The Buffalo Bills traded defensive John McCargo to the Indianapolis Colts. The Bills no longer had a need for McCargo and the Colts were starved for defensive tackles. Now they’ve acquired a talented one that underachieved in Buffalo.
about 1 year ago
Joel Thorman
89 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Anyone surprised by this? Because I’m not. Bummer that Jauron’s second draft pick as Bills coach didn’t work out here, but he’ll get far more opportunity in Indy.
Who wants to place bets that Jason Jefferson now finds his way back onto Buffalo’s roster?
by Brian Galliford on Oct 14, 2008 5:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Considering he didn't have a tackle yet this year?
Not at all. But I really hate to take all your money. He was claimed by the Falcon on August 31st. McCray maybe?
by twoeightnine on Oct 14, 2008 6:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Lets not forget
The Bills traded back into the 1st to get McCargo, (a 2nd and 3rd if I’m not mistaken) that makes his being a bust even worse.
If the Bills gave a 5th for Anthony Hargrove, I can’t imagine they get any less for McCargo.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Oct 14, 2008 6:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Rod Coleman is still hanging around the FA lists
He would be maybe ok as a 4th DT, but not sure what he has left. Nobody of any real repute or skill left on the FA market I can find. I think the Bills might be getting a 3rd at a min. from the Colts, they were desperate for help and we had someone at a low cost (which is critical for them) available. I hope we got escalators put in that drive the price up for the picks in this deal.
Fear the mighty helmet wearing gopher, he is coming for your soul....
by WABillsfan on Oct 14, 2008 6:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They got a 4th rounder for him - that's a bad trade.
This is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy. You know the Bills knew they didn’t like Crowell and McCargo. But still, they were assets. I guarantee you, if they would have offered the two as a package prior to the season, you would have gotten much more than a 4th round pick….
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 6:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Adam Schefter via PFT
http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/10/14/bills-do-a-deal-but-not-the-one-their-fans-had-hoped-for/
I'm still here in the flesh
Twenty-one year old legend
I'ma live way after my death
-Lil' Wayne "Get Down"
by shake n bake on Oct 14, 2008 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why on earth is a fourth round pick for John McCargo a “bad trade” if the Chiefs wanted a third for Tony Freaking Gonzalez? Not sure I follow you here, krytime. I think the Bills pulled a hell of a deal here.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 14, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Simple...
DT is a premium position. If you beg to differ, just look at what Stroud has done so far.
McCargo is still a pup. Granted, I was ready to give up on Youboty at such a young age, but it’s different with big guys. Big guys just seem to take longer to learn their respective positions, whether it be OG, OT, DE, or DT.
Name some dominant, young, interior DL. They aren’t many. That spot takes awhile to learn.
I’m not saying McCargo would eventually end up being the next Pat Williams. I’m just saying he has the potential to still be decent. A fourth rounder in my book for him is a loss.
And, you can’t compare him to Gonzalez. Apples v Oranges. It makes no sense why KC hung on to him.
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes no sense why KC traded TG?
Um, if TG wasn’t there to move the chains at least some of the time the growth of the offense would be even more stunted.
No 3rd rounder is going to make as much of an impact as Tony will the next 2 years.
by Joel Thorman on Oct 14, 2008 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DT is a premium position? What position isn’t? Elite tight ends are rare in this league, my friend. Why isn’t TE a “premium” position, then?
I see where you’re going with it, but I don’t like the logic. Heading into today, I would have told you that I thought the Bills would be lucky to get a 6 for McCargo. This trade, in my opinion, is highway robbery for a guy that was unequivocally our #4 DT.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 14, 2008 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it was a good deal for both our clubs
The Colts get some help at DT and hopefully changes his attitude here in a new environment and a championship caliber team. You guys let go of dead weight and picked up a draft choice to help in Buffalo’s rebuilding process.
I think this worked out good for both of us in the end. The same could not be said about the Cowboys, who got fleeced for Roy Williams
by metal_militia on Oct 14, 2008 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Bills planned on Crowell playing this year though. They just didn't see him fitting into their future plans.
So I’m not sure why they would have traded him.
by twoeightnine on Oct 14, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
So if you don’t see someone in your future plans, you just let him go, right? You don’t try and get anything for him?
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
JP’s not in their future plans but he’s still here because the team thought he was more valuable for this year than what they could get in return. This is the NFL not MLB. Teams cut ties with players and get nothing in return all the time.
by twoeightnine on Oct 14, 2008 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You obviously don't read my posts if you mention JP..
I wanted to trade him months ago. He doesn’t fit the style that Schonert has in place, and he’s not happy to be the back-up.
Stupid teams cut ties with players and get nothing in return all the time. But we’re talking about Buffalo here. We don’t have a margin for error like some big market teams do. We have to hit on our draft picks, and we have to be perfect on our FAs.
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crowell and Losman weren’t this regime’s draft picks, if you recall. McCargo is, and he’s really the only one that hasn’t panned out. Maybe you want to include Dwayne Wright there, maybe you don’t.
To expect a front office to be perfect in the draft AND free agency is absurdly utopian. These things happen.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 14, 2008 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brian - you're missing my point my man..
I think you guys have been missing my point for awhile.
I won’t turn this into another JP post. You know my feelings on that.
And to me, this has nothing to do with either regime. It has to do with your assets. If you have one, and you’re not going to use it, flip it for another.
Also, I’m not asking for the organization to be perfect, although like every other, it should aspire to be. What I’m asking for, from all of us, the Bills included, is to accept the realization that they need to be better in both of those phases of the off-season, given their financial restraints.
Will I argue the Marv drafts? Not really. You can say they only had the two “busts” in Wright and McCargo. But on a team that was as bad as it was, every draft pick making the team in those years’ is not really a compliment to the scouting department. I could have gone down to the bus stop on my street and found people to make the 53…
If any of you answer yes to this question, you are a bunch of filthy rotten liars…
If someone offered you, before the 2008 draft, a fourth round pick for Crowell and McCargo, would you say yes to that deal?
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i would definately do that
……just kidding my man!
McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year
by poz on Oct 14, 2008 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
is that Cable? Brilliant.
McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year
by poz on Oct 15, 2008 1:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If someone offered you, before the 2008 draft, a fourth round pick for Crowell and McCargo, would you say yes to that deal?
I’m still not sure I see where you’re going with this question.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 14, 2008 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brian - stop it...
Every organization knows what it has personnel wise as they get in to camp. Rarely (as in the case of Youboty) does a player rise so far above expectations tjhat they invalidate the use of draft picks or a FA signing.
I’ll try and make this simple for you. If, in March, someone would have offered you a 4th round pick for BOTH Crowell and McCargo, would you have accepted the offer? I presume the answer is no. At that time, “we” all valued both players more. Obviously, the Bills did not, as their personnel moves have shown. And as they did not value those players as much as we did, they should have made an effort to move them (ie – trade) in order to get something for nothing, when their trade value may have been higher. Crowell and McCargo for a 4th rounder is absurd.
The Bills mismanaged their assets. Are you really serious in telling me you don’t get that?
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they didn’t value them, what makes you think other teams would have valued them so highly?
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 14, 2008 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't give me that crap K
Would you have taken a 4th for Crowell and McCargo two months ago? Answer that question…
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is this even a question?
Who cares?
And no I wouldn’t. I’m not happy with the trade as it is. I don’t like giving up on a young player like this, especially when DT depth is tough to come by.
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 14, 2008 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is a worthy question...
The organization screwed up. I’ll give them props when it’s due; I’ll call them out when it’s warranted.
They didn’t get anything for Crowell. They got crap for McCargo. They deserve to be bashed for it. I am bashing.
If you say “who cares” to this, then my respect for you goes right out the window. So much of building a team happens before you think it does. It happens with extra picks, near or on day one.
You really don’t look ahead?
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They never would have gotten anything for Crowell though.
They were expecting him to contribute this season and that’s it. Just because a player is not in a team’s long term plans that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have value to the team he’s on for that year. Crowell is better than Digi and Ellison. He was also better than any other option the Bills had at the time. They did not believe that trading Crowell this season would not have improved the team this season. They saw that he was looking to cash in on a new contract next year and decided that next year they would go in a different direction. They went with what they believed was the best situation for this year and will readdress the situation next year.
If you’re always playing for the future you’ll never win in the present. Crowell’s injury and mindset screwed both parties in both times.
by twoeightnine on Oct 14, 2008 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They never wpuld have gotten anything for him?
Really? No other team would have wanted him? The leading tackler on an up and coming defense?
I’ll tell you what. Watch, if he does get released by the Bills (which I doubt), there will be a bunch of teams lining up to get him.
You have to balance the future with the present. It’s so much harder here, given hte economic climate.
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When would we have traded him? He was our starter until he decided the surgery was his best option. It’s not that no other team would have wanted him, it’s that he was our STARTER until he made his decision. If you saw that scenario coming, get off the board and go to the casino or something…
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 15, 2008 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes they would have gotten something for him.
But nothing worth it. Nothing that would have improved the team or even kept it at the current level. He was our starting linebacker. If he brings in a 4th or 5th round pick that player’s not going to replace Crowell immediately in the starting lineup. Odds are they’re not going to do it for a few years if at all. The Bills completely revamped their defense in the offseason trying to bring it to an elite level. Trading a solid piece from that puzzle, even if that piece will be replaced next year would have been a serious setback. We weren’t getting another starting caliber linebacker back. Why would a team trade for something that they already have, especially when that something is on the last year of a contract and looking for a significant pay raise? The Bills were going to replace him with a similar or better free agent next year or target an impact linebacker on the first day of the draft.
You’re looking at this in perfect hindsight based on the fact that Crowell is out for the season and done as a Bill. Two facts that fans did not expect and one that the Bills would have never planned for. If Lee Evans would have went down with a catastrophic knee injury before the season started would you be here yelling that we should have traded him during camp to have gotten something for him now that his career as a Bill was probably over?
By the way, last years defense (which any trade would have based on since the Bills weren’t playing any football in March or June or actual games in July and August) was far from an up and coming defense. Sure, they had all the potential to be good but there was no proof yet. Iraq has an up and coming government but those pesky bombs and missiles keep on getting in the way.
by twoeightnine on Oct 15, 2008 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They planned on having Crowell as the starter for this season. He abruptly had the surgery right before the season and the rest is history. I don’t understand why we would have considering trading him months ago?? They never had any intention of trading Crowell, so I don’t really know why he’s being brought into this. And I doubt any team would have traded for him after his knee surgery if he was kept on the active roster.
I say ‘who cares’ because at this point, what good is it to discuss trades that we have no idea what could have happened, should have happened or would have happened had certain things been different. If you know me, then you know draft picks are my cocaine. Of course, I’m always contemplating ways for the Bills to acquire more picks, but thinking about trading Crowell and/or McCargo over the summer was something I don’t think you, me and probably the Bills even considered.
And months ago could you have predicted that Crowell would have his knee issue, elect to have the surgery right before the season and McCargo would have regressed??? I doubt it, so maybe getting a 4th for McCargo only isn’t such a bad thing. I don’t agree with trading McCargo, but at least they got something for a guy they no longer had plans for. Getting something for Crowell was about as likely as me playing for the Bills.
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 15, 2008 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It happens with extra picks, near or on day one.
Last I checked, that’s what they got for McCargo. I’d rather have that fourth rounder than an underachieving #4 DT that likely isn’t going to grow into a role here. This McCargo trade is EXACTLY the type of team-building deal you’re referring to; you’re just too ticked off to realize it.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 15, 2008 6:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously, you valued Crowell....
Taken from a comment before the Seahawk game…
"Angelo Crowell was not in attendance at practice today.
If we have to go into the Seattle game starting Ellison and DiGi, we’re screwed. That’s probably getting ahead of myself, but that’s not a situation I’d like to explore."
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And what’s the point here? Yeah, I valued Crowell and still think he’s one of our 3 best LB’s when healthy. I think Ellison and DiGi are fringe NFL players so what’s the issue?
I was responding to you and how you thought that Crowell and McCargo not on the roster any more and only a 4th rounder to show from it is absurd. We all valued those guys much higher than that, but there’s no indication other teams did too at that point.
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 15, 2008 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In March, McCargo was a player destined to have a break-out year after...
showing flashes of it the year before. In March, Crowell was a player looking to cash in on a contract year.
A month later McCargo reported to OTAs overweight and out of shape. Five months later Crowell was missing preseason games and practices, having problems staying on the field due to an injury and electing to have surgery right before the season started.
by twoeightnine on Oct 14, 2008 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got you now. Thanks for explaining it, even though I still think you’re wrong.
Crowell’s on IR. He can’t be traded. The team thought he was going to play. They handled his situation the only way they could.
So Crowell shouldn’t even be a part of this discussion. That’s where I was going with this. Should the Bills have traded Antoine Winfield or Nate Clements before their contracts are up? Hardly, and they don’t belong in this discussion, either.
Also, you need to calm the eff down and stop treating people like they’re below you.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 15, 2008 6:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We should have traded Jabari yesterday.
We might not re-sign him in the offseason so we should get something for him. Shoulda gotten rid of JP too. Edwards won’t get hurt again. Gibram’s a free agent too. Oh, even Digi and Ellison! Think of all the draft picks we’d get to start rebuilding next year!
by twoeightnine on Oct 15, 2008 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're referring to my comments...
Then I’ll apologize. I don’t think I treated folks around here like they were below me, but if it came across that way, then I sincerely apologize. And I really mean that gentlemen….
I’ll try to wrap up my thoughts on the Crowell thing once and for all here. There were comments in the off season that he wasn’t a good fit here. I believe I saw them on this site itself. He was projected (by us) to be a starter. He wanted a new contract; it wasn’t being offered. A pissing contest ensued.
I don’t believe that management, in any sport, in any organization, should get invloved in such a contest. You’re not sending a message; you’re devaluing your assets.
To date, I don’t think Crowell has had that surgery; I think it was a bluff.
If relations were so bad between him and the team, they should have just moved him, and gotten something for him, rather than the nothing they will get. It would have taken some foresight by management, but isn’t that what they are supposed to do?
Again, considering the limitations we have here, I really hate giving away anything.
by krytime on Oct 15, 2008 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crowell had the surgery in mid-september, about a week and a half after the Bills put him on IR.
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=2277
Crowell really is injured. If he were actually healthy enough to play, we would know it. I think he would have asked for his release by now if he could have been playing.
by kaisertown on Oct 16, 2008 8:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's funny. You put in a link here that justifies my comments...
“Before the procedure, Buffalo’s versatile 27-year-old and reigning top tackler likely would’ve been a highly sought commodity.”
by krytime on Oct 16, 2008 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does that justify anything?
The quote says "Before the procedure … [he] would’ve been a commodity"
That clearly implies that once he had the procedure, he was no longer a commodity. His decision to undergo surgery killed any trade value he may have had.
When could Buffalo have traded Crowell? Before they knew he was going to have surgery, or after he announced to the league that his knee has been bothering him and he was going to miss a month because of a surgery that may or may not fix his knee?
by kaisertown on Oct 17, 2008 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
McCargo
Any info you can lend to us Colts fans on the big fella?
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Oct 14, 2008 6:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Physically gifted, emotionally lacking is the best way I can descirbe it BigBlue
He has all the physical skills, and seems to have a knack for breaking the double team and getting into the backfield, he has done it on ocassion for us, but not consitently.
I think he suffers from lack of a mean streak/aggressiveness, it may be due to the fact that he was always more physically talented than his opposition in HS and then College, and he never had to develop that mean streak and motor needed at the Pro level. He can play well for stretches, but he is very inconsistent and can disappear for a (sometimes long) while.
Williams who was our 5th round pick that season beat him out for the job, I think, on sheer motor and nastiness, Kyle likes to hit people and make them hurt. I think John just lacks that mindset, and just isn’t relentless enough. It may end up being that John just needed a change of scenery to reach his potential, then again it may not do a thing.
You’ll see him make some plays that will drop your jaws, you’ll see some plays that leave you scratching your heads, and the rest of the time, sadly, you won’t even notice him on the field.
Fear the mighty helmet wearing gopher, he is coming for your soul....
by WABillsfan on Oct 14, 2008 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn’t have said it better myself, BBS.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 14, 2008 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
There was times last year when I thought McCargo was an unstoppable force. Now I’m not sure what to think of him.
by twoeightnine on Oct 14, 2008 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think your kind of right
I believe his work ethic off the field has hindered him much more than his work ethic on the field.
McCargo made plays last season. He didn’t make plays in the preseason this year. I doubt that he suddenly started working less while playing. It’s not like he lost whatever motor and mean streak he had. He gained some weight and showed up out of shape in general. He lost a step and when you weigh well over 300 pounds and line up 18 inches away from your opponent, that initial burst is everything. McCargo made his plays in the backfield, he isn’t a hold his spot on the line and make an arm tackle type of player. He penetrates, but he has been unable to do that at his current weight with his current burst.
I like this move for the Colts long-term, but I don’t think McCargo is anything more than an emergency fill-in for now.
by kaisertown on Oct 15, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a fourth rounder is pretty damn good for a former unproven first round pick!
I really like how we have been piling on the draft picks, but I must say I really wish they were one to two rounds lower.
The bloggerformelyknownasBigBaddBubbaJ
by NYTXFAN on Oct 14, 2008 7:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Mel Kiper
I remember that Mel Kiper had McCargo projected as a late-4th rounder, and when the Bills moved up to get him in the first round, he was astonished. Well, now we get a 4th rounder for him . . .
by labill on Oct 14, 2008 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're falling back on the "Mel Kiper" defense?
Really – Mel Kiper? Dude hasn’t said anything relevant since that whole Colt fiasco/draft thing…
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mel
I love Mel Kiper. He’s been a bit demoted on ESPN Draft this year. They are giving air time to that other guy. Well, he appears to have valued McCargo correctly.
by labill on Oct 14, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not yet he hasn't...
Big guys sometimes need more than three years to make a judgement on. Again, I’m not saying McCargo will be a star, or frankly, will be a bust. I’m just saying he still needs some time before you make that decision. And in doing so, the Bills may have possibly devalued a former number one pick.
by krytime on Oct 14, 2008 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For the Bills, he has, since we got a 4th rounder for him.
by labill on Oct 14, 2008 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possible Reason
Could the Bills have traded McCargo for a 4th rounder in preparation for closing a deal with K.C. for Gonzalez with a 3rd (and unfortunately, KC backed out)? Obviously, you can’t tie deals together, so its hard to coordinate, but OBD may have thought that the Gonzalez deal had a good chance of happening and wanted to get a somewhat equivalent draft pick (of course, it didn’t happen) and keep the 53 man roster. I also think they want Ellis to get some playing time, and this way they can activate him as the last DL.
by labill on Oct 14, 2008 7:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I sincerely doubt this has anything to do with Gonzalez. No, I just think it comes down to they wanted to get something for McCargo, and it was the right time and the right team.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 14, 2008 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine, but disappointed
I think a 4th rounder is great for an unproven player, plus, you give a guy a chance to start, that you may like as a person, and so you trade him to a good team that needs help at the DT rotation. Now, barring any injury, we have three DTs in the rotation. I am not so sure this was such a great move for us in the now. But, they sat McCargo for the first game and then gave him more time in recent weeks. If he hasn’t shown on tape, to be what we wanted, then maybe it was a good move. However, now if someone goes down, which could happen, then we have only two DTs. I just am not sure this was a wise move. Even if McCargo is not elite, if he has talent that needs to grow, then when it is time to resign him, he could be had for cheap. Unless, of course, he was just not doing well at all, and instead of keeping a waste of space around (Tim Anderson) we dropped him for more than he was worth.
Now what, besides what I mentioned in regards to dropping a mediocre player for more than he is worth, is the Bills motives here? And do we have someone on the PS t bring up if necessary?
The Bills CAN win every game
by killascript on Oct 14, 2008 8:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Corey Mace
From what I understand this was done because Corey Mace has progessed nicely and they could get a 4th for McCargo and basically replace him with someone who may be just as good in our system.
by Berg79 on Oct 14, 2008 9:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Mace can be inactive on Sunday just as good as McCargo can.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Oct 14, 2008 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buffalo and 4th rounders
Who have the Bills gotten for 4th rounders since 2000?
2008
Corner-?
Fine-?
2007
Wright-cut due to seemingly incurable fumblitis
2006
Ko Simpson-seems to be at least a decent free safety
2005
Preston-Yech!
2004
Euhus-bust
2003
McGee-a real gem in the 4th
Aiken-good special teamer
2002
none
2001
Spoon-who?
2000
Black-who?
That’s two unknowns (Fine, Corner), 1 good corner, 1 decent safety, and 1 good special teamer. That’s 3 useful players out of 8 (discounting the 2008 draft as it’s way too early to judge those guys), a better percentage than I had suspected. I’d have been happier if the Bills had managed to get a conditional 3rd rounder dependant on performance….but as long as I’m dreaming a .416 Barrett would be nice as well.
by Ron From NM on Oct 14, 2008 10:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that I'm making this up.
But I swear that I remember reading an article somewhere where the fourth round is historically a bad round. Something along the lines that it’s a place where teams try to find that hidden gem. The guy that should have been a first day pick but slipped. Frankly, most of the times when a guy falls he falls for valid reasons.
Looking back through the drafts since 2000 it kinda looks like that’s true. There’s only been 6 Pro Bowlers drafted in the 4th and two of them were STers, McGee and Vasher.
2000 is extremely bad. I’m not sure a single player is left playing in the NFL. Going through Wikipedia, none of them played with their original teams for more than 5 seasons (which was only 1 or 2), a bunch flamed out after one or two years. Probably half played on 3-6 teams. A handful never made their original team or off the practice squad.
by twoeightnine on Oct 14, 2008 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vasher wasn’t a ST’er. Hasn’t he started for the Bears since coming into the league?
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 14, 2008 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought that he made it as a ST'er but I think I read it wrong.
Yup. Definitely did. The whole 2005 but the game is played in 2006 screwed me up.
by twoeightnine on Oct 14, 2008 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do we Question OBD
So far OBD has been pretty acruate with there moves that we all have questioned at some point in time in the past two years.examples in no particular order…
Why draft a QB in the late rounds with somany other holes..Trent Edwards?
Get an OC from outside the organization…
Go to the open market for a GM again don’t promote from within.
Pay crazy money for a young LT
Sign Lee Evans to a long term deal
Plus, besides Larry Triplet they have been close to perfect in FA by improving the team.
And I am sure that there are more that I can’t think of right now, but my point is the DJ years have been very good for the orginazation because they have a plan and they have stuck to it, very similar to the Marv Levy years.
It will be interesting to see when the dust settles exactly what happened in the TG situation but I would imagine that they said something to the affect of here it is take it or leave it. Also, I know you all like to hammer our current TE but RR is an above average TE. No he is not TG but he isn’t the worst either. Plus, and I think more importantly, is his role in the loker room. This seems to be a very close young team that is winning. DO you really want screw that up?
Does anyone the status of Margo’s contract? Were there 1 or2 yrs left on it?
by Honestabe75 on Oct 14, 2008 10:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
in regards to TG
reports say that of the teams interested in him, Buffalo Philly Giants, only one had actually offered a 3rd round pick but were turned down after the Chiefs decided that they wanted to keep TG out of personal reasons. Here’s an excerpt from Adam Schefter from NFL.com
“When Kansas City opted not to deal tight end Tony Gonzalez, it was not for lack of offers. The Chiefs were engaged in active talks with the Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants, Buffalo Bills and Green Bay Packers. One team offered as much as a third-round pick; another offered a fourth-round pick; another offered a pick and a player. But ultimately, in the end, Chiefs president Carl Peterson, could not bring himself to trade a player for whom he has a personal affection. Teams tried to pry him loose, but Peterson never could commit to dealing his Pro-Bowl, record-setting tight end. And so while the Lions pulled in a bounty of picks from the Cowboys for wide receiver Roy Williams, the Chiefs opted to hold on to their veteran tight end.”
I bet we offered McCargo and a 4th or even a 3rd. Who knows?
McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year
by poz on Oct 14, 2008 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yesterday I read that we had offered a 3rd
I think it was on profootballtalk.com
by Ron From NM on Oct 14, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was also the fact that Gonzalez's top choice was the NY Giants.
And not the Bills. Peterson wasn’t going to trade him to some place that he didn’t want to go and the Giants are saying that they weren’t all that interested.
by twoeightnine on Oct 14, 2008 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh
I wouldn’t say OBD has been that accurate. They’ve made a good number of mistakes the past few years, and a few of them are going to haunt us for a while (Schobel, Kelsay, McCargo). I’m glad they were able to right the ship but some of those moves are pretty bad….
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 14, 2008 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody keeps saying Schobel and Kelsay are overpaid DE’s. I’m not going to argue that either way but they are 2 important parts of a defense that has climbed from the bottom to the top of the NFL satistically. Yes they haven’t gotten the pass rush yet but I think that is also a result of the games we have played so far. The only game that we played where the opposing team was down early and had to pass was the Seattle game and I think we got 5 sacks. Great DE’s are created by great teams that are playing with a lead or they can’t stop or don’t pay any attention to the run and just rush the passer(Jared Allen). How many times did the great Dallas pass rush get to Warner?? They got 1 sack and Arizonia threw 30 times… How many times did the great NY pass rush get to Anderson?? 0 sacks. Should they all be traded or cut?
Before you fly off the handle look at the whole picture and see that our DE’s are playing good all around defense.
by Honestabe75 on Oct 14, 2008 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our DE"s have sucked for years. Don’t look at one or two game performances.
And are you saying the only time our DE’s should get sacks and pressure is when we’re up big??? Our DE’s had 1 sack in that Seattle game anyhow…
Schobel and Kelsay stink rushing the passer (and Kelsay against the run) and are some of the most overpaid players in the league. Those were 2 terrible contracts, which most of us agreed to be the case at the time….
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 15, 2008 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but again, you can’t be perfect. On the whole, this regime has made WAY more good decisions than bad ones, and it starts with the drafting of Donte Whitner.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 15, 2008 6:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously you can't be perfect
but the errors they’ve made, some of them are HUGE mistakes. That’s where it hurts more than simply just making a mistake.
Whitner……oye, I don’t want to start talking about him….
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 15, 2008 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2006 draft
Beside Ngata who else would you rather have from this draft than Whitner, knowing that QB was not a priority in 06 so Cutler is not an option either? There are not too many studs below Whitner wouldn’t you agree……
Houston Mario Williams – DE
2 New Orleans Reggie Bush – RB
3 Tennessee Vince Young – QB
4 New York D’Brickashaw Ferguson – OT
5 Green Bay A.J. Hawk – LB
6 San Francisco Vernon Davis – TE
7 Oakland Michael Huff
8 Buffalo Donte’ Whitner
9 Detroit Ernie Sims – LB
10 Arizona Matt Leinart – QB
11 Denver Jay Cutler – QB
12 Baltimore Haloti Ngata – DT
13 Cleveland Kamerion Wimbley – DE
14 Philadelphia Brodrick Bunkley – DT
15 St. Louis Tye Hill
16 Miami Jason Allen
17 Minnesota Chad Greenway – LB
18 Dallas Bobby Carpenter – LB
19 San Diego Antonio Cromartie
20 Kansas City Tamba Hali – DE
21 New England Laurence Maroney – RB
22 San Francisco Manny Lawson – DE
23 Tampa Bay Davin Joseph – OG
24 Cincinnati Johnathan Joseph
25 Pittsburgh Santonio Holmes – WR
26 Buffalo John McCargo – DT
27 Carolina DeAngelo Williams – RB
28 Jacksonville Marcedes Lewis – TE
29 New York Nick Mangold – C
30 Indianapolis Joseph Addai – RB
31 Seattle Kelly Jennings
32 New York Mathias Kiwanuka
Go ahead and make a cae for NIck Mangold or Chad Greenway or Bobby Carpenter….
by Honestabe75 on Oct 15, 2008 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a pretty good case could be made
for Haloti Ngata in that draft (after the incredible stupidity of Donahoe letting Pat Williams walk), but Whitner has turned out pretty well. Ngata is turning out to be a pretty good player for Baltimore.
Tamba Hali and Mathias Kiwanuka deserve honorable mention, too.
Get the Bills back to the big game!
by Blitz on Oct 15, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t touch Tamba Hali with a ten-foot pole. Manny Lawson, however, could be devastating in this type of defense.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 15, 2008 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Manny Lawson????
the guy with 2.5 career sacks????
Hali would be a nice all-around DE for this defense. He had 8 and 7.5 sacks in his first 2 seasons….
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 15, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and are you thinking Kamerion Wimbley??
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 15, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I was definitely thinking Manny Lawson. Wimbley would be good too, but Lawson has been out of place since Day 1 in SF. Dude’s just not a linebacker. I think he’d do great moving to end.
Don’t forget that Hali was good playing next to Jared Allen…
by Brian Galliford on Oct 15, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well in that case, bring him in! ha
~K
by Kurupt on Oct 15, 2008 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he said that in the first two words.
Regarding Ngata
by twoeightnine on Oct 15, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What we don't know...
…is what his heart is like. It looks like to me that the team finally came to the conclusion he had no heart in spite of his natural ability, and thus had no potential to develop beyond a spotty performer with a lot of natural (but unrealized) talent. You can’t teach heart – that needs to come from the individual. And the longer he stayed on the bench full-time, the less valuable he becomes in any trade.
Of course the downside is he may find this a wakeup call and turn it around. But I’m guessing Indy is going to find the same thing we did – loads of potential, but no way to motivate him to do what it takes to realize it. For that, I’ll take the 4th rounder.
by cajunasian on Oct 14, 2008 11:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Just maybe
it’s our way of getting back at indy for the tripplett signing
Bills Fan in PA
by BILLS on Oct 15, 2008 6:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well
I guess you can call this trade a case of cutting your losses. I didn’t like the Bills giving up the picks to move into the bottom of the first round to pick McCargo, but I thought the guy would eventually pan out. I guess getting a fourth-round pick for him is not bad, but I can’t escape the feeling that we could have gotten more out of him as a player on the field. Time will tell…
Get the Bills back to the big game!
by Blitz on Oct 15, 2008 10:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it's offset slightly by Kyle Williams breaking out.
If it was just McCargo, I’m fine with him busting. McCargo and the 73rd pick I’d maybe still call it a wash. That 43rd pick is the only thing that upsets me.
by twoeightnine on Oct 15, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Character/Attitude seemed to be the problem
I get the feeling that attitude and character were at the root of the problem with McCargo not his flashes of ability. When they had to go out and get Stroud AND Johnson and then Kyle stepped up, the writing was on the wall. I was surprised that they did not try to move him in the off season but I suspect they wanted to see if Stroud had truly recovered from his injury.
Getting a 4rth for him was impressive.
by keysh67 on Oct 15, 2008 11:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
chiming in with my late thoughts
A fourth round pick is fair value or better for the Bills. Think about Stroud and all the DTs that got traded in the offseason for a 3rd and 5th or something similiar. A fourth round pick is a little less than half the value of a 3rd and 5th and McCargo has less than half the value of Marcus Stroud. I say the Bills got great value for McCargo.
Krytime – You say name a dominant young DT. I say give me a couple names of some DTs that developed into stars over time.
Kevin Williams had 52 tackles and 10.5 sacks as a rookie
Chris Hovan had 93 tackles and 8 sacks during his first two seasons
John Henderson had 54 tackles and 6.5 sacks his rookie year
Shaun Rogers had 81 tackles and 3 sacks as a rookie
Kris Jenkins had 78 tackles and 9 sacks during his first 2 seasons
Vince Wilfork had 42 tackles and 2 sacks his rookie year
Darnell Dockett has improved over the last couple years but he still had 40 tackles and 3.5 sacks as a rookie
our very own Marcus Stroud had 48 tackles and 6.5 sacks his sophomore season
Tommie Harris had 44 tackles and 3.5 sacks as a rookie
Sedrick Ellis already has 9 tackles and a sack and Glenn Dorsey has 15 tackles, 11 of them solo tackles already this season.
The only players I can think of who took a few years to get going are Albert Haynesworth and Jamal Williams. McCargo is 25 years old and in his third NFL season, he isn’t a rookie who we need to be patient with any more. Youboty is a full year younger and breaking out in his third season. It is a good time for the Bills to get something back for McCargo.
I also agree with Brian that DTs are a premium position, but which positions aren’t premium these days? And I think people always assume the non-skill positions are less deep or more difficult to find because they just aren’t household names. Look back to last year’s draft. Dre Moore and Red Bryant lasted until the 4th round and Frank Okam, Letroy Guion, Jason Shirley and DeMario Pressley were all picked in the fifth round. Just because the Bills have lacked depth at defensive tackle over the years doesn’t mean it isn’t out there.
by kaisertown on Oct 15, 2008 2:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
SB Nation's home for daily Buffalo Bills coverage.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
