Orton's Arm

This is terrible news, and if I was GM I would not even consider such a trade. From what other posters have written, we're talking about a second round pick to get this done. It's ridiculous for a rebuilding team to trade away a second round pick for an aging vet with little left in his tank. Two to three years from now--when the rebuilding project ought to be nearing completion---McNabb's career will be very near its end. And the Bills will be out that second round pick. This is another Bledsoe trade (which had been a bad idea as well).

I don't like the idea of using the 9th overall pick on a guard. That's a luxury-type decision which this team is in no position to afford. We have needs at much harder-to-fill positions, such as LT, QB, RDE, and DT. Let the 9th overall pick be used on one of those! The Bills' interior OL is fine; especially if they re-sign Incognito, put him at guard, and move Wood to center. I'm not a big fan of moving a current interior OL (either Iupati or a Bills' interior OL) to tackle.

Most people responded to the Haiti disaster with an outpouring of emotion and, consequently, of aid. Shirley responded with logic. To some, that latter form of response may seem lacking in warmth and compassion. Perhaps there is some truth to that. Shirley is an engineer by training--a category of people not always noted for getting all warm and fuzzy. But we should not be quick to assume that the emotion-based response that the average person has to the Haiti disaster is necessarily superior in all respects to Shirley's logical approach. Without cold, hard logic, it will be impossible to solve the long-term problems in Haiti Shirley so eloquently described. Ultimately, compassion and logic are most useful when joined together, with the latter placed in service of the former. Without compassion, we would not care enough to make the effort to solve Haiti's long-term problems in the first place. Without logic, we would only address short-term problems. An emotion-driven approach would entail handing the Haitians fish, rather than teaching them to fish. Or, perhaps more to the point, the emotion-driven approach would fail to teach the Haitians to have fewer children, thus reducing their need for fish.

Your post brings up a series of mistakes the Bills made: 1. Signing Melvin Fowler to the big free agent contract the Bills made. 2. Being so convinced that Fowler was the answer that they no longer saw the position of center as a need. 3. Having a cap administrator strongly influence drafting strategy. (Though I have not seen this one confirmed.) 4. Choosing McCargo over Mangold. (Which to some extent was the result of 1 - 3). But even if you make the argument that the Bills supposedly had a "center" (in the form of Fowler), were they really set at their other interior OL positions? If Fowler was supposedly that great, why not take Mangold anyway and move either him or Fowler to OG? That way the Bills could have both players on the field at once. Unless they somehow concluded that DT was a bigger need than interior OL. Which would make sense, because the Bills' draft priorities seemed to emphasize the defensive secondary first, the rest of the defense second, offensive skill players third, and the offensive line dead last. That changed a little in the 2009 draft--but bear in mind that the Wood pick was obtained by trading away Peters. So the net investment on the offensive line consisted of the 2nd round pick on Levitre.

The scary thing is the above sentence is actually true! No one here wanted Whitner at #8 (at least not before the draft). Just about any of the other ideas proposed for the 8th overall pick (Ngata, Cutler, trade down, etc.) would have worked out a lot better. The only exception is Bunkley, which would have been pretty similar to Whitner. Then there was the McCargo pick--when Nick Mangold went a pick or two later. Bill from NYC really wanted the Bills to take Mangold. Now McCargo is a backup, and Mangold is the best center in the league. Then there was Marshawn Lynch at #12. Before that draft I hardly heard any Bills fans suggesting him! Now he's a backup!

The 2010 season will be a rebuilding one no matter what the Bills do or don't do. The number of wins they get in 2010 does not matter, except to the extent it impacts the long-term rebuilding effort. Of the guys we currently have in the front seven, only two--Kyle Williams and Poz--represent reasonably young, good players. There's room for both those guys in a 3-4. Over the coming rebuilding period, we're going to have to add another five guys to our front seven, regardless of whatever defensive scheme we employ. For these reasons, the Bills should put short-term considerations aside and adopt whichever defensive scheme will work out best over the long-term. I strongly believe that scheme to be the 3-4, assuming they can find a reasonably cerebral DC to run it.

A good post. To add to it, I'll mention a couple of players from the previous year's list who didn't make this year's. 6. Donte Whitner - 1st Round Pick 4. J.P. Losman - 1st Round Pick

Russell: Has amazing physical traits Was chosen in the first round Has never shown he can be a pocket passer Cannot read defenses Is inaccurate If we wanted a quarterback like that, then why did we send the previous iteration of that guy to the UFL? The only difference between Russell and you-know-who is that the latter had a lot more passion for the game of football than Jamarcus Russell will ever have.

I'll grant that the Cardinals' offensive line doesn't exactly consist of world beaters. But . . . If you were going up against Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, etc., and if you knew that the Cardinals ranked last in the number of runs attempted, how often would you put eight men in the box? Yeah, same here. The Cardinals' passing game took a ton of pressure off the running game.

Why is it that almost everyone associated with the Bills' defensive coordinator search has a name with sexual or scatological connotations? First it was Jim "defensive master" Bates. The last time around, we heard about how Brett Maxie pads his defensive stats in the Tampon 2. (At least, I think he was associated with the Tampa 2.) And now this!! I mean, a guy named Dan Pees? At least we haven't (yet?) interviewed Monte Kiffin. I guess in the first job interview, Kiffin would show the Bills part of what he had to offer. Then in the next interview, he'd show them a little more of himself. And in the third interview, the Bills would get to see the full . . . well, never mind. Edit: if we really did want a guy named Dan Pees, there's no way we should have fired our most recent head coach. Their two names were made for each other!

This is a difficult hire to get excited about. This guy has two years of NFL coaching experience, both as a RB coach. A quarterbacks coach has to teach the quarterbacks how to read the field/see multiple options on every play. That's complicated. A WRs coach also has to keep track of all the WR routes on any given play--also complicated. An offensive line coach has to deal with five guys all moving around on a play, plus blocking schemes, blitz recognition, etc. Complicated! A running backs coach? If being a running back was all that mentally challenging, what's Marshawn Lynch still doing in a Bills' uniform? Or take past Bills players like Willis McGahee, Travis Henry, and O.J. Simpson. We're not exactly talking about rocket scientists here. I'll grant that Modkins has also been a TE coach at the college level. But is being a TE coach really that much more challenging than being a RBs coach? Look at Mike Mularkey. And finally, to top it all off, this guy has actually been a defensive backs coach!!!! The logical side of me realizes this is probably a point in his favor. But still . . . Jauron was once a defensive backs coach. So was Perry Fewell. And Jerry Gray. Now we're bringing that mentality to the offense! Is there some way we could disqualify former and current defensive backs coaches from being head coaches or coordinators for this football team? Okay, maybe that last paragraph was more emotional reaction than cold hard logic. But still: the other stuff stands. This is an underwhelming hire, as far as I'm concerned. But as has been pointed out, he (presumably) won't be calling the plays, so I'm not overly worried just yet.

The above is an extremely optimistic assessment of Marv's two drafts! 2006 1a. Donte Whitner, chosen 8th overall, is currently a backup. That's a bust in my book. 1b. John McCargo is also a bust. 3. Youboty isn't even our dime back. (McGee, McKelvin, Florence, and Corner are ahead of him.) Bust. 4. Kyle Williams is a very solid player. 5. Brad Butler is a decent (not good) OL. At a bare minimum, an OL needs to win 80% of his battles on running plays to be considered competent. As a RG, Butler came in a little below that figure. 6. Ellison is better than you'd expect for a 6th round pick. Has played well at times, but overall does not appear to be the answer as a starter. 2007 1. Marshawn Lynch, chosen 12th overall, is a backup. That's a bust. The Bills shouldn't have even considered using this pick on a RB! 2. Poz is a solid LB. 3. Edwards is a decent backup QB 4 - 7 Wendling and Schouman have value as backups/special teams players Marv came away with literally no starters from his three first round picks! That's a horrific record! I'll grant that he partially made up for that disaster by getting some decent players on the second day of the draft (Butler, Ellison, and Kyle Williams). But he acquired zero game-changers or difference makers, at a time when the team was desperately in need of such guys, and when he clearly had the resources to do so (three first round picks, including two in the top 12). Marv's tenure as GM was an abysmal failure.

I agree with your post. For a 3-4 defense to work in Buffalo, we need a smart, innovative defensive coordinator, and we need the right players. We can (hopefully!) acquire the first of those things over the next week or so. As for getting the right players: making the switch to a 3-4, now, would allow the team to focus on acquiring defensive players suited for that scheme. (As well as on offensive players, of course!) The goal isn't to have all the right players in place at the start of the 2010 season, but you want to at least come close to that for the start of 2011. And to be close to finished with the rebuilding effort by 2012.

Parcells has proven more as a head coach than as a general manager. In his time with the Giants, and later with the Patriots, he didn't have final authority on personnel. So to evaluate his GM work you look at Dallas and Miami. He made it to the playoffs once in Miami, and multiple times in Dallas. I'm not sure how many playoff games he's won in those two locations though. A guy like Parcells will be a solid choice as your team's GM. But thus far, he has a ways to go before he puts himself in the Polian category. I personally think that Polian would have been smart enough to take Matt Ryan instead of Long. Nothing against Long, but the Dolphins needed a quarterback, and Matt Ryan is very obviously franchise material!

I have the feeling that we're not going to reach consensus here, but let's see. During the Flutie/Johnson controversy, the team's defense was clearly superior to its offense. That defense carried the team into the playoffs, and (had it not been for the Music City Miracle) could potentially have carried the team all the way to the Super Bowl. A few years earlier--when we had both Bruce Smith and Bryce Paup--the defense was also better than anything we've seen in the 2000s. At no point did the Bills use Ted Washington and Pat Williams in a 4-3 defense on a regular basis. Ted Washington left after the 2000 season, and the 4-3 was implemented in 2001. You may be thinking of "the package" that was implemented on certain downs, which had both players on the field. But if memory serves, "the package" was 3-4, with one of those guys at NT, and the other at DE. No argument there! With the 4-3, you pretty much have to send in your front four on every play (dropping some DL into pass coverage is a little silly). So if you want to create unpredictability and keep the offense off balance, you pretty much have to blitz. With the 3-4, the offense knows you're sending your down linemen. But you can create unpredictability for them by sending in guy #4--some LB. And you vary which LB you send from one play to the next. That gives you unpredictability without the risks associated with blitzing. I'll grant that. But we only have one good, reasonably young DL: Kyle Williams. We only have one proven, reasonably good LB: Poz. Admittedly, those gaps can be hidden in the short run by using older players or guys who are only marginally good. But sooner or later, something will have to be done about all that. When you're thinking in rebuilding terms, it's good to have a two to three year time horizon. With this being year one. By the end of year three, the Bills will probably need five new starting players in their front seven. The 3-4/4-3 question probably doesn't impact that long-term need situation at all: it's five players either way.

Okay. But you can also have a bunch of non-first round picks, and come away with nothing. Take the 2005 draft for example. The Bills chose the following guys: 2. Roscoe Parrish, WR 3. Kevin Everett, TE 4. Duke Preston, C 5. Eric King, CB 6. Justin Geisinger, G 7. Lionel Gates, RB Or consider the non-first round picks of the 2004 draft. Those were: 3. Tim Anderson, DT 4. Tim Euhus, TE 7. Dylan McFarland, T 7. Jonathan Smith, WR That's two straight years in which TD achieved literally nothing at all on draft day, except for his first round picks. In fact, his only success story over those two drafts was Lee Evans. Chosen 13th overall.

I completely agree. Right now the Bills don't have anyone at either QB or LT, unless you want to count Brohm. We need to use whatever draft picks it takes to get the right players at both those positions if we're going to be successful. If the right player at either position is there at #9, and if he's a good value, then trading down would be penny wise, pound foolish. To give an example of this, take the 2004 draft. Eli Manning went first overall, Philip Rivers 4th overall, and Ben Roethlisberger 11th overall. The Bills took Losman 23rd overall. More recently, the Falcons took Matt Ryan 3rd overall, and now they don't have to worry about their QB position for the next 10+ years. Earlier, someone made the argument that Levitre and Byrd were second round picks, and they've worked out well. But it's a lot easier to find good OGs or Ss in the 2nd round than it is to find good LTs or (especially!) QBs! People point to Tom Brady (6th round, 2000) or Drew Brees (2nd round, 2001) as examples of good quarterbacks drafted outside the first round. But how many guys like that have there been since then? Off the top of my head I can't think of any. A team's core consists of high level difference makers at key positions. Right now the Bills don't have much of a core at all. That's something that has to change if they're going to seriously challenge for the division title. Getting either the right QB or the right LT would be a very good place to start! The Bills are in rebuilding mode. A successful rebuilding effort begins by getting the right core players in place. Guys who will be with you over the long term. While I'd also like to see some effort towards more quantity--for example on the second day of the draft--building the core has to take priority.

Your Bledsoe comparison is apt. Back in 2001, the Bills were a 3-13 team: a rebuilding team by any sane definition. Yet after the 2001 season, TD made the unforgivable mistake of trading away a first round pick for an aging veteran player (Bledsoe). The Bills are once again in rebuilding mode. Now fans want to trade away a first day draft pick for another aging veteran QB (McNabb)! Stuff like this is why people say that once a coach starts listening to the fans, he'll end up sitting next to them.

I disagree with your last comment. The Bills' 3-4 defense of the mid- to late '90s was clearly superior to any of the variants we've seen of the 4-3 since then. This past year's defense faced a lot of lousy quarterbacks (Derek Anderson, Sanchez twice, etc.), which means that it was not quite as good against the pass as its statistics would seem to suggest. With a 3-4, you can have a very good defense if you get good players at the four key positions: NT, RDE, rushing OLB, and #1 CB. The Tampa-2, along with other 4-3 variants, generally requires a significantly higher level of player talent than the late '90s Bills defenses had in order to achieve the same results. I agree that there's a price to be paid for switching, in terms of players who'd fit better in the 4-3 than the 3-4. But how many good, reasonably young players do we have in our front 7, for whom we couldn't find a spot in the 3-4? Off the top of my head it's hard to think of any. Kyle Williams could be a LDE in a 3-4, Poz could probably be an ILB. Even Maybin (who hasn't proven anything yet) would likely be a better fit as an OLB in a 3-4 than a DE in a 4-3. Is there any good, relatively young front 7 player I'm missing? The Bills are a rebuilding team. While it's important for our defensive system to fit our good, young players, building it around aging veterans who will be retired or backup-level in just a year or two doesn't make sense. In the long run those guys are gone either way, so why worry about whether the defense is or isn't a good fit for them?

I completely agree that the Bills should just say no to McNabb. Regardless of whether he is or is not washed up--a question I don't want to get into at the moment--trading for him would not make sense. The Bills are in rebuilding mode. Rebuilding teams should not trade away draft picks for aging veterans. Period. No exceptions.

Despite your unfortunate choice of user name, your post rings true. I'd prefer to see the Bills go with a 3-4. And to say no to Jim "defensive master" Bates.

I agree that the Bills are unlikely to use a first day draft pick on a WR. Frankly, I agree with that decision. First, look at the gaping holes this team has: QB LT C WR DL DL LB LB The defensive front seven picture is a little blurry because it's not clear whether the Bills will run a 4-3 or 3-4. Or whether Schobel will retire. But what we do know is that there's only one good, reasonably young player on the Bills' DL: Kyle Williams. The Bills are a rebuilding team, and it will take at least two off-seasons to do the work that needs to be done. What can we do this year? - 9th overall: QB (if available) - Trade 2nd and 3rd round picks to get back into the first. Draft a LT. - Re-sign Incognito, move Wood to center, and Hangartnar to the bench. - Fill the needs on defense with free agents and with second day draft picks. The above is an ugly picture--at least for the 2010 season--because the problems within the defensive front seven would be fixed largely with duct tape and Band Aids. And because we'd have to hope that some guy like Steve Johnson can step up and be the possession receiver we need opposite Evans. If we're lucky, some of the short-term stopgaps--whether a second day draft pick on defense, or a Steve Johnson on offense--will turn out to be long-term answers. But even so, there will still be several holes on this team going into the 2011 draft. What the above plan would do would be to use the 2010 draft to eliminate some of the most gaping and critical holes, especially at QB and on the OL.

First, no offense taken. Second, and at the risk of pointing out the obvious, the Ravens won that Super Bowl because of their defense, which was one of the three best in NFL history. (The other two being the Steel Curtain and the '85 Bears defense.) So yeah. The Ravens had a great overall record because their defense carried their offense. Take the Super Bowl itself, for example. The Ravens started that game by going three and out. Their next possession was also a three and out. Their third possession was a three and out. Finally--after four or five possessions--they managed to get a first down. But they got away with all this because after each time the Ravens' offense went three and out, the Ravens' defense forced the Giants to do the same. The Ravens' offense wasn't just ineffective during those first few drives. It was lackluster all year long, as it demonstrated by going five straight games without a touchdown. The Ravens' offense produced just ten points in its playoff game against Tennessee. The announcers expressed shock that a team with an offense that bad made it to the Super Bowl, because stuff like that almost never happens. The Ravens' offense was ineffective/mediocre despite having a good-to-outstanding OL, and despite having one of the best RBs in the league (Jamal Lewis) at RB. The bottom line is that if you want a good offense, you're going to need a quarterback.

Think of the Ravens' offense of 2000. They had Jon Ogden at LT--one of the best OLs to ever play the game. They had an overall good to excellent OL! They had Jamal Lewis and his ridiculously high number of rushing yards. Yet that offense went five straight games without scoring a touchdown. A good offense isn't just about having a good OL, any more than it's just about having a good QB. You need both. The Bills have neither. The hardest and most critical position to fill is QB. If there's a franchise QB waiting for us at #9, we should take him. If not, then we look to see if there's a LT worthy of the 9th overall pick. Choice #3 is either RT or DL. After that it might be time to start thinking about either a trade-down, a WR, a LB, or some other option. But not a DB or RB!! I mean that! Obviously, if we go with a QB at #9, he's going to need better protection than we gave our QBs in 2009. That starts with a LT. We could either take one in the second round, or use our 2nd and 3rd round picks to trade back into the late first and grab one there.

Yes, there's been enough Guy-bashing in this thread to satisfy the most militant radical feminist. And yes, it's in poor taste to kick a Guy when he's down. But at this point, I just don't care. This franchise has accepted pathetic inadequacy for far too long. Guy held onto his job a lot longer than was merited by his abysmal performance. His poor decisions have directly caused the outright squandering of tens of millions of dollars of Ralph Wilson's money. That money came from the fans. It came from people paying $10 for popcorn, and a lot more than that for their tickets. All those people asked for in return was a competitive product on the field. A product Guy and the other incompetents in the front office consistently failed to provide. We as fans no longer have to suffer through that adverse, one-sided relationship. A relationship which had involved Ralph Wilson collecting our money, John Guy collecting his completely undeserved paycheck, and the fans failing to get the competitive product they wanted in return. As far as I'm concerned, the fans have suffered through plenty due to the incompetence of John Guy. I'm delighted to see him go, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. But if it makes you feel any better, I'll wish Guy