turftoe Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 [ Rick Gosselin, a sports reporter for the Dallas Morning News and one of the best guys to predict the draft gave us the highest grade in our division and one of the better overall grades in the draft. I would provide a link, but you need to register in order to read it. Registering is free at dallasnews.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Rick Gosselin, a sports reporter for the Dallas Morning News and one of the best guys to predict the draft gave us the highest grade in our division and one of the better overall grades in the draft. I would provide a link, but you need to register in order to read it. Registering is free at dallasnews.com. 684076[/snapback] provide a link anyway, please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I think this is the article that Turftoe was talking about. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...s.88f75981.html Just use www.bugmenot.com to get around registration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turftoe Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 I think this is the article that Turftoe was talking about. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...s.88f75981.html Just use www.bugmenot.com to get around registration. 684078[/snapback] Thats the one. Thanks. I didn't know about the bugmenot. It's now bookmarked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I use bugmenot but didn't need it here. The page opened up. Sigh. Rick knows absolutely nothing about value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 its nice to read ,but i am tired and do not really care anymore what the sports writers think of our draft this year.we have a new coach and we are switching to a new cover two defensive scheme and we drafted a bunch of players to play this new scheme..........................we did good and we do not need it validated by sports writers in dallas and we definately do not need claytons validation to know we had a good draft!....go bills in"06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Sigh. Rick knows absolutely nothing about value. 684107[/snapback] This draft really pointed out that draft value of a player and a player;s ability to help a particular thing are really too different things. In general, as no one knows which team a player will end up on for sure, so his draft value is a statement (often wrong for a particular team unfortunately as no one knows what the future holds) of how good of an athlete he is and all things being eqyual how good a player this athlete may become. However, all things are never equal in real life. It makes far more sense for a team to take a lesser athlete if he is the best player available at the time of their pick at a position of need if they judge filling that need is the one missing element for them going deep in the playoffs. The Bills were a variant on this approach because though we are clearly more than one player away from even making the playoffs, the team had a primary need to win now because Bills fans find 5 straight seasons of no playoffs to be unacceptable and because Ralph ain't getting any younger. The draft can be a useful tool for getting one or two players who may contribute immediately and a bunch of depth to develop. However, the Bills calculated that they could cut Adams and Milloy due to age and contract and actually get two first round level replacements for them from the draft. Even better, a first round level talent (Iobouty) slipped to the third due to inconsistency likely linked to lack of experience. As we are set at CB for 06 thanks to the franchise tag, we actually got three players deemed first round level talents by some pundits and obviously the Bills on the first day. Whitner was almost certainly a stretch in terms of draft value but our draft was more about filling position needs created by the cuts of players who can start immediately or at least quickly. McCargo is judged by most as a stretch in trading up to get him in the first (though apparently his stock was rising and as no DT was taken in the 2nd at all he appears to be the third best DT available. We could not risk the possibility of losing the only other safety we judged metited a 1st round pick after Huff was gone and folks like Balt were rumored to take him so we could not risk a trade down. Likewise with McCargo, rumor has it the Accorsi and NYG might have taken him in the first if we had not and we could not run that risk. Our third round pick was not based on position need (if it was we likely would have taken the best OL player available) but on contractual issues as this pick gives us even mor leverage over NC and gets us a talent who will at least compete for the nickel job with Greer and King and potemtially gives us two starter level talents under contract at CB next year even without NC or Greer or King stepping up. The Bills draft (with good ST contributor type players picked in th draft) strikes me as lousy for draft value but very good in terms of contributing to team development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ax4782 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 In terms of value and need I thought the draft was very good for Buffalo. The concensus is starting to turn that perhaps Buffalo didn't reach as much for their first round picks as many people initially thought, as a number of teams also wanted the players we picked rather badly. Also, for whatever reach we may have had with our first round picks, Youboty, Simpson and Williams were GREAT values where we drafted them. They are good talents and were rated much higher than we took them in the draft. This draft will be remembered in a couple of years as one that suited the Bills well in terms of need but also in terms of talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 McCargo is judged by most as a stretch in trading up to get him in the first (though apparently his stock was rising and as no DT was taken in the 2nd at all he appears to be the third best DT available. We could not risk the possibility of losing the only other safety we judged metited a 1st round pick after Huff was gone and folks like Balt were rumored to take him so we could not risk a trade down. Likewise with McCargo, rumor has it the Accorsi and NYG might have taken him in the first if we had not and we could not run that risk. 684123[/snapback] The Giants may have been influenced by the media backlash against the Bills. Probably against their better judgement, they did not "reach" for the key DT they needed at #25. They traded down to #32 get better value. Unfortunately, they got screwed because the Bills moved up and took McCargo and the Giants were left with a gaping hole at DT. They ended up taking the plumetting Kiawanka at DE. So the experts were happy that the Giants got good "value" but the Giants coaches have got be pissed since the front office failed to get the top priority DT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Probably against their better judgement, they did not "reach" for the key DT they needed at #25. They traded down to #32 get better value. Unfortunately, they got screwed because the Bills moved up and took McCargo and the Giants were left with a gaping hole at DT. They ended up taking the plumetting Kiawanka at DE. So the experts were happy that the Giants got good "value" but the Giants coaches have got be pissed since the front office failed to get the top priority DT. 684323[/snapback] McCargo has a lot more upside than Kiawanka, IMO. So while the Giants may have got "value" at #32, the Bills probably got the better player, even if they had to give up a 3rd round pick to land him. The only question becomes--what kind of player would that "phantom" 3rd round pick have become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 The Giants may have been influenced by the media backlash against the Bills. Probably against their better judgement, they did not "reach" for the key DT they needed at #25. They traded down to #32 get better value. Unfortunately, they got screwed because the Bills moved up and took McCargo and the Giants were left with a gaping hole at DT. They ended up taking the plumetting Kiawanka at DE. So the experts were happy that the Giants got good "value" but the Giants coaches have got be pissed since the front office failed to get the top priority DT. 684323[/snapback] I was thinking the same thing when the Giants Rumors concerning McCargo surfaced...It's definitely different philosophies at work, but sometimes Trading Down for "Value" can burn you in the end when a Teams real target is gone by the time they Pick...It's a gamble...What happens if you trade down and all the Top Players on The Board when it gets to your Pick are at Positions of strength on your Team currently? There are rarely guarantees unless a Team Trades Down 2 or 3 spots and already knows there are 3-4 Prospects at the Top of their Board they would like to have...If you gamble on one guy being there you just never know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts