I still don't like the Whitner and McCargo picks

[Dibs]

.....I'm just basing my expectations on the quality of players we got vs the quality of players I thought we could get......

That's ignoring reality. What you...or I....or Marv....or anyone thinks about how a player will pan out has no baring on how they actually do pan out.

Reality = Expect 50% of all 1st round picks to be total BUSTS.

 

If one is grading/rating/assessing a draft.....which is what you/we are doing here......you simply HAVE to compare it to the rest of the league. Is it logical/reasonable for me to expect instant pro-bowlers from every draft pick? Of course not. What is logical/reasonable to do is to figure out what occurs on average to an teams draft selections......compare yours to that......& if it is above the average, assess it as so.

Our 2007 draft was weeeeell above the average draft for the NFL.

Whitner performed weeeeell above the average for a 1st round rookie.....& a top 10 rookie.

 

If you wish to base your expectations on your arbitrary perceptions......at least acknowledge that the standards you are basing things upon are far higher than you place upon every other team in the NFL.

[Simon]

If you wish to base your expectations on your arbitrary perceptions......at least acknowledge that the standards you are basing things upon are far higher than you place upon every other team in the NFL.

My perceptions aren't arbitrary; they're based on how good I think a particular player is and will be. Is there any other thing to possibly base a perception upon?

And I think I make a concerted effort to hold the Bills to the exact same standard I hold other teams (i.e. I'm about the only one who refuses to give the Bills sh-- for the '02 draft because nobody else(except maybe Carolina(whose pick we should have had)) did anything either). And this year I think the Bills did a relatively poor job and I think I could find multiple teams who did better with what they had to work with.

[Orton's Arm]

Reality = Expect 50% of all 1st round picks to be total BUSTS.

 

If one is grading/rating/assessing a draft.....which is what you/we are doing here......you simply HAVE to compare it to the rest of the league.

That's fair. But I think many fans saw Whitner as a low risk/low reward proposition--sort of like putting your money in a savings account. There wasn't much potential for disaster, but neither was there much potential for greatness.

 

On the other hand, many first round players are more like small cap stocks. Sure, there's the chance you'll get hurt on any one stock you buy. But you have to weigh that against the fact that other small cap stocks will have a very high level of return.

 

Take quarterback for example. A few years back, Indianapolis took Peyton Manning; and San Diego took Ryan Leaf. Let's say Peyton Manning is worth 500 points, and Ryan Leaf is worth 0. Donte Whitner is worth 100 points, maybe 125. Whitner may be an above-median player considering his draft slot. But being above-median doesn't make him above average.

[Mikie2times]

That's ignoring reality. What you...or I....or Marv....or anyone thinks about how a player will pan out has no baring on how they actually do pan out.

Reality = Expect 50% of all 1st round picks to be total BUSTS.

 

If one is grading/rating/assessing a draft.....which is what you/we are doing here......you simply HAVE to compare it to the rest of the league. Is it logical/reasonable for me to expect instant pro-bowlers from every draft pick? Of course not. What is logical/reasonable to do is to figure out what occurs on average to an teams draft selections......compare yours to that......& if it is above the average, assess it as so.

Our 2007 draft was weeeeell above the average draft for the NFL.

Whitner performed weeeeell above the average for a 1st round rookie.....& a top 10 rookie.

 

If you wish to base your expectations on your arbitrary perceptions......at least acknowledge that the standards you are basing things upon are far higher than you place upon every other team in the NFL.

By drafting a safety that high being elite or not is the difference between being a bad decision or a good one. Whitner should be judged in the context of the elite safeties because he was drafted in a position before most of the elite safeties. I'm not exactly giving kudos to Marv for finding what looks to be a very good safety in the top 10 until that safety turns into an elite one. I especially won't when we could have had Ngata, and I'm not saying such in hindsight. I started the draft Haloti Ngata bandwagon about 4 months before April and half the wall was on board.

[Dibs]

My perceptions aren't arbitrary; they're based on how good I think a particular player is and will be. Is there any other thing to possibly base a perception upon?

And I think I make a concerted effort to hold the Bills to the exact same standard I hold other teams (i.e. I'm about the only one who refuses to give the Bills sh-- for the '02 draft because nobody else(except maybe Carolina(whose pick we should have had)) did anything either). And this year I think the Bills did a relatively poor job and I think I could find multiple teams who did better with what they had to work with.

My perceptions were/are similar to yours in regards to expectation of talent level of players.....we have had....however....1 year of results.....and as time goes on, our expectations will...or won't be backed up. As history shows, around half of those can't miss top 5-6 players that you/me/everyone expects to be champion players will be busts. Therefore, if Whitner is looking like a near-certain 'good player', that(at this point) is showing to be greater than any perceived possible potential of others.

 

You need to find around 50% of teams who did better with what they had to work with to justify a stance that we had a poor draft.

 

*keep in mind, I would prefer not to assess things after 1 year....but it was raised....and was claimed that we had a bad draft....in particular Whitner*

When looking at how our rookies performed after 1 year.....& comparing them to not only every team this year......& the average performances throughout history.....and in particular teams in the top 10.....and in particular the individual performance of our top pick.....I can see no logical justification for saying that our draft(at this point) looks even minimally average...let alone below average or bad.

 

"I reckon we should have done better."

Compare it to what is there.....not what you figure will be there. That was for post draft assessment. This is now '1 year later' assessment.

[Dibs]

That's fair. But I think many fans saw Whitner as a low risk/low reward proposition--sort of like putting your money in a savings account. There wasn't much potential for disaster, but neither was there much potential for greatness.

I don't know about the little potential for greatness....but....essentially that is exactly correct.

Let me ask you....would you prefer a player who has say.....

50% of bust with 20% chance of star....

or....

25% chance of bust with 10% chance of star?

 

Did anyone really want another M.Williams, E.Flowers, A.Smith, or hell WM?

 

In the end, we are pretty sure we have a 'very good' player in Whitner. I'd say there are only a handful or so teams who feel as confident as us that their 1st pick will not be a bust.

 

But no....I must be wrong. Aaaaall the other 1st rounders who didn't have as good rookie seasons as Whitner are better picks because they have 'potential'.

[Alaska Darin]

We'll never know if Whitner can be compared to the other elite safeties in the game - UNTIL THE FRONT SEVEN VASTLY IMPROVES THEIR PLAY.

 

Taylor was nowhere near the player he was even last year because the Skins front seven went from pretty good to pretty average.

 

FWIW, the guy I wanted was Vernon Davis as well. I knew we weren't going to get him.

[Orton's Arm]

I don't know about the little potential for greatness....but....essentially that is exactly correct.

Let me ask you....would you prefer a player who has say.....

50% of bust with 20% chance of star....

or....

25% chance of bust with 10% chance of star?

Let's say a great player--a difference maker--is worth 500 points. A competent player is only worth 100 points, because he's not going to be that much of an improvement over the Melvin Fowler or Matt Bowen you could have signed in free agency. Now I'll do the math:

 

Option 1, expected value: (50% * 0) + (20% * 500) + (30% * 100) = 130 + second round pick

Option 2, expected value: (25% * 0) + (10% * 500) + (65% * 100) = 115

 

Time will tell how many of the players in the top 15 or top 20 of that draft will have become elite difference makers. 20% seems a little low, so let's rerun the numbers assuming 35% of those players become difference makers:

 

Option 1, expected value: (50% * 0) + (35% * 500) + (15% * 100) = 190 + second round pick

Option 2, expected value: (25% * 0) + (10% * 500) + (65% * 100) = 115

[Rico]

My perceptions aren't arbitrary; they're based on how good I think a particular player is and will be. Is there any other thing to possibly base a perception upon?

How about... STATS!

[Dibs]

Let's say a great player--a difference maker--is worth 500 points. A competent player is only worth 100 points, because he's not going to be that much of an improvement over the Melvin Fowler or Matt Bowen you could have signed in free agency. Now I'll do the math:

 

Option 1, expected value: (50% * 0) + (20% * 500) + (30% * 100) = 130 + second round pick

Option 2, expected value: (25% * 0) + (10% * 500) + (65% * 100) = 115

 

Time will tell how many of the players in the top 15 or top 20 of that draft will have become elite difference makers. 20% seems a little low, so let's rerun the numbers assuming 35% of those players become difference makers:

 

Option 1, expected value: (50% * 0) + (35% * 500) + (15% * 100) = 190 + second round pick

Option 2, expected value: (25% * 0) + (10% * 500) + (65% * 100) = 115

Oh, please.

1st off, who is this 500 point player we could have traded down to get & gotten a 2nd round pick as well? N'Gata? I'm am certain that this entire argument is based upon us not selecting him. If we traded down, the 20% for star potential should reduce also.

 

I don't agree with your numbers. What about the difference between star & starter?

On a sliding scale that would look like......

 

Option 1, expected value: (50% * 0) + (20% * 500) + (8% * 100) + (7% * 200) + (8% * 300) + (7% * 400) = 158

Option 2, expected value: (25% * 0) + (10% * 500) + (20% * 100) + (17% * 200) + (16% * 300) + (12% * 400) = 200

Whitner looks like about a 350 at this point wouldn't you say?

Based on his rookie performance & his own potential.

It's amazing how one can make arbitrary numbers look meaningful.

 

I'm not against gamble picks. I prefer safer picks when we have very few 'good' players. We were not in the position to end up with another 1st round bust.

In the end, the argument is about how he is compared to his peers(present & past) & he is well, well, well, above the average(at this point).

[Orton's Arm]

Whitner looks like about a 350 at this point wouldn't you say?

No.

 

Suppose the Bills call up Bill Polian, and ask to trade for Peyton Manning. We begin by offering Whitner. Do you think we'd be more than halfway toward offering them enough value for Polian to make the trade? I don't.

 

On the other hand, I have to admit the sliding scale you used is better than the three category scale I'd used earlier. Maybe I'm downplaying Whitner because I don't see SS as being as important a position as some others on the field. Or maybe it's that I was really high on the Mangold option (both before and after the draft), and now it turns out Mangold is already among the league's best centers. It would have been so nice to finally have a replacement for Kent Hull (plus that second rounder). Instead we have a SS who looks like he'll be a solid starter, but nothing special.

 

When I see Whitner, I see a glass that is a) half-empty, and b) could easily have been full. You seem to see Whitner as a glass that's a) half-full, and b) could easily have been empty.

 

I think that if you have the #8 overall pick, and very few difference makers on the team, you need to at least try to come away with more than just a glass that's half full.

[thebug]

too soon to tell....

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Let's say a great player--a difference maker--is worth 500 points. A competent player is only worth 100 points, because he's not going to be that much of an improvement over the Melvin Fowler or Matt Bowen you could have signed in free agency. Now I'll do the math:

 

Option 1, expected value: (50% * 0) + (20% * 500) + (30% * 100) = 130 + second round pick

Option 2, expected value: (25% * 0) + (10% * 500) + (65% * 100) = 115

 

Time will tell how many of the players in the top 15 or top 20 of that draft will have become elite difference makers. 20% seems a little low, so let's rerun the numbers assuming 35% of those players become difference makers:

 

Option 1, expected value: (50% * 0) + (35% * 500) + (15% * 100) = 190 + second round pick

Option 2, expected value: (25% * 0) + (10% * 500) + (65% * 100) = 115

 

 

i'm reminded to the movie "a beautiful mind" with russell crowe. he spends a fair amount of scribbling complex equations on the blackboard, wall, window, door frame and so on. he also speaks to people who aren't really there. h.a.---are there people there with you now? can other people see them? if not--don't despair. the movie is ultimately a story of hope and triumph, and he scores a pretty nice looking wife. downside---before the hope and triumph, he takes a spin in a straightjacket to get his wits about him. it's not so bad, i'm sure.

 

 

i assume the brain trust assessed needs of the organization and the multiple layers of need on the team they inherited. i can only assume they felt the best place to start the rebuilding was with a strong candidate on the defensive side of the ball. in retrospect, they got a gamer who delivered. ngata plays on a substantially better defensive unit than the Bills have/had, perhaps in part due to his contributions. on the other hand, perhaps--and likely we'd agree---the level of his game is raised by those around him. regardless, he was there and the bills opted to go a different direction and there really are only two logical options on what they were thinking:

 

a. he was a better fit for our defense at this time;

2. they thought ngata was not as good a fit or perhaps would not fit the scheme we're looking to play (not the right guy/character issues/takes plays off/whatever...)

 

defense seems like a logical place to start, although the Good Lord In Heaven knows that the o-line could have fit for the Bills just as well. Mangold? He appears like he'll be a great player in the league. there are other potentially great players in the draft as well that were taken after the DW pick. Conventional wisdom suggests that you follow the status quo--picking position-players at the normal range they typically go for in the draft. but, if you always do what you always did, you often get what you always got. I like the balls they exhibited in going the direction they felt. Good for them. And if they fail, I'll grab the tar---someone grab the feathers. Such is life in the NFL.

 

last, i don't think anyone anticipated draft number 1 was going to solve the problems of this team. and, it didn't. but, the trend is going in the right direction, and being a realist---you don't need specifically ngata or mangold or anyone else to go to the playoffs and beyond. ultimately, the question boils down not to the 2006 draft, but the collective efforts of multiple drafts and free agency acquisitions, plus effective coaching and disciplined play. toss in there some common sense decision-making on who to keep and who to let walk---let's use pat williams as an example---and it boils down to the system you employ, and finding the correct players to fill the positions. i think too often, specific names are tossed about as the next best answer for a team, when there ae other options available. coaching wins championships. let's hope our is able to do so.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

You don't trust the team then. Whitner and McCargo were great picks. Do you have something against Whitner, because from what I saw this year, HE WAS GREAT!

[Orton's Arm]

i'm reminded to the movie "a beautiful mind" with russell crowe. he spends a fair amount of scribbling complex equations on the blackboard, wall, window, door frame and so on. he also speaks to people who aren't really there. h.a.---are there people there with you now? can other people see them? if not--don't despair. the movie is ultimately a story of hope and triumph, and he scores a pretty nice looking wife. downside---before the hope and triumph, he takes a spin in a straightjacket to get his wits about him. it's not so bad, i'm sure.

That's some pretty funny imagery. Hmmm . . . I'm trying to imagine myself as a brilliant but eccentric (and somewhat psychotic) mathematical genius like John Nash. I assure you there's a big difference between what John Nash did (which was amazing) and what I did in that post (which is fairly common). Let's say someone offered you $1.00 if a coin came up heads, but nothing if it came up tails. The expected value of that coin flip is (50% * $1.00) + (50% * $0.00) = $0.50. Nothing brilliant there, and that's all I did in that earlier post.

 

The way I figure things, the Bills really need to win the Super Bowl. To do that, all your starters need to be solid football players. But a few of them here and there need to be more than solid--they need to be bona fide difference makers. I'll give Marv credit for doing an exceptional job of finding solid football players on the second day of the draft. But I think he could have done more to find real difference makers on the first day. Maybe a few years from now it will turn out that the Whitners and McCargos of this draft really are Pro Bowl material, or nearly so. But right now things seem a little disappointing.

[Orton's Arm]

You don't trust the team then. Whitner and McCargo were great picks. Do you have something against Whitner, because from what I saw this year, HE WAS GREAT!

For what it's worth, Sportsline has Whitner rated as the 148th best DB in the NFL. Interestingly, Ko Simpson was the 63rd best DB (according to them), and Nate Clements the 18th best DB. But what's really, really frustrating is the #2 DB on that list.

[Dibs]

No.

 

Suppose the Bills call up Bill Polian, and ask to trade for Peyton Manning. We begin by offering Whitner. Do you think we'd be more than halfway toward offering them enough value for Polian to make the trade? I don't.

 

On the other hand, I have to admit the sliding scale you used is better than the three category scale I'd used earlier. Maybe I'm downplaying Whitner because I don't see SS as being as important a position as some others on the field. Or maybe it's that I was really high on the Mangold option (both before and after the draft), and now it turns out Mangold is already among the league's best centers. It would have been so nice to finally have a replacement for Kent Hull (plus that second rounder). Instead we have a SS who looks like he'll be a solid starter, but nothing special.

 

When I see Whitner, I see a glass that is a) half-empty, and b) could easily have been full. You seem to see Whitner as a glass that's a) half-full, and b) could easily have been empty.

 

I think that if you have the #8 overall pick, and very few difference makers on the team, you need to at least try to come away with more than just a glass that's half full.

Do you think you'd be half way for a Manning trade with any of the top 10 picks???

Unlike 80% of the 1st round.....including most of the top 10, Whitner looks like he certainly will be a 'very good'(minimally) player.

That means......at this point he is looking like one of the BEST 1st round picks.

I am speaking English here aren't I?

 

OK, this is my last post on the topic(for now ).

I give up(not just with you HA....all of this has got me feeling )

 

Why do so many people seem to think that.....

the higher the draft pick, the better the player will be???????????

That is totally incorrect.

 

The higher the draft pick (theoretically) the higher the chance that you draft a top calibre player.

 

Brady, Favre, Barber, Portis, Alexander, Gates, Moss, Marvin Harrison, Owens, Chad Johnson, Jason Taylor, Strahan, Ray Lewis,Ed Reed, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

 

Position taken in the draft does not seem to effect the upper potential of the draft picks. The only position I can see that pretty much requires it's upper echelon to be drafted in the top 10 is OT. Every other position has HOFers coming from all over the draft. To assume that Whitner will have little upside is going against the odds. Whitner has shown he is one of the best 1st round picks(in Bills history....look it up) after 1 year. With such a good rookie year, you'd think there would be a higher chance....not a lower chance....that he improves to be a play-maker.

 

Lets say....for the sake of argument....that both N'Gata & Mangold had better rookie seasons than Whitner & will both become HOFers whereas Whitner will be a solid 'very good' player.

SO WHAT??????

So the Bills draft wasn't THE ABSOLUTE BEST it could possibly be. The draft we did have....as opposed to the hypothetical BEST draft we could have.....was (at this point) one of the best in Bills history & one of the best league wide.

 

My problem is that people are basically saying.....

"Since it wasn't the BEST, it was garbage."

 

My other problem is the same argument but with Whitner as an individual.

"Since he wasn't the BEST, the selection is garbage."

 

I shake my head in astonishment.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

That's some pretty funny imagery. Hmmm . . . I'm trying to imagine myself as a brilliant but eccentric (and somewhat psychotic) mathematical genius like John Nash. I assure you there's a big difference between what John Nash did (which was amazing) and what I did in that post (which is fairly common). Let's say someone offered you $1.00 if a coin came up heads, but nothing if it came up tails. The expected value of that coin flip is (50% * $1.00) + (50% * $0.00) = $0.50. Nothing brilliant there, and that's all I did in that earlier post.

 

The way I figure things, the Bills really need to win the Super Bowl. To do that, all your starters need to be solid football players. But a few of them here and there need to be more than solid--they need to be bona fide difference makers. I'll give Marv credit for doing an exceptional job of finding solid football players on the second day of the draft. But I think he could have done more to find real difference makers on the first day. Maybe a few years from now it will turn out that the Whitners and McCargos of this draft really are Pro Bowl material, or nearly so. But right now things seem a little disappointing.

 

 

you're a good sport, as i recall from prior posts. i followed the math, and i follow your point. here's my take on it. flip the coin 1000 times, and the law of large numbers dictates a certain likelihood that it will come up X times on heads and Y times on tails. but to find out what actually happens in your 1000 coin tosses, you have to have a system to flip the coin. if you get the coin to flip end over end some random number of times from when it leaves your thumb until it hits the table, you'll get your result whether you use your left hand or your right. but--with no system for flipping the coin, you have a 100% probability of failing to get the result. i just reread this and think i made my point...you can decide.

 

using the coin flip analogy, i'll spot you that, say, ngata (or whomever) might eventually be a difference maker and dw/jm may not (at least to the level i think you're talking about). i assume you'll spot me the same. the problem i always have with the theoretical for any player is that the outcome is difficult to predict if you're not running the same systems with the same level of talent around you. in most cases---all other things being equal---things are not equal.

 

but, if marv and dj have a sound system in place to identify talent and build a disciplined team, i'll take that over any particular player. r. seymour is a good example---a difference-maker on a team where he's been out quite a bit---but other members in the system step up to take his place.

 

i respect your opinion and i had profound moments of disappointment this year myself. i closed the year out thinking we were going in the right direction, but next year is a whole new year. it was nice to see, however, romo blow the hold in dallas and miami in shambles. now, if new england gets knocked out, it's as good a situation as i feel we can be in assuming we're not in the mix for the SB.

[Dibs]

For what it's worth, Sportsline has Whitner rated as the 148th best DB in the NFL. Interestingly, Ko Simpson was the 63rd best DB (according to them), and Nate Clements the 18th best DB. But what's really, really frustrating is the #2 DB on that list.

OK...I lied. 1 more. Well mainly addressing their list.

I'm near certain that the list is put together by a bunch of their staffs "I reckon" oppinion & has nothing at all to do with stats. Often there are players with.....say....more ints, sacks, tackles, FF, & FR but are lower on the list than somebody who has less.

Their rankings are at best a joke & at worst a con.

 

4 starting DBs

32 teams

That is 128 starting DBs

They are saying that 19 backups & every single starting DB in the league is better than Whitner.

 

Again......I feel this is pointless.

Why am I having to put forward an argument to soooo many that Whitner has performed exceptionally well for a rookie....of any possition....from any numbered selection.....in any year.

 

I don't understand.

[Orton's Arm]

Do you think you'd be half way for a Manning trade with any of the top 10 picks???

Unlike 80% of the 1st round.....including most of the top 10, Whitner looks like he certainly will be a 'very good'(minimally) player.

That means......at this point he is looking like one of the BEST 1st round picks.

I am speaking English here aren't I?

 

OK, this is my last post on the topic(for now:)).

I give up(not just with you HA....all of this has got me feeling )

 

Why do so many people seem to think that.....

the higher the draft pick, the better the player will be???????????

That is totally incorrect.

 

The higher the draft pick (theoretically) the higher the chance that you draft a top calibre player.

 

Brady, Favre, Barber, Portis, Alexander, Gates, Moss, Marvin Harrison, Owens, Chad Johnson, Jason Taylor, Strahan, Ray Lewis,Ed Reed, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

 

Position taken in the draft does not seem to effect the upper potential of the draft picks. The only position I can see that pretty much requires it's upper echelon to be drafted in the top 10 is OT. Every other position has HOFers coming from all over the draft. To assume that Whitner will have little upside is going against the odds. Whitner has shown he is one of the best 1st round picks(in Bills history....look it up) after 1 year. With such a good rookie year, you'd think there would be a higher chance....not a lower chance....that he improves to be a play-maker.

 

Lets say....for the sake of argument....that both N'Gata & Mangold had better rookie seasons than Whitner & will both become HOFers whereas Whitner will be a solid 'very good' player.

SO WHAT??????

So the Bills draft wasn't THE ABSOLUTE BEST it could possibly be. The draft we did have....as opposed to the hypothetical BEST draft we could have.....was (at this point) one of the best in Bills history & one of the best league wide.

 

My problem is that people are basically saying.....

"Since it wasn't the BEST, it was garbage."

 

My other problem is the same argument but with Whitner as an individual.

"Since he wasn't the BEST, the selection is garbage."

 

I shake my head in astonishment.

Hey, maybe Whitner will elevate his play to an Ed Reed level. I really hope you're right to imply there's a good chance of this. But Whitner almost has to be the next Ed Reed--or pretty close--to justify that kind of selection. It's very, very hard for a SS to be a game changer, which is why I'm pessimistic about Whitner being a good value at #8 overall. I just want the Bills to have a lot more game changers and difference makers than we have right now. I'm not trying to be a pain, honest.

 

And no, I'm not saying the pick was garbage. It wasn't, because the Bills clearly got something of value from it. But they could have gotten more.