Convince me Whitner was a good pick

[Bill from NYC]

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.

727018[/snapback]

 

Even if Whitner was not a reach (for the sake of this discussion), are you happy that the Bills traded away a 1st day pick and drafted 2 defensive backs with their next 3 picks?

Given our needs, does this really make sense to you?

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Even if Whitner was not a reach (for the sake of this discussion), are you happy that the Bills traded away a 1st day pick and drafted 2 defensive backs with their next 3 picks?

Given our needs, does this really make sense to you?

I don't know. Time will tell.

[Ramius]

Even if Whitner was not a reach (for the sake of this discussion), are you happy that the Bills traded away a 1st day pick and drafted 2 defensive backs with their next 3 picks?

Given our needs, does this really make sense to you?

727020[/snapback]

 

Seeing how we needed a SS, and by next season will need a CB and an FS, then yes this does make sense.

 

Signing reyes and fowler added players that will perform at the very least at the same level of some rookie o-lineman, if not much better.

[Chilly]

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. 

727014[/snapback]

 

Davin Joseph sucks. Glad we didn't pick him.

 

Youboty > Zemaitis

I also wouldn't have been happy with Stovall. A WR here too, no DT.

 

I don't know much about Trueblood though.

 

All in all I like the Bills draft better.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

With the draft selections and pre-draft FA signings, I think the only position they could have addressed earlier was LB'er. I think they did it the right way, but as I said, I don't know and time will tell.

[Bill from NYC]

Signing reyes and fowler added players that will perform at the very least at the same level of some rookie o-lineman, if not much better.

727029[/snapback]

 

You might be right, but our history looks pretty bad wrt castoffs, and lower tier free agents on the OL.

I was thinking that at some point, we might want to allocate early draft resources to blockers who are not fat right tackles. This is what makes teams winners.

Seattle and Pitt are good examples.

 

Please, look at our 1st day picks for the last several years, then look at our record.

[Ramius]

You might be right, but our history looks pretty bad wrt castoffs, and lower tier free agents on the OL.

I was thinking that at some point, we might want to allocate early draft resources to blockers who are not fat right tackles. This is what makes teams winners.

Seattle and Pitt are good examples.

 

Please, look at our 1st day picks for the last several years, then look at our record.

727032[/snapback]

 

I agree that our history picking up FA linemen has been spotty at best, and sooner or later it would be prudent to get a few early round draft picks in.

 

But, its not fair to lump marv with TD. TD's strategy didnt work. Marv has had 1 draft. He needs some time to show what he can do. (and dont say marv will draft a CB in round 1 next year, just because the Bills did so under him and polian in the 90's) Back then, we needed the CB's, and he made solid draft choices at those positions. Plus, youboty was drafted this year to replace clements if clements walks.

[Dawgg]

I think after the first round, Marv did a phenomenal job with the draft, nabbing the likes of Youboty and Simpson... but to give up a 2nd and 3rd rounder (picks we desperately need as a rebuilding team) to take McCargo and to take Whitner with a top 10 pick definitely made me wonder what the hell they were thinking. Yes, safety was a pressing need but there were pressing needs throughout the roster.

 

I will give Marv the benefit of the doubt because I like most of the moves he has made -- time will tell, I suppose.

 

I agree that our history picking up FA linemen has been spotty at best, and sooner or later it would be prudent to get a few early round draft picks in.

 

But, its not fair to lump marv with TD. TD's strategy didnt work. Marv has had 1 draft. He needs some time to show what he can do. (and dont say marv will draft a CB in round 1 next year, just because the Bills did so under him and polian in the 90's) Back then, we needed the CB's, and he made solid draft choices at those positions. Plus, youboty was drafted this year to replace clements if clements walks.

727035[/snapback]

[Dibs]

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.......

726768[/snapback]

Since this is your main problem, I'll address it first.

As I understand it, the argument goes...Safeties are traditionally rarely taken in the top ten of the draft because the position is intrinsically of a lower impact on the game than virtually every other position. Therefore if you end up with an all-pro S he is less valuable to the team than an all-pro QB or OT etc.

Let me put forward that the S position has drastically changed in recent times.

In the PFW preview 2006 magazine there is a good article(by Trent Modglin) on the changes in the league(I've mentioned this on another thread before).

It starts(& this should give you the basics of it)....

This, clearly, is not your grandfather's NFL. Nor, for that 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 big, bruising running backs to the turf like a leopard on a deer. Things have changed....

Does this concept(assuming it's truth) elevate the importance of Safety into the same level as most other positions?

Let's have a look at the first 3 rounds of this years draft.

I'm basing this on ESPNs big board....they are one of the biggest 'value' picks proponents so...

#7 Huff(I don't use him in the argument since he is projected at CB)

#8 Whittner(BUF).....projected at #20.....UP 12

#16 Allen(MIA).........projected at #27.....UP 11

#40 Bullocks(DET)....projected at #53.....UP 13

#42 Manning(CHI)....projected at #69.....UP 27

#43 Harper(NO).......projected at #108....UP 65

#54 Pollard(KC).......projected at #95......UP 41

#83 A.Smith(PIT).....projected at #86......UP 3

#97 E.Smith(NYJ).....projected at NOT EVEN RATED

FYI Whittner, Allen & Bullocks were the top 3 projected safeties.

As you can see, the safety position was clearly viewed as more desirable by the NFL clubs than by ESPN analysis.

If the S position has been traditionally downgraded on draft day due to it's lack of importance & now it's importance is higher, it makes sense that they are taken higher than in previous years.

 

Whittner was considered to be one of the most ready to play draftees in the draft. Sure, you might be able to find someone better in later rounds(as you can with any position..e.g. Brady) but obviously if it were that easy, there would not be any busts at all.

50% of all 1st rounders are busts(including top 10)...give or take. From the looks of it, the odds on Whittner seem to be much better than 50% on whether he will make it as a pro.

Given 50% failure in the first round & the fact that super-stars can be found in later rounds & the concept that the Safety position is more important than it was...with Whittner looking good to become minimally a good starter, I'd say I've done enough to...if not convince you that Whittner was a good pick....to allow you to give the benefit of the doubt at this time & see how he pans out without thinking Marv & Co. are stupid.

 

Sorry about the length but sometimes it takes time to make reasoned points.

[Pyrite Gal]

As you can see, the safety position was clearly viewed as more desirable by the NFL clubs than by ESPN analysis.

 

727095[/snapback]

 

I think this is the key to analysis on this issue. In essence, reality is determined in the NFL by what works to win the SB or at the very least get more Ws.

 

What is a winning strategy in the NFL is determined by the GMs in the league who operate like lemmings imitating a winning approach.

 

What basically is going on here is that reality says one thing safties were the best pick according to 3 of the first 16 choices) and the ESPN analysts and other thinkers who say you should not spend your 1st rounder on a safety.

 

The burden of proof does not lie with those who want to justify taking a safety in the first round. ESPN and analysts )paid and unpaid) may prove to be right about their interpretation of what will be a winning strategy in the NFL, but the burden of proof lies pretty firmli with ESPN, Mr. Locke and others who feel 3 safeties went to high because reality says otherwise.

[MrLocke]

Since this is your main problem, I'll address it first.

As I understand it, the argument goes...Safeties are traditionally rarely taken in the top ten of the draft because the position is intrinsically of a lower impact on the game than virtually every other position.  Therefore if you end up with an all-pro S he is less valuable to the team than an all-pro QB or OT etc.

Let me put forward that the S position has drastically changed in recent times.

In the PFW preview 2006 magazine there is a good article(by Trent Modglin) on the changes in the league(I've mentioned this on another thread before).

It starts(& this should give you the basics of it)....

This, clearly, is not your grandfather's NFL.  Nor, for that 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 big, bruising running backs to the turf like a leopard on a deer.  Things have changed....

Does this concept(assuming it's truth) elevate the importance of Safety into the same level as most other positions?

Let's have a look at the first 3 rounds of this years draft.

I'm basing this on ESPNs big board....they are one of the biggest 'value' picks proponents so...

#7  Huff(I don't use him in the argument since he is projected at CB)

#8  Whittner(BUF).....projected at #20.....UP 12

#16 Allen(MIA).........projected at #27.....UP 11

#40 Bullocks(DET)....projected at #53.....UP 13

#42 Manning(CHI)....projected at #69.....UP 27

#43 Harper(NO).......projected at #108....UP 65

#54 Pollard(KC).......projected at #95......UP 41

#83 A.Smith(PIT).....projected at #86......UP 3

#97 E.Smith(NYJ).....projected at NOT EVEN RATED

FYI Whittner, Allen & Bullocks were the top 3 projected safeties.

As you can see, the safety position was clearly viewed as more desirable by the NFL clubs than by ESPN analysis.

If the S position has been traditionally downgraded on draft day due to it's lack of importance & now it's importance is higher, it makes sense that they are taken higher than in previous years.

 

Whittner was considered to be one of the most ready to play draftees in the draft.  Sure, you might be able to find someone better in later rounds(as you can with any position..e.g. Brady) but obviously if it were that easy, there would not be any busts at all. 

50% of all 1st rounders are busts(including top 10)...give or take.  From the looks of it, the odds on Whittner seem to be much better than 50% on whether he will make it as a pro.

Given 50% failure in the first round & the fact that super-stars can be found in later rounds & the concept that the Safety position is more important than it was...with Whittner looking good to become minimally a good starter, I'd say I've done enough to...if not convince you that Whittner was a good pick....to allow you to give the benefit of the doubt at this time & see how he pans out without thinking Marv & Co. are stupid.

 

Sorry about the length but sometimes it takes time to make reasoned points.

727095[/snapback]

 

Thank you. If more posters were like you we wouldn't need thick skin to survive this board.

[ganesh]

Even if Whitner was not a reach (for the sake of this discussion), are you happy that the Bills traded away a 1st day pick and drafted 2 defensive backs with their next 3 picks?

Given our needs, does this really make sense to you?

727020[/snapback]

 

Bill,

The Bills had so many holes....I agree I wish we had the extra pick...Unfortunately the draft did not Pan out that way.....However, if we had picked a Ngata or

Bunkley (whom I am not yet sold on) people will be bitching that our starting SS is Coy Wire....

 

The problem was the bills were under pressure to make two need picks that might not have existed if they had traded down. Unfortunately we did not have the luxury to let those picks away...

 

Yobouty and Simpson were rated so high that when they were still available it was no brainer to not pick them.....The fact is that this defense did not have any youth movement in the last few years and needed a breath of real fresh air....Hopefully these guys will form the backbone of the bills defnse for years to come.....

 

In the day of Taylor, Polamalu and Roy Williams making game changing plays I am fine with picking a safety at that spot.

[Mickey]

You might be right, but our history looks pretty bad wrt castoffs, and lower tier free agents on the OL.

I was thinking that at some point, we might want to allocate early draft resources to blockers who are not fat right tackles. This is what makes teams winners.

Seattle and Pitt are good examples.

 

Please, look at our 1st day picks for the last several years, then look at our record.

727032[/snapback]

You know I agree with you on how we have neglected the offensive line over the years. My main complaint there would be how we used high picks on skill players at positions that were already reasonably, if not spectacularly, manned while we tried to make do on the line with cast off FA's.

 

I think this year is a different situation. All the guys we took are at positions where we are definitely short or will be next year. Nate and Troy will almost assuredly not be starting for us next year. The Tampa 2 relies heavily upon the SS and our choice, had we not taken Whitner, would have been between Wire and a FA cast off. We not only needed a SS, we were desperate for one.

 

A funny thing happened while we wasted those years ignoring the offensive line. Along the way, the defense collapsed and at this point, is an even worse problem than our perennially underperforming OL. This is not a year where we took a flyer on a guy like Willis when we had a serviceable back like Henry and could have taken Eric Steinbach to fill a gaping hole at G. This year, the gaping holes were at SS and DT. The ones we got were the best on the board at the time we picked and may very well not have been there later.

 

The other option is that they could have been more active in free agency trying to sign a SS and some DT's and then used the draft on the OL. That isn't the way they went. Instead, they picked up Reyes and Fowler as FA's and used the draft for the other holes. Judgment call. Only time will tell.

 

Besides, I really don't think it is possible, given the laws of physics as we know them, for Reyes to play worse than Anderson or for Peters not be a significant upgrade over Williams.

[krazykat]

I'll tell you in about 20 weeks

726769[/snapback]

Anyone thinking that Whitner is going to justify his 8th round draft pick status this season is being naive.

 

We won't know what Whitner is until next season or maybe even '08.

 

He'd far too young to perform immediately in the NFL.

 

There haven't been a lot of SSs drafted in round one of the draft though over the years.

[Ray]

Marv drafted high quality guys that will adapt to the NFL a lot better than many others who were "ranked" ahead of them. Maybe drafting smart, motivated, talented guys is better than guys who work out really well and have lots of potential. It is all WHO you draft not when or their position. We drafted a huge need SS (think of the TEs in our division) and a guy who could/should start right away. Drafting Bunkley or Ngata seemed to be the only other options. And getting McCargo fixed that.

[Max997]

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 wanted to trade down and Denver was more then willing to move up

 

adding an additional 2nd round pick while only dropping to 15 would have been a better decision, it wasnt a must that their first pick had to be a SS. Adding an additional pick made even more sense since it was all but a given the Bills were going to move up into Chicagos spot late in the first round

[Matt in KC]

I think there's another key argument for Whitner: The Bills decided to change their base Defense (Tampa 2 we think), including bringing in Perry Fewell and losing Gray. This is a major strategic shift for the Bills, and requires different personnel to succeed. Malloy was not fast enough to fulfill the demands of the safety position in the new defense.

 

Yes, looking at it a single player at a time, you might think Whitner was taken too high, but since he is ready to start, he's a key component to installing this defense. If we didn't get him, we could have suffered through playing a scheme that didn't match our players' talents (Wire in there?) or we could have abandoned the defense we planned to install this year... (and started looking for an affordable sure-fire run-stuffing DT??)

[Ramius]

but to give up a 2nd and 3rd rounder (picks we desperately need as a rebuilding team) to take McCargo and to take Whitner with a top 10 pick definitely made me wonder what the hell they were thinking. 

 

DT and SS were just as big of needs as other positions, especially with our cover 2 defense.

 

Also we gave up a third for mccargo, NOT a second and third. I dont know why people have so much trouble with draft pick trades. We traded away a 3rd round pick to move up from spot 42 to 26. Thats a net loss of 1 pick, not 2.

[Dawgg]

I have grasped that concept... the question comes down to this:

 

Would you rather have:

 

A late first round pick?

 

-or-

 

A high 2nd and high 3rd rounder?

 

 

If I was New England, I'd trade up (as they did for Chad Jackson).

If I were Pittsburgh, I'd trade up (as they did for Holmes)

 

Buffalo is in a much different situation... they need as many good, young players as possible. In that situation, I'd rather have the high 2nd and high 3rd.

 

DT and SS were just as big of needs as other positions, especially with our cover 2 defense.

 

Also we gave up a third for mccargo, NOT a second and third. I dont know why people have so much trouble with draft pick trades. We traded away a 3rd round pick to move up from spot 42 to 26. Thats a net loss of 1 pick, not 2.

727236[/snapback]

[Matt in KC]

I have grasped that concept... the question comes down to this:

 

Would you rather have:

 

A late first round pick?

 

-or-

 

A high 2nd and high 3rd rounder?

If I was New England, I'd trade up (as they did for Chad Jackson).

If I were Pittsburgh, I'd trade up (as they did for Holmes)

 

Buffalo is in a much different situation... they need as many good, young players as possible.  In that situation, I'd rather have the high 2nd and high 3rd.

727240[/snapback]

As a purely hypothetical point, I agree with you. But the Bills were really on the clock, needing a SS and DT that could play this year. Would you say it's better to have a DT that can play this year with a good upside, or a high 2nd and high 3rd with whatever players would be left when our pick came up?

 

I understand the argument that McCargo might still have been there in the 2nd, but maybe not... The next DT was taken 40-50 picks later. There was a big talent drop-off after McCargo. I'm not sure none of the 16 teams between 26 and 42 would have taken him. And if they did, we'd have to find a free agent DT who could play as well, had a as good an upside, was available, and was affordable...?