McKenzie

[Tatonka]

a guy that would be a good back up if he gets healthy.

8 sacks 3 years in a row, and on pace in 2001 prior to injury.

bounced around last year with injuries..

he may be nice for spot duty, which is what he got when he got his first 2 seasons of 8 sacks.

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3932

[Tatonka]

i have heard surprisingly little about his recovery.. if he is not 100%, he will be a training camp cut.

[WG]

...and played like crap in '02.

Who knows. There's no more reason to get optimistic about this guy than there is about Kelsay, Grant, Irons, or Jones. The bottom line is that we'll be lucky to have above average play at that DE position this season, probably will get stuck w/ average play.

I still think that Kenny Peterson would have been nice to have.

[WG]

Kenny Peterson: 6'3"/298/4.8

Positives: Relentless, has a very quick get-off and shows explosive quickness off the ball shooting to inside gaps. Has good awareness and football intelligence. Makes good use of his hands. Pursues well laterally and can change directions quickly and close fast. Agile, athletic player who rotates throughout the game. Has big upside and potential. Plays hard and disruptive and uses leverage in bull rush. Good athlete, explosive pass-rusher and playmaker. Very strong for his size. Can play inside.

Negatives: Lacks size and butt to be an interior lineman. Has the production of a part-time player. Plays hard and has real talent, but the enigma is that production doesn't match.

Summary: Talented tweener who seems to be putting it all together. Very talented, athletic player who has shown flashes of greatness.

That still seems better to me than Kelsay a whole round earlier!

Kelsay: 6'4"/273/4.72

Positives: Has good but not great quickness and quick-twitch off the ball. Is quick with his hands and reacts well to blocks, plays with leverage and uses his hands to gain position. Is very intense and competitive on the field, in the classroom and in the weight room. Refuses to stay blocked. Has a good array of pass-rush moves, including club, swim and counter. Has the closing burst and acceleration once he gets into the backfield. Character and intelligence are plusses. Has a 361-inch vertical. Is a worker and competitor in the Grant Wistrom mold and has improved every season. Added nearly 20 pounds between spring '02 and Scouting Combine.

Negatives: Lacks size and will get engulfed by bigger offensive tackles. Relies heavily on his speed. Is not as agile as teams want in a speed-rushing defensive end. Has a recent injury history. Is strong but must get much stronger.

Summary: Though his ability to play the run has improved, Kelsay doesn't show the ability to consistently beat superior competition. His lunch-pail approach makes him a top prospect, but he may not be drafted until the second round because of his measurables.

Peterson is larger, can play both DT and DE, is essentially as quick, and doesn't have this knock of "not consistently being able to beat superior competition!"

[Tatonka]

i can give you the same write up for kelsay wys.. perterson dropped like a rock in the draft.. he is too SLOW to play DE.. and to light to play DT..

[Tatonka]

sometimes i think you pull names out of a hat just to name someone we didnt get that you made no mention of pre draft..

you were not a henderson or peterson guy prior to the draft..

and have you seen petersons stats from last season? he was not that good.. there is a reason he fell all the way down, and a reason we traded the pick to greenbay in the THIRD round while he was sitting right there for us.

[WG]

So says who?

It's the things that can't be taught that I'm lookin' at. If we relied on every person writing a piece as to a rank of players making it in the NFL and not, then the Terrell Davis' of the world never would have amounted to anything.

I'm tellin' ya, when ya read something like he "struggles against superior competition", it ain't good for the NFL. I have no idea how this guy was a projected first round pick under the circumstances that they have him listed. As well, often, as is usually the case, preconceived notions often help a player.

I discount the "rankings" other than for what it specifically says about a player. Things that cannot be taught or worked on should be valued more highly.

The only thing about Peterson, and by your own admission in that last post, and that was a negative is something that's easily corrected especially for players coming out of college! Size! That can be worked on by diet and working out.

Whereas things such as w/ Kelsay, "not consistently beating superior competition", why? Also, when you put on 20 lbs. and now weigh only ~ 270, then unless you have top quickness and speed, which apparently he doesn't, size can very quickly turn into an issue. W/ Peterson, he adds 10 lbs. and he can play DT. Heck, most of what we had last year weighed less than Peterson! But w/ Kelsay, speed isn't something that's easily worked on and improved. Generally you either have it or don't. If you're a smallish DE, then speed is your bread and butter. At least w/ Peterson, again, w/ very comparable speed, his getting to 310 wouldn't be unfathomable!

I just think Peterson may have been the answer for us, particularly a round later over a player that we really didn't need and for sure over a player a whole round earlier where we could have drafted equal +/- and taken another more needed player in round 2.

But, we'll see. I'm sure Peterson will get a shot to do something this year, so we'll see who performs better, is more versatile, and who would have been a better pick.

[mypoorfriendme]

i think youre quoting the sporting new's scouting report with those analyzations of kelsay and peterson. just remember, this is coming from the same magazine that had rien long going seventh overall. as far as the bills' picks go, they had angelo crowell giong in the third and haggan going in the fourth. not to mention sobieski not even top 30 in his position and mcgee 31 best at corner. basically, not a very reliable source is what im trying to say. OH! and last year they said mckinnie was "by far the best tackle in the draft"........yet we pick williams and the draft analysts said 9 out of 10 coaches ranked williams over mckinnie. speaking of that, who do you guys with we should have gotten??

[WG]

Originally posted by Tatonka
sometimes i think you pull names out of a hat just to name someone we didnt get that you made no mention of pre draft..

you were not a henderson or peterson guy prior to the draft..

and have you seen petersons stats from last season? he was not that good.. there is a reason he fell all the way down, and a reason we traded the pick to greenbay in the THIRD round while he was sitting right there for us.

I wasn't much of anything prior to the draft other than knowing about maybe the first handful of picks in our most needed postions. I can tell you that Peterson and Rien Long later were both on my mind. So would have Henderson have been had I known that he would have been around at 23. I figured he'd have been scooped up.

I thought we should have taken a DE, DT, LB, WR, and/or OL in the first 3 or 4 rounds. We got a DE, but I just don't like the guy based on what I've read. What, are you saying you watched all what, 13 of Nebraska's games this year religiously and know that Kelsay is an animal?

I didn't see one game w/ him. BUT, if we could get our hands on the stats for Nebraska's games against the only two final top 25 teams that they played, I'd be all ears! The Huskers only played final 6th ranked Kansas State and gave up 49 and 15th ranked PSU and gave up 40. So those couldn't have been really big defensive games!

Their bowl game wasn't even against a ranked team! So if I'm skeptical, there's a reason. Just b/c I didn't post all of my guesses, prognostications, and wish lists prior to the draft, doesn't mean I was out in the dark and completely uninformed.

I just think that a guy like Peterson, and frankly, I don't see how anyone can argue this point, but I just think that he would have been more versatile when that's essentially what we need. As well, I see him as having a greater upside just as those who wrote the piece do.

But I'm sure you'll dismiss what PFW says in favor of what a bunch of totally biased fans who want TD to look like some sort of genious would say. That makes an awful lot of sense too! :rolleyes:

[WG]

Originally posted by mypoorfriendme
i think youre quoting the sporting new's scouting report with those analyzations of kelsay and peterson. just remember, this is coming from the same magazine that had rien long going seventh overall. as far as the bills' picks go, they had angelo crowell giong in the third and haggan going in the fourth. not to mention sobieski not even top 30 in his position and mcgee 31 best at corner. basically, not a very reliable source is what im trying to say. OH! and last year they said mckinnie was "by far the best tackle in the draft"........yet we pick williams and the draft analysts said 9 out of 10 coaches ranked williams over mckinnie. speaking of that, who do you guys with we should have gotten??

Sure! And we're talking about a GM who traded up last year in the 2nd to get a player who wasn't on anyone's list prior to 3rd, and in most cases 4th or 5th, simply b/c what, b/c Pittsburgh was rumored to have wanted Denney? Boy! What a move. If anyone truly thinks that Denney, even now, was a bonafide selection, then they're naive. Sure, he's got this season, but I doubt he'd be getting as much attention from the coaches as he is if he were a 4th or 5th rounder.

BTW, last year, the only pick I criticized was the Denney pick, that's it.

This year I don't particularly care for our entire draft. But we'll see, if McGahee gets what we want out of him or he fetches us at least another first rounder, then the pick will have been worth while. If Kelsay plays better than Peterson, that simply, then he'll have been a better selection. If Crowell plays better than Peterson or Rien Long, then he'll have been a good pick.

We'll see. Not much use in arguing now, but judging by those who know the game better than I do regarding college talent, it appears to me at least, that Peterson was A. far less risky and B. was about the same as Kelsay at least w/ more size.

[WG]

poor,

BTW, I was on a crusade last year telling everyone that McKinnie was not only overrated, but that he wasn't really that good. Anyone honest enough who was here then will admit that. In fact, I said that based on several games that I saw him in. He was not good at all. I never saw what all that hype over McKinnie was about, never!

And as far as Kelsay goes, why couldn't the same be true? That he was overrated by many?

I'm not saying that he won't amount to much, but I sure wouldn't have taken him in the first two rounds, I would have taken Peterson first. But no matter how you slice it, I would have taken Peterson in the 3rd before I would have traded to G.B. Couldn't have gone wrong w/ that. Unless Crowell becomes some sort of monster, which I just don't see given his size, then I think that would have been a smart move.

As to Kelsay, while I didn't see a game of his, as I'm sure few Bills fans did considering that they played a very weak schedule, but the only two teams that Nebraska played that ended up in the top 25 were KSU and PSU and they gave up a combined 89 points to those two teams. So unless Kelsay was the team's only decent defensive player, where was the D? What did Kelsay do in those games? I would imagine that if he had been some sort of force, then those teams wouldn't have blown Nebraska out to the tune of 89 combined points, eh!

[mypoorfriendme]

to clear things up, i wasnt trying to justify the bills picks by quoting the sporting news. im criticizing the sporting news because obviously they dont really know what theyre talking about. obviously williams was better than mckinnie because if he wasnt, why would we have picked williams. id be willing to bet the ranch that the bills front office or any FO for that matter knows a whole helluvalot more than any magazine. theres a reason we got kelsay in front of peterson and theres a reason why we got crowell instead of long. maybe if we wouldhave known peterson would be available in the third, we would have gotten a reciever or te in the second which i think is the wholes we need to fill right now, or even a o-linemen. bottom line, im going to trust donahoe and the bills staff on what they did. well see a few years from now how everyones developed in the pro-game. its way too early to rate or criticize the effectiveness or success of this draft.

[mypoorfriendme]

oh and to refute what you said about mckinnie being over-rated, you cant really argue the fact that through out all of his short high school career and entire college career, he did not give up ONE SINGLE SACK. i didnt see him much this season, but i did see williams giving up sacks to db's lined up at the DE position when we played the pats. BUT what do i know, im just a kid. im giong to close my eyes and convince myself "donahoes a genious...donahoes a genious...."

[Tatonka]

wys.. look at petersons stats.. i guess they cant teach performance either.. at least at his school..

you are condeming a guy in kelsay because you read in one scouting report that he struggles against tough competition... lets just wait to see them on the field..

we dont need another DT at this point.. but YOU stated that we should have grabbed peterson to play DE... not DT.. and he is too slow to play it in the nfl..

[BillsMan80]

Actually, you are wrong about Denney. After workouts and such, many draftniks rated Denney up in the 2nd Round and I heard rumors of him possibly going in the first. McKenzie will be a very good pickup if he is healthy.

[Tatonka]

denny would have been drafted by the steelers with the next pick, so TD felt he wanted him and moved up to get him.

[BillsMan80]

Right, but drafniks had him rated as a 2nd Round Prospect anyway, and I even saw reports that some team might have taken him in the 1st.

[Tatonka]

well.. the book is not closed on denny anyway.. i am not going to give up on a guy that didnt get much playing time in one year.. i mean.. if he was the starter and did nothing that is one thing.. but that is not the case.. maybe it just took him longer to get aclimated.. if he gets significant playing time this year, it will obviously be a much better determiner as to whether TD made the correct choice, or just stole a bad pick from pitt.

[EDS]

Just for the record, McKinnie played pretty darned well for the Vikings when he finally signed. Bennett ran for a ton of yards and alot of those came after McKinnie was inserted into the line-up. That said, he did hold out forever and his character is a big question mark. With Big Mike, you have talent and character - lots of good character from what I can tell.

[Pride]

I feel so bad for Wys's keyboard. I bet that sucker has all of the letters faded off. hehe

[EDS]

His keyboard is probably sticky with BBQ sauce residue on it as well.

[WG]

Originally posted by mypoorfriendme
to clear things up, i wasnt trying to justify the bills picks by quoting the sporting news. im criticizing the sporting news because obviously they dont really know what theyre talking about. obviously williams was better than mckinnie because if he wasnt, why would we have picked williams. id be willing to bet the ranch that the bills front office or any FO for that matter knows a whole helluvalot more than any magazine. theres a reason we got kelsay in front of peterson and theres a reason why we got crowell instead of long. maybe if we wouldhave known peterson would be available in the third, we would have gotten a reciever or te in the second which i think is the wholes we need to fill right now, or even a o-linemen. bottom line, im going to trust donahoe and the bills staff on what they did. well see a few years from now how everyones developed in the pro-game. its way too early to rate or criticize the effectiveness or success of this draft.

I understand what you're saying poor. But I guess my point was that no one's perfect and based on TD's drafts, which was oustanding in '01, lesser in '02 other than Williams and Reed, and then questionable this year, you just don't know.

But my point is essentially what you are saying in that look how many people had McKinnie ranked so high including us even if for some reason Williams hadn't been on the block. Frankly, IMO McKinnie wasn't even a first rounder. But what do I know, right! ;)

As to "knowing that Peterson would have been available in the third", the fact is that he was and we needed a force DE a whole heck of a lot more, even after taking a chance on Kelsay than we needed a backup LB who will essentially vye for playing time and play STs, eh. LBs for backup and STs are available rather readily. I still would have taken Peterson. The competition would have been good for Kelsay and if both had panned out, all the better. Our DL woes would have been solved for years if they had both worked out. But instead, we don't take Peterson and take an undersized OLB who only excelled according to his team sources and NFL people, b/c they tailored the system around him. Whatever. I would rather have had KP here. And barring that, how about having taken a chance on Rien Long in the 4th round, a bonafide DT. instead of a CB when we are ear deep in CBs and and in particular one who really doensn't impress for any obvious reason other than what comes out of OBD.


Originally posted by Tatonka
wys.. look at petersons stats.. i guess they cant teach performance either.. at least at his school..

you are condeming a guy in kelsay because you read in one scouting report that he struggles against tough competition... lets just wait to see them on the field..

we dont need another DT at this point.. but YOU stated that we should have grabbed peterson to play DE... not DT.. and he is too slow to play it in the nfl..

Again, another incomplete analysis! Take a look at the opponents each faced as well!!! Nebraska had a cupcake schedule and the only two top 25 teams that they faced were KSU and PSU and they gave up 89 combined points in those! Where was Kelsay? I also looked at the game stories for those two games and their bowl games and there was absolutely no mention of him as would match the criticism that I mentioned. Certainly he didn't make too many big plays so as to affect the game.

Meanwhile, Peterson and the Buckeyes, allowed at most 24 points this season against superior competition and that 24 was v. Miami w/ one game allowing 21 and then all teams below 20! Plus, Peterson forced a key fumble in the championship game too!

So say what you will, and perhaps Kelsay didn't play in one of those top 25 games, but not both, but I don't think this is an equitable comparison. But like I said, we'll likely find out. I'll bet that Peterson ends up starting this season by year's end and we'll see if Kelsay even looks good. And look good he should if in fact he "was a first rounder who slipped to the second", eh!? He should at least show that he is capable of holding his own, wouldn't you say, even in his rookie year by season's end.

And to Peterson "being too slow" to play DE, then Kelsay is too slow as well. A fraction of a second isn't going to be the difference, especially w/ Kelsay giving up 20-25 lbs. after he put on 20!! That's being completely biased. And if he's "too small" to play DT, then WTH are we doing w/ Bannan and Sape then?? Are you saying TD's an idiot for selecting players of the same size but w/ worse the track record? Pat Williams is less than 20 lbs. heavier than KP and Edwards ~ 20 lbs. heavier! And he put on weight which shouldn't be difficult for KP to do either. This argument is silly and only exposes the biased towards making TD the genious before it actually has a chance to bear itself out. I hope they were shrewd moves too, but let's face it, they're risky.


Originally posted by BillsMan80
Actually, you are wrong about Denney. After workouts and such, many draftniks rated Denney up in the 2nd Round and I heard rumors of him possibly going in the first. McKenzie will be a very good pickup if he is healthy.

That's funny 80, b/c most analysts had Overstreet and Dennis Johnson ahead of Denney and both of them went mid/late 3rd. What happened? Were most GMs in the league stupid, or what? And you're just incorrect. Most people had Denney going in the 4th. I believe there was one analyst having him going in the 3rd, but some in the 5th as well. Kiper had him as a 4th! I'm not big on Kiper at all, as anyone last year will attest to, but he does know his college talent which impressed me last year.


Originally posted by Tatonka
denny would have been drafted by the steelers with the next pick, so TD felt he wanted him and moved up to get him.

Oh boy! So is that how we're gonna conduct our drafts over the next decade w/ TD then? See who the teams w/in a few picks after us are gonna take and then preempt them? Wow! What a strategy. Especially w/ draft powerhouse Pittsburgh! If that is in fact the case, then TD needs some counseling to let go of his bitternesses towards Pittsburgh. Because in last year's draft for the Steelers, the only players who did anything were Randal El on STs and no-brainer Simmons at OT. The rest of their draft didn't produce even what ours did which wasn't spectacular by any measure after Williams and Reed. In '01 only their first two selections w/in the first 39 picks are anything. So is Pittsburgh now the standard? Why on earth would we take a guy simply b/c Pittsburgh "was going to take him." Stupid IMO.


Originally posted by BillsMan80
Right, but drafniks had him rated as a 2nd Round Prospect anyway, and I even saw reports that some team might have taken him in the 1st.

IDK where you were looking 80, but none of the top sites had him any higher than 3rd and as far as I could see, that was only one. I was on the draft in '02 like stink on poop and I can tell you that after the draft I took another look and that's what confirmed my suspicions on the subject.

As well, EDS, it's "wing" sauce, not BBQ sauce, :D, and I guess you and I were watching different segments of the Vikes.

And BTW, for all of your effort, I just accidentally happened upon one set of DT/DL rankings and guess what, Denney isn't even mentioned! There were a bunch of other players taken after Denney, and no doubt w/o trading up and losing a nice pick, who were ranked significantly higher however! Go figure.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/b/page/pressbox/0,1328,5224356,00.html

BTW, I did find this about McK:

"The Vikings had to punt after rookie Bryant McKinnie, making his NFL debut, let Kenny Holmes by him to sack Bouman and force a fumble that lost 20 yards on third down. McKinnie had not given up sack in junior college or college."

"Minnesota's rookie left tackle, Bryant McKinnie, missed two series in the second quarter and another in the third with an upset stomach. He was doubled over a trash can next to the Vikings' bench on two occasions. ... "

That's all I could find of him in the AP recaps of the handful of games he played in. I also watched Minnesota to see if I was correct about McK who was touted as a plug-n-play OT by many, and I was as unimpressed as I was by his play in Miami in the couple of bigger games that I saw him in.

[Kevikid]

holy crap...that's long. anyhow, you gotta back what you keep saying. ksu and penn state may have put up 89 points, but kelsay had 3 tackles, a sack, and 4 pressures in the penn state game and 11 tackles, a sack, and a pass deflection in the ksu game. you can't just say he didn't show up for the game...obviously he did. and he did play well. 1 sack a game is a pretty good pace, even in college. i'd prefer that to vonnie holliday's 5 in one game, 6 for the year sort of thing.

[Kevikid]

and in reply to that stupid DL/DT draft article that you're posting...all those guys were picked within the top 15, so of course Denney would not be mentioned. he was never considered a top 15 prospect...that's why he was drafted in the second round.

[EDS]

Minn. was only 2-6 prior to McKinnie's arrival - finished 6-10, and Bennett had his three best games going forward. Apparently the guy they had in before McKinnie was terrible, so McKinnie was an upgrade. Even the Bills had 5 sacks against them early in the year!

[WG]

BTW, I'm not saying that McK was a bust by any measure. What I am saying is that he was not as "plug-n-play" ready as most indicated and that he would require a season or two w/ some assistance. After that, given his size, he may be quite good and live up to the hype. But I thought that Williams was a no brainer over McK and was afraid that the Bills would take McK.

Given the obvious contract issues especially, that made MW even more glaringly obvious to me.

Like I said, there's no need to argue. We can put this all on the back burner. In fact, and I'm sure T will take me up on this, we can all name some players that we liked in this draft, or make our own draft of what we would have done, and then see which players are doing what. That would be fun and you can keep tabs on me! :D I on you as well however.

Anyway, here's who I would have gone w/:

EJ Henderson, LB
The 2nd round was kinda weird, but instead of Kelsay I would have probably taken Dewayne White. But needing a WR, I also would have looked at Tyrone Calico. So for round 2, say Calico or White.
However, in round 3, regardless of whether or not we had taken Kelsay or White, I would have not traded our pick to G.B. who then took Peterson, I would have taken Peterson w/o hesitation.
In round 4, I would have taken Rien Long as well for depth. We simply don't need 2nd/3rd tier WRs which is all I believe Aiken will be. He only had 4 TDs, 2 in one game, and 3 100 yard games. Why is he going to amount to anything other than a 4th/5th WR?

Meanwhile, two excellent evaluators of DL/DT/DE talent, the Bucs and Titans, took White and Long. Peterson would have been a steal in the 3rd especially given our needs.

So anyway, there are mine:

EJ Henderson
Dewayne White or Tyrone Calico
Peterson
Long

What are yours? I'll keep track and we can have some fun w/ this in the fall.

But I guess what puzzles me and makes me scratch my head is how everything that TD does is "flawless"! Why, just b/c we're fans? It doesn't make sense. Let's face it, the Denney thing was heavily criticized by many last season and even WNY Bills media in some cases and went against most, the vast majority of party-line evaluations by those who deal in this stuff daily.

I just don't see why wishing we had drafted some players to help us out this year and be poised to do even more next year is somehow wrong. I'm concerned about this season and let's face it, not a single draft pick that we selected has any sort of real chance of even starting this year. I doubt any of them will even push the starters for PT. Kelsay I'll predict will be a bust! McG won't be known until next season one way or another and partially dependent upon Henry. If Henry runs well and there's anything other than 110% healing of McG according to any and all team physicians, then his selection may not have been the wisest either, but the jury's out on that so we'll address that next offseason. Crowell won't start, and if he does, it'll have meant that Posey sucks. So that's a tit-for-tat. Aiken won't even challenge for the #3 and may not even make the team other than the PS at WR. McGee, well, we'll see. Same w/ him. After that, Sobieski, he's actually the one I'm most optimistic about for OL depth. But again, we'll see. You can only be so optimistic about a 5th rounder. I'm not even gonna mention the 6th or 7th as helping us this year.

Anyway, I can almost guarantee you that Peterson would have been an instantaneous contributor at least as a b/u. Henderson would have provided incredible depth that we simply don't have in the middle and he can play outside too. Calico may have been the #3 that we are looking for and he has a very nice combination of size/speed. And Rien Long, who knows, but I'll sure say he'd have likely helped us more than Aiken or McGee will. And his upside is much, much larger, especially given our need(s).

[WG]

Originally posted by Kevikid
holy crap...that's long. anyhow, you gotta back what you keep saying. ksu and penn state may have put up 89 points, but kelsay had 3 tackles, a sack, and 4 pressures in the penn state game and 11 tackles, a sack, and a pass deflection in the ksu game. you can't just say he didn't show up for the game...obviously he did. and he did play well. 1 sack a game is a pretty good pace, even in college. i'd prefer that to vonnie holliday's 5 in one game, 6 for the year sort of thing.

I said I didn't know. BTW, where'd you get those stats? Source please?

Now, what did he do in his bowl game against an unranked opponent?


Originally posted by Kevikid
and in reply to that stupid DL/DT draft article that you're posting...all those guys were picked within the top 15, so of course Denney would not be mentioned. he was never considered a top 15 prospect...that's why he was drafted in the second round.

Simply not true! I already posted 2 sites that had players ranked ahead of Denney who weren't taken until the late third!


Originally posted by EDS
Minn. was only 2-6 prior to McKinnie's arrival - finished 6-10, and Bennett had his three best games going forward. Apparently the guy they had in before McKinnie was terrible, so McKinnie was an upgrade. Even the Bills had 5 sacks against them early in the year!

I know EDS, and every one of those 4 extra wins was b/c of McK even though he wasn't even on the team for half of those games! And just like here, there's no way we could have beaten teams like Houston last year, like mighty Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, and Cincy last year for our extra 5 wins w/o Drew on the team in spite of the fact that many worse teams than us beat those same teams and in spite of the fact that those teams combined lost 61 of 80 games last year! Teams w/ far worse as you would argue it, QBs and far less talent around them beat those same teams last year. Thus their horrendous records.

We would have been .500 w/ Van Pelt, Blake, Chandler, or Brown. Instead, Drew lost us the Raider, Chiefs, G.B., and Pats games, or at least one of them to prevent us from winning the division. In those games he had only 5 TDs to 12 personal TOs, several of which either directly gave the opponents TDs or set them up nicely for some. In the K.C. game and Raiders game he made two HORRENDOUS INTs to effectively end those games and seal our losses! Sorry, but those are facts, not opinions!

I understand...

:rolleyes:

We're beating a dead horse fellas. At this point it's bias vs. truth and reason.

[colin]

Wys, your analysis is just horrible.

[BillsMan80]

Show me some proof there buddy, because you are dead wrong about Denney going in the 4th. Denney was a late riser and in fact many analysts said it was an excellent pick in the area. I distinctly remember many experts giving him a high 3rd Round or low 2nd Round Grade, and I saw a Mock or 2 that had him going in the 1st.


Originally posted by Wys Guy


That's funny 80, b/c most analysts had Overstreet and Dennis Johnson ahead of Denney and both of them went mid/late 3rd. What happened? Were most GMs in the league stupid, or what? And you're just incorrect. Most people had Denney going in the 4th. I believe there was one analyst having him going in the 3rd, but some in the 5th as well. Kiper had him as a 4th! I'm not big on Kiper at all, as anyone last year will attest to, but he does know his college talent which impressed me last year.





IDK where you were looking 80, but none of the top sites had him any higher than 3rd and as far as I could see, that was only one. I was on the draft in '02 like stink on poop and I can tell you that after the draft I took another look and that's what confirmed my suspicions on the subject.

[baalworship]

If you wanted players to help this year Tyrone Calico and Rien Long would not be good choices. I like Calico and wanted the Bills to draft him. But he and Rien Long are PROJECTS. Seeing how you don't like projects (Ryan Denney) it's hard to understand why you wanted these guys.

Rien Long scared teams by his apparently weak character. Tennessee took him late as a flyer. The Titans even told him that he better toe the line or he'll be gone when they drafted him. He needs to bulk up big time before he'll be useful.


As for Kenny Peterson, who knows? The fact that Tennessee and Tampa Bay passed on him several times only demonstrates he's not all you're making him out to be (since you like their scouting departments).

As for Tom Donahoe, go to TheGangGreen.Com board in the draft section. Jet fans would KILL to have a GM like Tom Donahoe. Why do we have to dislike having a great GM? The man does it all. Draft guru, manages our cap and FIXES problems. Even when he makes a mistake he makes up for it quickly. An example was bringing in Eddie Robinson and trading Jay Foreman. Bad Move. But what does he do this year? Brings in Takeo Spikes. I am happy with that.

[WG]

Originally posted by BillsMan80
Show me some proof there buddy, because you are dead wrong about Denney going in the 4th. Denney was a late riser and in fact many analysts said it was an excellent pick in the area. I distinctly remember many experts giving him a high 3rd Round or low 2nd Round Grade, and I saw a Mock or 2 that had him going in the 1st.



Come on 80!

You show me some proof! I already posted the link to one article that didn't even mention Denney amongst what must've been 16-20 DL/DE prospects. Not so much as a mention.

Here's Kiper's ranking, who I consider his only worth in life as a college talent evaluator. He's worthless for all other football stuff but is great at evaluating where the college talent stacks up:

Here's his list:

Defensive Ends
Julius Peppers 1 North Carolina 6' 6" 285
Kalimba Edwards 2 South Carolina 6' 5" 261
Bryan Thomas 4 UAB 6' 4" 260
Dennis Johnson Kentucky 6' 6" 265
Dwight Freeney 3 Syracuse 6' 1" 268
Charles Grant 5 Georgia 6' 3" 265
Will Overstreet 5b Tennessee 6' 4" 250
Ryan Denney BYU 6' 6" 275
Kenyon Coleman UCLA 6' 5" 280
Alex Brown 5a Florida 6' 4" 265


Can you read? See there, he has Denney after first round selections Peppers, Thomas, Grant, and Freeney; after second round selections Edwards; after third round selections Overstreet, and Johnson; after fourth round selections Brown!!

Why is that not considered proof to argue w/ you mighty opinion on the subject. Those are two highly credible sources, and if you search others as I did, you'll find that they're consistent w/ Kiper!

I posted this, which leads me to believe that either you can't read, or don't want to. I'll assume that it's the latter since there's evidence that you can. :D

Again, enough of this silliness. If you want to argue that the world is flat, feel free! As to this argument, so far, the one who's more right than wrong based on last year's performance is me!!!

We'll see what happens this season...

Alas, it'll take some months however.

[WG]

BTW, Kiper's rankings are the numbers next to the player on the right. I.e. 1, 2, etc. The list is the ranking of another site, probably Red Eye or something like it. Either way, that only presents a third source, and Denney doesn't rank anywhere near round 2 there either! Meanwhile, just look at all the DEs we could have selected w/ that pick.

Any defensive ends other than Edwards, Palepoi, Grant, Peppers, Freeney, and Thomas was available to us at the time!

Most of the guys drafted in the rounds after him did at least as well as he did. Alex Brown played much better and will start and did start for the Bears. I liked him over Denney also.

For a second round player to post only 9 combined tackles and nothing else is lame! At absolute minimum, a good, solid second rounder will contribute to depth. Denney hardly played b/c he showed nothing. Yet, there's people here who say he played well. Talk about being based on nothing, this is it!

[WG]

And if that's all we get from Kelsay, you're gonna be pissed!

[cordog]

WYS, NO WAY IN HELL CAN YOU BLAME BLEDSOE FOR THE RAIDERS LOSS. THE OFFENSE BUT UP I BELIEVE 31 POINTS.

[EDS]

I think we need to wait at least one more year before we can say anything diffinitive about the 2002 draft. After all, the 2001 draft looks infinitely better now that it did a year ago. That was an awesome draft - Clements, Schobel, Jennings and Spoon produced as rookies; but in the second year Sullivan and Edwards joined in.

Even if Denney bombs the 2002 draft wasn't terrible - we still got a minimum 3 starters out of it. Averaging 3-4 starters per draft is exactly what the Bills talent depleted team needed. Factor in soild FA additions and cap management and TD is doing a bang-up job. You can't bat a 1.000%.

Philadelphia's front office is consistently considered one of the best and they let Hugh Douglas walk (despite cap room) and have yet to sign a big time receiver for McNabb. Tampa has had draft blunders recently (i.e, Kenyatta Walker) and so have the Titans. I can't think anyone besides TD I would want running the show.

[Tatonka]

i cant even read all that.. i just know wys is wrong.

[Kevikid]

Wys, if you want kelsay's stats, just go to google and type in "Chris Kelsay Penn State" or "Chris Kelsay Kansas State" I don't think any of us are that pathetic to post bogus stats.

[HenryRules]

As far as Denney being rated as a second rounder ... check out this site: http://www.brownstng.com/browns/offseason/2002/Draft2002/2002DE.asp#Key.

It uses various draft projections to come up with a consensus for where the player is ranked. Denney averaged a 2nd rounder, 55th overall - a little bit higher than he was selected. I don't put much stock into draft guides, but this should settle your argument about Denney being a reach based on draft guides.

Personally, I'll wait a couple of years before saying Denney was a bust. He didn't peform last year, but I don't care. As I've said repeatedly, IMO, using draft picks for short-term gain as opposed to long-term gain is a recipe for mediocrity.

[Michael82]

Originally posted by HenryRules
As I've said repeatedly, IMO, using draft picks for short-term gain as opposed to long-term gain is a recipe for mediocrity.

Finally, someone has some brains! Thank you. If your rookies are getting more playing time than your vets, and are actually starting...then you know you are in trouble. Wys always used to say that it is bad when your rookies are actually starting...well today we can actually say that the rookies wont be starting. This is a sign of good things to come, and a sign of a good team with good starters everywhere else.