Dibs Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 When have I ever said that the Bills draft strategy for the past decade has been better than the Titans? Go back and find it. I'll save you time you won't find it. You shouldn't make this so easy ;-) And that was a great example of how you read things differently to what is clearly meant. By saying Tennessee last year 10-6, 2006 8-8, 2005 4-12, 2004 5-11, 2003 13-5, 2002 11-5 and 2001 9-7 blink.gif Your point is...? Steely Dan was not making a point on how the Bills have been drafting......he was giving a counter example for your simplistic generalized view of "You build a top DL through drafting high & with a top DL you will have a top team."
AKC Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 You shouldn't make this so easy ;-) And that was a great example of how you read things differently to what is clearly meant. By saying Steely Dan was not making a point on how the Bills have been drafting......he was giving a counter example for your simplistic generalized view of "You build a top DL through drafting high & with a top DL you will have a top team." OK, let's break it down. I've made the very specific charge that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder, or if you prefer, the #31 defense in the NFL. During the discourse, I cite the Titans as a team who have made a major commitment to DTs in their draft strategy. Steely Dan decides to challenge the Titans as a good example by bringing up their record, failing of course to point out that while it's been a long time since the Titans knocked us out of our last playoff game and went on to the Super Bowl, they've returned to postseason play regularly while we've been spending more early draft equity on WRs than any other position. Is there some part of the above that isn't clear? His obvious contention is that the Titans aren't really any better than the Bills, and that's laughable. It's the whole problem of all the WR obsessed bunch in nutshell. The Titans are competitive, and part of that success is due to their insistance on having a premium DT rotation.
Booster4324 Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Is there some part of the above that isn't clear? Your actual point as it seems to change on a regular basis. Oh I grant you the interior of the line bit. That stays the same. It is your examples and lack of rebuttal on effective points that is lacking. BTW how is that whole, a singular DT is greater than any QB theory holding up?
Ramius Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 OK, let's break it down. I've made the very specific charge that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder, or if you prefer, the #31 defense in the NFL. During the discourse, I cite the Titans as a team who have made a major commitment to DTs in their draft strategy. Steely Dan decides to challenge the Titans as a good example by bringing up their record, failing of course to point out that while it's been a long time since the Titans knocked us out of our last playoff game and went on to the Super Bowl, they've returned to postseason play regularly while we've been spending more early draft equity on WRs than any other position. Is there some part of the above that isn't clear? His obvious contention is that the Titans aren't really any better than the Bills, and that's laughable. It's the whole problem of all the WR obsessed bunch in nutshell. The Titans are competitive, and part of that success is due to their insistance on having a premium DT rotation. So, according to you, teams should continue to stock up on DTs, even if they have good ones, except for the steelers, who dont need to stock up on DTs because they have a good one.
Dibs Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 OK, let's break it down. I've made the very specific charge that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder, or if you prefer, the #31 defense in the NFL. During the discourse, I cite the Titans as a team who have made a major commitment to DTs in their draft strategy. Steely Dan decides to challenge the Titans as a good example by bringing up their record, failing of course to point out that while it's been a long time since the Titans knocked us out of our last playoff game and went on to the Super Bowl, they've returned to postseason play regularly while we've been spending more early draft equity on WRs than any other position. Is there some part of the above that isn't clear? His obvious contention is that the Titans aren't really any better than the Bills, and that's laughable. It's the whole problem of all the WR obsessed bunch in nutshell. The Titans are competitive, and part of that success is due to their insistance on having a premium DT rotation. It appears that there is part of the above that isn't clear to you.......you do not put across a single argument, you dilute it with many other arguments & comments which detract from your views. If you were simply saying "that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder" you would have a reasonable argument......though not definitive since it was only the Donahue era where the DT position has been ignored. Instead you seem to say "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." There are some successful teams that support your theory.....there are some that don't. There are some unsuccessful teams that support your theory.....there are some that don't. Steely Dan was basically saying that the Titans(and others) don't support your theory.....the theory that you continually put across that "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need."
AKC Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 So, according to you, teams should continue to stock up on DTs, even if they have good ones, except for the steelers, who dont need to stock up on DTs because they have a good one. Teams with a solid DT rotations with both quality and depth are in a position to look to other positions in the draft. Contrary to your obvious opinion, let me tell you right now that we don't have a solid rotation of DTs. My clear and alliterated observation is that a MAJOR COMPONENT OF SUCCESSFUL FRANCHISES is the use of early draft equity on DL, and specifically DT. You have tried to morph that into some imbecile statement like THE ONLY WAY TO SUCCEED IS TO DRAFT ONLY DEFENSIVE TACKLES but that's simply not being honest. I understand you believe the Bills get better by getting one of the best receivers available in the upcoming draft. I don't argue that the Bills don't need help at WR nor doubt that the Bills might get better by drafting the right receiver in the upcoming draft; I just don't believe the receiver that makes us better will be one available at the #11 pick. I think THAT receiver, if we make that mistake, will continue to cripple the Bills and keep us a bottom-feeding team. If you were simply saying "that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder" Well Dibs- that's EXACTLY what I've been saying for 3 years on this board. We're now close enough to do something to correct it. We'll see what happens. On a side note- I still don't understand you and Steely Dan insisting that the work of the Titans front office should be disregarded as some model of inteptitude akin to our own? That's exactly the kind of failure to recognize what's being done right around the league that I just astounding anyone could miss. Why is this thread still going on? Do the other 509 of your posts offer the same depth of football aptitude and observation as this one?
Dibs Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Well Dibs- that's EXACTLY what I've been saying for 3 years on this board. We're now close enough to do something to correct it. We'll see what happens. You neglected to mention that the past 3 offseasons we have been in the process of correcting it......2006: 1st round DT.....2008: Probowl FA. On a side note- I still don't understand you and Steely Dan insisting that the work of the Titans front office should be disregarded as some model of inteptitude akin to our own? That's exactly the kind of failure to recognize what's being done right around the league that I just astounding anyone could miss. It's not the "akin to our own" aspect at all. I thought I clearly stated that if you had stuck to your basic premise of "that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder" you have a reasonable point. The Titans were brought up in regards to your more common point of "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." In regards to 'what's being done right around the league'......though I agree that having a strong DL is invaluable to becoming a strong team, your insistence that the successful teams invariably draft DTs regularly high in the 1st is simply not backed by evidence.......some do....some don't......some unsuccessful teams do.....some don't.
AKC Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 You neglected to mention that the past 3 offseasons we have been in the process of correcting it......2006: 1st round DT.....2008: Probowl FA. I've fully acknowledged what we've been doing. I've given the team credit for moving in the right direction. I've also gone on to point out how woefully inadequate the current actions are compared to the best teams in the league. It's not the "akin to our own" aspect at all. I thought I clearly stated that if you had stuck to your basic premise of "that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder" you have a reasonable point. The Titans were brought up in regards to your more common point of "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." You'll waste a lot of your time trying to find any post where I've suggested: "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." I realize Ramius has oversimplified it again and again that way so you may be adopting that from his posts, but you won't find it in any of mine. I have steadfastly held that a common trait of most of the best teams in the league is a far higher equity stake in the DL, and especially DT, versus the bottom-feeders like Detroit and Buffalo. And the numbers prove that to be true.
Ramius Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 I've fully acknowledged what we've been doing. I've given the team credit for moving in the right direction. I've also gone on to point out how woefully inadequate the current actions are compared to the best teams in the league. You'll waste a lot of your time trying to find any post where I've suggested: "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." I realize Ramius has oversimplified it again and again that way so you may be adopting that from his posts, but you won't find it in any of mine. I have steadfastly held that a common trait of most of the best teams in the league is a far higher equity stake in the DL, and especially DT, versus the bottom-feeders like Detroit and Buffalo. And the numbers prove that to be true. You're contradicting yourself, because the premise of your every post in the past few weekly crusades is "if the Bills dont take DL early in the draft, they will continue to suck, and are equivalent to the detroit lions." You insist that if we take a WR at #11, that we will somehow get worse, and continue to suck, which is simply untrue. You've also ignored numerous valid points and facts that directly contradict your arguements. A valid discussion would be to debate the merits of taking a WR at #11 versus taking a DT at #11. But you've never wanted to have a valid discussion. Your entire stance was that "if the Bills dont draft a DT early, they will suck, and everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot." You simply want to pound your idea onto others, with no regard for the opposing viewpoint, nor facts that contradict your arguements.
VABills Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 You're contradicting yourself, because the premise of your every post in the past few weekly crusades is "if the Bills dont take DL early in the draft, they will continue to suck, and are equivalent to the detroit lions." You insist that if we take a WR at #11, that we will somehow get worse, and continue to suck, which is simply untrue. You've also ignored numerous valid points and facts that directly contradict your arguements. A valid discussion would be to debate the merits of taking a WR at #11 versus taking a DT at #11. But you've never wanted to have a valid discussion. Your entire stance was that "if the Bills dont draft a DT early, they will suck, and everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot." You simply want to pound your idea onto others, with no regard for the opposing viewpoint, nor facts that contradict your arguements. Wow, this is fun. I was thinking that we don't draft a Kicker or Punter with #11 we're going to suck. of course, what do I know, I think our backup QB should be traded.
AKC Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 You're contradicting yourself, because the premise of your every post in the past few weekly crusades is "if the Bills dont take DL early in the draft, they will continue to suck, and are equivalent to the detroit lions." You insist that if we take a WR at #11, that we will somehow get worse, and continue to suck, which is simply untrue. You've also ignored numerous valid points and facts that directly contradict your arguements. A valid discussion would be to debate the merits of taking a WR at #11 versus taking a DT at #11. But you've never wanted to have a valid discussion. Your entire stance was that "if the Bills dont draft a DT early, they will suck, and everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot." You simply want to pound your idea onto others, with no regard for the opposing viewpoint, nor facts that contradict your arguements. Au Contraire. My position has never shifted- until the Buffalo Bills have a complete rotation at DT, we'll be a team opponents look forward to beating up on Sundays. It's predicted there won't be a top 11 DT available when we pick, so it would be idiotic to reach for a DT we've got rated #30 at the 11 spot. Just as it would be idiotic to draft a WR we've rated #30 at the 11 pick. The posters worming around trying to misrepresent my clearly stated position are those who are insisting that we are best served taking any WR, no matter of his true upside, at the 11 pick. I'm looking back at some of these "valid claims" you bring up, gems like "Tennessee's strategy of drafting has had no better results than the Bill's". I'm sure it's discouraging for you to be left on that side of the discussion, finding yourself aligned with such nonsense. As to not having the discussion open to the difference between taking a WR or DT at the 11 pick, I've clearly in the record said that among the vast pool of draft analysts, the consensus is that the best bet at WR is probably no better than about the 20th player in the draft. I've invited you to produce draft experts who claim there's a top 11 WR- and I see no offering from you. Now the math here is a little too easy- if the best WR is a 20, and we're drafting 11th, it doesn't take an MIT grad to figure this one out. We should NOT make a major reach like that- it's the sign of a bad team versus a good and disciplined front office.
Steely Dan Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 You shouldn't make this so easy ;-) You shouldn't make this so easy ;-) And that was a great example of how you read things differently to what is clearly meant. By saying Steely Dan was not making a point on how the Bills have been drafting......he was giving a counter example for your simplistic generalized view of "You build a top DL through drafting high & with a top DL you will have a top team." Thanks Dibs, I guess it wasn't clear enough. OK, let's break it down. I've made the very specific charge that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder, or if you prefer, the #31 defense in the NFL. During the discourse, I cite the Titans as a team who have made a major commitment to DTs in their draft strategy. Steely Dan decides to challenge the Titans as a good example by bringing up their record, failing of course to point out that while it's been a long time since the Titans knocked us out of our last playoff game and went on to the Super Bowl, they've returned to postseason play regularly while we've been spending more early draft equity on WRs than any other position. Is there some part of the above that isn't clear? His obvious contention is that the Titans aren't really any better than the Bills, and that's laughable. It's the whole problem of all the WR obsessed bunch in nutshell. The Titans are competitive, and part of that success is due to their insistance on having a premium DT rotation. Why are you so dense? As has already been noted your arguments change to suit your needs and you ignore the facts of the persons post that disagrees with your opinion. It is not obvious to Dibs that I'm saying the Titans aren't better than the Bills at all. It's that your pointing out a team who has made the playoffs only three of the last seven seasons as a good example of draft strategy. Your point has been shot down and you continue to try and make it look like you made a different argument in order to save yourself. If you read everyones posts it's not working. Your actual point as it seems to change on a regular basis. Oh I grant you the interior of the line bit. That stays the same. It is your examples and lack of rebuttal on effective points that is lacking. BTW how is that whole, a singular DT is greater than any QB theory holding up? Exactly my point to him above and thanks for proving my point! It appears that there is part of the above that isn't clear to you.......you do not put across a single argument, you dilute it with many other arguments & comments which detract from your views.If you were simply saying "that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder" you would have a reasonable argument......though not definitive since it was only the Donahue era where the DT position has been ignored. Instead you seem to say "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." There are some successful teams that support your theory.....there are some that don't. There are some unsuccessful teams that support your theory.....there are some that don't. Steely Dan was basically saying that the Titans(and others) don't support your theory.....the theory that you continually put across that "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." Thanks to you too for providing proof of my point. Why is this thread still going on? AKC is a dimwit. You neglected to mention that the past 3 offseasons we have been in the process of correcting it......2006: 1st round DT.....2008: Probowl FA. It's not the "akin to our own" aspect at all. I thought I clearly stated that if you had stuck to your basic premise of "that the Buffalo Bills have spent so much less draft equity on DTs versus the better teams in the league that it is keeping us a bottom-feeder" you have a reasonable point. The Titans were brought up in regards to your more common point of "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." In regards to 'what's being done right around the league'......though I agree that having a strong DL is invaluable to becoming a strong team, your insistence that the successful teams invariably draft DTs regularly high in the 1st is simply not backed by evidence.......some do....some don't......some unsuccessful teams do.....some don't. I've fully acknowledged what we've been doing. I've given the team credit for moving in the right direction. I've also gone on to point out how woefully inadequate the current actions are compared to the best teams in the league. You'll waste a lot of your time trying to find any post where I've suggested: "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." I realize Ramius has oversimplified it again and again that way so you may be adopting that from his posts, but you won't find it in any of mine. I have steadfastly held that a common trait of most of the best teams in the league is a far higher equity stake in the DL, and especially DT, versus the bottom-feeders like Detroit and Buffalo. And the numbers prove that to be true. You never suggested it except in the excerpt I highlighted above and below in the SAME post!! You're contradicting yourself, because the premise of your every post in the past few weekly crusades is "if the Bills dont take DL early in the draft, they will continue to suck, and are equivalent to the detroit lions." You insist that if we take a WR at #11, that we will somehow get worse, and continue to suck, which is simply untrue. You've also ignored numerous valid points and facts that directly contradict your arguements. A valid discussion would be to debate the merits of taking a WR at #11 versus taking a DT at #11. But you've never wanted to have a valid discussion. Your entire stance was that "if the Bills dont draft a DT early, they will suck, and everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot." You simply want to pound your idea onto others, with no regard for the opposing viewpoint, nor facts that contradict your arguements. Thanks Raimus another post that proves my point about his arguments being shot down and nobody buying his twisting the arguments to suit his needs.
AKC Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 It is not obvious to Dibs that I'm saying the Titans aren't better than the Bills at all. It's that your pointing out a team who has made the playoffs only three of the last seven seasons as a good example of draft strategy. Your point has been shot down and you continue to try and make it look like you made a different argument in order to save yourself. If you read everyones posts it's not working. The Tennessee Titans have been to the Playoffs 3 times since the Bills last went, and have had one of the league's top Defenses for that whole period. But if I understand your idiotic position, that's not a sign that they've been drafting better than us !?!?!? You are either completely dishonest or you missed the little bus that picks you up for school.
Dibs Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 You'll waste a lot of your time trying to find any post where I've suggested:"The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly and stock up on as many as possible even if other areas are in great need." Sadly previous other great threads are now gone so I will just have to draw from this one..... Since the Buffalo Bills have taken DLinemen with our top pick in two drafts, we've used our top pick for Wideouts 4 times and Corners 5 times. Since the Detroit Lions have taken DLinemen with their top pick in two drafts, they've used their top pick for Wideouts 4 times and Corners 3 times. The Super Bowl teams, who not coinicdentally led the NFL in sacks this past season, broke down this way: Wide Receivers: 4 Buff 4 Detroit 0 New England* 0 New York Cornerback 5 Buff 4 Detroit 1 New England* 2 New York If we continue the trend, I'm guessing we'll be looking for a new GM in 2009- Matt Millen should also be available and what a great fit that might be! What is being suggested here? That drafting WRs & CBs over DL is the way to go.......no real evidence provided. ......Our more capable competition seems to have figured out a better approach. The question in April will be- are we paying attention?Suggesting perhaps that we would be stupid not to draft a DT this coming draft & that capable competition does? I understand that Fantasy "Managers" wouldn't notice the lack of DTs in the span you've chosen above, but it's there for anyone who can grasp what the better teams in the league have been doing. Most of the top team spend substantial amounts of their top pick equity in their defensive interiors. You see a list of picks, the trend for anyone not obsessed with the offensive side of the football is that there is not a commitment to the DL by Detroit or Buffalo, as we see among the best tesm in the league....A bold claim that most top teams spend a substantial amount of their top picks on DT.......no balanced evidence to substantiate claim. Taking the broad observation that most of the recent succesful franchises in the NFL have placed far more of their early draft equity in their DL, and specifically DT selections..............look at the far larger body of long-term successful NFL franchises who have built their current competitiveness from grabbing the best DLine talent available every draft..... How did I ever think that you were suggesting that "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly"? ......You can stay stuck on trying to find some exception, but the rule is The Rule. The best teams follow it......Um.......that would be the rule of.....just a guess here....."The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly"? .....New England* drafted Defensive Tackles in the first round in 2001, 2003 and 2005. They used the #6, #13 and #21 picks for those Defensive Tackles. Those also represent the 3 highest picks the Patriots* have had over that time period.Suggesting again that "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly" You have never ever ever even hinted at teams building their DTs not through regular high drafting......nor even that there is any other importance to any other position(to the point in a now gone thread of claiming even QBs were basically interchangeable). You continually claim that "the good teams resoundingly draft DT talent".......this is true.....and it is false. Some have had success with the strategy.....some haven't......some have had success without that strategy......some haven't. If you really want to know the singular position that teams that make the superbowl tend to draft in the 1st at a far higher rate than teams that don't make the superbowl.......it is TE!!!!
Booster4324 Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 If you really want to know the singular position that teams that make the superbowl tend to draft in the 1st at a far higher rate than teams that don't make the superbowl.......it is TE!!!! Yeah that is...wait really? I tend to bow to your statistical knowledge. Oh and to finish that statement...the way to kick his ass.
dave mcbride Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Sadly previous other great threads are now gone so I will just have to draw from this one..... What is being suggested here? That drafting WRs & CBs over DL is the way to go.......no real evidence provided. Suggesting perhaps that we would be stupid not to draft a DT this coming draft & that capable competition does? A bold claim that most top teams spend a substantial amount of their top picks on DT.......no balanced evidence to substantiate claim. How did I ever think that you were suggesting that "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly"? Um.......that would be the rule of.....just a guess here....."The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly"? Suggesting again that "The ONLY way a team can be good is to draft DTs high regularly" You have never ever ever even hinted at teams building their DTs not through regular high drafting......nor even that there is any other importance to any other position(to the point in a now gone thread of claiming even QBs were basically interchangeable). You continually claim that "the good teams resoundingly draft DT talent".......this is true.....and it is false. Some have had success with the strategy.....some haven't......some have had success without that strategy......some haven't. If you really want to know the singular position that teams that make the superbowl tend to draft in the 1st at a far higher rate than teams that don't make the superbowl.......it is TE!!!! I criticize AKC's position frequently, but you seem to be wilfully misreading the initial post at the top that he made.
Big Turk Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 The last two top picks used on DL go way back- to Bruce Smith. Flowers was the other. Over that span, we've been CB and WR slap-happy. Our more capable competition seems to have figured out a better approach. The question in April will be- are we paying attention? ????? This has to be the dumbest post I have read in a long time...I mean, really we are analyzing what the team has done over the last 25 years and trying somehow to blame the current state of the team on it?? Perhaps you should point out how the team Polian built also was among the best in the NFL during that timeframe as well? Next thing you are going to do is try and somehow take it back all the way to the AFL days to make another nonsensical post. I plead with you to utilize more brain cells while posting....don't drink and post....
Dibs Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 I criticize AKC's position frequently, but you seem to be wilfully misreading the initial post at the top that he made. From the surface of things you do may well have a point.....the first post in this thread is really just saying(apart from we are as bad as the Lions in this area) that we have not drafted enough DLmen in the first round......and we should rectify things. Considering however that this thread is like a continuation thread for AKC it is perhaps reasonable to assume that his crusade from previous lost threads is still relevant here. In the previous threads he constantly avowed that 'good' teams drafted DTs high in the draft and that is why they are successful.......which is how I interpret his meaning in the first post.
Westinghouse Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Since the Buffalo Bills have taken DLinemen with our top pick in two drafts, we've used our top pick for Wideouts 4 times and Corners 5 times. Since the Detroit Lions have taken DLinemen with their top pick in two drafts, they've used their top pick for Wideouts 4 times and Corners 3 times. The Super Bowl teams, who not coinicdentally led the NFL in sacks this past season, broke down this way: Wide Receivers: 4 Buff 4 Detroit 0 New England* 0 New York Cornerback 5 Buff 4 Detroit 1 New England* 2 New York If we continue the trend, I'm guessing we'll be looking for a new GM in 2009- Matt Millen should also be available and what a great fit that might be! This is very poorly worded and innaccurate , but I agree to an extent with the gist of it. I think the Whitner pick fits into what you are trying to say here. Some teams don't seem to understand the impact that one position has vs another. There have been very few impact safeties over the years compared to other positions. Likewise Whitner is a good safety but not the impact player you need to get when drafting that high.
Recommended Posts