MarkyMannn Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Youbouty's situation was due to the unexpected death of his mother Yeah, I knew that.................and I said I was callous too
obie_wan Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Dibs, the bar was raised when we went with a safety in round 1. If you look at safeties drafted in round 1 over the past five years ( http://www.theredzone.org/draft_history/sh....asp?Position=S ), the list is very small and goes like this:2006: Michael Huff, Donte Whitner, Jason Allen 2005: none 2004: Sean Taylor 2003: Troy Polamalu 2002: Roy Williams, Ed Reed Donte needs to become the average of Sean Taylor, Troy Polamalu, Roy Williams, and Ed Reed, which would make him a great player. It's like if you drafted a kicker in round 1, you would expect that kicker to be pretty darn good. With the way the salary cap is headed, the Bills really don't have that many chances to get a great player. The draft is the key for us to improve, and it is imperative that when we get a top 15 pick, the player we select pans out. Bottom line is that if the Bills are going to be Super Bowl contenders any time soon, Donte Whitner will have to become a great, game-changing player. If he doesn't, I doubt we'll be contenders. I do think he has a chance to be, though. yeah- we should have taken a big, fat underperforming "stud" like Mike Williams (Bunkley) because that's what the experts predicted. then he wouldn't have to meet any performance standards because he was the consensus pick.
Ozymandius Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 yeah- we should have taken a big, fat underperforming "stud" like Mike Williams (Bunkley) because that's what the experts predicted. then he wouldn't have to meet any performance standards because he was the consensus pick. I can only speak for myself but I hated Bunkley, but if we HAD drafted him, I would've had high expectations for him as well. Bottom line is that the Bills need their top 15 draft choices to become great players. Other teams can make mistakes with the draft (but not too many) and still contend because they have the money to sign free agents. And if you take a safety in the first round, in the top 10 no less, that boy better make some plays for you. Don't get me wrong, I was happy with Whitner's rookie year. But pretty soon, he needs to start affecting games the way Polamalu or even a second round guy like Bob Sanders does.
Alaska Darin Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Other teams can make mistakes with the draft (but not too many) and still contend because they have the money to sign free agents. So Ralph's got you believing that lie too?
Matt in KC Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 A) I think that Whitner will be good, but not worth the #8 pick. B) I also think that being able to move to the Cover 2 and transform our defense was well worth the price paid in A. I was thrilled to see the Bills trade up to grab Mangold... McCargo!? Well... we did need a DT too. We'll have to see how he develops.
Ozymandius Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 So Ralph's got you believing that lie too? Whether Ralph really does or doesn't have the money to me is irrelevant. His complaints about money tell me that either he really doesn't have it, or if he does, he won't spend it. And if that's the case, the draft is much more important to the Bills than other teams.
mead107 Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 You can all go back and do the what ifs , but we have what we have and we did OK . Lets look foward .
Orton's Arm Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Yes but when your opinion is always, "we should have drafted this person, Marv screwed up. He should have done this, he should have picked the guy I suggested. If the Bills did this they would be better, now they are doomed" (not saying you yourself have said stuff like this, just some posters have) you are implying that you are better then the guy in charge now and would be a better canidate for the job Leading up to the draft, Bill from NYC really, really wanted Marv to trade down and take Mangold--as did others. Instead, Marv stayed at #8 and took a SS. Based on their respective rookie years, it looks like Mangold will be a better football player than Whitner. Based on what we've seen so far, what Bill from NYC suggested would have helped the Bills considerably more than what Marv actually did. Not once have I heard Bill from NYC say, "see I told you so." Nor have I seen anyone else on this thread express that sentiment. What I have seen is a feeling of disappointment that the Bills had an opportunity to obtain, say, 120 units of benefit to the team, and came away with only 60 or 70. Those expressing this sentiment are accused of 20/20 hindsight or coulda-woulda-shoulda, even though these same people were saying these exact same things before the draft. As for the accusation that those who disagree with the Whitner pick think they should be the Bills' GM--I'd disagree with that one too. Part of the fun of being a football fan is asking what you'd do in a GM's place. If after the fact you see your own plans would have worked out better than the GM's--as is the case here--you should be able to point that out without people treating you like you have leprosy.
apuszczalowski Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Leading up to the draft, Bill from NYC really, really wanted Marv to trade down and take Mangold--as did others. Instead, Marv stayed at #8 and took a SS. Based on their respective rookie years, it looks like Mangold will be a better football player than Whitner. Based on what we've seen so far, what Bill from NYC suggested would have helped the Bills considerably more than what Marv actually did. Not once have I heard Bill from NYC say, "see I told you so." Nor have I seen anyone else on this thread express that sentiment. What I have seen is a feeling of disappointment that the Bills had an opportunity to obtain, say, 120 units of benefit to the team, and came away with only 60 or 70. Those expressing this sentiment are accused of 20/20 hindsight or coulda-woulda-shoulda, even though these same people were saying these exact same things before the draft. As for the accusation that those who disagree with the Whitner pick think they should be the Bills' GM--I'd disagree with that one too. Part of the fun of being a football fan is asking what you'd do in a GM's place. If after the fact you see your own plans would have worked out better than the GM's--as is the case here--you should be able to point that out without people treating you like you have leprosy. Maybe I should highlight the part in brackets of my post you quoted As for saying after their rookie season Mangold is going to be the better pro then Whitner, how is that even possible to determine? They play 2 very different positions and on different sides of the ball. Its like saying Peyton Manning will be a better pro then Brian Moorman Mangold is a very good player, and if the Bills didn't already have a very good centre (Fowler was picked up before the draft) it would have been a very good pickup for them. Whitner was great on defence for a first year player at his position and looks like he will be a great choice for the Bills. He was a guy they wanted and they made sure they had him. I'm sure if the Bills knew they could get him later in the draft they would have traded out of the spot for more picks to get him later. But the same as how people are saying that Marv had offers to move down, there were also rumors that whitner would have been gone in the next couple picks. I'm not saying that people disagreeing with the whitner pick should become GM's, what I am saying is the people who feel they know more then Marv and the scouting staff should send in a resume, and there are alot here that think that way because their pick before the draft did well at their position.
obie_wan Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 You can all go back and do the what ifs , but we have what we have and we did OK . Lets look foward . I'm not here to talk about the past
Orton's Arm Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Maybe I should highlight the part in brackets of my post you quoted As for saying after their rookie season Mangold is going to be the better pro then Whitner, how is that even possible to determine? They play 2 very different positions and on different sides of the ball. Its like saying Peyton Manning will be a better pro then Brian Moorman Let's say that Mangold is half a notch down from the best centers in the league, while Whitner's a full notch lower than the Ed Reeds of the NFL. To me, that makes Mangold a better football player than Whitner--at least at this point in their careers. Mangold is a very good player, and if the Bills didn't already have a very good centre (Fowler was picked up before the draft) it would have been a very good pickup for them. I'd argue that Mevlin Fowler is to center what Matt Bowen is to strong safety. Either player is good enough to get you by, but not good enough that you'd seek them out as permanent starters.
Dibs Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Why does everybody seem to be upset when people want to discuss something? It's just a discussion. We can't go back in time and change anything. His point was in relation to people apparent precognitive abilities.....all stated in hindsight.....not about the concept of overall discussion.
Dibs Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) Dibs, the bar was raised when we went with a safety in round 1. If you look at safeties drafted in round 1 over the past five years ( http://www.theredzone.org/draft_history/sh....asp?Position=S ), the list is very small and goes like this:2006: Michael Huff, Donte Whitner, Jason Allen 2005: none 2004: Sean Taylor 2003: Troy Polamalu 2002: Roy Williams, Ed Reed Donte needs to become the average of Sean Taylor, Troy Polamalu, Roy Williams, and Ed Reed, which would make him a great player. It's like if you drafted a kicker in round 1, you would expect that kicker to be pretty darn good. Good point.....though I still think that when looking at 'the pick'.....any non bust is better than a bust(which is 50%). I was mainly trying to counter the concept of what Matt in DC said in post #65(after my post too)....."A) I think that Whitner will be good, but not worth the #8 pick." By perspective, I meant that if half of the #8 picks are busts........how is it possible for everyone to continually expect the player to become a HOFer. Surely a 'good' player is a result well above the odds & therefore the player is a good pick. ....but I digress from your point Let's compare Whitners rookie year to those guys. Whitner....15 games, 104 tackles, 1 int, 0 sacks Huff....16 games, 78 tackles, 0 int, 0 sacks Allen....16 games, 20 tackles, 1 int, 0 sacks Taylor....15 games, 76 tackles, 4 int, 1 sacks Polamalu....16 games, 38 tackles, 0 int, 0 sacks Williams....16 games, 55 tackles, 5 ins, 2 sacks Reed....16, 85 tackles, 5 int, 1 sack As we can see.....in perspective to his modern day peers.....he is certainly in the mix.....better than most....most tackles by far....only one int which is only bettered by 3 players. but wait.....you forgot a few safeties...... 2005: Thomas Davis(converted to OLB)....16 games, 38 tackles, 0 int, 1.5 sacks 2002: Mike Rumph....16 games, 49 tackles, 0 int, 0 sacks ....and I think to be fair, we should grab more 1st round safeties from further back in time. In recent times there has been a few BIG successes more than the usual I'd think.....only fair to compare in proper perspective.(A bit like in recent times high 1st round OTs have been busts.....we don't expect all high 1st round OTs to be busts based on that anomaly) 2001: Adam Archuleta....13 games, 56 tackles, 0 int, 2 sacks 2001: Derrick Gibson....16 games, 15 tackles, 1 int, 0 sacks 1999: Antuan Edwards....16 games, 36 tackles, 4 int, 0 sacks 1998: Tebucky Jones....16 games, 29 tackles, 0 int, 0 sacks 1998: Shaun Williams....13 games, 34 tackles, 2 int, 0 sacks 1998: Donovin Darius....14 games, 76 tackles, 0 int, 0 sacks OK....that's 10 years of the first season for 1st round Safeties drafted. 15 in total Whitner had the highest tackles.....equal 6th in ints & along with 9 others, 0 sacks. "Oooh that's not fair....most of those guys were not top 10 picks" OK....the top 10 picks are..... Huff....not as good Taylor....more ints....less tackles Williams....more ints....less tackles Again.....when looked at in perspective.......Whitner is showing himself to be a very good pick. Edited January 18, 2007 by Dibs
Coach Tuesday Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Let's say that Mangold is half a notch down from the best centers in the league, while Whitner's a full notch lower than the Ed Reeds of the NFL. To me, that makes Mangold a better football player than Whitner--at least at this point in their careers. Ed Reed is a FS. Then you're back to apples-and-oranges. As for Mangold, I don't see how anyone on the Jets' o-line can be considered even above-average right now. First off, the Jets can't run-block. None of their linemen blow guys off the ball. As for pass blocking, as the Bills demonstrated in the Meadowlands this year, if you make Pennington go through his progressions to his second or third read, his line can't protect him that long and he's toast. I'll sum it up: the weakness of the Jets' o-line was masked by their quick passing game. They ain't that good. I'm holding my applause for Mangold and the rest of them.
Simon Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 OK....the top 10 picks are.....Huff....not as good Taylor....not as good Williams....more ints....less tackles I didn't watch Huff this year so I can't comment, but I don't see Whitner as even in the same ballpark as Sean Taylor or Shaun Williams. I don't like the way the Bills negotiated the 2006 draft simply because I think they should have done much better, and I don't feel like I'm speaking from hindsight.
Orton's Arm Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Ed Reed is a FS. Then you're back to apples-and-oranges. As for Mangold, I don't see how anyone on the Jets' o-line can be considered even above-average right now. First off, the Jets can't run-block. None of their linemen blow guys off the ball. As for pass blocking, as the Bills demonstrated in the Meadowlands this year, if you make Pennington go through his progressions to his second or third read, his line can't protect him that long and he's toast. I'll sum it up: the weakness of the Jets' o-line was masked by their quick passing game. They ain't that good. I'm holding my applause for Mangold and the rest of them. According to Dr. Z's grading system, Mangold and Jeff Saturday were tied for the third-best year among the NFL's centers.
Dibs Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 I didn't watch Huff this year so I can't comment, but I don't see Whitner as even in the same ballpark as Sean Taylor or Shaun Williams.I don't like the way the Bills negotiated the 2006 draft simply because I think they should have done much better, and I don't feel like I'm speaking from hindsight. Ooops....I brain freezed & misread Taylors Ints at the end there....edited & fixed now though. My point isn't how good Whitner will become.....who knows, he may BUST after all....or he may become SUPER PLAYMAKER GUY & go to the HOF. What my point is about is he has certainly shown enough in the first year to be considered a very, very, good pick. I keep using the word perspective because it seems nobody here has any. If you think they should have done better, what are you basing your expectations on? Surely expectations should be based on league averages. Our draft was better than league averages in ALL areas. We had a better 1st day than most teams(many think we didn't but we actually did).....we had a magnificent 2nd day at the draft. OVERALL we had a very, very good draft. That isn't to say that the players who have shown promise can't regress.....it is simply saying that....seeing so many wish to grade the draft now......that we had a far better draft than most of our peers. If you think we should have traded etc.......we didn't & there is no way to know whether things would have worked out as well as they have for us. It seems people quibble over individual specifics to point out negative things when OVERALL the 2006 draft & Whitner in particular are looking.....in perspective....to be great for us.
Simon Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 I keep using the word perspective because it seems nobody here has any.Or perhaps others' perspectives just differ from yours. If you think they should have done better, what are you basing your expectations on?.....If you think we should have traded etc.......we didn't & there is no way to know whether things would have worked out as well as they have for us. I'm just basing my expectations on the quality of players we got vs the quality of players I thought we could get. I hated the #8 hole going into the draft because I thought there was 7 blue-chip players available. I wanted the Bills to eitehr trade up a couple spots and get a hold of Vernon Davis, imo a far better player than anybody they did get. Barring that I wanted them to either trade down about 4-6 spots and take one of the two good DT's (Ngata/Bunkley) or trade down about 10 spots and take either Tamba Hali, Mangold or Davin Joseph. I feel like any single one of those 3 simple realistic strategies would have netted the Bills more and better players than they ended up with. I haven't really been impressed with any of their first 4 picks, which to me is disappointing because they very easily could have ended up with 2-3 guys I like. Cya
Orton's Arm Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 I hated the #8 hole going into the draft because I thought there was 7 blue-chip players available. I wanted the Bills to eitehr trade up a couple spots and get a hold of Vernon Davis, imo a far better player than anybody they did get. My own feelings were similar. The way I saw things, there were five very good non-QBs in that draft: Reggie Bush, Mario Williams, D'Brickashaw Ferguson, A.J. Hawk, and Vernon Davis. If the big three QBs were taken in the top seven, then one of those five non-QBs had to fall to us. I'd have been happy if we'd sat there at #8 and had taken a Vernon Davis or an A.J. Hawk. On the other hand, if the top-5 non-QBs were off the board when we picked, and if Marv had decided he didn't want to draft a QB in the first, I strongly felt he should trade down. I'd have been perfectly happy had Marv gotten Denver's second round pick plus Nick Mangold.
Simon Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Reggie Bush, Mario Williams, D'Brickashaw Ferguson, A.J. Hawk, and Vernon Davis. If the big three QBs were taken in the top seven, then one of those five non-QBs had to fall to us. I'd have been happy if we'd sat there at #8 and had taken a Vernon Davis or an A.J. Hawk. I didn't have Hawk as one of my blue-chippers. And I didn't think there was a chacne in hell that Davis was getting by SF; meaning the only way to get him was to be proactive and not sit still in that crappy slot.
Recommended Posts