mary owen Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I have a problem with this statement: "my information from two teams drafting in that area was that the only team extremely interested in Whitner before the middle of the round was the Ravens. And the intelligence around the league said Baltimore would certainly take nose tackle Haloti Ngata if he were there" If his "information" is so credible, why didn't he or any other hack out there know that the Bills were taking Whitner???? DISCLAIMER: I am not blindly defending Marv and co., but it humors me that these guys think they are so g-damn smart about the draft. A succesful draft projection should also take into account a teams "reaches" as well as a "sure thing". No? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...levy/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 its all over, lets just move on . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Indeed. But that's besides the point. Ultimately, what he's saying is that a 2nd round pick and a 4th round pick is generous compensation for moving from #8 to #15. The 15th pick (whoever that may have been) plus the solid players we obtain from the 2nd and 4th rounders we gain could very well be worth more than Whitner alone. That is what King is saying. And in addition to that, there is a decent chance (not a sure thing by any means) that Whitner would have fell back to us at that point. Of course you can never be 100% certain, but what King is eluding to is that the compensation Denver was offering made moving down a solid risk/reward proposition. I am not blindly defending Marv and co., but it humors me that these guys think they are so g-damn smart about the draft. A succesful draft projection should also take into account a teams "reaches" as well as a "sure thing".No? 687522[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I have a problem with this statement: "my information from two teams drafting in that area was that the only team extremely interested in Whitner before the middle of the round was the Ravens. And the intelligence around the league said Baltimore would certainly take nose tackle Haloti Ngata if he were there" If his "information" is so credible, why didn't he or any other hack out there know that the Bills were taking Whitner???? DISCLAIMER: I am not blindly defending Marv and co., but it humors me that these guys think they are so g-damn smart about the draft. A succesful draft projection should also take into account a teams "reaches" as well as a "sure thing". No? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...levy/index.html 687522[/snapback] Because it goes without saying the Bills were interested in Whitner since they drafted him. All he was saying was that had the Bills traded down to 15, the only team they had to be concerned with was Baltimore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Wow, haven't seen a post from you in years! Because it goes without saying the Bills were interested in Whitner since they drafted him. All he was saying was that had the Bills traded down to 15, the only team they had to be concerned with was Baltimore. 687538[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mary owen Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 its all over, lets just move on . 687530[/snapback] he answered the question and put it out there for more. I'm not obsessing over it, it's just funny the statement about "intelligence around the league" that's all. tell Mr. King to move on... anywho, what's there to move on to? who did what in shorts last weekend? that's over with too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Because it goes without saying the Bills were interested in Whitner since they drafted him. All he was saying was that had the Bills traded down to 15, the only team they had to be concerned with was Baltimore. 687538[/snapback] Who's to say that a team that could not afford to trade up to #7 or higher, but wanted Whitner, might not have been anxious to trade up to #13 or 14? If he is to put 95% odds on Whitner being there at 15, he would have had to know the desires of 32 teams, not just 6 or 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Wing Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Who's to say that a team that could not afford to trade up to #7 or higher, but wanted Whitner, might not have been anxious to trade up to #13 or 14? If he is to put 95% odds on Whitner being there at 15, he would have had to know the desires of 32 teams, not just 6 or 7. 687548[/snapback] BINGO! This is exactly what everyone keeps missing. In any of these "expert" opinions, they are all assuming that no one would have moved ahead of the Bills (at pick 15 with the trade) to take Whitner. There are so many variables in this equation. These hack writers are all trying to solve for "x", yet they fail to realize that they have a polynomial equation in front of them! Can we all just move on already? The draft is done...now let these kids perform! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 WRONG! Who cares if someone moved ahead to take Whitner? NEWSFLASH: Whitner was the only good player in the first round. This was an extremely deep draft and the Bills could have taken a starting caliber (and potential star-caliber) player at #15. Add to it they gain 2 quality draft picks, the risk of losing Whitner is worth it. That's what everyone keeps missing. BINGO! This is exactly what everyone keeps missing. In any of these "expert" opinions, they are all assuming that no one would have moved ahead of the Bills (at pick 15 with the trade) to take Whitner. There are so many variables in this equation. These hack writers are all trying to solve for "x", yet they fail to realize that they have a polynomial equation in front of them! Can we all just move on already? The draft is done...now let these kids perform! 687581[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Marv missed out on an opportunity to get kicked in the nads. Guess he's not much of a gambler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Who's to say that a team that could not afford to trade up to #7 or higher, but wanted Whitner, might not have been anxious to trade up to #13 or 14? If he is to put 95% odds on Whitner being there at 15, he would have had to know the desires of 32 teams, not just 6 or 7. 687548[/snapback] Well you can pretty much discount anyone who is set at SS moving up, so I don't think you have to worry about all 32 teams. But maybe what you say happens, and then maybe Bunkley falls to us at 15 and the DT problem is solved. This team has so many holes or question marks that it almost doesn't matter what postion they would have picked at 15. Something would have been addressed and they would have had more picks to address other problem areas. I think Whitner was a bit of a reach where he was picked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 WRONG! Who cares if someone moved ahead to take Whitner? NEWSFLASH: Whitner was the only good player in the first round. This was an extremely deep draft and the Bills could have taken a starting caliber (and potential star-caliber) player at #15. Add to it they gain 2 quality draft picks, the risk of losing Whitner is worth it. That's what everyone keeps missing. 687586[/snapback] OK Dawg- You keep advocating the trade down, whitner be dammed. Let's see your Bills pick assuming Whitner is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 WRONG! Who cares if someone moved ahead to take Whitner? NEWSFLASH: Whitner was the only good player in the first round. This was an extremely deep draft and the Bills could have taken a starting caliber (and potential star-caliber) player at #15. Add to it they gain 2 quality draft picks, the risk of losing Whitner is worth it. That's what everyone keeps missing. 687586[/snapback] My post simply questioned King's assertion that Whitner would be there. It made no value judgement on Whitner whatsoever. It was in plain english. With that said, you and King seem to be playing a zero sum game with your analysis. Let's say the fish hopped us into 14 and picked Whitner. Let's say for whatever reason we really disliked Bunckley. What do you do then? Take a safety with a bad hip like miami? Take a tackle like Justice that subsequently slipped another 20 or so picks? The point is that the Bills targeted the players they liked at their need positions and then went and got them. Time will prove them right or wrong. Your ad nauseum theory that taking "good player a" and "good player b" will inevitably be proven right in your eyes because there are bound to be two good players that were picked between 15 and 32. Then you can play "see I told you so" assuming the Bills should have taken those two particular players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 My post simply questioned King's assertion that Whitner would be there. It made no value judgement on Whitner whatsoever. It was in plain english. With that said, you and King seem to be playing a zero sum game with your analysis. Let's say the fish hopped us into 14 and picked Whitner. Let's say for whatever reason we really disliked Bunckley. What do you do then? Take a safety with a bad hip like miami? Take a tackle like Justice that subsequently slipped another 20 or so picks? 687626[/snapback] It seems that no matter how anyone answers your question, you will come back with a "but what if we disliked <fill in the blank here>" type of question until the obvious answer is the Whitner was the only player in the draft worth taking after the 7th pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 FYI, I responded to your original inquiry in a previous thread. OK Dawg-You keep advocating the trade down, whitner be dammed. Let's see your Bills pick assuming Whitner is gone. 687617[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Well you can pretty much discount anyone who is set at SS moving up, so I don't think you have to worry about all 32 teams. But maybe what you say happens, and then maybe Bunkley falls to us at 15 and the DT problem is solved. This team has so many holes or question marks that it almost doesn't matter what postion they would have picked at 15. Something would have been addressed and they would have had more picks to address other problem areas. I think Whitner was a bit of a reach where he was picked. 687606[/snapback] To make his assertion he would have had to look at all 32. Undoubtedly some could have been dismissed easily. My point is that there were a million scenarios. The Bills chose the lowest risk scenario. King improperly paints the Denver trade as an ultra low risk scenario. That's really my whole point. As for the players (a separate topic) , maybe the Bills braintrust (right or wrong) didn't think of Bunckley as the right "solution". You and Dawg paint rosy scenarios of "solving extra problems". These are certainly possible outcomes. Here's another: The fish and up with Whinter and we take the broken hip guy. Our extra pick craps out and Whitner punishes us for 12 years. How's that one sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 It seems that no matter how anyone answers your question, you will come back with a "but what if we disliked <fill in the blank here>" type of question until the obvious answer is the Whitner was the only player in the draft worth taking after the 7th pick. 687631[/snapback] And it seems as though no matter how someone answers your post, you'll say we could have taken "magical player x". My original point was simply a criticism of King's (lack of) logic. It had nothing to do with players whatsoever. It had nothing to do with the Bills selections whatsoever. You completely and utterly missed the point and started talking about players. I should have chosen not to engage that portion of your post since it was on an entirely different topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 To make his assertion he would have had to look at all 32. Undoubtedly some could have been dismissed easily. My point is that there were a million scenarios. The Bills chose the lowest risk scenario. King improperly paints the Denver trade as an ultra low risk scenario. That's really my whole point. As for the players, maybe the Bills braintrust (right or wrong) didn't think of Bunckley as the right "solution". You and Dawg paint rosy scenarios of "solving extra problems". These are certainly possible outcomes. Here's another: The fish and up with Whinter and we take the broken hip guy. Our extra pick craps out and Whitner punishes us for 12 years. How's that one sound? 687633[/snapback] Like I said, you will paint the picture until Whitner was the only player in the draft worth taking after the 7th pick. Thanks for not letting me down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Like I said, you will paint the picture until Whitner was the only player in the draft worth taking after the 7th pick. Thanks for not letting me down. 687636[/snapback] Was King's assertion logical or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Is there a rule that says they had to take the (as you say) "broken hip guy" if Whitner was off the board? They should have had a draft board rank ordering their players by preference and grade. Who was next on that list? I would say take him, be it Bunkley, Greenway, Hali, or Joseph. I have a hard time believing the difference in quality between Whitner and the next available guy on their board is that steep. And if there was a drop-off in quality, the extra picks make up for it. In any case, I don't necessarily think that they took the lower-risk move. Taking the second safety off the board at #8 and paying him what they are going to pay him... it's no small risk. As for the players, maybe the Bills braintrust (right or wrong) didn't think of Bunckley as the right "solution". You and Dawg paint rosy scenarios of "solving extra problems". These are certainly possible outcomes. Here's another: The fish and up with Whinter and we take the broken hip guy. Our extra pick craps out and Whitner punishes us for 12 years. How's that one sound? 687633[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts