Orton's Arm
-
Posts
7,013 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Orton's Arm
-
-
I probably should have said "critical position" because if we draft a friggin' DB or something off the wall, I'm gonna shiv a mofo.
I completely agree! I do not want to see this team use its first round pick on any sort of DB, an interior OL, or an ILB. Or--especially!--on a RB!! A running back would be absolutely ridiculous at #9. Even worse than a DB, and that's saying a lot!
-
If you look at the most successful teams in the NFL, they generally have two things going for them:
1. A complete team with significant strengths and few or no major weaknesses.
2. A quarterback who plays at an elite level.
Of the three quarterbacks that played at the highest level in 2009, two (Manning and Brees) found their way to the Super Bowl. Both played on complete teams.
Now look at the also-rans. The Vikings had a complete team--arguably at least as complete a team as the Saints--but Favre didn't play at quite the same level as Drew Brees did in 2009. Kurt Warner's 2009 season was comparable to that of Manning or Brees, but he wasn't surrounded by the same level of players as those two quarterbacks were. Falling short in either area will normally keep you from getting a Super Bowl ring, because odds are there will be some other team that has both the elite quarterback and the strong supporting cast.
Most other recent Super Bowl winners have fit that mold. The Patriots had Tom Brady, as well as a reasonably complete offense and defense. The Giants team that beat the Patriots had a good (but not great) year from Eli Manning, but made up for the lack of elite play at the quarterback position by having a stronger overall team at the non-quarterback positions than a lot of other Super Bowl winners tend to have. The Steelers, with Ben Roethlisberger, fit that mold--especially in his second Super Bowl win. The Colts obviously fit that mold as well when they won the Super Bowl. Looking back a few years, the Broncos, the Packers and the St. Louis Rams also adhered to that model in their most recent Super Bowl wins.
Not all Super Bowl winners fit that mold. The most obvious example is the Ravens of 2000, a team which won despite having Trent Dilfer at QB. But that team had one of the three best defenses in NFL history. It's very hard to build a defense at that level; which is why you see most Super Bowls being won by teams that follow the elite QB play + complete team mold, and not the Ravens of 2000 or the Bears of '85 mold.
The Bills should build a team that adheres to the elite QB + complete team specification. This means several things: 1) if the opportunity to acquire a franchise QB comes their way, they should take it. 2) They should not expend significant resources on acquiring a non-franchise QB. They should not trade a 2nd round pick for McNabb, for example, because he's old, and will not be playing at an elite level by the time the Bills assemble a complete team around him. If a resource cannot be used on the first part of the plan (acquiring long-term elite play at the QB position) it must be used on the second part (assembling a complete team around him).
-
Now I didnt see too mcuh of Clausen this past season, but from what I did see he was much improved from his soph season. Here is one guys take on Clausen jr year.
http://walterfootball.com/mattblog091229.php
Now I like him more than Bradford thats for sure, but I think its all moot because both wont be around when we draft. Anyways, once the workouts and combine are all done, I wouldnt be suprised to see him rise to #1 on the big board.
That was an excellent read!
Clausen looked good in the one game of his I saw (the Stanford/Notre Dame game). If the Bills are convinced he can be a franchise QB, and if he's there waiting for us at #9, I wouldn't mind pulling the trigger. -
I'm not sure why Bills fans are assuming Stroud, Sp. Johnson, Maybin, and even Schobel will seamlessly convert to a 3-4. That's a lot of positions to assume will be covered by the existing roster.
As someone who's excited by the switch to the 3-4. I want to say that I'm not assuming that the players you mentioned will seamlessly convert to the 3-4. But neither am I willing to assume those guys could be relied on in the 4-3.
Schobel: is contemplating retirement. But could potentially be a good OLB in a 3-4 (at least for a year or two until he retires).
Stroud: is getting on in years, and is no longer the player he was. It's unclear how useful he'll be in either alignment.
Maybin: let's say his conversion to OLB in a 3-4 proves abysmal. An outright disaster. What, precisely, will the Bills have lost? It's not like he's setting the world on fire in a 4-3.
-
I love the "all or nothing" mentality everyone seems to have.
It's not "all about" anything in a team sport. The Super Bowl was won by the team with the 2nd round pick free agent QB and the team that made the bigger plays in each phase of the game.
You have to have good linemen who play cohesively, a good/great QB, talented skill position players who don't make mistakes and a coaching staff that understands its team and can put them into the best position to succeed.
It doesn't matter what position the BILLS draft in the first round - that player has to live up to his slot.
I agree with just about everything in this very solid post. As you say, it's a team sport; which in this case means that both a good QB and a good OL are absolutely critical to winning games. It's not an either/or type situation.
The one thing you've written with which I take issue is the last sentence. I agree that whichever player the Bills take has to live up to his draft spot. That said, I'd like them to use their first round pick on a more critical, harder-to-fill position, such as QB, LT, NT, or RDE; as opposed to a position that should normally be filled in the second round or later. Right now, the Bills have so many needs at the hardest to fill positions that they can't afford the luxury of using their ninth overall pick on a position that would normally be addressed a little later in the draft.
-
Sometimes it's out of date, but right now Whitner is listed as the starting FS on the Bills Depth Chart
Byrd wasn't mentioned at all on that depth chart, which leads me to believe his name was temporarily removed after he was put on injured reserve. Once Byrd is healthy, I expect to see him returned to his starting position at free safety; just as George Wilson will likely retain his position as starting SS.
-
With Byrd Scott (hopefully) and Wilson we have great safeties. But Whitner can play nickle, and be a valuable backup. We are deep at corner too. But unless its a high pick its just not worth it. He is more valuable as a player on this team than a 4th round pick. Maybe even a third. I mean really, Whitner or Youboty/Ellis. Just cause we get a pick for him doesnt mean we solve a problem - more than likely we create one by letting him go.
Bear in mind that Whitner's contract is almost over, and he'd probably prefer to sign with a team where he'd be a starter, instead of a backup like he is with the Bills. If he was locked up for the rest of his career, a third round pick would seem about the right price for trading him away. Given his contract status, I'd trade him for a fourth round pick. I agree that trading him away would create a hole at backup safety, and that the Bills would probably have to address that position as early as round 4. But if they don't trade him, he'll probably leave in free agency after his contract is over, thereby creating that hole anyway.
-
We'd have to pay a king's ransom to get Suh. Which could be a worthwhile thing to do if he ends up playing like a king. He'd be a RDE in a 3-4 defense, and could easily play at or near a Hall of Fame level there.
While this team is short on warm bodies at a lot of positions (which tends to argue in favor of trading down), it's also short on difference makers--players at or near an elite level who tend to change the whole complexion of a game. To acquire more difference makers, it generally helps to trade up.
I'd define difference makers in three categories:
Type 1: if one of your guys can be productive while using up two of their guys, he's a type 1 difference maker. Jerry Rice had plenty of productive games while being double covered. Bruce Smith had plenty of production while being double teamed.
Type 2: If one of your guys can singlehandedly keep a type 1 difference maker under control throughout the course of the game, he's a type 2 difference maker. You can put a Deion Sanders on a Jerry Rice and be okay. You can put a Tony Boselli on a Bruce Smith and shut him down.
Type 3: If a guy doesn't play a position which lends itself to either of the above categories, but still changes the complexion of the game, he's a type 3 difference maker. Joe Montana, Ronnie Lott, and Barry Sanders were all type 3 difference makers.
How many difference makers under the age of 30 does this team really have? On defense, Byrd may fall into that category if he keeps producing like he did as a rookie. Other than him, I can't think of anyone. On offense there's nobody.
Adding Suh would give us another difference maker at a key position on defense. But before we go ahead and pull the trigger, we need to ask ourselves what our current GM would do with the picks, had they not been traded away. If the answer to that is, "he would have done no better than TD or Marv would have," then obviously we pull the trigger. There's no sense in forgoing a player like Suh in order to acquire guys like Mike Williams, Roscoe Parrish, Donte Whitner, John McCargo, or Marshawn Lynch. But if Buddy would have been able to have San Diego-like drafts with those picks, it would be a lot more painful to part with them!!
-
if we give the eagles our number 9 pick and a 4th rounder for their number 24 pick and mcnabb i think that would be the best way to go about getting him. we would still be able to get a great offensive tackle in the first rd and then we could go either qb in the 2nd or 3rd or linebacker in the 2nd or 3rd. i'm more for drafting a quarterback and having him start day one. but if we decide not to go that way then were going to need to get a veteran guy to come in here for a year or 2 and mcnabb would be the best guy to pursue. so if the eagles are willing to trade him i'd say this is how it gets done.
The Bills should not consider trading away either draft picks or draft positions for aging veteran players at any position. We are a rebuilding team, which means we should be looking for ways to increase the pace at which we acquire young talent, not decrease it.
There is no room for Donovan McNabb on this team, unless Philly releases him and he is signed as a free agent. Even then, I would prefer to see playing time go to a younger player like Brohm, both to get him experience and to evaluate his play at the NFL level.
-
This guy is a hack and his article is trash. He doesn not cite any of Ralphs real tactical errors and he fails to mention how he backs up his support for small markets.
The Sabres a model for small markets? Look at the help they get from Canada. Two playoff appearances in 7 years and that was more luck than anything Golosano did. His best moves were staying with Regier and Ruff ... something that Ralph would be criticized for in today's NFL.
I agree with your post. While Ralph was guilty of serious mistakes, the article does not address them. The overweight goatee-sporting author points out that the Bills moved a game a year to Toronto, and failed to provide disaster recovery efforts after a wind/snow storm, to support conclusions along the lines of, "Ralph Wilson is a blood-sucking leech who cares nothing for our community." What disaster recovery efforts did the author, George N. Root, personally perform during the aftermath of that storm? If the answer is "none," then do I get to call him "a blood-sucking leech who cares nothing for our community"?
-
Everytime I keep reading the forum posts I see suggestions for this QB that QB...develop this player...keep this one...draft for the future...draft a NFL-ready OT
I am curious to find out what everyone thinks is really going to happen next year...
I think once we figure that out, we will know how we should proceed with the draft/free agency/trades/cuts
For example, if we are in rebuilding mode (I dont think we are) we better not brign in a guy like McNabb to horde snaps from developing qbs (Brohm)...
Or, if we're going to make a legit run for the playoffs, then we shouldn't draft Clausen/Bradford, unless we think they are second coming of Ben Roethlisberger and his excellent rookie season...
A team that barely misses the playoffs can still be in rebuilding mode. Take the Bills of 2006--they achieved a 7-9 record, but had a ton of weaknesses on that team. And no core of solid, young players to create long-term potential for the future. If you string together a lot of victories with guys like Larry Triplett, Robert Royal, and Donte Whitner, it's not going to serve as a stepping stone to anything more. A team like that has a very low ceiling.
This team is still in rebuilding mode, because very few building blocks were added under Marv's tenure. Let's look at the younger players who represent long-term answers at their respective positions:
OL: Wood, Levitre
RB: Fred Jackson (except that he's getting on in years)
QB: nobody
WR: Lee Evans
TE: Nelson (maybe)
DL: Kyle Williams
LB: Poz
Secondary: everyone
Except for the defensive secondary, there aren't a lot of names on that list! No quarterback, no left tackle, no #1 WR, no defensive linemen not named Kyle Williams, only one LB. Most of those positions are hard to fill!! Getting a good QB, a good LT, a good RDE, a good #1 WR, or a good NT is typically going to require a first round pick. This team's problem isn't just the number of holes it has--which is considerable--it's that the holes tend to be at the hardest to fill, most premium positions.
-
Washington and Williams were both playing DT. "The package" was a 4-3 defense.
The Package was a 3-4 defense, with one of those guys lined up at NT, and the other at DE. It was difficult to run against that defense, let me tell you that!!
-
But he did. What's the point of make believe?
His point was that Jauron wasn't exactly the world's best head coaching candidate when he was first hired.
-
But, if the first 3 picks go to a QB and LT, where is the help for the weak defense? I suppose that maybe some help for the D could come in FA, but the Bills' D was LAST in the league against the run. I think that they do have plenty of talent in the secondary, but both DL and LB must be upgraded significantly.
I agree that my above scenario leaves a number of problems unsolved. But that's unavoidable. This team is in rebuilding mode due to the bad drafts under TD and Marv. Solving its needs would likely require something along the lines of the below plan:
2010 draft:
1a. QB
1b (by trading back into the first): LT
4. DT
5. LB
2011 draft:
1. RDE
2. DT
3. LB
4. LB
5. DT
2012 draft:
1. WR
2. LDE
3. RT
4. LB
The three drafts I've proposed should solve the Bills' major problems, assuming that everyone from rounds 1 - 3 turns into a starting quality player, and assuming that there's one starting quality player from the second day picks each year. I know that's an awful lot of assuming, but when you're a rebuilding team, you have to rely on good drafting to dig yourself out of your present hole.
-
I understand the desire to get the QB of the future ASAP. If we had a great offensive line or at least an average one I would agree with you. Problem is that due to youth or lack of talent our offensive line stinks right now.
Help me out with this because I really don't know the answer but....what QB chosen in the top 9 picks in the last 10 years hasn't started by years end? The only guy I can think of is Phillip Rivers and that is only because San Diego had Drew Brees, a great o-line and LT and couldn't trade out of the spot so they had to take Eli who became Rivers.
One quarterback comes immediately to mind: Carson Palmer, chosen first overall, didn't start a game until his second year. During his rookie year he was third string, and remained firmly on the bench. Which is exactly where rookie quarterbacks belong!!
To address your larger point: the Bills are lacking in many positions. Of those, the most difficult to fill, but also the most critical, is the quarterback position. If there's a franchise QB available at #9, we take him. Because we might not have the chance to take a franchise QB next year, or the year after. In fact, we haven't had a franchise QB since Kelly hung up his cleats!
If there isn't a franchise QB available at #9, we look to see if there's a franchise LT. If not, then hopefully there's a franchise DL available!
To address your concern about what to do about a franchise QB when you don't have a line: if the Bills take a non-LT at #9, they should probably use their second and third round picks to trade back into the first round, and grab a LT there. There should still be some good ones available. If in addition to that they re-sign Incognito, the like would look like this:
LT: 1st round pick chosen in the 20s.
LG: Levitre
C: Wood
RG: Incognito
RT: Butler
Not the best line in the league, but certainly respectable! Plus that rookie QB would be on the bench his first year anyway, which would give him the chance to learn, it would give the LT a chance to work through his rookie mistakes, and would give the Bills the chance to evaluate what they have or don't have in Brohm.
-
In all fairness, I think Gandy was a holdover fromt eh previous coaching staff. But either way, he didn't hit on one FA, did he? I do think his draft record is better than you are stating though. The biggest problem may be that he took players who were able to contribute quickly for the most part, but never really had that high of a ceiling. Basically he got guys like Whitner who were what they were when he drafted them and are not better by leaps and bounds now. Same could be said of Williams, Butler, and maybe McKelvin (might be too early to tell here though). It's hard to say whether this is a problem of not drafting the right players or not being able to develop players.
You're right: Gandy was signed in 2005. And we're agreed that Marv's free agent signings were all failures.
I'll grant that in my earlier post, I painted a grim picture of Marv's drafts. I mentioned that Marv found no current starters with his three first round picks (including two picks in the top 12). I added that Marv's picks resulted in only two current starters overall--Kyle Williams and Brad Butler--the latter of whom is more like a quality backup than a guy you really want starting.
While that description is accurate (the number of current starters from Marv's drafts is not open to subjective interpretation), I'll grant that the description does not take into account the fact that Marv also obtained some guys who are quality backups, such as Whitner, Ellison, and probably a few others. But still . . . increasing a team's depth, while useful, should not be the main draft day goal for a GM whose team lacks starting caliber players at most positions.
I think that your description is accurate: Marv got guys who could and did contribute right away, but who had low ceilings. That seemed impressive at first--we got a lot of contributions out of rookies and second-year players en route to consecutive 7-9 records. But now that it's become clear that he did almost nothing to help build this team over the long-term, the initial luster of his tenure as GM has worn off. Now, that time appears quite shabby!
-
here's the list of QBs in the Hall whose careers began no later than 1965 (Namath) ... before that I didn't have a chance to see any of them:
Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, John Elway, Dan Fouts, Bob Greise, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Joe Montana, Warren Moon, Joe Namath, Roger Staubach and Steve Young.
which one(s) would you take Warner ahead of for Bills QB? none for me. i simply dont see him in that class
HoF QBs Warner is hands-down better than:
- Namath
- Bradshaw
- Griese
HoF QBs Warner is slightly better than:
- Kelly
- Moon
- Staubach
- Aikman
- Fouts
HoF QBs Warner is in the same general class as:
- Steve Young
- Joe Montana
- John Elway
- Dan Marino
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Warner has a higher career yards per attempt (7.9 vs. 7.5) a slightly higher career passer rating (93.7 vs. 92.3) and almost as many career passing yards (32,000 vs. 40,000) as Joe Montana. Warner's stats and career accomplishments clearly put him in the third (and best) category of Hall of Fame players.
- Namath
-
really? i cant think of any. he's also not a guy that other teams were clamoring over to get. no, sorry folks, he doesn't have the intangibles of a HOF QB
Um . . . I hate to say this . . . but if you can't think of anyone in the Hall of Fame that's worse than Warner, then you haven't been looking very hard. Kurt Warner averaged 7.9 yards per pass and has a 93.7 QB rating over the course of his career. Terry Bradshaw averaged 7.2 yards per pass and has a career QB rating of 70.9. Plus, Bradshaw was surrounded by offensive talent, including a great OL, amazing running game, and Hall of Fame WR Lynn Swan. So, yeah, if I'm building a team, and if I have to choose between Terry Bradshaw or Kurt Warner (with both guys in their primes), I know which one I'm picking. And it's not even close.
A better comparison player to Warner would be Joe Montana, who had 7.5 yards per pass attempt and a career passer rating of 92.3. Warner threw for 32,000 career yards, as opposed to Montana's 40,000 yards. (Montana's career was longer.)
-
Since someone actually has a post suggesting we should trade for the worst starting QB in the NFL, it must be some kind of contest to suggest really awful players and make nutty arguements why the Bills need them.
I think the Bills should sign Ryan Leaf because he was a #1 pick right behind Peyton Manning. And if Manning is a hall of fame QB then Ryan must be one too because he went right behind Manning in the draft. Now it's true that Leaf had some rough years...and been out of the league forever....but maybe all Leaf needs is a change of scenery to really blossom. And I bet Chan Gailey would like a project like Leaf to make his job that much harder. After all any coach can win with good players. Where's the challenge in that?
Leaf is big and strong and kind of cute and I bet he will take the veteran minimum. What do you think?
PTR
I think you're right. Leaf was brought along too quickly in San Diego, he was the victim of bad coaching and other very bad circumstances, the competition from a veteran QB spoiled his confidence, and it's not his fault that he's now considered a bust. Hey, with physical gifts like his, why not give him another chance? I mean, you can just see the potential there, right? Originally chosen by San Diego, Leaf has the potential to become the next Drew Brees story.
I can see the story unfolding now: a former NFL first round pick, down on his luck, gets picked up by the Las Vegas Locomotives. Leads them to a championship! Then gets signed by Buffalo, and proves to the NFL that he should have been treated better in the past. All Leaf needs for this to happen is the beard!
-
In fairness to Kelly, he played in a time when QBs could actually get hit. So.. ya know.
Bledsoe played for an additional 5 years after the trade to Buffalo; gave us the best year of football for a decade; and held the position pretty well while in Dallas for Romo to come along without being rushed. Had the Bills had any sense they wouldn't have rushed JP into the game and held onto Bledsoe and half their other players a little longer before self-inflicted rebuilds each year.
I'll grant that for his first eight games here, Bledsoe played at a Hall of Fame level. But after that he was he was mediocre. Same thing in Dallas: eight amazing games, followed by not much of anything. To illustrate this, let's look at Bledsoe's performance in Buffalo using Kelly Holcomb as a benchmark. Jonas Jennings left after the 2004 season. For that and other reasons, the Bills' offensive line was a lot weaker in 2005 than it had been during Bledsoe's time with the team. Playing behind that dilapidated line, Holcomb had 6.6 yards per pass attempt and a QB rating of 85.6.
In 2002, Bledsoe exceeded those numbers: his yards per attempt was 7.1, and his QB rating was 86.0. This was the year when he had the monster half season. But then in 2003, his numbers fell to 6.1 and 73.0, both of which are well below the Holcomb standard. Bledsoe had a minor comeback in 2004, with his yards per attempt increasing to 6.5, and his rating going up to 76.6. While this was an improvement over the year before, it was still not quite up to the stats Holcomb would put up a year later. Bearing in mind that Holcomb didn't have the same line Bledsoe had, the difference becomes even more dramatic.
The Bledsoe trade was an abysmal failure because--with the exception of those first eight games--Bledsoe failed to deliver the same level of performance as a second-rate free agent (Holcomb). And because that trade cost us a first round draft pick. I have no objection to the idea of keeping rookie quarterbacks on the bench while an aging veteran takes the snaps. But it's always a mistake for a rebuilding team to give up a first day draft choice to obtain an aging veteran at any position!
There's usually a Holcomb-like guy floating around in free agency. And if not, there are guys on the Bills' roster--like Edwards--who could serve as a temporary stopgap while the hypothetical rookie QB is being groomed.> In fairness to Kelly, he played in a time when QBs could actually get hit.
I suggest you go up to Brett Favre and tell him that quarterbacks don't get hit anymore. See how he responds!
-
While most of the sportswriting world has already speculated that Kurt Warner's press conference, set for 3 p.m. ET Friday, will serve as his official retirement announcement, our own inside source informs me that Warner is definitely walking away. I've learned not to question his judgment.
Which begs the question of Warner's legacy, of course. If you'd asked me about his Hall of Fame chances a year ago, I would have hemmed and hawed before saying that yes, he "probably" had a good chance to get in "someday." (Okay, so I hedge my bets.) Looking back, I wonder what I was thinking, because the two-time MVP looks like a first-ballot lock.
Since The Associated Press started handing out Most Valuable Player honors in 1957, only six players have won the award more than once: Peyton Manning (4), Brett Favre (3), Jim Brown (3), Johnny Unitas (3), Joe Montana, Steve Young, and Warner. Brown, Unitas, Montana, and Young were each elected in their first year of eligibility. Manning and Favre certainly will be. Is there any valid reason to keep Warner out of that group?
If there is, let's hear it.
Kurt Warner played in about 9 - 10 seasons' worth of games. Over the course of his career, he has 7.9 yards per pass attempt and a QB rating of 93.7. Joe Montana's career average was 7.5 yards per attempt and a rating of 92.3. Warner has led his team to the Super Bowl three times, including one win. He has the three highest single-game passing yardage totals in Super Bowl history. He's broken the 4500 passing yards mark twice in his career, including once with the Cardinals. He has the second-highest passing yards per game stat of any QB in NFL history (Peyton Manning is first). He has the most passing yards in any one postseason, ever, and is tied with Joe Montana for the most TD passes in any one postseason. He has the highest completion percentage in the playoffs in NFL history, and the second-highest QB rating in the playoffs (Bart Starr is first). He tied Dan Mario as the fastest player to pass for 30,000 yards. In 45.2% of the games he played, he passed for over 300 yards--a better percentage than any other QB in NFL history.
If there's some reason this guy shouldn't be elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot, I'd be very curious to hear it!
-
People love to hard on Marv but he did try to fill his needs in FA and concentrate on other positions in the draft. Unfortunately, that led to Tripplett over Ngata and Fowler over Mangold.
Criticism of both Marv's strategy and his tactics is justified. Strategically, he focused his best draft day resources on the wrong positions. With three first round picks, on a rebuilding team, he took 1 SS, 1 RB, and only one lineman of any kind (the McCargo bust). That's a bad strategy, worsened by the fact that Marv's first round picks were generally reaches.
As far as tactics go: none of the players he took in the first round are currently starters. Both his drafts combined yielded just two current starters: Brad Butler and Kyle Williams. Of those two, the former should probably be upgraded once the team gets a spare draft pick. The scary thing is that, as bad as Marv's drafts were, his free agent signings were even worse. Literally every free agent signing he made turned out to be a mistake. Peerless Price, Larry Triplett, Mike Gandy, Robert Royal, Tuten Reyes, Derrick Dockery, Langston Walker, Melvin Fowler, and probably a few other mistakes I'm forgetting. There's nothing positive on that list to offset its (many) negatives!
-
You and I have very different opinions on both our current team and Donovn McNabb!
I don't consider the Bills to be a team in "rebuilding" mode. We're more of a team that needs to fix a few key weeknesses and then will be ready to compete for playoffs in 2010. Those being QB and offensive line and coach. Getting McNabb would fix the first.
As far as McNabb being an "aging vet with little left in his tank" goes, he's the same age as Peyton Manning who is in the SB this year. Several QBs took their teams to the playoff this year his age or older, namely McNabb, Manning, Favre, and Warner.
I don't know about you, but I don't consider 22 TDS and 10 picks and 3,553 YDS and a rating of 92.9 fir 2009 to be a QB with "little left in his tank".
1) Donovan McNabb is going into his 12th year in the NFL. When the Bills traded for Drew Bledsoe, he was going into his 10th year. Jim Kelly's career lasted thirteen years, including the two he spent in the USFL. I don't know how many more years you're expecting McNabb to play; but the real question is, how many more years can he play at a reasonably high level? One? Two? Maybe even three?
2) I couldn't care less about the first two years of play that McNabb can give us, because the rest of this team is in rebuilding mode. (See below.) The only question I'm worried about is, "What can McNabb do for us starting in 2012?" Versus "what can that 2nd round pick do for us in 2012 and after?"
3) This team is in rebuilding mode.
This team's bright spots--the areas it probably won't have to worry about for a while--consist of the following:
- The defensive secondary, which is sunshine and roses.
- The interior OL (assuming we re-sign Incognito)
- #2 WR/deep burner (Lee Evans)
- The RB situation should be good for a few years
- Two players on our front 7 (Kyle Williams and Poz)
Other than those things, just about every aspect of this team is in rebuilding mode! Schobel is nearing retirement, and there's no one on the roster to replace him. The other guys on the front seven (with the exceptions of Williams and Poz) are also either close to retirement, not particularly good, or both. The defense will need to obtain five starting quality front seven players over the next two to three years.
There is no proven, starting quality WR on this roster except for Evans, and he's the guy you want as your #2, not your #1. There is no quarterback, no left tackle, and the right tackle situation is iffy. While Nelson has shown potential as a TE, he has a lot to prove. Ditto Steve Johnson at WR.
This team is a lot like the 2004 Bills. That team's defense was reasonably good due to a lot of aging veterans, but its offense was mediocre at best. That 2004 team was also in rebuilding mode even though TD didn't realize it. The decline in record from 2004 to 2005 was largely because the aging veterans who'd been propping the defense up in 2004 were either too old to play well or injured or retired in 2005. The same thing will happen to the Bills again in either 2010 or 2011; as our current batch of aging defensive veterans hits the wall. Add that problem to the gaping holes on offense (QB, LT, #1 WR, probably RT, etc.), and you're left looking at a team that's clearly in rebuilding mode.
-
A number of years ago, I worked for an organization in D.C. that tried to get the government to include more funds in the A.I.D. budget to allow people to teach birth control in the Third World. There was overwhelming conservative opposition, largely because a lot of the organizations which recieved the money to teach birth control were also involved in abortion.
Many many of the people being taught literally had never known that birth control was possible, except for premature withdrawal, which is a very ineffective method.
Even when those organizations promised not to use the A.I.D. money for abortions, the conservatives consistently tried to gut that part of the budget.
There was a lot of opposition from Catholics, too, on the grounds that anything but the rhythm method was wrong, and from lefties saying that teaching people from other cultures birth control was hidden racism, a way of trying to lower the numbers of people of other races, and was condescending as well.
All of it seemed insane to me, but Reagan cut the budget to zero, but our organization (and others) got it restored to the previous level in Congress, but couldn't get it increased.
The fact that your organization encountered so much opposition to its efforts is deeply displeasing!
While birth control isn't the only thing that needs to be done for impoverished nations, it's so vital that without it, all other efforts are doomed to long-term failure.
Walter football read on Clausen
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
If Clausen is the franchise quarterback the article describes, the Bills should make that trade, period. Opportunities for franchise quarterbacks don't come around very often; so when one does appear, you have to take it. Look at all the resources the Bills have poured into the quarterback position since Kelly hung up his cleats--thus far with nothing to show for it. They've spent the following:
Todd Collins: 2nd round pick
Billy Joe Hobart: 3rd round pick
Rob Johnson: 1st round pick, 4th round pick
Drew Bledsoe: 1st round pick
J.P. Losman: 1st round pick, 2nd round pick, 5th round pick
Trent Edwards: 3rd round pick
For Clausen to cost us as much as those guys did, we'd have to trade away three first round picks, two 2nd round picks, two 3rd rounders, a 4th, and a 5th. Any price lower than that represents a smaller cost than those guys collectively were, while providing (presumably) a significantly greater benefit to this franchise than they did.