SnakeOiler Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 My reason for saying is that many good safeties are found in the mid to late round of the draft. Rodney Harrison was a fifth round pick, John Lynch was a third round pick. The point being that someone with equal talent to Whitner could have been found later. 726768[/snapback] You can say that about any position....go ahead and pick one. QB? 8th is way to high for a QB. Tom Brady was taken in the 6th round. Trent Green, Dellhomme, Mark Brunnel, Bulger, Matt Hasselbach....all second day draft picks.
billsfan182 Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 i agree i think #8 was a little to high, but we wanted this guy and didnt want to see him get snagged by another team so we took are chances on him at 8. But although i thought he went a little high i understood why we took him, and also i really think he is going to be great for us. he was awsome in colledge although that doesnt mean he will do the same in NFL so who knows? only time will tell, but i really like this guy
bluenews Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 My main problem with the Whitner pick is that I think that #8 is too high to pick a safety. I would say that even if Whitner ends up being a very solid player that Marv is not vindicated. My reason for saying is that many good safeties are found in the mid to late round of the draft. Rodney Harrison was a fifth round pick, John Lynch was a third round pick. The point being that someone with equal talent to Whitner could have been found later. I would say Whitner will have to be voted all pro a few times in his career and be in several Pro Bowls for Marv to be vindicated just because of where he selected Whitner. I think Whitner will have to be the type of player offensive coordinators fear. It would be just like this if Marv drafted a guard or a pure full-back at #8. I know Sean Taylor and Roy Willliams were drafted around the same place as Whitner; however Whitner does not possess the same size as those two players. I think you grade Williams and Taylor higher if the talent is equal to Whitner based on the size. Please Someone convince me this was a good pick. I liked what Coy Wire said in the Real Football 360 interview about the type of players Marv has been bringing in. 726768[/snapback] I am unable to address your specific concerns regarding the drafting of S Whitner #8 this past spring. All I can say is I'm glad Malarkey and Donahue are no longer in decision making position with the organization. I am looking forward to the Marv and Dick show this fall.
Dawgg Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 You are right. Antoine Winfield-level production would not be enough to justify this pick. Whitner has to be a perennial all-pro caliber player to justify taking the second safety off the board that high. Time will tell. My main problem with the Whitner pick is that I think that #8 is too high to pick a safety. I would say that even if Whitner ends up being a very solid player that Marv is not vindicated. My reason for saying is that many good safeties are found in the mid to late round of the draft. Rodney Harrison was a fifth round pick, John Lynch was a third round pick. The point being that someone with equal talent to Whitner could have been found later. I would say Whitner will have to be voted all pro a few times in his career and be in several Pro Bowls for Marv to be vindicated just because of where he selected Whitner. I think Whitner will have to be the type of player offensive coordinators fear. It would be just like this if Marv drafted a guard or a pure full-back at #8. I know Sean Taylor and Roy Willliams were drafted around the same place as Whitner; however Whitner does not possess the same size as those two players. I think you grade Williams and Taylor higher if the talent is equal to Whitner based on the size. Please Someone convince me this was a good pick. I liked what Coy Wire said in the Real Football 360 interview about the type of players Marv has been bringing in. 726768[/snapback]
todd Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 I'll convince you. We don't have the luxury at this point of selecting the "best player available". We have needs that can't be addressed in FA only. We have to get better quickly, and therefore must draft for need. Safety was a need in the new Tampa 2 style. If we didn't draft one with our early pick, we would have been SoL. I don't give a crap whether our pick was #8 or #18, we had needs to be filled and had little choice about it. My main problem with the Whitner pick is that I think that #8 is too high to pick a safety. I would say that even if Whitner ends up being a very solid player that Marv is not vindicated. My reason for saying is that many good safeties are found in the mid to late round of the draft. Rodney Harrison was a fifth round pick, John Lynch was a third round pick. The point being that someone with equal talent to Whitner could have been found later. I would say Whitner will have to be voted all pro a few times in his career and be in several Pro Bowls for Marv to be vindicated just because of where he selected Whitner. I think Whitner will have to be the type of player offensive coordinators fear. It would be just like this if Marv drafted a guard or a pure full-back at #8. I know Sean Taylor and Roy Willliams were drafted around the same place as Whitner; however Whitner does not possess the same size as those two players. I think you grade Williams and Taylor higher if the talent is equal to Whitner based on the size. Please Someone convince me this was a good pick. I liked what Coy Wire said in the Real Football 360 interview about the type of players Marv has been bringing in. 726768[/snapback]
SchobelForcedFumble Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 I dont know why anyone has to sell you on this pick.. You dont like it who cares. I guess thats why you are not an NFL GM
drnykterstein Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 Here's how a comfort myself on the Whitner/McCargo picks: "Marv knows what he's doing" "Please Marv, know what you are doing" "Marv was not along in that room, there were 5-7 other football Guru's in there" "Marv is not senile" "The Bills are not out to get us, they want to win" "Marv you seem smart, you know what you are doing" "TD always made 'good picks'"
Max997 Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 All Marv Levy is guilty of is making Kiper look stupid for not knowing the Bills needs better. That's all. PTR 726783[/snapback] thats the point though, when you draft for a need you end up reaching
stuckincincy Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 I'll convince you. We don't have the luxury at this point of selecting the "best player available". We have needs that can't be addressed in FA only. We have to get better quickly, and therefore must draft for need. Safety was a need in the new Tampa 2 style. If we didn't draft one with our early pick, we would have been SoL. I don't give a crap whether our pick was #8 or #18, we had needs to be filled and had little choice about it. 726928[/snapback] I couldn't agree more. With rule changes continuing to favor receivers, safeties have become a pretty hot commodity.
Fewell733 Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 thats the point though, when you draft for a need you end up reaching 726946[/snapback] The real point is that there is no such thing as reaching. You take the player that you believe will best help your team. That is the whole point of the draft. I still haven't heard what exactly wouldn't be considered a reach. A 2nd rd caliber tackle like W. Justice? Brodrick Bunkley, so far only a one year wonder and workout warrior? Is it that you wanted a DT in the first round? What is it that you people wanted at #8?
syhuang Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 thats the point though, when you draft for a need you end up reaching 726946[/snapback] Reach and steal are the words used by media when the mocks drafts are very different to the real draft. These are to save media people face and to pretend they know more than the real NFL GMs and coaches.
Pyrite Gal Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 Regarding the conventional wisdom that you do not take a safety in the top 10, or afirst rounder, not only was Whitmer not even the first safety taken as Huff went a pick earlier, but our good friends the Dolfelons took the third SS taken in the round at #16. If three NFL teams are bucking the conventional wisdom in the first 16 picks then I I think it is just as reasonable to question the CW rather than to require convincing that Whitmer was worth the pick merely cause he is a safety. In fact, I think that the Bills made this "reach" specifically because they were worried that DET who had the #9 right after us were rumored to be interested in Huff. If their attention turned to Whitmer then we would have had to consider taking the recovering from injury Allen if one wanted an SS in this draft. The theory has been offered that the Bills could have traded down to #12 or so and then gone after Whitmer who still would have been a reach at that pick. However, if DET as rumored went for Whitmer at #9 since Huff was gone this trade may well have left us without not only one of these two for SS but subjected us to the risk that Bunkley or Ngata would be gome and the Bills may have been left wth doing a reach for Allen at #12 or really reaching for McCargo. Even worse, by moving down closer to the Fins pick at #16 we now run the risk that if DET goes Whitmer, they try to jump above us an get Allen leaving us with the 4th safety Bullocak as the man we hopes saves us from Coy Wire. I think that assuming that need makes any difference to one, then once Oak took Huff the Whitmer pick was the thing to do unless you want to subject yourself to the morass of possibilities above. Regarding the choice between BAP and Need, the real world answer is both. In essence need is off the table after the first round anyway because it is hard to plan on any 2nd round or lower choice starting iimmediately. One might like BAP, but even if this is football logical, the Bills and all franchises are businesses also. Selling hope is a big part of selling season tickets. Fir the Bills not to address needs which in essence are vacuums at starting positions is not even a half reasonable business strategy.
udonkey Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 Regarding the conventional wisdom that you do not take a safety in the top 10, or afirst rounder, not only was Whitmer not even the first safety taken as Huff went a pick earlier, but our good friends the Dolfelons took the third SS taken in the round at #16. If three NFL teams are bucking the conventional wisdom in the first 16 picks then I I think it is just as reasonable to question the CW rather than to require convincing that Whitmer was worth the pick merely cause he is a safety. In fact, I think that the Bills made this "reach" specifically because they were worried that DET who had the #9 right after us were rumored to be interested in Huff. If their attention turned to Whitmer then we would have had to consider taking the recovering from injury Allen if one wanted an SS in this draft. The theory has been offered that the Bills could have traded down to #12 or so and then gone after Whitmer who still would have been a reach at that pick. However, if DET as rumored went for Whitmer at #9 since Huff was gone this trade may well have left us without not only one of these two for SS but subjected us to the risk that Bunkley or Ngata would be gome and the Bills may have been left wth doing a reach for Allen at #12 or really reaching for McCargo. Even worse, by moving down closer to the Fins pick at #16 we now run the risk that if DET goes Whitmer, they try to jump above us an get Allen leaving us with the 4th safety Bullocak as the man we hopes saves us from Coy Wire. I think that assuming that need makes any difference to one, then once Oak took Huff the Whitmer pick was the thing to do unless you want to subject yourself to the morass of possibilities above. Regarding the choice between BAP and Need, the real world answer is both. In essence need is off the table after the first round anyway because it is hard to plan on any 2nd round or lower choice starting iimmediately. One might like BAP, but even if this is football logical, the Bills and all franchises are businesses also. Selling hope is a big part of selling season tickets. Fir the Bills not to address needs which in essence are vacuums at starting positions is not even a half reasonable business strategy. 726979[/snapback] I'm wondering if FFS got a sex change....?
ganesh Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 The real point is that there is no such thing as reaching. You take the player that you believe will best help your team. That is the whole point of the draft. I still haven't heard what exactly wouldn't be considered a reach. A 2nd rd caliber tackle like W. Justice? Brodrick Bunkley, so far only a one year wonder and workout warrior? Is it that you wanted a DT in the first round? What is it that you people wanted at #8? 726958[/snapback] I am firmly in support of the Whitner pick as it was a need pick and I am really happy that we took him at #8 without taking any chances...While some folks at ESPN might have bitched that the 80 year old man did not know what he was talking.....the real nuisance was that Denver offered their 2nd rounder to move to the 13th or 14th spot (I can't remember).....The bills could have gambled that Whitner might be there at that spot and gained a extra 2nd rounder.... However, considering what they could have had at the 14th pick, if Whitner was not available, made them go for it at the #8 pick....
Ramius Posted July 21, 2006 Posted July 21, 2006 What is it that you people wanted at #8? 726958[/snapback] They all wanted anyone taken with the top 7 picks.
Bill from NYC Posted July 22, 2006 Posted July 22, 2006 How is #8 too high for a safety. Roy Williams was drafted at 8 and he is one of the anchors of the Cowboy's defense. 726830[/snapback] Historically, safeties go late. Things have changed as of the last few years, but to take the 2nd most coveted safety in a draft at #8 was SO bizarre that Whitner himself was said to be surprised. The Bills are a team with soft lines and holes up and down both offense and defense. They were said to have been offered additional picks for the #8. Instead, they used it on a small, 2nd ranked safety, gave up a nice pick to grab a DT, and proceeded to draft what? You guessed it, more defensive backs. This might tun out well because anything can happen, however slight the odds. That said, imo this draft is a prime example of idiocy and at worst, senility. I don't blame the media at all for the low ranking they give us. Check out the draft of this team. They picked 23rd. Their draft looks far more suited to our needs than our selections, especially considering that we threw away a much needed first day pick. I am fully aware that their picks could all be busts, but at least they seemed to have sane priorities. Just the opinion of an old football purist.
NorthWesternBill Posted July 22, 2006 Posted July 22, 2006 My main problem with the Whitner pick is that I think that #8 is too high to pick a safety. I would say that even if Whitner ends up being a very solid player that Marv is not vindicated. My reason for saying is that many good safeties are found in the mid to late round of the draft. Rodney Harrison was a fifth round pick, John Lynch was a third round pick. The point being that someone with equal talent to Whitner could have been found later. 726768[/snapback] So was huff taken too early as well? what are you saying? Even if he ends up a very good player marv is not vindicated>? Marv does not need to be vindicated in the first place. How has he done this team wrong to the point of payback,? "vindiction", HA! thats funny we havent even played a game or so much as had one day of training camp and you feel there is payback to be had. Anyway besides that your argument that rodney harrison and john lynch were found in later rounds, well you could say that same thing about any and every position in this game. At the same time, more than likely the majority of "good" safties are drafted in earlier rounds. And don't assume it is a fact that somebody with equal talent could have been found later in the draft, there is NO way to know that at this point.
NorthWesternBill Posted July 22, 2006 Posted July 22, 2006 Reach and steal are the words used by media when the mocks drafts are very different to the real draft. These are to save media people face and to pretend they know more than the real NFL GMs and coaches. 726978[/snapback] This statment has no less than 85% solid undeniable truth to it.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 22, 2006 Posted July 22, 2006 The Bills had Whitner as the top-rated safety on their board (yes, higher than Huff) and found/figured out that the Rams (who lost Archuleta prior to the draft) WERE going to take him at #11. When the Bills took him, the Rams traded down with Denver. Whether he proves to be a bust is one thing, but he wasn't a reach, per se.
Nanker Posted July 22, 2006 Posted July 22, 2006 I couldn't agree more. With rule changes continuing to favor receivers, safeties have become a pretty hot commodity. 726956[/snapback] And maybe, just maybe, Marv is ahead of the curve on this. He could be totally off base, but on the other hand, he does have more experience on the sideline than I do. So, it's it possible that he understands the importance of having a Safety like a Steve Atwater playing like a rattlesnake in the secondary. It could work out. Then again, it could blow up in his face. What's the percentage? You tell me. But he wanted a Banger there and thinks he got one. Remember, he had a real hard time getting to the big dance until he got Leonard Smith. I'll wait till the jury comes back. Frankly, I think it'll be fun watching.
Recommended Posts