Pyrite Gal Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 In the midst of an incredibly lengthy thread below about the Whitner/McCargo picks, the thinking while I write too much method led me to think about this Marv led draft in a different way than I had before and led me to feel even better about this product! In general, I am of the mind that it takes 3 years of real play before one can really assess the quality of a player. There are too many Eric Moulds type examples of a player who becomes a legitimate Pro Bowl selection who production was just awful in their first couple of years. There are players like JP who at various points in his 2+ seasons of play one can legitimately judge as a #1 prospect (in fact TD did this and threw Bledsoe under the bus), judge as being worthy of a cut (his 05 was horrid) and his results in his first full season last year were actually pretty good compared to other QBs. However, with the caveat that it is way too early to draw conclusions, it is reasonable at any point to assess the previous years play and to take these facts as an INDICATOR of potential directions. In this light, I think the best criteria for assessment is what this draft class contributed to the team in 06 and whether this contribution helped the 06 team improve over the 05 team and in fact a judgment about whether this team improved over the previous year's model. I think it is consistent with the real facts to say: 1. The 06 Bills were a better team than the 05 Bills. This was not impossible to do since the 05 Bills finished 5-11 and ended up racked in dissension in TD's last year with leading player Moulds throwing an on field hissy fit. Yet, this is important since even if the rookies contributed to the 06 team but the 06 team performed just as badly it devalues the draft product. Yet, I think it is hard for anyone to argue that the 06 team was not better as it improved the record to 7-9, was mathematically in the playoff hunt til the next to last weekend ( I wish we were in the NFC), and reasonably provides some hope at least for the future where they entered this season at best as an unknowable commodity. 2. The 06 draft class produced an impressive amount of contributions to the 06 team as seen in the number of games started and critical role played by the players chosen. The facts simply are: A. 7 of the 10 choices got a game start for this improved team. While Youbouty and Merz (who got his start against NE) merely got one start, Whitner and Simpson were the only rookies to both start at safety in almost all games and injury allowing we may have our safety starters for a number of years. B. The off-season will tell but we go into next season with 4 players (Whitner, Simpson, Pennington, Williams) from the 06 class as the legit starters at their positions next year. C. In addition, there is the possibility that 2 players from this class may force their way into the nickel role (Youbouty may actually get a shot at #2 CB if NC leaves) or if Williams drops to reserve it may well be because McCargo recovered from the injury which took him to IR to be the run stopper that our DTs were not. The simple case is that the 06 class got a lot of PT on a significantly improved team. This is simply the mark and measure of a very good draft class. While the complaints of some that 2 of the 3 first day picks simply did not produce the same contribution of starts to the team, this complaint is really reduced to mere whining (and even bleating) if in the same breath these draft gurus do not at least acknowledge the fact the 06 team got a significant starter contribution from second day choices. One cannot reasonably claim to make a realistic assessment of this team which points to the lack of production of first day choices without also acknowledging the reality of the production of the second day choices on an improving team. The real world results are particularly impressive if one takes into account the reality that our improved record was produced with us facing 5 of the top 5 seeds in the AFC playoffs and the NFC top seed Chicago Bears to boot. Fully half of our games were against playoff teams and the 06 class contributed significantly in starts and PT to a team which produced a significantly better record. One can always get better and there is no law whatsoever that us fans have to be rational. However, I simply do not think one can look at the actual facts of record achieved versus competition that achieved a lot and the extraordinary number of starts contributed by the '06 draft class to the '06 team and not conclude that this Marv led team did very well in the '06 draft. Again, I am not saying they could not have done better but to merely focus upon what they woulda/coulda/shoulda done better and to not also at least acknowledge the real world output leaves a post that does that as easily ignored for not dealing with the full reality.
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 Nice assesment, although I tend to think that a FA at DT might be in order. I like Williams, but I am not sure that right now he's an every down guy. If McCargo had been healthy, I think the combo would have been more effective.
Bill from NYC Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 In general, I am of the mind that it takes 3 years of real play before one can really assess the quality of a player. There are too many Eric Moulds type examples of a player who becomes a legitimate Pro Bowl selection who production was just awful in their first couple of years. B. The off-season will tell but we go into next season with 4 players (Whitner, Simpson, Pennington, Williams) from the 06 class as the legit starters at their positions next year. Which way is it PG? Does it take 3 years to tell, or are you ready to crown the above 4 players as "legit starters." Tell me, why is it SO important to you that each and every one of us adore each and every pick of the 06 draft? I will attempt to summarize it for you. It won't take long.... 1) It DOES take more than 1 year to rate a draft. 2) After 1 full year, day 1 looks pretty bad. 3) After 1 full year, day 2 looks pretty good. PS: The above is clearly subject to change. Pennington could be the next Erik Williams or the next Corey Loucheiy. Whitner was good, but another off field incident or 2 will not help him at all. I like Kyle Williams, but he needs to improve. I think that he will, but he might also get worse. Neither of us know. Again, I fully agree it is too early to tell for sure, but by the same token, gushing over Levy is what it is, and it certainly doesn't make day 1 of the 06 draft productive. At least not yet, and I DO hope this changes.
Rubes Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 I think I need something cleared up once and for all... ...if Williams drops to reserve it may well be because McCargo recovered from the injury which took him to IR to be the run stopper that our DTs were not. McCargo and Triplett play the same position (DT), while Williams and Anderson play the other spot (NT). They're not interchangeable, right?
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 I think I need something cleared up once and for all...McCargo and Triplett play the same position (DT), while Williams and Anderson play the other spot (NT). They're not interchangeable, right? I was going to say the same thing. If Williams becomes a backup, it's because Tim Anderson is kicked to the curb and we replace him via the draft or FA with a better starter. As of right now, the prudent thing to do since he's under contract is go to camp with him, see if he finds a fire lit under his ass or if a guy unfortunately gets hurt, and let the cut decision come in camp. However, since he sat in favor of Jason Jefferson last game of the season, it wouldn't surprise me to see the team let him go sooner. It's funny because Anderson seems to fit the mold of the guy the team would want in there, yet, he gets manhandled with regularity. Furthermore, it seems like anybody who fits the mold would get manhandled. I think an adjustment in the system or what the system is looking for is probably in order.
Matt in KC Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 Do you need to wait 3 years to judge a draft? Not necessarily. I think this common wisdom is based on the fact that somewhere around 30-40% of a team's draftees become starter-level within the first three years. (That's the percent I'd guess; what do you think?) As soon as a player starts, they can be judged a good pick, though of course there will plenty of debate if some think they are not starter-level but simply on a talent-void team. Judging whether a player is a good pick at their spot (say, #8 overall, or instead of two other picks) is a bit trickier, though this seems like hair-splitting that primarily affects the first round when trying to judge a whole draft class. You need to wait 3 years to give a final grade on a draft, I think, but not to declare it a success. We've already done better than your average draft having so many rookies start in their first year. I think we're very likely to land 6 starters out of 9 draft picks, 66% (Whitner, McCargo, Simpson, Williams, Ellison, Pennington). And yes Bill, I know it's clear our second day went well, and unclear about the first day of our '06 draft. If Whitner and McCargo both start next year, however, I'll be happy getting two starters out of our first three draft spots, though I do suspect we overpaid for McCargo, the price for not landing someone in free agency and having no one else left besides McCargo who could play in their first year. This sounds like poor planning, but not a bad call once we found ourselves there.
BuffaloBilliever Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 Yes, they actually are interchangeable. There were times when I saw even DE's at DT and NT this year (Hargrove/Denney).
BillsVet Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 I'm gonna go out on a limb here and ask a simple question: did K. Williams and Pennington start because they were starter grade or because we had no one else? Williams has heart and drive, but having talent is a must. Not saying he doesn't have it mind you. We'll see if he can become part of a solid D-Line that prevents opponents from running for more than 140 ypg. Pennington has plenty of size, but we all know that doesn't equate to talent. I think coming out of camp the team went too thin at OT. I know Geisinger was no star, but at least he had some experience playing. I'd rather have a guy who's got experience than one who doesn't. Now that Pennington has 9 starts under his belt, and yeah he didn't give up too many sacks, the question is whether he significantly improves from 06. There are lots of guys who come into the league and play well for a rook and then disappear. Anyone rememeber Brandon Spoon? In my book, Buffalo needs its 2006 rookies to develop faster than other teams' youngsters because we'll go cheap again in FA. Pennington, K. Williams, Youboty, and Ellison's upside (read potential) and not their 2006 performance is the key. 2006 is over and now it's up to them to show whether they're starters, backups, or just worthy of a roster spot. I'm not gonna grade this draft, there's time before declaring a top pick a bust. As for the lower rounds, anything we get from rounds 4-7 is a surprise. I'll give Marv the benefit of the doubt-for now. And as much as draft day confused and upset me, I'll give these guys a chance. It's my new year's resolution.
Pyrite Gal Posted January 25, 2007 Author Posted January 25, 2007 I'm gonna go out on a limb here and ask a simple question: did K. Williams and Pennington start because they were starter grade or because we had no one else?
Dibs Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 2) After 1 full year, day 1 looks pretty bad. After 1 full year, day 1 looks pretty average/decent....it actually looks better than most day 1 drafts look after 1 year. Not 'good' mind you.....certainly not bad though(with a season long starter who gets a rookie of month award & another player with significant game time before injury.....you'll find this will be on the upper end of average for most day 1 drafts) Just saying...
Pyrite Gal Posted January 25, 2007 Author Posted January 25, 2007 Which way is it PG? Does it take 3 years to tell, or are you ready to crown the above 4 players as "legit starters." I think it takes three years to make a real assessment AND I think all four are "legit starters". I do not think these two things are the same thing at all. I think Mike Williams was a legit starter for the Bills during his time here but I completely agreed that his career here also legitimately defined him as a bust. My legit starter the distinction I am making is that a player did not take the starting role simply due to expediency and he sits as soon as the true legit starter gets well or we sign someone else. Keith Ellison started a bunch of games for us and actually acquitted himself quite well doing this. However, I think he comes into the 07 season as a second stringer depending upon how things play out with F-B leaving sd though the depth chart has Crowell as second string SLB behind TKO he gets the nod over Ellison unless they move him to starting MLB. Meawhile I judge Whitner, Simpson, and Pennington to clearly be the owners of the starting jobs and actually Williams also though I think he will face a definite challenge for being one of our two best DTs from McCargo and possibly and off-season pick-up. Tell me, why is it SO important to you that each and every one of us adore each and every pick of the 06 draft? I will attempt to summarize it for you. It won't take long.... No ask from me that anyone adore each pick. In fact, I am happy to throw each and everyone (as well as Marv's dessicated body) under the bus if after a reasonable time period they are playing badly (a reasonable time period can vary IMHO to incredibly short for an FA like a Reyes to three years (or more) for a high draft pick the team invests in contractually (JP gets another half season or so to more perfect his craft before I give up on him given the promise he has shown and our contractual obligation). The main thing I do repetitively post about (or insist on if you want to use that phrase) is that folks make accurate and honest assessments. While the first/second day distinction has some legitimacy, it also can be taken too far in terms of importance and simply is not all important and makes all other factors meaningless. For example, when one considers our DT needs and the draft last year, when a player is drafted is obviously critical to slotting and how much we invest in a player. However, because the Bills saw fit to draft two DTs, the distinction between when they were picked is not the main driver one needs to look at when assessing how we did in this draft at DT. I am very happy that the Bills braintrust was not so addicted to the draft that they decided to go with McCargo over Williams regardless of who played better. The important thing to this Bills fan was that we fill the hole at starting DT and I could not care less where a player was picked, I simply want them to start the best talent. Its too bad that we traded up to get a buy who sat on the bench behind a better player, but as draft choices are so speculative, the fact we traded one away for a player who sat on the bench is far less important IMHO than starting the better player. The fact we got the better player in the 5th round so trading up to the first was unnecessary is interesting and of note but pales in significance to actually getting a better player and starting him. The fact we COULD have done better is hindsight of little significance because we drafted a better player later in the same day. What strikes me as not really looking at all of reality is that few teams actually find 4 players likely to start in their second seasons in the draft. and while it is certainly true that 2 of 3 players drafted on the first day came no where near being legit starters, to focus on this without also at least acknowledging that this draft produced not simply 3-4 likely starters next year, but actually 7 players who started at least one game in 06 on a team which improved its record against higher achieving competition. This acknowledgement simply makes an assessment more accurate and i was pleased to see this acknowledgment of this in one of the posts in this thread. 1) It DOES take more than 1 year to rate a draft.2) After 1 full year, day 1 looks pretty bad. 3) After 1 full year, day 2 looks pretty good. I would add: 4) After 1 full year, day 1 and day 2 of this draft as a whole look pretty good. Do you disagree? The draft class made a huge contribution to an 06 team which finished with a better record than the 05 team and did this while playing against competition which included 5 of the top 6 seeds in the 06 AFC plus the #1 seed in the NFC, The draft class yielded 7 players from the 7 rounds who were judged good enough to start at least one game for this team and at least three and probably 4 Bills from this draft class will start for them next year, I'm no making this stuff up we are talking W/L and PT which are far more real measures of performance than the latest draft guru ranking, charts of draft round comparability or fan expectations of whether a player should start based on when he was drafted. Reality says that when assessing the draft, one might decide to assess the draft. Breaking things down by which day etc may be indicative of some true things, but not integrating the breakdown back into the whole or ignoring reality is not likely to be accurate. The whole truth is that in hindsight they could have done better, but the reality is they did pretty well getting significsnt PT from a draft class on a team which improved its record while facing competition which did very well against the league. It is the failure to acknowledge this at the same time one finds fault in their first day picks that simply is not an accurate portrayal of their draft work. It is the failure to portray reality which undercuts analysis of their first day failings and simply reduces these true arguments to sound like mere bleating rather than solid analysis. Again, I fully agree it is too early to tell for sure, but by the same token, gushing over Levy is what it is, and it certainly doesn't make day 1 of the 06 draft productive. At least not yet, and I DO hope this changes. The day 2 work I am "gushing" over does not make day 1 productive at all, however, day 2 was productive enough it makes the definite mistakes made on day 1 less important. For example, the Bills spent a draft pick they did not have to spend to move up in order to get a DT capable of starting. They failed to do this when McCargo did not impress. However, their day 2 pick of Williams resulted in them getting a DT who proved capable of being their starter on a team which achieved a better record than the year before against good (probably better than but I have not compared them so I will not make a sure claim not based on facts) competition. The second day work simply greatly reduced the real world effects of the first day errors. This is reality and a real assessment would acknowledge this. Could they have done better? Sure in theory they could have. However, in reality, do you really suggest that any set of humans are going to achieve what they really achieved 7 drafted players meriting starts and also achieve the better job of drafting 2 more players on the first day who end up starting. Ye[, in theory a team can get 8 players who start out of the 9 chosen (Youbouty did start in the big win over NYJ) and it could be the case that the team scores 5 starters (if McCargo starts then Williams probably does not) if they make three starter picks happen on day 1 instead of getting 1. However, if they had accomplished what you suggest is it only then a good job by them in this draft. Actually, they almost did what you suggest (7 players actually got starts at some point in 06 rather than the 8 players who would have gotten starts under your suggestion of a better performance and the team has one more starter going into next season under your scenario. What you suggest as a result seems fairly farfetched in terms of the real world (this is what makes it woulda/coulda/shoulda IMHO) and actually the Bills led by Marv came pretty close to accomplishing what you suggest thanks to their second day work.
Nanker Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 So, if it takes three years to properly evaluate a draft, let's talk about the 2004 Draft and the wonders TD brought to us: 1a Lee Evans WR 1b JP Losman QB 2 to Dullass for JPL (Julius jones RB) 3 Tim Anderson DT 4 Tim Euhus TE 5 to Dullass for JPL (Sean Ryan TE) 6 to Cleveland (Kirk Chambers (OG) 7a Dylan McFarland OT (From Detroit for a hand job in the backseat of a Chevrolet) 7b Jonathan Smith WR 1a Nice pick 1b Pricy pick To get JP we lost our 2nd and 5th in 2004 and our #1 in 2005 3 A might-not-be-a-Bill-after-2007-because-he-ain't-gettin'-it-done pick 4 A missing-in-action pick no longer in the EN-EF-EL 7a Ditto to TD's #4 pick 7b Ditto to TD's #7a and #4 pick So Mr. "He-can-do-no-wrong-in-the-eyes-of-Chris-Mortensen-and-The-Bills-should-be-ever-so-grateful-for-the-wonderful-and-talented-players-that-he-brought-to-that-team" Tommy Donna-the-Ho's latest draft that we're allowed to evaluate after the proper amount of time netted us two starters and no Pro Bowl or playoff appearances. Nanker's Draft Grade: C- and I'm being generous. No depth, multiple reaches (with no happy ending I might add), emphasis on small bodied skill positions and no junk in the trunk. Drafting JP in retrospect was an incredible gamble on key skill position especially when you realize what TD had spent on bringing the Drewish one here and then the lack of commitment to provide the requisite backing (blocking and coaching support) when the pads when on. That said, I'm glad JP is still on the team and he seems to have righted his career - no thanks to the former General Manager/Genius/President/Demi-God/Legend-in-his-own-mind. I'm even more glad that the aforementioned peerless picker of NFL talent is no longer running the show at OBD. He did us few favors in the talent department.
Bill from NYC Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 So, if it takes three years to properly evaluate a draft, let's talk about the 2004 Draft and the wonders TD brought to us: 1a Lee Evans WR 1b JP Losman QB 2 to Dullass for JPL (Julius jones RB) 3 Tim Anderson DT 4 Tim Euhus TE 5 to Dullass for JPL (Sean Ryan TE) 6 to Cleveland (Kirk Chambers (OG) 7a Dylan McFarland OT (From Detroit for a hand job in the backseat of a Chevrolet) 7b Jonathan Smith WR 1a Nice pick 1b Pricy pick To get JP we lost our 2nd and 5th in 2004 and our #1 in 2005 3 A might-not-be-a-Bill-after-2007-because-he-ain't-gettin'-it-done pick 4 A missing-in-action pick no longer in the EN-EF-EL 7a Ditto to TD's #4 pick 7b Ditto to TD's #7a and #4 pick So Mr. "He-can-do-no-wrong-in-the-eyes-of-Chris-Mortensen-and-The-Bills-should-be-ever-so-grateful-for-the-wonderful-and-talented-players-that-he-brought-to-that-team" Tommy Donna-the-Ho's latest draft that we're allowed to evaluate after the proper amount of time netted us two starters and no Pro Bowl or playoff appearances. Nanker's Draft Grade: C- and I'm being generous. No depth, multiple reaches (with no happy ending I might add), emphasis on small bodied skill positions and no junk in the trunk. Drafting JP in retrospect was an incredible gamble on key skill position especially when you realize what TD had spent on bringing the Drewish one here and then the lack of commitment to provide the requisite backing (blocking and coaching support) when the pads when on. That said, I'm glad JP is still on the team and he seems to have righted his career - no thanks to the former General Manager/Genius/President/Demi-God/Legend-in-his-own-mind. I'm even more glad that the aforementioned peerless picker of NFL talent is no longer running the show at OBD. He did us few favors in the talent department. Very interesting post Nanker. In it, you capture (imo) what the problem was with TD, which I thing was his arrogance. As far as his ability to draft, I give him mixed reviews, but I don't place him at or near the bottom. A quick look...... In 01, his top 5 picks were: Clements Schobel Henry Edwards Jennings He picked up Henry in a trade down. I think this has to be viewed as a good draft by almost any standards. 02 Complete bomb. Not only was Fat Mike a bust, so was Josh Reed at #4 in round 2. 03 MaGahee was a questionable pick, especially since we would lose Ruben Brown in 04, and Steinbach was sitting there. He did however grab Kelsay, Crowell, MaGee and Aiken. This draft would appear to be at least average. 04 I hated the Losman pick, but the kid has a chance to be a star. Evans IS a star imo. The late picks didn't do well, but if JP and Evans continue to play well, this draft was a success imro. 05 Although Parrish has shown some flash, I am thinking that this draft was a bomb from start to finish. To be completely fair, the 2005 draft appeared to be one of the weaker ones, or so it seems. In summary, I think that TD did have an eye for talent. He screwed up by being arrogant and missing on the OL (other than Jennings late in the 3rd). I am not upset that he is gone mind you; just stating that he did draft some pretty good players and bring in some very good free agents as well.
In space no one can hear Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 So, if it takes three years to properly evaluate a draft, let's talk about the 2004 Draft and the wonders TD brought to us: 1a Lee Evans WR 1b JP Losman QB 2 to Dullass for JPL (Julius jones RB) 3 Tim Anderson DT 4 Tim Euhus TE 5 to Dullass for JPL (Sean Ryan TE) 6 to Cleveland (Kirk Chambers (OG) 7a Dylan McFarland OT (From Detroit for a hand job in the backseat of a Chevrolet) 7b Jonathan Smith WR 1a Nice pick 1b Pricy pick To get JP we lost our 2nd and 5th in 2004 and our #1 in 2005 3 A might-not-be-a-Bill-after-2007-because-he-ain't-gettin'-it-done pick 4 A missing-in-action pick no longer in the EN-EF-EL 7a Ditto to TD's #4 pick 7b Ditto to TD's #7a and #4 pick So Mr. "He-can-do-no-wrong-in-the-eyes-of-Chris-Mortensen-and-The-Bills-should-be-ever-so-grateful-for-the-wonderful-and-talented-players-that-he-brought-to-that-team" Tommy Donna-the-Ho's latest draft that we're allowed to evaluate after the proper amount of time netted us two starters and no Pro Bowl or playoff appearances. Nanker's Draft Grade: C- and I'm being generous. No depth, multiple reaches (with no happy ending I might add), emphasis on small bodied skill positions and no junk in the trunk. Drafting JP in retrospect was an incredible gamble on key skill position especially when you realize what TD had spent on bringing the Drewish one here and then the lack of commitment to provide the requisite backing (blocking and coaching support) when the pads when on. That said, I'm glad JP is still on the team and he seems to have righted his career - no thanks to the former General Manager/Genius/President/Demi-God/Legend-in-his-own-mind. I'm even more glad that the aforementioned peerless picker of NFL talent is no longer running the show at OBD. He did us few favors in the talent department. I think you are bing generous in giving the Donahoe a C- grade for this draft. Donahoe himself kept on saying to anyone who would listen in 2005 that Losman should "count" as the top Bills pick in 2006. To get absolutely nothing from your 2-7 picks is a disgrace!! A blind folded monkey could have done better!!
Saint Doug Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 1) Just because players are starting for a previously 5-11 Bills team does not automatically make them good players. That is faulty logic. Look at the Raiders. They had plenty of starters who were horrible. And look at the Bears; they have all-pro starters. The fact is, you can't equate starting with being good (or being bad too). 2) For the DT position, arguing who is starting and who is not is a mute point. They rotate throughout the game. They all should be considered starters. 3) Does it really matter who was picked on Day 1 vs Day 2? Football is a team sport and they are all Buffalo Bills. Why should we be upset we have more starters from Day 2 than Day 1? Would we be upset if all Day 1s were starting and all Day 2s were sitting? That sounds awfully like the TD years. We should rejoice that we found suck gems in the later rounds and let the Day 1s develop more (since they supposedly have greater potential).
Saint Doug Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 I think you are bing generous in giving the Donahoe a C- grade for this draft. Donahoe himself kept on saying to anyone who would listen in 2005 that Losman should "count" as the top Bills pick in 2006. To get absolutely nothing from your 2-7 picks is a disgrace!! A blind folded monkey could have done better!! If we only get a Franchise QB (totally ignoring Lee Evans pick) out of a draft and everyone else bombs from the draft, I will be happy. I never liked TD, but the years since Kelly retired have been painful. Teams become stagnant without a Franchise QB (just as the fans of the lions, browns, raiders, saints before brees, dolphins, and the list goes on....)
obie_wan Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 Very interesting post Nanker. In it, you capture (imo) what the problem was with TD, which I thing was his arrogance. As far as his ability to draft, I give him mixed reviews, but I don't place him at or near the bottom. A quick look...... . In summary, I think that TD did have an eye for talent. He screwed up by being arrogant and missing on the OL (other than Jennings late in the 3rd). I am not upset that he is gone mind you; just stating that he did draft some pretty good players and bring in some very good free agents as well. TD's biggest failure was finding any talent ont he 2nd day of the draft. Out of 5 years of drafts, he produced 1 2nd day starter (McGhee) and accidently found Peters (and then cut him). That is absolutely horrible production and why the talent level on this team is so limited.
Bill from NYC Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 TD's biggest failure was finding any talent ont he 2nd day of the draft. Out of 5 years of drafts, he produced 1 2nd day starter (McGhee) and accidently found Peters (and then cut him). That is absolutely horrible production and why the talent level on this team is so limited. I think that TD was trying to establish himself as a "genius" of sorts. Waiting more than a year for Willis, taking a right tackle at #4, and using our first pick (2nd round) on primarily a special teams player were unorthodox moves that were kinda hard to explain. Good point about the day 2 picks!
Recommended Posts