In defense of the Bills' draft

[Orton's Arm]

I'm not saying I agree with the Bills' draft. Had I been in charge, I'd have placed a far greater emphasis on the offensive line. That said, here's what the Bills may have been thinking with the 2006 draft.

 

The Patriots typically dominate us in many areas, but the most consistent has been their ability to pass the ball at will. The single most deadly aspect of their passing game is their ability to complete passes quickly, before the pass rush could reasonably be expected to do anything. So the secondary was made the #1 priority for the draft. But you need a pass rush too; which is why Triplett and McCargo were added to the team. All this extra talent makes it conceivable the Bills will stop--or at least slow--the Patriots' passing game.

 

The road to an AFC East division title goes through New England. While we won't beat the Patriots this year, we may have taken an important step towards beating them in 2007.

[Estro]

Um... i think miami is the team to beat this year. just my opinion

[34-78-83]

Miami has an aging defense that needs help at both corner and linebacker, as well at one of the safety positions. They also have a very suspect offensive line. They finished 9-7 in a very Mularkey-like season including a meaningless win vs. NE. NE is still the obvious team to beat in the East until they are knocked out of the division title.

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

It's conceivable should Culpepper be healthy Miami could take that next step foward, however culpepepper could just as easily play like he did at the beginning of last year before he got injured, but for the record miami in their 6 game season ending win streak beat the likes of.

 

The 4-12 raider. the 5-11 bills. 9-7 chargers, the 4-12 jets, the 4-12 titans, 10-6 patriots (who were playing with backups) and only won by 2 pts. We're talking about a team who we could've swept if not for a 4th quater meltdown by our coaches. Miami has to do more then beat the pats backups in a meaningless game for ne, and a streaky chargers team before I admit to them being the "team to beat". The AFC east as it stands still belongs to NE.

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

And about this thread, This was pretty much the exact reason why I didn't have a problem with the draft at all. Not just ne but over the last few years it seemed we've been hurt in games by teams that can move the ball through the air in key points of the game. Like the meltdown in the final seconds of the 04 opener against jacksonvile, against the raiders, jets and several other teams. The added emphasis of speed on defense and several db's with ballhawking abilities should help us out in this area. I would've gone defensive heavy anyway as I've been complaining we had bad depth all around considering our aging vets. I might've gone a little more heavy on the dline, but the defense was the major aspect I wanted to see upgraded.

[mary owen]

well, you guys are right about both. Miami and NE are the teams to beat. But it's not their QB's or D. They both have geniuses at the healm. We don't stand a chance. All we went out and got is a graduate of Yale....

[Mikie2times]

I'm not saying I agree with the Bills' draft.  Had I been in charge, I'd have placed a far greater emphasis on the offensive line.  That said, here's what the Bills may have been thinking with the 2006 draft.

 

The Patriots typically dominate us in many areas, but the most consistent has been their ability to pass the ball at will.  The single most deadly aspect of their passing game is their ability to complete passes quickly, before the pass rush could reasonably be expected to do anything.  So the secondary was made the #1 priority for the draft.  But you need a pass rush too; which is why Triplett and McCargo were added to the team.  All this extra talent makes it conceivable the Bills will stop--or at least slow--the Patriots' passing game.

 

The road to an AFC East division title goes through New England.  While we won't beat the Patriots this year, we may have taken an important step towards beating them in 2007.

702825[/snapback]

The gurus examined our draft based on perceived talent of the players, and based on that perceived talent they gave us a horrible grade. The reason we went in the direction we did is because we didn't have the players to run the Cover 2 before the draft. We also have a defensive coach, and as you pointed out New England has the players and system to really hurt a cover 2 look with who we had.

 

Without Whitner and Simpson as prospects we would have nothing past Vincent and Wire as our starters. The cover 2 demands it's saftey's be athletic versatile players that can cover large zone areas. Its main weakness is against teams that can stretch the outside parts of the field with speed and middle area with athletic TE's. That is NE, and Wire and Vincent as a pair would have been disastrous in that role.

 

I don't suspect the offensive line will improve immensely this year, and like many I was disappointed we didn’t do more to improve it. But at the same time major needs were addressed, and hopefully those still upset about our selections will give this regime one more off-season to improve the line.

[Pyrite Gal]

Had I been in charge, I'd have placed a far greater emphasis on the offensive line.

702825[/snapback]

 

I'm not sure at all what this would mean in real life as this draft's results was actually fairly weak in terms of projected OL talent.

 

The 1st rounders picked were:

 

1. D'Brick- a likely first day starter who would clearly get the nod over Gandt, but trading up to draft him would have killed the Bills as it would have resulted not only in the Bills failing to plug holes at SS and DT in the first (or likely from this draft at all as no DTs went until the 3rd round and even the third best S taken by the Fins at 16 may well not start immediately. If we had emphasized OL by trading up we would have likely signed off until the third or maybe even day 2.

 

2. Davin Joseph- A definite reach at #8 so maybe the Bills trade down into the 20s and get him and use these extra resources to still trade our 2nd up to get McCargo but we still have a hole at SS to fill so I'm not sure a strategy makes sense getting him. It still is a question whether this rook beats out Reyes and certainly would not replace Villarial until he likely goes out with a nick later in the season.

 

3. Mangold- I like Melvin Fowler who has done a good job in episodes as an NFL center though he has yet to be asked to play a full season yet to beat out even a talented rookie like Mangold who as a rookie has not even demonstrated he is even an episodically good center yet.

 

After round 1, the players available begin to be dicey as immediate or even first year starters at OL and the pick of a first round talent CB with third round talent experience who really needs another year looks like a great 3rd round pick with our tagging of NC.

 

The Bills did begin to pick some potential development talent on OL so who would you have chosen instead of Butler or some other player?

 

I'm simply not sure what you would done given the real world of the limits of the draft as an OL improvement tool this year?

[LaDairis]

The problem of the Draft was that Whitner, while a very good player, was taken way too high, causing the Bills to "trade up" for McCargo, who is vastly inferior to Bunkley. The reach for Whitner and the "trade up" for McCargo looks like the second mistake was to cover for the first. Rebuilding teams should tend to trade down, not trade up for a Third Round caliber (at best) player in Round 1...

[tennesseeboy]

It was a pretty good draft, particularly in that ML and DJ did what they wanted to do, Strengthen the defense. I think they left the offense out on a limb, but then again, it was going to be out on a limb no matter what. Barring a quantum leap from the offensive line, Willis and Losman(or whoever the qb will be) it will be another year before we are really competitive.

[apuszczalowski]

The problem of the Draft was that Whitner, while a very good player, was taken way too high, causing the Bills to "trade up" for McCargo, who is vastly inferior to Bunkley.  The reach for Whitner and the "trade up" for McCargo looks like the second mistake was to cover for the first.  Rebuilding teams should tend to trade down, not trade up for a Third Round caliber (at best) player in Round 1...

703081[/snapback]

The only reason Whitner was a "Reach" at 8 was because he wasn't rated that high by the "Draft Experts" didn't have him their. He was obviously rated Highly by Buffalo, and according to some reports, rated highly by a few other teams so weither he was a reach or not won't really be known for a couple years until we see how this draft played out.

 

McCargo deal was being planned days before the draft. A couple days before the draft the rumors came out Buffalo was trying to get Chicago's pick in a trade. They wanted McCargo with that pick and had to take him then because the giants were going to take him if they didn't. So if he was a "Third-round caliber player" why were there teams willing to get him with their 1st/early second pick?

[LaDairis]

The only reason Whitner was a "Reach" at 8 was because he wasn't rated that high by the "Draft Experts" didn't have him their. He was obviously rated Highly by Buffalo, and according to some reports, rated highly by a few other teams so weither he was a reach or not won't really be known for a couple years until we see how this draft played out.

 

McCargo deal was being planned days before the draft. A couple days before the draft the rumors came out Buffalo was trying to get Chicago's pick in a trade. They wanted McCargo with that pick and had to take him then because the giants were going to take him if they didn't. So if he was a "Third-round caliber player" why were there teams willing to get him with their 1st/early second pick?

703119[/snapback]

 

 

 

Translation: I am totally clueless about all of this, but I have faith that the "FO knows best" so that is what I just posted...

 

Let the season begin so that light can be shed...

 

not that reality will ever change the "opinions" of those who are "sure" the "FO knows best" ... just like with Big Mike...

[Orton's Arm]

I'm not sure at all what this would mean in real life as this draft's results was actually fairly weak in terms of projected OL talent.

My preference would have been for Mangold over McCargo. Barring that, I would have looked very strongly at offensive linemen in the second and third rounds. Typically you don't get much contribution from your rookies anyway, so the fact you'd have to wait a year to get contributions from those linemen doesn't bother me.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Um... i think miami is the team to beat this year. just my opinion

702827[/snapback]

 

My Dullfanmeter just started flashing and going "whoop ... whoop ... whoop".

[Orton's Arm]

Translation: I am totally clueless about all of this, but I have faith that the "FO knows best" so that is what I just posted...

The point of view you expressed earlier about Whitner and McCargo appears to be intelligent and well thought-out. I just wish you'd expressed it a little more politely, because I don't want this thread to degenerate into a shouting match.

[apuszczalowski]

Oh, I'm sorry, I am completly clueless beause I don't watch ESPN every minute of the day and use what they say as facts.

 

"We didn't have him projected as a 1st round pick so since this team picked him earlier then we thought he is a reach"

 

I must be an idiot since I am willing to see a player develop before calling them a bust because ESPN hasn't told me they are good and I'm just following the team blindfolded. If after a couple seasons Whitner, or McCargo play like Big Mike, I will agree they were busts, or reaches, or not worth the trade up to get. Considering these players have No NFL Experience, it makes their abilities in the NFL kind of hard to judge.

 

Or did you get to watch all of Whitner and McCargo's games last year just like you saw all of Nances games to determine him a bust already?

[Pyrite Gal]

My preference would have been for Mangold over McCargo.  Barring that, I would have looked very strongly at offensive linemen in the second and third rounds.  Typically you don't get much contribution from your rookies anyway, so the fact you'd have to wait a year to get contributions from those linemen doesn't bother me.

703148[/snapback]

 

Okay, I understand a bit better what you were/are thinking.

 

However, this approach raises a couple of questions which seem unaddresed to me if one takes this approach:

 

1. By taking Mangold over McCargo (you still have to trade up your second to get Mangold) leaving you until round 3 to fill the DT hole (left by cutting Adams (not an unreasonable choice if we choose to make it dut to his play style, salary and feistiness with the coaches).

 

If the Bills in essence are left with a choice of whether to concentrate of helping the team stop the run by ging DT or run by going OL. You have state you prefer bolstering the OL, but still what do you do to deal with our run stopping deficits that picking Mangold leaves us.

 

2. The other question is whether Mangold actually does much to improve our run game. I don't think getting him helps us at all immediately and probably not at all this year (and actually not for a long time if JMac does well with his work).

 

I think it is an unproven theory that Fowler can perform consistently as a vet NFL center. However, I think he has demonstrated in the real world that he can produce episodically as he did well subbing for Birk for the Vikes last year. He just did not play at the Pro Bowl recognition levels necessary for the Vikes to pay him starting center money the market gave him in his FA year (Birk is a recent multi-Pro Bowler and a Vikes fixture),

 

The Bills already have paid starting center $ to Fowler and based on his episodically sound play (we will see if this translate into 16 start soundness) I think he easily beats out the rookie Mangold as our center this year if he would took him.

 

The only way I see Mangold helping the line this year is if we move him to another position (actually I think the vet Reyes who started 16 last year for a good Carolina run game but he lost his job to a first day drafted player behind him in his FA year as like Fowler he was not bad, but he and his competition could not both be paid starter $, the Vikes went with vet Birk and Fowler was available anmd Carolina went with the youngster ion their bench and Reyes was available. In addition Villarial beat him out initially and then he duals with the well-regarded Preston for the job when Villarial eventually gets nicked).

 

Our OL needs are to get someone better than the merely adequate Gandy or the unproven Peters and do you think Mangold meets either of these asks?

 

The OL needs help certainly, but I think this team would be nuts to trade up to the 1st to get a player who likely sits on the bench all year waiting for a starter to founder.

 

The Bills instead drafted second day guys Butler and Pennington who I think they plan to develop into the OL depth we need behind the not unreasonable (yet) starting talent they have. Our likely starters are:

 

LT- Adequate at best it appears

LG- OK play if Reyeas makes doable transition from RG

C- OK play of Fowler builds from good episodes to 16 game starter

RG- OK play until age nicks Villarial who is in backside of career

RT- OK play if Peters builds on talent he showed passing MW last year.

 

Our OL problem is that we almost certainly will need some sub somewhere and the only justifiable rookie I see taken in the first day of draft is one who could potentially start at multiple positions when called upon. I simply do not see this player among any potential draftees.

 

Instead what makes football sense to me is that you attempt to get a couple of players on the second day who you think can develop into the more limited role back-ups we need. Butler looks like he might be that type of player at G. I do not know him, but they seem to see Pennington as that player at T.

 

When you add in the competive thought that Preston is actually the potential back-up C if Fowler is nicked or fails, that we are forced by his large bonus to give Anderson a chance to earn a back-up G role, and we have taken a flyer on Gibson to be back-up T, then I see what they are doing.

[krazykat]

I'm not saying I agree with the Bills' draft.  Had I been in charge, I'd have placed a far greater emphasis on the offensive line.  That said, here's what the Bills may have been thinking with the 2006 draft.

 

The Patriots typically dominate us in many areas, but the most consistent has been their ability to pass the ball at will.  The single most deadly aspect of their passing game is their ability to complete passes quickly, before the pass rush could reasonably be expected to do anything.  So the secondary was made the #1 priority for the draft.  But you need a pass rush too; which is why Triplett and McCargo were added to the team.  All this extra talent makes it conceivable the Bills will stop--or at least slow--the Patriots' passing game.

 

The road to an AFC East division title goes through New England.  While we won't beat the Patriots this year, we may have taken an important step towards beating them in 2007.

702825[/snapback]

Right. So now their second-rate RBs will log 175 yard games against us. Good thinking.

[Scraps]

Translation: I am totally clueless about all of this, but I have faith that the "FO knows best" so that is what I just posted...

 

Let the season begin so that light can be shed...

 

not that reality will ever change the "opinions" of those who are "sure" the "FO knows best" ... just like with Big Mike...

703124[/snapback]

 

FO? Is that Vietnamese soup?

[Scraps]

Right.  So now their second-rate RBs will log 175 yard games against us.  Good thinking.

703229[/snapback]

 

Perhaps, but optimistically this is a 3-13 team. Drafting McCargo and Whitner isn't really going to change that. The draft in no way was going to change that. However, by solidifying the offensive line, you give Losman a chance to develop and you will have a better read on whether or not he is the QB of the future. What value is there to delaying his development further and leaving this question lingering?