K-gunner Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 If Whitner was 6-2 215..this would not even be an issue.It's sad really..
Dibs Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 If Whitner was 6-2 215..this would not even be an issue.It's sad really.. 727695[/snapback] What else is sad is.... Whitner.............5'10.5" Below are the NFLs top strong safeties & their heights Bold is last years pro-bowlers. Asterix is previous recent pro-bowlers. Bob Sanders.....5'8" Troy Polamalu...5'10" Mike Brown.......5'10" *Ed Reed*........5'11" Chris Hope........5"11" Tony Parrish......5'11" *L.Milloy*...........6'0" *Roy Williams*...6'0" B.Dawkins........6'0" Archuleta..........6'0" *R.Harrison*.....6'1" D.Darius...........6'1" *C.Chavous*....6'1" Sean Taylor......6'2" M.Boulware.......6'3" A.Wilson...........6'3" What this list shows is so obvious, I don't even have to comment.
Griz Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 What else is sad is....Whitner.............5'10.5" Below are the NFLs top strong safeties & their heights Bold is last years pro-bowlers. Asterix is previous recent pro-bowlers. Bob Sanders.....5'8" Troy Polamalu...5'10" Mike Brown.......5'10" *Ed Reed*........5'11" Chris Hope........5"11" Tony Parrish......5'11" *L.Milloy*...........6'0" *Roy Williams*...6'0" B.Dawkins........6'0" Archuleta..........6'0" *R.Harrison*.....6'1" D.Darius...........6'1" *C.Chavous*....6'1" Sean Taylor......6'2" M.Boulware.......6'3" A.Wilson...........6'3" What this list shows is so obvious, I don't even have to comment. 727705[/snapback] So that was Milloy's problem... too tall.
Dibs Posted July 24, 2006 Posted July 24, 2006 So that was Milloy's problem... too tall. 727890[/snapback] Too old.....his last probowl was 2002 with the Pats. I only put him on the list (at the last minute)because of his past probowls, maybe I should have left him off.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Too old.....his last probowl was 2002 with the Pats. I only put him on the list (at the last minute)because of his past probowls, maybe I should have left him off. Over time, Milloy's probably lost an inch or two, so it MUST be age.
Dibs Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Over time, Milloy's probably lost an inch or two, so it MUST be age. 728261[/snapback] Nobody told me you lose an inch or two with age. I don't have that many inches to spare.
OCinBuffalo Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 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] Absolutely. Are u comfortable with following secondary lineup for the next three years? SS Coy Wire FS Troy Vincent CB Nate Clements CB Terrence McGee Please don't tell me that Wire is your guy - now or ever at SS. He's a good guy but not a starter. This was a hole before the draft. Troy Vincent is 35 - be honest - he's close to done. This will be a hole very soon. Nate Clements can go either way. We may keep him, we may not. It's not like he had a stellar year. What if his performance has more to do with him actually slipping than "motivation" or coaching problems? I don't understand how a guy goes from potential all-pro to bum without anyone taking a look at his individual play as the possible cause. This could be a hole next year, and we may get lucky with Baker, but Youboty is a good insurance policy. McGee is the only guy that's guaranteed solid. No hole. So, we drafted for 3 holes and that's why we took 3 players to fill those holes. You, or I for that matter, may not like it but these holes needed to be filled. Long- term, starting, skill players are way, way harder to draft and retain than Lineman. Just ask TD how the MW at #4 pick worked out:) I am more comfortable this year with: SS Whitner FS Vincent/Simpson CB Clements CB McGee and going forward with: SS Whitner FS Simpson CB Youboty/Baker CB McGee It remains to be seen whether these guys can fill these holes but I don't see why we keep hearing dopey points about drafting, so we can start?, rookie offensive lineman? - as though that's a guaranteed way to win??? We did draft DL and we expect them to play immediately. Whether they can or not, which is the eternal question, also remains to be seen.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Nobody told me you lose an inch or two with age. I don't have that many inches to spare. BTW, what does mean? I've never been able to figure it out.
mead107 Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 I think we could go back to draft day and the weeks that followed and re hash this very same topic . will be glad when training camp starts , then we might have some new crap to talk about .
Dibs Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 BTW, what does mean? I've never been able to figure it out. 728297[/snapback] I've got no idea....I use it when I want to imply I'm scared & don't want to show my face. Also when I want people to think I might be a ninja.
BuffOrange Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Too old.....his last probowl was 2002 with the Pats. I only put him on the list (at the last minute)because of his past probowls, maybe I should have left him off. 728234[/snapback] Did he really make the probowl in 02? He didn't have a single int, sack, or forced fumble that year.
Dibs Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 Did he really make the probowl in 02? He didn't have a single int, sack, or forced fumble that year. 728339[/snapback] He sure did... 2002 pro bowl roster Gee, that's unusual....an NFL player getting into the probowl based on past years performances......& weren't we all so hyper about picking him up at the start of '03? Why didn't we know he was well past his prime & no longer top shelf? I guess TD forgot to tell us.
gobillsinytown Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 At the saftey spot, height is not as much of an issue as you might think. I think good safties are able to read the play, make the right choice, and get to the ball or get into coverage consistently. At the pro level, their play has to be almost mistake-free. So intelligence, speed and strength are more important than height. There's been a boatload of draft choices with "prototype" height and weight that couldn't even crack a starting lineup. If Whitner was 6-2 215..this would not even be an issue.It's sad really.. 727695[/snapback]
fitnbills Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 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??) 727232[/snapback] If I can just add my two cents.... I continue to read posts referring to the Whitner speed and ability to play more than one position in the defense as beeing a necessary thing. Well the issue I have with this arguement is the fact that we're talking about a "TAMPA 2 Defense" Now just think about it for a second who were TAMPA BAY's SS? John Lynch...He's never been known as a cover safety or been mistaken as being a speed demon, so why is everyone making the point that speed was a necessary attribute? In fact neither of there safety positions were speed demons. I do understand that speed is a Great attribute but in regards to this defense John Lynch is proof that it's not necessary. Personally, I think Whitner will be pretty good; however I do believe Matt Bowens and Coy Wire could have been serviceable along with a mid round SS pick. Whitner, in my opinion wasn't a need pick it was a pick that the coaching staff obviously liked and could use in multiple ways but I don't believe it was a need pick.[/color]
John from Riverside Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 I think that Whitner was a sound choice.... - It was a position of need that was filled with a player widely considered to have "special" talent - What WERE we going to take at that spot.....Bunkly? Maybe the bills considered McCargo and Bunkly to be of close to equal talent...... - An O linemen? After Mike Williams I dont care if we EVER take a first round O linemen again We needed a playmaker who could start immediately....I have NO problem with the Whitner pick....besides....you have to take a draft as a whole and not just the first pick....we actually ended up getting 2 o the best safeties in the draft.....a corner with a ton of potential.....2 DT's that fit our scheme....a LB who could be s ST's demon....and O linemen to work on as projects......
John from Riverside Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 If I can just add my two cents.... I continue to read posts referring to the Whitner speed and ability to play more than one position in the defense as beeing a necessary thing. Well the issue I have with this arguement is the fact that we're talking about a "TAMPA 2 Defense" Now just think about it for a second who were TAMPA BAY's SS? John Lynch...He's never been known as a cover safety or been mistaken as being a speed demon, so why is everyone making the point that speed was a necessary attribute? In fact neither of there safety positions were speed demons. I do understand that speed is a Great attribute but in regards to this defense John Lynch is proof that it's not necessary. Personally, I think Whitner will be pretty good; however I do believe Matt Bowens and Coy Wire could have been serviceable along with a mid round SS pick. Whitner, in my opinion wasn't a need pick it was a pick that the coaching staff obviously liked and could use in multiple ways but I don't believe it was a need pick.[/color] 728629[/snapback] I hope Coy Wire never takes the field again on defense.....seriously
fitnbills Posted July 25, 2006 Posted July 25, 2006 I hope Coy Wire never takes the field again on defense.....seriously 728654[/snapback] lol, You're right in passing situations he was a liability last season. Maybe with a less complex defense he'll be better though b/c he can just react instead of thinking. I've heard a number of players refrence that this defense is a lot less complicated and that will alllow them to just fly around the field instead of thinking sooo much.
Recommended Posts