In hindsight, how would you rate our 2002 Draft?

[WG]

In the light of some of the threads recently, I thought I'd throw this question out on the table.

I'm not particularly referring to the first two picks, 4th and 36th overall. Largely b/c any GM/Scouting staff who can't make a decent pick w/ the 4th overall isn't worth a turd. And Reed fell to us as a surprise and quite frankly should have been drafted in the first round and may very well have been the best WR in the draft. Even TD admitted that they were shocked when he was around.

But what I'm talking about here are the rest of the selections in rounds 2-7.

How do you think TD did in hindsight?

Here are the picks:

2b 61 Ryan Denney DE BYU (traded our later 2nd and a 4th for him)

3 97 Coy Wire S Stanford

5 139 Justin Bannan DT Colorado

6 176 Kevin Thomas CB UNLV

7a 215 Mike Pucillo OG Auburn
7b 250 Rodney Wright WR Fresno St.
7c 252 Jarrett Ferguson FB Virginia Tech.
7d 260 Dominique Stevenson OLB Tennessee

[WG]

I'm only asking b/c everyone talks about TD as if he's some sort of draft genious when all I see is two potential contributors in Wire and Thomas. You all know I'm big on both, but many think Wire won't even start and for sure Thomas won't, at least not this season. He may be our nickel back however.

Also, I remember that we gave away some prime picks for Denney, who wasn't projected to go any higher than the third by any sources that I found last year, and that was only due to a good combine showing. So IMO that was a lame pick and cost us elsewhere. We also lost a pick as a result.

But I really don't see anything more than a C draft, at best, from the picks after Reed. Clearly getting Reed was a gift, but let's get real, the fact that Reed was even available to us had nothing to do w/ TD's savvy in the draft. IMO it was an absolute no brainer pick in the second after I realized what Reed had done at LSU.

Anyway, I'm equally unimpressed w/ the picks in rounds 2-7, or perhaps even less so this yeat than I was last. Time will bear out which of these players contribute, start, or even play in the NFL for long. Likewise, McGahee, no matter how you slice it, will create an odd situation likely and one that will have to be handled w/ quite a bit of quesswork at some point w/ pending risks in order for this pick to have been worthwhile as well.

[THATHURMANATOR]

I gave it a C. If somehow Denney Improves and Bannan makes the team and comtribute it might bump it to a c+ or b-. I agree it was a fairly week draft, but the previous draft would be an A if you ask me!

[WG]

Yeah, that's where I had it too. And obviously I agree w/ you on the '01 draft.

Still, given '02's draft, if this one doesn't pan out, it's gonna raise questions IMO. It'll make the requirement for making next season's outstanding imperative.

[Dozerdog]

Another Wysonian poll. Take out the top two picks and how do you rate the draft?


Geesh... with a lot of drafts you have to wait a few years to grade them, mainly because the BOTTOM part of the draft does not usually produce instant starters. You draft projects there.


I'd give TD's 2002 draft weekend an A. He got Bledsoe and McGahee for Peerless Price. (A FA WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ZIPPO FOR) He got a fantastic Player in Mike Williams, an excellent receiver in Reed, Coy Wire was a big addition, and Kevin Thomas looks like a hidden gem. That alone gives the draft day an "a"

Considering our needs, the only player that comes to mind who we might have wanted to pick up was Tank Williams, Safety, who played for the Titans. And if I'm not mistaken (to busy to look it up) I think he also came from Stanford

[Dozerdog]

If you are going to pick apart the latter round picks- you have to tell us who we SHOULD have taken.

Pig Prather was big on everyone's list...went undrafted, and quit the Bengals before TC.

[WG]

Funny thing TT, I was just looking over that '01 draft, and we drafted actual primary needs w/ all of our picks.

[Ingtar33]

Wys... look at that list again... I see picks 1-7 still on the team (and don't start to discount the "top" picks in the draft like you discounted the "best" runs by TH last year :rolleyes: ) Furthermore what did we get from those picks?

1. Mike Williams: I saw more from him last year than I expected to see in his rookie year, and it took some real balls to pass over McKinnie for a slightly rawer player... and look at how that panned out for us.
2. Josh Reed: Very good pick, he was the no.1 receiver on our board, and the Bills got a steal in the top of the second with him. A "lesser" GM, one without solid brass ones swinging between the legs would have passed on Reed for a "need" pick, and then were would we be this year... Imagine no Reed, no Price... or worst, Price plus 5 mil out of the cap and no 1st rounder.
3. Ryan Denney did look awful, but so do most DEs their first year (it is for this reason I think we should lower our expectations for Kelsay)... the true test of this pick will be in two more years... if he is still on the team at the start of his fourth year, then he obviously improved, and was a good pick... otherwise he was a waste.
4. Coy Wire... what more could you want from him wys?! Yet again he was a WLB/MLB and a RB in college... he was playing a whole new position last year, and turned out more tackles than every other rookie defensive player in the league. In some games it seemed like he and Fletcher were the only defenders in the game he was such a ball hawk. Yes, early in the year he couldn't cover squat, but by the end of the season he was our best safety on the field in all situations... besides, here is a SS who got 3 QB sacks on a team that didn't have a LB with more than that... he was easily one of the best 5 defenders on this team by the end of the year... and your talking about this being a wasted pick?
5. Justin Bannon was easily the best rookie DLmen on this team last year, and showed me enough that I think he and Edwards will provide very good depth for our DL. Great find in the 5th round.
6. Kevin Thomas, the 6th round is a good round to take a flyer on a guy, and that’s what this pick was... The most impressive thing is the Bills weren't scared away from his disastrous 40 time in Indy, and this one time 2nd round talent fell to the Bills in to the 6th round. By the end of the season he was firmly entrenched in the 3rd CB spot, and was breaking up plays all over the field. If that wasn't some sort of fluke, then Sidney will have a tough job winning the spot from Thomas... so far so good.
7. Mike Pucillo, the Bills thought so much of this 7th round pick they didn't really feal the need to bring in anyone to camp this year to challenge him for his spot. He didn't play much last year, but must have showed them something for them to entrust him with the backup (C/G) duties

After that I have to pick my mind to think of any contributions form the rest... but hey... they're 7th round players... not too much of a surprise there considering maybe 1 in 10 7th rounder ever become a starter in the league.

Total Draft Grade (thus far): A strong B+

[WG]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
Another Wysoniam poll. Take out the top two picks and how do you rate the draft?


Geesh... with a lot of drafts you have to wait a few years to grade them, mainly because the BOTTOM part of the draft does not usually produce instant starters. You draft projects there.


I'd give TD's 2002 draft weekend an A. He got Bledsoe and McGahee for Peerless Price. (A FA WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ZIPPO FOR) He got a fantastic Player in Mike Williams, an excellent receiver in Reed, Coy Wire was a big addition, and Kevin Thomas looks like a hidden gem. That alone gives the draft day an "a"

Considering our needs, the only player that comes to mind who we might have wanted to pick up was Tank Williams, Safety, who played for the Titans. And if I'm not mistaken (to busy to look it up) I think he also came from Stanford

Don't go throwin' in Bledsoe for Price!!! Another shortsighted analysis on your part.

If we hadn't gotten Bledsoe, then we could have had our choice of:

Michael Haynes
Jerome McDougle
Jeff Fain

So let's quit w/ the nonsense of throwing in Bledsoe for free. He cost us the 14th overall pick this year and that was huge in a draft w/ such nominal talent after the first 15 picks or so.

I can only imagine what our D would have been like this year w/ Haynes or McD starting opposite Schobel and even w/ Blake or Brown in there, I cannot imagine the team being significantly better now. W/ Haynes our D would have been tops in the AFC likely and we wouldn't have had to take Kelsay and a huge gamble there in the hopes of fixing the single largest need from last year to this besides DT.

McGahee for Price will only have been worthwhile if McG doesn't continue his little streak of getting hurt each season heading into his 4th season playing whenever that will be. If for some reason that doesn't happen, then it will have been Price for nothing and likely a complete waste of a first round selection. TBD there.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
Yeah, that's where I had it too. And obviously I agree w/ you on the '01 draft.

Still, given '02's draft, if this one doesn't pan out, it's gonna raise questions IMO. It'll make the requirement for making next season's outstanding imperative.

I have a good feeling about this draft though! We will see I guess.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
Funny thing TT, I was just looking over that '01 draft, and we drafted actual primary needs w/ all of our picks.

Either way it was still an awesome draft!!

[WG]

Ing,

You miss my points.

On Williams, he should have been awesome at 4th overall. I was for taking him over McK which many here were raving about. He was my choice.

On Reed, I couldn't agree w/ you more although the fact that he was even available at 2/4 had absolutely nothing to do w/ us and was pure luck. He was a first rounder in most mocks and the top or 2nd WR by many.

It's here that I will begin to digress w/ you.

Denney I believe we could have gotten in the 3rd, or possibly even in the 4th. No one, and I mean absolutely no one had him rated above 3rd and that was largely due to a very good combine. Many had him in the 4th and 5th. So why did we give up a pick slightly later and another 4th to trade up for a player who showed no promise? If you think he did, then we have different standards of promise. The bottom line, is that for what we gave up for him, we got robbed! Rumor had it that Pittsburgh was going to take him. Boy! What a reason to trade down for a player. Again, I think TD's Pittsburgh ties got the best of him there and I'm thinkin' he may have been played.

As to Wire, I think he's great. Again, I fully agree. I think he'd be a fixture here at SS for a while if given a chance. But based on what I'm hearin' outta OBD and even by many fans right here on these boards, they're not satisified and lookin' for a replacement. Why?

If he doesn't pan out, after Reed, unless Thomas becomes special, that draft will have been worthless after pick #36.

As to Bannan being the best rookie DL-man that we had last year, well, that really isn't saying much, is it? He wasn't that much worse than our starters either, which again, isn't saying much. Thus the direness of having to find a decent DT this offseason worth a crap!

As to Thomas, as I've said, I think he's a top cover CB in the making, leaguewide. JMO however. We'll see.

Pucillo, I saw nothing particular about him in extremely limited action last year, but he's a 7th round lineman, so if he even makes it as a backup for us, it'll be a bonus.

[WG]

Originally posted by THATHURMANATOR


I have a good feeling about this draft though! We will see I guess.

I sure wish I had that same good feeling. :D


Originally posted by THATHURMANATOR


Either way it was still an awesome draft!!

Indeed. But they seem to be going downhill ever since.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Ingtar When you look at it like that it might make the grade go up a bit!! Its good to have a breakdown from someone who does this stuff for a living!!!!

[Dozerdog]

So Wys, you would Rather have had

1) QB- Chandler/Brown/AVP at the helm

2) Travis Henry

3) Michael Haynes or Jerome McDougle or Jeff Fain

Well, if you had the options at #1 playing QB last season, the Bills would not have finished 8-8. I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 6-10 or worse. Plus, the team would still be without a QB. So drafting Michael Haynes or Jerome McDougle or Jeff Faine would not be an option- we would be looking at a Leftwitch. (or Brian Griese or Jake Plummer). On top of that, with the QB options we had, Price would not have sniffed 1000 yards for a season. Thus, he would have zero trade value.


Instead, we got

1) Drew Bledsoe (Pro Bowl)

2) Travis Henry AND Willis McGahee at RB

3) Still managed to get a guy who was 1st round material in a weak draft in the second.

The only way this is a bust is if McGahee never recovers. If he does, we have one of the two to trade and we will get a handsome price in a very strong draft. If not, it didn't cost much.


Who's being short sighted? We don't need Faine. We got a DE.

[Dozerdog]

And again- offer up who we should have taken instead.

[Ebenezer]

AGAIN, CALL ME IN THREE YEARS!!

Let's debate the 2000 draft, that is more relevant.

[Stewie]

Originally posted by Wys Guy



So let's quit w/ the nonsense of throwing in Bledsoe for free. He cost us the 14th overall pick this year and that was huge in a draft w/ such nominal talent after the first 15 picks or so.

I can only imagine what our D would have been like this year w/ Haynes or McD starting opposite Schobel and even w/ Blake or Brown in there, I cannot imagine the team being significantly better now. W/ Haynes our D would have been tops in the AFC likely and we wouldn't have had to take Kelsay and a huge gamble there in the hopes of fixing the single largest need from last year to this besides DT.



Are you honestly trying to argue that the Bills would be better off with a rookie DE like Haynes or McDougle on the team than with Bledsoe?

I'm sorry dude thats laughable

[lordofgun]

Agreed Eb...WAY too early to tell.

[WG]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
And again- offer up who we should have taken instead.

Again, w/ the 14th overall pick, we had choices of McDougle, Haynes, or Fain.

If you mean who would I have taken w/ our 23rd overall, I've answered that already. I'd have taken Henderson. But we'll only know if that would have been a wise move dependent upon how well he plays at Minnesota and how well Fletcher plays. Either I'm gonna look like I don't know what I'm talking about on Fletcher/EJ, or Fletcher is overrated by us, the fans and EJ would have been an upgrade. We'll have to wait until the end of the season to find that out.


Originally posted by Dozerdog
So Wys, you would Rather have had

1) QB- Chandler/Brown/AVP at the helm

2) Travis Henry

3) Michael Haynes or Jerome McDougle or Jeff Fain

Well, if you had the options at #1 playing QB last season, the Bills would not have finished 8-8. I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 6-10 or worse. Plus, the team would still be without a QB. So drafting Michael Haynes or Jerome McDougle or Jeff Faine would not be an option- we would be looking at a Leftwitch. (or Brian Griese or Jake Plummer). On top of that, with the QB options we had, Price would not have sniffed 1000 yards for a season. Thus, he would have zero trade value.


Instead, we got

1) Drew Bledsoe (Pro Bowl)

2) Travis Henry AND Willis McGahee at RB

3) Still managed to get a guy who was 1st round material in a weak draft in the second.

The only way this is a bust is if McGahee never recovers. If he does, we have one of the two to trade and we will get a handsome price in a very strong draft. If not, it didn't cost much.


Who's being short sighted? We don't need Faine. We got a DE.

On this, as to your analysis, you assume that the reason why we were 8-8 last year was due to Drew. If that's the case, then he should help us, not hurt us, in getting to 12-4 this year w/ incredibly more talent around him everywhere and an incredibly superior D to what we had last year too.

We'll see.

But while you see a QB who set all kinds of records for attempts, yards, and completions. I see a QB who put up 18 personal TOs in 7 losses while the rest of the team, including the D, played pretty well overall in those games on the whole.

So it really comes down to perspectives. If you think we needed Drew to beat Houston, Detroit, Chicago, Cincy, Minnesota, and S.D. in spite of the fact that we almost lost two of those games as a result of him, then I would challenge the premise from which you come.

B/c again, the fact of the matter, is that v. most of the other teams on our schedule, Drew didn't play very well. So we really didn't need a QB who would set all kinds of records based largely on well over 600 attempts and even more dropbacks, we really needed a QB who doesn't make those stupid and critical errors to cost us games.

So it really depends upon how you view the QB situation. I think on this team w/ the luck of injuries on the OL and it's overall caliber, that any QB would have been great last year. And the fact that Blake did about the same on a per game basis w/o even half the talent or yards, says a lot to me. If he played that well on the Ravens, then why would it stand to reason that w/ all kinds of talent around him he'd play worse.

Let's get real for a moment. For a QB w/ well over 4,000 yards, and one w/ well over 600 attempts, for a QB to put up only 1 TD in each of 5 games, and 0 in three more out of 10 games down the stretch when we needed him the most, is shameful.

If it happens again this season, and if he can't keep himself from making huge errors and gimme INTs returned for TDs or setting the other team's O up for one, then he shouldn't return and IMO it wouldn't take much to replace a QB like that. All you'd have to do is find one that doesn't do that, not one that will launch 5,000 yards on 700 attempts.

We need error-free football out of our current QB, not 4,000 yards and tons of attempts.

[Dozerdog]

As usual, you just tear down one side of the argument without offering up solutions.


1) Who would have been your 2002 QB? Chandler? Give me a name.

2) Without Bledsoe, we would not have had the 14th pick. It would have been the 6-10 range.

If you picked one of those three guys (we don't need one of them) at that spot, you would have been fired.


This is why fans make the worst GM's. They deal in fantasy, not reality.

[Dozerdog]

And who should TD picked in 2002 .....instead of these guys

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by Wys Guy

We need error-free football out of our current QB, not 4,000 yards and tons of attempts.


you want Jay Fiedler?? :fiedler:

[WG]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
And who should TD picked in 2002 .....instead of these guys

IDK, but I SAH wouldn't have traded away a 4th and a 2nd only picks later for Denney! You really think that was some sort of shrewd draft day move?? I hated it the minute we made it.


Originally posted by Dozerdog
As usual, you just tear down one side of the argument without offering up solutions.


1) Who would have been your 2002 QB? Chandler? Give me a name.

2) Without Bledsoe, we would not have had the 14th pick. It would have been the 6-10 range.

If you picked one of those three guys (we don't need one of them) at that spot, you would have been fired.


This is why fans make the worst GM's. They deal in fantasy, not reality.

Nonsense!

Again, I can't make this any clearer for you.

How many QBs last year put up 234 YPG over the last 9 games of the season and averaged only 1 TD for every 234 yards doing so?

How many QBs last year tossed 15 INTs and added another 3 FUMs in 7 losses while the rest of their offense had only 3 TOs total in those games while the D played well also?

How many QBs could only beat teams that were .500 or worse last year while going only 2-7 against teams 9-7 or better or 3-8 v. teams 8-8 or better, w/ 2 of those 3 wins, and 1 of the 2 coming at the hands of the D and rushing game only?

But gosh, I guess we couldn't have beaten Minnesota, Detroit, Cincy, Chicago, and Houston w/o Drew!!!

Boy!

I guess we are a lot farther away now than we thought then, eh!

Come on! We didn't need a "superstar" QB last year. What we needed was a greater emphasis on the running game and a QB who wouldn't have made those mistakes.

Just go look through the list of all QBs who didn't do those things mentioned above and you'll have your answer as to which one would have "led us to at least 8-8!" By my reconing, that's most of them in the top 20 or 25 even.


If we had had the 6th -10th pick then we would have had even greater options. Obviously, or I thought it was obvious, I made that choice on what was available from 14th on down. But if you insist, then take your pick of the following additional players which were not taken in the first 5 picks:

Johnathon Sullivan, DT, Georgia
Kevin Williams, DT, Oklahoma St.
Terrell Suggs, DE, Arizona St.

Anyone wanna come on and tell us all that these guys suck and won't make an impact? I'd take any one of those guys in a NY second over Drew, a QB who makes more mistakes than big plays.

I wholeheartedly disagree that we would have drafted that high. If we had not had Drew, then perhaps some of those solid defensive performances would have paid off for us while Henry and the rest of the O didn't make stupid mistakes to cost us games. Perhaps we would have beaten the Jets and Pats at least once each. Perhaps we would have beaten K.C. had we not passed, passed, passed our way to "success" and run Henry on a day when he was averaging 5.3 YPC and running like a madman!

Maybe we would have beaten Detroit, Cincy, Chicago, Houston, and Minnesota anyway and won another 5 of 11 games by not throwing them b/c of Drew's INTs to cost us them to go on and win the division at 10-6. Did ya ever think of that? No, I'm sure you didn't.

I honestly cannot believe that amount of data and reality that is overlooked when people analyze Drew. I'm tellin' ya, Drew's charateristics as a QB are gonna be laid out plainly for all to see this year and by year's end, there's gonna be a whole lot of people sayin' "Wys, you were right! Drew sucks and we need to get rid of him b/c he's preventing us from achieving the ultimate goal!"

[Dozerdog]

Summing up......


Draft rds 3-7 sucked...but you have no idea who would have been a better choice

Bledsoe deal sucked, and even though you do not name an alternative, we would be better off with Michael Haynes, whom an 8-8 AVP led team (lol) instead of addressing our vacant QB position.

:coocoo:

[WG]

If you or anyone else thought we really couldn't have gone 5-0 v. Detroit, Minn., Chicago, Cincy, and Houston, teams that were a combined 19-61, then we're a LOT further off of winning the division that you think.

[Earthquake Enyart]

If you recall, we barely beat Chicago (this was before all their injuries happened) and beat Minny in OT ON A LONG DREW PASS.

[WG]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
Summing up......


Draft rds 3-7 sucked...but you have no idea who would have been a better choice

Bledsoe deal sucked, and even though you do not name an alternative, we would be better off with Michael Haynes, whom an 8-8 AVP led team (lol) instead of addressing our vacant QB position.

:coocoo:

No, not quite. I've laid all this out prior. So don't say I haven't. I'm not gonna go thru it again for the tenth time.

BUT:

McGahee: Is a risk b/c he's been hurt 3 times in three seasons each requiring surgery! Risk? Y or N? As well, assume that Henry continues to play well; risk of us trading Henry for McG? Y or N? Risk that McG won't be worth much w/o some "testing"? Y or N? How will he get that testing if Henry is playing well? Can both RBs be happy on the same roster while one sits or they platoon? Y or N? I wouldn't think so.

Kelsay: If you read on him, the knock is that he got beat by the better Ts in college. Who's in the pros at OT? If you didn't like Haynes, then you won't like Kelsay!

Crowell? Did we really need a small undersized OLB over say a WR, Rien Long a promising DT, or some depth on the OL?

Aiken? McGee? Over Rien Long when we have DT issues and aging DTs?

I'm not even going past 4.

As I see it, not one of those picks will help us this year in what we seek to do and I'm not the only one who thinks that. Just about every professional analyist says the same thing.

We could have had Henderson, Tyrone Calico (a much better WR than Aiken), Kenny Peterson (a DE who IMO is better than Kelsay), and Rien Long, a DT in the 4th who may have helped us depth wise this season!

All 4 of those picks would have been closer to helping us this season.

Henderson will be far more the LB than Crowell ever will, or should be. EJ also can play both OLB and MLB. He's got better size.

Peterson may end up being better than Kelsay easily and IMO he will. Either way, a wash I suppose except that we wouldn't have had to waste a 2nd rounder. He's got better size/speed than Kelsay and doesn't come w/ the knock that he continually got schooled by the 'better Ts' on college of which there is sure to be no shortage of when Kelsay lines up this fall.

Calico may have been that 3rd WR that we need and quite possibly a starter towards midseason if Reed or Moulds went down. Do you think we can count on that from Aiken?

Long, A DT who may have provided some much needed push at the DT position this year. Perhaps not, but over Aiken, I would have risked it.

[Ebenezer]

Wys, here is a new question I hadn't thought about yet...

If not Bledsoe, who is your QB?

[Dozerdog]

Blake Chandler. Forgot. :coocoo:

[Tatonka]

i got through the first three posts.. and had to move on.. another ridiculous post..

rofl.. throw out the first two picks? he used to say that about henry before they got married.. throw out his best runs blah blah

we could have taken mckennie, and watched him hold out all year..

we didnt need reed, and alot of other teams passed on him, so it was not writen in stone that we should have drafted him.. in fact, most were completely surprised..

but why count those picks.. they make your arguement weaker.. and that is not fun, right?

[WG]

Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
If you recall, we barely beat Chicago (this was before all their injuries happened) and beat Minny in OT ON A LONG DREW PASS.

Right, in the case of Chicago, that was largely b/c our defense sucked at that time b/c it was still settling.

But can you tell me why while averaging 5.7 YPC in that game, Henry didn't get more than 12 carries?

Was that wise? Do you think that if we had run more, that perhaps that would have helped out the D more since they were young, new, and struggling?

As to the Vikes game, are you gonna give the D and STs any credit for single-handedly scoring 14 of our 45 points? Or does Drew get it all?

What about those 7 losses other than the Denver game?

Do you think that we may have won some of those w/o Drew?

What about that K.C. game against K.C.'s horrid defense against which Drew could only lead us to 16 offensive points. Do ya think that if Henry while averaging 5.3 YPC and having only 17 carries through the first 58 minutes of the game instead of trying to force a passing game that wasn't working may have resulted in a victory?

And what about the S.D. game which we almost lost b/c of Drew and the passing game and not in spite of him? What about that one where we ran Henry in the last few minutes to win it?

What about that first Miami game in which the O under Drew only put up 16 points w/ the only TD coming off of a lucky botched coverage by Madison while the D scored 7 and held the Fins to only 10 points? Why does Drew get the credit for that while Henry ran for almost as many yards as Drew threw for, and more if not for that big play on Miami's mistake?

Why do you and everyone else continually overlook all of that in favor of a single game or two?

Of the wins, Miami (2), S.D., Detroit, Minnesota, Chicago, Cincy, and Houston, we won only the Minnesota, Chicago, and one Miami game on the merits of what Drew did. After that, Henry was at least as big a contributor and the D/STs did it's job as well.

In fact, we almost lost the S.D. game b/c of Drew, and if it hadn't been for the D in the first Miami game, the Houston game, and S.D. game, we would have lost those too!!!

So if had been entirely up to Drew, he lost us 7 games on the merits of his own errors, and didn't do a whole lot in particular to help us win the S.D., first Miami, and Houston games. That's 10 of 16 games that Drew did little to win.

He put the Raider game out of reach at one of the clutchest moments by tossing an INT to a rookie CB for a TD. That's just one of the 7 games which he lost for us while the rest of the team played virtually mistake-free ball while Drew racked up 18 TOs in those 7 games.

You'd better hope he plays better this year or it's gonna ruin' a stellar season otherwise!

[WG]

We're gonna need a little more than 1 TD out of nearly 250 passing yards from him in order to do well this season!

[EDS]

First, I think we are missing something. A huge reason for Travis Henry's success, particularly latter in the year, was the fact defenses were playing back because of Bledsoe and the passing game. That opened up the running game. You absolutely have to factor Bledsoe into a game plan. If Travis Brown, Chandler or Blake were QB teams would stack the deck against the run and force the Bills to beat them in the air. If that is the case, then I shudder to think of the INT's that would result with those guys at QB.

Second, I think E.J. Henderson is not even close to being the player we need. I rather have Spoon, who is bigger, faster and, unbelieveably, less injury prone.

[DraftBoy]

Wys, we are not saying that Bledsoe is the sole reason for all those wins, but he is a main component. if your an opposing DC in say week 6 last season when Bledsoe was putting up huge numbers you gotta be saying I gotta put us some coverages to help my DB in coverage, that opens up the running game big time, and when they stack the line to stop Henry you nail them with a bomb. Both proponents feed off the other. Neither won nor loss us a game. This game is a team sport. If the team doesnt play then the team doesnt win. This is a sport where even if one player isnt doing his job well then the whole team falters. I dont care how many stats you can put up or how many stats you can take away to make your arguments work. Here is the only stat I need:

LAST YEAR: 8-8

THIS OFFSEASON: Spikes, Adams

THIS YEAR: ????

[Stewie]

Originally posted by Wys Guy


then it will have been Price for nothing and likely a complete waste of a first round selection. TBD there.

At least we have a GM who got something for Price. Most others wouldnt have gotten anything for him anyway, so IMO its a worthwhile risk.

[SoCalBillsFan]

2002 draft:

3 starters (wire, reed, williams)
1 nickel corner (hopefully, thomas)
1 solid backup: bannan
1 project still too early to tell (denney)

that's pretty good to me. 5 contributers and one project. Wys, you make it seem like it is so easy to find good players. getting 3 starters in any draft is good. As for forsight, that's why the reed pick was so great. Do you remember how unhappy some people were about the pick? "we dont need a WR, blah blah blah. It took a GREAT call by TD to make that pick. That cannot be overlooked.

basically, you are upset we didn't get anyone in the 7th round? I dont get it.

[Tatonka]

Originally posted by SoCalBillsFan
2002 draft:

3 starters (wire, reed, williams)
1 nickel corner (hopefully, thomas)
1 solid backup: bannan
1 project still too early to tell (denney)

that's pretty good to me. 5 contributers and one project. Wys, you make it seem like it is so easy to find good players. getting 3 starters in any draft is good. As for forsight, that's why the reed pick was so great. Do you remember how unhappy some people were about the pick? "we dont need a WR, blah blah blah. It took a GREAT call by TD to make that pick. That cannot be overlooked.

basically, you are upset we didn't get anyone in the 7th round? I dont get it.

oh.. you cant count reed and williams, because they were good starters, and make our draft look much too good.. and we didnt have a choice.. we had to draft them. it was an nfl rule that TD just had to follow.. unlike the other 31 teams that passed on reed, ect..

:rolleyes: