dave mcbride Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/foot...ex.html?eref=T1 A perfect example of a player who was never mentioned in the top 15 picks occurred during the 2002 mock draft period. The Raiders held two No. 1 picks as a result of the Jon Gruden trade with Tampa. Some people in our draft room loved the talent of Syracuse defensive end Dwight Freeney. In our mock research, we never read Freeney's name in the top 15; he was rumored to be a late first-rounder or early second. My sources around the league led me to believe the Denver Broncos were a potential suitor for him at 19. Seeing Freeney in the uniform of our archrival would have been my worst nightmare. We had made plans to move up based on our mock research and we felt that we would be safe at No. 17, two spots ahead of Denver. The draft that year seemed to go as expected until the 11th pick. All the publications suggested Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy and president Bill Polian needed to get a lineman who could add size to their defensive front. Unfortunately, it was not Wendell Bryant from Wisconsin as most mocks had suggested. It was Freeney. That one hurt. Our draft room in Oakland was stunned. Was it a reach? Could the Colts have traded down and still gotten Freeney? The answer is a resounding no. Trading down always looks appealing to the fans, but when you have a player you love and know he can make a difference in your team's success, why risk losing him? The key to the draft is not what team has the most picks, but what team makes the best picks. The most critical lesson to learn here is one that was taught to me by Walsh. He used to say to me all the time during our draft preparation, "It does not matter where we pick them, it matters how they play." ... 4. If the mock you're reading does not have six defensive linemen in the first round, stop reading it. Defensive linemen will go quickly. You have to work defensive and offensive linemen heavily in the first round.
Fewell733 Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 loaded for bear? what? I agree with that thing about the focus on the player rather than the placement - I'd say that's exactly the draft philosophy that we've used with great success in the past two drafts.
dave mcbride Posted April 16, 2008 Author Posted April 16, 2008 loaded for bear? what? I agree with that thing about the focus on the player rather than the placement - I'd say that's exactly the draft philosophy that we've used with great success in the past two drafts. I meant those who are chomping at the bit to criticize the slot in which we draft someone (see Whitner, Donte). If you like the guy, assume others do too, and don't risk losing him so that you can pick up an extra 4th rounder.
BUFFALOTONE Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 when we drafted Whitner with the 8th pick and everyone said it was a reach didnt Billick come out and say he would have thought hard about taking him a few slots after us of Ngata was gone. I could be wrong.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 when we drafted Whitner with the 8th pick and everyone said it was a reach didnt Billick come out and say he would have thought hard about taking him a few slots after us of Ngata was gone. I could be wrong. Detroit & Miami would both have taken him if they could.
Bill from NYC Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 I meant those who are chomping at the bit to criticize the slot in which we draft someone (see Whitner, Donte). If you like the guy, assume others do too, and don't risk losing him so that you can pick up an extra 4th rounder. Good point. If we would have moved down a few spots and picked up either Ngata, Mangold or Joseph and got an extra 2nd round pick, that would have sucked.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Good point. If we would have moved down a few spots and picked up either Ngata, Mangold or Joseph and got an extra 2nd round pick, that would have sucked. You are assuming a team only a few spots down would have agreed with that trade.
Captain Hindsight Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 So does this mean we take a WR with the #11 It means that draft experts don't know anything and they can only speculate. take the player you want
Pete Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 I meant those who are chomping at the bit to criticize the slot in which we draft someone (see Whitner, Donte). If you like the guy, assume others do too, and don't risk losing him so that you can pick up an extra 4th rounder. I agree. Why dick around and risk it? It is not a reach either IMO if you draft a guy 10 spots higher then projected. If you are targeting one player, be happy they are still available at your pick
WellDressed Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 loaded for bear? what? I agree with that thing about the focus on the player rather than the placement - I'd say that's exactly the draft philosophy that we've used with great success in the past two drafts. The Kill baby, the kill
BillsVet Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Was it a reach? Could the Colts have traded down and still gotten Freeney? The answer is a resounding no. Trading down always looks appealing to the fans, but when you have a player you love and know he can make a difference in your team's success, why risk losing him? The key to the draft is not what team has the most picks, but what team makes the best picks. The most critical lesson to learn here is one that was taught to me by Walsh. He used to say to me all the time during our draft preparation, "It does not matter where we pick them, it matters how they play." Economy of force. No one's going to take a possession receiver with a top 10 pick. At the same time, a player with the physical attributes to start and dominate at LT isn't going in the third round either. If possible, you trade down if your needs aren't DE, OLT, QB, or the player you wanted is gone. It all comes back to priorities on the field of play. A pass rushing DE is a huge priority today, same as when Freeney was picked. It was the same situation when Bruce Smith was the top pick in 1985. Nothing has ever changed when it comes to finding guys who get to the QB. OTOH, safeties are found all over the place. There aren't many legitimate pass rushers found in the 4th round however. and no one drafts punters and kickers in the first round, outside of Al Davis. I'd agree, big agile lineman are usually taken in the first round. However, if you're looking for a safety, which is not in demand like DE's, OLT's, and QB's, your chances are much improved with finding someone lower. (Cue the Michael Huff reference and comparison)
Bill from NYC Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 You are assuming a team only a few spots down would have agreed with that trade. I heard Levy say exactly this on Sirius after the draft. In fact, he said that 1 team (didn't say which one) offered more than a 2nd round pick. It is up to you to either believe me or not, ya know? Also, I remind you that Joseph and Mangold were picked in the 20s and our OL absolutely sucked at the time.
GG Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 I heard Levy say exactly this on Sirius after the draft. In fact, he said that 1 team (didn't say which one) offered more than a 2nd round pick. It is up to you to either believe me or not, ya know? Also, I remind you that Joseph and Mangold were picked in the 20s and our OL absolutely sucked at the time. Revisionist history doesn't hurt. If Bills traded down, they still would have picked Whitner if he was still on the board 3-4 picks later. If not, they very likely would have gone to the next available DB and not taken Ngata. You also don't know what Balt would have done if Bills traded down to Denver's spot. It's also not a guarantee that Bills would have selected Mangold with the extra 1st round pick. Highly probable that McCargo would have been the pick there too, since Bills traded back into the round to draft him with Mangold still on the board and Mel Fowler newly signed to a three year deal. So, the only guarantee of the trade is that Bills would have had extra picks in that draft. But, it's far from certain that Whitner nor McCargo wouldn't have been the top two picks anyway.
Bill from NYC Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Revisionist history doesn't hurt. If Bills traded down, they still would have picked Whitner if he was still on the board 3-4 picks later. If not, they very likely would have gone to the next available DB and not taken Ngata. You also don't know what Balt would have done if Bills traded down to Denver's spot. It's also not a guarantee that Bills would have selected Mangold with the extra 1st round pick. Highly probable that McCargo would have been the pick there too, since Bills traded back into the round to draft him with Mangold still on the board and Mel Fowler newly signed to a three year deal. So, the only guarantee of the trade is that Bills would have had extra picks in that draft. But, it's far from certain that Whitner nor McCargo wouldn't have been the top two picks anyway. You did a great job of spelling out a concrete example of the stupidity of Levy/Jauron 06.
dave mcbride Posted April 17, 2008 Author Posted April 17, 2008 You did a great job of spelling out a concrete example of the stupidity of Levy/Jauron 06. It's not clear to me that Mangold is a better player than McCargo, or that he plays a more important position. Mangold did not have a good season last year.
GG Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 You did a great job of spelling out a concrete example of the stupidity of Levy/Jauron 06. That is your opinion to have. But it would be equally valid to question having two starting centers on a team for 3 years. A team isn't built on a fantasy roster in one weekend. If you make a move in March, it will shape your decisions in April & June. It's easy to say in retrospect that Bills shouldn't have signed Fowler and picked Mangold in April. But if someone else grabbed Mangold, you would have gone into the '06 season with Teague or Preston as the starting OC. Which is the more stupid outcome? The easiest job in the world is the Monday AM quarterback.
SuperKillerRobots Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 It's not clear to me that Mangold is a better player than McCargo, or that he plays a more important position. Mangold did not have a good season last year. I'd much rather have McCargo than Mangold. Mangold instead of Fowler, minus McCargo on defense, would not make this team any better right now. The team was too bad on offense that a center was not going to help us do much. A DT, even though we have only scratched the surface of his potential, is a much better route to go for building a team.
Recommended Posts