BillsVet Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 Agreed. We have plenty of time on to make a decision on whitner. However, his draft slot should have nothing to do with any negotiations on an extension or new deal. Those decisions should be made based on his play on the field, NOT based on his draft slot or who we should have taken instead. The only part, and this has been covered ad nauseam, is if you use a top 10 pick on a guy who's not a bust nor a star, and an excellent player was available at a position of need, then it becomes worse. If only Cutler and Cromartie had been available and no one else, Whitner's not bad. The Bills didn't have a need at those positions in 06. But when guys like Bunkley, Ngata, and Mangold go later, it's not so great. But no, his draft spot shouldn't have anything to do with deciding to re-sign or not re-sign the guy.
Orton's Arm Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 Buffalo's drafts since '06 have been bad, as seen by the low number of starters on the roster. I count 5 starters from the 06/07/08 draft. Brutal, and the 06' Levy draft may be the worst. All the experst were scratching their heads, with good reason. That was a rookie GM and a bad attempt. I wouldn't go so far as to call those drafts "bad." Bad is when your first round pick is Erik Flowers, your second round pick Travares Tillman, and your third round pick Corey Moore. Each draft since 2006 has yielded guys who, though not necessarily spectacular, are at least solid football players: 2006: Whitner, Youboty, Simpson, Kyle Williams, Butler 2007: Lynch, Posluszny, Edwards 2008: McKelvin, Corner, Steve Johnson You hope that each draft gives you at least one "game changer" kind of player, as well as a few other, somewhat lesser players who can still play at a solid level. Those three drafts have done a pretty good job of fulfilling the second goal. The problem is that--at least thus far--none of the players drafted looks to be in the "game changer" category. But that could always change, especially among some of the more recently drafted players who haven't yet had the chance to develop. Maybe McKelvin, for example, will be the next Winfield. I'd put a player like Winfield in the "game changer" or "difference maker" category, because you could put him on an island against the other team's difference-maker of a WR, and know that you'd be okay.
BuffaloBill Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 You hope that each draft gives you at least one "game changer" kind of player, as well as a few other, somewhat lesser players who can still play at a solid level. Those three drafts have done a pretty good job of fulfilling the second goal. The problem is that--at least thus far--none of the players drafted looks to be in the "game changer" category. Actually I would have been happier in each of thise drafts the Bills selected solid o-line and d-line players. Not necessarilly game changers but what you build a winning club off of.
Orton's Arm Posted February 8, 2009 Posted February 8, 2009 Actually I would have been happier in each of thise drafts the Bills selected solid o-line and d-line players. Not necessarilly game changers but what you build a winning club off of. I'd define Bruce Smith as a game changer, because he'd be productive even when being double-teamed. And I'd define Tony Boselli as a game changer, because a player like him could cancel out the other team's Bruce Smith. To make a long story short, I agree that the Bills should strongly emphasize both lines in the next several drafts. I also hope that at least one lineman from each of those drafts rises to a difference-maker level of play.
Recommended Posts