GhostsOfTheRockpile Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Tags was right on when he said who Buffalo puts on the field is more important to their long-term viability than anything else. Too bad Marv & Co. weren't listening. That pick could not have been much worse. A guy they could have gotten in the second round at #8 overall? I would have preferred trading down, but hell... at least take Bunkley, Ngata, Hollywood Matt, ANYONE that's a LEGIT TOP-10 PROSPECT! Awful. Hello 3-13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis in NC Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Well, no, Whitner was likely to go at #13 to Ravens if Bills did not take him. He would not have been a 2nd rounder as you say. None the less, I was shocked (and not in a good way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 One pick today at #8 wasn't going to help us. Until we have 5 near PB at the LOS for the QB and RB, we won't be winning many games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExWNYer Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 One pick today at #8 wasn't going to help us. Until we have 5 near PB at the LOS for the QB and RB, we won't be winning many games. 675035[/snapback] Not to worry. I'm sure we can pick up an undersized slot receiver at #42. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitnerIsAGod Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Well, no, Whitner was likely to go at #13 to Ravens if Bills did not take him. He would not have been a 2nd rounder as you say. None the less, I was shocked (and not in a good way). 674856[/snapback] Yep. The Ravens are in desperate need to get rid of Ed Reed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts