dave mcbride Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 This is a pretty amazing factoid: Two years ago, McKelvin limited Georgia Tech's Calvin Johnson -- the second pick in last year's NFL Draft -- to two catches for 9 yards. http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp...amp;poster=gbid Calvin Johnson is probably the best WR prospect in the past dozen years or so.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 those stats would be even more impressive if he were an Offensive Lineman like everyone wanted... wrap your head around that one!
Bmwolf21 Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 I don't know what surprised me more - that I didn't know much about this guy before this weekend and am pleasantly surprised the more I hear; or the fact that a Wawrow article used the wrong form of "fazed" in the third paragraph. Probably some overzealous copy editor...
dave mcbride Posted April 28, 2008 Author Posted April 28, 2008 those stats would be even more impressive if he were an Offensive Lineman like everyone wanted... wrap your head around that one! AKC and Bill from NYC are two of the best posters here, but in my opinion, their bias towards the lines (offensive and defensive) blinds them the simple fact that dominant teams feature good DBs. I could bring up a ton of examples, but really, the simplest one is SF minus Deion Sanders in 1992-93 v. SF with Deion Sanders in 1994. Or Dallas minus Deion Sanders in 1994 v. Dallas with Deion Sanders in 1995. Or--finally--the Raiders' Super Bowl team of 2001 with Charles Woodson (he of the game-ending sack of Tom Brady in the snowglobe game) v. the Raiders a few years before without him.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 AKC and Bill from NYC are two of the best posters here, but in my opinion, their bias towards the lines (offensive and defensive) blinds them the simple fact that dominant teams feature good DBs. I could bring up a ton of examples, but really, the simplest one is SF minus Deion Sanders in 1992-93 v. SF with Deion Sanders in 1994. Or Dallas minus Deion Sanders in 1994 v. Dallas with Deion Sanders in 1995. Or--finally--the Raiders' Super Bowl team of 2001 with Charles Woodson (he of the game-ending sack of Tom Brady in the snowglobe game) v. the Raiders a few years before without him. i didnt mean to bring up that whole argument. its just the thought/image of an OLineman holding Johnson to those stats made me chuckle. i obviously meant nothing serious by that post.
Lurker Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 those stats would be even more impressive if he were an Offensive Lineman like everyone wanted... wrap your head around that one! What part of 'we had a good first day, but day two was hit or miss' aren't you understanding...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 What part of 'we had a good first day, but day two was hit or miss' aren't you understanding... i feel like im one of the ONLY one to understand that day 2 is ALWAYS hit or miss, no matter what positions you draft. (i got this round) :nana:
Ozymandius Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 AKC and Bill from NYC are two of the best posters here, but in my opinion, their bias towards the lines (offensive and defensive) blinds them the simple fact that dominant teams feature good DBs. I could bring up a ton of examples, but really, the simplest one is SF minus Deion Sanders in 1992-93 v. SF with Deion Sanders in 1994. Or Dallas minus Deion Sanders in 1994 v. Dallas with Deion Sanders in 1995. Or--finally--the Raiders' Super Bowl team of 2001 with Charles Woodson (he of the game-ending sack of Tom Brady in the snowglobe game) v. the Raiders a few years before without him. Okay, but my guess is historically, there are more playoff teams that have average DBs/secondary but good lines than there are playoff teams with average lines and good DBs/secondary. Your Super Bowl champion Giants are now a classic example of the former. It's all moot anyway. The team that will be enjoying McKelvin's prime years in the league won't be the Bills. If everything goes right, he'll take two years to develop, three years to round into a gamechanger, including one Pro Bowl appearance, and just as he's ready to peak in his prime and become a perennial Pro-Bowler, he'll bolt via free agency. That's if everything goes right and he doesn't bust.
MattM Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Okay, but my guess is historically, there are more playoff teams that have average DBs/secondary but good lines than there are playoff teams with average lines and good DBs/secondary. Your Super Bowl champion Giants are now a classic example of the former. It's all moot anyway. The team that will be enjoying McKelvin's prime years in the league won't be the Bills. If everything goes right, he'll take two years to develop, three years to round into a gamechanger, including one Pro Bowl appearance, and just as he's ready to peak in his prime and become a perennial Pro-Bowler, he'll bolt via free agency. That's if everything goes right and he doesn't bust. He's a first rounder--we can sign him for 6 and franchise him for at least one more, which gives us 7 years or so. 29's a bit old for a corner by then anyways....
dave mcbride Posted April 28, 2008 Author Posted April 28, 2008 Okay, but my guess is historically, there are more playoff teams that have average DBs/secondary but good lines than there are playoff teams with average lines and good DBs/secondary. Your Super Bowl champion Giants are now a classic example of the former. It's all moot anyway. The team that will be enjoying McKelvin's prime years in the league won't be the Bills. If everything goes right, he'll take two years to develop, three years to round into a gamechanger, including one Pro Bowl appearance, and just as he's ready to peak in his prime and become a perennial Pro-Bowler, he'll bolt via free agency. That's if everything goes right and he doesn't bust. Who knows what will happen four, five, or six years from now? Historically, the Bills have enjoyed the better part of their first-round DBs' careers--Odomes turned into a cripple in Seattle, Thomas "hands of stone" Smith (a very underrated player, to be honest) was a bust in Chicago, Jeff Burris was nothing after departing the Bills, and Hank Jones was simply done after eight excellent years. It's too early to tell whether Clements is worth it, although Winfield still looks good (despite playing on team that's loaded on defense yet is consistently weak in the stats category).
ax4782 Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Okay, but my guess is historically, there are more playoff teams that have average DBs/secondary but good lines than there are playoff teams with average lines and good DBs/secondary. Your Super Bowl champion Giants are now a classic example of the former. It's all moot anyway. The team that will be enjoying McKelvin's prime years in the league won't be the Bills. If everything goes right, he'll take two years to develop, three years to round into a gamechanger, including one Pro Bowl appearance, and just as he's ready to peak in his prime and become a perennial Pro-Bowler, he'll bolt via free agency. That's if everything goes right and he doesn't bust. Yes, but teams with good lines and no skill players don't go anywhere. If all Buffalo did was draft O-LIne and D-Line, we'd have great blockers and run stuffers, but we'd have no one to stop the pass and no running backs or receivers to make plays on offense, unless we paid through the teeth in FA to get them. And RBs, QBs, WRs, CBs are all far more expensive FA pick ups than a solid DT, DE, LB. Buffalo proved that this year. Our lines are FINE for now. Could we use more depth? Probably, but the Bills did draft a very good DE prospect in RD3 and we have a solid stable of OLs right now. Get players you actually need. Buffalo did that and we will reap the benefits over the course of the season.
Pete Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Good point. I think when you take a look at how the Patriots run their offense, this draft makes a lot of sense. I believe New England went 4 or 5 wide on almost 70% of there plays all year. And I'm sure we all remember how badly they torched our secondary last year in both games. Our secondary is now loaded, and I think that bodes well for when we play New England this year. Not to mention I am really excited about Ellis as I believe he can put some serious pressure on the QB as a rookie. Good post and Dave made some great points. Our secondary is now loaded. How many CB's will we keep? Could we keep 6?
bartshan-83 Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 i feel like im one of the ONLY ones to understand that day 2 is ALWAYS hot or miss, no matter what positions you draft. (i got this round) :nana: Put your wallet away...I'm buying after that breath of fresh air.
Ozymandius Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Who knows what will happen four, five, or six years from now? Historically, the Bills have enjoyed the better part of their first-round DBs' careers--Odomes turned into a cripple in Seattle, Thomas "hands of stone" Smith (a very underrated player, to be honest) was a bust in Chicago, Jeff Burris was nothing after departing the Bills, and Hank Jones was simply done after eight excellent years. It's too early to tell whether Clements is worth it, although Winfield still looks good (despite playing on team that's loaded on defense yet is consistently weak in the stats category). That's true. But as for "who knows what will happen," I would say it's very unlikely that McKelvin will be re-signed given our previous decisions when a top Bills CB went to the open market (assuming he pans out into a top CB). And that's the problem with your Dallas/SF examples. Those teams were big spenders who had great all-around teams; their lines were superb as well. For a smaller market team like the Bills with limited resources, we almost certainly won't field a team that's dominant across the board, so we have to pick and choose which areas of the team we want to be dominant in. If anyone thinks the Bills o-line and d-line as currently constituted will dominate, then that's fine; go ahead and draft whatever. I happen to think they're only middle of the pack right now (which is still better than the awful that they were), so I wanted to see them continue adding a major piece or two to the lines until they dominate.
Steely Dan Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Yes, but teams with good lines and no skill players don't go anywhere. If all Buffalo did was draft O-LIne and D-Line, we'd have great blockers and run stuffers, but we'd have no one to stop the pass and no running backs or receivers to make plays on offense, unless we paid through the teeth in FA to get them. And RBs, QBs, WRs, CBs are all far more expensive FA pick ups than a solid DT, DE, LB. Buffalo proved that this year. Our lines are FINE for now. Could we use more depth? Probably, but the Bills did draft a very good DE prospect in RD3 and we have a solid stable of OLs right now. Get players you actually need. Buffalo did that and we will reap the benefits over the course of the season. That mystifies me too. Why do people think backups are more important than starters?
Lori Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Okay, but my guess is historically, there are more playoff teams that have average DBs/secondary but good lines than there are playoff teams with average lines and good DBs/secondary. Your Super Bowl champion Giants are now a classic example of the former. It's all moot anyway. The team that will be enjoying McKelvin's prime years in the league won't be the Bills. If everything goes right, he'll take two years to develop, three years to round into a gamechanger, including one Pro Bowl appearance, and just as he's ready to peak in his prime and become a perennial Pro-Bowler, he'll bolt via free agency. That's if everything goes right and he doesn't bust. Didn't the Giants draft a CB in the first round last year? And didn't he start in the Super Bowl? ADD: Aaron Ross (#1-2007), Corey Webster (#2-2005), Sam Madison (#2-1997 MIA), Kevin Dockery (UDFA-2006), and R.W. McQuarters (#1-1998 SF) are currently listed as their top five corners.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 That mystifies me too. Why do people think backups are more important than starters? as far as i can tell, because we let thomas smith and jeff burris walk 10 years ago...
Pete Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Didn't the Giants draft a CB in the first round last year? And didn't he start in the Super Bowl? They drafted more secondary in the first round this year too.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Didn't the Giants draft a CB in the first round last year? And didn't he start in the Super Bowl? They drafted more secondary in the first round this year too. the patriots picked 2 CBs in the first 4 rounds. but they dont know how to draft either.
Ozymandius Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Yes, but teams with good lines and no skill players don't go anywhere. If all Buffalo did was draft O-LIne and D-Line, we'd have great blockers and run stuffers, but we'd have no one to stop the pass and no running backs or receivers to make plays on offense, unless we paid through the teeth in FA to get them. And RBs, QBs, WRs, CBs are all far more expensive FA pick ups than a solid DT, DE, LB. Buffalo proved that this year. Our lines are FINE for now. Could we use more depth? Probably, but the Bills did draft a very good DE prospect in RD3 and we have a solid stable of OLs right now. Get players you actually need. Buffalo did that and we will reap the benefits over the course of the season. I don't think anybody said it would be wise to only draft linemen. I even praised the Corner pick in Rnd 4 and many of the other picks, especially Ellis obviously. I just don't believe in first round corners for this franchise with limited resources and a zone scheme, especially a corner that doesn't get INTs.
Recommended Posts