Jason Cole report on Doug Whaley

[CommonCents]

 

You do realize we traded up to get Ragland, right? So he wasn't the "next player on the board". You're a coward hiding behind your projections of Shaq and Ragland because you know they can't play right now. Your BS is boring.

Look at draft history before you go spouting off nonsense and name calling like a petulant child. You should notice a trend. If you don't see anything just slowly remove your head from your backside. It's shocking at first, but you can still be a Bill's fan while accepting that things aren't all sunshine and rainbows.

[GunnerBill]

 

Everything about Robert Woods coming out of college screamed "dependable starter" so it wasn't a reach no matter how you slice it. If they took him in the first round I'd see the point.

 

I didn't say it was a reach. Badol's point is that you shouldn't be looking for just "dependable starter" in round 2. He thinks you should be forgetting what your needs are and what positions you need dependable starters in and should just focus on who is most likely player at an impact position to be a star player not just a dependable starter.

[eball]

 

I didn't say it was a reach. Badol's point is that you shouldn't be looking for just "dependable starter" in round 2. He thinks you should be forgetting what your needs are and what positions you need dependable starters in and should just focus on who is most likely player at an impact position to be a star player not just a dependable starter.

 

Ok.

[GunnerBill]

i agree. Between Cole and lacanfora there is a mole somewhere who has it out for Whaley. Oh, and occasionally he talks to carucci too it seems.

 

I think there is too. There is someone who wants rid of him.

[Deranged Rhino]

Can you rectify why Woods was the 4th or 5th WR off the board even though he was so "pro-ready?"

 

He had problems staying healthy at USC. But you're right he wasn't projected to be the top WR off the board, still he certainly had a round 1 grade on him by more than a few prognosticators and was considered the most accomplished route runner coming out that year.

 

Looking back, for me, D-Hop is the only WR taken before Woods in that draft I'd rather have on this roster.

[Jauronimo]

 

He had problems staying healthy at USC. But you're right he wasn't projected to be the top WR off the board, still he certainly had a round 1 grade on him by more than a few prognosticators and was considered the most accomplished route runner coming out that year.

 

Looking back, for me, D-Hop is the only WR taken before Woods in that draft I'd rather have on this roster.

Woods didn't (and doesn't) have the height or blazing speed that scouts get enamored with. You know, that Tavon Austin, Cordarelle Patterson, and Justin Hunter type athleticism that scouts covet.

 

We can play this game all day and look at who was selected after our guy. The same game works with 31 other NFL teams too. BADOL has a point, in a bubble, but fails to acknowledge how often players who just need a little "polish" fail to materialize. I doubt he'd take it easy on Whaley for drafting a bunch of first day projects that didn't pan out. Especially if solid no brainer types were on the board.

[Deranged Rhino]

Woods didn't (and doesn't) have the height or blazing speed that scouts get enamored with. You know, that Tavon Austin, Cordarelle Patterson, and Justin Hunter type athleticism that scouts covet.

 

We can play this game all day and look at who was selected after our guy. The same game works with 31 other NFL teams too. BADOL has a point, in a bubble, but fails to acknowledge how often players who just need a little "polish" fail to materialize. I doubt he'd take it easy on Whaley for drafting a bunch of first day projects that didn't pan out. Especially if solid no brainer types were on the board.

 

100%

[FireChan]

 

He had problems staying healthy at USC. But you're right he wasn't projected to be the top WR off the board, still he certainly had a round 1 grade on him by more than a few prognosticators and was considered the most accomplished route runner coming out that year.

 

Looking back, for me, D-Hop is the only WR taken before Woods in that draft I'd rather have on this roster.

Hopkins for sure and I think there's an argument for Austin.

 

J-mo really nailed what I was going for earlier. Woods' ceiling was much lower than Austin, Patterson and Hopkins' and that's why he went after them.

 

Woods didn't (and doesn't) have the height or blazing speed that scouts get enamored with. You know, that Tavon Austin, Cordarelle Patterson, and Justin Hunter type athleticism that scouts covet.

 

We can play this game all day and look at who was selected after our guy. The same game works with 31 other NFL teams too. BADOL has a point, in a bubble, but fails to acknowledge how often players who just need a little "polish" fail to materialize. I doubt he'd take it easy on Whaley for drafting a bunch of first day projects that didn't pan out. Especially if solid no brainer types were on the board.

No he doesn't, he just values their performance if and when they pan out to be worth that risk.

[Dorkington]

It's kind of interesting... when we take a risk on a high ceiling guy, we're 'wasting picks on risky players'. When we take a high floor, low risk guy, we're 'wasting picks on non stars'.

 

Sounds like we should trade 100% of our picks for vets, if I'm understanding correctly.

[FireChan]

It's kind of interesting... when we take a risk on a high ceiling guy, we're 'wasting picks on risky players'. When we take a high floor, low risk guy, we're 'wasting picks on non stars'.

 

Sounds like we should trade 100% of our picks for vets, if I'm understanding correctly.

Nice.

[Jauronimo]

Hopkins for sure and I think there's an argument for Austin.

 

J-mo really nailed what I was going for earlier. Woods' ceiling was much lower than Austin, Patterson and Hopkins' and that's why he went after them.

 

No he doesn't, he just values their performance if and when they pan out to be worth that risk.

Or maybe the ceiling was incorrectly identified all along. Or maybe you should pay attention to the floor in these scenarios (i.e., risk).

 

 

he just values their performance if and when they pan out to be worth that risk.

That's what I said. He focuses on when it works out and those instances where its clearly worth the risk. What about when it isn't worth the risk? What about when the safe pick crushes it? You can't base your draft philosophy on the success stories while ignoring the other side of the coin. Why don't I tell you the story of Qualcomm, Google, Facebook as evidence of how buying tech stocks is the way to get super rich? We won't talk about the dotcom crash. We won't mention all the failures. Assuming risk isn't inherently good, despite what I'm reading here.

[FireChan]

Or maybe the ceiling was incorrectly identified all along. Or maybe you should pay attention to the floor in these scenarios (i.e., risk).

 

That's what I said. He focuses on when it works out and those instances where its clearly worth the risk. What about when it isn't worth the risk? What about when the safe pick crushes it? You can't base your draft philosophy on the success stories while ignoring the other side of the coin. Why don't I tell you the story of Qualcomm, Google, Facebook as evidence of how buying tech stocks is the way to get super rich? We won't talk about the dotcom crash. We won't mention all the failures. Assuming risk isn't inherently good, despite what I'm reading here.

Saying it isn't worth the risk is hindsight. Myles Jack will be worth the risk where he was taken IMO, even if he never plays a down.

 

I'm assuming without the numbers in front of me that high potential draftees turn into stars much more frequently than low potential safe picks.

Edited August 11, 2016 by FireChan

[White Linen]

Look at draft history before you go spouting off nonsense and name calling like a petulant child. You should notice a trend. If you don't see anything just slowly remove your head from your backside. It's shocking at first, but you can still be a Bill's fan while accepting that things aren't all sunshine and rainbows.

 

No you look at draft history before you tell all the untruths to fit your BS narrative. Accepting wrongness doesn't make you realistic.

 

Was RB a need when we drafted Karlos? Was RB a need this year when drafting Williams? Was DT a need when drafting Washington this year?

 

Yes you draft some needs and if the player at the position of need is close in terms of grade to the others at an off position - you draft them. If a player is graded significantly higher at a non position of need you draft them.

 

Are you seriously going to try and preach to us with your paltry examples of teams drafting outside of need - to mean the majority of what they draft isn't at need positions?

 

You'll say anything to dog this organization and you define that as fandom.

[CommonCents]

 

No you look at draft history before you tell all the untruths to fit your BS narrative. Accepting wrongness doesn't make you realistic.

 

Was RB a need when we drafted Karlos? Was RB a need this year when drafting Williams? Was DT a need when drafting Washington this year?

 

Yes you draft some needs and if the player at the position of need is close in terms of grade to the others at an off position - you draft them. If a player is graded significantly higher at a non position of need you draft them.

 

Are you seriously going to try and preach to us with your paltry examples of teams drafting outside of need - to mean the majority of what they draft isn't at need positions?

 

You'll say anything to dog this organization and you define that as fandom.

Was Washington a need? Not unless we are going are pushing career backups into starting roles like Bryant and whom ever else still lingers around. Kyle is on his last legs, will anyone be surprised if this is his last season here?

 

Was Karlos a need? I don't know, I remember Fred being cut after a good preseason game. That tells me they wanted to move on from him and used a pick on a RB to do so.

 

I don't remember ever saying not to fill a need, when you do it pick after pick you are undoubtedly passing on superior talent in order to "fill" out your roster. Let's see how these season shakes out. If we have a worse record than last year we can revisit all these conversations. This team is a Tyrod Taylor MVP season away from the playoffs, I have my fingers crossed.

[White Linen]

Was Washington a need? Not unless we are going are pushing career backups into starting roles like Bryant and whom ever else still lingers around. Kyle is on his last legs, will anyone be surprised if this is his last season here?

 

Was Karlos a need? I don't know, I remember Fred being cut after a good preseason game. That tells me they wanted to move on from him and used a pick on a RB to do so.

 

I don't remember ever saying not to fill a need, when you do it pick after pick you are undoubtedly passing on superior talent in order to "fill" out your roster. Let's see how these season shakes out. If we have a worse record than last year we can revisit all these conversations. This team is a Tyrod Taylor MVP season away from the playoffs, I have my fingers crossed.

 

No you said we in consecutive picks drafted a player at need. That isn't true. We traded up to get Ragland - which is much different than slim odds that you just pick a player of need at your slot in consecutive rounds.

 

"The odds are probably pretty slim that the best player on the board is your biggest position of need, when that happens in consecutive rounds your probably paddling full steam up ***** creek and over valuing guys that fit your biggest need."

[Jauronimo]

Saying it isn't worth the risk is hindsight. Myles Jack will be worth the risk where he was taken IMO, even if he never plays a down.

 

I'm assuming without the numbers in front of me that high potential draftees turn into stars much more frequently than low potential safe picks.

BADOL's whole argument was predicated on hindsight.

 

What numbers are there to look at when you're assuming that one extremely subjective and nearly impossible to define metric like "high potential" pans out more frequently than another extremely subjective and nearly impossible to define metric like "low potential"? What was the "potential" gap between Woods and Patterson, Hunter, and Austin?

[CommonCents]

Biggest need filled in the first round with Lawson. What was the second biggest need? ILB....oh look Ragland is sliding down the board. He is a 150 tackle guy blah blah blah...he is a great linebacker a decade ago, now he is a younger version of Brandon Spikes. First two picks two biggest needs filled then on to Washington etc. Was this is a perfect draft or was it a patchwork attempt to acquire guys for Rex to revamp the defense? We won't be able to judge that for a few years because of injuries. I forget, weren't the comments made that Whaley would have taken Ragland at 19 if Shaq wasn't there? Does anyone of this not seem all too convienent for any one team.

 

What are the chances that Ragland an ILB is going to have more impact than those guys we didn't draft? Then in the process you dropped 2 more 4th round picks to get up and get him. Injuries or not it was a silly move.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.buffalorumblings.com/platform/amp/buffalo-bills-news/2016/4/29/11542076/reggie-ragland-preston-brown-bills-depth-chart-doug-whaley?client=safari

 

Discussion over. Our two biggest needs were edge and ILB, look who Whaley says were the top two players on his board at 19. How convienent.

[John from Riverside]

Biggest need filled in the first round with Lawson. What was the second biggest need? ILB....oh look Ragland is sliding down the board. He is a 150 tackle guy blah blah blah...he is a great linebacker a decade ago, now he is a younger version of Brandon Spikes. First two picks two biggest needs filled then on to Washington etc. Was this is a perfect draft or was it a patchwork attempt to acquire guys for Rex to revamp the defense? We won't be able to judge that for a few years because of injuries. I forget, weren't the comments made that Whaley would have taken Ragland at 19 if Shaq wasn't there? Does anyone of this not seem all too convienent for any one team.

 

What are the chances that Ragland an ILB is going to have more impact than those guys we didn't draft? Then in the process you dropped 2 more 4th round picks to get up and get him. Injuries or not it was a silly move.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.buffalorumblings.com/platform/amp/buffalo-bills-news/2016/4/29/11542076/reggie-ragland-preston-brown-bills-depth-chart-doug-whaley?client=safari

 

Discussion over. Our two biggest needs were edge and ILB, look who Whaley says were the top two players on his board at 19. How convienent.

Nobody will be complaining at all if he turns into a young David Harris

[Wayne Cubed]

BADOL's whole argument was predicated on hindsight.

 

What numbers are there to look at when you're assuming that one extremely subjective and nearly impossible to define metric like "high potential" pans out more frequently than another extremely subjective and nearly impossible to define metric like "low potential"? What was the "potential" gap between Woods and Patterson, Hunter, and Austin?

Haha, I had a whole reply written out like this but decided against posting it. But yea, what you said.

 

Who defines these terms?

[boater]

Untrue. He was GM in all but title.

So, is your next username going to be "FireWhaley"?