excellent piece by Mike Lombardi in SI

[Sisyphean Bills]

There was no "plan" in place from TDs era. The thing did need to be blown up and re-started from the ground up.

I'm no fan of what TD did here. Never was. So, no need to convince me. On the other hand, there are/were people that would disagree with your statements above.

The problem was this. If the core vet leadership was kept in place (players such as milloy, moulds), they would be over the hill and would need replacements right now. The Bills were proactvive about getting the replacements in the draft.

 

Its simple really. In 2006, the Bills took a look, and realized that it would be 2-3 years before they could realistically compete. So they decided to jettison the players that would no longer be productive in 2-3 years, players such as milloy. Teams do this all the time, and are lauded for their foresight. Yet you knock the Bills for this same foresight.

Look, I'm presenting the other side of the argument. There are plenty enough around here to wash the Bills balls already.

 

What has "getting a 2-3 year jump" on replacing the veteran leadership done exactly? The Bills still have a number of question marks. They haven't had a winning season under Jauron. They are just now getting around to getting the DL sorted out and spending more draft ammunition on the secondary, after the linebacking and secondary was beat to smithereens last year. Speaking of years of production left, how many does Stroud have left in his rusting tank? They didn't get another year or two of service out of some veterans that could've helped the youngsters transition to the NFL game. Have they answered the need for a pass rush? On offense, they are looking for a new identity while trying to keep things familiar. Do they have a TE, FB, dependable #2 WR?

 

Hey, I'm hoping it all works out too; but, I'm not counting the interest before the deposit is made.

[Ramius]

I'm no fan of what TD did here. Never was. So, no need to convince me. On the other hand, there are/were people that would disagree with your statements above.

 

Look, I'm presenting the other side of the argument. There are plenty enough around here to wash the Bills balls already.

 

This is an asinine statement. So you are going to be negative and contradictory because you dont like the positivity about the team?

 

What has "getting a 2-3 year jump" on replacing the veteran leadership done exactly? The Bills still have a number of question marks. They haven't had a winning season under Jauron. They are just now getting around to getting the DL sorted out and spending more draft ammunition on the secondary, after the linebacking and secondary was beat to smithereens last year. Speaking of years of production left, how many does Stroud have left in his rusting tank? They didn't get another year or two of service out of some veterans that could've helped the youngsters transition to the NFL game. Have they answered the need for a pass rush? On offense, they are looking for a new identity while trying to keep things familiar. Do they have a TE, FB, dependable #2 WR?

 

Hey, I'm hoping it all works out too; but, I'm not counting the interest before the deposit is made.

 

The 2 year jump has gotten us into a position where we can compete for the long haul. TD took it one season at a time. Marv/Brandon have a clear vision for the future, one that involves being competitive over the long run, NOT just trying for a 2-3 year window.

 

As for the defense, Stroud is 30. Do i need ot list the numerous DTs that have had success late into their careers, well past the age of 35. DT seems ot be a position where the dropoff isnt as severe as it is elsewhere. When you question the pass rush, did you consider the 40+ sack season we generated in 2006, or the poor results from last season when both kelsay and denney were injured most of the season. I think we'll be pleasantly surprised with the pass rush this year, as both Kelsay and Denney will be healthy and we have ellis in the rotation, along with stroud and johnson, and a vastly improved McCargo.

[Orton's Arm]

On the contrary, i think the Bills had to have Donte Whitner, not just any SS. We've seen them, in the past few drafts, move around to get the guys they want. They obviously have gone into the draft with specific players in mind, and did what it took to get those players, public perception be damned. And thats whats inportant, getting talent, not simply getting "draft value."

In general, I agree with the Bills' philosophical approach of getting the specific players they want, even at the expense of draft day value. In this particular case, I feel their approach should have been, "There are three players in this first round we really want: Whitner, Mangold, and McCargo. We need to take any two of them; but it would be nice to have all three."

 

With that philosophy, the Bills would have traded down from #8 to #15; acquiring a 2nd round pick in the process. If Whitner is still there at #15, they take him. Then they acquire McCargo, using the same trade they actually used. To get Mangold, the Bills would offer the 2nd round pick from the Whitner trade-down, plus their third round pick (used on Ashton Youboty). By trading away those two picks, the Bills might well have been able to move back into the late first round, where they could have grabbed Mangold.

 

There's no guarantee Whitner would have been there at #15. If he'd been off the boards, the Bills should have either attempted another trade-down, or else should have taken McCargo or Mangold at that spot. Then they should have traded back into the first round (as they did to get McCargo) to take whichever of those two players (McCargo or Mangold) they hadn't drafted earlier.

 

Under this plan, the Bills either end up with all three players; or else end up with two of the three plus an extra 2nd round pick. As it is, they got two of the three, without that extra 2nd round pick. Dibs' post made me feel better about this whole situation; but I still feel the Bills could have gotten more than they did. On the bright side, no one else's team is perfect either; and the Bills did a solid overall job with that year's draft.

[Bill from NYC]

In general, I agree with the Bills' philosophical approach of getting the specific players they want, even at the expense of draft day value. In this particular case, I feel they should have added Mangold's name to their short list.

 

Tampa got Davin Joseph and Jeremy Trueblood in Rounds 1 and 2 in 06. They selected in the 20s. Think about their price tags as compared to Dockery and Walker. We took Whitner, Youboty and Simpson with 3 of our first 4 picks, and actually gave away a first day pick while doing so.

[Sisyphean Bills]

It's the off-season, dude. Fans of 32 teams are planning their Super Bowl trips at this point in the season. It's Nirvana for everyone. And, yes, while we're circle jerking, all the Bills injured players will bounce back and be better, stronger, and faster than before. Well, except for the three that broke their necks and are out of football. But, hey, they sucked anyway.

 

SUPER BOWL!

[Sisyphean Bills]

Tampa got Davin Joseph and Jeremy Trueblood in Rounds 1 and 2 in 06. They selected in the 20s. Think about their price tags as compared to Dockery and Walker. We took Whitner, Youboty and Simpson with 3 of our first 4 picks, and actually gave away a first day pick while doing so.

Shh. Don't tell anyone, but Tampa actually made the playoffs in 07.

[Ramius]

Shh. Don't tell anyone, but Tampa actually made the playoffs in 07.

 

Too bad tampa drafted a first round CB this year. That move screwed them from making the playoffs in 2008.

[Dawgg]

Too bad tampa drafted a first round CB this year. That move screwed them from making the playoffs in 2008.

 

... seeing as how they took a DB in the latter half of the first round AFTER addressing their line through the draft, I think they're building their team the way most good organizations to -- from the inside out.

 

But don't let that get in the way of your misrepresentation of Bill's point

[Dibs]

.....I'm a little confused by this portion of what was otherwise a very solid post. How am I "in some way justifying that [Mangold] could have been drafted at #11" when I wanted the Bills to trade down to acquire him? Mangold at, say, #15 or #20 is a much nicer pickup than Mangold at #8.......

......the Bills would have traded down from #8 to #15; acquiring a 2nd round pick in the process. If Whitner is still there at #15, they take him. Then they acquire McCargo, using the same trade they actually used. To get Mangold, the Bills would offer the 2nd round pick from the Whitner trade-down, plus their third round pick (used on Ashton Youboty). By trading away those two picks, the Bills might well have been able to move back into the late first round, where they could have grabbed Mangold......

Wanting the Bills to trade down......hmmmm.....I want to win the lottery. Wanting something to happen that is not in any way a certainty has no effect on the reality. In this case, the reality is that at best we can speculate a reasonable chance for a trade down to the #11 slot(due to the Broncos comments). To assume that we could trade down however we like to orchestrate the best draft.......and then put across that because we didn't do it we in some way made an error is unreasonable.

 

I wanted Mangold too......but I also wanted Winston Justice more(as did many posters here). We needed a LT badly & WJ was rated as a top 12 prospect by many. At that point in time we had no idea what we had in Peters(nor most of the OL). If we were going to address the OL in the first draft of the re-build, it would have been to target a LT......not a C.....and had we done that we would have waisted the pick.

 

Every draft for every team in every year could be magic if the fans were to assume their team could trade into whatever slot to get the players that ended up being good players......we conveniently forget all of the players who we would have been happy for the team to draft(eg Justice, Bunkley) when they don't pan out......and only focus upon when the players we liked do pan out(Mangold, NGata).

[Orton's Arm]

Wanting the Bills to trade down......hmmmm.....I want to win the lottery. Wanting something to happen that is not in any way a certainty has no effect on the reality. In this case, the reality is that at best we can speculate a reasonable chance for a trade down to the #11 slot(due to the Broncos comments). To assume that we could trade down however we like to orchestrate the best draft.......and then put across that because we didn't do it we in some way made an error is unreasonable.

As I've mentioned to you before, Denver traded up to get that #11 pick. Their original pick was somewhat lower.

I wanted Mangold too......but I also wanted Winston Justice more(as did many posters here).

Good for them. I was never sold on Justice.

Every draft for every team in every year could be magic if the fans were to assume their team could trade into whatever slot to get the players that ended up being good players......

The Denver trade-down was clearly on the table, and I feel the Bills should have taken advantage of that fact. The other trade I mentioned was a possibility, which is why my earlier post described what the Bills should have done if that trade became available, as well as where they would have been left if it wasn't available.

we conveniently forget all of the players who we would have been happy for the team to draft(eg Justice, Bunkley) when they don't pan out......and only focus upon when the players we liked do pan out(Mangold, NGata).

I didn't advocate Justice or Bunkley (or Ngata for that matter, even though in hindsight I should have). I expressed the view that if the Bills didn't think any of the QBs were worth the 8th overall pick, they should have traded down for Mangold. My comments were made both before and immediately after the draft. As Marv's comments made clear, a trade-down possibility for a second round pick was there. You've characterized my position as "wanting to win the lottery" "assumptions" "unreasonable" and "could be magic."

 

Given that I advocated the trade-down for Mangold at the time, you don't get to come back at me later with "could be magic" type comments.

[Dibs]

I didn't advocate Justice or Bunkley (or Ngata for that matter, even though in hindsight I should have). I expressed the view that if the Bills didn't think any of the QBs were worth the 8th overall pick, they should have traded down for Mangold. My comments were made both before and immediately after the draft. As Marv's comments made clear, a trade-down possibility for a second round pick was there. You've characterized my position as "wanting to win the lottery" "assumptions" "unreasonable" and "could be magic."

 

Given that I advocated the trade-down for Mangold at the time, you don't get to come back at me later with "could be magic" type comments.

My point really is that every single fan has preferences of what should happen on draft day. Some will end up advocating players that would have been better.....some not. There will always be(due to the vast number of fans) some fans who suggested something which once viewed in hindsight might be a better end result than what actually happened on the day. This does not mean that the fans who suggested this have the right to suggest that there were mistakes made.....particularly if the actual end results were positive.

 

To continually imply that the FO buggered things up & it could have been better just because you theoretically happened to predict a 'better way' is only useful if the FO actually did bugger things up. As it turns out, the 2006 draft netted us a(minimally) very good starter(DW), another(hopefully) very good starter(JM), a(assumedly) solid starter(KS), a(hopefully) solid starter(BB) & 2 solid backups(KW & KE). I'd say no matter which way you look at it the 2006 draft was a successful draft.

 

If you need acknowledgement from your peers that it could have been better......you have my acknowledgement(since every draft could be better).

If you need a pat on the back for predicting a better draft.....you have a hearty "Well done, good on ya." from me.

If you need to claim that management did a bad job because the job they did was not perfect.....you have a "Get some perspective." from me.

[Orton's Arm]

My point really is that every single fan has preferences of what should happen on draft day. Some will end up advocating players that would have been better.....some not. There will always be(due to the vast number of fans) some fans who suggested something which once viewed in hindsight might be a better end result than what actually happened on the day.

An excellent point.

This does not mean that the fans who suggested this have the right to suggest that there were mistakes made.....particularly if the actual end results were positive.

My intent was not to suggest the front office did a bad job with that particular draft. As you've pointed out, our draft for that year was strong.

 

But even after a successful draft, a team should ask itself, "What things could we have done differently to have had an even better draft?" This isn't about 20/20 hindsight. What I'm describing is an attempt to improve and upgrade the pre-draft evaluation process to produce better results in the future. A team should look not just at the players it drafted, but also at the players it did a lot of research on. How did players in the latter category do? Are some of the players playing below their expected level? Why are they playing below that level? Is it because of lack of passion, or lack of toughness or work ethic, etc.? How could a team's evaluation process be modified to do a better job of weeding out such players? Conversely, a team needs to identify the players it didn't notice, but should have. How might its evaluation process be changed to make it less likely for such players to slip through the cracks in the future?

If you need a pat on the back for predicting a better draft.....you have a hearty "Well done, good on ya." from me.

Thanks, but that wasn't what I was after. I'd like to see the Bills win the Super Bowl some day. Toward that end, I feel they need to maximize whatever resources they've been given. When they fail to do so--as for example their failure to accept Denver's trade-down offer--it frustrates me. You can congratulate me until you're blue in the face, and it won't make my feeling of frustration go away. Only a Bills Super Bowl victory will do that!

If you need to claim that management did a bad job because the job they did was not perfect.....you have a "Get some perspective." from me.

Jimmy Johnson once said that you can either be safe and be good, or you can take a chance to be great. I think it's obvious which of those two approaches this staff prefers. A coach or front office person's #1 priority is probably to hold onto his job. "Safe and good" is the obvious way to do that. As a fan, I want the Bills to win the Super Bowl, without particularly caring which coaching staff or front office group happens to be in charge when that Super Bowl victory happens. "Safe and good" typically doesn't win Super Bowls.

 

The approach I outlined in my earlier post would have created a chance of the Bills losing out on Whitner. In exchange for accepting that risk, the Bills would have had the chance to get all three players (Mangold, Whitner, and McCargo). If they missed out on that chance, they still would have had two of the three, plus Denver's second round pick.

 

But I think having Whitner on the team gave them a feeling of safety (no pun intended). Whitner's presence in the secondary helps keep other teams' offenses from getting out of hand. Losing out on Whitner would have been very damaging, at least until the hole at SS could have been filled in some future draft. On the other hand, it typically takes offensive linemen a year or two to begin playing at a high level. For these reasons, the front office probably felt that risking losing out on Whitner might have meant a risk to their careers.

 

From a job security standpoint, it made sense for the Bills to stand pat and take Whitner. From the perspective of a team trying to put in place the pieces to win a Super Bowl, the plan I outlined in my earlier post would have been better.

[eball]

From a job security standpoint, it made sense for the Bills to stand pat and take Whitner. From the perspective of a team trying to put in place the pieces to win a Super Bowl, the plan I outlined in my earlier post would have been better.

:thumbsup:

 

Well, at least you don't take yourself too seriously. So tell me, which of the three offers to take an NFL GM job do you plan to accept?

[stuckincincy]

But even after a successful draft, a team should ask itself, "What things could we have done differently to have had an even better draft?" This isn't about 20/20 hindsight. What I'm describing is an attempt to improve and upgrade the pre-draft evaluation process to produce better results in the future. A team should look not just at the players it drafted, but also at the players it did a lot of research on. How did players in the latter category do? Are some of the players playing below their expected level? Why are they playing below that level? Is it because of lack of passion, or lack of toughness or work ethic, etc.? How could a team's evaluation process be modified to do a better job of weeding out such players? Conversely, a team needs to identify the players it didn't notice, but should have. How might its evaluation process be changed to make it less likely for such players to slip through the cracks in the future?

 

Good points, HA.

[Orton's Arm]

:thumbsup:

 

Well, at least you don't take yourself too seriously. So tell me, which of the three offers to take an NFL GM job do you plan to accept?

Stow the sarcasm. I'm not out to convince anyone that I should be hired as a GM. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to this thread, perhaps you should stick to lurking.

[eball]

Stow the sarcasm. I'm not out to convince anyone that I should be hired as a GM. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to this thread, perhaps you should stick to lurking.

If one thing has been made perfectly clear on this board, it's that anyone who dares to take a cautiously optimistic viewpoint towards what Levy and Jauron started two years ago will be beaten into submission by the armchair GMs who believe their way is the only way.

 

It's gotten rather tiresome -- so, I'd rather make fun of you know-it-alls.

[Alaska Darin]

Stow the sarcasm. I'm not out to convince anyone that I should be hired as a GM. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to this thread, perhaps you should stick to lurking.

I didn't know today was "Irony Day"!

[Orton's Arm]

If one thing has been made perfectly clear on this board, it's that anyone who dares to take a cautiously optimistic viewpoint towards what Levy and Jauron started two years ago will be beaten into submission by the armchair GMs who believe their way is the only way.

If you'd actually bothered to read my posts before responding, you'd know that I'm among those who have taken exactly this cautiously optimistic view of the Levy/Jauron era.

It's gotten rather tiresome -- so, I'd rather make fun of you know-it-alls.

And in the process, you act like a tiresome know-it-all yourself.

[Orton's Arm]

Good points, HA.

Thanks.

[eball]

If you'd actually bothered to read my posts before responding, you'd know that I'm among those who have taken exactly this cautiously optimistic view of the Levy/Jauron era.

Oh, I've read your "stuff." Once in a while you'll actually stumble upon something that passes for intelligent discussion, but those moments are few and far between. It seems to me you serve primarily to fan the flames and feed your own ego. I've never gotten the impression you're a real "fan" of the Buffalo Bills. Note: that doesn't mean I expect (or want) to read homerism.

 

And in the process, you act like a tiresome know-it-all yourself.

That's interesting, since I rarely claim to "know" anything about the way the Bills are run. My goal is moderation, and nothing is more irritating or annoying than reading either extreme. At least the rose-colored glasses posts lead me to believe the posters are generally happy people. I don't know what the motivations or expectations are of the negative ninnies. They appear to me to be miserable people -- at least where the Bills are concerned.