falling into the trap

[Dibs]

The larger issue is the draft value the Bills gave up by taking Whitner and perhaps McCargo too early.  Had the Bills been a SS and a DT away from the Super Bowl, they would have been justified in being so ridiculously specific about which two positions to draft first.  The only other reasonable justification is if this proves to be a weak draft class in general, with Whitner and McCargo being rare bright spots.  Given that this is unlikely, the Bills made a serious error in the 2006 draft.  Let's just hope it doesn't happen again next year.

720494[/snapback]

 

I just cannot see how so many remain in the value/reach aspect of the draft system when the erroneous nature of it is spelled out time & again.

Let's try this tact.

50% of all #3 picks in the draft are BUSTS.

If a player predicted by all to go #3 were to drop & be taken at say...#10, all would say "what great VALUE that pick was." 50% of the time this would happen, the player would be a total BUST....no value at all.

Similar could be said about all 1st round picks.

IMO if they become BUSTS it does not matter where they are taken...#1 or #32. A BUST is a BUST. By the same token, it does not matter where they are taken if they become ProBowlers. Superstars come from not just every pick in the 1st round but from every round as well as undrafted.

Hindsight is the only way to tell if the Whittner & McCargo draft picks are good picks. Until then, the 'value' of them was #8 & #26.

To think any other way & you would have to say that we should have traded up into the #26 spot(or much higher) to get Winston Justice & traded up into the high 2nd round for Youboty. What great VALUE that would have been.

VALUE is based on our public perceptions of what might happen on draft day.

The only thing re: Whitner that we KNOW is that 7 teams thought he was not as good as at least one other prospect. Anything else is speculation.

[AJ1]

1) Dick Jauron >>> Mike-with-the-looks-and-NFL-smarts-of-Kevin-Costner-Mularkey

2) Perry Fewell > Jerry "I'm-too-tired-to-mentor-'cause-I'm-on-my-way-to-becoming-a Head-Coach-even-though-I-never-learned-enough-to-be-a-Defensive-Coordinator-on-a-team-my-guru-Greg-Williams-wasn't-a-Head-Coach-for" Gray

3) Steve Fairchild >> Tom-benched-from-OC-to-QB-coach-in-mid-season-only-to-return-without-having-learned-a-!@#$ing-thing-Clements

 

Throw out Bennihana Anderson, Trey Teague, Eric Moulds and Mike Williams and allow some players who want to be here to get the practice reps and frankly I think we're better off through those subtractions. That goes double for the no-talent HCs and Coordinators we had here during the TD era.

720394[/snapback]

 

I like your attitude and analysis. Last year, I'm now convinced, Moulds did nothing more than impede the development of a set of more deserving wideouts...players who at least cared about the team as a whole. The tantrum he threw in the Miami was the capstone to a miserable me-me year for him. AMF.

 

We're going to get better by replacing that balless wonder known as Mike Mularkey, if for no other reason.

[BuffOrange]

here I go again!  The more I read the more optimistic I become.  I do think we are headed in the right direction,however, the facts suggest 6 to 8 wins at best.  New coaches,unproven QB, weak linesetc.  Besides, I want to compete for the Bowl not slide into the middle of the pack.  Lets stick to a 2 year plan.  Play the best of the young guys including QB, keep or trade Nate ,and be super aggressive next offseason especially on D.  Be haapy with a hard playing high energy team.  WE are at least 6 really good players away  assuming we keep our young guys and we have a QB on the roster.

718928[/snapback]

 

You know, I was a rose-colored glasses guy in 2000-2003. How could I not be? I grew up during the Super Bowl years in Jr. High. One bad year in '94 everyone wrote them off, '95 they proved everyone wrong winning the division. '96 in the playoffs. Another hiatus in '97, an 0-3 start in '98, back in the playoffs again, and again the year after that. They were the ultimate "F*&^ you media" disrespected team.

Since then, the franchise has just been a disaster. I think the 2003 collapse scarred me for life after we looked like world-beaters the first two weeks. Three years after that? I have no idea how these rosey guys do it, but I admire the blind optimism I guess.

 

Yeah, I'd say a DE, another DT, WR, 2 OLmen away from being a contender. So that's 5 good players not including the QB, which is obviously a huge "if".

[AJ1]

You know, I was a rose-colored glasses guy in 2000-2003.  How could I not be?  I grew up during the Super Bowl years in Jr. High.  One bad year in '94 everyone wrote them off, '95 they proved everyone wrong winning the division.  '96 in the playoffs.  Another hiatus in '97, an 0-3 start in '98, back in the playoffs again, and again the year after that.  They were the ultimate "F*&^ you media" disrespected team.

Since then, the franchise has just been a disaster.  I think the 2003 collapse scarred me for life after we looked like world-beaters the first two weeks.  Three years after that?  I have no idea how these rosey guys do it, but I admire the blind optimism I guess.

 

Yeah, I'd say a DE, another DT, WR, 2 OLmen away from being a contender.  So that's 5 good players not including the QB, which is obviously a huge "if".

720514[/snapback]

 

We won't contend for the playoffs in '06, but you don't have to wear the rose-colored glasses to think they can get to .500. Vegas had them 50 - 50 to get 6.5 wins (whatever that translates to) weeks ago. And that was assuming a disaster at the QB position.

 

A slight improvement at QB and slight improvement on the OL plus a major improvement on the 'D' could, could not will, get us the extra 3 games.

 

Some of you should try taking off the black shades for a few minutes this pre-season.

[Orton's Arm]

I just cannot see how so many remain in the value/reach aspect of the draft system when the erroneous nature of it is spelled out time & again.

Let's try this tact.

50% of all #3 picks in the draft are BUSTS.

There are two separate issues here, which you seem to be dealing with as one:

- Will your picks turn out to be busts?

- Did you leave value on the table for the players you took?

 

Obviously, the first issue strongly outweighs the second. But both are important. Suppose Marv could have gotten a second or third round pick by trading down with Denver, and still have taken Whitner. Obviously, Whitner + a 3rd round pick > Whitner alone. But if Whitner's off the board, how strong is your plan B? I believe a player such as Mangold could easily have been as big a help to the Bills as Whitner. So if you have to implement Plan B, you'll still be okay.

[BuffOrange]

We won't contend for the playoffs in '06, but you don't have to wear the rose-colored glasses to think they can get to .500.  Vegas had them 50 - 50 to get 6.5 wins (whatever that translates to)  weeks ago.  And that was assuming a disaster at the QB position.

 

A slight improvement at QB and slight improvement on the OL plus a major improvement on the 'D' could, could not will, get us the extra 3 games.

 

Some of you should try taking off the black shades for a few minutes this pre-season.

720517[/snapback]

 

I just took a peak at the schedule. You might be right - 8-8 isn't an impossibility. It is at the top of the "everything has to go right" scale though. They have to win almost 100% of their "coinflip" games - @Detroit, @Houston, Minnesota, GB, etc.

I'm a little surprised that the O/U is 6.5. The only games we'd be favored in right now IMO are the Titans, Jets, and Packers at home. Don't think we can be a road favorite vs. anyone. FWIW I do think we'll win more than 3; games like Jax & Miami at home are winnable.

[Pyrite Gal]

There are two separate issues here, which you seem to be dealing with as one:

Suppose Marv could have gotten a second or third round pick by trading down with Denver, and still have taken Whitner.  Obviously, Whitner + a 3rd round pick > Whitner alone.  But if Whitner's off the board, how strong is your plan B?  I believe a player such as Mangold could easily have been as big a help to the Bills as Whitner.  So if you have to implement Plan B, you'll still be okay.

720535[/snapback]

 

 

Yeah OK, but also suppose that the Bills had traded down with Denver to #15 but then Miami which was obviously in the market for a safety traded up #11, 12, 13 (all picks which were traded at some point) and they took Whitmer. We end up taking the 3rd best safety Allen who is recovering from a serious injury and is not likely to start or contribute immediately as Whitmer is expected to do.

 

If you do not believe in that suppose (though this suppose strikes me as at least as likely if not more likely than your suppose), the how about if us having trded down leave Whitmer on the board where #9 pick Detroit was thought by many to be looking at Huff. Perhaps they do the same reach the Bills did and take Whitmer.

 

An even worse possibility is that Whitmer goes to someone else like Detroit at #9 and Miami seeing 2 safties gone and the Bills now trained in on Allen jump ahead of us and we are left with the 4th safety taken as our choice.

 

Maybe you do not mind this as you figure that we are gonna be bad this year anyway so developing the 4th safety is going to be a longer-term miission just as developing the OL from your draft choices is gonna be a longer term effort.

 

I think the primary difference between the thinking and goals reflected in your post and the likely thinking and goals of Marv under orders from Ralph is that they have no interest in a plan that will pay off with a competitive team in 2009. 08. or even 07.

 

The Golden Boys know life is not guaranteed for 07 for them and as business men whose team has missed the playoffs every year under their old GM, their goal is to win and compete now.

 

They would be fools to expect that this team will make the playoffs this year, but as Marv said in his book, any HC who is preparing the team to win in a few years is simply preparing things for the next HC.

 

I simply do not think that the Bills after cutting Adams and Milloy were going to do anything in this draft but get two players who they believed would it is to be hoped start at SS and DT (or at least contribute in a big way to the DL rotation) immediately.

 

The thought of a 3 or 2 year plan for rebuilding the OL was wholely rejected by them. The notion of losing while developing players this year so that going 1-15 they would then have a shot at Brady Quinn who like most 1st rounders not name Roethlesberger is going to need another couple of years of training before he pays off would likely be insane from their perspective.

[Scraps]

I just cannot see how so many remain in the value/reach aspect of the draft system when the erroneous nature of it is spelled out time & again.

Let's try this tact.

50% of all #3 picks in the draft are BUSTS.

If a player predicted by all to go #3 were to drop & be taken at say...#10, all would say "what great VALUE that pick was."  50% of the time this would happen, the player would be a total BUST....no value at all.

Similar could be said about all 1st round picks.

IMO if they become BUSTS it does not matter where they are taken...#1 or #32.  A BUST is a BUST.  By the same token, it does not matter where they are taken if they become ProBowlers.  Superstars come from not just every pick in the 1st round but from every round as well as undrafted.

Hindsight is the only way to tell if the Whittner & McCargo draft picks are good picks.  Until then, the 'value' of them was #8 & #26.

To think any other way & you would have to say that we should have traded up into the #26 spot(or much higher) to get Winston Justice & traded up into the high 2nd round for Youboty.  What great VALUE that would have been.

VALUE is based on our public perceptions of what might happen on draft day.

The only thing re: Whitner that we KNOW is that 7 teams thought he was not as good as at least one other prospect.  Anything else is speculation.

720511[/snapback]

 

 

Do you have any statistics to back up your claims of 50% of all #3 picks being busts? It's been some years since I've seen it but at one time someone posted an analysis that showed the higher someone was picked, the more likely it was that they would be all Pros.

 

I am not likely to buy into the concept of drafting for need because such drafts have landed us the likes of Taveres Tillman, Eric Flowers and Mike Williams.

 

This team had holes and needs just about everywhere except punter. It could have drafted the best player available and it still likely would have filled a need.

[Dibs]

There are two separate issues here, which you seem to be dealing with as one:

- Will your picks turn out to be busts?

- Did you leave value on the table for the players you took?

 

Obviously, the first issue strongly outweighs the second.  But both are important.  Suppose Marv could have gotten a second or third round pick by trading down with Denver, and still have taken Whitner.  Obviously, Whitner + a 3rd round pick > Whitner alone.  But if Whitner's off the board, how strong is your plan B?  I believe a player such as Mangold could easily have been as big a help to the Bills as Whitner.  So if you have to implement Plan B, you'll still be okay.

720535[/snapback]

 

I understand the argument. It is just that it makes no logical sense.

My point is simple.

Reach or Value is based upon what we(each individual) think. We base that opinion on what the media tells us(unless the person is so knowledgeable they can do their own scouting).

When a player is taken before the consensus, he is called a reach.

When a player is taken after the consensus, he is called good value.

The consensus is not always right.

The 32 NFL teams do not follow the consensus they follow their own scouting reports & their own analysis of the other 31 teams.

 

I hate to sound like LaDarius but in this situation he would be correct. Parroting the media experts is no basis for knocking the decisions of a club on draft day.

The problem really becomes....we will never know if a trade down would have had a better end result.

If you agree that we will never truly know....

& you agree that your 'knowledge' of the draft prospects is based on the media

(the same media that got Winston Justice so very, very wrong)...

Then you cannot possibly believe that Marv stuffed up......just that he might have stuffed up(which is always the case anyway).

[Mikie2times]

I understand the argument.  It is just that it makes no logical sense.

My point is simple.

Reach or Value is based upon what we(each individual) think.  We base that opinion on what the media tells us(unless the person is so knowledgeable they can do their own scouting).

When a player is taken before the consensus, he is called a reach.

When a player is taken after the consensus, he is called good value.

The consensus is not always right.

The 32 NFL teams do not follow the consensus they follow their own scouting reports & their own analysis of the other 31 teams.

 

I hate to sound like LaDarius but in this situation he would be correct.  Parroting the media experts is no basis for knocking the decisions of a club on draft day.

The problem really becomes....we will never know if a trade down would have had a better end result.

If you agree that we will never truly know....

& you agree that your 'knowledge' of the draft prospects is based on the media

(the same media that got Winston Justice so very, very wrong)...

Then you cannot possibly believe that Marv stuffed up......just that he might have stuffed up(which is always the case anyway).

720555[/snapback]

You’re correct in assuming Whitner’s true value is an unknown, as you pointed out he could be a great player, making the selection justified.But as of now we know the majority of teams in this league find safeties drafted in round 2 or later . We also know we could be an average team this year. Regardless of how Whitner turns out we have every right to question why the Bills would paint themselves in a corner by making Whitner so indispensable.

 

We were forced to draft Whitner because Jauron decided to play the Cover 2 and he was the only guy who could fill a gaping hole on this team. In the midst of what could be a rebuilding year this urgency probably took us out of any trade considerations. Even if Whitner does work out I hope Marv and Jauron give us a little more freedom to work with next draft.

[Dibs]

You’re correct in assuming Whitner’s true value is an unknown, as you pointed out he could be a great player, making the selection justified.But as of now we know the majority of teams in this league find safeties drafted in round 2 or later .  We also know we could be an average team this year. Regardless of how Whitner turns out we have every right to question why the Bills would paint themselves in a corner by making Whitner so indispensable.

 

We were forced to draft Whitner because Jauron decided to play the Cover 2 and he was the only guy who could fill a gaping hole on this team.  In the midst of what could be a rebuilding year this urgency probably took us out of any trade considerations.  Even if Whitner does work out I hope Marv and Jauron give us a little more freedom to work with next draft.

720560[/snapback]

Nice article in PFW preview 2006 about safeties....obviously I can't give the whole thing but...

Article starts....

This, clearly, is not your grandfather's NFL. Nor, for thta matter does it all that closely resemble your father's NFL, either. Certainly not with the way safeties are acting all crazy, running from place to place before the snap, blitzing the quarterback, covering wide receivers, intercepting passes, and dragging bid bruising running backs to the turf like a leopard on a deer. Things have changed.......

You get the idea.

The fact that there were 3 safeties taken in the first round this year with 2 being selected in the top 8 helps support this & the concept that better atheletes are playing safety at a collegiate level.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. You say..."But as of now we know the majority of teams in this league find safeties...". That is exactly what I'm talking about. Do we expect Marv & co. to make their decisions based on what usually is done?....peer pressure? 'Value' picks based on what others think rather than what they have planned? I don't get it. Are they being employed to do what others think?

[ganesh]

I respectfully disagree.  The coaching staff looks stronger than it did last year.  Jauron has respect from players and coaches around the league.  I believe this staff will get the most out of the talent on the roster -- the key question in my mind is how much talent exists.

720382[/snapback]

 

Also, One big difference that doesn't show up all the time is:

 

This years coachings staff is completely new and assembled by the GM and the HC.

 

Last year, MM inherited his DC from the previous regime and many other coaches...and of all his decisions to keep or let go people from the GW staff, he let go our former strength and conditioning coach.....

[ganesh]

I am not likely to buy into the concept of drafting for need because such drafts have landed us the likes of Taveres Tillman, Eric Flowers and Mike Williams.

 

This team had holes and needs just about everywhere except punter.  It could have drafted the best player available and it still likely would have filled a need.

720549[/snapback]

 

At the same time the same team picked players like Reuben Brown, Winfield,

Clements for needs and succeeded......Again, the bottom line is the draft is

a crapshoot...you win 50....you lose 50......

 

Considering what was available at #12 through #15, we would have reached

for another player who would have been drafted in the 15 to 25 range.....and

everyone would be snarling that we reached for a player again....

[Bill from NYC]

  Do we expect Marv & co. to make their decisions based on what usually is done?....peer pressure?  'Value' picks based on what others think rather than what they have planned?  I don't get it.  Are they being employed to do what others think?

720563[/snapback]

 

Those are valid questions, and I certainly don't pretend to have all of the answers.

 

The thing is, conventional standards are often in place for valid reasons. For example:

 

Selecting MW, a fat RT, with the #4 draft selection went against the grain. As you can see, many superior players were passed on, including 2 LTs, a fine DT and a great DE. This was an uncoventional move that quickly went south.

 

It is true that teams are taking safeties earlier as of late, but this does not mean that our entire draft should not be subject to any raised eyebrows from fans or the media, due to not trading down, giving up a pick to in fact trade down, taking 300 defensive backs, etc.

 

The above is not to say that the 06 Bills draft is doomed to automatic failure. Once the draft is over, all that is left is to watch the players perform.

It only tells me that our management used very odd tactics in the 06 draft wrt rebuilding a football team by most rational standards, thus the questions/criticism.

[Bill from NYC]

At the same time the same team picked players like Reuben Brown, Winfield,

Clements for needs and succeeded......Again, the bottom line is the draft is

a crapshoot...you win 50....you lose 50......

 

Considering what was available at #12 through #15, we would have reached

for another player who would have been drafted in the 15 to 25 range.....and

everyone would be snarling that we reached for a player again....

720592[/snapback]

 

Everyone except me.

 

The 06 drat of the Tampa Bay Bucs looks like it would have gone a long way toward metting the needs of the Bills, and look where THEY picked.

[Dibs]

Those are valid questions, and I certainly don't pretend to have all of the answers.

 

The thing is, conventional standards are often in place for valid reasons. For example:

 

Selecting MW, a fat RT, with the #4 draft selection went against the grain. As you can see, many superior players were passed on, including 2 LTs, a fine DT and a great DE. This was an uncoventional move that quickly went south.

 

It is true that teams are taking safeties earlier as of late, but this does not mean that our entire draft should not be subject to any raised eyebrows from fans or the media, due to not trading down, giving up a pick to in fact trade down, taking 300 defensive backs, etc.

 

The above is not to say that the 06 Bills draft is doomed to automatic failure. Once the draft is over, all that is left is to watch the players perform.

It only tells me that our management used a very odd tactic in the 06 draft wrt rebuilding a football team by most rational standards, thus the questions/criticism.

720597[/snapback]

I don't mind the questions.....it is just when people criticize I feel on this topic we don't have a right. We can criticize when things do not pan out ala TDs drafts but until it is proven to be bad, we might just be criticizing unconventional brilliance or even the start of a new trend. We just do not know & can only base our 'wisdom' on the 'experts' analysis & tradition.

 

Wasn't the MW pick at #4 generally perceived as a good pick at the time?

[Bill from NYC]

Wasn't the MW pick at #4 generally perceived as a good pick at the time?

720605[/snapback]

 

Some people still try to excuse it. You see, our OL was SO bad for SO long that it virtually had to be perceived as a good pick by almost any Bills Fan.

 

My point is that RTs simply do not go that early as a rule, and there are reasons for this. Could a RT be worthy of the #4 selection? Sure, if he played like Erik Williams or Bob Brown.

Imo, it is a similar situation (though apparently changing) wrt safeties.

[Pyrite Gal]

We were forced to draft Whitner because Jauron decided to play the Cover 2 and he was the only guy who could fill a gaping hole on this team. 

720560[/snapback]

 

Actually, we were FORCED to draft Whitmer at #8 note merely due to the Cover 2 switch but because of an event which flows against the coventional wisdom of drafting safteties low.

 

If folks are freaked because the Bills drafted a safety at #8, then they should really be freaked that Oakland drafted a safety as # SEVEN (when they took Huff). If folks are so committed to the CW that one does not take a safety early in the draft, then they should be complaining most bitterly about this turn of events. It was this move which likely committed the Bills to taking Whitmer when they judged him to be available if they felt their were but two safties who could fill the gap left by the Milloy cut. When Huff went off the board, it then was merely a question of when do they judge that the other safetie would be gone and how risk averse are they about playing with fire that they might be stuck with the third safety choice 9Allen) if Whitmer got nabbed.

 

I think events indicate it was likely a good move getting Whitmer while the getting was possible.

 

A. Rumor had it that Detroit at #9 had its eye on Huff (if true and who knows as a big part of the draft is misdirection on your needs and desires), but clearly the Bills would be running some risk that they are gonna end up with the third safety chosen potentially if the trade down.

B. As Miami took Allen at #16, it seems quite doubtful that Whitmer would have lasted past this pick (even if Detroit always had their eye on Sims and was just misdirecting folks regarding Huff.

 

I mean think about it, the alternative scenario for a trade down which still allows for picking Whitmer banks a lot on some very specific things happening.

 

A. We can cut a deal with the Broncos giving us #15 and in exchange for this get exactly the draft value described (maybe but maybe not as a deal takes two partners and we are putting the Broncs in the drivers seat for determining whether this deal happens or not_.

B. Detroit ha no interest in Whitmer once Huff is gone.

C. Miami does not trade up above us to get Whitmer after we trade down.

 

All of these wishes may come true and if so we then probably get Whitmer at #15. However, if any one of these things does not come true we do not get Whitmer and today we are probably hearing from the braintrust about how Allen's injury really looks healed.

 

The worse case is also quite possible with this proposed deal and all three bad things happen in which case we are likely looking at the 4th best safety as our pick.

 

You are on the right analytical track by pointing to the need we had to reinforce ourselves at safety which is the real driver on this being a need pick by us. However, blaming this on a Jauron switch to the Cover 2 as the reason for this issue ignores a certain set of realities.

 

A. We likely have the same SS need without a switch to Cover 2- Milloy was pretty close to done anyway and actually is probably even more done without switching to Cover 2. His effectiveness appeared to be reduced last year due to a wrist injury which made wrapping up and tackling tougher for him to do. If we stuck with the zone blitz, this would be the primary duty of the SS and I doubt he would have survived long doing this.

 

B. Even if one believed in Milloy as a player, his contract already paid him a bit more than he was worth as we needed to pay through the nose for him when he suddenly became available because Belicheck mis-read re-signing him. It likely made sense to cut him anyway. If done, then you have even more tackling pressure on the SS and you are depending on Coy Wire and Bowens to do this for you unless you get an SS in the first.

 

 

Basically, it seems odd to argue that the Bills broke some well understood rule of safties go later in the draft when they were not the first team to pick a safety in this draft and the next one was taken a handful of picks later.

 

It also seems off to blame the Cover 2 switch for this need when if we had not switched the same need would still be there and actually might be even more intense if we were sticking with our old scheme

[Scraps]

At the same time the same team picked players like Reuben Brown, Winfield,

Clements for needs and succeeded......Again, the bottom line is the draft is

a crapshoot...you win 50....you lose 50......

 

Considering what was available at #12 through #15, we would have reached

for another player who would have been drafted in the 15 to 25 range.....and

everyone would be snarling that we reached for a player again....

720592[/snapback]

 

I don't recall people saying Brown, Winfield or Clements were reaches when they were drafted. Didn't they pretty much go about where they were supposed to go in those drafts?

[Orton's Arm]

we are left with the 4th safety taken as our choice.

Say the Bills traded down to #15 overall, and as you suggest three safeties were taken at that point. Why on earth should the Bills reach for the #4 safety there? They'd be much better off taking a player like Mangold, while hoping a Ko Simpson-type player falls to them in the later rounds. If the Bills were dead set on taking a safety with their very first pick, I'll admit that trading down creates the enormous risk you describe. But if they're willing to actually draft a player at some other position--as they should be--then this flexibility makes a trade down much more viable.