I still don't like the Whitner and McCargo picks

[Mickey]

Given the Bills record of success the two times they did as you suggested and drafted OL players on the first day of the draft and ended up with the good playing but injury plagued Jonas Jennings and then the bust Mike Williams do you really want to argue that there is a reasonable probability of success if they had only focused on the OL?

 

I (and I suspect all who agree with Marv that winning football starts with being able to run and to stop the run) certainly would have liked to have seen a bit more attention given to the OL since the turn of the millenia (and even before), but really drafting players high would/should have only played a significant but small role in making this team's OL and record better, as I think the even bigger issues for improving the OL were:

 

1. Having some experienced adult leadership of the OL here instead of the inexperienced Vinky and the littel experienced Ruel. These two almost certainly played a critical role in picking not very good players to spend first day draft picks on like MW an Jennings (a good athlete who did not play often enough because he is injury prone).

 

2. Poor OCs like GW's original choice (Kragthorpe I I think) who was so badhe got canned and Kevin Killdrive ran Os so predictable and bad i douby even the best players could save it.

 

3. Getting better teaching and gameplanning from both of the above for development of individual players in addition to better gameplanning.

 

The draft is an important issue certainly and is a good method for acquiring players as shown by many teams. However, it is not the only way to acquire an OL capable of playing a key role in a team getting to the playoffs (lets use this as our next goal rather than choosing how do SB winners build their team as a measure of greater success by this team.

 

JMac's prescence actually represents a significant improvement in our OL as he meets part of your point by his helping choose better players like Preston for 1st day picks, and even more important in the real world where we have multiple needs to fill, he has been able to identify and train UDFAs like Peters into competent OL players and train and develop low round picks like Pennington into credible starters.

 

As he himself said right from the start he is no miracle man and he has had failures like Bennie Anderson and disappointments like Reyes, but overall, if the Bills under TD had drafted 2 more OL players on the first day, they would have been enough for them to meet the numeric norm for this position and variances this small are easily explained by players they targeted being taken or other needs demanding they look elsewhere first.

 

Even for this big believer in the import of a strong OL, I simply do not see a compelling case for us having made more OL picks as anywhere near the lead explanation for our bad record. IMHO making bad OL choices with our first day picks is the lead OL story here.

 

The notion of drafting offensive lineman on day one should be evaluated by looking at all of the offensive lineman we have drafted in that range over the years, rather than limiting your sample size to Williams and Jennings. I think you'll find that it worked out pretty well for us over the years.

 

Reggie McKenzie: 2nd rd. 1972

Joey D.: 1st rd. 1973

Ken Jones and Joe Devlin: 2nd rd. 1976

Jim Ritcher: 1st rd. 1980

Will Wolford: 1st rd. 1986

And also, John Fina and Reuben Brown.

 

Those names include some of the very best offensive lineman we have ever had. Drafting OL in the first couple of rounds can work out pretty well. The problem wasn't that we took an offensive lineman withteh Mike Williams pick, the problem was that we took Mike Williams.

[Coach Tuesday]

a little perspective might be called for here. If you take a look at drafts past, you will rarely find many where, three or four years later, more than two or three picks are still on the roster. Levy managed, by the end of the year to have four picks starting: Whitner, Pennington, Simpson and Williams. McCargo would have been getting starter like playing time if not for his injury. I would wager that there is a good chance that all five of these guys will still be on the roster four years from now and in fact, Youboty and Ellison could be as well.

 

That isn't a "good draft", that is a legendary draft.

 

Since this thread ain't dead....

 

I don't see how anyone can pronounce the 2006 draft "LEGENDARY" at this point in time. For one thing, we still don't know if picks 2 and 3 will pan out at all - and those are very valuable picks. Another two players (Merz and Butler) may not make the team next year, let alone develop into serviceable NFL players. That's four players who may not pan out at all. Finally, to my mind, a "LEGENDARY" draft uncovers a Hall of Famer or two, and we have eons to go before we know whether that was the case. Just my two cents...

[Dibs]

....I don't see how anyone can pronounce the 2006 draft "LEGENDARY" at this point in time.....

I totally agree.....though Mickey didn't actually say it was a legendary draft......he said that if thing pan out as he expects....it will be a legendary draft. He may well lose his wager & all the guys could regress or not improve any further.....and none may be on the roster in four years time.

I hope he wins his wager though.

[Mickey]

I totally agree.....though Mickey didn't actually say it was a legendary draft......he said that if thing pan out as he expects....it will be a legendary draft. He may well lose his wager & all the guys could regress or not improve any further.....and none may be on the roster in four years time.

I hope he wins his wager though.

Exactly, a lot depends on Youboty and McCargo. We also don't know if Pennington and Ellison are long term starters or just stop gap guys to cover us until we get real starters. Potentially though, you could have Whitner, McCargo, Simpson, Pennington, Ellison and Youboty all starting with Kyle Williams as a quality back-up. I doubt you will find many drafts where we found 6 starters and a top back-up in the whole history of the franchise. This from a draft labeled last April as an unmitigated debacle authored by an addle-brained octogenarian.

 

To compare, in 2005 we took Parrish, Everett, Preston, Geisinger, King and Gates. Roscoe is a quality back up and Preston a short term starter likely to be replaced. Other than making the roster, Everett has done nothing to distinguish himself while King and Gates are no longer on the team.

 

In 2004, we took Evans, Losman, Anderson, Euhus, McFarland and Smith. Anderson is awful and the last three are no longer on the team as far as I know. We got two good starters and a stop gap guy we can't wait to replace. This draft, though not as successful as our 2006 draft, was a pretty good one by most standards.

 

In 2003, we took McGahee, Kelsay, Crowel, McGee, Aiken, Sobieski, Sape and Haggan. This was a good draft. Willis and McGee are starters, Kelsay is in the rotation and Crowell is now a starter. We also got decent special teamers in Aiken and Haggan. As good as it was, Kelsay has not been able to establish himslef as a starter and a lot of us are looking to dump Willis. A good draft none the less by any standards but the 2006 draft, depending on what happens with a few guys like McCargo and Youboty could end up being quite a bit better than even this draft.

 

In 2002 we had 10 draft picks, picking 4th in each round no less and didn't find a single long term starter. We did get a few guys who ended up being okay back ups like Wire, Reed and Denney. Levy's top 4 picks in 2006, drafting much later than 4th in each round, were a better draft than all 10 of these picks. In fact, If I had to choose, I don't think I would trade Whitner for all ten.

 

We have a long, long way to go to see how these picks work out but the potential is there for this to be one of the most memorable drafts we've had in a long time. I think it is even more remarkable given how much people crapped all over this draft last spring. Plenty of that criticism was homegrown.

[Bill from NYC]

In 2004, we took Evans, Losman, Anderson, Euhus, McFarland and Smith. Anderson is awful and the last three are no longer on the team as far as I know. We got two good starters and a stop gap guy we can't wait to replace. This draft, though not as successful as our 2006 draft, was a pretty good one by most standards.

 

Ouch!

 

Evans is already a top receiver in the league. Losman shows potential to be a very good qb. 04 also brought us a LT (Peters). This alone is better than 06, in which we left day 1 with a safety, an injured DT who was injured yet again, and a corner who didn't play; this with 4 early picks. Not pretty from where I sit, although hopefully Marv bailed himself out of this mess in day 2.

[tennesseeboy]

Bruce Smith Virginia Tech

1 Derrick Burroughs Memphis State

2 Mark Traynowicz Nebraska

2 Chris Burkett Jackson State

3 Frank Reich Maryland

3 Hal Garner Utah State

4 Andre Reed Kutztown (PA)

4 Dale Hellestrae Southern Methodist

5 Jimmy Teal Texas A&M

6 Mike Hamby Utah State

7 Ron Pitts UCLA

8 Jacque Robinson Washington

9 Glenn Jones Norfolk State

10 Chris Babyar Illinois

11 James Seawright South Carolina

12 Paul Woodside West Virginia

 

This draft (1987) is about the best we have ever had. One (maybe two) hall of famers and Burrows, Reich, Pitts, Garner, and Burkett all had pretty good careers. Any other year come close?

[Dibs]

Ouch!

 

Evans is already a top receiver in the league. Losman shows potential to be a very good qb. 04 also brought us a LT (Peters). This alone is better than 06, in which we left day 1 with a safety, an injured DT who was injured yet again, and a corner who didn't play; this with 4 early picks. Not pretty from where I sit, although hopefully Marv bailed himself out of this mess in day 2.

....& I guess we can truly compare 2006 to 2004 when we finish 2008.....not right now.

After 1 season, JPL hardly saw the field & Peters was 'special teams guy'. Evans showed promise & produced good #2 numbers.....after 2 full seasons the jury was still out on whether he would be a #1 WR.

Apples with apples please.

 

*Also, JPL should really count in the 2005 draft IMO since it was the 2005 1st round pick that mainly paid for him.*

*Also, FAs should not be included in assessing draft classes unless direct picks were traded for said FAs....IMO.*

[DrDawkinstein]

Bruce Smith Virginia Tech

1 Derrick Burroughs Memphis State

2 Mark Traynowicz Nebraska

2 Chris Burkett Jackson State

3 Frank Reich Maryland

3 Hal Garner Utah State

4 Andre Reed Kutztown (PA)

4 Dale Hellestrae Southern Methodist

5 Jimmy Teal Texas A&M

6 Mike Hamby Utah State

7 Ron Pitts UCLA

8 Jacque Robinson Washington

9 Glenn Jones Norfolk State

10 Chris Babyar Illinois

11 James Seawright South Carolina

12 Paul Woodside West Virginia

 

This draft (1987) is about the best we have ever had. One (maybe two) hall of famers and Burrows, Reich, Pitts, Garner, and Burkett all had pretty good careers. Any other year come close?

 

were we picking first overall that draft?????

[justnzane]

Bruce Smith Virginia Tech

1 Derrick Burroughs Memphis State

2 Mark Traynowicz Nebraska

2 Chris Burkett Jackson State

3 Frank Reich Maryland

3 Hal Garner Utah State

4 Andre Reed Kutztown (PA)

4 Dale Hellestrae Southern Methodist

5 Jimmy Teal Texas A&M

6 Mike Hamby Utah State

7 Ron Pitts UCLA

8 Jacque Robinson Washington

9 Glenn Jones Norfolk State

10 Chris Babyar Illinois

11 James Seawright South Carolina

12 Paul Woodside West Virginia

 

This draft (1987) is about the best we have ever had. One (maybe two) hall of famers and Burrows, Reich, Pitts, Garner, and Burkett all had pretty good careers. Any other year come close?

Wrong year buddy, that was the 1985 draft.

 

were we picking first overall that draft?????

 

and in '85 ayup.

[DrDawkinstein]

so yeah... all we need is the worst record in the NFL and our GM will look like a draft genius!!

[Dibs]

so yeah... all we need is the worst record in the NFL and our GM will look like a draft genius!!

....with 2 picks in each of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th rounds.

[Pyrite Gal]

Ouch!

 

Evans is already a top receiver in the league. Losman shows potential to be a very good qb. 04 also brought us a LT (Peters). This alone is better than 06, in which we left day 1 with a safety, an injured DT who was injured yet again, and a corner who didn't play; this with 4 early picks. Not pretty from where I sit, although hopefully Marv bailed himself out of this mess in day 2.

 

 

 

Definitely proof positive that it is still way to early to draw any final conclusions about the quality of the '06 draft.

 

From where I sit, the draft is such a speculative enterprise (definitely a potentially very valuable speculative exercise but make no mistake it is a speculative exercise) I do not feel great about day 1 picks but I feel good about where we sit:

 

1. Whitner- proved himself to be an immediate credible starter at safety and given accomplishments like his getting credited with over 100 tackles and getting a rookie of the month honor, I feel fairly sure that injuries allowing we have a safety for years who MAY develop into a pro bowl worthy talent.

 

In terms of second-guessing comparison, I like him better than other safeties we could have gotten with a first day pick such as Bullocks, Manning, Pollard or even Huff who was picked before him, Whitner appears to have had a stronger season/

 

All in all I like BPA as a general rule but we had a specific need which had to be addressed in this draft for a strong safety and the pick of Huff simply forced us to use our pick on Whitner and the woulda/coulda/shoulda discussion about whether he was worth a #8 is a great theoretical discussion which has nothing to do with the 2006 draft the way it actually occurred.

 

2. McCargo- Again looking at the reality of the situation, the Bills clearly spent more than they had to in order to get a DT capable of starting on a team which improved its record and did much better than the 2005 team.

 

However, I think this is actually shown not by sorting through the charts which ascribe comparative draft values to selections in various rounds or expectations of whether a 1st round choice should start, but ironically in that this Marv led team did acquire a DT capable of starting on a team which improved significantly in a 5th round choice. As far as any assessment of this Marv led team's drafting, they deserve faulting in trading up to pick McCargo but the same breath is it wants to be realistic should also contain praise for them being able to find a starter in the 5th.

 

As far as how I feel about the choices for 2007 this comes back to an assessment of the individual. Here the key is the old axiom which I think is true that it really take three seasons of play before one really can declare a particular choice a success or failure. For now I think it is true that Mccargo disappointed and a better choice could have been made for 2006, but the good news is the Bills did that in the 5th round.

 

As far as this year, while it seems clear the Bills need to get more talent into our DL rotation, while it goes too far to say the Bills are sitting pretty, i would not call this an ugly situation at all as the additional DT actually replaces a player reasonably declared a failure in Anderson and as some observers did feel McCargo began to show some positives just prior to his injury and he still has the talent which got him drafted he remains not am unreasonable prospect for us to step up and fill the DT role. A history of injury is troubling, but still too early to declare this an absolute problem, its simply too early to give up on this choice yet even though disappointment in him personally is real, this problem is easily secondary to me in that the team drafted an answer last year.

 

3. Youbouty- Finding too much fault with this situation strikes me quite frankly as a little small (both personally and in terms of football assessment).

 

Personally, I would be a little worried about a person who has the oldest kid in a family which is being raised along by a mother who died who blew off his familial responsibilities in this situation and instead hung out with his teammates and did preseason and played this boy's game.

 

I think that him actually doing the "correct" thing for being a good football player this year would have been such a low class act when really he needed to concentrate on supporting his family rather than his teammates that I have no problem with him missing this "valuable" football time.

 

In terms of his football, I think this actually may be a case where the Bills are sitting pretty. The consensus on Youbouty at the draft seemed to be he had the physical abilities of a 1st round choice, but mentally he was not there yet. I'm not sure exactly what the "mental" issue was as it MIGHT be that he needed more study, OR it might be he lacked maturity, OR whatever.

 

As best as I can see, Youbouty got a crash course this past year in responsibility and maturity when his Mom died and he got responsibility for his siblings. Further, he actually got ample down time with no on field duties or responsibilities where all he was asked to do was study the books and watch the game.

 

The really good news for us is that while having this opportunity is great it is no guarantee he would take it. The good news is that he was actually trusted to start 1 game for the Bills when we were looking for extra coverage help against Pennington (a successful outing for the team) and clearly he showed the coaches something in practice which made them feel he could be trusted.

 

I am quite hopeful based on his limited performance this season that he at least will take the nickel spot next year and there is even a chance that he may be able to take the #2 CB role behind McGee if NC goes,

 

When one adds the extraordinary number of starters chosen on the 2nd day to this situation where I am comfortable we will find at least two (if not all three) first day choices being significant contributors next year. while it smals too much of rose color glasses to say we are sitting pretty, it strikes me as conversely as being unreasonably pessimistic to say the situation is ugly looking at the 1st day choices. For the 2006 draft overall given that 4 players were comfortable starters by talent at the end of the season (Whitner, Simpson, Williams, Pennington) I think we are sitting pretty to get 4 starters so quickly from 7 rounds of drafting.

[Mickey]

Ouch!

 

Evans is already a top receiver in the league. Losman shows potential to be a very good qb. 04 also brought us a LT (Peters). This alone is better than 06, in which we left day 1 with a safety, an injured DT who was injured yet again, and a corner who didn't play; this with 4 early picks. Not pretty from where I sit, although hopefully Marv bailed himself out of this mess in day 2.

 

Peters wasn't drafted so I would include him in discussing the best/worst years for FA signings. Otherwise, in assessing the 2006 draft we would have to add in all the FA's that were signed such as A-Train and Kiwaukee, etc. Limiting it to just the people we drafted, I stand by my assessment that although a good draft, I think 2006 is a better one, especially at the one year out mark. Try to recall how you would have assessed the 2002 draft in 2003.

 

The bottom line of our 2006 draft is that it produces starters Whitner, Simpson and Pennington with occasional starters in Ellison and Kyle Williams. McCargo as well was in the starting rotation when he was injured and I don't think it is fair to assess a pick made by the GM/scouting & coaching staff based on an injury like that. It wouldn't be out of the question for us to finish next year with Whitner, Simpson, Pennington, McCargo, Ellison and Williams starting or at least in the starting rotation. Compare that result with how roundly this draft was condemend last spring. From sow's ear to silk purse my friend. Let us doubt Marv no more.

[Mickey]

Definitely proof positive that it is still way to early to draw any final conclusions about the quality of the '06 draft.

 

From where I sit, the draft is such a speculative enterprise (definitely a potentially very valuable speculative exercise but make no mistake it is a speculative exercise) I do not feel great about day 1 picks but I feel good about where we sit:

 

1. Whitner- proved himself to be an immediate credible starter at safety and given accomplishments like his getting credited with over 100 tackles and getting a rookie of the month honor, I feel fairly sure that injuries allowing we have a safety for years who MAY develop into a pro bowl worthy talent.

 

In terms of second-guessing comparison, I like him better than other safeties we could have gotten with a first day pick such as Bullocks, Manning, Pollard or even Huff who was picked before him, Whitner appears to have had a stronger season/

 

All in all I like BPA as a general rule but we had a specific need which had to be addressed in this draft for a strong safety and the pick of Huff simply forced us to use our pick on Whitner and the woulda/coulda/shoulda discussion about whether he was worth a #8 is a great theoretical discussion which has nothing to do with the 2006 draft the way it actually occurred.

 

2. McCargo- Again looking at the reality of the situation, the Bills clearly spent more than they had to in order to get a DT capable of starting on a team which improved its record and did much better than the 2005 team.

 

However, I think this is actually shown not by sorting through the charts which ascribe comparative draft values to selections in various rounds or expectations of whether a 1st round choice should start, but ironically in that this Marv led team did acquire a DT capable of starting on a team which improved significantly in a 5th round choice. As far as any assessment of this Marv led team's drafting, they deserve faulting in trading up to pick McCargo but the same breath is it wants to be realistic should also contain praise for them being able to find a starter in the 5th.

 

As far as how I feel about the choices for 2007 this comes back to an assessment of the individual. Here the key is the old axiom which I think is true that it really take three seasons of play before one really can declare a particular choice a success or failure. For now I think it is true that Mccargo disappointed and a better choice could have been made for 2006, but the good news is the Bills did that in the 5th round.

 

As far as this year, while it seems clear the Bills need to get more talent into our DL rotation, while it goes too far to say the Bills are sitting pretty, i would not call this an ugly situation at all as the additional DT actually replaces a player reasonably declared a failure in Anderson and as some observers did feel McCargo began to show some positives just prior to his injury and he still has the talent which got him drafted he remains not am unreasonable prospect for us to step up and fill the DT role. A history of injury is troubling, but still too early to declare this an absolute problem, its simply too early to give up on this choice yet even though disappointment in him personally is real, this problem is easily secondary to me in that the team drafted an answer last year.

 

3. Youbouty- Finding too much fault with this situation strikes me quite frankly as a little small (both personally and in terms of football assessment).

 

Personally, I would be a little worried about a person who has the oldest kid in a family which is being raised along by a mother who died who blew off his familial responsibilities in this situation and instead hung out with his teammates and did preseason and played this boy's game.

 

I think that him actually doing the "correct" thing for being a good football player this year would have been such a low class act when really he needed to concentrate on supporting his family rather than his teammates that I have no problem with him missing this "valuable" football time.

 

In terms of his football, I think this actually may be a case where the Bills are sitting pretty. The consensus on Youbouty at the draft seemed to be he had the physical abilities of a 1st round choice, but mentally he was not there yet. I'm not sure exactly what the "mental" issue was as it MIGHT be that he needed more study, OR it might be he lacked maturity, OR whatever.

 

As best as I can see, Youbouty got a crash course this past year in responsibility and maturity when his Mom died and he got responsibility for his siblings. Further, he actually got ample down time with no on field duties or responsibilities where all he was asked to do was study the books and watch the game.

 

The really good news for us is that while having this opportunity is great it is no guarantee he would take it. The good news is that he was actually trusted to start 1 game for the Bills when we were looking for extra coverage help against Pennington (a successful outing for the team) and clearly he showed the coaches something in practice which made them feel he could be trusted.

 

I am quite hopeful based on his limited performance this season that he at least will take the nickel spot next year and there is even a chance that he may be able to take the #2 CB role behind McGee if NC goes,

 

When one adds the extraordinary number of starters chosen on the 2nd day to this situation where I am comfortable we will find at least two (if not all three) first day choices being significant contributors next year. while it smals too much of rose color glasses to say we are sitting pretty, it strikes me as conversely as being unreasonably pessimistic to say the situation is ugly looking at the 1st day choices. For the 2006 draft overall given that 4 players were comfortable starters by talent at the end of the season (Whitner, Simpson, Williams, Pennington) I think we are sitting pretty to get 4 starters so quickly from 7 rounds of drafting.

 

Good analysis. I say now what I said then, we had to get a SS and a DT in that draft and Whitner was the best SS on the board when we took him and McCargo was the best DT on the board when we took him and further, there was a huge drop off after McCargo. All that speculation about how we could have traded a pig in a poke and receivd 7 first rounders in exchange if only Marv weren't senile was just that, s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n.

 

In the end, I think we ended up laying the foundation for a solid secondary with a potential pro-bowler in the mix to boot. We still have a few cards in our hand we haven't really even seen yet in McCargo and Youboty. As if that weren't good enough, we also nabbed a few surprises in Ellison, Pennington and Williams. It was a good draft and depending on Youboty and McCargo, it could end up having been a great draft. Compare that to the doom and gloom about Marv's first draft that was pervasive on the board last spring. What a difference a year makes.

[Mickey]

Bruce Smith Virginia Tech

1 Derrick Burroughs Memphis State

2 Mark Traynowicz Nebraska

2 Chris Burkett Jackson State

3 Frank Reich Maryland

3 Hal Garner Utah State

4 Andre Reed Kutztown (PA)

4 Dale Hellestrae Southern Methodist

5 Jimmy Teal Texas A&M

6 Mike Hamby Utah State

7 Ron Pitts UCLA

8 Jacque Robinson Washington

9 Glenn Jones Norfolk State

10 Chris Babyar Illinois

11 James Seawright South Carolina

12 Paul Woodside West Virginia

 

This draft (1987) is about the best we have ever had. One (maybe two) hall of famers and Burrows, Reich, Pitts, Garner, and Burkett all had pretty good careers. Any other year come close?

That was a great draft but the best pick in it was a no brainer. We had the first pick in the whole shebang and Smith was thought to be the best DE to ever come out of college at the time. What made that draft was Reed, clearly one of the best later round finds in the history of the team. In fact, I can't really think of a better one. Anyone?

[Bill from NYC]

Peters wasn't drafted so I would include him in discussing the best/worst years for FA signings. Otherwise, in assessing the 2006 draft we would have to add in all the FA's that were signed such as A-Train and Kiwaukee, etc. Limiting it to just the people we drafted, I stand by my assessment that although a good draft, I think 2006 is a better one, especially at the one year out mark. Try to recall how you would have assessed the 2002 draft in 2003.

 

The bottom line of our 2006 draft is that it produces starters Whitner, Simpson and Pennington with occasional starters in Ellison and Kyle Williams. McCargo as well was in the starting rotation when he was injured and I don't think it is fair to assess a pick made by the GM/scouting & coaching staff based on an injury like that. It wouldn't be out of the question for us to finish next year with Whitner, Simpson, Pennington, McCargo, Ellison and Williams starting or at least in the starting rotation. Compare that result with how roundly this draft was condemend last spring. From sow's ear to silk purse my friend. Let us doubt Marv no more.

 

Certinly you wouldn't want to compare Peters to all of the 06 free agents combined, would you?

04 was a great year because half of our top 6 players arrived in town, to include a qb, wr, and a LT.

 

As for 06, again, it is admittedly early to tell, but to date I am not pleased with day 1, considering we had 4 picks in a very strong draft. Day 2 otoh looks pretty good.

[RuntheDamnBall]

HERE IT IS....THE BIG POINT

NC = 1 first round pick (#21)

Rob Johnson(& Bledsoe) = 3 first round picks (#9, #13, #22) & a second round pick & all the other little add ons to the RJ, DB & JPL trades

 

Had we succeeded in trading/acquiring a good QB with the #9 pick back in 1998(the RJ pick)....or even if Flowers or MW had panned out, we would have had multiple, multiple, multiple picks extra to play with.....and we wouldn't be too concerned with the fact we are facing losing our top CB.

As much as anyone wants to dump on TD -- and they should because his coaching choices were dismal -- the seeds for this decade's futility were sown by John Butler (RIP). The 1998 trade for RJ was crippling: 1st and 4th (Fred Taylor and... take your pick from these later fourth rounders:

111 N.Y. Jets Jason Fabini T Cincinnati

117 Pittsburgh Deshea Townsend CB Alabama

119 San Francisco Lance Schulters SS Hofstra)

 

Hasselbeck was drafted in round 6.

 

The 2000 draft was probably the worst I've ever seen for the Bills (though looking back at it it was one of the most talent-devoid drafts in recent memory). Flowers, Moore, Tillman, Avion Black...

We could have had Keith Bulluck in round 1, and Robaire Smith (drafted five picks AFTER Leif Larsen in Round 6), Bulger.

 

What has crippled this team (and I love JP Losman) is expending so many high picks on QBs, Bill, not DBs. At least the DBs have had some success for this team. Whatever you want to say about it, if this team had consistently drafted QBs in rounds 3-6 it's likely we would have found a diamond in the rough like Bulger, Brady, Hasselbeck (or Schaub, etc. the list goes on).

[Pyrite Gal]

Certinly you wouldn't want to compare Peters to all of the 06 free agents combined, would you?

04 was a great year because half of our top 6 players arrived in town, to include a qb, wr, and a LT.

 

As for 06, again, it is admittedly early to tell, but to date I am not pleased with day 1, considering we had 4 picks in a very strong draft. Day 2 otoh looks pretty good.

 

But in actually assessing the 06 draft class, I think that the most rational answers to complaints about the quality of the Day one choices really vary between 1. ya gotta wait to do a rational assessment or 2. who cares.

 

The answers strike me as the most rational responses as:

 

1. One really needs to see 3 years of play before one draws rational conclusions. Even in our own limited Bills world, not only do folks drafted in the "old" days like Eric Moulds deserve to be thrown under the bus for their 1st year (actually first two years) results and somehow turn it around to become legit Pro Bowlers, but as was pointed out above TD already has shown us the stupidity of putting too many marbles in the hands of a player based on his 1st year but also folks who wanted to throw him away based on his 2nd year production may have drawn conclusions too soon.

 

2. The key to assessing the quality of any draft is assessing the quality of the draft. It is simply not assessing part of the draft even one which at least has the chronological unity of looking at one day. Overall, I think the quality of a draft is shown in assessing the contributions to the team of the players chosen. The 06 draft assessment though prematures shows not only the 7 rounds revealing all the players chosen making the team (an easily jimmiable outcome which does even necessarily indicate not to mention prove quality) but in fact about half the players chosen started roughly half the team's games in a year the team produced an improved record (this result seems far above what is normally achieved from draft classes and is good based on reality though inadequate because we failed to make the playoffs).

 

I understand the concern expressed about the production of the 1st day choices, but this concern if elevated to be important simply comes off as whining when in the same breath one does not acknowledge or point to the Bills starters on an improved team who were chosen on the second day.

 

In fact to focus sharply on the first day and have many concerns about their production without also acknowledging the second day result simply comes off as being about the same as someone complaining that the team did a horrible job on one choice while simply ignoring the rest of the draft.

 

3. In addition, any assessment that is based on the entirely speculative notion that the team traded too much value to move up is so woulda/coulda/shoulda as the fact it takes two partners to make a trade and who knows what the market specifically required at that moment in time really does defy logical analysis of any depth.

 

The bottomline clearly strikes me as being:

 

1. So far very good as the Bills go into this offseason with at least 3 (if not four) likely starters on next year's team coming from a 7 round draft (Whitner, Simpson, Pennington and probably Williams).

 

2. Rather than simply drafting bad players who could produce just as well or about the same as the bad players we had on a 5-11 team, these starters were part of a team which improved to 7-9 and has a more than reasonable shot at making the playoffs next year with this base.

 

3. Could the Bills have drafted players who were more productive in 06 on the first day? Sure (though it would be unprecedented as best as I can remember if they had gotten productive performances from the 1st day choices AND the reality of production from the second day choices had both occurred.

 

The noting of the 1st day choices having mixed production at best is certainly worth noting but is quickly reduced to mere bleating by the production of the second day choices on an improved team.

 

Are folks really saying that in order for the '06 draft not to be found wanting, that we should have gotten the 3 first day choices to start in about a majority of the games to join with 4 2nd day choices who pulled this off. It would as best as I can remember simply be unprecedented for a 7 round draft to produce 6 players who went into their first off-season as likely starters the next season. This essentially is what an expectation that the Bills should have done better on the first day means.

 

The 06 draft actually stands a reasonable (though not likely IMHO) of producing exactly this result if Youbouty does in step up to replace NC (I hope he does not have to and is "merely" asked to become our nickel which I think he can do well and McCargo steps up to be the penetrating DT who can stand up against the run our Cover 2 needs (doubtful but possible).

 

While it is more optimistic than I want to be to claim we are sitting pretty, it is simply an unrealistically bleak assessment in my view to claim that this draft leaves us in an ugly situation because it is impossible that the 06 draft might well produce 6 starters on a playoff achieving team in 07.

 

This being the actual turn of events is not only quite possible but in fact a real possibility next season or am I wrong in labeling this as possible.

[Dibs]

Certinly you wouldn't want to compare Peters to all of the 06 free agents combined, would you?

Hopefully.....by the end of 2007......if we compare Peters to any combined year of FA acquisitions, Peters will win.

I'm totally with you on this one Bill......it's an absolutely amazing occurrence for us. In perspective.....assuming he reaches the heights that many feel he will......that is a bigger upside than most felt we could ever obtain from M.Williams.....and he was the #4 pick. Every time I think about him I

[Orton's Arm]

I wish we had a button to press for favorite posters-

Great post as usual!!

Thanks.