593[/snapback] Well that settles it. According to Mike Holbrook of Pro Football Weekly, it wasn't. Holbrook reported that, contrary to Clayton's reports, the Bills were trying to make a trade that would have allowed them to draft Whitner and acquire additional picks, but that they received word that there were other teams interested in Whitner that might take him before they could if they traded down." Mike Holbrook's opinion is gospel truth and all the others are completely wrong. I guess nobody considered that other teams might float some misinformation to confuse other teams regarding their own draft intentions. No way the Bills "braintrust" with Ralph Wilson at the helm would ever be misled or confused.
Dawgg Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 In general: Articles praising and/or justifying Bills moves = excellent Articles questioning Bills moves = crap Well that settles it. According to Mike Holbrook of Pro Football Weekly, it wasn't. Holbrook reported that, contrary to Clayton's reports, the Bills were trying to make a trade that would have allowed them to draft Whitner and acquire additional picks, but that they received word that there were other teams interested in Whitner that might take him before they could if they traded down." Mike Holbrook's opinion is gospel truth and all the others are completely wrong. I guess nobody considered that other teams might float some misinformation to confuse other teams regarding their own draft intentions. No way the Bills "braintrust" with Ralph Wilson at the helm would ever be misled or confused. 691575[/snapback]
Fla Bills Fan Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 But Jauron's comments indicate that the Bills view McCargo the same way as the Giants Plan B... he will be in the 2nd wave/rotation backing up Tripplett at 3-tech and also see action paired with Tripplett on pass rush situations... Jauron will "get him on the field". They don't project him as a starter any time soon. McCargo needs to be a home run and rise above being merely a depth player (and sooner than later) to justify burning 2 Day 1 Picks in a solid draft IMO. 691301[/snapback] The Bills Plan to rotate their D-line players just as the Bucs do. McCargo will see plenty of game time frome game 1 on.
mary owen Posted May 15, 2006 Author Posted May 15, 2006 In general: Articles praising and/or justifying Bills moves = excellent Articles questioning Bills moves = crap 691650[/snapback] you obviously don't know why I thought it was an excellent article. i guess I should explain why: 1st off, it is pretty lenghty and well thought out, as opposed to: Draft Grades: Bills F- They reached twice in round 1. Horrible value. Flunked the Value Test with flying colors. They just don't understand the draft. Value is God. Kiper is Jesus. Secondly, they give a few reasons why the draft day moves (or lack thereof) MAY HAVE been made. Not just that "They blew an opportunity to trade down for more". It gave credit the Marv and Co as they deserve....and that is based on the fact that they've been in the business of football for a long time, not like a journalist has been around football. So the scenarios in the linked article make more sense than just "they reached and don't understand the value board." No one said everything was right on the money. I said it is more in tune as to what I think happened. So, yeah, it's excellent because it points out a more realistic draft day scenario.
Recommended Posts