Drafting for Future Need

Discussion in 'College Football & the NFL Draft' started by Vinny, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. Vinny

    Vinny shiny happy fan Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    21,847
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    Good article. If you look at the Texans drafts we seem to follow this philosophy as well. We took a young back up QB in Ragone when everyone thought we wasted a pick, but now we have a young player who has been in our system for years who is just starting to find himself as an NFL player. It is nice that we are not out in the FA market groping for a back up QB and hoping he picks up our system in one year or less. Lord, Hollings and Earl are also the same type of picks.
    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/3482846
     
  2. The Preacher

    The Preacher Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    3
    Does that infer RB if Benson falls?
    O-line and D-line since thin depth and age are creeping up and we could groom for a year?

    I guess BPA is easy answer since that is what the article says. Especially for the Eagles since they are stacked and have a ton of picks.
     
  3. beerlover

    beerlover Site Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    12,960
    Likes Received:
    544
    this would seem to support picking the BPA in the draft even if its a position of strength (like CB) when the long term result justifies the need :)
     
  4. Vinny

    Vinny shiny happy fan Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    21,847
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    I think we have been slowly building for a legit Super Bowl run in 2006, and 2007 so we have most probably had our eye on those target years from the start. Many of our picks have been guys who project well but have been head scratchers when it came to team 'need'.

    A ton of people were very critical of the McGahee pick (as the example in the article), but I think we can all agree that talent superseded need in retrospect.
     
  5. TheOgre

    TheOgre Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,739
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Back in the cellar again
    I understood the McGahee pick at the time. Travis Henry is a "good" back but fumbles too much and isn't an elite back. McGahee would have been a top 3 pick in the draft (perhaps a Texan) if he had remained healthy. The Bills were apparently willing to pay for an injury season to get a guy that could easily end up being one of the top 5 backs in the league. I personally thought he would be drafted 5-10 slots later.
     
  6. edo783

    edo783 Site Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    7,711
    Likes Received:
    308
    Location:
    Houston, again.
    I for one was critical of the McGahee pick, but not because they took him when it seemed they didn't need him, but rather the gamble with a 1st round pick on a severly injured player. If he wasn't injured, I would have assumed it was a BPA thing and ignored it. Of course they wouldn't have gotten close to Willis if he hadn't been injured. Frankly, I don't see this particular pick as a "Draft for the future", but rather a roll of the dice that happend to come up big. If we draft say Carlos Rogers, then that is a future draft pick. We would be looking ahead to A. Glenn's retirement.
     
  7. El Tejano

    El Tejano Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,933
    Likes Received:
    447
    I remember how noone liked the JWells, JGaffney, and even the Drew Henson picks. Well JWells contributed to the win in KC, against Oak., and against Tenn. JGaff helped us beat the Bears, Titans, and Chiefs and his # have been improving. We were able to get Drew Henson from baseball and turn that 6th rounder into what will be a 3rd rounder this year as we make a playoff push this season, and by the looks of it Parcells isn't going to do anything with that QB anyhow.

    Yes there were players we could've gotten that could've contributed right away but I really haven't seen those guys do much after their rookie year.
     
  8. Lucky

    Lucky Moderator

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    14,255
    Likes Received:
    1,455
    McGahee was a good back last year, but not the McGahee we saw at Miami in '02. That guy was a power RB with breakaway speed. The '04 version was a power back w/o breakaway speed. McGahee's stats were comparable to DD's. Ironically, it was Travis Henry's inability to stay healthy that gave McGahee the opportunity to win the Bills starting RB job. A healthy Willis McGahee would have been the best player in the '03 draft. We haven't seen that player in the NFL, maybe we never will.
     
  9. TheOgre

    TheOgre Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,739
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Back in the cellar again
    I think he will be more like that (2002) guy in 2005. It can take 2-3 years to come back from an injury like that. It has been just over 2 years since he sustained the injury.
     
  10. Vinny

    Vinny shiny happy fan Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    21,847
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    McGahee changed the entire nature of the Bills offense. They went to a power running game and McGahee gave them a toughness that Henry didn't.
     
  11. Lucky

    Lucky Moderator

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    14,255
    Likes Received:
    1,455
    Well, that was a component of the Bills improvement on offense. But so was Lee Evans emergence as a deep threat at WR. Evans got the safeties to back off & freed Moulds to work the middle of the field. No question that McGahee has shown to be worth the pick at #23. Just not the top 5 player he was prior to that gruesome injury.
     

Share This Page