Whitner in rare company

[Mikie2times]

It bothers me that so many people talk about how great our draft was, and use Whitner in the argument. You can argue for a lot of players making this a good draft, but Whitner is not one of them (at least for now).

 

Since 1990 170 players have been selected in the top ten picks of the NFL draft. Of the 170 players 7 played either safety position in college. That’s 4.1% of all the top ten picks in the last 17 years. The list includes Mark Carrier, Troy Vincent, Roy Williams, Eric Turner, Sean Taylor, and this years additions in Michael Huff and Whitner. The first four guys on the list have played in a combined 13 pro bowls, and not a single one of them had less then two pro bowl appearances. Taylor looks like he should certainly add to that list if he keeps his head on straight.

 

The point is not that Daunte Whitner can’t become one of these guys. It’s that drafting a safety this early is VERY rare, and in the cases teams did it they found pro bowl caliber players for at least a few seasons. It seems like the barometer for Whitner is if he’s a good player he was a good pick. If I drafted a good kicker in round 1 would it be a good pick if that kicker wasn’t great? Whitner is not a good pick until he shows he can play at a pro bowl level. I’ll give him time to do that, but just by making this decision Marv got himself in an uphill battle.

[Bill from NYC]

It bothers me that so many people talk about how great our draft was, and use Whitner in the argument. You can argue for a lot of players making this a good draft, but Whitner is not one of them (at least for now).

 

Since 1990 170 players have been selected in the top ten picks of the NFL draft. Of the 170 players 7 played either safety position in college. That’s 4.1% of all the top ten picks in the last 17 years. The list includes Mark Carrier, Troy Vincent, Roy Williams, Eric Turner, Sean Taylor, and this years additions in Michael Huff and Whitner. The first four guys on the list have played in a combined 13 pro bowls, and not a single one of them had less then two pro bowl appearances. Taylor looks like he should certainly add to that list if he keeps his head on straight.

 

The point is not that Daunte Whitner can’t become one of these guys. It’s that drafting a safety this early is VERY rare, and in the cases teams did it they found pro bowl caliber players for at least a few seasons. It seems like the barometer for Whitner is if he’s a good player he was a good pick. If I drafted a good kicker in round 1 would it be a good pick if that kicker wasn’t great? Whitner is not a good pick until he shows he can play at a pro bowl level. I’ll give him time to do that, but just by making this decision Marv got himself in an uphill battle.

 

This was my point since the pick was made, but never could I express it in the eloquent, informative manner in which you just did.

It might turn out OK mind you, and I will also add that safeties are going earlier as of late, but believe me, your point is well taken here.

[Lurker]

Whitner is not a good pick until he shows he can play at a pro bowl level.

 

Why couldn't the same be said for a top-10 pick at any other position? SS is becoming a much more valuable position, IMO, as teams look for guys fast enough to cover 4.6 second TEs and strong enough to take on blockers in the box. Polamalu, Sanders, Williams (who many here wanted at pick 4 in 2002) etc. DW played very well as a rook and should get a lot better if the D-line and LBs are upgraded around him. I have no problems with the pick.

[truth on hold]

It bothers me that so many people talk about how great our draft was, and use Whitner in the argument. You can argue for a lot of players making this a good draft, but Whitner is not one of them (at least for now).

 

Since 1990 170 players have been selected in the top ten picks of the NFL draft. Of the 170 players 7 played either safety position in college. That’s 4.1% of all the top ten picks in the last 17 years. The list includes Mark Carrier, Troy Vincent, Roy Williams, Eric Turner, Sean Taylor, and this years additions in Michael Huff and Whitner. The first four guys on the list have played in a combined 13 pro bowls, and not a single one of them had less then two pro bowl appearances. Taylor looks like he should certainly add to that list if he keeps his head on straight.

 

The point is not that Daunte Whitner can’t become one of these guys. It’s that drafting a safety this early is VERY rare, and in the cases teams did it they found pro bowl caliber players for at least a few seasons. It seems like the barometer for Whitner is if he’s a good player he was a good pick. If I drafted a good kicker in round 1 would it be a good pick if that kicker wasn’t great? Whitner is not a good pick until he shows he can play at a pro bowl level. I’ll give him time to do that, but just by making this decision Marv got himself in an uphill battle.

with the free agent market a lot more active than it was years ago, you draft for position more than anything. the "get the best athlete" strategy is not in vogue any more. bills needed a strong safety for the "cover 2" defense they were going to. and even if they didn't it was clear that lawyer milloy was one of the weakest links on defense and had to go. whitner was a great choice, he had over 100 tackles, an interception and started 15 games. he's also a banger who can intimidate receivers. his only weakness was man coverage but that's something he can work on off-season. strong safety these days is one more of the most important positions on defense and has been a cornerstone to many recent super bowl champs: harrison (pats), palamolu (steelers) and lynch (bucs.) getting your starting strong safety for the next 10 years (barring injury, of course) is a great pick.

[Pete]

RIP Eric Turner

[Bill from NYC]

with the free agent market a lot more active than it was years ago, you draft for position more than anything. the "get the best athlete" strategy is not in vogue any more.

 

I think that the free agent market is far less active now than it was a few years ago. Teams have more cap space now to re-sign their own free agents. The Bengals re-signed both of their starting OTs, and a DE to very large contracts.

 

The only exception to the above would be a team with a GM who, while holding all the cards, "promised" a top flight cornerback that he would let him be free to walk, and bring back zero for the club in terms of compensation.

[The_Real]

It bothers me that so many people talk about how great our draft was, and use Whitner in the argument. You can argue for a lot of players making this a good draft, but Whitner is not one of them (at least for now).

 

Since 1990 170 players have been selected in the top ten picks of the NFL draft. Of the 170 players 7 played either safety position in college. That’s 4.1% of all the top ten picks in the last 17 years. The list includes Mark Carrier, Troy Vincent, Roy Williams, Eric Turner, Sean Taylor, and this years additions in Michael Huff and Whitner. The first four guys on the list have played in a combined 13 pro bowls, and not a single one of them had less then two pro bowl appearances. Taylor looks like he should certainly add to that list if he keeps his head on straight.

 

The point is not that Daunte Whitner can’t become one of these guys. It’s that drafting a safety this early is VERY rare, and in the cases teams did it they found pro bowl caliber players for at least a few seasons. It seems like the barometer for Whitner is if he’s a good player he was a good pick. If I drafted a good kicker in round 1 would it be a good pick if that kicker wasn’t great? Whitner is not a good pick until he shows he can play at a pro bowl level. I’ll give him time to do that, but just by making this decision Marv got himself in an uphill battle.

 

While I do see the validity in your argument, I believe the comparisons are unfair. The defensive picks of last year where the first by the new regime. Until you have given this team 3 years to build 'their' team, all comparisons are unfair. Ko, Daunte, McCargo and Williams are parts of the puzzle. Whitner may or may not be difference maker in the NFL but he has to be in a system with other players that allow him to showcase his talent.

 

Whitner wasn't my choice, like most others, but I'm not going to criticize him until I see him fail with a good team around him. The Bills are plain sad against the run, and had to adjust their game alot to deal with the glaring weakness. Let's see if the Bills address the LB and DL through free agency and the draft. Once the biggest problems are dealt with, let's see how frequently he gets burned.

 

 

Just a thought.

 

 

T_R

[ganesh]

Why couldn't the same be said for a top-10 pick at any other position? SS is becoming a much more valuable position, IMO, as teams look for guys fast enough to cover 4.6 second TEs and strong enough to take on blockers in the box. Polamalu, Sanders, Williams (who many here wanted at pick 4 in 2002) etc. DW played very well as a rook and should get a lot better if the D-line and LBs are upgraded around him. I have no problems with the pick.

 

Considering our D plays similar to the scheme by the Colts, I have to be encourage by what Bob Sanders means to the Colts....I think in 2 years, Whitner will play a similar role for this defense....When Bob Sanders was injured, their defense was leaking like a bucket...Once Sanders came back in the playoffs that defense is a whole different team.

[Wiz]

It bothers me that so many people talk about how great our draft was, and use Whitner in the argument. You can argue for a lot of players making this a good draft, but Whitner is not one of them (at least for now).

 

Since 1990 170 players have been selected in the top ten picks of the NFL draft. Of the 170 players 7 played either safety position in college. That’s 4.1% of all the top ten picks in the last 17 years. The list includes Mark Carrier, Troy Vincent, Roy Williams, Eric Turner, Sean Taylor, and this years additions in Michael Huff and Whitner. The first four guys on the list have played in a combined 13 pro bowls, and not a single one of them had less then two pro bowl appearances. Taylor looks like he should certainly add to that list if he keeps his head on straight.

 

The point is not that Daunte Whitner can’t become one of these guys. It’s that drafting a safety this early is VERY rare, and in the cases teams did it they found pro bowl caliber players for at least a few seasons. It seems like the barometer for Whitner is if he’s a good player he was a good pick. If I drafted a good kicker in round 1 would it be a good pick if that kicker wasn’t great? Whitner is not a good pick until he shows he can play at a pro bowl level. I’ll give him time to do that, but just by making this decision Marv got himself in an uphill battle.

I disagree with your reasoning. Our pass defense was greatly improved in almost every category with two rookie safeties. With his rookie year under his belt, Whitner will only get better. It would stand to reason, then, that the pair of safeties taken, including Whitner, despite how high he was taken, were good picks.

[1billsfan]

It bothers me that so many people talk about how great our draft was, and use Whitner in the argument. You can argue for a lot of players making this a good draft, but Whitner is not one of them (at least for now).

 

Since 1990 170 players have been selected in the top ten picks of the NFL draft. Of the 170 players 7 played either safety position in college. That’s 4.1% of all the top ten picks in the last 17 years. The list includes Mark Carrier, Troy Vincent, Roy Williams, Eric Turner, Sean Taylor, and this years additions in Michael Huff and Whitner. The first four guys on the list have played in a combined 13 pro bowls, and not a single one of them had less then two pro bowl appearances. Taylor looks like he should certainly add to that list if he keeps his head on straight.

 

The point is not that Daunte Whitner can’t become one of these guys. It’s that drafting a safety this early is VERY rare, and in the cases teams did it they found pro bowl caliber players for at least a few seasons. It seems like the barometer for Whitner is if he’s a good player he was a good pick. If I drafted a good kicker in round 1 would it be a good pick if that kicker wasn’t great? Whitner is not a good pick until he shows he can play at a pro bowl level. I’ll give him time to do that, but just by making this decision Marv got himself in an uphill battle.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/playersort/NFL/DB...ES/2006/regular

 

Whitner was 5th in the league among all defensive backs in total tackles (104). He was a rookie. Huff had 78 and Vincent never once had that many in his 16 year career. Roy Williams has never topped 100 tackles in his 5 years in the league. Making the Pro Bowl means very little, Romo and Rivers are made it while Tom Brady did not. The NFL's pro bowl cares very little about who's truly the best at that position. Get off Whitners back, the guy had a great year considering he was a rookie. I certainly don't remember Whitner getting beaten by tight ends or him looking foolish missing tackles much this season. I see no reason why he won't get better and get to the probowl in the next year or two.

[BillsVet]

This dangerous thing with stats and how many tackles one guy makes versus another is misleading. The other stat referenced was Buffalo's pass defense. Whitner was forced to make tackles downfield because the front seven couldn't do it. As for the pass defense, teams were not going deep on the Bills. Instead, the short and intermediate passes, many of them 10-20 yards nickel and dimed us all season. Stats can be made to support almost any argument. The only stat that matters is 7-9.

 

SS is a valuable position these days. But building a team from back to front is a much more time consuming plan. I'd rather go the opposite route and first find the big guys who make the smaller ones look better. That's the bone I think many people had with the pick. He'll be good, but does his talent and fit at SS for Buffalo outweigh having another quality guy on the DL or OL?

[Mikie2times]

While I do see the validity in your argument, I believe the comparisons are unfair. The defensive picks of last year where the first by the new regime. Until you have given this team 3 years to build 'their' team, all comparisons are unfair. Ko, Daunte, McCargo and Williams are parts of the puzzle. Whitner may or may not be difference maker in the NFL but he has to be in a system with other players that allow him to showcase his talent.

 

Whitner wasn't my choice, like most others, but I'm not going to criticize him until I see him fail with a good team around him. The Bills are plain sad against the run, and had to adjust their game alot to deal with the glaring weakness. Let's see if the Bills address the LB and DL through free agency and the draft. Once the biggest problems are dealt with, let's see how frequently he gets burned.

Just a thought.

T_R

I agree that the middle of the draft was solid as can be, and I'm happy Marv's leading this team. The reason I looked into this was the recent talk of round 1 being a success, and the passing of Ngata. I feel we past on Ngata because he wasn't the idle fit for this defense. Any other reason just wouldn't make sense from an attitude, need, or talent point of view. I really wanted him, and after watching him this year he reminds me of Sam Adams, but actually gave a crap. How is a quick mountain of a man not exactly what we so desperately needed?

 

It's true we needed a safety and as I showed we went against every draft trend to get one. Even those trends established by the dozen or so teams that played the cover 2 the last 17 years (0 top ten picks). Was Whitner viewed as such an elite prospect out of college, or has he done anything this year to place him in such status? This is a category that only 4% of all NFL safeties entered the league in. The ones that have done so have had success, but since 96% of the rest of the safeties entered the league under other conditions the majority of elite pro bowl safeties have come from this group. To top it off not once in the last 17 years have any two safeties gone top ten the same year. So we really couldn't have traded down?

 

I don't know ultimately how this decision will play out. A lot of that depends on how Whitner pans out, and how McCargo pan out. I just think the mistakes in philosophy at this point are clear. That if these mistakes continue we eventually won't have 3 or 4 solid day two picks to make up for it. Marv needs to play game, or he and the Bills will get played.

[Mikie2times]

Considering our D plays similar to the scheme by the Colts, I have to be encourage by what Bob Sanders means to the Colts....I think in 2 years, Whitner will play a similar role for this defense....When Bob Sanders was injured, their defense was leaking like a bucket...Once Sanders came back in the playoffs that defense is a whole different team.

When did Bob Sanders get drafted?

[Mikie2times]

I disagree with your reasoning. Our pass defense was greatly improved in almost every category with two rookie safeties. With his rookie year under his belt, Whitner will only get better. It would stand to reason, then, that the pair of safeties taken, including Whitner, despite how high he was taken, were good picks.

That might have something to do with the scheme. Cover 2 is all about the pass, the Jerry Grey is all about the Blitz.

[Nanker]

Whitner will never see a Pro Bowl. The voters will keep him out just to spite Marv and Ralph Wilson.

Mel Kypaheap said it was wrong to take Whitner at 8. The world believes him and will make Marv pay if it takes twenty years.

[Dibs]

It bothers me that so many people talk about how great our draft was, and use Whitner in the argument. You can argue for a lot of players making this a good draft, but Whitner is not one of them (at least for now).

 

Since 1990 170 players have been selected in the top ten picks of the NFL draft. Of the 170 players 7 played either safety position in college. That’s 4.1% of all the top ten picks in the last 17 years. The list includes Mark Carrier, Troy Vincent, Roy Williams, Eric Turner, Sean Taylor, and this years additions in Michael Huff and Whitner. The first four guys on the list have played in a combined 13 pro bowls, and not a single one of them had less then two pro bowl appearances. Taylor looks like he should certainly add to that list if he keeps his head on straight.

 

The point is not that Daunte Whitner can’t become one of these guys. It’s that drafting a safety this early is VERY rare, and in the cases teams did it they found pro bowl caliber players for at least a few seasons. It seems like the barometer for Whitner is if he’s a good player he was a good pick. If I drafted a good kicker in round 1 would it be a good pick if that kicker wasn’t great? Whitner is not a good pick until he shows he can play at a pro bowl level. I’ll give him time to do that, but just by making this decision Marv got himself in an uphill battle.

It bothers me that so many people talk about how great(or bad?) our draft was period. It certainly looks like the makings of a great draft....but things can change. Players might not develop further, or simply regress. Injuries could limit/stop players. Many things can happen.

In regards to Whitner however....

As I see it, your point is the only valid argument against the Whitner pick.....though I think it's validity is watered down in the modern era. Safeties are considered more valuable/impact than in previous years. The fact that ALL of the top prospect safeties were picked well above their typical 'projected' slots shows that the NFL teams(which are really the only ones that count) placed a higher importance on Safeties than the draft 'experts'.

 

e.g. 1st 3 rounds of safeties & where ESPNs 'big board' projected them to go.

#7 Huff(I don't use him in the argument since he is projected at CB)

#8 Whittner(BUF).....projected at #20.....UP 12

#16 Allen(MIA).........projected at #27.....UP 11

#40 Bullocks(DET)....projected at #53.....UP 13

#42 Manning(CHI)....projected at #69.....UP 27

#43 Harper(NO).......projected at #108....UP 65

#54 Pollard(KC).......projected at #95......UP 41

#83 A.Smith(PIT).....projected at #86......UP 3

#97 E.Smith(NYJ).....projected at NOT EVEN RATED

 

It's unfair to compare Whitner to 'probowlers'. When you compare Whitners rookie year to all the other top 10 Safeties rookie years, he is right up there.

 

Regardless of position......since 50% of all top 10 picks are total busts......and obviously only a percentage of those that are not busts become stars......I'd say that any top 10 pick that does not become a bust & becomes at least an above average player is a good pick. Not a very good pick....or a great pick....or an awesome pick............a good pick.

If one was to argue prematurely that this was a good draft Whitner would most certainly be one of the main reasons in the argument. After their rookie years, few 1st rounders(top 10 included) manage to achieve solid starter levels. Less than 50% would even contribute(much) to their team at all.

 

Oh yes.....Whitner can be considered a factor for this being considered(prematurely) a good draft.

[Pyrite Gal]

It’s that drafting a safety this early is VERY rare,

 

 

The stats are the stats and I am sure this is a rare thing. However, the first tip-off for you that perhaps this was a rare or unusual draft which merited the Bills making a rare move is look at when the safeties were picked in 2006 and how they did so far.

 

If the Bills had started the ball rolling by making the first pick of a safety with their #8 that is one thing, but given that they chose the second safety taken in this draft that is actually really another thing.

 

If this draft had turned out to fit the stats you cite then what they likely should have done was try to trade down knowing that even is someone jumped ahead of their new lower pick or someone chose a safety they still had the other safety (both Huff and Whitner were reasonable choices either being the first safety taken).

 

If Oakland had held fast to the stats you lay out then perhaps they should have looked to fill another need and then the Bills would have been in a position to trade down as many times as they could getting extra resources and it is to be hoped finally nabbing the safety who was left after someone took one of these two.

 

However, with Oak taking Huff, the Bills were simply forced by their decision to cut Milloy to either take Whitner at #8 or risk that someone else might take him before they picked if they were able to trade down.

 

As it happened, they decided to take Whitner at #8 and in retrospect several things show this was a wise move by them looking at what happened in real life.

 

1. Detroit had pick 9 right after them and given that Det actually used their pick in the 2nd round to take a SS Daniel Bullocks it is not unreasonable (though certainly not guaranteed) that Whitner may not have even lasted beyond the next pick.

 

2. The next candidate for the SS job if the Bills had in fact traded down and someone picked off Whitner before we got him with a lower pick was Allen by Miami at #15. The stats you lay out clearly indicate that it is unusual for a safety to go in the top 10 (and my guess is that a similar statistical analysis would find it unusual for them to get taken in the 1st round. Yet, while the Bills taking Whitner at #8 was a self-defining pick which made this an unusual year for safety selection, the facts remain that it was Oak not Buff which showed your "rule" was simply not true in this draft, and further with another SS candidate soon going at #15, the question is not really one of why theBills were justified in breaking this rule but in fact it is a question of why the past statistics are simply not applicable with this draft.

 

3. The other facts to look at are the results of the other SS's who merited 1st day choices. The other SS's taken on the first day were Allen, Bullocks, Manning, Pollard and Huff. I think it is pretty clear from looking at all of their stats that Whitner had the best year of all of these players and even had a better year than Huff who was chosen before him.

 

I think that one might reasonably fault the Bills for not filling the SS hole in some other method or you may want to argue that they should not have cut Millloy, but the Bills clearly made a choice that they were gonna fill the SS need through the draft.

 

A. Can you argue that they would have been better off taking some other player from this first day draft crew than Whitner?

 

Based on what really happens I do not think so.

 

B. Can you argue that they should have kept Milloy or filled the safety hole through some other method (perhaps you want to argue we should have given the job to Coy Wire)?

 

Its not something you do so I will not say your alternative is bad, but in the absence of any suggestion of what else should have been done, this point is fairly meaningless.

 

The question which your post raises is that if a safety is chosen then he better be special and make the Pro Bowl in short order. Okay, I think winning the popularity contest of the Pro Bowl is actually not an assured thing, so subject to competition it is too different from whether a player is good, great or whatever that it simply is not a good standard to use to measure success.

 

In particular, as even your post and others actually say so far so good, Whitner did have the kind of year that actually makes the harsh criteria you set of making a Pro Bowl early in his career as actually something he might actually achieve.

 

Its simply hard for me to see how one can have a huge problem with the Whitner pick and when he was chosen given:

 

1. The the 2006 draft departs from the stats you lay out, but the Bills were in the middle and not in the lead of the selection of safties in this entire draft diverging from past stats. I think it is hard to argue rationally that they should have made their decision about who to pick at #8 based on past reality rather than the current reality of the 2006 draft.

 

2, The pick they made pretty easily had the best statisitical year of any of the SS's taken on the first day and was the right choice among the options available and actually with him receiving the defensive rookie of the month accolade for one month, being credited with a part in over 100 tackles ranking him second on the Bills there is good reason to hope and theorize he moght actually justify this pick based on the criteria you lay out.

 

3. Further, I think folks are enthused about the results produced by this draft based on the overall output that in a mere 7 rounds the Bills produced 4 players who not only got a majority of the starts at their position this year, but as we head into the off-season these four are the odds on favorite to be starters next year, Further, this was not just simply a case that there are tons of openings on a team with a 5-11 record, but with these rookies playing a significant role the team in fact improved to a 7-9 record playing against competition which looks by their record of accomplishment to have been tougher in 06 than the 05 competition.

 

Granted those who are more addicted to the Mel Kiper view of whats important than the teams record om the field being the best measure of a draft class may complain that 2 of 3 first day choices failed to become consistent starters, this fact is so overwhelmed by 3 second day choices joining Whitner to become consistent starters that amy way one cuts it the 2006 draft was very productive for the Bills.

 

In fact, given that in addition to these 4 who ended 06 as clear starters on a team which improved significantly (or perhaps you want to maintain that 2 more wins against competition which included the top seeded teams in the AFC andthe top seed in the NFC was mere marginal improvement) they also got at least one start from 3 other choices, the 06 draft contributed significantly to this improved record.

 

For those psychotically addicted to their own expectations for what a first day choice would do, are you really claiming that this draft should be considered troubling because if only they had done it right on the first day then we actually would have achieved getting even more starts. This is true, but if you add this pretend accomplishment to the real second day players one finds that getting some other DT with the McCargo pick simply eliminates the accomplishments of Williams and that if Youbouty's Mom had not died and he actually met the expectation of starting (I am not sure you want to blame the Bills for killing his Mom, but again this is your fantasy draft we are considering) then it merely increases the Bills take from this draft by 1 starter if in fact they had made the 1st day picks which met past occurence,

 

The bottomline is that back in real life it actually is fairly hilarious that one could feel bad about this draft when one looks at the results. If anything the failure of McCargo and Youbouty to become consistent starters last year actually provides some real hope for this year.

 

It looks like a stretch that Youbouty will step up to fill the shoes of NC if we lose him as appears likely, However, its not like he failed to produce last year due to drugs or injury. In fact, given that he was actually able to be trusted enough by the braintrust to start against NYJ and the result with him playing was that we shut this team down for the most part in their house is quite interesting. The assessment of him was that pundits felt he needed another year of learning his craft and they wished he had stayed in school. Well. he got this year of learning his craft in Buffalo rather than Columbus and I think it is more than reasonable to think he will be ready to step into a nickel role for us.

 

McCargo was a disappointment as Williams beat him out, but some good judgments were being made about his play before the injury which landed him on IR. I would have to see it in order to believe it, but it is not outrageous to hope that the run plugger we need at DT may be found in him stepping up.

 

On the face of it, while obviously one would have preferred to have the NYJ result of making the playoffs this year after having a bad year last year. However, we did not have the"benefit" of stinking so badly last year that we could pick D'Brick without making what likely would have been a fatal trade up to #4. The Mangold pick was a nice choice by NYJ, but again no one could plan on this happening and its hard to fault the Bills for upgrading at C from Teague to Fowler (kudos to JMac for making the right call that he could produce a 16 start season).

 

In essence, complaints about our first day choices which ignores the fact that this Marv led draft simply produced a larger number of players than TD ever produced (and my guess is more than most other teams produced) and these players contributed significantly to a significantly improved team.

 

One can certainly argue they could have done better, but if you are reasonably gonna argue this then the complaint calls upon the complainer to lay out not the stats of how this draft compared to other drafts (those were simply other years with other draft classes) but instead at least give some idea of how the holes left by pursuit of a different draft strategy would be filled (for example, do you not trade up for McCargo because you can show you would get him later or that you knew Williams could be had in the 5th and you knew he was gonna beat McCargo out anyway. or you pass on Whitner at #8 because you lay out a case that makes it clear DET was not gonna take him at #9 and that the Fins would not jump ahead you if you traded down).

 

The bottomline is that your post seems to ask folks to put more value in picking a safety departing from the norm in past drafts (I agree it does but who cares given the need for an SS we created and Whitner being more productive than the other SS candidates taken on the first day) than in the stats which show this draft class contributing significantly (as shown by the large number of starters from this draft and the large number of starts they made) to a team that got significantly better.

 

We certainly woulda/coulda/shoulda done better, but I will take reality over a fantasy league view of the 2006 draft based on statisticial performance in different drafts with different classes of players at different times

[keepthefaith]

I agree that the middle of the draft was solid as can be, and I'm happy Marv's leading this team. The reason I looked into this was the recent talk of round 1 being a success, and the passing of Ngata. I feel we past on Ngata because he wasn't the idle fit for this defense. Any other reason just wouldn't make sense from an attitude, need, or talent point of view. I really wanted him, and after watching him this year he reminds me of Sam Adams, but actually gave a crap. How is a quick mountain of a man not exactly what we so desperately needed?

 

It's true we needed a safety and as I showed we went against every draft trend to get one. Even those trends established by the dozen or so teams that played the cover 2 the last 17 years (0 top ten picks). Was Whitner viewed as such an elite prospect out of college, or has he done anything this year to place him in such status? This is a category that only 4% of all NFL safeties entered the league in. The ones that have done so have had great success. Since 96% of the rest of the safeties entered the league under other conditions the majority of elite pro bowl safeties have come from this group. To top it off not once in the last 17 years have any two safeties gone top ten the same year. So we really couldn't have traded down?

 

I don't know ultimately how this decision will play out. A lot of that depends on how Whitner pans out, and how McCargo pan out. I just think the mistakes in philosophy at this point are clear. That if these mistakes continue we eventually won't have 3 or 4 solid day two picks to make up for it. Marv needs to play game, or he and the Bills will get played.

 

Before last year's draft and free agency, the Bills had at least 10 starting positions on the team that were question marks. To me it matters not how they fill those holes. It does matter that they get filled and as quickly as possible with players that can perform and will have some longevity with the team. It's tough to make a final judgment on any rookie. If Whitner turns out to be a quality starter, then he was a good pick. If Terrence Pennington also becomes a quality starter, he too is a good pick. Does their draft position really matter once they play a few years? All teams miss on some of their early round picks and all teams get some quality players in the lower rounds. If the Bills drafted another good player with the pick used for Whitner this past year, we might be sitting here talking about how they need a safety, and if they were to draft one, we would want him to be a good one.

[Coach Tuesday]

The problem with your argument is that it actually may compel the OPPOSITE conclusion you reach: if Whitner becomes one of those "elite" safeties, then it really was a jackpot score for the team. The fact that those players are so rare gives the pick both a higher downside as well as a higher UPSIDE, no? Although I do agree with you that no one should conclude right now that it was a great draft - we don't even know if picks 2 and 3 will pan out at all, let alone Whitner.

[Mikie2times]

My title might have seemed like a jab at Whitner. I actually like Whitner, I just don't like the decision to draft his position over others given all the variables. I believe the error was the same one TD committed when he selected a one kneed RB late first round a couple years back. Marv might hit a home run with Whitner, just as TD could have with Willis, but without truly knowing if he would or wouldn't it was a mistake to draft these guys at the slots we did.

 

When you review the draft history you can position the pedigree of Whitner with other safeties. 4% means that in any given NFL season 1 safety will be playing that was drafted in the top ten over the last 17 years. It's true we have 4 playing right now, and the position is evolving, but these top ten selections are still very rare and of the highest pedigree. If Marv saw something that he really loved in Whitner then great, but at the least why wouldn't you trade down? At best why wouldn't you draft the number one DT prospect when it's clear your run defense is going to be a pathetic?

 

There is a reason you see so few safeties drafted this high. The likelihood for bust is the same but the potential for impact is completely inferior to other positions that get drafted routinely in the top 10. It will be great to see this work out and see Whitner be elite, but it was a fundamental error in drafting picking him that high. A standout SS's impact would not equal that of a standout DT. If it did the proportions would become at least somewhat balanced.

[Scraps]

http://www.nfl.com/stats/playersort/NFL/DB...ES/2006/regular

 

Whitner was 5th in the league among all defensive backs in total tackles (104). He was a rookie. Huff had 78 and Vincent never once had that many in his 16 year career. Roy Williams has never topped 100 tackles in his 5 years in the league. Making the Pro Bowl means very little, Romo and Rivers are made it while Tom Brady did not. The NFL's pro bowl cares very little about who's truly the best at that position. Get off Whitners back, the guy had a great year considering he was a rookie. I certainly don't remember Whitner getting beaten by tight ends or him looking foolish missing tackles much this season. I see no reason why he won't get better and get to the probowl in the next year or two.

 

Is being 5th in total tackles for a DB really something to crow about? When a DB is making so many tackles, isn't that usually because the team has a weak run defense? Doesn't that really show that the defensive line is being handled by the opponents offensive line one on one and guards are able to to block the LBs so the DBs have to make the tackle? Of the top 10 DBs on the list you linked, only one played for a barely above average team in run defense. Most were pretty close to the Bills as a bad run D team.

[Mikie2times]

One can certainly argue they could have done better, but if you are reasonably gonna argue this then the complaint calls upon the complainer to lay out not the stats of how this draft compared to other drafts (those were simply other years with other draft classes) but instead at least give some idea of how the holes left by pursuit of a different draft strategy would be filled (for example, do you not trade up for McCargo because you can show you would get him later or that you knew Williams could be had in the 5th and you knew he was gonna beat McCargo out anyway. or you pass on Whitner at #8 because you lay out a case that makes it clear DET was not gonna take him at #9 and that the Fins would not jump ahead you if you traded down).

 

The bottomline is that your post seems to ask folks to put more value in picking a safety departing from the norm in past drafts (I agree it does but who cares given the need for an SS we created and Whitner being more productive than the other SS candidates taken on the first day) than in the stats which show this draft class contributing significantly (as shown by the large number of starters from this draft and the large number of starts they made) to a team that got significantly better.

 

We certainly woulda/coulda/shoulda done better, but I will take reality over a fantasy league view of the 2006 draft based on statisticial performance in different drafts with different classes of players at different times

This was my draft strategy.

 

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...10&hl=ngata

[IDBillzFan]

Is being 5th in total tackles for a DB really something to crow about?

It sure beats the holy hell out of him being 5th in MISSED tackles.

 

Did this guy not show you folks enough to know that this position is virtually locked down for the long haul? What the hell did you all expect from this guy in his first year? Is he supposed to start schitting purple twinkies and walking on water? Will that make you happy?

 

Probably not.

 

Jesus.

[Mikie2times]

It sure beats the holy hell out of him being 5th in MISSED tackles.

 

Did this guy not show you folks enough to know that this position is virtually locked down for the long haul? What the hell did you all expect from this guy in his first year? Is he supposed to start schitting purple twinkies and walking on water? Will that make you happy?

 

Probably not.

 

Jesus.

This is a freaking message board. With the draft approaching this is relevant. Do you think it’s at all possible given the power of foresight we should have drafted Ngata? If even a part of you thinks that then it’s relevant that our GM did something almost no team does to bypass selecting him.

[Scraps]

It sure beats the holy hell out of him being 5th in MISSED tackles.

 

Did this guy not show you folks enough to know that this position is virtually locked down for the long haul? What the hell did you all expect from this guy in his first year? Is he supposed to start schitting purple twinkies and walking on water? Will that make you happy?

 

Probably not.

 

Jesus.

 

Did I say something negative about Whitner in my post?

 

Lighten up Francis.

[Dan]

I see 2 principal problems with the argument that either (1) Witner was a bad pick at #8 because he's a safety and safeties shouldn't be selected that high or (2) Marv should have selected Ngata or some other player more appropriate at the #8 spot.

 

Problem 1: If you have a player rated as your #1 choice, what difference does it make if you select him at #8 or #28? It seems like a reasonable strategy that you have the players rated that you want for your team and you select them if they're on the board. All this talk of trading down and the like is just that... talk. There's no guarantee that someone else won't pick your guy, so why not pick him as soon as you can.

 

It seems to me the whole point of the draft is to select players that you think will help your team, if those players are available you should select them, regardless of projections and conventional draft "wisdom". Clearly, Marv et al, had Whitner rated high, hence they made the selection.

 

Problem 2: Is it not conceivable that Marv et al. did not see DL or OL as our primary need in the draft? Just because we as fans or ESPN draft experts saw it that way, perhaps Marv et al. saw the free agents aquisitions along with our later round selections (which they would have known they were targeting) and thought that would be sufficient to solidify the lines.

 

Regardless of how things may have turned out or what we fans think, Marv et at. may see things differently and if that's the case then why select Ngata at #8 if you think Triplet and Mcargo will be sufficicent?

 

I guess my point is that Marv et al. seem to have gotten the player they wanted at #8 and there's no guarantee he would have been around had they traded down. If in a few years, Whitner is a complete bust and we're still not in the playoffs, then we can say they made a mistake. However, at this point in time, I think we can only conclude that Marv seems to have a plan for rebuilding this team and Whitner was a part of that plan. And, for myself, after 1 year I'd say the plan is on track. Let's just hope we continue to see progression in the coming year.

 

With all that being said, I must say, I would have preferred nothing but linemen selected last year, and I'll go so far again. I hope we pick nothing but linemen i nthe draft. Until we fix the lines, I fear we'll be stuck in mediocrity. But, that's just my opinion, and I'm not employeed in an NFL front office for a reason (mostly because I haven't applied).

[Pyrite Gal]

If even a part of you thinks that then it’s relevant that our GM did something almost no team does to bypass selecting him.

 

I think it is relevant that our GM did something almost no team did in previous drafts. It shows our GM was on the ball in this draft as the post above which shows how safeties across the board got picked a half a round or more higher than in previous drafts and you saw Marv after this trend began and correctly seeing that teams which picked after us were also in the hunt for safeties h picked well for dealing with this trend.

 

If Marv had followed your seeming advice the Bills would have been making picks which fit past trends but were out of step with trends in this draft. He chose current reality over past stats and I think it is intelligent to deal in reality virtually everytime.

 

Sometimes its good to be against the tide, but we had such a clear need for SS help that if he sent us off on some quest to follow historic patterns we simply would have ended up with one of the SS players who performed worse than Whitner did this season as our SS and this D and likely this team would have had another 5-11 season.

 

I know i was all for picking Ngata before the draft began, but in retrospect Marv appears correct to have gons SS and Whitner in particular rather than Huff for his choice.

[Mikie2times]

I know i was all for picking Ngata before the draft began, but in retrospect Marv appears correct to have gons SS and Whitner in particular rather than Huff for his choice.

According to whom? No offense but you speak as if it's true. The evidence isn't exactly overwhelming when you consider Ngata looks like a franchise DT. If you try and argue a SS is more valuable then a DT of equal skill level you'll lose every time. I'm not interested in hearing the Cover 2 card either. If Whitner becomes half the player Bob Sanders is we should be thrilled. Even with that freak of nature the Colts still can't stop anybody on the ground, and it damn near cost them the Super Bowl once again.

[Dibs]

.....Problem 2: Is it not conceivable that Marv et al. did not see DL or OL as our primary need in the draft? Just because we as fans or ESPN draft experts saw it that way, perhaps Marv et al. saw the free agents aquisitions along with our later round selections (which they would have known they were targeting) and thought that would be sufficient to solidify the lines.....

Also.....

.....apart from the whole scheme situation, has anybody put forward the concept that there was something about N'Gata that Marv & Co. didn't like? Something in him that made them a little cautious in selecting him.....maybe motivation/weight/etc? There were many posters here pre-draft last year who had strong reservations about N'Gata.

It looks like any reservations they may have had were unfounded & N"Gata is going to be a good player....but.....where is the crime in them not selecting him with the #8 pick if they were not as confident in him as they were with Whitner?

 

Selecting N'Gata makes hindsight looks great but IIRC there were heaps of posters here who would have been ecstatic had we selected Bunkley(who may still pan out). At this point I think everyone is happier with Whitner over Bunkley. It seems to me that the Whitner pick could ONLY be deemed a good one by some here if he ends up being a better player than every single player beneath him within the 1st round.

 

N'Gata panning out & the Whitner pick being good are not mutually exclusive to each other. So we didn't pick N'Gata.....big deal.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Dibs

[Pyrite Gal]

According to whom? No offense but you speak as if it's true. The evidence isn't exactly overwhelming when you consider Ngata looks like a franchise DT. If you try and argue a SS is more valuable then a DT of equal skill level you'll lose every time. I'm not interested in hearing the Cover 2 card either. If Whitner becomes half the player Bob Sanders is we should be thrilled. Even with that freak of nature the Colts still can't stop anybody on the ground, and it damn near cost them the Super Bowl once again.

 

I think the difference between our perspectives is that while you ask whether an SS is more valuable than a DT of equal skill its not true that I would lose every time. The one time I would not lose is when lets say that the two starting DTs I have on my team are Jamal Williams and Casey Hampton, (or the equivalent skill levels as the particular players are chosen to show a skill level not the specific players) and my SS is none other than Coy Wire.

 

If I had a choice in this draft between picking a stud DT with great prospects who after he sits on the bench generally and rotates a bit with my two Pro Bowl starters and breaks into the starting line-up in his third year and is a franchise DT for years and between a OK but not great SS who likely will beat out Wire even though I suspect I will be drafting an SS again in two years, I take the lesser playing SS particularly if I think that I can make the SB this year.

 

While those who are choosing players in their fantasy league are doing the right thing by simply taking the best player at a particular position, I on the other hand am building a team which I think can win (and in this extreme case where I want to win now, or in a case where your GM and owner are going to leave this planet at some time which is probably sooner rather than later so winning now is very important) I have no problem picking a player of lower skill level if I think he is the piece I need to build my team.

 

In the Bills case, they had pressing needs for both DTs and SSs in 2006, but it is clear now that the Bills made a decision going into this draft that if they took Ngata they were going to end up with a safety they considered second tier that they did not want.

 

On the other hand if they chose a safety with the #8 they might have to trade up to guarantee they got the first tier (in their view DT McCargo that they wanted he was no Ngata or even a Bunkley but depending on how this draft went they felt if they got Whitner they could trade up and fill both needs in the draft, whereas if they passed on Whitner for Ngata they were gonna end up with a SS they were worried about starting.

 

I read your posts (I may be reading them incorrectly so forgive me if I am wrong) as being very concerned about which position is worth a certain level pick in the draft and also seeming to feel that evidence of past activity somehow proves what you should do in the present.

 

I think these two points are of interest, but in the end are interesting trivia compared o the overarching need to build a winner and because of our long playoff drought, the Golden Boys age, and the "what have you done for me lately"drive which permeates our culture, I am willing to pick a player at a different level than his position historically calls for to build a team I think can win and win as soon as possible.

 

So yes, i would pick a lesser performing player under some circumstances and those circumstances were present in the 2006 draft where the Bills likely judged they could get both the SS they wanted and a DT they wanted if they chose the SS first, The die was really cast for it to go down the way it did when Oak chose Huff and for the Bills there was no other option than to pick the SS they wanted at #8 because if they did not he might be gone as soon as the #9 pick to DET if they had traded down.

 

Again, the key to understanding this is if the Bills had chosen Ngata, what do you think they would have done at SS, If they were lucky they probably end up with Bullocks who went to DET in the 2nd round where he credited with 30 less tackles and had no INTs.

 

We probably are worse with Ngata playing out of position from where he has excelled for the Ravens and rnfup eith a lesser talent at SS when we end up with two rookies playing safety. If only for the reason that it turned out we needed every iota of talent we could muster at safety with two rookies starting, I'm glad the Bills made decisions which gave them the best performing safety in the draft.

[Scraps]

I see 2 principal problems with the argument that either (1) Witner was a bad pick at #8 because he's a safety and safeties shouldn't be selected that high or (2) Marv should have selected Ngata or some other player more appropriate at the #8 spot.

 

Problem 1: If you have a player rated as your #1 choice, what difference does it make if you select him at #8 or #28? It seems like a reasonable strategy that you have the players rated that you want for your team and you select them if they're on the board. All this talk of trading down and the like is just that... talk. There's no guarantee that someone else won't pick your guy, so why not pick him as soon as you can.

 

Because this team had so many holes in so many places it only made sense to maximize the number of picks you could get, and thus plug as many holes as you could.

 

Problem 2: Is it not conceivable that Marv et al. did not see DL or OL as our primary need in the draft? Just because we as fans or ESPN draft experts saw it that way, perhaps Marv et al. saw the free agents aquisitions along with our later round selections (which they would have known they were targeting) and thought that would be sufficient to solidify the lines.

 

If Marv didn't see DL as a primary need, why did he trade up to get Mcargo?

[Scraps]

I think the difference between our perspectives is that while you ask whether an SS is more valuable than a DT of equal skill its not true that I would lose every time. The one time I would not lose is when lets say that the two starting DTs I have on my team are Jamal Williams and Casey Hampton, (or the equivalent skill levels as the particular players are chosen to show a skill level not the specific players) and my SS is none other than Coy Wire.

 

If I had a choice in this draft between picking a stud DT with great prospects who after he sits on the bench generally and rotates a bit with my two Pro Bowl starters and breaks into the starting line-up in his third year and is a franchise DT for years and between a OK but not great SS who likely will beat out Wire even though I suspect I will be drafting an SS again in two years, I take the lesser playing SS particularly if I think that I can make the SB this year.

 

While those who are choosing players in their fantasy league are doing the right thing by simply taking the best player at a particular position, I on the other hand am building a team which I think can win (and in this extreme case where I want to win now, or in a case where your GM and owner are going to leave this planet at some time which is probably sooner rather than later so winning now is very important) I have no problem picking a player of lower skill level if I think he is the piece I need to build my team.

 

In the Bills case, they had pressing needs for both DTs and SSs in 2006, but it is clear now that the Bills made a decision going into this draft that if they took Ngata they were going to end up with a safety they considered second tier that they did not want.

 

On the other hand if they chose a safety with the #8 they might have to trade up to guarantee they got the first tier (in their view DT McCargo that they wanted he was no Ngata or even a Bunkley but depending on how this draft went they felt if they got Whitner they could trade up and fill both needs in the draft, whereas if they passed on Whitner for Ngata they were gonna end up with a SS they were worried about starting.

 

I read your posts (I may be reading them incorrectly so forgive me if I am wrong) as being very concerned about which position is worth a certain level pick in the draft and also seeming to feel that evidence of past activity somehow proves what you should do in the present.

 

I think these two points are of interest, but in the end are interesting trivia compared o the overarching need to build a winner and because of our long playoff drought, the Golden Boys age, and the "what have you done for me lately"drive which permeates our culture, I am willing to pick a player at a different level than his position historically calls for to build a team I think can win and win as soon as possible.

 

So yes, i would pick a lesser performing player under some circumstances and those circumstances were present in the 2006 draft where the Bills likely judged they could get both the SS they wanted and a DT they wanted if they chose the SS first, The die was really cast for it to go down the way it did when Oak chose Huff and for the Bills there was no other option than to pick the SS they wanted at #8 because if they did not he might be gone as soon as the #9 pick to DET if they had traded down.

 

Again, the key to understanding this is if the Bills had chosen Ngata, what do you think they would have done at SS, If they were lucky they probably end up with Bullocks who went to DET in the 2nd round where he credited with 30 less tackles and had no INTs.

 

We probably are worse with Ngata playing out of position from where he has excelled for the Ravens and rnfup eith a lesser talent at SS when we end up with two rookies playing safety. If only for the reason that it turned out we needed every iota of talent we could muster at safety with two rookies starting, I'm glad the Bills made decisions which gave them the best performing safety in the draft.

 

If the Bills had chosen Ngata, maybe our rush defense wouldn't have sucked as bad, hence our DBs wouldn't have been forced to make so many tackles.

 

Unless I had a really solid line, which the Bills did not have, I'd take the DT over the SS any day of the week. Strength in the middle and domination of the lines on both sides of the ball will win you more games than a decent secondary will.

[Scraps]

Also.....

.....apart from the whole scheme situation, has anybody put forward the concept that there was something about N'Gata that Marv & Co. didn't like? Something in him that made them a little cautious in selecting him.....maybe motivation/weight/etc? There were many posters here pre-draft last year who had strong reservations about N'Gata.

It looks like any reservations they may have had were unfounded & N"Gata is going to be a good player....but.....where is the crime in them not selecting him with the #8 pick if they were not as confident in him as they were with Whitner?

 

Selecting N'Gata makes hindsight looks great but IIRC there were heaps of posters here who would have been ecstatic had we selected Bunkley(who may still pan out). At this point I think everyone is happier with Whitner over Bunkley. It seems to me that the Whitner pick could ONLY be deemed a good one by some here if he ends up being a better player than every single player beneath him within the 1st round.

 

N'Gata panning out & the Whitner pick being good are not mutually exclusive to each other. So we didn't pick N'Gata.....big deal.

 

I guess it depends on whether if you prefer to build your team from the outside in or the inside out. A DT is far more likely to have an impact on both the rush and pass defense than a SS ever will.

[Dibs]

I guess it depends on whether if you prefer to build your team from the outside in or the inside out. A DT is far more likely to have an impact on both the rush and pass defense than a SS ever will.

For the most of it, I agree wholeheartedly....however. My point basically was....what if there was something Marv & Co. didn't like about N'Gata(& Bunkley). OK....it seems in hindsight that having reservations about N'Gata were not warranted(as appears so far)....but it was totally reasonable to not draft him based upon their pre-draft assessments(that & he doesn't have the quicks for the D....but that's besides the point perhaps).

Just because we might have drafted a better player(N'Gata).....that does not mean that the player we drafted was a bad pick.

 

In 2002 was the Cowboys pick at #8(SS Roy Williams) not a good choice because they could have gotten DE Dwight Freeney?

 

In 2001 was the Panthers pick at #11(MLB Dan Morgan) not a good choice because they could have gotten G Steve Hutchinson?

 

The list is endless.

In the end....we did not draft N'Gata(for probably multiple reasons). Maybe it's a pity we didn't......and a damned good job we didn't draft Bunkley. I don't see how it's such a terrible thing that we didn't. N'Gata might not excel in the D. He may well have become a lazy fat slob(as mentioned by many pre-draft). McCargo might come on gangbusters next season.....or the one after.

 

In case nobody remembers, McCargo was a first round pick. As far as I see it, we used a great deal of draft resources on the DT position(& it needed it.....& then some).

I still can't understand why all the whinging.

We got a good player who performed as one of the....what?......top 6 1st round rookies?......top 8?

People are strange.

[Coach Tuesday]

The concern was that Ngata took plays off in college, and would not be on the field on 3rd downs. Both of those issues failed to manifest themselves last year, and in HINDSIGHT it is 100% obvious he would have been a better pick for the Bills. There is also the fact that they could have obtained another second round pick (at least) by trading down and still selected Whitner. TAKE THAT, YOU BLOATED, ROTTING HORSE CARCASS!

 

Let me ask this: other than Ngata, is there anyone else the Bills should've taken over Whitner in hindsight????? I'm thinking NO. Okay fine, so Marv took the second best player with that pick instead of the first best player. Get over it. Saban took a safety that may never even play...

[1billsfan]

If the Bills had chosen Ngata, maybe our rush defense wouldn't have sucked as bad, hence our DBs wouldn't have been forced to make so many tackles.

 

Unless I had a really solid line, which the Bills did not have, I'd take the DT over the SS any day of the week. Strength in the middle and domination of the lines on both sides of the ball will win you more games than a decent secondary will.

 

Maybe the reason they didn't choose Ngata was they heard that he was fat and lazy. Kind of like Sam Adams who they jetisoned off the team. You could be a monday morning quarterback looking at every single round of every previous draft and find a player the Bills should have taken instead. It's a ridiculous exercise.

[Scraps]

For the most of it, I agree wholeheartedly....however. My point basically was....what if there was something Marv & Co. didn't like about N'Gata(& Bunkley). OK....it seems in hindsight that having reservations about N'Gata were not warranted(as appears so far)....but it was totally reasonable to not draft him based upon their pre-draft assessments(that & he doesn't have the quicks for the D....but that's besides the point perhaps).

Just because we might have drafted a better player(N'Gata).....that does not mean that the player we drafted was a bad pick.

 

It means we could have gotten better talent and done more to upgrade the team. Isn't that how you build a winning team?

 

In 2002 was the Cowboys pick at #8(SS Roy Williams) not a good choice because they could have gotten DE Dwight Freeney?

 

In 2001 was the Panthers pick at #11(MLB Dan Morgan) not a good choice because they could have gotten G Steve Hutchinson?

And we could have had Freeney in 2002 but took Mike Williams. There were people on this board lobbying to pick Freeney at that time. They were obviously right. Would you argue with them as endlessly as you do with people who are not enthralled with the Whitner pick?

 

And what did the Cowboys and Panthers do since that time? I know the Seahawks went to a Super Bowl and the Colts are going to one this year.

 

In the end....we did not draft N'Gata(for probably multiple reasons). Maybe it's a pity we didn't......and a damned good job we didn't draft Bunkley. I don't see how it's such a terrible thing that we didn't. N'Gata might not excel in the D. He may well have become a lazy fat slob(as mentioned by many pre-draft). McCargo might come on gangbusters next season.....or the one after.

 

Maybe you come across a Marv apologist. If there were a player to be concerned about, it was McCargo based on his injury history.

 

I thought it was pretty obvious that our run defense was going to be bad this year. A run stuffing DT could have been the best way of addressing that deficiency. I'm sorry but McCargo and all the rest of our DTs just seem to light to me.

[Dawgg]

There is no question about it --- this was a botched draft by Marv and Co.

 

While everyone here can gush all they want about Whitner, drafting him at #8 was far too high, ESPECIALLY if the Denver offer was on the table. Whitner will turn out to be a solid player in this league but with the number of needs this team had going into the draft, they really messed up a chance to improve the team by acquiring more picks in a very deep draft. Instead of accumulating picks, the Bills surrendered them, moving back into the first round and giving up a 3rd to take the vastly overrated McCargo.

 

It bothers me that so many people talk about how great our draft was, and use Whitner in the argument. You can argue for a lot of players making this a good draft, but Whitner is not one of them (at least for now).

 

Since 1990 170 players have been selected in the top ten picks of the NFL draft. Of the 170 players 7 played either safety position in college. That’s 4.1% of all the top ten picks in the last 17 years. The list includes Mark Carrier, Troy Vincent, Roy Williams, Eric Turner, Sean Taylor, and this years additions in Michael Huff and Whitner. The first four guys on the list have played in a combined 13 pro bowls, and not a single one of them had less then two pro bowl appearances. Taylor looks like he should certainly add to that list if he keeps his head on straight.

 

The point is not that Daunte Whitner can’t become one of these guys. It’s that drafting a safety this early is VERY rare, and in the cases teams did it they found pro bowl caliber players for at least a few seasons. It seems like the barometer for Whitner is if he’s a good player he was a good pick. If I drafted a good kicker in round 1 would it be a good pick if that kicker wasn’t great? Whitner is not a good pick until he shows he can play at a pro bowl level. I’ll give him time to do that, but just by making this decision Marv got himself in an uphill battle.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

It means we could have gotten better talent and done more to upgrade the team. Isn't that how you build a winning team?

Using that logic it makes just as much sense to say we should have taken Marques Colston at #8, and he was selected 4 picks before the draft ended.

 

Second guessing a pick based on the fact that in hindsight a whole season later you think someone else would have been a better pick is pointless. We got a guy who looks like he'll be a good player at an important position in our defense and at a spot that was a position of need for us. I'll watch him develop, and judge him after 3-4 years in the league, just as I would any other 1st round pick.

[Ramius]

According to whom? No offense but you speak as if it's true. The evidence isn't exactly overwhelming when you consider Ngata looks like a franchise DT. If you try and argue a SS is more valuable then a DT of equal skill level you'll lose every time. I'm not interested in hearing the Cover 2 card either. If Whitner becomes half the player Bob Sanders is we should be thrilled. Even with that freak of nature the Colts still can't stop anybody on the ground, and it damn near cost them the Super Bowl once again.

 

Ever consider Ngata MIGHT look a little bit better because he's playing with ray lewis, adalius thomas, ed reed, and an all-star defense? Methinks ngata would look quite a bit worse if he was on a team with few stars or a bad defense.