Kelly the Dog Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Rogers was rated higher (by the draftnicks like Kiper) than Conlon in the '87 draft. He was that year's Mario Williams. Conlon was a top-10 guy, but had nowhere near the buzz to ensure that other teams would reach on him prior to the 8th spot. It would've been very easy for Bill and Marv to decide to bypass Rogers in putting together their draft board, knowing that other teams coveted him. 667563[/snapback] So if you were drafting #3 and you were so certain that you wanted Conlan and only Conlan, so much so that you had already put your foot down and told your boss that "this is the guy we're drafting!", you would trade down to #8 from #3 knowing he was a top ten pick? Again, it just doesn't make sense. I am not doubting Marv wanted Conlan and lobbied for him and convinced Polian to take him. (I wanted him, too, after witnessing live him picking off Vinny in the Fiesta Bowl twice I believe and dominating that game). I just don't believe the sequence of Marv's recollection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 So if you were drafting #3 and you were so certain that you wanted Conlan and only Conlan, so much so that you had already put your foot down and told your boss that "this is the guy we're drafting!", you would trade down to #8 from #3 knowing he was a top ten pick? 667653[/snapback] Get the guy you want AND pick up an extra 2nd rounder in the process (Nate Odoms as it turned out). Good deal, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Get the guy you want AND pick up an extra 2nd rounder in the process (Nate Odoms as it turned out). Good deal, IMO. 667656[/snapback] It was a great deal. I just don't think it happened that way. It was a gamble they took that Conlan would still be available, and it worked out terrific. Especially with Odoms, one of my favorite Bills. I noticed you didn't really answer my question though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 you would trade down to #8 from #3 knowing he was a top ten pick? 667653[/snapback] Sure, just like teams building their draft boards right now would be willing to trade down for a Nagta, Bunkley or Justice and snag an extra 2nd rounder this year. Trading down is always a calculated risk, but I think you're reading too much into Marv's "dislike" of Rogers or "love" of Conlon. IMO, Marv didn't want to spend the #3 pick on a guy with character issues. On the other hand, if you can move down five spots and get a very good player like Conlon and pick up Odoms to boot, do it. Let me ask you a question. In the years that Polian and Marv worked together, did we ever have one iota of rumor that they weren't on the same page when it came to draft picks? I can't recall any such situation, but maybe your memory's better than mine. Bottom line: I take Marv and Polian at their words. If you don't, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Sure, just like teams building their draft boards right now would be willing to trade down for a Nagta, Bunkley or Justice and snag an extra 2nd rounder this year. Trading down is always a calculated risk, but I think you're reading too much into Marv's "dislike" of Rogers or "love" of Conlon. IMO, Marv didn't want to spend the #3 pick on a guy with character issues. On the other hand, if you can move down five spots and get a very good player like Conlon and pick up Odoms to boot, do it. Let me ask you a question. In the years that Polian and Marv worked together, did we ever have one iota of rumor that they weren't on the same page when it came to draft picks? I can't recall any such situation, but maybe your memory's better than mine. Bottom line: I take Marv and Polian at their words. If you don't, so be it. 667670[/snapback] The equivalent IMO this year would be for a team, the Titans, at #3, that really, really wanted Vince Young or Vernon Davis, to trade down with the Bills because they were confident enough that Young or Davis would be there at #8. I don't think they would make that move. Again, I am looking at exactly what Marv said. And what Marv said made it look like they had to choose between one of two guys, Conlan and Rogers, and he opted for Conlan. In order for that to happen, this would have had to happen before the trade. I believe that they tried all the time to build a consensus. That is the kind of guy Marv was, and he and Polian were close, and good friends. A lot of times this was possible. But unless you were there, we wouldn't know if there were any disagreements. And Marv wasn't the kind of guy who would go leaking stories to the press if there were. And while Marv is a very trustworthy guy, I wouldn't believe everything Polian said to the press at all. Or Marv for that matter. He is diplomatic. He often isn't going to tell his true feelings to the press. Especially around draft time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Based on Marv's exact quote ML: "I'm never going to bring it down to a final say. I think in the 12 years that I coached here I can only remember one time where I said, 'No we're going to take this guy.' And that was Shane Conlan who we took instead of some guy that wound up going to jail." he is engaging in some revision of the story. Rogers wasn't available at #8. But I certainly don't doubt that they discussed selecting Rogers at No. 8, and decided to trade down instead, taking a chance that Conlan would still be there. Bennett was the true coveted guy at #3. Bills lucked out that Browns picked Junkin. To prove the gods loved Bills in the '80-'90s, the team still ended up with Bennett, Conlan, and a useless Rogers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Based on Marv's exact quote he is engaging in some revision of the story. Rogers wasn't available at #8. But I certainly don't doubt that they discussed selecting Rogers at No. 8, and decided to trade down instead, taking a chance that Conlan would still be there. Bennett was the true coveted guy at #3. Bills lucked out that Browns picked Junkin. To prove the gods loved Bills in the '80-'90s, the team still ended up with Bennett, Conlan, and a useless Rogers. 667680[/snapback] Bennett went #2 to Indy, so if that's who they were targeting, he was off the board and a trade down from #3 makes perfect sense. Rogers was there at #3 and they could have had him if they wanted. In retrospect, I wonder if Woodson wouldn't have been the better pick. 1 Tampa Bay Vinny Testaverde QB Miami 2 Indianapolis Cornelius Bennett OLB Alabama 3 Houston (from Buffalo) Alonzo Highsmith RB Miami 4 Green Bay Brent Fullwood RB Auburn 5 Cleveland Mike Junkin ILB Duke 6 St. Louis Kelly Stouffer QB Colorado State 7 Detroit Reggie Rogers DE Washington 8 Buffalo (trade with Houston) Shane Conlan MLB Penn State 9 Philadelphia Jerome Brown DT Miami 10 Pittsburgh Rod Woodson FS Purdue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Sure, just like teams building their draft boards right now would be willing to trade down for a Nagta, Bunkley or Justice and snag an extra 2nd rounder this year. Trading down is always a calculated risk, but I think you're reading too much into Marv's "dislike" of Rogers or "love" of Conlon. IMO, Marv didn't want to spend the #3 pick on a guy with character issues. On the other hand, if you can move down five spots and get a very good player like Conlon and pick up Odoms to boot, do it. Let me ask you a question. In the years that Polian and Marv worked together, did we ever have one iota of rumor that they weren't on the same page when it came to draft picks? I can't recall any such situation, but maybe your memory's better than mine. Bottom line: I take Marv and Polian at their words. If you don't, so be it. 667670[/snapback] Polian had to twist Marv's arm to do the trade. Marv wanted Conlan at #3, but Polian wanted teh extra pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Interesting article on the '87 draft by Vic Carucci when he still worked at the 'Snooze. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- April 22, 1990 GLANCE BACK AT DRAFT OF '87 PUTS BILLS AT HEAD OF CLASS CONLAN, ODOMES HELPED BUILD BUFFALO'S DEFENSE By VIC CARUCCI News Sports Reporter ASK ANY NFL coach, scout or player-personnel man, and he'll tell you the same thing: It takes three years to accurately judge the quality of a team's draft. There are exceptions when it comes to picks at or near the top of the first round; they are selected with the idea of starting and producing immediately. Quarterbacks, of course, tend to need more development time than those at other positions. But the remaining players are generally seen as three-year projects -- providing they stick around that long. "First of all, almost no rookie is productive," Bills General Manager Bill Polian says. "Secondly, you have to weed out guys who might have one good year and end their careers because of injury, drugs, etc. Thirdly, you have to let the late bloomers come on and show themselves. And, finally, you have to give the young people who come into good teams, where there are people stacked in front of them, an opportunity to show themselves." "The first year is always the most difficult," says Bill Davis, vice president of player personnel for the Philadelphia Eagles. "By his third season, you should know whether a player will make it." Which means the time is right to evaluate the NFL's 1987 draft. The following is a team-by-team look at the winners and losers from '87: BUFFALO -- This was the year the Bills built their defense to a championship level. They picked up inside linebacker Shane Conlan on the first round (and acquired outside linebacker Cornelius Bennett in a midseason trade with Indianapolis), and grabbed cornerback Nate Odomes on the second. Another starter from that group is offensive tackle Howard Ballard (11th), while defensive end Leon Seals (fourth) and tight end Keith McKeller (ninth) are moving into starting and/or more productive roles. Roland Mitchell, another second-round cornerback, went to Phoenix as part of a trade to acquire strong safety Leonard Smith. Grade: A. NEW ENGLAND -- First-round offensive tackle Bruce Armstrong is one of the NFL's best at his position. The Patriots sent their second-, seventh- and ninth-round choices to Tampa Bay to acquire offensive guard Sean Farrell, and he has played well. Danny Villa (fifth) has been a solid offensive tackle, and is expected to make an even stronger contribution as ! a center this year. Grade: B+. MIAMI -- Defensive end John Bo sa raised hopes as a rookie, but suffered a knee injury in 1988 and has never been the same. Linebacker Rick Graf and wide receiver Scott Schwedes have performed below the level of second-rounders. Running back Troy Stradford (fourth) is trying to rebound from a serious knee injury, and so far has been the injury-prone player many experts thought he would be. Offensive tackle Mark Dennis (eighth) is the only starter, and has yet to prove himself as anything but average. Grade: C+. INDIANAPOLIS -- The Colts made Bennett the second overall choice of the draft, then shipped him to Buffalo as part of a three-way deal that allowed them to acquire Los Angeles Rams running back Eric Dickerson. Although Dickerson is their biggest offensive gun, he has become an even larger headache with dissatisfaction over his contract, followed by talk of wanting to be traded or retiring. Fourth-rounder Randy Dixon starts at offensive guard, but has not lived up to expectations. Grade: D. N.Y. JETS -- Fullback Roger Vick (first) has done little as a blocking back, but new Jets GM Dick Steinberg thinks Vick could have a greater impact if allowed to carry the ball more. Initially, outside linebacker Alex Gordon (second) was drawing comparisons to Lawrence Taylor because of his pass-rushing skills, but has since flopped. Grade: D. HOUSTON -- Despite what it cost to land him on the first round -- first- and second-round choices to the Bills -- the Oilers have yet to make fullback Alonzo Highsmith a featured player. Wide receiver Haywood Jeffires, another first-rounder, doesn't start. The Oilers thought they could find players in the latter rounds of the draft when they gave up their second to Kansas City for two choices. However, they wound up with nothing and the Chiefs wound up with running back Christian Okoye. Grade: D-. DETROIT -- Defensive end Reggie Rogers (first) is in prison on charges of vehicular manslaughter, and is unlikely to play again. But nose tackle Jerry Ball (third) and linebacker Dennis Gibson (eighth) have saved the draft by being highly productive starters. The Lions also used a seventh-round choice for nose tackle Dan Saleaumua, but lost him in Plan B to the Chiefs, with whom he has been impressive. Grade: B- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 So if you were drafting #3 and you were so certain that you wanted Conlan and only Conlan, so much so that you had already put your foot down and told your boss that "this is the guy we're drafting!", you would trade down to #8 from #3 knowing he was a top ten pick? Again, it just doesn't make sense. I am not doubting Marv wanted Conlan and lobbied for him and convinced Polian to take him. (I wanted him, too, after witnessing live him picking off Vinny in the Fiesta Bowl twice I believe and dominating that game). I just don't believe the sequence of Marv's recollection. 667653[/snapback] dog, you're losing it here. teams often know that the small pack of teams who draft immediately afterward aren't going to pick the guy they really want for a whole bunch of reasons, most of them related to need and teams' strengths. that's how a guy like aaron rogers drops so far -- a few teams probably liked him a lot, but instead went in different directions. then there were a whole bunch of teams that either didn't need a qb or weren't sold on him. voila: he drops to the mid 20s. as for rogers, the bills probably had him rated as a top 5 guy, and figured he'd be gone if they traded down to 8. whether he went at 3, 4, or 7 is immaterial. as for conlan, they probably looked at other teams' priorities and also factored in that other teams might not covet a relatively slow linebacker who excelled at stopping the run and playing smart in coverage despite his speed problems. hence, they most likely figured he'd be there at 8, and they were right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 dog, you're losing it here. teams often know that the small pack of teams who draft immediately afterward aren't going to pick the guy they really want for a whole bunch of reasons, most of them related to need and teams' strengths. that's how a guy like aaron rogers drops so far -- a few teams probably liked him a lot, but instead went in different directions. then there were a whole bunch of teams that either didn't need a qb or weren't sold on him. voila: he drops to the mid 20s. as for rogers, the bills probably had him rated as a top 5 guy, and figured he'd be gone if they traded down to 8. whether he went at 3, 4, or 7 is immaterial. as for conlan, they probably looked at other teams' priorities and also factored in that other teams might not covet a relatively slow linebacker who excelled at stopping the run and playing smart in coverage despite his speed problems. hence, they most likely figured he'd be there at 8, and they were right. 667710[/snapback] The Browns chose an inside linebacker at #5. I am not saying they didnt think it was possible or a calculated risk that Conlan would be there. I remember that draft and some thought taking Conlan that high was dumb. My point was Marv's recollection of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 The Browns chose an inside linebacker at #5. I am not saying they didnt think it was possible or a calculated risk that Conlan would be there. I remember that draft and some thought taking Conlan that high was dumb. My point was Marv's recollection of the argument. 667715[/snapback] but maybe the bills knew that the browns had targeted that LB. teams were more open about these things in the mid-80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dozerdog Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Rogers was rated higher (by the draftnicks like Kiper) than Conlon in the '87 draft. He was that year's Mario Williams. Conlon was a top-10 guy, but had nowhere near the buzz to ensure that other teams would reach on him prior to the 8th spot. It would've been very easy for Bill and Marv to decide to bypass Rogers in putting together their draft board, knowing that other teams coveted him. 667563[/snapback] It was Rodgers. But I think Marv conveniently forgets we drafted Bruce Smith the year before, thus when it came down to another DE or LB, it was easier to go LB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 It was Rodgers. But I think Marv conveniently forgets we drafted Bruce Smith the year before, thus when it came down to another DE or LB, it was easier to go LB 668282[/snapback] We drafted Bruce two years earlier in 1985. I can't see a problem with having two 1st round DE's if they grade out as elite players. Rogers was over-rated, as history shows, and Marv and Bill made the right call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts