Some of you are Brain Dead

[patmoran2006]

Not many.. But more than just 1-2 have complained bitterly about this draft, and coming from a person KNOWN for criticizing the BIlls personnel decisions, I am absolutely BAFFLED as to WHY?

You can only do SO Much in one draft. Instead of plugging a spot here and a spot there just for the sake of plugging, Marv decided he was going to pretty much use the ENTIRE draft to shore up the middle of his 29th ranked defense.

And people are *****in, are you KIDDING ME?

In Whitner they got an INSTANT starter and play-maker.. A select few of you talk about the "cover two" for months with excitement then lose your cool when we took the best safety in the entire draft for that brand of defense? WTF I also wish we could have traded down a few spots and got him but if we lost him any other strong safety rated high (Allen, Williams, Bullocks) aren't exactly Cover-Two style safeties.

In Simpson they got Vincent's successor, likely by next year. In one day they got potentially a Sanders-Doss combination for the next 6 or so years.

and believe what you want, the Bills took McCargo in round one because if they DIDNT they wouldnt have been drafting another DT until the THIRD round. Did anybody watch the Bills run defense last year?

Its NOt a coincidence that after McCargo it was 32 picks later before the next DT went off the board.

WE didnt "lose a second rounder" because we moved up into the first.. We gave them a 73rd pick.. Who gives a ****, we got a starting quality tackle who fits our scheme real nice.

And in Kyle Williams we got good depth.. He should be at LEAST as good as Bannon was as a sub, and even if he plays without a helmet or equipment he's instantly better than Sape..

Did you expect us to have ONE draft and make ROOKIES turn this into a 11-win team in one year? By 2007 our defense will be a hell of a lot better because of April 29-30.

Yes, the offense was woeful last year and will likely be the same again. But c'mon, its ONE draft you can only do so much.. We upgraded the OL with two new starters anyway.. I'm not too sold on Fowler yet but I love Reyes.

While I write and enjoy reading the opinons of other's around the leauge, I really couldnt give a crap what any of them think, and obviously Marv feels the same.

What's FUNNIEST is to see the sudden heel turn of a few Bills "fans'" because the draft didnt do the way THEY wanted it to go.

[That Guy]

I agree with you... but in a much less abrasive fashion.

[patmoran2006]

BTW, I looked at my now self-admitted "******" looking Mock I posted on Friday, and in my mind, we got more steals than reaches.

I'd feel dumber about my mock if 99.999999% of the "experts" out there aren't doing the same exact thing right now.

Of the Bills first five picks, I had FOUR Of them being drafted on Day One and Wiliams going early in round four.. I also had someone we later signed going on day one as well.

Donte Whitner- I had going No. 16 to Miami.

John McCargo- I had going #54 in round two to KC (I also had no clue how down GM's were on the guys "above" him like Watson, Wroten and Wright especially)

Ko Simpson- I had going #44 in round 2 to Baltimore.

Ashton Youboty- I had going #51 in round 2 to the Vikings.

I had Kyle Williams going with the first pick in the fourth round to Houston.

And here's the FUNNIEST part.
I had Martin Nance going #96 in round three to Pittsburgh. He didnt even get drafted (lol) and the Bills signed him as an undrafted FA.

[SquishDaFish]

Great posting PAT

[!Papacrunk!]

people like flash anymore and instant fixes, it's all about being patient

[Bill Brasky]

I think the best pick the Bills made was Youboty.

I thought he'd be gone in the early half of the second.

[STAMPY]

i love the Butler pick and Mccargo pick best :)

[STAMPY]

Im Pumpedddd

[Statman]

Not many.. But more than just 1-2 have complained bitterly about this draft, and coming from a person KNOWN for criticizing the BIlls personnel decisions, I am absolutely BAFFLED as to WHY?

...You can only do SO Much in one draft. Instead of plugging a spot here and a spot there just for the sake of plugging, Marv decided he was going to pretty much use the ENTIRE draft to shore up the middle of his 29th ranked defense.

...In Simpson they got Vincent's successor, likely by next year. In one day they got potentially a Sanders-Doss combination for the next 6 or so years.

...and believe what you want, the Bills took McCargo in round one because if they DIDNT they wouldnt have been drafting another DT until the THIRD round. Did anybody watch the Bills run defense last year?

...Yes, the offense was woeful last year and will likely be the same again. But c'mon, its ONE draft you can only do so much.. We upgraded the OL with two new starters anyway.. I'm not too sold on Fowler yet but I love Reyes.

Yes, you can only do so much in one draft, but you can do more with 10 picks than 9 and with 6 picks in the first four rounds than 4.

Yes, they got Vincent's successor. But what about simple starting talent and "successors" for Anderson, Gandy, Teague, and other line spots that suck now?

How does McCargo help us stop the run? He's reveiwed as a horrible run stopper.

The name of the game is priorities.

Furthermore, how long before a bunch of Juniors come up to speed?

[John Doe]

How does McCargo help us stop the run? He's reveiwed as a horrible run stopper.



Who said he was a "horrible" run stopper?

[Iehoshua]

people like flash anymore and instant fixes, it's all about being patient
Great post! A quality Fin fan! Wish there was more of you instead of trolls!

[Statman]

Who said he was a "horrible" run stopper?
Can you find one review that says he's even a nominal one?

Did you do any homework on our draftees? At all?

[John Doe]

Can you find one review that says he's even a nominal one?

Did you do any homework on our draftees? At all?

Who said he was a "horrible" run stopper?

[eeyyeeddoogg]

people like flash anymore and instant fixes, it's all about being patient

I see. Sort of like the patience being shown to our young qb that many want to run out of town.

[Dr. Lecter]

Fowler and Reyes are replacing Teague and Anderson.

As for Juniors developing, this is a 2 year plan anyway. These guys will learn quickly inteh NFL.

[Saratoga Slim]

I think Stampy is joking.

But Pat, great post. I like the results of the draft too.

Would have loved to have seen us trade down a bit and still take Whitner in the first round, but I really get the feeling that maybe they weren't too high on Bunkley/Ngata, and that Whitner was their main target in the mid-first round range. I think you're right: McCargo would've been gone by the time we drafted in the 2nd, and thus we would have had to settle for a much less-desirable prospect. Still can't believe how far wroten and wright fell....

[Marvelous]

Good post Pat.. :clap:

[chernobylwraiths]

Who said he was a "horrible" run stopper?

Must have been one of those scouts/experts that knows nothing.

In the Buffalo News yesterday:

McCargo, 6-foot-11/2 and 302 pounds, plays the same position as the Bills' biggest free-agent pickup, Larry Tripplett. They line up opposite the outside shoulder of the guard, known as the "three technique."

But McCargo figures to be on the field plenty as a rookie. Coach Dick Jauron said he has penciled him in playing next to Tripplett right away on all passing situations. And McCargo will have to spell Tripplett at times on first down. Tripplett is 285 pounds and doesn't figure to be on the field for all 65 defensive plays in a game.

The Bills think McCargo eventually can grow into the nose tackle spot.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060430/1072300.asp

Well, that sounds great. We trade up in the draft for a backup DT. Sounds like a great move to me.

[John Doe]

Can you find one review that says he's even a nominal one?

Did you do any homework on our draftees? At all?


POSITIVES: Explosive run-defending tackle who flashes power. Plays with excellent pad level, wedges between blocks and is rarely off his feet. Possesses tremendous first-step quickness, makes plays out to the flanks and has a closing burst of speed.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/players/draft/426185

[Captain gameboy]

An element of this draft that is overlooked is that it must be weighed as a 1/3 component of the last three.
We have gone running back, QB, wide receiver, tight end etc., with high choices in the previous two.
Regardless of the change in the front office, those drafts effected this one, because they leave a lot of personnel.

We paid a bit more than we should have, but we have to lose the draft guru/radio guy view that our best move was to draft a Lienart.

I wish Marv would have gamed it better, but in Sep., I'm hoping it will be a moot point.

[patmoran2006]

I stand by what I said Saturday.

I think Marv drafted the RIGHT players but managed the draft wrong.. His inexperience showed, but at LEAST he got players this team NEEDS.

[chernobylwraiths]

An element of this draft that is overlooked is that it must be weighed as a 1/3 component of the last three.
We have gone running back, QB, wide receiver, tight end etc., with high choices in the previous two.
Regardless of the change in the front office, those drafts effected this one, because they leave a lot of personnel.

We paid a bit more than we should have, but we have to lose the draft guru/radio guy view that our best move was to draft a Lienart.

I wish Marv would have gamed it better, but in Sep., I'm hoping it will be a moot point.

I can agree with this. I'm not completely disgusted with who we got, but more with the why and how. If we are in such desperate need of players, then you don't trade a blue chip draft pick (a third rounder) to get a guy who plays the exact position of the guy you just made your biggest free agent aquisition (Tripplet). I also am not impressed with getting Reyes in here last week and don't feel that our LG position is now set because of it. There has to be a reason the guy has not been signed until now.

Didn't we get Tim Anderson a couple years ago thinking that he was one of the main reasons that a player on his line (can't remember who) went so early in the draft?

[chernobylwraiths]

I stand by what I said Saturday.

I think Marv drafted the RIGHT players but managed the draft wrong.. His inexperience showed, but at LEAST he got players this team NEEDS.

I think with that statement you might actually have more support. I would have hated getting Leinhert in here and I don't have a hatred toward the safety, I just think Marv/Tom/Dick/whoever panicked.

[John Doe]

I can agree with this. I'm not completely disgusted with who we got, but more with the why and how. If we are in such desperate need of players, then you don't trade a blue chip draft pick (a third rounder) to get a guy who plays the exact position of the guy you just made your biggest free agent aquisition (Tripplet). I also am not impressed with getting Reyes in here last week and don't feel that our LG position is now set because of it. There has to be a reason the guy has not been signed until now.

Didn't we get Tim Anderson a couple years ago thinking that he was one of the main reasons that a player on his line (can't remember who) went so early in the draft?

The system that they are going to run relies on quickness to the ball. You need to rotate players in and out to keep them fresh - if they get gassed then they lose their edge. The two vets (Anderson and Triplett) will probably start this year with McCargo and Williams rotating in quite a bit. McCargo also plays in all passing situations.

McCargo was definately a need pick. So was Williams.

[chernobylwraiths]

The system that they are going to run relies on quickness to the ball. You need to rotate players in and out to keep them fresh - if they get gassed then they lose their edge. The two vets (Anderson and Triplett) will probably start this year with McCargo and Williams rotating in quite a bit. McCargo also plays in all passing situations.

McCargo was definately a need pick. So was Williams.

Only Anderson has the size to play the nose tackle position on first down. A back up is still a back up.

[John Doe]

Only Anderson has the size to play the nose tackle position on first down. A back up is still a back up.

Williams can play the nose - that's why he was a need.

McCargo will see plenty of time - enough to justify the pick.

[Mr. Pink]

Not many.. But more than just 1-2 have complained bitterly about this draft, and coming from a person KNOWN for criticizing the BIlls personnel decisions, I am absolutely BAFFLED as to WHY?

You can only do SO Much in one draft. Instead of plugging a spot here and a spot there just for the sake of plugging, Marv decided he was going to pretty much use the ENTIRE draft to shore up the middle of his 29th ranked defense.

And people are *****in, are you KIDDING ME?

In Whitner they got an INSTANT starter and play-maker.. A select few of you talk about the "cover two" for months with excitement then lose your cool when we took the best safety in the entire draft for that brand of defense? WTF I also wish we could have traded down a few spots and got him but if we lost him any other strong safety rated high (Allen, Williams, Bullocks) aren't exactly Cover-Two style safeties.

In Simpson they got Vincent's successor, likely by next year. In one day they got potentially a Sanders-Doss combination for the next 6 or so years.

and believe what you want, the Bills took McCargo in round one because if they DIDNT they wouldnt have been drafting another DT until the THIRD round. Did anybody watch the Bills run defense last year?

Its NOt a coincidence that after McCargo it was 32 picks later before the next DT went off the board.

WE didnt "lose a second rounder" because we moved up into the first.. We gave them a 73rd pick.. Who gives a ****, we got a starting quality tackle who fits our scheme real nice.

And in Kyle Williams we got good depth.. He should be at LEAST as good as Bannon was as a sub, and even if he plays without a helmet or equipment he's instantly better than Sape..

Did you expect us to have ONE draft and make ROOKIES turn this into a 11-win team in one year? By 2007 our defense will be a hell of a lot better because of April 29-30.

Yes, the offense was woeful last year and will likely be the same again. But c'mon, its ONE draft you can only do so much.. We upgraded the OL with two new starters anyway.. I'm not too sold on Fowler yet but I love Reyes.

While I write and enjoy reading the opinons of other's around the leauge, I really couldnt give a crap what any of them think, and obviously Marv feels the same.

What's FUNNIEST is to see the sudden heel turn of a few Bills "fans'" because the draft didnt do the way THEY wanted it to go.

To address your points here Patrick....

We did admittingly so reach on Whitner at 8. He's a fine player, don't get me wrong but when Huff came off the board the brass panicked. Plain and simple. Deals were out there to be made, especially with Leinart still on the board, we could have easily slid down to the Cards pick, the Broncos pick and still got Whitner...plus a 3rd rounder at the very least.

If we still picked 8th and didn't take Whitner, we'd be looking at Ngata or Bunkley right now. Not sure which of the two was higher on the Bills board. Either one and we wouldn't have been essentially "forced" into trading up to get McCargo.

It's a fact of drafting, you put up a smoke screen to force the hand of another team. We'll never if the Giants ever had intended to take McCargo no matter what they say at this point. If they did, Marv might have done the right thing considering his first pick, if they didn't....Ernie Accorsi schooled us. Which Ernie is a very established player personnel analyst, so getting schooled by him when you're a rookie isn't as bad as it seems.

Both players have upside and fit glaring holes on this team, I concur fully there. The problem is the price we paid to bring these guys in, way too high given everything involved.

The main reason last year that this defense was absolutely putrid was the loss of Pat Williams up the middle. Plain and simple. Takeo getting hurt certainly didn't help those matters but before he got hurt, the ATL was running at will against us. I believe that's what all the "nay-sayers" main problem is. We drafted a safety who yes has skill, but we passed on the top DT on the board at the time. A DT that would have significantly helped our run D which was the biggest problem of this team last year, other than the line/qb play.

Like you said Patrick, only one problem could be addressed really. There are plenty of holes on this team and one draft wasn't going to turn this thing around or "fix" everything. The only difficulty or non-understanding I have with McCargo is his style is exactly the same as Tripletts'. To me this makes no sense having two of the same type players, considering we all know Tripletts' strength isn't in stopping the running game.

The 3rd and 4th round were absolute STEALS. Ko Simpson can step in, in a year or so and replace the aging veteran Troy Vincent and learn a little bit along the way. Youboty looks to be Clements replacement at some point, whether it be this year; if Clements doesn't sign his tender. Which could be the case, he just has to sign it by week 10 to get his NFL service time. Or whether it be next year when Clements prices himself in the land of ridiculous and we can't afford to bring him back.

Then we KNOW, and have KNOWN for years now that the O-line is the weakest link on this team. Yet we address it first with a guy who's known through his college career as the guy that cheapshot Kiwi. Generally an O-linemans' best compliment or thing said about him is absolutely nothing. Not too mention he didn't get drafted til RD5, most 5th rounders and lower are training camp fodder anyways.

The first 4 picks in this draft, player wise, is good. McCargo being my only question mark. The way we recieved the first two is EXTREMELY questionable and can be attributed to us having a rookie GM who paniced on draft day when his number 1 choice, Huff, was off the board 15 minutes before he had to turn a card in. Which then shaped up the rest of our Rd1 and 2. Round 3 and Round 4 however were ABSOLUTE steals. Youboty didn't play much differently at Ohio St than Nate Clements. While I don't consider Nate as an elite or top 10 corner in this league, he's definitely solid. If Youboty turns into a definitely solid player in his career, this might be one of the better picks of the draft. Ko Simpson, I admit, I don't know a whole lot about this guy other than seeing him vs Texas. But considering he was considered a 2nd round talent, to get him in rd4 is a steal.

To say on the field this year, we will be significantly better is not a statement I'd make. We're still going to have issues stopping the run although we probably will be much improved with getting to the QB on passing downs. Whitner is gonna have to do something he wasn't familiar with in Ohio St. stopping 220 pound NFL backs barreling down on him. While he's good in coverage, and probably the best safety-only prospect in this draft, he didn't have to do much run support at the Horseshoe. If Clements does hold out til week 10, the passing D won't be all that great either with having to put Youboty out there as the 2.

However Patrick, to say we significantly upgraded the O-line with Fowler and Reyes is misguided. Fowler vs Teague at best is a push....I might even give the nod to Teague there. More experience and about as good blocking skills. Reyes though is an upgrade, but he was the "weakest" link on a good o-line. The way O-lines' work is if you have good/strong players around you, they make you look better. Reyes doesn't have the luxury of having solid, good linemen around him anymore. So it remains to be seen if he has the skill or his linemates elevated his play. So either this o-line will be marginally better than last year or the same. Losman with another year of experience, if he wins the starting nod, which I feel is a stretch, might also make the line look better by making quicker reads and decisions.

I'm sorry, I'm done "*****ing" now, as pat succintly put it.

[John Doe]

To address your points here Patrick....

We did admittingly so reach on Whitner at 8. He's a fine player, don't get me wrong but when Huff came off the board the brass panicked. Plain and simple. Deals were out there to be made, especially with Leinart still on the board, we could have easily slid down to the Cards pick, the Broncos pick and still got Whitner...plus a 3rd rounder at the very least.

If we still picked 8th and didn't take Whitner, we'd be looking at Ngata or Bunkley right now. Not sure which of the two was higher on the Bills board. Either one and we wouldn't have been essentially "forced" into trading up to get McCargo.

It's a fact of drafting, you put up a smoke screen to force the hand of another team. We'll never if the Giants ever had intended to take McCargo no matter what they say at this point. If they did, Marv might have done the right thing considering his first pick, if they didn't....Ernie Accorsi schooled us. Which Ernie is a very established player personnel analyst, so getting schooled by him when you're a rookie isn't as bad as it seems.

Both players have upside and fit glaring holes on this team, I concur fully there. The problem is the price we paid to bring these guys in, way too high given everything involved.

The main reason last year that this defense was absolutely putrid was the loss of Pat Williams up the middle. Plain and simple. Takeo getting hurt certainly didn't help those matters but before he got hurt, the ATL was running at will against us. I believe that's what all the "nay-sayers" main problem is. We drafted a safety who yes has skill, but we passed on the top DT on the board at the time. A DT that would have significantly helped our run D which was the biggest problem of this team last year, other than the line/qb play.

Like you said Patrick, only one problem could be addressed really. There are plenty of holes on this team and one draft wasn't going to turn this thing around or "fix" everything. The only difficulty or non-understanding I have with McCargo is his style is exactly the same as Tripletts'. To me this makes no sense having two of the same type players, considering we all know Tripletts' strength isn't in stopping the running game.

The 3rd and 4th round were absolute STEALS. Ko Simpson can step in, in a year or so and replace the aging veteran Troy Vincent and learn a little bit along the way. Youboty looks to be Clements replacement at some point, whether it be this year; if Clements doesn't sign his tender. Which could be the case, he just has to sign it by week 10 to get his NFL service time. Or whether it be next year when Clements prices himself in the land of ridiculous and we can't afford to bring him back.

Then we KNOW, and have KNOWN for years now that the O-line is the weakest link on this team. Yet we address it first with a guy who's known through his college career as the guy that cheapshot Kiwi. Generally an O-linemans' best compliment or thing said about him is absolutely nothing. Not too mention he didn't get drafted til RD5, most 5th rounders and lower are training camp fodder anyways.

The first 4 picks in this draft, player wise, is good. McCargo being my only question mark. The way we recieved the first two is EXTREMELY questionable and can be attributed to us having a rookie GM who paniced on draft day when his number 1 choice, Huff, was off the board 15 minutes before he had to turn a card in. Which then shaped up the rest of our Rd1 and 2. Round 3 and Round 4 however were ABSOLUTE steals. Youboty didn't play much differently at Ohio St than Nate Clements. While I don't consider Nate as an elite or top 10 corner in this league, he's definitely solid. If Youboty turns into a definitely solid player in his career, this might be one of the better picks of the draft. Ko Simpson, I admit, I don't know a whole lot about this guy other than seeing him vs Texas. But considering he was considered a 2nd round talent, to get him in rd4 is a steal.

To say on the field this year, we will be significantly better is not a statement I'd make. We're still going to have issues stopping the run although we probably will be much improved with getting to the QB on passing downs. Whitner is gonna have to do something he wasn't familiar with in Ohio St. stopping 220 pound NFL backs barreling down on him. While he's good in coverage, and probably the best safety-only prospect in this draft, he didn't have to do much run support at the Horseshoe. If Clements does hold out til week 10, the passing D won't be all that great either with having to put Youboty out there as the 2.

However Patrick, to say we significantly upgraded the O-line with Fowler and Reyes is misguided. Fowler vs Teague at best is a push....I might even give the nod to Teague there. More experience and about as good blocking skills. Reyes though is an upgrade, but he was the "weakest" link on a good o-line. The way O-lines' work is if you have good/strong players around you, they make you look better. Reyes doesn't have the luxury of having solid, good linemen around him anymore. So it remains to be seen if he has the skill or his linemates elevated his play. So either this o-line will be marginally better than last year or the same. Losman with another year of experience, if he wins the starting nod, which I feel is a stretch, might also make the line look better by making quicker reads and decisions.

I'm sorry, I'm done "*****ing" now, as pat succintly put it.

Its becoming more and more obvious that Whitner was their man - there was a consensus of opinion about him in the war room. Marv and Co. did not panic. They had a plan and they stuck to it.

[patmoran2006]

I will admit one thing that I feel totally threw Marv for a loop a little bit...

I REALLY think he expected Leinart to go to Tenn at 3 and for the Raiders to take young at 7..

its OBVIOUS NOW That Huff was the guy the Bills were going to take.. When the draft played itself out and the Raiders passed on Leinart , I think marv was shocked (though he wont admit it)

I LOVE Whitner and I'm glad he's a Bill, but I do agree there.. I said Saturday night I thought Marv did a GREAT job of getting good players and a BAD job of managing the draft.

However, I dont think we're done with DT. We WILL sign a bigger DT thats either left in FA or come June 1st.. no clue yet.

And I"ll have to do more research on some of the other cover two dt guys.. I know McCargo is alot like Triplett, I agree there.. But I really think they're going to get someone else and play a true rotation, just like the Bears did with their DE's last year.

The only pick the Bills passed on that I HATE was not drafting guard Rob Sims.

[patmoran2006]

Its becoming more and more obvious that Whitner was their man - there was a consensus of opinion about him in the war room. Marv and Co. did not panic. They had a plan and they stuck to it.

I dont think so, and im a huge Whitner fan.

I think they really planned on Huff being there and were thrown for a loop when the Raiders didnt go Leinart or Ngata.

[John Doe]

I dont think so, and im a huge Whitner fan.

I think they really planned on Huff being there and were thrown for a loop when the Raiders didnt go Leinart or Ngata.

Maybe so but...

A few days before the draft, Marv mentioned that the guy they "sorta liked" might be available a few spots after #8. I am convinced that he was referring to Whitner.

And even if they were to have targeted him, there is no absolutely way that they went into the draft convinced that no one would take Huff before them.

People around here are talking about Marv and Co. like they are newbies - they are anything but. Collectively, these guys have been around plenty of NFL drafts before.

[Mr. Pink]

Maybe so but...

A few days before the draft, Marv mentioned that the guy they "sorta liked" might be available a few spots after #8. I am convinced that he was referring to Whitner.




If that is the "truth" then even you'll admit that the thing to do was to move down, right? Then you'd receive an extra pick, be it a 2 3 or 4...most likely a 3rd, and the trade of the 2 and 3 to get back into one wouldn't have been so bad, considering the team woulda still had 2 third rounders.

[patmoran2006]

If that is the "truth" then even you'll admit that the thing to do was to move down, right? Then you'd receive an extra pick, be it a 2 3 or 4...most likely a 3rd, and the trade of the 2 and 3 to get back into one wouldn't have been so bad, considering the team woulda still had 2 third rounders.

You know enough about football to admit that is hindsight as well.

Lets say we trade down with Denver at 15, like we were rumored to be doing.

Miami is HOT for a safety and i'm fairly certain Whitner was #2 on their safety board just like ours. (They obviously wanted a safety as they took Allen)

Who's to say they dont trade up 2 spots and steal Whitner from underneath us.. I'm sure once it got past pick 11-12 and Whitner became more a "value" pick after that, some team was liable to trade up and get him. Dallas and Minnesota probably would have been threats to go after Whitner once it got past Cleveland's pick at 12.

So if Levy thought Whitner was THAT much more valuable to the Bills then Bunkley was (and thats obvious now), then I dont fault him for "reaching" to take him rather than take a chance of losing him.

And as for McCargo, he' was obviously 3 on almost everyone's DT board because 32 guys went after him before the next DT.. I think yes he might have "reached" for that a bit, but given out DT's absolutely BLOW I dont think he had much of a choice.

[HHURRICANE]

I stand by what I said Saturday.

I think Marv drafted the RIGHT players but managed the draft wrong.. His inexperience showed, but at LEAST he got players this team NEEDS.

Now we agree. You saved me alot of typing. Thank you.

[John Doe]

If that is the "truth" then even you'll admit that the thing to do was to move down, right? Then you'd receive an extra pick, be it a 2 3 or 4...most likely a 3rd, and the trade of the 2 and 3 to get back into one wouldn't have been so bad, considering the team woulda still had 2 third rounders.

Marv said the the player might be available. They did not take the chance with Whitner and they did not take the chance with McCargo. They made absolutely sure that they got the players that they targeted in the early rounds.

They have been around enough drafts to know that you can play it too cute and get burned.

[BillsFever21]

Here is the only thing I find funny.

When some say we reached for Whitner you have some people saying that the "experts" don't know what they are talking about. They say they're not as smart as Marv and it doesn't matter what the entire country had Whitner going at and their projections doesn't mean a thing.

Then you have players like Youboty and Simpson. Both were projected to go higher then the "experts" When it comes to them the same people are saying what a steal we got with them because all the "experts" had them going in the first and/or 2nd round and we got them in the 3rd or 4th.

How come their opinion doesn't mean squat and they are dumb when it comes to the picks they are calling reaches but the players who were projected to go higher by the same people but fell down are all of a sudden great deals?

So if they say some of the players are reaches then they don't know what they are talking about. But if the same people had other players projected higher and we got them in the middle rounds now their opinion matters because all the "experts" had them rated higher in the draft.

I love people like this. It all depends on what makes them feel better.

[patmoran2006]

Bills fans only hear what they want to hear, that's why BillsFever 21.. They have selective hearing (or eyes).. Losing for this many years, any glimmer of hope is positive.

Everytime I post a fox or espn article bashing the Bills its spam and trash.. If its something good its a great post. I'm totally used to it.

I just try real hard to be OBJECTIVE.. I've hated a lot of the Bills moves this offseason.. Re-signing Josh Reed and giving him $10 million was a JOKE, especially when you sign Andre Davis and Peerless Price.. Ryan Denney is a bum and was a crappy plan B after we failed to land Idonije..... Craig Nall is a bum, and if GB didnt want him on that team, that scares me.. . Bowens is a joke too, not that he sucks, but to give a guy that much then draft not one but two safeties? Bowens is just a more expensive Coy Wire now.

I also like some moves.. Reyes and A Train this past week were UNDER the radar signings that I think helps A LOT. Triplett is perfect for our cover two and I think Fowler has a lot of upside.

As for the draft, I like it alot because for me personally, these are all guys that I really liked.. I think the bills really helped themselves in a big way by going defense like this.. Might now show in 2006, but by 07 this defense will be a lot better.

Everyone has said this is a two season process.. If so, then I really like these moves..

[TigerJ]

I think the first round created a bad first impression of the Bills draft that people never got past. As far as the first round is concerned, I think the Bills made a mistake IF they had Bunkley and/or Ngata rated anywhere close to Whitner and did not move down in the draft. Since I don't know what their draft board looked like I can't say for sure they made a tactical error. I think there's enough evidence out there that McCargo would have gone later in round one to argue that the Bills were justified in trading up, since he was rated so much higher on the Bills board than any remaining DT.

I also think the Bills took a lot of criticism simply because their draft board looked very different from the draft board of all the media draft gurus. GMs and coaching staffs are not always smarter than the Mel Kipers out there who are so ready to criticize them, but Mel Kiper is not always smarter either. There is no way to tell whether another team might have drafted a player the Bills wanted if the Bills drafted him first. Thus you can always second guess a team's choice to draft a given player. There are however plenty of times where players who are draftnik darlings slide all the way out of the draft. So are all the GMs wrong and only the draftniks are right. Sometimes that turns out to be the case, but more often than not the GMs are the ones who are proven right. It will be interesting to follow the progress of Martin Nance, the undrafted free agent the Bills signed. A number of so called experts predicted he would be drafted at least in the middle rounds. He looks to me like a guy with great upside as a possession receiver, particularly in the read zone, yet he slipped completely out of the draft. Who will be right? the GMs who didn't draft him, or the gurus who would have?

[Meathead]

ohm pat

[Meathead]

this stuff about reaching and value is sooo overblown

the draft is more crapshoot than accurate science. if you were to go back three years and re-rank every draft pick based on actual nfl production they would be all over the board, totally different than the order drafted/not drafted

all that really matters is being right with the pick, not nearly so much as where they were drafted. in three years draft position will look silly because at that point it will be. can they play or not, if so they get paid, if not they get cut if they aint already

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Let me put it this way: supply and demand determine value more than anything else.

If a player is projected before the draft to go in the 4th Round, but, for some reason, 4 teams are planning to take him at the top of the second round and a fifth team jumps up to grab him in the late first round because they need him, too, then that player has late-first round or, at the very least, early second round value and the team that ended up with him got "their money's worth". The rest of the world could scream all it wants about that that player should have been taken in the 4th round, but that doesn't matter because, woulda, coulda, shoulda aside, he would not have been on the board in the 4th round. It's that simple.

Because there really weren't that many DTs in this draft who can play the position that the Bills were looking to fill, the choice for the Bills at the top of this draft was Whitner (or maybe Huff)/McCargo or Bunkley/Bullocks (Griffin). One way or the other, the Bills HAD to get either Bunkley or McCargo because, if they didn't want to take a chance on Wroten and his character issues, they were going to end up like the NY Giants did, after missing out on McCargo, with the likes of Barry Cofield.

The choice was not Bunkley vs McCargo or Bunkley vs Whitner, it was the S/DT combination vs the DT/S combination. The Bills had no idea that they would be able to take Simpson later on and it might not have mattered anyway because Simpson is going to take more time to be ready to compete for a starting job that a number of the safeties or CB/S guys who were available at the start of the draft.

I can't say for certain whether the Bills were really interested in getting Huff or if the guy they really wanted was Whitner, who has more experience playing SS in a Cover 2 defense and is nearly as fast as Huff, who the Bills may have seen more as a CB. What I do know is that a lot of people had Detroit taking Huff, if he fell to them, and that they did take the next pure Cover 2 safety taken after Whitner, in Bullocks, with their pick in Round 2. I also know that there were reports before the draft that the Bills were not as high on Bunkley as they seemed to be, that there was at least the possibility that they might go with Whitner (a player they really liked), and Marv Levy told people that the Bills might take a player that they probably could get a few picks later than the # 8 pick. That leads me to believe that the safety that they liked the most was Whitner--who fits Marv's description, not Huff--who some had projected to go before # 8 and almost all of the rest had going to Detroit at # 9.

I also know that there were other teams picking in the middle of the first round who were interested in drafting Whitner--Miami was one that was prominently mentioned. And, that Philly had reportedly been interested in trading up with the Bills to the # 8 spot, which would have left the Bills with the # 14 pick. As it turned out, J.Clayton reported that just such a deal was offered to the Bills on draft day. St.Louis, with the # 11 pick, was reported to be interested in trading up to # 8 to take J.Cutler, but, as subsequent events proved, they weren't interested in taking Cutler at all--so that probably was just a rumour. With Leinart and Cutler available at # 8, Denver also reported to be offering a deal to the Bills, but with Denver having the # 15 pick, the best position that the Bills could have found themselves in if they made a trade was # 14.

With Leinart and Cutler still on the board and Huff gone at # 8, it has been said that the Bills could have traded down and still gotten Whitner. But, the best that they could have done was end up at # 14. Some have said that the Bills could have made a deal with Arizona at # 10, but, with two QBs still on the board, there would have been no reason for the Cards to trade up to #8 to get a QB--if they wanted one, they could sit still and wait to see if one went off the board at # 8 and then paid less to move up one spot to get the other; if they didn't like the QB that was left, they could simply pass and take the player that they had been planning to take if Leinart and Cutler had been taken earlier as expected. St.Louis had been reported to be interested in trading up to get Cutler, but they passed on him when they could have had him for nothing. Rather than being a trading partner for the Bills, it is possible that the Rams, having lost A.Archuleta, might have been a team that was interested in taking Whitner at # 11--they traded down out of that spot after the Bills selected Whitner, so who knows? On draft day there were reports that Cleveland, who had traded away C.Crocker in the off-season, had been interested in Whitner as well, so they were not a potential trade partner for the Bills, either. So, Leinart and Cutler aside, the best deal that we know that the Bills could have gotten was with Philly and would have left them at # 14. But, Philly was going to take Bunkley, not Ngata, so trading with them would have meant that, if another team were to take Whitner before the # 14 pick, they would not only lose out on Whitner, but would not be able to get Bunkley, either. Then what? They would have HAD to get McCargo and take the next best safety that they had on their board.

It is easy to say that there were no teams picking between #8 and # 14 that would have taken Whitner, but is that absolutely true? Detroit was projected to take a safety at # 9 and took one with their pick in the second round--obviously they were interested in drafting that position. St.Louis, at # 11, had lost its best safety, so they might have considered Whitner. Cleveland and Baltimore, at # 12 and # 13, were in the same position as the Rams. And, then, there was Miami, at # 16, whose interest in Whitner was well-known, that might have been interested in moving up a couple of spots past the Bills if Whitner was still on the board. That's five teams that could be expected to have some interest in Whitner in a position to select him if the Bills moved down to # 14 and all it would take would be for one of them to take Whitner to ruin the Bills' draft with Philly taking Bunkley off of the board.

Still, according to PFW, the Bills WERE interested in a trade down until they got late word that they might end up without Whitner if they did make a trade. Whether they made a trade with Philly or Denver, they would be in a position to lose out on both Whitner and Bunkley because Bunkley would not get past Philly.

So, yes, they decided to play it safe and take Whitner at # 8 rather than risk losing out on him. What good would an extra second round pick have been to the Bills if they lost out on the two players who were the keystones of the two combinations of players that could best address the team's defensive needs? Once they had Whitner, it no longer mattered if Bunkley went to Philly because McCargo was still there to fill their need at DT and they had the picks to trade up to insure that they got him if need be.

So, was picking Whitner at # 8 really that much of a reach? If there was any truth, whatsoever, to the report that PFW says that the Bills received that there were teams prepared to take Whitner before the # 14 pick, no. If the team was Detroit, then it can be argued that taking Whitner one pick prior to when another team was prepared to take him made that selection a value pick. But, even if it wasn't Detroit, obviously there were some teams interested in taking Whitner in the #8-# 13 range. That means that there was demand for Whitner and he was taken within, at most, 5 picks of where he would have been taken, no more. That can hardly be called a "reach", especially when it insured that the Bills would be in a position to fill their priority needs on defense with the combination of players at safety and defensive tackle that they deemed to be the best combination that they could select.

It has been argued that the Bills could have taken Bunkley and C.Griffin or some other safety in Round 2 and it would not have cost them a third round pick. True. Actually, if the Bills had drafted Bunkley, the safety that they would have most likely taken would have been D.Bullocks, who went to Detroit in the second round. If the Bills were more interested in a Cover 2 safety, like Whitner, than a CB/S guy, like Huff, they would not have been interested in Griffin if they could have taken Bullocks instead. But, obviously, neither the Bills nor the rest of the GMs in the NFL thought anywhere near as much of Bullocks as they did of Whitner: after the Bills took Whitner, all of the teams that might have had some interest in Whitner passed on Bullocks, including Miami, who selected Allen, a CB/S guy, and Detroit, the team that eventually ended up taking Bullocks a full round later than Miami and at least one team picking in the top 13 were interested in taking Whitner.

The Bills may have--and probably did--think Bunkley was better than McCargo, who Marv admitted that he thought would be available at # 42 in the second round, but in their estimation--and that of every other GM in the league--so much better than than Bullocks or the next highest rated safety on their board that it more than made up for they felt was the difference between Bunkley and McCargo. It's not just the Bills that had Whitner rated that highly in comparison to the other remaining safeties, it was the GMs of every other team that had been projected to take Whitner in the middle of the first round who all passed on Bullocks and the rest when they had the chance to take him. So, what does that say about Whitner's value?

As I've pointed out in many other threads, once the Bills drafted Whitner with their first pick, they absolutely HAD to have McCargo. Here again, there are a lot of people who are convinced that the Bills "reached" and overpaid for McCargo because he was not projected to go until the mid-second round or later. But, again, supply and demand determines value. And, as I have shown in my thread about the NY Giants' interest in McCargo, after Bobby Carpenter was drafted by the Cowboys, the Giants were definitely considering taking McCargo with the # 32 pick in the draft--I would argue that the evidence supports the contention that they definitely WOULD have taken McCargo with that pick because anyone who thinks that the Giants would have passed up the opportunity to fill a position of need (where they unexpectedly lost their starting DT in free agency) with the third best DT in the draft to select a DE whose stock has been dropping, when they have TWO Pro Bowl DEs on their roster, so that they could fill their need at DT with Barry Cofield is out of his mind!

Regardless of where McCargo was projected to be drafted, the fact is that he was going to be drafted by the Giants with the # 32 pick in the first round. Like it or not, that means that he was a late-first round draft pick--that's the value that he actually had on draft day.

Fortunately for the Bills, the men in their "war room" convinced Marv Levy, by his own account, that McCargo would not last until the Bills' picked in the second round with the # 42 pick and the Bills were able to trade up with Chicago to the # 26 pick. That allowed the Bills to select McCargo before the NY Giants could. Doing that was NOT "reaching"--the McCargo was going to be a late-first round draft pick and that's where the Bills drafted him, late in the first round.

Yes, moving up for McCargo cost the Bills a third round draft pick. But, when you consider that, if the Bills had not gotten McCargo, they would have had to settle for C.Wroten, a player with character issues that Levy did not want to pick, or one of the defensive tackles that the entire NFL passed on for almost three full rounds (there were 81 picks between the McCargo selection and the selection of G.Watson the next pure DT to be drafted other than Wroten). It could be argued that it was worth a third round pick to draft a player who was going to be taken in the late first round rather than have to settle for a player who no NFL team was willing to take until the early 4th round.

While the Bills did miss out on obtaining an extra second or third round draft pick and give up a third round pick to acquire Whitner, a player who had an actual #8-#13 pick value, and McCargo, a player who had an actual # 26-# 32 pick value and was 81 picks more valuable than the value of the next DT that they could reasonably have been expected to consider, they ended up with the combination of players at safety and DT they had most highly rated and avoided the possibility that that they would have had to "reach" further to obtain the combination of McCargo and Bullocks to to fill those positions.

That's right, McCargo and Bullocks would have been the best DT/S combination that the Bills could have come out of the draft with if they had traded down with Philly and one team in the top 13 had drafted Whitner. And that is ONLY if the Bills had selected McCargo with the # 14 pick--if you thought he was a reach at # 26, how does that grab you?--or made the same trade that actually did make with Chicago to select McCargo at # 26 after taking Bullocks at # 14. Yes, the Bills would have ended up with an extra second round pick, but, if you think that the Bills are a considered a laughingstock around the NFL now for picking Whitner and McCargo when they did, how much more of a laughingstock would they have been considered if they had taken Bullocks or McCargo at # 14? But, that's what they would have had to do to fill the positions of greatest priority on their defense. And, if they missed out on McCargo...fuggeddaboudit!!! Watson/Williams or Williams/Cofield would have been the DTs the Bills would have come out of the draft with if they passed on Wroten. Would it have been worth a second or third round pick to have had to address the DT spot with two 4th rounders and the safety spot with a second rounder instead of addressing those positions with two first round picks and a 4th rounder?

How much of a "reach" are the Whitner and McCargo picks when you assess the value of the players in terms of where they were likely to have been drafted if the Bills did not draft them instead of where the "draft gurus" thought that those players woulda, coulda, shoulda been taken? Supply and demand determines value.

Which is why I have said nothing about the Youboty and Simpson picks other than that I like them. I hate to burst anybody's bubbles, there's a reason that these two players lasted as long as they did despite being so highly thought of by the draft "experts"---both are extremely talented, but, if you read about their weaknesses, it is clear than both are going to take a little longer to develop into starting caliber players than say Whitner or Huff or even Allen because there are still some things that they need to learn to do better and improve on before they get to that point. Both have a lot of potential and if they learn those things they are going to be pretty good players. But, it is going to take more time. And, that's why Youboty is a third rounder and Simpson a fourth rounder. Nice picks in those rounds and nice additions to the Bills' defense. Steals? Very possibly, if they keep developing and improve on their weaknesses and strengths. But, it's too early tell. Still, I like what I've seen of them and think they have lots of potential.

[ddaryl]

I'm always positive. I'm on the Kool-Aid 99% of the time.

In 3 years if we still suck then I'll come off the Kool-Aid for a bit before hopin back on.

[John Doe]

Fantastic post LifetimeBillsFan. One of the best that I have read.

[Luisito23]

Fantastic post LifetimeBillsFan. One of the best that I have read.


Definetly...Great job LBF...:beer:


GO BILLS!!!!!

[jmb1099]

I love how people keep saying "its not that I don't like the pics, its just the way we went about getting them"
"We should have traded down", "we should have done this, we should have done that"
It takes two to tango. If Levy believed he could have traded down at a fair price he might have done it. But there is no way to know what deals were on the table. Now some are going to be tempted to post and say "well I heard..." nothing more than pure speculation. Lets be realistic here, if any of the other GM knew we wanted Huff, do you think they were going to take pity on us and let us have him with little or no cost? No! They knew they had us by the throat and these so called "deals" were highway robbery. No don't start yelling "now you're speculating" because I'm not. Its common sense, its cut-throat and nobody gives anyone else a break nor should they. You guys keep talking like we could have just bullied our way through the draft, had all the cards fall our way, and have every other team in the league fall asleep as we hatched some brilliant master plan without their knowing it. Its as simple as this...had there been a good deal we would have made it as would anyone else. As it is it was a good draft, we filled needs and we did so with some very decent talent.

[OpIv37]

You can only do SO Much in one draft. Instead of plugging a spot here and a spot there just for the sake of plugging, Marv decided he was going to pretty much use the ENTIRE draft to shore up the middle of his 29th ranked defense.

.

The D was ranked #2 in 03 and 04, and slipped to 29 last year.

Conversly, the offense was ranked #29 last year. It was also bad in 03 and 04, and the OL has been bad as long as I can remember. We filled some holes that developed last year but ignored holes that have been around for 5 years or so.

[OpIv37]

and if Whitner is such a playmaker, how come NO ONE discussed him as a possibility for Buffalo until Tagliabue announced his name on Saturday?

[OpIv37]

I love how people keep saying "its not that I don't like the pics, its just the way we went about getting them"
"We should have traded down", "we should have done this, we should have done that"
It takes two to tango.

The best or at least second best QB in the draft was still on the board, and Marv can't get a fair deal for him? There are tons of teams that need QB's- Marv can't convince other teams of the value? Maybe he's not the right man for the job then.

[Meathead]

you want some of what The Marv is cookin

[Meathead]

i nominate LifetimeBillsFan's last post as best of the draft

[Kerr]

I would be shocked that when the next bz awards come out, lbf isn't voted best poster of the forum.

[Kerr]

you want some of what The Marv is cookin

I smell what he's cooking...

[jmb1099]

The best or at least second best QB in the draft was still on the board, and Marv can't get a fair deal for him? There are tons of teams that need QB's- Marv can't convince other teams of the value? Maybe he's not the right man for the job then.
Didn't see a whole lot of anybody overly concerned about either of the qb's left, not enough to offer anything worthwhile. If they won't make the deal then they won't, nothing that can be done about that. And if the valus of those Qb's was so high, why didn't the 7 teams that picked a head of us give them a consideration?

[justasportsfan]

Let me put it this way: supply and demand determine value more than anything else.

If a player is projected before the draft to go in the 4th Round, but, for some reason, 4 teams are planning to take him at the top of the second round and a fifth team jumps up to grab him in the late first round because they need him, too, then that player has late-first round or, at the very least, early second round value and the team that ended up with him got "their money's worth". The rest of the world could scream all it wants about that that player should have been taken in the 4th round, but that doesn't matter because, woulda, coulda, shoulda aside, he would not have been on the board in the 4th round. It's that simple.

Because there really weren't that many DTs in this draft who can play the position that the Bills were looking to fill, the choice for the Bills at the top of this draft was Whitner (or maybe Huff)/McCargo or Bunkley/Bullocks (Griffin). One way or the other, the Bills HAD to get either Bunkley or McCargo because, if they didn't want to take a chance on Wroten and his character issues, they were going to end up like the NY Giants did, after missing out on McCargo, with the likes of Barry Cofield.

The choice was not Bunkley vs McCargo or Bunkley vs Whitner, it was the S/DT combination vs the DT/S combination. The Bills had no idea that they would be able to take Simpson later on and it might not have mattered anyway because Simpson is going to take more time to be ready to compete for a starting job that a number of the safeties or CB/S guys who were available at the start of the draft.

I can't say for certain whether the Bills were really interested in getting Huff or if the guy they really wanted was Whitner, who has more experience playing SS in a Cover 2 defense and is nearly as fast as Huff, who the Bills may have seen more as a CB. What I do know is that a lot of people had Detroit taking Huff, if he fell to them, and that they did take the next pure Cover 2 safety taken after Whitner, in Bullocks, with their pick in Round 2. I also know that there were reports before the draft that the Bills were not as high on Bunkley as they seemed to be, that there was at least the possibility that they might go with Whitner (a player they really liked), and Marv Levy told people that the Bills might take a player that they probably could get a few picks later than the # 8 pick. That leads me to believe that the safety that they liked the most was Whitner--who fits Marv's description, not Huff--who some had projected to go before # 8 and almost all of the rest had going to Detroit at # 9.

I also know that there were other teams picking in the middle of the first round who were interested in drafting Whitner--Miami was one that was prominently mentioned. And, that Philly had reportedly been interested in trading up with the Bills to the # 8 spot, which would have left the Bills with the # 14 pick. As it turned out, J.Clayton reported that just such a deal was offered to the Bills on draft day. St.Louis, with the # 11 pick, was reported to be interested in trading up to # 8 to take J.Cutler, but, as subsequent events proved, they weren't interested in taking Cutler at all--so that probably was just a rumour. With Leinart and Cutler available at # 8, Denver also reported to be offering a deal to the Bills, but with Denver having the # 15 pick, the best position that the Bills could have found themselves in if they made a trade was # 14.

With Leinart and Cutler still on the board and Huff gone at # 8, it has been said that the Bills could have traded down and still gotten Whitner. But, the best that they could have done was end up at # 14. Some have said that the Bills could have made a deal with Arizona at # 10, but, with two QBs still on the board, there would have been no reason for the Cards to trade up to #8 to get a QB--if they wanted one, they could sit still and wait to see if one went off the board at # 8 and then paid less to move up one spot to get the other; if they didn't like the QB that was left, they could simply pass and take the player that they had been planning to take if Leinart and Cutler had been taken earlier as expected. St.Louis had been reported to be interested in trading up to get Cutler, but they passed on him when they could have had him for nothing. Rather than being a trading partner for the Bills, it is possible that the Rams, having lost A.Archuleta, might have been a team that was interested in taking Whitner at # 11--they traded down out of that spot after the Bills selected Whitner, so who knows? On draft day there were reports that Cleveland, who had traded away C.Crocker in the off-season, had been interested in Whitner as well, so they were not a potential trade partner for the Bills, either. So, Leinart and Cutler aside, the best deal that we know that the Bills could have gotten was with Philly and would have left them at # 14. But, Philly was going to take Bunkley, not Ngata, so trading with them would have meant that, if another team were to take Whitner before the # 14 pick, they would not only lose out on Whitner, but would not be able to get Bunkley, either. Then what? They would have HAD to get McCargo and take the next best safety that they had on their board.

It is easy to say that there were no teams picking between #8 and # 14 that would have taken Whitner, but is that absolutely true? Detroit was projected to take a safety at # 9 and took one with their pick in the second round--obviously they were interested in drafting that position. St.Louis, at # 11, had lost its best safety, so they might have considered Whitner. Cleveland and Baltimore, at # 12 and # 13, were in the same position as the Rams. And, then, there was Miami, at # 16, whose interest in Whitner was well-known, that might have been interested in moving up a couple of spots past the Bills if Whitner was still on the board. That's five teams that could be expected to have some interest in Whitner in a position to select him if the Bills moved down to # 14 and all it would take would be for one of them to take Whitner to ruin the Bills' draft with Philly taking Bunkley off of the board.

Still, according to PFW, the Bills WERE interested in a trade down until they got late word that they might end up without Whitner if they did make a trade. Whether they made a trade with Philly or Denver, they would be in a position to lose out on both Whitner and Bunkley because Bunkley would not get past Philly.

So, yes, they decided to play it safe and take Whitner at # 8 rather than risk losing out on him. What good would an extra second round pick have been to the Bills if they lost out on the two players who were the keystones of the two combinations of players that could best address the team's defensive needs? Once they had Whitner, it no longer mattered if Bunkley went to Philly because McCargo was still there to fill their need at DT and they had the picks to trade up to insure that they got him if need be.

So, was picking Whitner at # 8 really that much of a reach? If there was any truth, whatsoever, to the report that PFW says that the Bills received that there were teams prepared to take Whitner before the # 14 pick, no. If the team was Detroit, then it can be argued that taking Whitner one pick prior to when another team was prepared to take him made that selection a value pick. But, even if it wasn't Detroit, obviously there were some teams interested in taking Whitner in the #8-# 13 range. That means that there was demand for Whitner and he was taken within, at most, 5 picks of where he would have been taken, no more. That can hardly be called a "reach", especially when it insured that the Bills would be in a position to fill their priority needs on defense with the combination of players at safety and defensive tackle that they deemed to be the best combination that they could select.

It has been argued that the Bills could have taken Bunkley and C.Griffin or some other safety in Round 2 and it would not have cost them a third round pick. True. Actually, if the Bills had drafted Bunkley, the safety that they would have most likely taken would have been D.Bullocks, who went to Detroit in the second round. If the Bills were more interested in a Cover 2 safety, like Whitner, than a CB/S guy, like Huff, they would not have been interested in Griffin if they could have taken Bullocks instead. But, obviously, neither the Bills nor the rest of the GMs in the NFL thought anywhere near as much of Bullocks as they did of Whitner: after the Bills took Whitner, all of the teams that might have had some interest in Whitner passed on Bullocks, including Miami, who selected Allen, a CB/S guy, and Detroit, the team that eventually ended up taking Bullocks a full round later than Miami and at least one team picking in the top 13 were interested in taking Whitner.

The Bills may have--and probably did--think Bunkley was better than McCargo, who Marv admitted that he thought would be available at # 42 in the second round, but in their estimation--and that of every other GM in the league--so much better than than Bullocks or the next highest rated safety on their board that it more than made up for they felt was the difference between Bunkley and McCargo. It's not just the Bills that had Whitner rated that highly in comparison to the other remaining safeties, it was the GMs of every other team that had been projected to take Whitner in the middle of the first round who all passed on Bullocks and the rest when they had the chance to take him. So, what does that say about Whitner's value?

As I've pointed out in many other threads, once the Bills drafted Whitner with their first pick, they absolutely HAD to have McCargo. Here again, there are a lot of people who are convinced that the Bills "reached" and overpaid for McCargo because he was not projected to go until the mid-second round or later. But, again, supply and demand determines value. And, as I have shown in my thread about the NY Giants' interest in McCargo, after Bobby Carpenter was drafted by the Cowboys, the Giants were definitely considering taking McCargo with the # 32 pick in the draft--I would argue that the evidence supports the contention that they definitely WOULD have taken McCargo with that pick because anyone who thinks that the Giants would have passed up the opportunity to fill a position of need (where they unexpectedly lost their starting DT in free agency) with the third best DT in the draft to select a DE whose stock has been dropping, when they have TWO Pro Bowl DEs on their roster, so that they could fill their need at DT with Barry Cofield is out of his mind!

Regardless of where McCargo was projected to be drafted, the fact is that he was going to be drafted by the Giants with the # 32 pick in the first round. Like it or not, that means that he was a late-first round draft pick--that's the value that he actually had on draft day.

Fortunately for the Bills, the men in their "war room" convinced Marv Levy, by his own account, that McCargo would not last until the Bills' picked in the second round with the # 42 pick and the Bills were able to trade up with Chicago to the # 26 pick. That allowed the Bills to select McCargo before the NY Giants could. Doing that was NOT "reaching"--the McCargo was going to be a late-first round draft pick and that's where the Bills drafted him, late in the first round.

Yes, moving up for McCargo cost the Bills a third round draft pick. But, when you consider that, if the Bills had not gotten McCargo, they would have had to settle for C.Wroten, a player with character issues that Levy did not want to pick, or one of the defensive tackles that the entire NFL passed on for almost three full rounds (there were 81 picks between the McCargo selection and the selection of G.Watson the next pure DT to be drafted other than Wroten). It could be argued that it was worth a third round pick to draft a player who was going to be taken in the late first round rather than have to settle for a player who no NFL team was willing to take until the early 4th round.

While the Bills did miss out on obtaining an extra second or third round draft pick and give up a third round pick to acquire Whitner, a player who had an actual #8-#13 pick value, and McCargo, a player who had an actual # 26-# 32 pick value and was 81 picks more valuable than the value of the next DT that they could reasonably have been expected to consider, they ended up with the combination of players at safety and DT they had most highly rated and avoided the possibility that that they would have had to "reach" further to obtain the combination of McCargo and Bullocks to to fill those positions.

That's right, McCargo and Bullocks would have been the best DT/S combination that the Bills could have come out of the draft with if they had traded down with Philly and one team in the top 13 had drafted Whitner. And that is ONLY if the Bills had selected McCargo with the # 14 pick--if you thought he was a reach at # 26, how does that grab you?--or made the same trade that actually did make with Chicago to select McCargo at # 26 after taking Bullocks at # 14. Yes, the Bills would have ended up with an extra second round pick, but, if you think that the Bills are a considered a laughingstock around the NFL now for picking Whitner and McCargo when they did, how much more of a laughingstock would they have been considered if they had taken Bullocks or McCargo at # 14? But, that's what they would have had to do to fill the positions of greatest priority on their defense. And, if they missed out on McCargo...fuggeddaboudit!!! Watson/Williams or Williams/Cofield would have been the DTs the Bills would have come out of the draft with if they passed on Wroten. Would it have been worth a second or third round pick to have had to address the DT spot with two 4th rounders and the safety spot with a second rounder instead of addressing those positions with two first round picks and a 4th rounder?

How much of a "reach" are the Whitner and McCargo picks when you assess the value of the players in terms of where they were likely to have been drafted if the Bills did not draft them instead of where the "draft gurus" thought that those players woulda, coulda, shoulda been taken? Supply and demand determines value.

Which is why I have said nothing about the Youboty and Simpson picks other than that I like them. I hate to burst anybody's bubbles, there's a reason that these two players lasted as long as they did despite being so highly thought of by the draft "experts"---both are extremely talented, but, if you read about their weaknesses, it is clear than both are going to take a little longer to develop into starting caliber players than say Whitner or Huff or even Allen because there are still some things that they need to learn to do better and improve on before they get to that point. Both have a lot of potential and if they learn those things they are going to be pretty good players. But, it is going to take more time. And, that's why Youboty is a third rounder and Simpson a fourth rounder. Nice picks in those rounds and nice additions to the Bills' defense. Steals? Very possibly, if they keep developing and improve on their weaknesses and strengths. But, it's too early tell. Still, I like what I've seen of them and think they have lots of potential.
Wow. Great stuff. No whiners could even argue with that.

[Meathead]

No whiners could even argue with that.
newbie

[Saratoga Slim]

i nominate LifetimeBillsFan's last post as best of the draft

I second that, brother

[Mr. Pink]

Let me put it this way: supply and demand determine value more than anything else.

If a player is projected before the draft to go in the 4th Round, but, for some reason, 4 teams are planning to take him at the top of the second round and a fifth team jumps up to grab him in the late first round because they need him, too, then that player has late-first round or, at the very least, early second round value and the team that ended up with him got "their money's worth". The rest of the world could scream all it wants about that that player should have been taken in the 4th round, but that doesn't matter because, woulda, coulda, shoulda aside, he would not have been on the board in the 4th round. It's that simple.

Thing is this, publicly NO one knows any of this information. And teams put out feelers and spread bogus information to try to "shake things up" and force the hands of other GMs in the league. If you force a conference/division rival into wasting a pick based on your disinformation, you've won. See Cleveland swapping spots with Baltimore when Cleveland had no interest in Ngata.

Because there really weren't that many DTs in this draft who can play the position that the Bills were looking to fill, the choice for the Bills at the top of this draft was Whitner (or maybe Huff)/McCargo or Bunkley/Bullocks (Griffin). One way or the other, the Bills HAD to get either Bunkley or McCargo because, if they didn't want to take a chance on Wroten and his character issues, they were going to end up like the NY Giants did, after missing out on McCargo, with the likes of Barry Cofield.

The choice was not Bunkley vs McCargo or Bunkley vs Whitner, it was the S/DT combination vs the DT/S combination. The Bills had no idea that they would be able to take Simpson later on and it might not have mattered anyway because Simpson is going to take more time to be ready to compete for a starting job that a number of the safeties or CB/S guys who were available at the start of the draft.

I can't say for certain whether the Bills were really interested in getting Huff or if the guy they really wanted was Whitner, who has more experience playing SS in a Cover 2 defense and is nearly as fast as Huff, who the Bills may have seen more as a CB. What I do know is that a lot of people had Detroit taking Huff, if he fell to them, and that they did take the next pure Cover 2 safety taken after Whitner, in Bullocks, with their pick in Round 2. I also know that there were reports before the draft that the Bills were not as high on Bunkley as they seemed to be, that there was at least the possibility that they might go with Whitner (a player they really liked), and Marv Levy told people that the Bills might take a player that they probably could get a few picks later than the # 8 pick. That leads me to believe that the safety that they liked the most was Whitner--who fits Marv's description, not Huff--who some had projected to go before # 8 and almost all of the rest had going to Detroit at # 9.

All of this above in my estimation makes me think that the Bills truly did intend on targeting Huff. Everyone had Huff as the best safety on the board, without question. You don't prior to the draft target the second best safety in the draft on purpose. When Oakland let the QBs slide by them and took Huff, I do believe it sent a shakeup through the brass. They panicked and took a guy who yes has talent, not top 10 talent however, who fits their system. I like the player, just not how we acquired him. Like I've said in the past, gaining extra picks is just important when you have a ton of holes. Much speculation was made that Ernie Sims was Detroits' guy all along and if Cleveland was able to phenangle a 6th rounder out of Baltimore in a really BS move, Buffalo could have got at least a 3rd out of Arizona, or even more out of a team like Denver.

I also know that there were other teams picking in the middle of the first round who were interested in drafting Whitner--Miami was one that was prominently mentioned. And, that Philly had reportedly been interested in trading up with the Bills to the # 8 spot, which would have left the Bills with the # 14 pick. As it turned out, J.Clayton reported that just such a deal was offered to the Bills on draft day. St.Louis, with the # 11 pick, was reported to be interested in trading up to # 8 to take J.Cutler, but, as subsequent events proved, they weren't interested in taking Cutler at all--so that probably was just a rumour. With Leinart and Cutler available at # 8, Denver also reported to be offering a deal to the Bills, but with Denver having the # 15 pick, the best position that the Bills could have found themselves in if they made a trade was # 14.

With Leinart and Cutler still on the board and Huff gone at # 8, it has been said that the Bills could have traded down and still gotten Whitner. But, the best that they could have done was end up at # 14. Some have said that the Bills could have made a deal with Arizona at # 10, but, with two QBs still on the board, there would have been no reason for the Cards to trade up to #8 to get a QB--if they wanted one, they could sit still and wait to see if one went off the board at # 8 and then paid less to move up one spot to get the other; if they didn't like the QB that was left, they could simply pass and take the player that they had been planning to take if Leinart and Cutler had been taken earlier as expected. St.Louis had been reported to be interested in trading up to get Cutler, but they passed on him when they could have had him for nothing. Rather than being a trading partner for the Bills, it is possible that the Rams, having lost A.Archuleta, might have been a team that was interested in taking Whitner at # 11--they traded down out of that spot after the Bills selected Whitner, so who knows? On draft day there were reports that Cleveland, who had traded away C.Crocker in the off-season, had been interested in Whitner as well, so they were not a potential trade partner for the Bills, either. So, Leinart and Cutler aside, the best deal that we know that the Bills could have gotten was with Philly and would have left them at # 14. But, Philly was going to take Bunkley, not Ngata, so trading with them would have meant that, if another team were to take Whitner before the # 14 pick, they would not only lose out on Whitner, but would not be able to get Bunkley, either. Then what? They would have HAD to get McCargo and take the next best safety that they had on their board.

Cleveland had 0 interest in Whinter on draft day, I guarantee you that. Wimbley is the guy they wanted and the guy they got. Crocker was traded because Brodney Pool, a second round pick last year, is there.

It is easy to say that there were no teams picking between #8 and # 14 that would have taken Whitner, but is that absolutely true? Detroit was projected to take a safety at # 9 and took one with their pick in the second round--obviously they were interested in drafting that position. St.Louis, at # 11, had lost its best safety, so they might have considered Whitner. Cleveland and Baltimore, at # 12 and # 13, were in the same position as the Rams. And, then, there was Miami, at # 16, whose interest in Whitner was well-known, that might have been interested in moving up a couple of spots past the Bills if Whitner was still on the board. That's five teams that could be expected to have some interest in Whitner in a position to select him if the Bills moved down to # 14 and all it would take would be for one of them to take Whitner to ruin the Bills' draft with Philly taking Bunkley off of the board.

Detroit wanted Sims, they said as much. Zona was going QB to be the heir apparent to Warner. Cleveland had interest in no one other than Wimbley, and Baltimore was taking Ngata because Ray Lewis dictated as such. When you're the franchise player and unhappy you do have some clout, so don't kid yourself. That leaves St Louis, who yes could have taken Whitner but we'll never know. To be safe, we coulda traded down with Zona and picked up a 4 very easily. All I know is St Louis traded down and then passed on Jason Allen who could play Safety as well.

Still, according to PFW, the Bills WERE interested in a trade down until they got late word that they might end up without Whitner if they did make a trade. Whether they made a trade with Philly or Denver, they would be in a position to lose out on both Whitner and Bunkley because Bunkley would not get past Philly.

But if we stayed ahead of Philly we still coulda got either.

So, yes, they decided to play it safe and take Whitner at # 8 rather than risk losing out on him. What good would an extra second round pick have been to the Bills if they lost out on the two players who were the keystones of the two combinations of players that could best address the team's defensive needs? Once they had Whitner, it no longer mattered if Bunkley went to Philly because McCargo was still there to fill their need at DT and they had the picks to trade up to insure that they got him if need be.

So, was picking Whitner at # 8 really that much of a reach? If there was any truth, whatsoever, to the report that PFW says that the Bills received that there were teams prepared to take Whitner before the # 14 pick, no. If the team was Detroit, then it can be argued that taking Whitner one pick prior to when another team was prepared to take him made that selection a value pick. But, even if it wasn't Detroit, obviously there were some teams interested in taking Whitner in the #8-# 13 range. That means that there was demand for Whitner and he was taken within, at most, 5 picks of where he would have been taken, no more. That can hardly be called a "reach", especially when it insured that the Bills would be in a position to fill their priority needs on defense with the combination of players at safety and defensive tackle that they deemed to be the best combination that they could select.

It has been argued that the Bills could have taken Bunkley and C.Griffin or some other safety in Round 2 and it would not have cost them a third round pick. True. Actually, if the Bills had drafted Bunkley, the safety that they would have most likely taken would have been D.Bullocks, who went to Detroit in the second round. If the Bills were more interested in a Cover 2 safety, like Whitner, than a CB/S guy, like Huff, they would not have been interested in Griffin if they could have taken Bullocks instead. But, obviously, neither the Bills nor the rest of the GMs in the NFL thought anywhere near as much of Bullocks as they did of Whitner: after the Bills took Whitner, all of the teams that might have had some interest in Whitner passed on Bullocks, including Miami, who selected Allen, a CB/S guy, and Detroit, the team that eventually ended up taking Bullocks a full round later than Miami and at least one team picking in the top 13 were interested in taking Whitner.

The Bills may have--and probably did--think Bunkley was better than McCargo, who Marv admitted that he thought would be available at # 42 in the second round, but in their estimation--and that of every other GM in the league--so much better than than Bullocks or the next highest rated safety on their board that it more than made up for they felt was the difference between Bunkley and McCargo. It's not just the Bills that had Whitner rated that highly in comparison to the other remaining safeties, it was the GMs of every other team that had been projected to take Whitner in the middle of the first round who all passed on Bullocks and the rest when they had the chance to take him. So, what does that say about Whitner's value?

If Marv estimated that McCargo would be there at 42, why was the trade up consumated? It makes no sense. You cannot guess that Whitners' value is where we took him based on any of this considering Jason Allen who was thought of much in the same regard prior to draft day went 16th. So at best, you could say Whitner had pick 16 value. Seeing as you said, Detroit passed on Allen.

As I've pointed out in many other threads, once the Bills drafted Whitner with their first pick, they absolutely HAD to have McCargo. Here again, there are a lot of people who are convinced that the Bills "reached" and overpaid for McCargo because he was not projected to go until the mid-second round or later. But, again, supply and demand determines value. And, as I have shown in my thread about the NY Giants' interest in McCargo, after Bobby Carpenter was drafted by the Cowboys, the Giants were definitely considering taking McCargo with the # 32 pick in the draft--I would argue that the evidence supports the contention that they definitely WOULD have taken McCargo with that pick because anyone who thinks that the Giants would have passed up the opportunity to fill a position of need (where they unexpectedly lost their starting DT in free agency) with the third best DT in the draft to select a DE whose stock has been dropping, when they have TWO Pro Bowl DEs on their roster, so that they could fill their need at DT with Barry Cofield is out of his mind!

Like you said above once the Bills got Whitner they HAD TO go get McCargo. While I don't understand the Giants pick of Kiwi to say that they wanted or would have taken McCargo is something we'll never know. Ernie Accorsi is a technically sound and good GM...if they wanted McCargo and he wasn't there at their pick, he's not the guy to panic and just take someone. So they must have liked Kiwi for whatever reason. Point is this, you figured out we had to have McCargo, the other GMs around the league knew this too. Plus going off Accorsi from when he was in charge of the Browns on draft day, he never drafted based on need, he went after guys who were BPA.

Regardless of where McCargo was projected to be drafted, the fact is that he was going to be drafted by the Giants with the # 32 pick in the first round. Like it or not, that means that he was a late-first round draft pick--that's the value that he actually had on draft day.

We agree to disagree here, based on Accorsi.

Fortunately for the Bills, the men in their "war room" convinced Marv Levy, by his own account, that McCargo would not last until the Bills' picked in the second round with the # 42 pick and the Bills were able to trade up with Chicago to the # 26 pick. That allowed the Bills to select McCargo before the NY Giants could. Doing that was NOT "reaching"--the McCargo was going to be a late-first round draft pick and that's where the Bills drafted him, late in the first round.

Yes, moving up for McCargo cost the Bills a third round draft pick. But, when you consider that, if the Bills had not gotten McCargo, they would have had to settle for C.Wroten, a player with character issues that Levy did not want to pick, or one of the defensive tackles that the entire NFL passed on for almost three full rounds (there were 81 picks between the McCargo selection and the selection of G.Watson the next pure DT to be drafted other than Wroten). It could be argued that it was worth a third round pick to draft a player who was going to be taken in the late first round rather than have to settle for a player who no NFL team was willing to take until the early 4th round.

Or could have gotten Babatunde Oshinowo in the later rounds who's a run stuffing beast. Which was Buffalos' number 1 defensive weakness last year.

While the Bills did miss out on obtaining an extra second or third round draft pick and give up a third round pick to acquire Whitner, a player who had an actual #8-#13 pick value, and McCargo, a player who had an actual # 26-# 32 pick value and was 81 picks more valuable than the value of the next DT that they could reasonably have been expected to consider, they ended up with the combination of players at safety and DT they had most highly rated and avoided the possibility that that they would have had to "reach" further to obtain the combination of McCargo and Bullocks to to fill those positions.

If you think that Whitner had 8-13 pick value, and as I showed, you technically could make the argument he had 16 pick value, then the Bills could have traded down and still got him. And I stand by what Levy says, McCargo woulda been there at 42. By the way does that also mean Youboty was 70 value? And Simpson 105? You can't consider Youboty or Simpson value picks if you don't consider the first two guys reach picks.

That's right, McCargo and Bullocks would have been the best DT/S combination that the Bills could have come out of the draft with if they had traded down with Philly and one team in the top 13 had drafted Whitner. And that is ONLY if the Bills had selected McCargo with the # 14 pick--if you thought he was a reach at # 26, how does that grab you?--or made the same trade that actually did make with Chicago to select McCargo at # 26 after taking Bullocks at # 14. Yes, the Bills would have ended up with an extra second round pick, but, if you think that the Bills are a considered a laughingstock around the NFL now for picking Whitner and McCargo when they did, how much more of a laughingstock would they have been considered if they had taken Bullocks or McCargo at # 14? But, that's what they would have had to do to fill the positions of greatest priority on their defense. And, if they missed out on McCargo...fuggeddaboudit!!! Watson/Williams or Williams/Cofield would have been the DTs the Bills would have come out of the draft with if they passed on Wroten. Would it have been worth a second or third round pick to have had to address the DT spot with two 4th rounders and the safety spot with a second rounder instead of addressing those positions with two first round picks and a 4th rounder?

Instead you woulda seen the Bills probably take Jason Allen at 14.

How much of a "reach" are the Whitner and McCargo picks when you assess the value of the players in terms of where they were likely to have been drafted if the Bills did not draft them instead of where the "draft gurus" thought that those players woulda, coulda, shoulda been taken? Supply and demand determines value.

Which is why I have said nothing about the Youboty and Simpson picks other than that I like them. I hate to burst anybody's bubbles, there's a reason that these two players lasted as long as they did despite being so highly thought of by the draft "experts"---both are extremely talented, but, if you read about their weaknesses, it is clear than both are going to take a little longer to develop into starting caliber players than say Whitner or Huff or even Allen because there are still some things that they need to learn to do better and improve on before they get to that point. Both have a lot of potential and if they learn those things they are going to be pretty good players. But, it is going to take more time. And, that's why Youboty is a third rounder and Simpson a fourth rounder. Nice picks in those rounds and nice additions to the Bills' defense. Steals? Very possibly, if they keep developing and improve on their weaknesses and strengths. But, it's too early tell. Still, I like what I've seen of them and think they have lots of potential.

With Youboty I have no idea why he fell as much as he did, he's not much different than Nate was at Ohio St and in my estimation was just as good as Ahmed Plummer.


All in all a very good post, but I had to be difficult and respond to it because someone said not even a whiner could. :)

[Drive 4 Five]

and if Whitner is such a playmaker, how come NO ONE discussed him as a possibility for Buffalo until Tagliabue announced his name on Saturday?

Where have you been? The guy from NFL Network did. Mike Mayoc I believe. Ask ICE.

[OpIv37]

Where have you been? The guy from NFL Network did. Mike Mayoc I believe. Ask ICE.

must've missed it.

[Mr. Cynical]

Yes, you can only do so much in one draft, but you can do more with 10 picks than 9 and with 6 picks in the first four rounds than 4.

Yes, they got Vincent's successor. But what about simple starting talent and "successors" for Anderson, Gandy, Teague, and other line spots that suck now?

How does McCargo help us stop the run? He's reveiwed as a horrible run stopper.

The name of the game is priorities.

Furthermore, how long before a bunch of Juniors come up to speed?

:bf1:

:10:

Couldn't have said it any better.

[Mr. Cynical]

His inexperience showed, but at LEAST he got players this team NEEDS.

Need #1: Fix the oline so it can block more than a balloon.
Need #2: Fix the dline so it can stop RBs from running though it like s**t through a goose.

I just don't see how taking a safety, a pass rushing DT and a CB with our first 3 picks (technically 4 with the trade) addressed this team's primary needs.

[John Doe]

:bf1:

:10:

Couldn't have said it any better.

Who said that McCargo was "horrible" against the run?

[justasportsfan]

Who said that McCargo was "horrible" against the run?statman's wealthy friend

[G. Host]

Many fans are as sour on Bills as Jerry Sullivan and Up'Chuck DICKerson. They are not fans any more, they are anti-fans.

[Mr. Cynical]

Many fans are as sour on Bills as Jerry Sullivan and Up'Chuck DICKerson. They are not fans any more, they are anti-fans.

Keep drinking. :up:

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Many fans are as sour on Bills as Jerry Sullivan and Up'Chuck DICKerson. They are not fans any more, they are anti-fans.

You're not kidding!!!

Based on the dancing that Ernie Accorsi did in his comments to the media after the draft, which I posted in a previous thread, I will have to respectfully agree to disagree with you on McCargo, Justa. As for Detroit passing on Allen, they may have had concerns about his hip injury. Miami took him, but only after Whitner, who they reportedly were very interested in taking was gone. The Bills might have had similar concerns about Allen's injury and, as a result, had Whitner rated much higher than Allen and Bullocks. And, you're right, we don't know about St.Louis, who drafted a CB and is reportedly going to try to replace Archuleta by converting Alston to safety.... Arizona did not have to trade down with the Bills to get a QB because at that stage they knew that, with the money the Lions have tied up in QBs, Detroit wasn't taking a QB. If the Bills traded down with a team that did want a QB, they could have flipped picks with the Lions for less than going to # 8 would have cost them to insure that the Lions didn't trade with a team that wanted the remaining QB.

As for taking a 3-gap DT in McCargo instead of a 1-gap DT, it is much harder to find a 3-gap DT than it is a 1-gap DT--there just aren't as many guys who can play that position available. And, McCargo, like Williams--who is primarily a 1-gap DT, can play the 1-gap position if necessary and in certain situations, especially as he gets stronger. In passing situations, you can use a 3-gap DT at the 1-gap spot because his ability to penetrate creates problems for the pass protectors. The Bills have already said that you will see McCargo playing with Tripplett on passing downs. Additionally, because they want to rotate their DTs frequently to keep them fresh, they needed to have a second DT who could play the 3-gap position to rotate with Tripplett at that spot. They are now set at that spot because Williams can give them a couple of downs there if needed, but he's more of a 1-gap guy.

Also, I would not be surprised if the Bills were to sign another DT--a 1-gap player--before training camp. With the draft having come and gone, the price for some of the remaining free agents will go down and there will be roster cuts that will add to the pool of available 1-gap DTs. Line play--as well as LB play--in the Cover 2 defense is a lot different than in the "Titans 46" defense that the Bills were playing with Jerry Gray as DC--the personnel is different and what they ask the linemen to do to stop the run is different. I don't think it is possible to say how well these players, in this scheme, will work at stopping the run until we see them play in it. It's still a question-mark, but they seem to be acquiring players that they think will fit the scheme and we know one thing for sure--without Pat Williams, the Bills weren't able to stop the run with the people that they had in the scheme they were using last season! I'm willing to wait and see what the team looks like on the field before making any judgement about whether they will be better able to stop the run than last season or not. I think it is just too early to tell with a totally new system like this one.

[Kerr]

You're not kidding!!!

Based on the dancing that Ernie Accorsi did in his comments to the media after the draft, which I posted in a previous thread, I will have to respectfully agree to disagree with you on McCargo, Justa. As for Detroit passing on Allen, they may have had concerns about his hip injury. Miami took him, but only after Whitner, who they reportedly were very interested in taking was gone. The Bills might have had similar concerns about Allen's injury and, as a result, had Whitner rated much higher than Allen and Bullocks. And, you're right, we don't know about St.Louis, who drafted a CB and is reportedly going to try to replace Archuleta by converting Alston to safety.... Arizona did not have to trade down with the Bills to get a QB because at that stage they knew that, with the money the Lions have tied up in QBs, Detroit wasn't taking a QB. If the Bills traded down with a team that did want a QB, they could have flipped picks with the Lions for less than going to # 8 would have cost them to insure that the Lions didn't trade with a team that wanted the remaining QB.

As for taking a 3-gap DT in McCargo instead of a 1-gap DT, it is much harder to find a 3-gap DT than it is a 1-gap DT--there just aren't as many guys who can play that position available. And, McCargo, like Williams--who is primarily a 1-gap DT, can play the 1-gap position if necessary and in certain situations, especially as he gets stronger. In passing situations, you can use a 3-gap DT at the 1-gap spot because his ability to penetrate creates problems for the pass protectors. The Bills have already said that you will see McCargo playing with Tripplett on passing downs. Additionally, because they want to rotate their DTs frequently to keep them fresh, they needed to have a second DT who could play the 3-gap position to rotate with Tripplett at that spot. They are now set at that spot because Williams can give them a couple of downs there if needed, but he's more of a 1-gap guy.

Also, I would not be surprised if the Bills were to sign another DT--a 1-gap player--before training camp. With the draft having come and gone, the price for some of the remaining free agents will go down and there will be roster cuts that will add to the pool of available 1-gap DTs. Line play--as well as LB play--in the Cover 2 defense is a lot different than in the "Titans 46" defense that the Bills were playing with Jerry Gray as DC--the personnel is different and what they ask the linemen to do to stop the run is different. I don't think it is possible to say how well these players, in this scheme, will work at stopping the run until we see them play in it. It's still a question-mark, but they seem to be acquiring players that they think will fit the scheme and we know one thing for sure--without Pat Williams, the Bills weren't able to stop the run with the people that they had in the scheme they were using last season! I'm willing to wait and see what the team looks like on the field before making any judgement about whether they will be better able to stop the run than last season or not. I think it is just too early to tell with a totally new system like this one.

:posrep:

lbf, stop making sense all the time. :D

[Mr. Pink]

You're not kidding!!!

Arizona did not have to trade down with the Bills to get a QB because at that stage they knew that, with the money the Lions have tied up in QBs, Detroit wasn't taking a QB. If the Bills traded down with a team that did want a QB, they could have flipped picks with the Lions for less than going to # 8 would have cost them to insure that the Lions didn't trade with a team that wanted the remaining QB.

As for taking a 3-gap DT in McCargo instead of a 1-gap DT, it is much harder to find a 3-gap DT than it is a 1-gap DT--there just aren't as many guys who can play that position available. And, McCargo, like Williams--who is primarily a 1-gap DT, can play the 1-gap position if necessary and in certain situations, especially as he gets stronger. In passing situations, you can use a 3-gap DT at the 1-gap spot because his ability to penetrate creates problems for the pass protectors. The Bills have already said that you will see McCargo playing with Tripplett on passing downs. Additionally, because they want to rotate their DTs frequently to keep them fresh, they needed to have a second DT who could play the 3-gap position to rotate with Tripplett at that spot. They are now set at that spot because Williams can give them a couple of downs there if needed, but he's more of a 1-gap guy.

Also, I would not be surprised if the Bills were to sign another DT--a 1-gap player--before training camp. With the draft having come and gone, the price for some of the remaining free agents will go down and there will be roster cuts that will add to the pool of available 1-gap DTs. Line play--as well as LB play--in the Cover 2 defense is a lot different than in the "Titans 46" defense that the Bills were playing with Jerry Gray as DC--the personnel is different and what they ask the linemen to do to stop the run is different. I don't think it is possible to say how well these players, in this scheme, will work at stopping the run until we see them play in it. It's still a question-mark, but they seem to be acquiring players that they think will fit the scheme and we know one thing for sure--without Pat Williams, the Bills weren't able to stop the run with the people that they had in the scheme they were using last season! I'm willing to wait and see what the team looks like on the field before making any judgement about whether they will be better able to stop the run than last season or not. I think it is just too early to tell with a totally new system like this one.

On Arizona not having to trade up....fact is they liked one guy over the other, seeing they took Lienart at 10. If you put pressure on them, making them thing you may actually take Lienart at 8, they would attempt to trade up in efforts of getting their guy. Or if you made Baltimore think you were after Ngata so they woulda traded up to get their guy.

This is my main problem with the drafting of McCargo. We now have 2 3-gap tackles and neither all that good against the run. Sure they'll get pressure on the QBs in 3rd and 5 situations, but the problem is, not many teams will be put in that position after they're running for 4-5 yards a pop against us. I would have much rather later in the draft got the 1 gap guy who eats up space to stuff the run, that way a guy like Triplett is able to help out the rush from the front 4 which makes Schoebel even better. I'm sure none of us disagree that our rush defense was the biggest weakness last year.

Now, if we would have signed one of the one-gap guys via free agency who have proven year in year out they can get the job down at that spot, I wouldn't be as quizzical about the pick of McCargo and the way they went about doing it. A player like Ted Washington or even at this point with how things have gone kept Big Sam on the roster.

So I guess my main point is this, what good is having 2 3-gap tackles on the roster when you can't stop the run worth crap?

[doug45]

people like flash anymore and instant fixes, it's all about being patient


I don't think anyone wants instant anything we have been told to be patient for over 8 years now. And I wouldn't call it Flash, I think what people like is to WIN, and I don't mean in a few MORE rebuilding years.

[finsrclowns]

In my comments before the draft I said that drafting defense is the fastest way to improve our team. I posted a mock with our first 5 picks going to defense. The funny thing is, even though we reached some on our first two picks and even though I thought my mock was fairly optimistic about what we could do, our actual draft is clearly better than my mock.

If people look at what we did rationally it's an impressive haul AND the defense first strategy was clearly the correct one. I'm excited about our draft and it doesn't look like we picked any problem types.

[Bill Cody]

I don't think anyone wants instant anything we have been told to be patient for over 8 years now. And I wouldn't call it Flash, I think what people like is to WIN, and I don't mean in a few MORE rebuilding years.

It is a rebuilding year whether any of us like it/accept it/support it or not. It is what it is. There are too many young players, too many remaning holes and too many questiosn at QB to expect more than some progress over last year. If we get lucky with the OL and with Losman/Nall next year we could be talking playoffs. If not, next year could be another step back if we have to go a different direction at QB.

I suggest a different mindset with watching this year's team. ENJOY THE GAMES. Our defense will be better this year and we should play a lot more competitively. We should be tough to beat at home. If you have limited expectations we will likely exceed them. If you're going to go in saying "I've waited long enough show me a winner" you'll likely be disapointed. Look for improvement and you may come away feeling great about the future.

[Drive 4 Five]

Nice post DBF. As long as the team plays hard, and they are competitive, and you see imense improvement as the season progresses, I have no problem with that. I can handle losing under those circumstances. However, if our coaching staff is making decisions like the previous, and start shuffling QB's and **** like that, I swear I really will freakin' lose it.

[Mr. Cynical]

I don't think anyone wants instant anything we have been told to be patient for over 8 years now. And I wouldn't call it Flash, I think what people like is to WIN, and I don't mean in a few MORE rebuilding years.

Yep.

[Dr. Lecter]

Yep.

Since TD left a huge mess, what can anybody do about it?

[Mr. Cynical]

Since TD left a huge mess, what can anybody do about it?

I certainly don't expect us to be a competitive team anytime soon after all the crap TD did to the team. But I do expect them to make moves that are smart and to take the team in right direction. IMHO, this draft and the FA moves to date have not been smart.

[John Doe]

This is my main problem with the drafting of McCargo. We now have 2 3-gap tackles and neither all that good against the run.

Who said that McCargo is not "all that good" against the run?

Where are people getting this stuff?

[Mr. Pink]

Who said that McCargo is not "all that good" against the run?

Where are people getting this stuff?


Show me somewhere where it says to the contrary. His raves are his ability to get to the QB in passing situations. That's why he's a 3 gap DT and not a 1 gap. Much the same as Triplett, why do you think he was rotated in and out?

[justasportsfan]

On Arizona not having to trade up....fact is they liked one guy over the other, seeing they took Lienart at 10. If you put pressure on them, making them thing you may actually take Lienart at 8, they would attempt to trade up in efforts of getting their guy. Or if you made Baltimore think you were after Ngata so they woulda traded up to get their guy.?that is not fact but mere assumptions on your part about what the Cards would or wouldn't have done or Baltimore.

If guys on ESPN, NFL network who know more team personel than you do couldn't get the draft right, I doubt you know either.

[Mr. Pink]

that is not fact but mere assumptions on your part about what the Cards would or wouldn't have done or Baltimore.

If guys on ESPN, NFL network who know more team personel than you do couldn't get the draft right, I doubt you know either.


Fact is Cleveland made Baltimore give up a pick to move ONE spot on a guy they had NO interest in. If Phil Savage could do it, so could Marv.

[John Doe]

Show me somewhere where it says to the contrary. His raves are his ability to get to the QB in passing situations. That's why he's a 3 gap DT and not a 1 gap. Much the same as Triplett, why do you think he was rotated in and out?

McCargo is an explosive natural athlete with the quickness off the ball to shoot gaps and get backfield penetration consistently. Even when he does not make the tackle, he disrupts plays before they get started. He has the power to jolt the run-blocking offensive lineman upright, and can disengage and make the tackle on runs up the gut. When offenses try to reach block him on runs away, he consistently gets under the block, keeps the offensive lineman on his shoulder/back and chases down plays between the offensive tackles. His strength combines with his explosiveness for him to jolt the offensive lineman and drive him back into the quarterback's lap. He is very effective when he stunts along the defensive line and has a real closing burst to the quarterback and makes hard hits.
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/players/draft/426185

POSITIVES: Explosive run-defending tackle who flashes power. Plays with excellent pad level, wedges between blocks and is rarely off his feet. Possesses tremendous first-step quickness, makes plays out to the flanks and has a closing burst of speed.
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/players/draft/426185

Satisfied?

[justasportsfan]

Fact is Cleveland made Baltimore give up a pick to move ONE spot on a guy they had NO interest in. If Phil Savage could do it, so could Marv.It's easy to say that after the fact. But at the time, neither you nor I have the facts as to what went on in these conversations.

[Mr. Pink]

Fair Enough.

Thing is most 3 gap tackles at the NFL level aren't at their strongest against the run. Their main contributions is in pass rush.

[Mr. Pink]

It's easy to say that after the fact. But at the time, neither you nor I have the facts as to what went on in these conversations.


You mean it's not easy to see that Cleveland had ZERO interest in Ngata? The two guys tossed around for them were Bunkley and Wimbley....they went with Wimbley because and this is Browns front office speaking, getting a pass rusher that fits the 3-4 system is of more value and harder to find than a 1 gap DT.