What will the Bills do with their first round pick of 2009?

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

You seem to be influenced by Bills history here rather than analytical observation of the 3 drafts you are referring to.

As things have proven out, cornerback was not a need going into the '08 Draft. If we had not added anyone, we would be left with the same top three corners on the depth chart we have now, all three of which are relatively young and able to fill those spots for a good while (with Greer needing a new contract). There wouldn't have been much of a downgrade.

 

You may say I'm saying that with the benefit of hindsight after seeing Youboty emerge, but I don't feel that way. At the time, we still had Will James, a third rock-solid veteran cornerback. James is now playing the nickel for a pretty good defense in Jacksonville. He's been a starter in this league before, and even without Youboty coming through, there would have been nothing wrong with James playing the nickel here. That would have been three steady players at the position, plus a 4th with plenty of upside.

 

The only thing really saving them from serious criticism regarding the McKelvin pick is the lack of another clear option on the board at the time...but what in the world were they thinking drafting Corner also? Maybe Corner will be like Terrence McGee, the last time we drafted a corner in the 4th round...but how many Terrence McGees do we need? Assuming they'll at least get a 'solid starter' status from McKelvin (and if they're going to use value to justify the pick, they better!), that means they already had 4 solid starters at the position before making that pick, PLUS Youboty with upside.

 

No wonder a quality player in James was cut...they drafted so many players at the position that it was either he or Youboty, and James became the odd man out. Of course competition is a good thing, but the point is that the Bills aren't devoid of needs, and the Corner pick could have been better spent elsewhere.

 

We absolutely desperately needed 0 cornerbacks in the draft. We came out with 3 of them, when Cox was added later.

 

This is the kind of thing that makes me think Jauron/Modrak have an affinity with drafting DBs that goes overboard, to the point that it hinders their ability to use resources to efficiently help the entire roster. I'm a big Jauron fan- maybe as adamant a supporter for him as you'll find around here- but this is one of the few things I feel he's given us to worry about.

 

We are STACKED with talent in the defensive backfield, and there is little reason why we should see a single pick in the secondary come draft day. Here's to hoping we don't.

[Orton's Arm]

Hmmm......based upon 3 drafts.

 

The first we were not going to draft a QB.....nor were we going to draft N'Gata. With the talent on the board, this left us with drafting either a LB or a DB(selections ran LB, QB, QB, N'Gata, LB after #8)......and since Safety is very important in the T2 it made sense that we drafted one since we didn't have a starter on the roster. We didn't have a starting DT either(which is also important to the scheme) so they spent resources to trade up and make sure they got one(didn't pan out obviously).

 

The second there was no DBs drafted.

 

The third....secondary was in need(though not imperative) & the best DB dropped to #11 so we selected the best available player. Looking at the other viable options.....OT & RB(with Peters & Lynch, these were not reasonable options at #11).....the only viable player in the vicinity was OG Alberts(who was my preference) but with Dockery locked & Butler showing good promise.....and the concept that McKelvin was rated well above Butler.....he was the only realistic pick.

 

In and of itself, the current regime has drafted quite logically. As it happens, there has been either a high need at DB or no available talent in the areas where we were more needy(i.e. 2008 there were no TE, WR, C, DE, DT or LB left at the #11 slot rated anywhere near McKelvin.....the first one of those positions went at the #28 selection).

 

You seem to be influenced by Bills history here rather than analytical observation of the 3 drafts you are referring to.

You express yourself well, but there are things within your post with which I disagree. For example, you wrote that we weren't going to draft a QB at #8 or Ngata, which meant that it was either going to be a SS or LB. At the time, I wanted the Bills to either stay at #8 and take a quarterback like Cutler, or else trade down and take a center like Mangold. Denver had offered us its second round pick for trading down, and Mangold has turned into one of the very best centers in the league. So we had legitimate options with that pick other than just DB or LB.

 

More generally, I'd like you to look at the Bills secondary and how it's been addressed in the draft. They've used two first round picks on it (Whitner and McKelvin), a third (Youboty), and two fourths (Simpson and Corner). They could get rid of McGee and Greer and still have a starting secondary where every player was at least a fourth round pick--even the nickle back. Assuming they keep either McGee or Greer, you're looking at a long-term situation for our secondary where a fourth round pick had been used on the dime back.

 

Using a 4th round pick on the dime back position is worth noting, because the highest pick this regime has used on the OL has been a 5th rounder: Brad Butler. And it's not like the offensive line hasn't been a need area throughout this regime's tenure. When we first brought in Fowler, I expressed the view that he'd fail to provide a significant upgrade over Trey Teague. He's done nothing since then to change my mind. In addition to obvious and gaping holes on the offensive line (such as the center position), this team also has lacked a legitimate pass catching tight end during this regime's tenure. But at least we used a 4th round pick on that position this past draft, demonstrating that having a good pass catching, starting TE may be (almost) as important to this regime as being rock solid at dime back.

[Orton's Arm]

As things have proven out, cornerback was not a need going into the '08 Draft. If we had not added anyone, we would be left with the same top three corners on the depth chart we have now, all three of which are relatively young and able to fill those spots for a good while (with Greer needing a new contract). There wouldn't have been much of a downgrade.

 

You may say I'm saying that with the benefit of hindsight after seeing Youboty emerge, but I don't feel that way. At the time, we still had Will James, a third rock-solid veteran cornerback. James is now playing the nickel for a pretty good defense in Jacksonville. He's been a starter in this league before, and even without Youboty coming through, there would have been nothing wrong with James playing the nickel here. That would have been three steady players at the position, plus a 4th with plenty of upside.

 

The only thing really saving them from serious criticism regarding the McKelvin pick is the lack of another clear option on the board at the time...but what in the world were they thinking drafting Corner also? Maybe Corner will be like Terrence McGee, the last time we drafted a corner in the 4th round...but how many Terrence McGees do we need? Assuming they'll at least get a 'solid starter' status from McKelvin (and if they're going to use value to justify the pick, they better!), that means they already had 4 solid starters at the position before making that pick, PLUS Youboty with upside.

 

No wonder a solid player in James was cut...they drafted so many players at the position that it was either he or Youboty, and James became the odd man out. Of course competition is a good thing, but the point is that the Bills aren't devoid of needs, and the Corner pick could have been better spent elsewhere.

 

We absolutely desperately needed 0 cornerbacks in the draft. We came out with 3 of them, when Cox was added later.

 

This is the kind of thing that makes me think Jauron/Modrak have an affinity with drafting DBs that goes overboard, to the point that it hinders their ability to use resources to efficiently help the entire roster. I'm a big Jauron fan- maybe as adamant a supporter for him as you'll find around here- but this is one of the few things I feel he's given us to worry about.

 

We are STACKED with talent in the defensive backfield, and there is little reason why we should see a single pick in the secondary come draft day. Here's to hoping we don't.

After I'd read your post, I thought to myself, I don't really need to make any comments here, because Boone has already done quite a good job of making my points for me. In some ways a better job than I would have done myself. But then I decided to flesh out a few things in order to further defend my position that the current regime has demonstrated far more interest in drafting defensive backs than in offensive linemen.

[Bill from NYC]

With that said, the 2006 draft is looking to be very close to 2007, in terms of building a solid foundation for this team. And, as much as I love Marshawn, it is much harder to find/acquire a safety in Whitner's class, than it is to find a very good RB.

 

I don't agree with any of the above, but the first sentence is shocking. If I didn't know you better I would think that it was a passive aggressive slap at Trent.

 

The 2006 brought us Whitner with a #8, who is good but not a game changer, at least not yet. It also brought us Youboty who is improving in year 3, and some other decent starters.

 

The 2007 brought us a running back who can run, catch, block, and score touchdowns. We also got a mlb who is making lots of plays, as well as calling signals. In the 3rd round, we not only solved the quarterback problem on this team, we might have an actual star at this position. In other words, it isn't close in terms of which was a better draft.

 

And even given the above, if the Bills didn't spend 73 million dollars for a LG and RT, I am positive that this team would be below .500. The poll was b.s., but his point does stand. If we continue to be a farm club for defensive backs with our best resources, it will be hard to impossible for this team to rise to the next level, and I am convinced that they can.

They need to focus on DTs, another LB, and of course, more blockers instead of another slew of defensive backs. Of course, this doesn't mean that it will happen given our history.

[The Dean]

I don't agree with any of the above, but the first sentence is shocking. If I didn't know you better I would think that it was a passive aggressive slap at Trent.

 

What? How can you find a slap at Trent there? I think we have found the issue here Bill, you can find slams against Trent, where he isn't even the topic. The point was comparing FIRST ROUND picks. Trent wasn't drafted in the first round.

 

But, it is interesting to note that you think the 2006 draft sucks. Was that a passive aggressive slap at Whitner?

 

 

 

The poll was b.s

 

 

The point of my earliest post, which you attacked. THE POLL WAS BS!

 

Thank you.

 

I'm shocked that you still believe there is ONE WAY to build a successful team, Bill. I know you are smarter than that. The way they have gone about it, has worked (last three drafts, Bill...the rest is a different regime). I can't believe you are complaining because the Bills took a different tack at building a successful team, than you would have. Hell, made moves that completely befuddled me...but most of them worked. I think that letting go of your preconceptions about how a team MUST be built, and letting it sink in that this way is working, is a good first step. It sure is working for me.

 

Finally, I can't believe you have now become one of the people that wants to trash the organization for making a move in the future. The Bills haven't picked in 2009, yet. Perhaps it is a good idea to wait until they do, before you trash the FO.

[Bill from NYC]

I'm shocked that you still believe there is ONE WAY to build a successful team, Bill. I know you are smarter than that. The way they have gone about it, has worked (last three drafts, Bill...the rest is a different regime). I can't believe you are complaining because the Bills took a different tack at building a successful team, than you would have. Hell, made moves that completely befuddled me...but most of them worked. I think that letting go of your preconceptions about how a team MUST be built, and letting it sink in that this way is working, is a good first step. It sure is working for me.

 

Finally, I can't believe you have now become one of the people that wants to trash the organization for making a move in the future. The Bills haven't picked in 2009, yet. Perhaps it is a good idea to wait until they do, before you trash the FO.

 

The 2006 draft didn't suck. There is an absolute need for players such as Youboty, Simpson, Butler and Williams. None are stars. Of all of them I think that Youboty has the most potential, but I digress.

 

The 2006 draft was good. Given the above and the fact that Whitner is playing well, a case could be made for very good. This discounts the numerous trade down offers, but so be it.

That said, how often do drafts such as 2007 come along? A very possible franchise qb with the 27th pick of round 3? A mlb calling signal who looks like a future probowler, and Marshawn Lynch? A team selecting 1st would be very lucky to come away with this.

 

Finally, there is a difference between skepticism and all out "trashing." In his post, BBB did well to illustrate that this focus on the secondary borders on being alarming. He is of course correct, and a 1st round defensive back wouldn't shock me even a little.

If they do go in this direction, will you then think that enough is enough, or is there no limit to be placed on the resources we devote to the "secondary?"

[The Dean]

The 2006 draft didn't suck. There is an absolute need for players such as Youboty, Simpson, Butler and Williams. None are stars. Of all of them I think that Youboty has the most potential, but I digress.

 

The 2006 draft was good. Given the above and the fact that Whitner is playing well, a case could be made for very good. This discounts the numerous trade down offers, but so be it.

That said, how often do drafts such as 2007 come along? A very possible franchise qb with the 27th pick of round 3? A mlb calling signal who looks like a future probowler, and Marshawn Lynch? A team selecting 1st would be very lucky to come away with this.

 

Finally, there is a difference between skepticism and all out "trashing." In his post, BBB did well to illustrate that this focus on the secondary borders on being alarming. He is of course correct, and a 1st round defensive back wouldn't shock me even a little.

If they do go in this direction, will you then think that enough is enough, or is there no limit to be placed on the resources we devote to the "secondary?"

 

 

I concur that 2007 is likely to be a better draft than 2006, if for no other reason than Trent. A franchise QB puts that draft over the top. But, finding quality starters in a draft is pretty important, and 2006 ranks among the better drafts in recent Bills' history. I would guess it would be considered a very good draft for any team.

 

Part of the problem I have with the anti-DB argument is that much of it seems to be predicated on the departure of the quality DBs once they become FAs. It is true that the price of DBs took a dramatic rise a few years ago, but this is related to the importance of DBs in the modern game. DBs go for big money, because DBs have become quite important to good defenses. (I do understand that the T2 defense is supposed to put lesser value on outstanding CBs, but let's save that discussion for later.)

 

Also, part of the Bills problem with losing DBs to FA is, they got some VERY GOOD DBs who were coveted by the league. I would blame the Bills for not resigning these players earlier in their contracts...but, let's more on. I would suspect that, if the Bills were drafting interior linemen or LBs with the early picks, and those players developed into the same quality at their positions, they way Clements and Winfield developed at their positions, the Bills would have lost those players to FA, as well. Had Mike Williams become a dominant LT, the way one might expect from where he was picked in the draft, what makes you think he wouldn't be gone in FA the way Clements and Winfield went?

 

In 2007, the Bills had no pressing need for DBs (or so they thought) and drafted only Wendling (in the 6th), I think primarily for his athleticism, and the fact that he would likely be a standout ST player right off the bat. I see the Bills in that same kind of situation at DB in the coming draft (baring career threatening injury, suspension, etc). They have enough depth to replace Greer (thanks to drafting Leodis/Corner in 2008) and have a solid core of young quality DBs. As Dibs note, CONTEXT is so important when evaluating a draft.

 

If nothing major occurs with the current DB group, I will be quite surprised to see the Bills use a 1st round pick on a DB, this year. Now, given that they draft at the very end of the round, it is always possible that the best player, by far, is a DB and they feel that they can get equal quality of another position in a later round. Again, I will be surprised if that happens. But, the way the Bills got Trent Edwards was by using that very philosophy. The Bills were not looking to draft a QB that early in the draft. However, when Trent was available, compared to what other players were available at all other positions, they felt they HAD to take Trent, as he simply was too good of a value to pass up. Since this mgt team has done a damn fine job (not perfect, mind you) of identifying players, I will trust them to make the right move.

[Bill from NYC]

Part of the problem I have with the anti-DB argument is that much of it seems to be predicated on the departure of the quality DBs once they become FAs. It is true that the price of DBs took a dramatic rise a few years ago, but this is related to the importance of DBs in the modern game. DBs go for big money, because DBs have become quite important to good defenses. (I do understand that the T2 defense is supposed to put lesser value on outstanding CBs, but let's save that discussion for later.)

 

It may not appear as such, but I concede the bolded. This is more of a passing league these days. Despite this, I still cling to the premise that games are won and lost in the trenches. DBs can't cover a good wideout for 10 seconds. The man will eventually get open. A sack or even good steady pressure negates the importance of the secondary. It has too.

A poor offensive line and you will simply lose. Period.

 

When Jauron/Levy came to town, both lines were all but shot. Sure, they took McCargo, but that was nothing compared to the way they jumped all over the secondary. This was my issue. Right now things look good, and I am thrilled by this, but I must say that I am haunted by the thought of Stroud going down. Imo he is holding this defense together. An infusion of talent on both lines might really make this team a champion. That is the good news.

[The Dean]

It may not appear as such, but I concede the bolded. This is more of a passing league these days. Despite this, I still cling to the premise that games are won and lost in the trenches. DBs can't cover a good wideout for 10 seconds. The man will eventually get open. A sack or even good steady pressure negates the importance of the secondary. It has too.

A poor offensive line and you will simply lose. Period.

 

When Jauron/Levy came to town, both lines were all but shot. Sure, they took McCargo, but that was nothing compared to the way they jumped all over the secondary. This was my issue. Right now things look good, and I am thrilled by this, but I must say that I am haunted by the thought of Stroud going down. Imo he is holding this defense together. An infusion of talent on both lines might really make this team a champion. That is the good news.

 

 

I agree with almost all of that, Bill. This team needs talent and depth on the D-line, the LBs and, to an extent, the O-line (especially center and TE). The O Line, while still struggling in the running game. looks to have surprisingly decent depth, but they do need some more talent, to be sure. I expect the lines and the LBs to be addressed in the offseason (by draft, FA and/or trades). I would save the bashing of the FO (this really isn't directed at you, Bill) until next summer, if they don't address those areas. Right now this FO has shown me that, they know where the issues are, and have addressed them...albeit in a different way than some would like and/or expect.

[Orton's Arm]

It may not appear as such, but I concede the bolded. This is more of a passing league these days. Despite this, I still cling to the premise that games are won and lost in the trenches.

I'll agree with this up to a point. Unless you're strong in the trenches, the other stuff doesn't matter that much. But once you become strong in the trenches, the other positions matter more.

 

The quarterback situation is a good example of this. When the Bills don't pass protect Trent, he looks a lot like just about any other quarterback who doesn't get pass protection. It doesn't matter whether your quarterback is Joe Montana or Todd Collins, if he spends the game lying on his back.

 

But once you start to provide pass protection, then who your quarterback is, or who your receivers are, starts to matter a lot more.

 

I guess I could sum all this up by saying that being strong on the lines is a necessary condition for having a top tier team, but not a sufficient condition.

 

A poor offensive line and you will simply lose. Period.

You hit the nail right on the head!

 

When Jauron/Levy came to town, both lines were all but shot. Sure, they took McCargo, but that was nothing compared to the way they jumped all over the secondary. This was my issue.

And that's perfectly reasonable. Even the worst NFL GM still makes some good decisions, and even the best one still makes mistakes. To imply that any front office is above criticism, as some appear to have done in this thread, is mistaken.

 

An infusion of talent on both lines might really make this team a champion. That is the good news.

You're exactly right, and I truly, truly, hope that's what happens in the 2009 draft.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

After I'd read your post, I thought to myself, I don't really need to make any comments here, because Boone has already done quite a good job of making my points for me. In some ways a better job than I would have done myself. But then I decided to flesh out a few things in order to further defend my position that the current regime has demonstrated far more interest in drafting defensive backs than in offensive linemen.

We are making slightly different arguments, so I can see why. Thanks for your kind words.

[Max997]

There are three different scenarios I can envision here:

 

1. The Bills decide to let Greer walk this year, and McGee the next. The long-term plan would be for McKelvin to man one starting CB spot, the first round pick the other CB spot, with Youboty at nickle.

 

2. Free Safety. The Bills appear unsatisfied with Ko Simpson, so using a first round pick on a free safety should be considered a strong possibility.

 

3. Strong safety. The plan here would be to move Whitner to free safety and to use another first round pick on a strong safety.

 

Its October

[marauderswr80]

The DE from Texas Brian Orakpo. Kid is a beast. Work ethic wise hes a prefect fit for the Bills. Athletic wise, I highly doubt he's around when we pick.

 

Below is a nice segment ESPN did on him. Kid's a player. Watched him play today against OSU and he looked solid. I think he would be a nice addition to the Bills defense and in the weight room & team leader down the road.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/...videoId=3650227

[Dibs]

You express yourself well, but there are things within your post with which I disagree. For example, you wrote that we weren't going to draft a QB at #8 or Ngata, which meant that it was either going to be a SS or LB. At the time, I wanted the Bills to either stay at #8 and take a quarterback like Cutler, or else trade down and take a center like Mangold. Denver had offered us its second round pick for trading down, and Mangold has turned into one of the very best centers in the league. So we had legitimate options with that pick other than just DB or LB......

With JPL showing promise and having had only 8 starts.....& having numerous huge needs throughout the roster it was obvious we were not going to take Cutler or any QB using a large amount of draft resources.

 

Trade down? We would have ended with the #15 selection(selections 15-22....DB,DB,LB,LB,CB,DE,RB,LB). Mangold(selected #29) was not going to be selected at that slot. Like it or not, OCs are not considered to be positions of great importance(at least in relation to draft equity).....only one has been selected inside the top 20(17, Woody) in the last 15 years. Considering also that we had just signed Fowler.....using high draft equity on an OC while we had positions we were totally devoid of(and of very high importance), being DT and Safety was again....not going to happen.

 

Unless one wants to imagine further trade downs(and limiting chances of getting an impact player), the only real options we had was DB or DT(N'Gata or Bunkley).

 

Hindsight has shown Mangold to be a golden pick.......hindsight also shows the logical reasons as to why we have selected who we have(1st & 2nd rounds) over the past 3 drafts.......and it has nothing to do with having a bias towards DBs.

[The Dean]

With JPL showing promise and having had only 8 starts.....& having numerous huge needs throughout the roster it was obvious we were not going to take Cutler or any QB using a large amount of draft resources.

 

Trade down? We would have ended with the #15 selection(selections 15-22....DB,DB,LB,LB,CB,DE,RB,LB). Mangold(selected #29) was not going to be selected at that slot. Like it or not, OCs are not considered to be positions of great importance(at least in relation to draft equity).....only one has been selected inside the top 20(17, Woody) in the last 15 years. Considering also that we had just signed Fowler.....using high draft equity on an OC while we had positions we were totally devoid of(and of very high importance), being DT and Safety was again....not going to happen.

 

Unless one wants to imagine further trade downs(and limiting chances of getting an impact player), the only real options we had was DB or DT(N'Gata or Bunkley).

 

Hindsight has shown Mangold to be a golden pick.......hindsight also shows the logical reasons as to why we have selected who we have(1st & 2nd rounds) over the past 3 drafts.......and it has nothing to do with having a bias towards DBs.

 

 

Bravo, well done.

 

Cutler would have been a disastrous pick for the Bills, and likely set the organization back years. It would also mean that the Bills wouldn't have picked Trent Edwards in 2007. Edwards is far more suited to be an effective QB on this team. Plus, the Bills used the first pick on a position where they had no starter. As it turned out, Whitner now plays about 3 different positions for the team.

 

I wanted the team to find a way to draft Mangold, at the time. But, given how the big picture has worked out, you won't find me pissing and moaning that they took a different direction.

[ndirish1978]

I'd be fairly disappointed with any of the 2 positions listed. we need LB, DE and TE in that order

[Orton's Arm]

With JPL showing promise and having had only 8 starts.....& having numerous huge needs throughout the roster it was obvious we were not going to take Cutler or any QB using a large amount of draft resources.

Whenever a new regime replaces an older one, it's a chance to ask whether the old regime's quarterback of the future should have been drafted in the first place. Bill Parcells' role with the Dolphins is an obvious example of this: he took a QB with his 2nd round pick, just one year after the previous regime had drafted a QB in the second round. There's nothing wrong with a new regime writing off the previous regime's quarterback of the future, at least if the new regime can clearly see the flaw in the previous regime's decision to take that particular QB.

 

That brings me to the subject of Losman. TD drafted Losman because of his physical attributes rather than anything he'd proved as a pocket passer in college. That decision was clearly an error, and some of the people on these boards recognized that error fairly early on. If a team doesn't have a quarterback--which the Bills didn't, until we drafted Edwards--you typically want to get one on the roster as quickly as possible. Quarterbacks take time to develop, so you want to get that process started quickly.

 

Cutler's career is off to an excellent start for the Broncos. The Bills needed a guy like that a lot more than they needed a solid but unspectacular strong safety. Vic Carucci didn't have Whitner rated as a first round talent--though he was quick to point out that such ratings are subjective, and that a particular player may be rated higher or lower depending on how he fits into a specific scheme. When Whitner was taken #8 overall, I was told that I shouldn't complain, because what if he turns into the next Ronnie Lott? Well, currently he has a long way to go before he becomes the next Ed Reed.

 

Many of those who are reading this are probably thinking that none of it matters, because in the end we got Trent Edwards in the third. And I agree that decision looks absolutely brilliant in hindsight. But Edwards was expected to have been drafted in the second round. If the Bills knew they needed a quarterback, and if they knew how good Edwards was going to be, why not trade up into the second round, instead of passively hoping he'd fall to them in the third? Supposing some other team had taken Edwards in the second--which was what was expected to have happened--how would the previous year's decision to take Whitner over Cutler have looked?

 

Trade down? We would have ended with the #15 selection(selections 15-22....DB,DB,LB,LB,CB,DE,RB,LB). Mangold(selected #29) was not going to be selected at that slot. Like it or not, OCs are not considered to be positions of great importance(at least in relation to draft equity)

And how many mock drafts had Whither going in the top 8, or even the top 15? You get mocked on these boards if you bring up the concept of draft day value in relation to Whitner. But in this case, since you're arguing that Mangold would have been a reach at #15, surely you must admit Whitner was a bit of a reach at #8.

 

Considering also that we had just signed Fowler.....using high draft equity on an OC while we had positions we were totally devoid of(and of very high importance), being DT and Safety was again....not going to happen.

I agree that the Bills were much more worried about the DT and SS positions than about the C position. Which is odd, considering we had Matt Bowen at SS and Melvin Fowler at center. Neither player was the answer at his respective position, but either could serve as a stopgap--sort of--until the hole was filled. The fact that the Bills felt they had to fill the hole at SS--with the 8th overall pick, no less--while getting by with a Band-Aid solution at center for three straight years--demonstrates that this regime places a higher priority on defensive backs than on the offensive line.

[Dibs]

And how many mock drafts had Whither going in the top 8, or even the top 15? You get mocked on these boards if you bring up the concept of draft day value in relation to Whitner. But in this case, since you're arguing that Mangold would have been a reach at #15, surely you must admit Whitner was a bit of a reach at #8.

I'm not arguing that Mangold would have been a reach at #15......simply that OC is not considered(correctly or incorrectly) to be worth a top 15 pick. It virtually never happens that a team(any team) will draft a C in the top 15. Whether that is because the prospects are generally not as good as those in other positions.....or whether it is because teams simply view that the OC position to be not worth the draft equity, I don't know. The end result is the same though.......as it turned out he was selected near the end of the 1st round......so that is the level he was generally considered. End of story.

 

IMO there is no reaches.....never....ever.

If a player is selected at #8 then that is what his value is. We(as observers) never know how the 32 teams in the NFL grade the draft prospects. For all we know there could have been 20+ teams who had DW as a legit top 10 prospect.

Every year 'top prospect' fall in the draft......and other 'lesser' prospects are selected well ahead of where the media has them projected. All this means is that the 'media' and 'general public consensus' was wrong......not that some team got a steal....or reached for the player.

 

It is only in hindsight that we can determine whether the player selected was worthy of the position he was selected in. In the case of DW, the answer is yes he was worthy.

[Dibs]

I agree that the Bills were much more worried about the DT and SS positions than about the C position. Which is odd, considering we had Matt Bowen at SS and Melvin Fowler at center. Neither player was the answer at his respective position, but either could serve as a stopgap--sort of--until the hole was filled. The fact that the Bills felt they had to fill the hole at SS--with the 8th overall pick, no less--while getting by with a Band-Aid solution at center for three straight years--demonstrates that this regime places a higher priority on defensive backs than on the offensive line.

It was very unlikely that Bowen was the answer......very unlikely indeed.

Rightly or wrongly though, the Bills FO had high hopes that Fowler could become a legit OC. Having just brought him in via FA.....and with soooooooo many other areas of very high need to fill in the draft.....it seems a bit of a reach to suggest that Mangold could have been a logical draft choice for the Bills at that time. Stranger this have happened but to continually say "I said Mangold was good & we should have drafted him........and he is good so the Bills buggered up" is single minded. Mangold was very unlikely(given the circumstances of the 2006 draft) to be considered by the Bills.

[KOKBILLS]

I'm confused...

 

Will there be no DE's or TE's in the 09 Draft?