Bill from NYC Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 He had 2 knee injurues and Rosenhaus as an agent. The Bills had Travis Henry under contract. Why do those of you waiting to enshrine Travis into Canton think that TD selected MaGahee in the first round? Many successful running backs were drafted in later rounds. Terrell Davis went in the 6th. That said, TD still chose to take Willis in round 1, in spite of the team having other serious needs. Did the cowboys take a first round RB when Emmit Smith was in his prime? Please, point out a team to me that had a great, or even very good back, and still saw fit to choose a rb in the first round. I think the answer is clear. He brought him to Buffalo to play football, and lots of it. Dismiss the Sullivan article as you will, but I for one do see a rb controversy brewing. All the signs are there.
Rico Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 Why do you guys think that TD drafted MaGahee? 3778[/snapback] I think it was a last minute decision based on who was left on the board in a very weak draft. Nothing more, nothing less.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 He drafted him for the clear and obvious reason why he said that he drafted him. The draft was strong in DL and weak in most other spots. The Bills needed a DL badly but 8-9 were taken before the Bills drafted. Forgotten in all this argument is the fact that a GM's main two jobs are acquiring players and managing the salary cap. With the players that were aleady taken when the Bills made their choice, there was not a single player on the board that was worth the MONEY that the team would have to pay a #1 pick in the 23rd spot. Except Willis McGahee, if the Bills doctors thought that he would eventually, meaning within a year or two, be back to full speed. So he made the choice. If one of the DL taken ahead of McGahee were still there, I would bet you anything that TD would have taken that guy and not Willis. One could argue, that Eric Steinbach was one guy that could have been worth that spot, but the Bills scouts clearly didn't rate him high enough to be a #23 pick. That was likely a mistake as he had a good year. But looking back on all drafts several years in retrospect is the only way to reasonably grade them. TD drafted Willis because he was the best player available, and no one else available was worth the money. That's it.
Guest Guest Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 If there's a controversy, there will be only one reason ... the Bills are losing. Controversies only occurs when there is nothing else to talk about. Bill your speciailty is bitching about the OL. Is this your new gig?
Kelly the Dog Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 Many successful running backs were drafted in later rounds. Terrell Davis went in the 6th. That said, TD still chose to take Willis in round 1, in spite of the team having other serious needs. Did the cowboys take a first round RB when Emmit Smith was in his prime? Please, point out a team to me that had a great, or even very good back, and still saw fit to choose a rb in the first round. 3778[/snapback] The Saints. Duece McAllister.
Frez Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 The Saints. Duece McAllister. 3790[/snapback] And they delt Ricky Williams the following year I think.
Guest Guest Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 Please, point out a team to me that had a great, or even very good back, and still saw fit to choose a rb in the first round. 3778[/snapback] New Orleans Saints drafted Deuce McAllister in the First round when they still had Ricky Williams.
Frez Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 If there's a controversy, there will be only one reason ... the Bills are losing. Controversies only occurs when there is nothing else to talk about. Bill your speciailty is bitching about the OL. Is this your new gig? 3788[/snapback] Bill has every right to B word about that sloppy play from our so called offensive line. WOW :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:
Kelly the Dog Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 And they delt Ricky Williams the following year I think. 3795[/snapback] If after this full season TD can get a team to give us a #1 pick plus another #1 pick if Travis reaches certain incentives, then and only then would I trade Travis.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 He had 2 knee injurues and Rosenhaus as an agent. The Bills had Travis Henry under contract. Why do those of you waiting to enshrine Travis into Canton think that TD selected MaGahee in the first round? Many successful running backs were drafted in later rounds. Terrell Davis went in the 6th. That said, TD still chose to take Willis in round 1, in spite of the team having other serious needs. Did the cowboys take a first round RB when Emmit Smith was in his prime? Please, point out a team to me that had a great, or even very good back, and still saw fit to choose a rb in the first round. I think the answer is clear. He brought him to Buffalo to play football, and lots of it. Dismiss the Sullivan article as you will, but I for one do see a rb controversy brewing. All the signs are there. 3778[/snapback] So according to your logic a GM can NEVER draft a player if it might offend a starter on your team. You are never allowed to improve your team. You must always stand pat with the players you have. And that players must never be pushed by another player behind them. Donahoe drafted WM becuase a player who was projected to be #1 overall was sitting there, albeit injured. That draft is probably one of Donahoe's best because if it wasn't WM it was going to be Chris Kelsay, who we got anyway in round two. Meanwhile, if WM returns to form we will have another franchise RB. Now I missed the part of the NFL rulebook that say a team can't have two good players at one position. Players and sports writers can grouse all they want. Donahoe will do what he wants. Play them both? Trade one? It's his decision. If TH or WM don't like it...they can take a seat on the bench. PTR
JoeF Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 The end game you paint is semi-right. TD, TM, Ralph drafted McGahee because he was the clearly the best athlete available, at a position that they felt was a need position going into the 2003 draft. Why was it a need position...Travis' fumbling, his style of running that could leave him prone to injury and finally the home run threat we would have if Willis could return to sub 4.3 speed. He's a more dangerous runner than Travis when fully rehabbed. The issue with Sullivan's column is timing. His claim that this season is lost so make the trade now is not something I am willing to buy into. I think this team can be good this year. Sullivan says trade Travis and let McGahee learn on the field as the full-time starter and take your lumps. I think Willis can learn getting 15-20 plays a game (probably 6-8 carries) in relief...by the end of the season, we will have a better idea of what we have in terms of proven talent with Willis. Then the Bills can make the inevitable move of seeing what we can get for either WM or TH. So my biggest issue with the column is not only the trade Travis now stance that Sullivan is taking, it's the "write this year off negativity" when you have a: D with names like Williams, Adams, Fletcher, Spikes, Milloy, Clements and Vincent; an O-line that every game report today said held its own against a pretty darn good front seven last night and seems to be getting Coach McNally's scheme even though they haven't played together that much; A healthy Eric Moulds; a slot Josh Reed; a weapon in Lee Evans that hasn't been exlpoited yet but will be.... I am cautiously optimistic -- rather than blatantly pessimisitc
tatonka12 Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 New Orleans Saints drafted Deuce McAllister in the First round when they still had Ricky Williams. 3796[/snapback] good thing they did
Rico Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 One could argue, that Eric Steinbach was one guy that could have been worth that spot, but the Bills scouts clearly didn't rate him high enough to be a #23 pick. That was likely a mistake as he had a good year. 3787[/snapback] Right now, I'm glad we took Willis instead.
_BiB_ Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 I think it was a last minute decision based on who was left on the board in a very weak draft. Nothing more, nothing less. 3785[/snapback] Ditto. Why not? I think (I know nothing, nothing) that sometimes one has to think out of the box, and if you want to win at anything...sometimes you have to gamble. Anyone who does status quo ends up with that. I'm probably wrong, as I don't super analyze every Mike Williams play, but If I were an O-back coach I'd be licking my chops, should it work. What potential. Talk about opening up a passing game. Have faith.
Bill from NYC Posted August 22, 2004 Author Posted August 22, 2004 So according to your logic a GM can NEVER draft a player if it might offend a starter on your team. You are never allowed to improve your team. You must always stand pat with the players you have. And that players must never be pushed by another player behind them. Donahoe drafted WM becuase a player who was projected to be #1 overall was sitting there, albeit injured. That draft is probably one of Donahoe's best because if it wasn't WM it was going to be Chris Kelsay, who we got anyway in round two. Meanwhile, if WM returns to form we will have another franchise RB. Now I missed the part of the NFL rulebook that say a team can't have two good players at one position. Players and sports writers can grouse all they want. Donahoe will do what he wants. Play them both? Trade one? It's his decision. If TH or WM don't like it...they can take a seat on the bench. PTR 3801[/snapback] Promo, I agree with you. Imo, TD selected WM as a means to improve the football team. I dismiss the logic that there was not one other player there whom he deemed worthy of being selected in that spot. Looking back, this was a team with an aging LG and a case could be made for NO decent RG on the entire roster. Steinbach was there, and I was virtually sure that TD would grab him, not a rb with injuries and baggage. TD had to have seen some sort of need to make this pick. As for them not liking it, again, I agree, but I think it will take some tough, authoritarian coaching from MM, a rookie. I am thinking that he is up to the task. My post was merely to make the point that in all liklihood, a rb controversy will develop, not that it would be the ruination of the football team. It might even help.
Fixxxer Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 We should have drafted OG Steinbach. We wouldn't be talking about the large hole at LG and we surely wouldn't be talking about trading TH.
IDBillzFan Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 If there's a controversy, there will be only one reason ... the Bills are losing. Controversies only occurs when there is nothing else to talk about. Bill your speciailty is bitching about the OL. Is this your new gig? 3788[/snapback] Actually, to quote Marv Levy...who probably has a bit more experience at this than you: there are two reasons you have a controversy. One, if you have too many good players, and two is if you are losing. So you're half right. In reality, there is no controversy. There is the American Idol crowd, which keeps every nitpicking namby-pamby thing alive because it gives them a reason to wake up every morning.
njsue Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 To ensure a dominant running game. This will open up a more dominant offensive attack. Bledsoe going deep to moulds TD.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.