TDRupp Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 See what the tool King says here? Almost certainly. Almost certainly the San Diego Padres had the game won last night, but the the Dodgers hit 4 HR's in a row to tie the game and the Dodgers won. The Steelers almost certinely had a TD against Indy when Bettis fumbled last year. I hope you get the point 779547[/snapback] Yep. Got it. But the real point is not if we could get Whitner at 15 but would the Bills been content with what they projected to be there if he wasn't? I believe they just did not, actually Marv didn;t, think the risk of losing Whitner, even if small, was worth a 2nd or 3rd rounder. They wanted this guy probably not only as a football player on the field but b/c he would be a natural leader of the secondary in the next 5-6 years (hopefully longer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 i love our new safeties, but i wouldn't put much stock in tackle stats. bad teams get credited for more tackles than good teams, and in any event *someone* has to make the tackle every down. good teams that shut down the run have LBs with high tackle stats; bad teams that can't stop the run see safeties with high tackle stats. 779991[/snapback] Explain Huff's totals, then, b/c the Raiders are as bad as it gets right now and that defense has been on the field a hell of a lot. I'll again dispute that this depends a lot on the scheme you run. Some schemes depend on more safety help / safety acting as another LB. Others don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 ...Whitner a non-bust?...50% of the 1st round are busts ...the odds of getting a non-bust Some good points Dibs.\ But crickey, i gotta tell ya, i got "lost" in the mention of busts used too often Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Forget Peter King, lots and lots of folks here at the ol' TSW were highly critical of our draft for the same reasons King and others were. Its early yet but for now, there should be a long line of fans ordering crow for lunch hereabouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIVE LA FRANCE, VIVE LA GUERRE Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Forget Peter King, lots and lots of folks here at the ol' TSW were highly critical of our draft for the same reasons King and others were. Its early yet but for now, there should be a long line of fans ordering crow for lunch hereabouts. 780324[/snapback] Gentlemen, the unrelenting concern at the heart of this f*cking controversy lies with the notion of what is the essence (in the Heideggerian sense of WESEN) of a "sports journalist." Who are these experts and professionals, these pseduo-intellectuals claiming some advanced epistemological expertise regarding the king of field sports? (I.e., the void known as mike shoop) One receives a doctorate in journalism - one does not receive a doctorate in journalism concerning the king of field sports. Therefore, the f*cking dehiscence reveals itself - if one composes a doctorate on military strategies at battle X it requires a knowledge of the strategy, history etc. ALONGSIDE the form of historiographical writing. The point being gentlemen - these sports journalists do not have doctorates in journalism (of course there is an exception here and there, appearing as phantasms in this absurd narrative) and have no expertise of the sport, having not served in any capacity within an organization. Their readings are the trash, metonymic with any analysis we find on a message board on the interweb. I am not discussing the ex-athletes who offer their exegesis on matches; the problem is they are obviously incapable of forwarding a text. So who are these journalists? most of them are obese, or jews. Lets face the LACANIAN REAL gentlemen! Also congratulations to Mr. Levy and Mr. Jauron. I was one of the few bills ultra violence hooliganz who championed their selections. check the f*cking archives gentlemen hail the new dawn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Looks like the topical cream wore off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 No way around it. Whitner was a GREAT pick where he was picked. And I was hung up on drafting Ngata or other outstanding lineman. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. This guy Whitner is going to be All-Pro very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 I have seen Whitner play and he's one of the best rookie players I've EVER seen. You don't teach what he did on that 2 point conversion - that's a HoF type play. Not only did he flatten out, avoid a pick, and easily get to the ball, he nearly picked the damn thing off! I won't even get into the fact that he has a nose for getting to the ball carrier in the run game, and not 15 yards down the field. 779794[/snapback] I agree with the spirit of your post, and was very impressed with Whitner's physical ability and instinct on the conversion. But there would have been no value to picking off the 2-point conversion. After he made a spectacular move to close on the ball, he should have knocked it down. The ball bounced within about a foot of the WR's hands in the end-zone, almost negating his strong effort. This stood out as a glaring rookie mistake to me, an example of his need for further coaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 But there would have been no value to picking off the 2-point conversion. 780606[/snapback] Tell that to Culpepper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 This stood out as a glaring rookie mistake to me, an example of his need for further coaching. 780606[/snapback] This is because some people will B word about anything. Whitner makes a great break on the ball and knocks down the 2-pt pass, and you B word because he needs more coaching, and that knocking down the pass was a glaring mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 This is because some people will B word about anything. Whitner makes a great break on the ball and knocks down the 2-pt pass, and you B word because he needs more coaching, and that knocking down the pass was a glaring mistake. 780612[/snapback] Maybe "glaring" was too strong a word. Yes he made a great play, but his decision to try to catch the ball seemed like a very pooor choice, and almost backfired. It was a classic rookie mental mistake if you ask me, on the same play where his physical performance dazzled. I don't expect Whitner to play mistake-free and am thrilled with his play so far. I wouldn't have brought up the attempted catch except that this was cited as "a HoF type play." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 This is because some people will B word about anything. 780612[/snapback] In response to this part of your post, I think I'm pretty far on the optimist end of spectrum for TSW, and rarely B word about the players or performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Gentlemen, the unrelenting concern at the heart of this f*cking controversy lies with the notion of what is the essence (in the Heideggerian sense of WESEN) of a "sports journalist." Who are these experts and professionals, these pseduo-intellectuals claiming some advanced epistemological expertise regarding the king of field sports? (I.e., the void known as mike shoop) One receives a doctorate in journalism - one does not receive a doctorate in journalism concerning the king of field sports. Therefore, the f*cking dehiscence reveals itself - if one composes a doctorate on military strategies at battle X it requires a knowledge of the strategy, history etc. ALONGSIDE the form of historiographical writing. The point being gentlemen - these sports journalists do not have doctorates in journalism (of course there is an exception here and there, appearing as phantasms in this absurd narrative) and have no expertise of the sport, having not served in any capacity within an organization. Their readings are the trash, metonymic with any analysis we find on a message board on the interweb. I am not discussing the ex-athletes who offer their exegesis on matches; the problem is they are obviously incapable of forwarding a text. So who are these journalists? most of them are obese, or jews. Lets face the LACANIAN REAL gentlemen! Also congratulations to Mr. Levy and Mr. Jauron. I was one of the few bills ultra violence hooliganz who championed their selections. check the f*cking archives gentlemen hail the new dawn! 780334[/snapback] Where's the goddamn CTM when you need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Maybe "glaring" was too strong a word. Yes he made a great play, but his decision to try to catch the ball seemed like a very pooor choice, and almost backfired. It was a classic rookie mental mistake if you ask me, on the same play where his physical performance dazzled. I don't expect Whitner to play mistake-free and am thrilled with his play so far. I wouldn't have brought up the attempted catch except that this was cited as "a HoF type play." 780617[/snapback] Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts